Balta1701

For those who are interested, Here's the first real polling I think I've seen on this issue, which pretty much is what you'd expect based on the way this issue has formed up.

By the way, didn't notice this Sun-Times blurb anywhere yet, but it's at least a start.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) I can't even respond to this argument because it is so stupid it is blackmail at best. You condone murder with murder and it is a terrible argument. Wait, did he just argue against the death penalty?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) Point taken. At the same time, though, now I see why (taking out the bulls***, which I tried to do once) this thread is a lot longer. Plus I post a lot.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) No, the Iraqi oil has been a target because they're trying to stop the flow of said money back into Iraq so we are not doing what we said we would. It's not to effect global prices per se - it's to effect the local economy there and keep it down just enough to start the 'civil war' people keep talking about because their lifestyle 'sucks so bad' because of the 'evil Americans'. I for one think there's a mix of both...if Iraqi oil started flowing, it would put a serious dent in the prices you guys are paying for gas right now. A SERIOUS dent in it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) His family owns a large construction company that basically built Saudi Arabia if memory serves me correctly. Now adays most of his money comes from donations of like minded people, and shell companies that his followers run. Yeah, I think his original funding due to his own personal fortune was on the order of a few tens of millions in U.S. dollars...the majority of funding beyond that has come from things like Islamic Charities and donors in Saudi Arabia...who get a lot of their money either directly or indirectly from oil. So if the price of oil were to go through the roof...they'd hurt the U.S. and help themselves enormously. Which is almost certainly why the Iraqi oil system has been such a main target.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) I believe legal abortions are more frequent than illegal ones. If the law changes, then again, the net result is the same. Crud, meant to type "Legal". Man, I'm off a bit this morning.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) Not entirely true. He inherited most of his money and it wasn't from oil IIRC. Indirectly from oil...his family ran something akin to what Halliburton is in the U.S...a large scale construction firm which builds the equipment that oil companies use. The difference is that in the Kingdom, that company is there largely because of its connections to the ruling leadership.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:07 AM) Where do you think Bin Ladin gets his cash? If there were to be a significant attack on an oil facility...the price of oil would go absolutely through the roof. If that facility they almost hit today was shut down...we'd probably be talking $120 a barrel or even beyond that. Which would mean that the folks who are still pumping oil would make an absolute fortune.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) on a side note, would you rather have abortions or babies found dead in dumpsters? just asking.... It's actually quite possible to argue that if both are murder...the worst one is whichever one happens more often...which would clearly be in the case of legal abortions.

Well, here's something I didn't think I'd be saying...Thank God (Or Allah) for those Saudi Security guards.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:52 AM) You mean, as a loyal Democrat that I shouldn't play the devil's advocate in questioning the methods and stratagies of the party faithful? Fire away. You already successfully outgunned me once this morning. If I can't defend something, I deserve to be called on it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) If its not within their borders, and seeing as they refused to let the US use their land to carry out the invasion from the north, I don't see where they really have much of a say. I think the fact that they have an army in that area which they may be willing to deploy could give them a say. Especially if Iran decided it didn't want an independent Kurdish state there either, and got involved also. If things did fall to the level of full scale war, I have a lot of difficulty seeing how it could remain solely within Iraq, and the moment other countries start getting involved, even with supplies to 1 side or another, then I think it would only escalate from there.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) That speaks volumes about you and your objectiveness. Well, I apologize for finding that to be a bit of a shocking way to frame it. If you'd like I'll delete the post.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) Did you watch? Or are you talking out your ass? Or did you just see an opporutnity to post one picture out of context to make Fox News look bad? Yeah, basically. Which is why it's in this thread.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) That's the best we can hope for? What about the possibility of the Iraqi leaders getting a handle on the situation and calm everybody down before it does erupt into civil war? Is that impossible in your opinion? No I don't think that's impossible. Which is why I said there's a chance that it's the best we could hope for, not that it's absolutely the best we could hope for.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) I agree. There are better ways of getting there, most definitely. But if it needs to go there, and that is not being allowed... we may end up down that road. Well, as far as I'm concerned, a long and bloody civil war is the single worst possible outcome of our invasion there. So even if we're just delaying the onset...I'd say that efforts to prevent that outcome are justified, even if they only have a 1 in 10 trillion shot of working. You can't get much worse than a partitioning of that country and a civil war between the Sunnis and Shia, which would be almost certain to draw Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria directly into the conflict.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) So ... what was said? Presumably something akin to what we're discussing here. But that just seems like a really, really bad way to phrase the question. There is, IMO, no sense in which an actual civil war could be a good thing, because a ton of people would end up dead.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:29 AM) In this case, I don't think it is necessarily a bad question. I mean, my answer is 'no', but there are valid arguments for 'yes' as well. I've heard some pretty convincing reasons why it might have been better to split Iraq into 2 or even 3 countries (Kurdistan, and then splitting the mostly Shi'ite south from the Sunni central and west). I understand those arguments and think that there's a chance that given our current circumstances that's probably the best we could hope for...but on the other hand, It'd be very nice if somehow we could get to that point without a bloody full-scale civil war.

OH. MY. GOD.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:14 AM) No the US did it. We elected the war machine. After the war was launched, yes.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) Any abortion case where there is no incest or rape and with both mother and baby being healthy is murder PLAIN AND SIMPLE. In your opinion.

-Back on topic...that's basically the best idea I've heard. There's no huge reason to block this deal at all...IF the Administration just follows the procedures to prove that the port deal won't hurt security at all. That's all they really need to do.

While there's no scale bar...based on the details that we do have, I'm going to call that a very poorly sorted, grain size from medium sand to cobble, angular to subangular unlithified litho-feldspathic subquartzose sand.