ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: BUSH=SADAM

:

4/20/2003 7:11 PM
Ian Anderson	Re: BUSH=SADAM It's all well and good to have the freedom to protest (I'll grant you that), but if nothing else really changes (and your 'protest' isn't heard/acknowledged), what's the point. ... Ian

4/20/2003 7:44 PM
Mark Ingram	Re: BUSH=SADAM: Nice back-pedal, Ian Also, there are too mamy "ifs" for your argument to have any meaning. It's too easy to be critical without offering something better. David offered a valid point and you avoided it completely. Perhaps you would have preferred that Saddam remain in power. That way the French, Russians, and Chinese would still have someone to sell weapons to.

4/21/2003 12:57 AM
David Mitchell	Mark, maybe that's it! People are feeling sorry because the French, Russians and Chinese are losing money on this deal. I feel terrible about that. Ian, Why is it that people can't put aside their hatred for G.W. Bush for one minute and just admit that he and the American military achieved something great by liberating the people of Iraq? Dave

4/22/2003 9:19 AM

I think that the liberation of Iraq is certainly a good thing - no argument there!!!

The thing that sticks in my throat is the claim that it was some sort of humanitarian cause that the coalition forces felt they needed to do out of the kindness of their hearts - give me a break!!!

As for losing money from having nobody to sell arms to, well they've solved that one by 'liberating' a country with one of the largest oil reserves and taking charge - not to mention all the building contracts that will fall to the US/UK.

... Ian

4/22/2003 11:47 PM

Ian,

As I recall, the publicly stated reason for going into Iraq was to neutralize the threat of WMDs being used against the U.S. and U.K. The intelligence reports of WMDs were credible enough for Bush and Blair to risk their political careers. Though no WMDs have been found yet, it has been reported in the past couple of days that Iraqi WMD scientists are reporting that WMDs were destroyed the day before the war started.

The true depth of the humanitarian crisis wasn't known until all those embedded reporters started filing their reports (at least not to most of under the cruel spell of the American media), but passing out food *is* useful work for all those soldiers over there. And, and you and Martha Stewart said, "a good thing".

quote:
"As for losing money from having nobody to sell arms to, well they've solved that one by 'liberating' a country with one of the largest oil reserves"

I can only assume you are referring to the French, Russians, and Chinese, as they are the nations illegally selling arms to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. And none of those countries took part in liberating Iraqi people and oil, so I am a bit unclear as to how you think they will benefit. Can you elaborate?

Mark

4/23/2003 12:48 AM

Well, the humanitarian cause was secondary to ridding the world the of one of the number 1 sponsors of terrorism but that doesn't make it any less important.

(I think that the liberation of Iraq is certainly a good thing - no argument there!!!)

Well isn't that nice, but then you write

(they've solved that one by 'liberating' a country with one of the largest oil reserves and taking charge)

Which is it, did they liberate Iraq or did they "liberate" Iraq?

As for the oil reserves, could you spell out the exact plan for the American takeover of Iraq's oil and give examples such as:
1. Which oil distibutors will America wholesale to?
2. Which carriers will transport the oil?
3. Will America instead bypass these middle men and set up it's own carrier, distribution centers etc?

I've yet to hear any of these questions answered by the "no blood for oil" crowd.

Dave

5/3/2003 2:22 AM
CraddleToGrave	Re: BUSH=SADAM All I know is that I'm not voting for Bush next time. What a poor excuse for president.

Page 2 of 3