This wing shooting directory provides an updated listing of duck hunting clubs, pheasant hunting clubs and related services in Northern California….

…

Did I touch a nerve, poopsie?

:^)

When fools say, “I’m not making an ‘argument’, just a statement of a little informal policy of mine. You can take it or leave it”, you can bet we’ll leave it.

Stumbley, I have gone out of my way to be polite and non-confrontational to you, and yet you resort to this type of name calling.

I won’t stoop to the same level, but merely refer any poor soul who is still reading this to a fellow commenter’s remark to you: “You, sir, are an ass.”

Americans turned against the war:

These two elements turned the tide, not some sort of legal sympathy for Sadam.

Excellent point Torq, but note Neo didn’t say “Americans,” she said the “anti-war / anti-Bush crowd.”

To her, there was never any legitimate debate about whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do. If you were against it, you are either a pacifist, a “leftist” who habitually opposes any war the US fights, and those suffering from “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

1) Go to war.
2) Continue with the policy of “containment.”
3) Eliminate the sanctions regime and allow Saddam Hussein freedom of action.

Option number two clearly wasn’t working. If you are on the right, the evidence for that is the oil-for-food scandal. If you are on the left, it was the reality that the sanctions were punishing the common people, not the elite. In fact, most of the far lefty organizations were putting their estimates at 100,000 people/year dying due to sanctions.

I realize this is a bit simplistic but when I ask my lefty friends, “what other options did we have?” I’m met with blank stares. A few of them say, “we should have allowed the policy of containment to work,” but that policy wasn’t working. So we were in a bit of a situation. Neither the left, or the right, was in favor of maintaining the status-quo. The far left was in favor of ending the sanctions entirely. Regarding the attacks on our planes, most of the far left was against the no-fly zones as well. The right clearly felt differently. War was an option. So, we went to war. As far as conduct and planning I have my share of criticisms but I think war was the only choice we had left.

Alphie wonders about the “tens of billions of dollars Bush’s cronies have made off the Iraq War.”

Which of “Bush’s cronies” has made billions from the war? Who? Do you have any evidence?

I am aware that Halliburton received no-bid contracts (definitely a bad thing) but how much of that money paid for equipment, salaries for contractors, and operations in Iraq and how much ended up in Cheney’s pockets?

I realize some people insist that this war is about maintaining astronomical profits for oil companies and that these oil interests drive policy. I don’t think most policy makers–including Bushies, neocons, or whatever you want to call them–think that these high oil prices are in the interests of the United States. Yes, the CEOs of Exxon/Mobil and other companies are making a killing but countries like Venezuela and Iran are using oil wealth to increase their influence in South America and the Middle East. Russia’s power and influence have also increased. None of this is in the interest of the U.S.

I also have a different understanding of the mentality of people in positions of power in these corporations. I think the CEOs of Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies want to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders, sure. But they also have an interest in maintaining a stable and predictable market in order to encourage investment. In that respect, it is not in their interest to have shocks to the market or for it to appear unstable. Think of it this way, when an oil rig is occupied in Nigeria, that may send the price of oil up, but it also contributes to a perception that investment in oil is extremely risky and you would be better off putting your money into some other endeavor.

Old Man Rick writes:

“The funny thing is, at the time, the “no blood for oil” crowd was claiming that we were after cheap Iraq oil.”

That’s a great point.

And to those who think that the almost daily attacks on U.S. and British planes by the Saddam Hussein regime were no big deal, these were direct violations of an international, multilateral, agreement that Saddam Hussein had signed. People seem to forget that. The entire UN Security Council should have backed whatever actions were necessary to curb Hussein’s belligerency. Instead, French, Russian and Chinese commercial interests prevented that.

It’s stunning to me that someone as intelligent as you can be so far off the mark.

Do you remember the support that the President received during the pre-war marketing campaign for the Iraq invasion?
Do you remember Colin Powell’s address to the UN Security Council?
Do you remember Phil Donahue’s show on MSNBC being cancelled for his anti-war positions?

The country was behind the President, including the MSM, in a way that was unparallel.

No, you are very wrong in your assertions about not giving the Bush Administration the benefit of doubt — very wrong.

Americans turned against the war:

A. When it became obvious that the White House ignored crucial evidence that WMD’s did not exist
B. When the mismanagement of the war became painfully obvious and the White House continued to repeat the mantra “Stay the Course”

These two elements turned the tide, not some sort of legal sympathy for Sadam.

Much of WWII was fought over oil, its production and control.

Without plenty of oil we wouldn’t be typing our postings on nice plastic keyboards delivered to nice clean stores in buildings constructed with heavy motorized equipement by trucks running on oil.

There’s nothing wrong with fighting over oil!

We’d all be poor as dirt without it.

The industialized west invented the technologies that use the oil, the technologies for extracting it from the ground, the methods of finding the stuff and the economies for trading it.

The mohhamedan block has a strangle hold on the companies we depend on to provide the oil simply by sitting on top of our oil wells.

And Venezuela is moving in the same thieving direction.

Not fight for oil? Then why bother to fight for any of our property?

Because I assure you, you would have damn little property without the oil.

On the other hand, I sure as heck would be glad to get the hell out of the most turbulent unruly parts of the Middle East altogether and let the place rot. Let me emphasize: ROT. And if we have to fight islamofascism let’s fight it from the nearest westernized countries that already have a working democracy in place.

I realize this is not realistic. Part of the monkey wrench is Israel.