Ok, political thought..only read if interested

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by seasalt101
and have you seen the price of oil, and surprise when i was working( due to cancer i am not presently) i worked in the oilfield and it does not cost anymore right now to make a well produce more oil than it did 5 years ago, i worked for halliburton, bj services, weathorford, key energy all as a contractor, we get very little oil from the middle east mostly mexico and venezuela, and the presidents hometown is midland tx which is 20 miles east of here and if you do your history you will see bush went bankrupt in oil check your facts and 5 years ago oil was at 21 dollars a barrel, and when cheney was the ceo of halliburton it was never over 25 dollars a barrel, halliburton making money what is wrong with that anyway, if bill gates makes money do you bitch about that too, it's called capitalism its what americans do...tobin
Are you suggesting that the oil companies are not prospering when I paid $3.55 per gallon of gas today? You prove my point when you mention that it does not cost any more to produce the oil today than it did 5 years ago. However, this war allows the oil companies to raise their prices without the consumer freaking out about it.
I think it's great that Cheney's bankrolling from this war. I'm sure his self serving international agenda is completely innocent, right?
And by the way, please check your facts. Bush's oil companies did not go bankrupt. They would have but the Saudi's stepped in and bought his a-- (I mean invested).

 

[seasalt101]

it is a supply and demand issue, my dad was in england in the 80's he was paying about 5.00 a gal. then as england is a smaller country they pay a higher price we as a larger country buy lots more but pay less if the epa would not let each state set their own standard refineries would not have to make 60 different grades of gasoline which would lower the price quite considerably, and cheney has stock in halliburton so what why don't you invest and turn yourself into the new american oil tycoon or just sit there and be bitter, why is this cheneys fault or bush's fault were they guiding the planes into the towers, the kennedys made money as rum runners does this bother you too, clinton made tons of money and made a mockery of the whitehouse, and buying out a floundering company is going bankrupt...tobin

 

[legion]

Do you really beleive that bush and cheney spent the lives of 3000+ americans and hundreds of thousands of others to make their portfoio look better? They may have made very poor decisions, but come on! They may even be smart enuff to invest properly, give the circumstances, but come on! I invest almost solely in international stocks, not because I am trying to bring this country down, but I am smart enough to know that he standard of living here is highand will go down relative to other countries. Does that make me cold and calculating? crimzy?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Legion
.... We went there for WMD and found NONE(we have them) and are also the only country to use them! ....
Good post, but you are wrong here. Saddam had WMD's and used them.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
If we stay and kill a thousand more Iraqis, what have we won? Does anyone truly believe that we will wipe out terrorism? We have already conquered the dictator and eliminated Iraq's potential to create weapons of mass destruction. All we are really doing is creating a generation of young Iraqi orphans who know that daddy was killed by the Americans. What do we accomplish by staying and what will be the cost?
On the other hand, if we leave Iraq, what have we lost? Forgive me for not having the "Napolean the conquerer" mentality that so many others seem to have. I just don't think that the arbitrary concept of victory/loss is important, aside from to our pride.......
Will we ever defeat terrorism? Yes. To believe otherwise is to surrender to a future too hideous to imagine... Al Qaeda showed their hand. They will kill every man, woman and child in America if they are not hunted down.
We're not killing "daddies" in Iraq. The insurgents are. The Iraqis are. Not us... We are responsible for very few civilian casualties.
If we leave we've lost a front in a global war. If we withdraw we're one step closer to fighting Al Qaeda in the streets of NY.
Again, look at history. When did appeasement ever work?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
The fact is that Halliburton (Cheney) and the oil companies (Bush) are prospering here more than anyone else. You don't see that?
BTW, I wouldn't knock the soldiers... I'm one of the few people here who don't want to see them sacrificed. The only problem with our soldiers is that they are too trusting. Along with the rest of the country, they were sold a bill of goods with this war.
Curious... when President Clinton bombed Iraq (to destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemicla and biological weapons (his words)) were you worried for the pilots? How about those brave men and women who were shot at for years patrolling the No Fly zone?
Now, as for oil... Tell me again how the oil companies are getting rich from Iraq?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Legion
Do you really beleive that bush and cheney spent the lives of 3000+ americans and hundreds of thousands of others to make their portfoio look better? ....
The answer to that question will terrify you... While I will not specifically speak for any other poster on this board I can tell you that yes, many Americans have drank the Soros/Moore Kool Aid and do believe just that.

 

[jennythebugg]

journeyman you are someone that i admire thought you might like to here that, i wish i was a better debater than i am but thanks for putting the facts out there better than i can...tobin

 

[seasalt101]

sorry posted the last one under the gf's name oops...tobin

 

[aandwrobert]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
When? When has the USA ever colonized and annexed foreign countries? That's what Imperialists do... I mean, you can argue the Pilgrims were imperialists, the Texan colonists were Imperialists, etc. but that's a bit of a stretch on the global scale.
So, when the Ottoman Empire was broken apart, everyone had a right to a country in the region EXCEPT the Jewish people?
Where exactly are there civil wars going on right now in the former Soviet Union? Common goal in communism? What exactly was that other than to oppress the people...
Ya, cause the Soviet Union was all for letting satellite countries break away... It's not like they ever used tanks, secret police and torture to put down rebellions.... You're basing that statement on what exactly? As for the weapons... last time I checked the religious violence in Serbia had nothing to do with the US, other than the fact that we helped end it. No idea where you got this nonsense...
The people of Iraq don't want us to leave... ask your cousin how the locals treat him. Somalia? We were feeding the people. They didn't want us to leave. As for the rest of that paragraph it's incoherent.
Where are you getting all of this "information" from?
I have asked my cousin they shoot at him on every street very friendly so serbia invading romania and albania and macedonia is no problem we have a military base there to prevent them from invading.
will finish when I finish studing for my math exam

 

[crimzy]

I can't believe that I got sucked back into this debate. Anyway, just a few points to some of the comments:
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Will we ever defeat terrorism? Yes.
Why, because after we destroy Al Queda the world will love us again? By staying in Iraq for another five years, have we destroyed the terrorists being harbored in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, IRAN, etc. Naive opinion that we will destroy terrorism by fighting in Iraq.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We're not killing "daddies" in Iraq. The insurgents are. The Iraqis are. Not us... We are responsible for very few civilian casualties.
Sounds great... did Georgy tell you this himself. Don't believe everything you see/read. Propoganda is a useful tool in times of war, even in the US. Do you really think we didn't kill hundreds of civilians in shock and awe itself?
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again, look at history. When did appeasement ever work?
I read this argument from you before... I like how you look at military failures (ie. Vietnam) and blame the withdrawel of troops for the lack of absolute victory. Although your conclusion is nothing more than your opinion. The only true fact is that by ceasing the fighting, we WILL spare American lives. This is a fact.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Curious... when President Clinton bombed Iraq (to destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemicla and biological weapons (his words)) were you worried for the pilots? How about those brave men and women who were shot at for years patrolling the No Fly zone?
Now, as for oil... Tell me again how the oil companies are getting rich from Iraq?
I don't have any problem with a limited, specific military action intended to accomplish a legitimate goal. Clinton, George Sr., and others have used the military to carry out reasonable objectives. This is not what was done here. The president invaded Iraq, lied to his country about the purpose, failed to accomplish his mission and will continue the action indefinitely until he believes that his legacy is secure. Bush will continue to fight until he believes that people will perceive him as the victor, plain and simple. If he were truly fighting against terrorism, we would be at war with Saudi, the greatest producer of terrorists in the world.
As for the oil companies, prices have almost doubled and the costs to them is the same. Why? The war allows the public to perceive an oil crisis, whether real or not. This allows the oil companies to justify the 200% increase. You think gas prices would be where they're at if the war wasn't happening?
BTW, gotta go now, I'll check back later to continue the discussion if it's still going.

 

[legion]

Had is a past tense word. Would you care to specify exactly what we found and care to compare if they are anywhere near the destructive power of what our country used. Keep in mind that I don't like bin laden or saddam. But if you say one thing and do another you are a hippo. One of mans worst qualities and the cause of many of the worlds problems(especially in that region)

 

[legion]

I Iran would like to make nukes. No one likes that. But you can not stop the scientific evolution of their country(but I sure am not going to help them, they are what I believe to be an unethical culture in many ways). In retro, we would not have loaded weapons(even tough they were stripped) in to that region if we did not feel at least threatened by the ussr.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by aandwrobert
I have asked my cousin they shoot at him on every street very friendly so serbia invading romania and albania and macedonia is no problem we have a military base there to prevent them from invading.
will finish when I finish studing for my math exam
They? "They" are terrorists and insurgents. Not the free people.
When did we invade Albania, Macedonia, or Romania?... Again I ask where you are getting this crazy stuff.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
I can't believe that I got sucked back into this debate. Anyway, just a few points to some of the comments:
Why, because after we destroy Al Queda the world will love us again? By staying in Iraq for another five years, have we destroyed the terrorists being harbored in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, IRAN, etc. Naive opinion that we will destroy terrorism by fighting in Iraq.
We start in Afghanistan and keep going... Naive is believing we can exist side by side in this world with terrorists. What chose do we have?
Originally Posted by crimzy
Sounds great... did Georgy tell you this himself. Don't believe everything you see/read. Propoganda is a useful tool in times of war, even in the US. Do you really think we didn't kill hundreds of civilians in shock and awe itself?
No, actually the folks I know over there have told me.... Were there civilian casualties? Of course, which is tragic. Remember a lot of Germans and Japanese civilians died in WW2. Seems they forgave us pretty quickly because they were free....
Originally Posted by crimzy
I read this argument from you before... I like how you look at military failures (ie. Vietnam) and blame the withdrawel of troops for the lack of absolute victory. Although your conclusion is nothing more than your opinion. The only true fact is that by ceasing the fighting, we WILL spare American lives. This is a fact.
The withdrawel of troops from Vietnam was the reason for failure. That's what the Viet Kong officers have told us. Furthmore, False... the casualties will move from military personal in Iraq to civilians in every large city throughout the USA. We're in a war, there will be casualties. Do you think Al Qaeda if we leave Iraq?
Originally Posted by crimzy
I don't have any problem with a limited, specific military action intended to accomplish a legitimate goal. Clinton, George Sr., and others have used the military to carry out reasonable objectives. This is not what was done here. The president invaded Iraq, lied to his country about the purpose,
And there it is ... the glaring hypocrisy. You justify Clinton bombing "nuclear, chemical and biological facilities" in Iraq, yet accuse the current President of lying about the presence of said devices. Clinton bombed Iraq without the UN's approval. President Bush went to the UN repeatedly.
/>
Originally Posted by crimzy
failed to accomplish his mission and will continue the action indefinitely until he believes that his legacy is secure. Bush will continue to fight until he believes that people will perceive him as the victor, plain and simple. If he were truly fighting against terrorism, we would be at war with Saudi, the greatest producer of terrorists in the world.
terrorists in every country need to be dealt with differently. Not too long ago Saudi authorities busted an Al Qaeda cell, remember?
Originally Posted by crimzy
As for the oil companies, prices have almost doubled and the costs to them is the same. Why? The war allows the public to perceive an oil crisis, whether real or not. This allows the oil companies to justify the 200% increase. You think gas prices would be where they're at if the war wasn't happening?.....
Oil is a global commodity. Study the increase on demand in the past 5 years. Furthermore, look at things like speculation in the market.
If the President wanted oil prices to increase there are easier ways to manipulate prices. Invading a country that was severely limited in exporting oil and allowing them to export huge amounts seems to be counterproductive to supply/demand.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Legion
Had is a past tense word. Would you care to specify exactly what we found and care to compare if they are anywhere near the destructive power of what our country used. Keep in mind that I don't like bin laden or saddam. But if you say one thing and do another you are a hippo. One of mans worst qualities and the cause of many of the worlds problems(especially in that region)
Do we have more destructive weapons? Of course.
We used 2 to end WWII. Saddam used his to kill 10,000s in an attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. He used others to kill Iranians in border skirmishers.
The two are not relative.

 

[jmick]

As long as there is economic inequality in the world there will be terrorism, it will never cease to exist. When a country does not have the financial power to finance a traditional war their main option will be to engage in terrorism. Like the IRA engaged the English in Northern Ireland and England and what we now see in the middle-east.
Staying in Iraq is a no win situation, there is no end to this war and staying will only increase the body count and continue to degrade our international standing. Yes, we have taken down a ruthless dictator only to see the country deteriorate and become a bloody quagmire. Many feel that the president was planning this war the day he stepped into the office and used 9/11 as an excuse and rallied his support. Is this true, I don’t know and is the president and his real constituents (the wealthy) making a load of money off this war, I’d venture to say yes. I feel for the troops that are over there and fighting such an ill conceived war but thankfully, even if we pull out our security will not suffer.
I really enjoyed the bit above how if we don’t win this “war” then the streets of NY will look like Baghdad in 10 years. This is such right-wing rhetoric and utter rubbish. What happened on 9/11 is not something we are likely to see again in our lifetime and I’m still rather surprised with the amount of intel we had it was still able to happen.
Found this bit of info rather telling about the potential future profits gained from oil in Iraq:
“In order to understand the magnitude of these profits, it is useful to know that the worldwide profits of the world’s five largest oil companies in 2002 were $35 billion. Our estimate of the “most probable” annual profits in Iraq are $95 billion, three times this sum! Total company profits in Iraq, over time, would be an enormously large sum – ranging from a low of about $600 billion to a high of about $9 trillion.”

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Do we have more destructive weapons? Of course.
We used 2 to end WWII. Saddam used his to kill 10,000s in an attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. He used others to kill Iranians in border skirmishers.
The two are not relative.

What do you think about the native ethnic group we have all but wiped out?

 

[windmill]

Indians? As in Native Americans?
edit: on a side note....is that the Italian flag?
edit: nevermind, just googled it

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by windmill
Indians? As in Native Americans?
edit: on a side note....is that the Italian flag?
edit: nevermind, just googled it
They are the ones...
No, Irish flag.