Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

He's talking about 2003, ffs.

[Seth]

He's talking about 2003, ffs.

Which was authorized by 1991, ffs.

You keep mendaciously trying to make it into two distinct conflicts when actually it's one conflict with a 12-year interregnum.

It's like the Hundred Years War, which didn't really last a whole hundred years, it was a bunch of smaller battles in a larger war over one thing waged over a long period of time with substantial pauses but no real end. Same conflict, different chapters.

[pErvinalia]

American oil interests only moved in to Iraq after 2003. Therefore your referral to Kuwaiti oil fields is retarded. Is it too much to ask that you could actually follow the arguments being presented?

[Seth]

American oil interests only moved in to Iraq after 2003. Therefore your referral to Kuwaiti oil fields is retarded. Is it too much to ask that you could actually follow the arguments being presented?

Once again you are trying to characterize the two military events as separate and distinct actions with different and exclusive causes, which is not the case. The Second Gulf War was merely a continuation of the First Gulf War after a slight delay and an attempt to broker peace that failed, and the original causus belli was Saddam's attempt to seize the Kuwait oil fields. That's the fact no matter how much you don't like it.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit's links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991. They are making the point that 2003 occurred for oil interests, not primarily anything to do with UN resolutions stemming from 1991.

[Seth]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

[pErvinalia]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

Yes, Seth, black is white. :headbangingonwallsmilie:

You either can't read or are a bald-faced liar. Probably both.

[Hermit]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

Yes, Seth, black is white. :headbangingonwallsmilie:

You either can't read or are a bald-faced liar. Probably both.

Hey, rEv, you do realise that you are attempting to have a discussion with Seth, don't you?

(Cue the traditional "Yeah, I'm so brilliant, nobody can match me in a debate" line. )

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. I'm close to putting him back on ignore. The stupid is killing me.

[JimC]

Yeah. I'm close to putting him back on ignore. The stupid is killing me.

Careful, you'll make Meeky cry...

[pErvinalia]

[rainbow]

The implication that the US invaded Iraq merely in order to steal Iraq's oil is completely specious and false.

Of course it is
...meanwhile in Toyland, Noddy and Big Ears went out to find some golliwogs.
[img]http/ragingfluff.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/noddy-big-ears.jpeg[/img]

[piscator]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

It's true. They don't.
Not only are they rank arguments from specious authority, but Alan Greenspan and some brigade commander are not in a position to even make those arguments. (They're not even arguments as much as off-the-cuff opinions.)

Moreover, like you say, oil has been a valid reason to kill lots of would-be middlemen for a long time. The shit-stinkin wife-beating mag-dumping culture on the surface of the ME didn't make the oil. They only have rights to it because of the society they want dead.
If, hypothetically, they had attempted to ransom most of the world's supply of air or water during the Balfour/Roosevelt period of history (when petroleum became really important to society), they'd long ago have been ground into dog food and rendered into lamp oil. Oil is now about 98% as important to society as air and water, and we don't have enough whales left to die back to the antepetroleum era.

The world runs on high density energy. The high moral tones of those too naive to realize the importance of petroleum to society are in fact a product of petroleum and the leisure it provides, just as much as the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Hermit]

Not only are they rank arguments from specious authority, but Alan Greenspan and some brigade commander are not in a position to even make those arguments. (They're not even arguments as much as off-the-cuff opinions.)

The person you refer to as "some brigade commander" was in fact a four star general who in charge of the US activities in Iraq by virtue of being the commander of United States Central Command from 7 July 2003 to 16 March 2007. He had planned to retire in 2006, but at the urging of Donald Rumsfeld postponed his retirement for about a year. That indicates a few things: He was presumably competent at what he was doing. He was well connected. The people he knew trusted him. So he'd have been privy to a lot of information the movers and shakers tried to prevent from becoming public knowledge. So, yes, I'd give his opinion more credence than yours or Galaxian's.

Similarly, but coming from a more purely financial angle, Alan Greenspan would have been privy to inside knowledge about the motivations and actions by the powers that be by virtue of having been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 that you or I have no first hand knowledge of.

Yes, both were men with authority, but I do not defer to their opinions because of their authority as such, but on grounds of their privileged position in regard to how much and what kind of information they had access to.

Moreover, like you say, oil has been a valid reason to kill lots of would-be middlemen for a long time. ...

If the rest of your post is supposed to be a rebuttal of the assertion that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, please let me know how so. Personally, I would love to see the end of all feudal, theocratic and dictatorial governments, by military means if necessary, but let's not kid ourselves about why Iraq was invaded. And let's face the fact that the cure turned out to be a lot worse than the disease - which "the Coalition of the Willing" was warned about several times before entering into that particular misadventure.

[pErvinalia]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

It's true. They don't.
Not only are they rank arguments from specious authority, but Alan Greenspan and some brigade commander are not in a position to even make those arguments. (They're not even arguments as much as off-the-cuff opinions.)

The irony. So you and Seth are better authorities?