The War For Oil in Iraq

[FOTD]

I don't care if the oil was not discussed. It's well understood what this final stage is for...a trillion dollars of taxpayer money down the drain and saving face? The biggest loss would be no oil for all our efforts. Bad strategy, lousy execution, and obvious thievery got us here and now.

The Busheviks were in this for oil from the get go.....now you go.

[cannon_fodder]

FOTD:  Maliki said Bush wants his oil and endorsed Obama.

Me:  Reading the interview, that's entirely not true.  [cites sources]

FOTD:  I don't care what he REALLY said.  It's not important. Bush lies!
- - -

What's the point?  Reality, logic, and truth mean nothing to you.  Even after admitting that your source was totally wrong you still assert the fact of the matter.

Then, just for fun, you continuously turn the subject as your position becomes unsupportable.

Pathetic.  

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

FOTD:  Maliki said Bush wants his oil and endorsed Obama.

Me:  Reading the interview, that's entirely not true.  [cites sources]

FOTD:  I don't care what he REALLY said.  It's not important. Bush lies!
- - -

What's the point?  Reality, logic, and truth mean nothing to you.  Even after admitting that your source was totally wrong you still assert the fact of the matter.

Then, just for fun, you continuously turn the subject as your position becomes unsupportable.

Pathetic.  

Turnabout when dealing with liars IS fair play. Get it? Sometimes Cannon Fodder, one must read between the lines. Hell, we must even resort to irony to understand the hypocrisy and lies of our leaders.

How is my position that this is a war for oil unsupportable?

Is there honor amongst these thieves?

Integrity. You have it or you don't.

[cannon_fodder]

Again:

FOTD:  Maliki was mad at Bush for stealing his oil and endorse Barrack Obama.

Reality: Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
- - -

Thus, your statements are totally unsupported.  You admit as much.  In response you try to go back to an overall "war for oil" discussion.  When you've been proven wrong you just change the subject and pretend it never happened.

Unless of course you "read between the lines" of what was actually said and just make crap up.  Of course, in the really real world people aren't allowed to do that in a logical discussion.  It's not a mere assumption or logical correlation, you and your sources just completely made up a part of the interview that didn't exist and misconstrued another part.

At least you admit you readily lie to support your position.  Sadly, the willingness to ignore the truth when attempting to further your position is pretty much the definition of a lack of integrity.  A dumb move when a lie is not needed to support your position, but to each his own.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Again:

FOTD:  Maliki was mad at Bush for stealing his oil and endorse Barrack Obama.

Reality: Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
- - -

Thus, your statements are totally unsupported.  You admit as much.  In response you try to go back to an overall "war for oil" discussion.  When you've been proven wrong you just change the subject and pretend it never happened.

Unless of course you "read between the lines" of what was actually said and just make crap up.  Of course, in the really real world people aren't allowed to do that in a logical discussion.  It's not a mere assumption or logical correlation, you and your sources just completely made up a part of the interview that didn't exist and misconstrued another part.

At least you admit you readily lie to support your position.  Sadly, the willingness to ignore the truth when attempting to further your position is pretty much the definition of a lack of integrity.  A dumb move when a lie is not needed to support your position, but to each his own.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...."

Bob Dylan (Brady 8-27)

[cannon_fodder]

So does that mean:

1) You are not interested in actual discussion

2) I don't need facts when i can make crap up

or 3) Another change of subject?

You have yet to either admit that your statements were fabricated or that you were ill informed.  It's one of the two.  But if you ignore it perhaps no one will notice.

/change subject

Oo look, bunnies.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So does that mean:

1) You are not interested in actual discussion

2) I don't need facts when i can make crap up

or 3) Another change of subject?

You have yet to either admit that your statements were fabricated or that you were ill informed.  It's one of the two.  But if you ignore it perhaps no one will notice.

/change subject

Oo look, bunnies.

It means, the devil knows the motivation of the crazy baldheads who took us down the tubes through Iraq hoping to secure their oil for our gluttonous society. The Iraqi's understand and want us gone before we create more Muslim hatred towards America by grabbing their goods.

"JAH would never give the power to a baldhead
Run come crucify the dread

Time alone, oh! time will tell
Think you're in heaven, but you living in hell
Think you're in heaven, but you living in hell
Time alone, oh! time will tell
You think you're in heaven, but you living in hell"
Bob Marley

[cannon_fodder]

Translation:  I have no proof or good source, but I know better than everyone else with their silly sources.  That's why I make stuff up, to convince the masses that don't know the twoof like I do!

I said nothing of the bigger picture, we've gone over that 1,000,000 times and my position is very clear.  Focus.  Again, your sources were wrong.  Deal with it.