My President Is A Bastard

[Brother None]

I'm jumping in here, this is not entirely true. PS believes that the underlying reason for the war was always to remove Saddam (not the reason given: WMD), and he could be right there, because if they went in there to remove Saddam, they'd have to kick out Kim Jong Il, as well as other dictators around the world. And Bush isn't willing to do that.

1. Underlying reason is not given reason. Politics are supposed to be transparant, hence he can't change the reason he actually gives, not only the UN but to the people of the US too, without *some* apology, without it being revisionist.

2. You can kick out one dictator and leave another. The Western world rules at those kind of selective policies.

3. Did I ever mention I hate your old habit to "count of points", which sounds so belittling.

PS: SP and revisionist history? Could you explain?

(CC, this should interest you too, since you hate pro-communist political revisionism. Here's a formerly communist party that denies ever being communist, because communism is rather disliked here.)

The SP is an offshoot of the Daan Monje (or Monjé, but I'm too lazy for that)/Nico Schrevel party, the Stalinist KEN. Daan Monje, a fervent half-maoist half-stalinist, was basically the leader of the SP right into the 80's, when Marijnissen took over, slowly turning the SP from a communist party into a social-democratic party.

Now try to get this out of an SP'er. He'll deny the SP has any stalinist root, and probably will shrug of those Maoist roots with either "we didn't know" or "we didn't care much for Mao" (the SP and their forefather literally got millions out of China to upstart the revolution here). And, even worse, he'll brush of Daan Monje as "relatively unimportant" (Daan Monje basically was what Marijnissen is now, to the party) or, even funnier, as an "insane Stalinist"

If you don't believe me, listen to the radio-broadcast about the history of the SP on OVT. I'll look it up later for you if you want.

Here's a good website too

Compare to this interview with Marijnissen

actually I would have liked to have seen CC's response to my comments on the New Deal. Oh well.

Many often wish to see responses from CC to points they make, but alas.

Yes, it's a crappy choice perhaps, but it usually is. Still, think about another four years of Bush.

Haaaaaa-crappyelectoralsystemchangeityouidiots-chooo

Sorry, it's a bit chilly in here *sniffle*

 

[Sander]

1. Underlying reason is not given reason. Politics are supposed to be transparant, hence he can't change the reason he actually gives, not only the UN but to the people of the US too, without *some* apology, without it being revisionist.

I wasn't saying that, you know. I was saying that PS believed it had been the "real" (but not given) reason for ever.

2. You can kick out one dictator and leave another. The Western world rules at those kind of selective policies.

Yep, but it wouldn't look too good. Ah well.

3. Did I ever mention I hate your old habit to "count of points", which sounds so belittling.

Explain....

Sp-shit

Interesting. And silly. Tsch. If that's what's happening to the SP, I'll have to go GroenLinks, or start my own party. Hrmph.

 

[John Uskglass]

Karzai is often referred to as the mayor of Kabul, and that's justified. His theoretical power may span Afghanistan, but his actual power does not, and as long as nobody is willing to do anything about it, that situation won't change, and it's not much of a variation on the pre-Taliban situation, except that Kabul is in better hands and some of the warlords are dead. Poor guys.

The UN is at the head of that and involved heavily, so I'll just point out that you are commenting on the ineffecincey of a UN project.

And that means that by definition that situation should stay the same? The Americans went there to liberate the place, but what's the point of throwing people from the hands of evil oppressors into the hands of evil warlords. If you really want to invade a country, at least justify it by making the lives of the people better on the long run. Like Korea.

It will. Warlords cannot last forever. They just......can't.

Maybe it's not appropriate, but it's no big disaster.

The lying is terrible and that's something a president really shouldn't do

I'll agree with that. I think we are just not agreeing on the relative inappropriatness of his actions.

Yes it is. But if you do, you have to say "my previous statement was wrong, I was wrong and mistaken." and then change your opinion.

What Bush is doing is changing his opinion, then pretending it was his opinion all along. Just listen to Paladin Solo, he actually believes Bush went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein all along, while this was not remotely the case.

And that, my friend, ís historical revisionism.

He went in there to create a model of Arab Democracy. I knew that that was the most important thing, so did alot of people here. I also thought there was WMD, but then again, who honestly did not, save Sean Penn with his mystical ability to look into the sands of Iraq and tell if there are wepons of mass destruction.

Bush does'nt apologize. I don't know why (culture he grew up in, maybe), but a president apologizing for everything is a weak one.

Well then, I hope you do realise it is Bush's fault. I don't use the word fault in that sense that often, but in this case, it is.

Mostly. But I think there is more sense in Bush/Reagen economics then some people give it credit for.

Heh, the funny thing is your opinion on this is remarkably European, sacrificing liberty for stability and all that...

You do have a point, tho', and from a foreign perspective at least America is secure in this way

I don't mind thinking like a European. Europe was the head of civilization for the last 3,000 years. I do mind thinking like a Sociast or commie, but that's another matter.

At the same time it's not. Republicans facing of Democrats make for dangerous situations at times. Kerry replacing Bush is potentially enormously dangerous because Kerry's weak spine will give America's enemies too much leeway. Keeping Bush on is dangerous because he remains to be a wacked-out nutjob and he'll probably drag America into an economic crisis, tearing the country apart by too much investing in wars just as Ivan Grozny did with the two-front war with the Tatars and the Teutonics.

Economic crisis? Oil prices are going down (finally), jobs are being created at a good pace.....the major problems of inflation and such are sure to eveltually go down.

America has had a civil war, and that was partially because of the two party system. But that was because of a rift in the two party system, with the creation of the glorious, rightious Republican part and it's anti slavery agenda, against the evil, enslaving Democratic party.

Compare this to, say, Venice, or even your own nation, or Britan. Democracy-when not repersentative-has ALOT of problems, and sacrificing some liberty of stability in the age of nuclear wepons is only common sense.

But there's no other choice. There's no third option for someone who isn't too spineless and not too insane either. America's extensively flawed system isn't only democratic, it can bring out some tricky situations too.

Yep, it can.

But we are still better then France in that regard, fuckers.

actually I would have liked to have seen CC's response to my comments on the New Deal. Oh well.

I don't really think it worked. It did some interesting things, but ultimately the economy was bouncing back anyway, and try NOT to have an economy booming when it's supplying the Allies in WW2.

Regarding Bush and Kerry, I lean for Kerry. Not my ideal choice, but better than another four years of Bush. Don't be too hard on Kerry. He was a Senator and had to vote on a lot of bills that were compromised provisions. Legislation in Congress is a business of settlements and compromises from both sides of the poltiical spectrum. This protrays the Sentator as flip-flopping more than perhaps is due (and why so few of them get elected president).

I don't buy the Senator issue. Every day he flops on an issue. When he talkes to Nader, he calls the comparison between Clinton and himself is unfair, then he calls himself Clinton, hell, he even won't accept the democratic nomination so he can spend money (but he's for campaign finance reform).

He's a flip flopper.

 

[Sander]

It will. Warlords cannot last forever. They just......can't.

Stupidest.notion.ever?

He went in there to create a model of Arab Democracy. I knew that that was the most important thing, so did alot of people here.

*smack smack smack smack*
Okay, Kharn, you're right, revisionist history. Damnit.

I also thought there was WMD, but then again, who honestly did not, save Sean Penn with his mystical ability to look into the sands of Iraq and tell if there are wepons of mass destruction.

Let's see...I didn't.

I don't mind thinking like a European. Europe was the head of civilization for the last 3,000 years. I do mind thinking like a Sociast or commie, but that's another matter.

Now that's just silly. Thoughts do not suddenly become worse or better because certain people thought them. You need to look at the thoughts themselves, not at who might've thought them.

America has had a civil war, and that was partially because of the two party system. But that was because of a rift in the two party system, with the creation of the glorious, rightious Republican part and it's anti slavery agenda, against the evil, enslaving Democratic party.

So....you just said that it only got into trouble because of the rift? Meaning that you just said it got into trouble...because it got into trouble? Wow....that answers all my questions..

Compare this to, say, Venice, or even your own nation, or Britan. Democracy-when not repersentative-has ALOT of problems, and sacrificing some liberty of stability in the age of nuclear wepons is only common sense.

Yep, it does. But making it representative and then just cutting everyone who can't agree with center off from ANY kind of influence is stupid.

PS: Kharn, even though that was an interesting read, I started to get more and more annoyed by the utterly biased and fucked-up rhetoric the article used, and then I noticed it was written by an extreme right organisation. It's still good, even though it's annoying read. Especially the part with "GL wants to murder unborn babies".

 

[Brother None]

Explain....

You often used/use "counting" arguments. As in "argument 1...argument 2" or "argument A...argument B"

You're not holding a lecture. Such classifications are a bit juvenile and get under my skin somehow. I respectfully request you stop using them.

Interesting. And silly. Tsch. If that's what's happening to the SP, I'll have to go GroenLinks, or start my own party. Hrmph.

GroenLinks is a bit better, but hardly any. Remember the GroenLinks is the aftermath of a merger of several parties, including the CPN. Rossemuller used to be in Daan's party with Marijnissen. I dunno if they deny it, tho'

The UN is at the head of that and involved heavily, so I'll just point out that you are commenting on the ineffecincey of a UN project.

Yes I know, I've never denied the UN has had failures in its history

However, this war was started on "suggestion" by the US, and the US was not only the only real instigator, it was also the only one really heavily involved in the war, whereas other countries are just now peacekeeping

If you say A, say B. You can't start a war, then throw responsibility in the hands of other countries, and shrug of all relevant responsibilities you have to the country you're "holding" afterwards.

A strange notion, that, responsibility of the invading country, but hey, we live in a strange century.

It will. Warlords cannot last forever. They just......can't.

Hah. They will if you let them. Who the hell is going to stop them? If they kill each other, the second-in-commands step in. To be stopped would require an enormous "peace-keeping" sweeping operation, which the US can't afford since it's wasting its money on another war, to eradicate all the aggressive presences in the country, and then establish peace

Read what welsh said

He went in there to create a model of Arab Democracy. I knew that that was the most important thing, so did alot of people here. I also thought there was WMD, but then again, who honestly did not, save Sean Penn with his mystical ability to look into the sands of Iraq and tell if there are wepons of mass destruction.

Bush does'nt apologize. I don't know why (culture he grew up in, maybe), but a president apologizing for everything is a weak one.

Everything? Yes. A president who doesn't apologize when he's wrong, and changes his opinion accordingly, is much of a weaker president than the one who admits his flaws. As an authority, you can't just shrug of your mistakes and pretend they never happened

And fer Chris's sake CC, Bush *didn't* go there to establish an Arab Democracy. If he wanted a Model Arab Democracy, why didn't he just cut out the weed in Afghanistan, he even had UN backing for that one. That's bullshit, CC. Even more so, try to find a significant number of pre-Iraq war articles with Bush stating he's going there to liberate the Iraqi people

He doesn't state that, he only stated it afterwards. Beforehand it was all WMDs, threat to international peace, blahblahblah

Mostly. But I think there is more sense in Bush/Reagen economics then some people give it credit for.

I do not agree. Reagenomics/Trickle Economics are a horrible, even inhumane way of stimulating the economy. Talk about kicking the bucket back 60 years, to those glorious times when we didn't have a wellfare state and people should just fend for themselves. I'm glad that attitude is confined mostly the US.

Economic crisis? Oil prices are going down (finally), jobs are being created at a good pace.....the major problems of inflation and such are sure to eveltually go down.

Vats of oil are currently at the highest price...ever. Higher than during the Gulf War. An enormous oil crisis looms, OPEC is having an emergency meeting

Article

And that's a month ago. Oil prices are currently at something like 44 USD a vat. Insane.

If you think Bush's policies will fix anything you're terminally insane. Unless you think the American government declaring bankrupcy will prevent a crisis.

The economic crisis looming since 5 years ago is subsiding now, but Bush is immediatelly building towards a new one.

America has had a civil war, and that was partially because of the two party system. But that was because of a rift in the two party system, with the creation of the glorious, rightious Republican part and it's anti slavery agenda, against the evil, enslaving Democratic party.

I didn't mean "tear up" literally.

Yep, it can.

But we are still better then France in that regard, fuckers.

Bloody Great Britain has a better system than the French. They're terminally fucked

But since when are Americans supposed to be satisfied when they've reached superiority to the French. That's your goal as a nation, huh?

 

[Sander]

You often used/use "counting" arguments. As in "argument 1...argument 2" or "argument A...argument B"

You're not holding a lecture. Such classifications are a bit juvenile and get under my skin somehow. I respectfully request you stop using them.

I'll try. Personally, I find them convenient, mainly for myself. I dislike huge blocks of text which I'll need to split up to get the arguments from it. But that's just me.

GroenLinks is a bit better, but hardly any. Remember the GroenLinks is the aftermath of a merger of several parties, including the CPN. Rossemuller used to be in Daan's party with Marijnissen. I dunno if they deny it, tho'

I doubt they would, but then again, who knows? I'll look into it a bit more.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Whoa...wherever the bloody hell did I say it was because of Saddam... and I actually believed it? I said that one of his reasons was because of removing Saddam, but not the reason...nowhere did I ever damn say that I believed that was the reason. I KNOW it's for the oil...but I don't care...because of the removal of Saddam and the attempt to establish a state based on democratic ideals. Please, don't say I believe in something when I don't if you don't know for sure...makes you look like a dumbass, me like a fool, and I don't check all the topics so I wouldn't know if people do more of this.

 

[John Uskglass]

However, this war was started on "suggestion" by the US, and the US was not only the only real instigator, it was also the only one really heavily involved in the war, whereas other countries are just now peacekeeping

If you say A, say B. You can't start a war, then throw responsibility in the hands of other countries, and shrug of all relevant responsibilities you have to the country you're "holding" afterwards.

A strange notion, that, responsibility of the invading country, but hey, we live in a strange century.

We "suggested" it. But we went to the UN. Would we have gone if, say, China used it's veto against it? Yep. But we went in with the UN. Thus it's as much thier responsibility as much as ours.

Everything? Yes. A president who doesn't apologize when he's wrong, and changes his opinion accordingly, is much of a weaker president than the one who admits his flaws. As an authority, you can't just shrug of your mistakes and pretend they never happened

No, you can't, and that's a flaw of Bush, but someone who apologizes at all of his mistakes is weak.

And fer Chris's sake CC, Bush *didn't* go there to establish an Arab Democracy. If he wanted a Model Arab Democracy, why didn't he just cut out the weed in Afghanistan, he even had UN backing for that one. That's bullshit, CC. Even more so, try to find a significant number of pre-Iraq war articles with Bush stating he's going there to liberate the Iraqi people

He used WMD as an excuse to try and get the UN involved. Freeing Iraq from Saddam-and using Iraq as an example of Arab democracy-was always understood as the reason to go in.

Afghanistan is not ethnically Arab at all (Pashtun 44%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 10%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 13%, Uzbek 8% ), it's closer too the Turkik states to the North, Iran and Pakistan.

I do not agree. Reagenomics/Trickle Economics are a horrible, even inhumane way of stimulating the economy. Talk about kicking the bucket back 60 years, to those glorious times when we didn't have a wellfare state and people should just fend for themselves. I'm glad that attitude is confined mostly the US.

I did not mean trickle down economics......I think that's stupid. I was talking about deficits by tax cuts to help the economy/army. Both Reagen and Bush II live in difficult times, politically, internationally and economically, thus I think it's fair to run a defecit, if not one the size we have with bush.

Vats of oil are currently at the highest price...ever. Higher than during the Gulf War. An enormous oil crisis looms, OPEC is having an emergency meeting

Article

And that's a month ago. Oil prices are currently at something like 44 USD a vat. Insane.

If you think Bush's policies will fix anything you're terminally insane. Unless you think the American government declaring bankrupcy will prevent a crisis.

The economic crisis looming since 5 years ago is subsiding now, but Bush is immediatelly building towards a new one.

OPEC just orderd Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. Stock Market up today fairly big. Oil will go down within the next few months.

Bloody Great Britain has a better system than the French. They're terminally fucked

But since when are Americans supposed to be satisfied when they've reached superiority to the French. That's your goal as a nation, huh?

 

[Paladin Solo]

We need to sneak in Hydrogen Powered cells, cars, homes, etc...or at least, work it in. Get rid of petroleum and the addicting effect it has on the world. I remember the president signing some kind of bill that deals with hydrogen sometime ago. Hopefully, he won't rush it in, stock market crashes could follow if something that big is rushed in.

 

[John Uskglass]

We need to sneak in Hydrogen Powered cells, cars, homes, etc...or at least, work it in. Get rid of petroleum and the addicting effect it has on the world. I remember the president signing some kind of bill that deals with hydrogen sometime ago. Hopefully, he won't rush it in, stock market crashes could follow if something that big is rushed in.

Hydrogen is actually fairly hard to produce, as water is fairly messy with that process.

I don't know what's next. Maybe just batteries powered by a combination of wind&solar.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Well...time and research will make it easier. Sneak it in now...for rich people, that's how all things start. Only the rich can afford it at first, then eventually, it's available to all...otherwise, you have inflation.

 

[Murdoch]

Hydrogen is a product of electrolysis, passing a current through water separates it into hydrogen (gas) and oxygen (gas) at opposite poles of the cell. The hydrogen can then be easily collected.

I read a long Scientific American article about this a year or so ago. In it they proposed using the already established natural gas distribution system to distribute hydrogen instead, indirectly. The problem with distributing hydrogen is that it is very hard to transport, due to the high pressure vessels needed to contain it and the risk of explosion. By combining the hydrogen resulting from electrolysis with carbon dioxide under catalytic conditions you reduce the carbon to natural gas (methane). Pipe that to the points of sale, then oxidize it back to carbon dioxide and hydrogen with the oxygen alos liberated by catalysis.

This process is only economically feasible with an abundant source of cheap hydrogen (and oxygen) namely from cheap electricity needed fo the electrolysis. Cheap electricity would come most naturally from fusion power.

It all comes back to fusion, so says Murdoch.

 

[Wooz]

It all comes back to fusion, so says Murdoch.

And turnips, you forgot about the turnips.

 

[welsh]

[

actually I would have liked to have seen CC's response to my comments on the New Deal. Oh well.

I don't really think it worked. It did some interesting things, but ultimately the economy was bouncing back anyway, and try NOT to have an economy booming when it's supplying the Allies in WW2.

That's it? Your answer? I am giving you an explanation that looks at historical trajectories of fascism and democracy, and communism as well, and that's the best answer you got?

Poop and I am not letting it go that easy. Give me a real answer and not a patent answer from some high school moron. You are better than that.

Key thing, industrialization led to creation of worker movements. The New Deal in part incorporated those worker groups into the political process. It also gave birth to not only the welfare state but the incorporation of keynsianism into the institutional framework of the developed world. It overcame the social dislocation and abuses that were a result of industrialization but which the state had failed to address and the market was incapable of addressing.

Unless you are to dismiss the notion that the reason Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan all came to fascism was due to culture, I think this answer is more relevant, don't you?

You forget that a lot of the projects done during the New Deal set up the infrastructure that made the industrial boom in the US before, during and after the Second World War a reality. You also have to take that into consideration that this was the beginning of Keynsian economics for the US, recognizing the important role of the state in the economy. We are talking about the growth of both the welfare state and democracy. That the state is an essential part of the globalized economy and the ability of economimes to navigate the globalized economy is widely recognized today. One good example is MITI in Japan, but you can find similar determinants in other countries. Honestly, I give a lot of credit to Greenspan, the FED chairman for keeping the US economy on course.

I often look at the New Deal primarily as a set of legal reforms. Look at some of the Supreme Court decisions before the New Deal on issues like child labor (oh what's wrong with a 12 year old in a coal mine?) or women's labor ("making sure that women get a fair rate of salary violates their freedom to contract!) or worker safety- (Yes health standards for bakers because we don't want them spreading their diseases into our cakes) and you can see some of the social progress being formed. Labor was allowed to organize and campaign effectively- which ironically allowed labor to become incorporated into the system.

Look at how labor was incorporated in other parts of the world and you see both the relationship of labor in communism and in the rise of nazism.

In fascist countries, worker's parties and working class movements were both extremely strong and radical. Facism grew by the need of leaders who believed that force was needed to smash those movements and control the population.

In communist countries, weak working class parties never gave birth to Nazis. THe Bolshevik's come to power as a minority representative group after the first revolution fails to get Russia out of the war.

In the US workers were strong, but were also not radicalized. Policy reforms allowed for their inclusion in the decision making process of government. Keynsian economics recognized that the market could not provide for certain social goods. The welfare states is really a set of policies that partially decommidify the core elements of the prevailing social understanding of what constitutes a just and dignfied standard of living. By substituting political determination for market determination, of selecting prices and quantities, one sees an increasing opportunity to lead a decent life. Key in that struggle was overcoming basic legal ideas of the role of the state. This was Roosevelt's "court packing" plan in which the legal old guard - that wanted more of a laissez faire economic system in which the notion of "freedom of contract" meant no unions, no right to protest, no legislation that protected workers, was acceptable.

In other countries you saw a similar rise of the welfare states as liberal parties incorporated workers. Where that incorporation happened, you have a furtherance of the democratic franchise. Where it failed you either had the repression of Fascism, or the totalitarianism of communism.

And you thought the New Deal was insignificant?

Snake, I am vatting your posts below. No offense but I think you are posting in the wrong thread.

 

[Sander]

We "suggested" it. But we went to the UN. Would we have gone if, say, China used it's veto against it? Yep. But we went in with the UN. Thus it's as much thier responsibility as much as ours.

BULLSHIT! You can't hold the UN responsible for Iraq if the USA bypassed the UN (because they would've gotten a no) and did something without the backing of the UN. It is purely the responisbility of the USA.

No, you can't, and that's a flaw of Bush, but someone who apologizes at all of his mistakes is weak.

No, he's not. If the mistakes are really misrtakes, then he should apologize because he made a mistake.
Someone who apologizes for a mistake shows that he knows he made a mistake. There's nothing wrong with knowing that you made a mistake, there's something wrong with flat-out denying it whatever the situation.

He used WMD as an excuse to try and get the UN involved. Freeing Iraq from Saddam-and using Iraq as an example of Arab democracy-was always understood as the reason to go in.

No it wasn't. All I've ever heard before Bush went on his "free the Iraqi people" and "democracy!" tour was "But, dude, it's Saddam, he has to have those weapons."
And I can bloody show you as well.

OPEC just orderd Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. Stock Market up today fairly big. Oil will go down within the next few months.

Yeah, but that's not what you said before. You said that the oil prices had already gone down, and that was said when Saudi Arabia had said nothing about more oil.
There you go, some more revisionist history.

That's it? Your answer? I am giving you an explanation that looks at historical trajectories of fascism and democracy, and communism as well, and that's the best answer you got?

Come on, welsh, it's CCR. If it get's too hot, he does that sort of thing. I'd think you'd know that by now.

 

[John Uskglass]

BULLSHIT! You can't hold the UN responsible for Iraq if the USA bypassed the UN (because they would've gotten a no) and did something without the backing of the UN. It is purely the responisbility of the USA.

THat was about Afghanistan.

No, he's not. If the mistakes are really misrtakes, then he should apologize because he made a mistake.
Someone who apologizes for a mistake shows that he knows he made a mistake. There's nothing wrong with knowing that you made a mistake, there's something wrong with flat-out denying it whatever the situation.

Crap. Strong leaders do not apologize for all of thier mistakes.

No it wasn't. All I've ever heard before Bush went on his "free the Iraqi people" and "democracy!" tour was "But, dude, it's Saddam, he has to have those weapons."
And I can bloody show you as well.

Like I said, it was an excuse, and it was mentioned several times.

Yeah, but that's not what you said before. You said that the oil prices had already gone down, and that was said when Saudi Arabia had said nothing about more oil.
There you go, some more revisionist history.

Nope. Oil prices are going down and have for a few days because of Saudi Arabia.

Come on, welsh, it's CCR. If it get's too hot, he does that sort of thing. I'd think you'd know that by now.

Nope. I stop arguing when
A) I agree with the person I am arguing with more often then not
B) I'm kind of mixed on the issue.

And in that situation, both happened.

 

[Sander]

THat was about Afghanistan.

Ehe. Whoops. My mistake.

Crap. Strong leaders do not apologize for all of thier mistakes.

That's not an argument, that's a statement. And one that I've just refuted in the quote I gave you. Then you do something I hate: you don't give arguments or counter-points, you repeat your statement.

Like I said, it was an excuse, and it was mentioned several times.

*sigh* The point is that it was NOT an excuse, and no-one actually argued that that was the reason for going into Iraq. Bush said that Iraq had WMD, and the nation supported him because of that not because of the "let's get rid of Saddam bit"which he barely even mentioned.

Nope. Oil prices are going down and have for a few days because of Saudi Arabia. /quote]
Not when you mentioned it, CCR. When you mentioned for the first time that oil prices were going down, they were not[/]b going down, they were higher than ever.

Nope. I stop arguing when
A) I agree with the person I am arguing with more often then not
B) I'm kind of mixed on the issue.

And in that situation, both happened.

Yet you still offered a counter-point against what he said, and a very weak one at that, which basically shows that you don't know anything more, but don't want to lose either. A bad habit, and one that you ascribe to "strong leaders."