OT: Why is Bush ransoming our troops?

[Fu-Pow]

In the recent showdown between congress and the Bush administration over the Iraq war spending bill, the Bush administration has quite plainly stated that to deny funding or put limits on war spending is equivalent to not "supporting our troops."

Ludicrous!

If Bush really "supported our troops" he would have never sent them into Iraq in the first place, on the most flimsy of evidence of WMDs (evidence which has since been repudiated over and over again.)

If Bush really "supported our troops" he would have personally made sure that troops returning from battle received the best care and medical treatment (Walter reed anyone?)

What the Bush and his administration are doing to congress and the American people is ransoming our troops, using them as collateral to extort money from the American people and put it in the hands of oil companies and military contractors.

He has sent our troops into a dangerous and unwinnable situation for nothing more than greed. And he would rather see them underfunded and ill-equipped rather than pull them out of Iraq and not receive his precious war funding.

It is shame that the media and politicians lay down for this blatant kind of reframing and spinning that the Bush administration is so deft at.

And it is a shame that Bush and his administration would sink so low as to use our troops safety as collateral rather than bite the bullet and bow to the will of the American people.

[NJM]

Yes, we all know that the support our troops thing is a manipulative phrase. The question is, who hasn't already learned to tune it out?

[BruceSteveRoy]

Yes, we all know that the support our troops thing is a manipulative phrase. The question is, who hasn't already learned to tune it out?

too many people do tune out this mess. thats part of the problem.

[BruceSteveRoy]

And it is a shame that Bush and his administration would sink so low as to use our troops safety as collateral rather than bite the bullet and bow to the will of the American people.

two things wrong with this line of thought.

1. that would mean he would have to admit he has been wrong. he is way to proud to do that.

2. if he bows to the will of the people on this what will they demand next? you give the people an inch they take a mile. as every dictator throughout history has realized.

[TheSwedishChef]

In the recent showdown between congress and the Bush administration over the Iraq war spending bill, the Bush administration has quite plainly stated that to deny funding or put limits on war spending is equivalent to not "supporting our troops."

Ludicrous!

If Bush really "supported our troops" he would have never sent them into Iraq in the first place, on the most flimsy of evidence of WMDs (evidence which has since been repudiated over and over again.)

If Bush really "supported our troops" he would have personally made sure that troops returning from battle received the best care and medical treatment (Walter reed anyone?)

What the Bush and his administration are doing to congress and the American people is ransoming our troops, using them as collateral to extort money from the American people and put it in the hands of oil companies and military contractors.

He has sent our troops into a dangerous and unwinnable situation for nothing more than greed. And he would rather see them underfunded and ill-equipped rather than pull them out of Iraq and not receive his precious war funding.

It is shame that the media and politicians lay down for this blatant kind of reframing and spinning that the Bush administration is so deft at.

And it is a shame that Bush and his administration would sink so low as to use our troops safety as collateral rather than bite the bullet and bow to the will of the American people.


I have left forums because liberal jack-offs couldn't keep their mouths shut about politics in non-political forums. Are they following me around or what?

[KC Elbows]

I have left forums because liberal jack-offs couldn't keep their mouths shut about politics in non-political forums. Are they following me around or what?

Yes, and they'll keep following you until you remove the chip the Clintons had the ATF put in your fatty tissue.

[Fu-Pow]

Originally Posted by TheSwedishChef View Post
I have left forums because liberal jack-offs couldn't keep their mouths shut about politics in non-political forums. Are they following me around or what?

Your new to this forum with 29 posts so let me just inform you that we talk about all kinds of issues on this board (apparently including girl troubles) BTW that's what OT means (Off-topic).

Also since you're new to this forum you don't know that when somebody personally attacks me, for example, calling me a "liberal jack-off"...instead of saying something intelligent.... they get added to my ignore list and I never see their posts again....so that said...

...welcome to my ignore list biatch. :rolleyes:

[YouKnowWho]

Now is the time for congress to prove that they do stand on our side instead of just want our vote.

[golden arhat]

Now is the time for congress to prove that they do stand on our side instead of just want our vote.

yeah but they wont

[golden arhat]

Your new to this forum with 29 posts so let me just inform you that we talk about all kinds of issues on this board (apparently including girl troubles) BTW that's what OT means (Off-topic).

Also since you're new to this forum you don't know that when somebody personally attacks me, for example, calling me a "liberal jack-off"...instead of saying something intelligent.... they get added to my ignore list and I never see their posts again....so that said...

...welcome to my ignore list biatch. :rolleyes:

i like your style

[Samurai Jack]

I'm always struck by someone with a supposedly strong opinion feeling threatened by someone who's opinion differs. Someone with truly strong views will have strong evidence, or at least reasonable logic to back said view up.

Knee jerk insults are usually used to avoid discussing an issue that the speaker isn't really very well educated on in the first place. It's called an argument ad hominem which simply means, "argument against the man." It is a technique used frequently by amatuer debaters in order to discredit the speaker without addressing the issue. It also tends to betray a certain level of doubt in one's beliefs.

As Fu-Pow pointed out, the header reads "OT:". If you are only interested in discussing things that deal with martial arts, skip the ones labeled "OT:". Also skip the ad hominem arguments. They don't convince anyone of your opinion, they won't make you any friends, and they'll get you banned eventually.

[golden arhat]

I have left forums because liberal jack-offs couldn't keep their mouths shut about politics in non-political forums. Are they following me around or what?

i wont even go intowhy ur an idiot
but if u dont like it here (in what i consider the best MA forum around) then go sommewhere else

in fact PLEASE go somewhere else
u obviously have nothing to offer

[TheSwedishChef]

Yeah, arhat I haven't posted anything of worth so far. Obviously you've read everything I've written. I like the forum. Let's not ruin it with posts based on media spin. I think he hit every single lib talking point. They served it up and he swallowed it. Clearly you have too. Congrats. You're average. So why don't you leave. So there.

Hey Jack. I don't know how many exchanges you've been a part of on message boards but nobody convinces anyone of anything. They just argue until someone gets tired. The first thing I did was type out about 30 lines rebutting the things he said and then thought, "what am I doing?" I've done this a million times and nothing ever changes. So I just cut to the chase. You might think my post was incendiary, but its posts like his that divide message boards down political lines. Its why I don't like them. Talking about girlfriend issues or health or other problems come down to light opinions. Stuff like this just ****es people off. Plus I got on his ignore list. And I did it with just one post. :eek:

[golden arhat]

Yeah, arhat I haven't posted anything of worth so far. Obviously you've read everything I've written. I like the forum. Let's not ruin it with posts based on media spin. I think he hit every single lib talking point. They served it up and he swallowed it. Clearly you have too. Congrats. You're average. So why don't you leave. So there.

its media spin because its of an opinion which differs from urs ?
all u did was call him a liberal jack off (real mature) get it into your head
just because u have an opinion that is different , that does not make you a "jack off"
it was labeled OT and generally no one here has any problem with discussing things that are off topic
if u want to know what relationship it has to the martial arts ,well the fact that he posted it here


either adress what he said or go and talk about something else
if u just want to be some random right wing troll then we dont need you here



Hey Jack. I don't know how many exchanges you've been a part of on message boards but nobody convinces anyone of anything. They just argue until someone gets tired. The first thing I did was type out about 30 lines rebutting the things he said and then thought, "what am I doing?" I've done this a million times and nothing ever changes. So I just cut to the chase. You might think my post was incendiary, but its posts like his that divide message boards down political lines. Its why I don't like them. Talking about girlfriend issues or health or other problems come down to light opinions. Stuff like this just ****es people off. Plus I got on his ignore list. And I did it with just one post. :eek:

you got on his ignore list because its obvious what kind of poster u are

people are convinced in arguments on forums why u think they dont is beyond me

people have convinced me that their opinion is the correct one on here before
i cant say as to weither or not i have done the same

but it just ggoes to show how ignorant u are

[BruceSteveRoy]

i think that trying to convince someone that your opinion is "Correct" is definately an uphill battle but the only time it is an impossible feat is when youa re dealing with the kind of people that right away don't listen. you can usually spot them bc they are more inclined to hurl an insult than retort with any kind of real substance.

calling someone a jack off says a lot more about you than it does about them.

[Mr Punch]

1. You clicked on an opinion thread to not state you opinion about the subject, just to state your opinion about how opinion threads suck because they're based on opinion.

2.You clicked on a thread you knew would p!ss you off.

3. You wasted time typing a 30-line response.

4. You deleted it.

5. You responded with one line of knee jerk ad hom BS.

6. You wasted more time typing out why you never like these threads.

7. You proceeded to instruct everyone here on how to conduct the forum.



Like anybody the f*** cares!
It's like shooting retards in a barrel.
You obviously have more time than firing brain cells.
Welcome to the board!
:D

[TheSwedishChef]

I "wasted time" because I forgot myself for a while and thought arguing against the nonsense would solve something. It never does. Conduct your forum any way you like. But what I found initially attractive about this place was that it was about MA and not politics. And my little post has entirely highjacked the thread. Who lacks brain cells now? Good times.


Well have a blast with this. I'll prolly catch some of you on other boards.


Cheers.

[Nards]

Impeach Bush!!

[BruceSteveRoy]

did you ever see that episode of seinfeld where they talked about the idea of refusing to let someone break up with you? like if someone says "i'm sorry but this isn't working out. I think we should take a break." and the other person says "no we shouldn't" and that's that.

i think that is about what would happen if came down to impeaching bush. "i'm sorry mr. president but the people and congress have decided that it isn't working out. Its over sir." to which you would get a reply of "no it isn't" and everyone would shift uncomfortably and then look around and go back to whatever they were doing.

[BoulderDawg]

I've more or less resigned myself to two more years of dying in Iraq. We will probably lose another 1,000 to 1,500 people....if we're lucky. It could be a lot more.

Me, I'm tired of hearing the conservative mantra of "Not supporting troops"......Guess what I don't! If the troops simply said "We're not going to fight" then Bush would have to do it himself I guess. As far as I'm concerned if a troop kills somebody in Iraq he did it of his own free will. Bush did not make him do it.....and if he gets killed that's what he gets for being in something he should not be in.

Probably in the election we're going to have a choice between Clinton/Gore versus Rudy/McCann/Darkhorse. In any case the message from the Dems will be "Vote for a Republican if you want 4 more years in Iraq"....and my guess is that this will be enough to get them elected. However I'm concerned that once Clinton or Gore gets in there they will find a reason to extend the American involvement.

In any case the main message here is for young people: "No matter your situation in life.....DON"T JOIN THE MILITARY!

[Fu-Pow]

However I'm concerned that once Clinton or Gore gets in there they will find a reason to extend the American involvement.


Despite the fact that the Clinton/Gore group doesn't exactly have clean hands at least they are more or less populists. I don't think that they would let their approval ratings decline like Bush has. What won Bush elections in the past is exactly his downfall....he stands for something...he doesn't bow to public opinion....but in the case of Iraq he is just ignoring the facts or is in some kind of denial of failure.

[Black Jack II]

I promised myself I would not respond to these drivel posts anymore, it's all a waste of good glucose, kinda akin to talking to kids with hearing problems with your back turned and from a distance.

But this paragraph below, is the type of typical, herky-jerky, low notch, machinehead, far left liberal gutter fellatoe that showcases why at this moment in time, the current vast skew of democrats are so FAR removed from commonsense and moral value that they have basically put to death anything bearing sanity.


Me, I'm tired of hearing the conservative mantra of "Not supporting troops"......Guess what I don't! If the troops simply said "We're not going to fight" then Bush would have to do it himself I guess. As far as I'm concerned if a troop kills somebody in Iraq he did it of his own free will. Bush did not make him do it.....and if he gets killed that's what he gets for being in something he should not be in.

Anyone who says this is a steaming pile of detestable d!ck cheese. Maybe one day with some serious couch time they can stop being a excuse and start being a rational human being.

B!tch.

[BoulderDawg]

My advice to you is to get your ass over there as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact let's let everyone who feels that way go over there. I know I would if I felt as strongly as you do.

The truth is that anyone who fights in that war is not fighting under the banner of the United States. They are fighting under the banner of George Bush and the corporate infrastructure that props up his regime. Die if you like for these people but don't expect my respect or sympathy.

[rogue]

Oh Lordy, Bawlder Dawg once again sends reality home early so he can make silly statements like that.

BJ, turn and walk away. These guys are in their own little fantasy world.

[NJM]

Man, can you guys either post a reasonable arguement against what was said or don't post at all? I mean, isn't calling someone names and not posting evidence just giving a bad name to all conservatives?

[rogue]

Why bother trying to reason with people who don't believe in facts?
Later

[jo]

I promised myself I would not respond to these drivel posts anymore, it's all a waste of good glucose, kinda akin to talking to kids with hearing problems with your back turned and from a distance.

But this paragraph below, is the type of typical, herky-jerky, low notch, machinehead, far left liberal gutter fellatoe that showcases why at this moment in time, the current vast skew of democrats are so FAR removed from commonsense and moral value that they have basically put to death anything bearing sanity.


We send our kids to die for LIES.

We blew the hell out of a country that was NO THREAT TO US.

We are responsible for CREATING more terrorists and martyrs than Al Qeada could ever dream of.

Over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT IRAQIS DEAD.

Do you morn them?

-jo

[NJM]

Why bother trying to reason with people who don't believe in facts?
Later

Because it's what better people are supposed to do; reason to the unreasonable.

[BoulderDawg]

>>>>Why bother trying to reason with people who don't believe in facts?<<<<



We send our kids to die for LIES.

We blew the hell out of a country that was NO THREAT TO US.

We are responsible for CREATING more terrorists and martyrs than Al Qeada could ever dream of.

Over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT IRAQIS DEAD.

Do you morn them?

-jo

Well it looks like you just got your facts. Any other comments?

[wind draft]

I'm a liberal, which mean that I am open to new ideas and reform policies that may not work. Nothing else. Anything else more than that is extremist. With that said..Fu Pow.. I agree with what you are saying.. But I like to view both side of the story.

If you were in the president's shoes, you probably do the same thing he is doing. Have anyone read Sun Tzu Art of War? It says any leader must understand conflict and conflict is good for the growth of a nation. Without conflict there is no growth. With that said, you have your opinon and I have mine. I respect yours just respect mine. By the way, I am not a Bush fan. But he is soooo funny that I would vote for him on that part. You don't really need someone smart to run... He has all the "smarter" people behind him.

Plus when you really think about.. What differences would a republican, democratic, or liberal would do? Don't you ever notice anything different really? Or just people always smack talkin about this and that president?

Back the issue. The world is running out of oil. Do you drive a car? Anyone that drive a car even if they don't oil is important in a lot of things. Without oil supply, the world would come to a complete halt. No food can be transported, no gas to transport gas, all cars, anything that needs gas or oil would be useless and that would mean pretty much everything. Now just think of that... Would you let your household income come to a complete halt? Dude people are soooo hypocrit. They say all these crazy talk, but they would do the same themselves. I think people who hate are just haters and they can't do the things they are hating about. Dude I got love for people who's making money so it don't matter.

People do you really think the US Government is really that dumb and would do things for no REASONS? Come on.. Are you guys 3 years old kids that are brainwash? I mean anyone with a college education can make sense of what's going on. From a leader from of view, the government does what it has to do to maintain it's dominance. Just like you maintain your authority in class. I thought martial artist new a thing or two about war tactics.

[Samurai Jack]

“If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good” -Ezra Pound

You bring up an excellent point, wind draft. I often hear long-winded diatribes about how U.S. interests in Iraq begin and end in oil. Right now we are experiencing record gas prices, and I hear people all over whimpering about it. It's going to get much, much worse. Year after year oil is growing more and more scarce. Is our western civilization worth the effort of seizing foreign oil through acts of war? That's a tough question. Globally I say no. But as a member of a Western civilization who's life depends on that civilization, I say loudly "Save my a$$, Mr. President!"

Honestly I don't believe in taking the lives of innocents. I crave another answer. Until we are willing to seriously consider the question though, I fear we are left with the decisions of politicians who recognize the danger of running out of oil, as well as the FACT that Americans who don't see the writing on the wall will never support a war for the purpose of averting that disaster.

This coming from a self proclaimed Socialist. See what logical discussion can do to opinions?

[sanjuro_ronin]

As a former peacekeeper ( Bosnia) I can only say this:

War is and should always be, the VERY LAST resort and NEVER a step take lightly.

[Fu-Pow]

You bring up an excellent point, wind draft. I often hear long-winded diatribes about how U.S. interests in Iraq begin and end in oil. Right now we are experiencing record gas prices, and I hear people all over whimpering about it. It's going to get much, much worse. Year after year oil is growing more and more scarce. Is our western civilization worth the effort of seizing foreign oil through acts of war? That's a tough question. Globally I say no. But as a member of a Western civilization who's life depends on that civilization, I say loudly "Save my a$$, Mr. President!"

Honestly I don't believe in taking the lives of innocents. I crave another answer. Until we are willing to seriously consider the question though, I fear we are left with the decisions of politicians who recognize the danger of running out of oil, as well as the FACT that Americans who don't see the writing on the wall will never support a war for the purpose of averting that disaster.

This coming from a self proclaimed Socialist. See what logical discussion can do to opinions?

The funny thing about that is that you would think, OK we've invaded Iraq we have their oil, gas prices will go down. Nope, instead they've gone up and are rising and oil companies are posting record profits. Its just another instance of the Bush administration-industrial complex using war as a pretext to get away with raping us at the gas pump.

Look, if we had gone in to Iraq and wiped the guy out in one fell swoop ....great! Saddam Hussein was an awful person and had committed many crimes against humanity.

However, that just didn't happen. One country can't impose its will on another country and not expect them to fight back. Especially when there are major socio-cultural differences between those two nations.

If Bush was really there just to topple Saddam then he should have just had him assassinated. But that wasn't the point. The point was to install a western style democracy so that Iraq would trade their oil with the U.S.

This is more the Cheney neo-con agenda than the Bush agenda. Bush legitimately wanted to kill Saddam: there was a Vanity fair article where they interviewed Bush before he was elected the first time and he explicitly said then that he wanted to kill Saddam because Saddam had set up an assassination attempt on his father (that obviously was foiled.)

So what they should have done is just wiped out Saddam and left. What would have ultimately happened is another dictator would have taken power in Iraq (just look at the rest of the region.) Hopefully, that dictatorship would have been benevolent like the Saudi's but it would be no guarantee.

This what's ultimately going to happen anyways. We are going to leave. There will be a civil war and one side will win and establish a theocratic dictatorship of some sort. This is all the region can handle. We can't force them to go through this dramatic change, its just not going to hold. Maybe some of the people in the region are ready for it but I'd guess the majority are not.

And our reasons for it are based on capitalism rather than democracy (because those things tend to go hand in hand.)



FP

[jo]

As a former peacekeeper ( Bosnia) I can only say this:

War is and should always be, the VERY LAST resort and NEVER a step take lightly.



The soul-less ********s who started this war did it for THE CASH.

Have you ever looked at the billions it costs to run this war? KBR and Halliburton are awash is cash because of this clusterfu(k.

-jo

[jo]

However, that just didn't happen. One country can't impose its will on another country and not expect them to fight back. Especially when there are major socio-cultural differences between those two nations.
FP

The Iraqi people never wanted our form "democracy".

BushCo wanted to install Chalabi as thier puppet to control the country, they never intened to have any real democracy over there. Look, Hammas was democratically elected to power in Lebanon!!!

Saddam was a dirtbag, but he gave the people, especially women more freedom than most of the other Arab countries. And then, we came along and blew the whole country to bits, creating more terrorists and martyrs than Bin-Laden could dream of.

Bush should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

-jo

[Fu-Pow]

The Iraqi people never wanted our form "democracy".

BushCo wanted to install Chalabi as thier puppet to control the country, they never intened to have any real democracy over there. Look, Hammas was democratically elected to power in Lebanon!!!

You can't insert a democracy in an area where there is a tribe mentality.



Saddam was a dirtbag, but he gave the people, especially women more freedom than most of the other Arab countries.

Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. His government tortured people. It was a tyrannical dictatorship on all accounts. However, it was "better" in the sense that he used a heavy hand to bring control over the tribal and religious factions in Iraq. His government was secular and somewhat progressive...but then again so were the Nazis.


And then, we came along and blew the whole country to bits, creating more terrorists and martyrs than Bin-Laden could dream of.

Like I said, if we'd just taken out Saddam, secured any WMDs (if they had ever existed) and left we'd all have been better off. But Bush went in and decided that he was going to do "nation building", something that he explicitly stated he would not do before he was elected in 2000.

I think largely Cheney is behind this whole scheme with his connections to the oil industry and military contractors.



Bush should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
-jo

The way things are headed I'd say yes.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Before the War and Invasion of Iraq the middle east was a source of instability with Sadam and the Palestinian situation.
Now, we still have the Palestinian situation, we have more hatred towards the US, we have had an Israeli-Lebanon war/conflcit, we have a civil war in Iraq and Iran is now a nuclear power.

Much better eh?

[BruceSteveRoy]

sadaam may have been a huge douche and a human rights violator to the nth degree but he ruled with an iron fist which is what it seems is what it took to keep the region "stable"

perhaps the region was scared that he was crazy enough to do something so drastic that it wasn't worth stepping out of line while he was in power. now that he is gone each of the factions in the area is vying for power and trying to exert political, theological and military dominance. or so i gather. i welcome any correction to my interpretation of the situation.

the thing i think that we as a modern western nation fail to see is that from a political evolution stand point many middle eastern nations have not had a chance to politically evolve. they are still tribal areas, still ruled by warlords, religious leaders, etc. if you look at the political state of the world's largest powers they have at some point in there history been in this warring tribes stage of political development and it has through its own course evolved into modern political theories like democracy, socialism, communism, etc. what happens is that the more complex models of governments (which are the more powerful nations due to the fact that the complexity of their systems allows a way of resolving dispute without necessarily warring and conquering militarily. we tend to conquer financially instead.) attempt to go into these nation and expect their systems to operate within the same mechanisms as those of most major powers. This is going to cause conflict. however, in the end it could help to usher in a huge political change for the region. whether it is our right to do this is a moot point as it seems we are trying to whether we should or not. Rome did the same thing to the goths, the francs, the britons etc and in doing that helped to decrease the tribal governments and ushered in the next stage which ended up being theocracy until the renaissance and we know where it went from there to modern time. so were the romans wrong for doing it? it doesnt matter. what matters is they did it and now we are following suit. so america is modern roman empire? well if we are the next step is to outsource our military to mercenary nations in exchange for money and citizenship and then sit back until the nation collapses.

[Fu-Pow]

sadaam may have been a huge douche and a human rights violator to the nth degree but he ruled with an iron fist which is what it seems is what it took to keep the region "stable"

perhaps the region was scared that he was crazy enough to do something so drastic that it wasn't worth stepping out of line while he was in power. now that he is gone each of the factions in the area is vying for power and trying to exert political, theological and military dominance. or so i gather. i welcome any correction to my interpretation of the situation.

the thing i think that we as a modern western nation fail to see is that from a political evolution stand point many middle eastern nations have not had a chance to politically evolve. they are still tribal areas, still ruled by warlords, religious leaders, etc. if you look at the political state of the world's largest powers they have at some point in there history been in this warring tribes stage of political development and it has through its own course evolved into modern political theories like democracy, socialism, communism, etc. what happens is that the more complex models of governments (which are the more powerful nations due to the fact that the complexity of their systems allows a way of resolving dispute without necessarily warring and conquering militarily. we tend to conquer financially instead.) attempt to go into these nation and expect their systems to operate within the same mechanisms as those of most major powers. This is going to cause conflict. however, in the end it could help to usher in a huge political change for the region. whether it is our right to do this is a moot point as it seems we are trying to whether we should or not. Rome did the same thing to the goths, the francs, the britons etc and in doing that helped to decrease the tribal governments and ushered in the next stage which ended up being theocracy until the renaissance and we know where it went from there to modern time. so were the romans wrong for doing it? it doesnt matter. what matters is they did it and now we are following suit. so america is modern roman empire? well if we are the next step is to outsource our military to mercenary nations in exchange for money and citizenship and then sit back until the nation collapses.

You said it better than I ever could have. We're trying to usher the middle east through these steps unnaturally. On the other hand the situation is slightly different, these "tribes" have much more power to do destruction on a global level than ever before, chemical, biological, nuclear, etc. So we're dealing with a new beast but its underpinnings are ones we've seen before.

The key is that we can't force societies through these changes (especially not for our own financial benefit.) We can lend a hand here and there to change their fate but we can't "build" nations wholesale. They have to build themselves from the inside or they will collapse to a lower level of existence (survival, tribal, ethnic, etc.) That's what's happened in Iraq. We went from a secular dictatorship to a ethno-tribalistic civil war in the blink of an eye.

[wind draft]

I agree with what everyone is saying... But that is just part of the story.

All the facts mention above I agreed:

US Government went over to IRAQ for many reasons. Yes, Bush wanted to kill Sadam and that got done, all the reasons the government tell us for going to war is propaganda.

Just think if someone killed your family or tried to what would you do? Exactly....

Besides oil, we are in IRAQ for "our global interests" If you look, American soldiers have built bases in all these areas in IRAQ that is where OIL PIPE LINE runs. Why? To protect them. Same with A***hanisan. And That's why we gave that land to the JEWS, ISAREAL.

Back in the 40-50. American government was like okay this is Palestine land but since Germany killed so many JEWS, we are going to give this land to the Jews. That is messed up.. its like coming in to your house and say well this is our house now.

Yes... I don't agree with taking another life for GREED because essentially all this is just plain greed for money.

Well let see here... Religion is involve, so that's power and money.. and oil and land and even globalization instilling our hegemony idealogy onto other countries so they can be brainwash like many first world. Essentially our government and many first world want to globalize the world for it's capitalist and money making ideas.

But hey guess. I don't agree with a lot of our government do that's why I'm finishing my Bachelors at UW, going to law school, and become a lawyer were I can "actually" have a saying or a voice to influence society.

Dude without any of these are voice is like nothing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Religion is always an excuse, never the reason.

[wind draft]

It's awsome hard to change a society where we are goin in there to take their natural resources.

You wouldn't like it if I came in your house and took all your valuable resources, even then after that you wouldn't listen to me to want to "help you"

[NJM]

Religion is always an excuse, never the reason.

Wise words.

[wind draft]

I should have been a little more clearer. I don't mean religion as being the reason. I agree its an excuse. But why did US Government took a piece of land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews? It's also a holy land regarded by three different groups of people? If you don't think the terrorist hate Americans for that reason then you are mistaken.

Holy land and that given away.. How is that not religion? I don't understand? Religion isn't the whole picture, but like I said before part of the picture. There isn't just one reason to whole dominance. But if I were in the shoes of leaders I would do the same thing so I can't really say much. Really it don't matter if you vote for democrat or republician; same thing will happen. Money rule the world= power. So it all come down to money and power.:o

[jo]

Religion is always an excuse, never the reason.

MONEY is always the reason. Religion is the best excuse there is.

-jo

[rogue]

Back in the 40-50. American government was like okay this is Palestine land but since Germany killed so many JEWS, we are going to give this land to the Jews. That is messed up.. its like coming in to your house and say well this is our house now.

Say what? :eek:


But why did US Government took a piece of land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews?

The US? Better go look at the Balfour Declaration and brush up on your history. :rolleyes:

[Black Jack II]

Why have any understanding of factual history rogue when its soooo much easier for some to have there own heads buried in the fat and funny smelling realm of fantasy band camp.

Such a waste of good air, one of you undereducated cranks please stick your zit covered head in a bag so I can breath better, if you do it I swear a tree will live longer.

Digits crossed.

[rogue]

Good point Black Jack.

We now return you to the usual I Hate the USA/GWB is a Nazi circle jerk already in progress.

[Merryprankster]

wind draft now has zero credibility.

For the umpteenthousandth time, "Iraq is all about the oil," doesn't make any ****ing sense.

Go learn something about the oil market, something about refining, etc, and it's something you'll quickly realize.

[Mega-Foot]

Merryprankster is right. Our presence in the Middle East has to do with many interests outside of oil. Did you know, you skeptics, that Iraq is the world's foremost leader in importing large quantities of grains, meat, poultry, and dairy products? Their international Oil-for-Food program has been a key component in studying the usage of petroleum in food distillates, so that fossil fuels can be used for human consumption.

I'm not even going to mention that Iraq’s mining industry has been a superb resource for collecting relatively small amounts of phosphates (at Akashat), salt, and sulfur (near Mosul).

Oil, schmoil.....

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

[Mega-Foot]

Here's my take on the war:

Look, no proposed program for economic conversion to disarmament and democritization in Iraq sufficiently takes into account the unique magnitude of the required adjustments it would entail. Proposals to transform public dissent into a beneficent scheme of public works are more the products of wishful thinking than of realistic understanding of the limits of Iraq's existing economic system. Fiscal and monetary measures are inadequate as controls for the process of transition to a terrorist threat-free economy. Insufficient attention has been paid to the political acceptability of the objectives of the proposed conversion models, as well as of the political means to be employed in effectuating a transition. No serious consideration has been given, in any proposed conversion plan, to the fundamental nonmilitary function of war and armaments in modern society, nor has any explicit attempt been made to devise a viable substitute for it.


It is the incorrect assumption that war, as an institution, is subordinate to the social systems it is believed to serve.

The point is that the cliche is not true, and the problems of transition are indeed substantive rather than merely procedural. Although war is "used" as an instrument of national and social policy, such as we saw manifest in the trial of Sadaam, or even in the Kurdistan standoffs, the fact that a society is organized for any degree of readiness for war supersedes its political and economic structure. War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. It is the system which has governed most human societies of record, as it is today. "It is," to quote George W. Bush, "the governance of the United States, and the former modus operandi of a more actionable UN." (taken from the Bush v. Gore debate).

Wars are not "caused" by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies require - and thus bring about - such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social control. It should therefore hardly be surprising that the military institutions in each society claim its highest priorities.

It will be necessary for our government to plan in depth for two general contingencies to achieve its platform in Iraq. The first, and lesser, is the possibility of a viable general peace; the second is the successful continuation of the war system. In our view, careful preparation for the possibility of peace should be extended, not because we take the position that the end of war would necessarily be desirable, if it is in fact possible, but because it may be thrust upon us in some form whether we are ready for it or not. Planning for rationalizing and quantifying the war system, on the other hand, to ensure the effectiveness of its major stabilizing functions, is not only more promising in respect to anticipated results, but is essential; we can no longer take for granted that it will continue to serve our purposes well merely because it always has. The objective of government policy in regard to war and peace, in this period of uncertainty, must be to preserve maximum options. The recommendations which follow are directed to this end.

I think, as a result, the reinstatement of the draft is vital in transutilizing the bilateral unification of Iraq, and the utilitarian support of the UN is vital to the monosaturation of our ideals.

[Merryprankster]

My point, Mega-Fist, which you seem to have misconstrued, is two-fold:


1. There are far simpler ways to get and secure oil supplies than going to war in a country wracked by sectarian divisions that we were WELL aware of prior to invasion, especially when that country is stuck in the middle of a region that is at best hostile to US policy.

2. Having control of the oil doesn't do **** for price and availability because oil is a commodity and behaves like one in the international market place.


Neither of these two points excludes the understanding that without oil in the ME, the politics of this would be much much simpler (the ME is still geo-stragically important, even without oil), and our interest would be lower.

Of course, since your primary purpose is to troll about things you have next to zero expertise on, I'm really making this post for people who aren't completely mental twats.

Incidentally, I believe you or somebody else used the post-modern essay generator to build that essay you posted.

[Mega-Foot]

My point, Mega-Fist, which you seem to have misconstrued, is two-fold:


1. There are far simpler ways to get and secure oil supplies than going to war in a country wracked by sectarian divisions that we were WELL aware of prior to invasion, especially when that country is stuck in the middle of a region that is at best hostile to US policy.

I agree. It's a shame that the region surrounding Iraq is so hostile to US presence and policy. They think we're there for the oil, when clearly we are not. The legitimate presence of a nuclear threat, although not yet legitimized, and publicly announced by the US Government, alhough not yet legitimized as a public announcemnt, and often discouraged by Bush's cabinetry, is enough to convince me. Case closed.

You're right. It would be much easier to attack Alaska and take its oil resources. And they wouldn't even see it coming.


2. Having control of the oil doesn't do **** for price and availability because oil is a commodity and behaves like one in the international market place.

I've said this so many times in public debate, I can't even count the times I've done so. Oil is a commodity. It's not a natural resource. It's all supply and demand. I'd only differ on your classification of the "international marketplace" and substitute "transnational marketplace," simply because it crosses economic lines in manufacture and production, rather than acting as a free-for-all, in the manner of a flea market.



Neither of these two points excludes the understanding that without oil in the ME, the politics of this would be much much simpler (the ME is still geo-stragically important, even without oil), and our interest would be lower.



The nuclear threat in Pakistan; the hositlity in Iran. It certainly has a lot to do with Iraq, I agree. I don't know why you're so hostile towards me. (I excerpted the rant you so uneloquently tagged onto your reply). Is it because my partner owns a BP station, and you think I have possession of precious oil resources?

[Merryprankster]

You've just made my point about trolling. Totally incapable of actually constructing an argument, just a sarcastic *****. Done with you.

[Mega-Foot]

Why bother trying to reason with people who don't believe in facts?
Later

Why bother trying to argue with people who have no reason to believe in facts?
Later.

[jo]

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

What are you smoking?

Do you actually believe that that Iraqi's like us for blowing the crap out of thier country, bringing chaos and death around every corner?

-jo

[cruz]

this is a kung fu forum not a gov forum the hell with bush and the goverment they are trash they are the most worst and worthless

[BoulderDawg]

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

The puppet government that Bush set up in Iraq is our friend. The people see us as oppressors and terrorists in our own right.

Also "A nation on the rise"?..............:D :D :D Do you mean all that smoke that rises from the bombs the Americans drop on the people?

********************

A political side note: Bode Miller has been making the news a lot this week. We all know that Bode (and his family) are all free spirits and extremely liberal. This has resulted in the death of Bode's cousin. It appears the cousin was defending himself against a cop that he had had trouble with before. The man was simply defending himself in fear for his life against this cop when he was shot by a third party.

I guess if you're a liberal you're not even suppose to drive down the street.

[Sang Feng Fan]

But why did US Government took a piece of land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews?

Never happened, try again. Britain created Palestine. The UN declared Israel legit.

Before that Palestine was an informal name for the hotly contested area, the tribes referred to as Palestinian are actually low level tribes of the Arab social order, exploited mostly for labor and not ethnically Arab.

The area has never been under Palestinian control, never. The British turned it over to Israel because they were the best qualified and because at the time it seemed like no one could possibly treat the tribes worse than the Arabs had.

The fight over the area is funded by Arabian countries which do not themselves afford equal rights to Palestinians in their own countries. Arab nations have committed crimes against them a on a far greater scale than Israel has ever been accused of. Including but not limited to extermination, internment, slavery, assassination of tribal leaders and exile. Syria has a very long history of exploiting these peoples that goes back before the Ottoman rule, which pre-dates the British by a long shot.

[wind draft]

Merrypranker: What is it that I said made me lose credibilty?

I never said oil was the reason why we are in IRAQ.

Refining oil cost major money.. Oil supply limited, the thought of limited supplies bring prices up. There way many reasons...

But I never said oil is the reason why we are in IRAQ.


Sang Feng Fan: Thanks for proving me wrong.

[Fu-Pow]

My point, Mega-Fist, which you seem to have misconstrued, is two-fold:


1. There are far simpler ways to get and secure oil supplies than going to war in a country wracked by sectarian divisions that we were WELL aware of prior to invasion, especially when that country is stuck in the middle of a region that is at best hostile to US policy.

There is a limited supply of oil in the world. The middle east is rich in it, that's why we keep meddling and ****ing things up in that region. If we didn't go into Iraq for oil than for what? WMDs? Give me a ****ing break. It doesn't take a geologist to figure this **** out.



2. Having control of the oil doesn't do **** for price and availability because oil is a commodity and behaves like one in the international market place.

What are you a ****ing economist? Don't come in to this discussion claiming some expertise that you don't have. Oil quite literally runs the world. No oil and the economy stops working. Thats hardly the same as pork bellys or coffee. Its not your typical commodity. Basically oil companies can charge what ever the market will tolerate because we have ZERO alternatives.



Neither of these two points excludes the understanding that without oil in the ME, the politics of this would be much much simpler (the ME is still geo-stragically important, even without oil), and our interest would be lower.

How is the middle east geo-stragically? important without oil? Maybe back in Marco Polos days it was. Now its just a desolate 3rd world place with a bunch of oil Without the oil it wouldn't be economically important.



Of course, since your primary purpose is to troll about things you have next to zero expertise on, I'm really making this post for people who aren't completely mental twats.

Again what is your expertise? What degrees do you hold in economics, political science, geography, etc. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but argumentum ad hominem is just plain lazy.



Incidentally, I believe you or somebody else used the post-modern essay generator to build that essay you posted.

I think you used the Neo-con essay generator to build that line. Do you work for the heritage foundation or something? Neo-cons have pretty much been wrong about everything up to and including Iraq.

FP

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

What are you a ****ing economist? Don't come in to this discussion claiming some expertise that you don't have. Oil quite literally runs the world. No oil and the economy stops working. Thats hardly the same as pork bellys or coffee. Its not your typical commodity. Basically oil companies can charge what ever the market will tolerate because we have ZERO alternatives.

Reply]
Actually, Oil is traded on the Futures market just like Pork Bellies and Coffee. The markets decide the price. When demand goes up, or supply goes down this causes a rise in price. If demand drops, or suppplies are eccessive, the price goes down.

You wanna see gass at $.075 a gallon again? Put everyone in electric powered cars. When millions of people suddenly don't buy gass anymore, there will be a supply surpluss and gass prices will become dirt cheap again.

As it is now, we are headed into the summer driving season, so gass will undoubtedly go up.

The weekly chart on Crude Oil is at a pivital point right now. if this sport level holds through next week, your best bet would be to buy NY Light Sweet Crude Oil Fututres, and NY Unleaded gassoline. One or 2 contracts in each may very well make you a year's pay this summer.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If you would like to follow Oil and Gass prices yourself, here is an excellent free charting service. Be sure to check out their educational sections.

http://tfc-charts.w2d.com/menu.html

[Matrix]

Actually, Oil is traded on the Futures market just like Pork Bellies and Coffee. The markets decide the price. When demand goes up, or supply goes down this causes a rise in price. If demand drops, or suppplies are eccessive, the price goes down.
This is a overly simplistic view of markets, IMO. Especially with respect to Oil. There are many factors that affect oil prices and complicate the basic supply and demand model. Hurricanes in the Gulf, OPEC and geo-politically charged events from the middle east (i.e.Iran's nuclear progam) to Venezuela.

Just a thought.

Peace

[Merryprankster]

What is it that I said made me lose credibilty?

You got basic history wrong.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

This is a overly simplistic view of markets, IMO. Especially with respect to Oil. There are many factors that affect oil prices and complicate the basic supply and demand model. Hurricanes in the Gulf, OPEC and geo-politically charged events from the middle east (i.e.Iran's nuclear progam) to Venezuela.

Just a thought.

Reply]
All of those things distill down into either a shortening of the supplies, or a precieved/fear of a supply shortage, which makes the price go up. It really IS that simple.

My win/loss ration is at 100% wins, and is allways over 80% when the industry standard is 60% There is a reason for that. That reason is that I understand the simplicity of the whole thing, where as everyone esles wants to over complicate it.

[Merryprankster]

Basically oil companies can charge what ever the market will tolerate because we have ZERO alternatives.


The above brings a quotation to mind:

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."

Fact: We need oil.
Fact #2: Oil producing nations need the revenue stream even more.

Also, since you don't know what expertise I do or don't have, I would recommend you STFU on this particular issue. I'm not an oil market analyst, but I have a pretty good handle on oil in geo-politics, thank you very much. I won't tell you how to be a 6'8" 300+ lbs guy, and where to find the best breakfast in Seattle, and you don't tell me what I do and don't know - agreed?

Most oil producing countries are caught in a catch-22.

1. They have a single-sector economy or close to it, making them very vulnerable to market swings on oil.

2. Because the country is built on oil, it's easy for an authoritarian government to take charge of the economy. One sector, one product, one "means of production." Contrast that with trying to manage the various sectors and subsectors of a country like Canada, Germany, Russia, the US, etc.

3. Those authoritarian governments have a tendency to buy off their population with huge social spending to avoid revolution.

4. That huge social spending means that they have to continue producing revenue, ie, selling oil, which means they can't use the money to diversify and modernize.

5. #4 tends to get worse over time, because oil is finite, production costs rise, and populations keep growing, along with the populations' material EXPECTATIONS. So, even if the price of oil rises, and you make more per barrel, you still have to deal with increased costs, that you may or may not be able to meet.

If you assume (correctly) that the #1 priority of an authoritarian government is to stay in power and maintain the current socio-political structure, then its quite clear that revenue generation is their primary concern. And you can only get that by selling your oil at a cost the market will tolerate. Otherwise, volume drops and revenue goes down in the aggregate.

It is no accident that the most oil poor nations in the gulf are the ones with the greatest economic, social and political reforms underway....

Further, it is also unwise to sell the oil at particularly high "above market" cost for a couple of other reasons.

1. Most oil producing nations - or at least the ones we tend to worry about - have little to no refining capacity. A drastic increase in oil price results in a drastic increase in petroleum distillate cost. Most authoritarian oil producing countries have exceptionally cheap gas...which they have to import from places like the US and China and subsidize for their populace. Why do they have such cheap gas? You try explaining to an entire people, some of whom have little to no education, that you have ****loads of oil, but gasoline is expensive....In fact, that little bit of information sucks up a major chunk of Iran's budget.

2. Apart from the other reasons I just outlined, another incentive to NOT raise oil prices significantly is alternative energy. You do NOT want oil-dependent countries finally reaching a point where it is more sensible for them to shift their energy infrastructure and energy consumption to another energy form, or multiple energy forms. That reduces your market share, and the sunk cost of infrastructure change discourages a quick switch back to oil, so you're stuck with it. Decreased market share = decreased revenue potential over time.

Now, some of this (but not the energy switch parts) would be immaterial if all the oil producing nations had the political will to stick it to the rest of the world, but they don't. MOST oil no longer comes out of OPEC, which means that non-ME concerns now play a huge role. OPEC can no longer try and dictate output because other countries outside OPEC will be more than happy to fill in the gap if they have the production capacity to do so. In fact, most OPEC countries overproduce, in terms of field health and in terms of quota precisely because they know all this.

Oh yeah, that reminds me - and if they have to fill in that gap long enough, there is incentive to retool the refineries to optimize for what may be a different type of oil. So again, you have to deal with the sunk costs of infrastructure issue, before switching back...so....even more potential for lost market share.

In the case of the US in particular, the majority of our oil does not come from ME sources. Interesting, eh?

None of this is designed to say we don't "need" oil. Clearly, we do. However, for us, high energy prices are an inconvenience that could shave several points off of our economic growth, possibly even triggering a recession, at least until alternatives caught up. By contrast, consistently "above price" oil represents an existential threat to many of the oil producing nations regimes.

So, in conclusion, it looks like: Merryprankster 1, Fu-Pow - ****ing pwned like a *****.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Merryprankster,
Well said, especially bringing up the fact that OPEC has competition from other sources (Venezwalia for example).

The real question, is how long will it take before alternative fules and energies become prevelant enough to bring the cost of oil back down to earth?

I really believe that once we covert to all electric cars, we will never go back. It's going to be very interesting trading wise. I think some good plays in the futures & options markets could make one very wealthy if oil goes into a long term down trend due to the electric car.

[Merryprankster]

The real question, is how long will it take before alternative fules and energies become prevelant enough to bring the cost of oil back down to earth?

Hmmmm.... I think Venezuela is an OPEC Member, but the point still stands.

I don't think that oil will be coming back down to earth. I think the general trend in real prices will continue to rise, making alternative energy more and more attractive.

Oil is going to lose market share over time. I think the question is how much share and how quickly, and I think that is going to depend on some serious technological breakthroughs.

Personally, I am terribly interested in the potential of cellulosic ethanol and the development of full spectrum solar cells. Hell, we get reasonably cheap, sturdy, full spectrum solar cells and energy questions essentially disappear IMO, along with agriculture and water concerns. If you have cheap nearly limitless energy like that, energy expensive methods of agriculture and stuff like desalination becomes cake.

[Fu-Pow]

The above brings a quotation to mind:

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."

Which brings to mind a quote from my earlier post "argumentum ad hominem is just plain lazy."

Fact: We need oil.
Fact #2: Oil producing nations need the revenue stream even more.


Also, since you don't know what expertise I do or don't have, I would recommend you STFU on this particular issue. I'm not an oil market analyst, but I have a pretty good handle on oil in geo-politics, thank you very much.

Bullshi...you're chastising other posters in this thread and claiming some kind of expertise over them. Don't try to represent your OPINION as superior to others unless your willing to back that up with credentials or some kind of special training that makes your opinion carry more weight.



I won't tell you how to be a 6'8" 300+ lbs guy, and where to find the best breakfast in Seattle, and you don't tell me what I do and don't know - agreed?

Dude, you can't even get your facts straight...I'm 6'7" 260.....geesh!!!;)




Most oil producing countries are caught in a catch-22.

1. They have a single-sector economy or close to it, making them very vulnerable to market swings on oil.

2. Because the country is built on oil, it's easy for an authoritarian government to take charge of the economy. One sector, one product, one "means of production." Contrast that with trying to manage the various sectors and subsectors of a country like Canada, Germany, Russia, the US, etc.

3. Those authoritarian governments have a tendency to buy off their population with huge social spending to avoid revolution.

4. That huge social spending means that they have to continue producing revenue, ie, selling oil, which means they can't use the money to diversify and modernize.

5. #4 tends to get worse over time, because oil is finite, production costs rise, and populations keep growing, along with the populations' material EXPECTATIONS. So, even if the price of oil rises, and you make more per barrel, you still have to deal with increased costs, that you may or may not be able to meet.

If you assume (correctly) that the #1 priority of an authoritarian government is to stay in power and maintain the current socio-political structure, then its quite clear that revenue generation is their primary concern. And you can only get that by selling your oil at a cost the market will tolerate. Otherwise, volume drops and revenue goes down in the aggregate.

It is no accident that the most oil poor nations in the gulf are the ones with the greatest economic, social and political reforms underway....

Further, it is also unwise to sell the oil at particularly high "above market" cost for a couple of other reasons.

1. Most oil producing nations - or at least the ones we tend to worry about - have little to no refining capacity. A drastic increase in oil price results in a drastic increase in petroleum distillate cost. Most authoritarian oil producing countries have exceptionally cheap gas...which they have to import from places like the US and China and subsidize for their populace. Why do they have such cheap gas? You try explaining to an entire people, some of whom have little to no education, that you have ****loads of oil, but gasoline is expensive....In fact, that little bit of information sucks up a major chunk of Iran's budget.

2. Apart from the other reasons I just outlined, another incentive to NOT raise oil prices significantly is alternative energy. You do NOT want oil-dependent countries finally reaching a point where it is more sensible for them to shift their energy infrastructure and energy consumption to another energy form, or multiple energy forms. That reduces your market share, and the sunk cost of infrastructure change discourages a quick switch back to oil, so you're stuck with it. Decreased market share = decreased revenue potential over time.

Now, some of this (but not the energy switch parts) would be immaterial if all the oil producing nations had the political will to stick it to the rest of the world, but they don't. MOST oil no longer comes out of OPEC, which means that non-ME concerns now play a huge role. OPEC can no longer try and dictate output because other countries outside OPEC will be more than happy to fill in the gap if they have the production capacity to do so. In fact, most OPEC countries overproduce, in terms of field health and in terms of quota precisely because they know all this.

Oh yeah, that reminds me - and if they have to fill in that gap long enough, there is incentive to retool the refineries to optimize for what may be a different type of oil. So again, you have to deal with the sunk costs of infrastructure issue, before switching back...so....even more potential for lost market share.

In the case of the US in particular, the majority of our oil does not come from ME sources. Interesting, eh?

None of this is designed to say we don't "need" oil. Clearly, we do. However, for us, high energy prices are an inconvenience that could shave several points off of our economic growth, possibly even triggering a recession, at least until alternatives caught up. By contrast, consistently "above price" oil represents an existential threat to many of the oil producing nations regimes.

So, in conclusion, it looks like: Merryprankster 1, Fu-Pow - ****ing pwned like a *****.

That's a very nice little thesis but what does that have to do with your original point which was that we DIDN'T invade Iraq for oil? BTW, I never thought that Iraq was PURELY for oil, I think it has to do with money that goes to military contractors as well. Either way you slice it, its immoral.

Ooooh....MP pwned like the little ***** his momma made him.

FP

[Merryprankster]

Sigh....


We didn't invade Iraq for the oil because the market sets the price...not the owner of the commodity.

"Owning" it (which we don't) wouldn't do a us a **** bit of good. There's absolutely no benefit to us, unless we actually took over a monopolistic share of oil production around the world.

Now if you want, you can claim a profiteering conspiracy between *insert bad-faith actors here* but there's no actual evidence to back it up, just speculation from angry ideologues with suspect gray matter...

ie, a war was started to drive oil prices up and increase profits for *pick evil-bad-ceo-corporation-politician here*, but if that's where your argument is headed, forget it. I don't buy into Fahrenheit 9/11 style-reasoning, unless there's actual, real, evidence to back it up. And so far all I've seen is "Bush knows some guys in the oil business!" Oh, the horror!

Oh and if you can't see the ME's geostrategic importance (Location, location, location) even without oil, I can't help you.

Suez Canal too.

[Merryprankster]

LOL BTW about me being a Neo-Con...

I'm against the Death Penalty.
I'm pro-choice
I'm anti-war
I'm pro-higher taxation
I'm pro-increased social spending across a range of issues, etc.

What you really object to, it appears, is that I don't HATE Bush or think America is the root of all problems in the world.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Oil is going to lose market share over time. I think the question is how much share and how quickly, and I think that is going to depend on some serious technological breakthroughs.

Reply]
I think we already have the breakthroughs. There are electric cars that do 0-60 faster than most gas powered cars, with similar travel ranges as well.

I was reading somewhere that we now have a "Spray on" Solar cell "Paint" that is more efficient than the miainstream solar technology. Bringing it to market is just a matter of time now.

Personally, I am terribly interested in the potential of cellulosic ethanol and the development of full spectrum solar cells. Hell, we get reasonably cheap, sturdy, full spectrum solar cells and energy questions essentially disappear IMO, along with agriculture and water concerns. If you have cheap nearly limitless energy like that, energy expensive methods of agriculture and stuff like desalination becomes cake.

Reply]
Yes, it's interesting to see this all evolve.

The problem I see with ethonal as a fuel though is the need for adding MASS acerache to corn production, and that would have to come from the destruction of already endangered ecosystems.

If I were to ferment 5 gallons of Corn, I could distill that down to less than a gallon of burnable fuel for my car. You would need vast amounts of water do do this as well, and breed the yeast on a massive scale as well. It would be a hurculean task, and not really practical. We would be better off going Solar, and useing Crude Oil to make lubricants.

[MasterKiller]

Oil prices in America are more closely affected by refinery capacity than barrel of oil price. There is plenty of oil in the world right now. And oil has been steady at $61/barrel for some time, but prices jumped because several refineries "had to shut down for repairs" all roughly at the same time, which just happened to coincide with warmer weather and thus increased demand.

If anything, the market is manipulated by the refineries, not the countries that actually produce the oil.

[BoulderDawg]

We didn't invade Iraq for the oil because the market sets the price...not the owner of the commodity.

This is not quite true. If the price of gas was left open to the laws of supply and demand the optimum price of gas here in the US would be about $8 a gallon. We're still a couple of dollars a gallon below the price that Americans will even consider alternative transportation.

[Merryprankster]

RD,

You're talking about corn/sugar based ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant and just about any plant part. There are specific enzymatic solutions/processes that they're looking into doing.

[Merryprankster]

If the price of gas was left open to the laws of supply and demand the optimum price of gas here in the US would be about $8 a gallon.

Source? I only ask because Iceland has very expensive gas, to the tune of about $8 per gallon, and that's because of high taxes.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Can they get a much higher amount of pure ethanol that way? and how much additional acerage would be needed to accomodate the fuel requirements of our entire population?

[Merryprankster]

It wouldn't be enough, I don't think, but could be "part of the mix."

I believe estimates are that it would require around 100 million acres to offset 25&#37; of our oil consumption. We have 80M in corn today. So cropland would certainly be an issue. On the upshot, you could grow anything. Wouldn't have to be corn. So plants highly adapted to the natural environment could be cultivated, etc.

For the numbers sake, Corn Ethanol outputs 26% more energy than the inputs, whereas cellulosic is around 80%. It's just too expensive and slow right now.

[wind draft]

Merryprankers:

What are you talking about??>.... Dude.. I should be more specific.. I was a little broad... Dude US.. is in the UN and UN authorized the indpendence state of Israel.

But look dude... It's the only state that is Democracy in the Middle East. Dude it's all part of US Government and Britian plans to globalized the world and plus because of the holocaust and the many killings of Jews the so they basically gave the land to them.

Merrprankers if you don't believe write back and I'll give you my history professor's email and you can forward this whole thing.

IT's bascially like how we came in IRAQ and claim our land and hand it over to the group of IRAQIs that WE want.

[Merryprankster]

Ummm...

What?

I mean, really. That's pretty incoherent. At this point, I'm not trying to be a ****, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying.


Dude it's all part of US Government and Britian plans to globalized the world

Huh?

What history does this professor teach, incidentally?

Also, as rogue pointed out, I would REALLY recommend reading the Balfour declaration, and perhaps some history on the Jewish Enlightenment, the Zionist movement and the beginnings of aliyah.

And the UN didn't "authorize" the formation of Israel. That's really not how this works. The anarchy of the state system means that Israel is a state based on the fact that other states recognize Israel. That's it. Israel got enough countries to recognize it so it's an internationally recognized state. That's how it works.

Now, the UN did recognize Israel, but that's not what establishes it as a state.

[wind draft]

here read this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1998/05/israel.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html

[Merryprankster]

I'm going to guess that I'm far more familiar with the contents of the links you provided than you are.

Still, I'm failing to understand - what's your point? What argument are you trying to make? Pointing me to 3 web articles doesn't help me understand what you are trying to say.

Are you trying to say that Israel receives a lot of US aid? So what?

What does all this un-contexted information MEAN? ie, again, what ARGUMENT are you making?

[golden arhat]

Look, if we had gone in to Iraq and wiped the guy out in one fell swoop ....great! Saddam Hussein was an awful person and had committed many crimes against humanity.




lol its funny how western nations like mine and yours say that assasination is "uncivilised"

yet somehow bombing cities is supposed to be alot better

LOL

weird huh ?

[BoulderDawg]

I'm going to guess that I'm far more familiar with the contents of the links you provided than you are.

Still, I'm failing to understand - what's your point? What argument are you trying to make? Pointing me to 3 web articles doesn't help me understand what you are trying to say.

Are you trying to say that Israel receives a lot of US aid? So what?

What does all this un-contexted information MEAN? ie, again, what ARGUMENT are you making?

Why should this guy have to make you understand his point of view. I think as a courtesy he gave you links.

As for me I could really care less whether or not anyone understand or agrees/disagrees with my viewpoint.

[Mega-Foot]

lol its funny how western nations like mine and yours say that assasination is "uncivilised"

yet somehow bombing cities is supposed to be alot better

LOL

weird huh ?

Look here, Golden Arhat. We gave Sadaam a trial in Iraqi courts, and he had a fair trial from an unbiased jury, and received a humane punishment in the end. We didn't assassinate him by turning him over to the authorities. He had every opportunity to clear his name and weasel out with a minor sentence.

But he was guilty, and guilty parties hang in Iraq. That's civilization, my friend.

[rogue]

Merryprankers:

What are you talking about??>.... Dude.. I should be more specific.. I was a little broad... Dude US.. is in the UN and UN authorized the indpendence state of Israel.

But look dude... It's the only state that is Democracy in the Middle East. Dude it's all part of US Government and Britian plans to globalized the world and plus because of the holocaust and the many killings of Jews the so they basically gave the land to them.

Merrprankers if you don't believe write back and I'll give you my history professor's email and you can forward this whole thing.

IT's bascially like how we came in IRAQ and claim our land and hand it over to the group of IRAQIs that WE want.

Nothing like using the word "Dude" numerous times to bolster your argument. It just gives a person a certain extra gravitas.:D

Fred wrote:

lol its funny how western nations like mine and yours say that assasination is "uncivilised"

yet somehow bombing cities is supposed to be alot better

LOL

weird huh ?

I'm all for the limited use of assassination, and believe that we should have used it early on in Iraq against certain persons who are now causing trouble. But I have to ask who is blowing people up now? It's not the US or Brits.

[Mega-Foot]

Nothing like using the word "Dude" numerous times to bolster your argument. It just gives a person a certain extra gravitas.:D

Fred wrote:


I'm all for the limited use of assassination, and believe that we should have used it early on in Iraq against certain persons who are now causing trouble. But I have to ask who is blowing people up now? It's not the US or Brits.

So what are you trying to say? The Dutch are our friends and allies!

[rogue]

LOL BTW about me being a Neo-Con...

I'm against the Death Penalty.
I'm pro-choice
I'm anti-war
I'm pro-higher taxation
I'm pro-increased social spending across a range of issues, etc.

What you really object to, it appears, is that I don't HATE Bush or think America is the root of all problems in the world.

Sooner or later it happens in every thread MP.:D

BTW

I'm for the Death Penalty.
I'm pro-life
I believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil.
I'm pro-lower taxation
I'm anti-increased social spending across a range of issues, etc.

I'm disappointed in Bush but still support him, and I also don't think America is the root of all problems in the world.

Oddly enough MP and I can somehow carry on without calling each other names.

[laugarkuen]

Look here, Golden Arhat. We gave Sadaam a trial in Iraqi courts, and he had a fair trial from an unbiased jury,

How could he possibly have a fair trial with an unbiased jury in Iraq? Was there anyone in that country that had not been affected by him, probably for the worst?



and received a humane punishment in the end. We didn't assassinate him by turning him over to the authorities. He had every opportunity to clear his name and weasel out with a minor sentence.

But he was guilty, and guilty parties hang in Iraq. That's civilization, my friend.

Killing someone who is healthy in body (probably not in mind) is never humane. And humane to whom? He had not harmed the US or UK. If the Iraqi people had risen up and killed him then that would have been just, not humane.

His trial and execution were more humane however than the way he acted towards his own people.

That said, as GA commented, it would have been better for him to be assasinated than the loss of life suffered by the many innocents who were bombed by us.

[rogue]

So what are you trying to say? The Dutch are our friends and allies!

I think you're being too clever, please clarify what ever point you're trying to make.:confused:

[golden arhat]

So what are you trying to say? The Dutch are our friends and allies!

im gonna use sumat from fux's sig

I DARE U TO MAKE LESS SENSE !!!!!!!!

[laugarkuen]

So what are you trying to say? The Dutch are our friends and allies!

That is more random than me :eek:

[laugarkuen]

Unless you have decided to be a temp Brit in which case yes they are our friends and allies.

Your point?

[rogue]

Killing someone who is healthy in body (probably not in mind) is never humane. And humane to whom? He had not harmed the US or UK. If the Iraqi people had risen up and killed him then that would have been just, not humane.
He tried to assassinate a US president.


That said, as GA commented, it would have been better for him to be assasinated than the loss of life suffered by the many innocents who were bombed by us.
We didn't bomb that many people and tried very hard to avoid collateral damage when going after legitimate targets.

[rogue]

im gonna use sumat from fux's sig

I DARE U TO MAKE LESS SENSE !!!!!!!!

Wow Fred, he's even made us agree.:D

[laugarkuen]

He tried to assassinate a US president.

[/qoute]

and failed. It was also quite a while ago. Did people forget to do anything about it for a while?


We didn't bomb that many people and tried very hard to avoid collateral damage when going after legitimate targets.

I was commenting on the supposition that it would have been better to assainate him rather than go to war and bomb alot of innocents.

Hopefully we do try hard not to kill people by accident and it is unavoidable in war. It is also likely that due to bad judgement caused by stress, high spirits, blood lust and bad intellegence alot of people died who should not have.

[golden arhat]

RD,

You're talking about corn/sugar based ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant and just about any plant part. There are specific enzymatic solutions/processes that they're looking into doing.

what would do more damage

the supposed "damage" that oil and co2 does to the "environment"

or

the large quantities of forests everywhere that would have to be chopped down to make way for these fuel crops

i mean think about it

the demand for 2 things has recently gone up

1 hamburgers

2 palm oil

what was the first thing that happpened

they chopped down huge quantities of rain forest
why ?
to raise cattle and grow crops

now think
how much oil does the world use on its various industries, cars,wars etc

by the end of our battle to save the planet

we will have ended up destroying everything that made it worth saving

[rogue]

Hopefully we do try hard not to kill people by accident and it is unavoidable in war. It is also likely that due to bad judgement caused by stress, high spirits, blood lust and bad intellegence alot of people died who should not have.

Assassination of a leader such as Sadaam could have resulted in a full blown civil war and led to an even worse situation for the Iraqi people. At least that's one possibility or several. But we have to deal with the hand we picked.

[golden arhat]

Wow Fred, he's even made us agree.:D

its like the twilight zone


do dododdodododooodooodoodoo

[laugarkuen]

Assassination of a leader such as Sadaam could have resulted in a full blown civil war and led to an even worse situation for the Iraqi people. At least that's one possibility or several. But we have to deal with the hand we picked.

Couldn't agree more.

Doesn't mean I won't argue to expand ideas.

[golden arhat]

Assassination of a leader such as Sadaam could have resulted in a full blown civil war and led to an even worse situation for the Iraqi people. At least that's one possibility or several. .how could the situation in iraq possibly get any worse ?
i mean what they have now is pretty **** close to a acivilwar in my book
But we have to deal with the hand we picked.

yes the hand WE picked

[Merryprankster]

I think as a courtesy he gave you links.


To three loosely connected articles that I am trying to understand in some kind of context.

What's his point?

What's the point of communication at all if you adopt the stance you do about it?

[Mega-Foot]

what would do more damage

the supposed "damage" that oil and co2 does to the "environment"

or

the large quantities of forests everywhere that would have to be chopped down to make way for these fuel crops

i mean think about it

the demand for 2 things has recently gone up

1 hamburgers

2 palm oil

what was the first thing that happpened

they chopped down huge quantities of rain forest
why ?
to raise cattle and grow crops

now think
how much oil does the world use on its various industries, cars,wars etc

by the end of our battle to save the planet

we will have ended up destroying everything that made it worth saving

It seems readily apparent that the overpopulation of the earth by the human animal and its manape economics has created an imbalance in the ecosystem, more so than any other animal. Perhaps we ought to adopt China's One Child Policy. After all, in first world countries, we only have children for emotional support and reassurance. With the dissolution of the family structure, and socio-political social security actions in place, one doesn't need to rely on family for welfare in life. Pollution wouldn't be a problem with a less populated society.

According to the precepts of evolution, natural selection, and such, we're fated for a massive downsizing sooner or later, either by disease, or loss of natural resources (and ecological effects of pollution will assure us of this loss).

Humans don't have much longer at the rater they're reproducing. So do us all a favor, and stop ****ing around, people.

This is one of the reasons I don't allow women at my Shao-lin Ninjitsu commune.

[rogue]

Wow, you put Norm Crosby to shame.:eek:

[Mega-Foot]

I've never met him. And I resent the implication that I bear any ill-will towards someone I don't know and have never heard of.

As a side-note, I think you are a pompous ass.

[rogue]

I've heard that before, but coming from the leading troll on the forum it loses it's sting.

[wind draft]

Merrprankers:

What's the point? There was no point... You jumped and said I have no credibility and I asked why that's all.

You didn't understand what I was "tryin" to sayin the "broad sense" so I tried to explain so you understand. Wasn't tryin to make any point or say anything buddy.

And DUDE is just how I talk, nothing to reinforce my words.

British did not create Palestine.. They occupied the land, just like America and British trying to take over the world.. We know its all about money, power, and religion.

First off, it's linked to Christians because British and Americans started from the same religion, and Israel today is a holy land for all three religion. Make sense to impose our idealogy and who we want to control what..

So they all decide Israel to get the land. So because we are in IRAQ and the world recognizes that Saddam is bad so we take him out?? Why aren't we takin out North Korea or China?

Basically we went in there and still took their land just like IRAQ.

Israel at the time had a mad rush or people "Jewish" why?? Because of Germany, HItler so UN had to figure out where to place all these Jews...

Are you serious... man did you go to college merryprankers? this is just a question.

dude and my professor is professor kenneth lawson and he's a political science and history teacher at my college..

USA and FIrst world countries had already figure this.. It's globalization and setting democracy in placed where there is no democracy so the domino effect occur. One country become democracy and other surrounding countries follow. That's one reason why they gave the land to Israel. ANd when you said UN.. It's bascially the same.. Who runs UN?

And that's why IRAQ now. It's part of a geo-political strategy to convert the world to capitalist. Just like the inquisition converting people to Christians.

Merryprankers and the other one that was saying I don't know what I'm talkin about.. I think sometimes we agree on the same thing, but the messages in the words are hidden because there is no tone, dialouge, or expression.

Now I'd like to know what credibiliity you have.. LIke I mean education.. I'm not makin things up so yeahh.. Where did you go to school?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Look here, Golden Arhat. We gave Sadaam a trial in Iraqi courts, and he had a fair trial from an unbiased jury, and received a humane punishment in the end. We didn't assassinate him by turning him over to the authorities. He had every opportunity to clear his name and weasel out with a minor sentence.

But he was guilty, and guilty parties hang in Iraq. That's civilization, my friend.

Ok, now that's funny.

[wind draft]

Why does everyone think SAddaam is badd?? Maybe he was.. but the people he killed, tried to murder him. Plus, they killed his family so retalitate.

Saddam did not get a fair trial.. that's what they want us to think...

Dude this forum needs to stop talkin about political issues, becuase it's mostly people's opinions on here.. Even Merrprankers talkin smack.. All his opinions..

I'm going elsewhere to talk about political science... Oh wait, my classroom in college instead of wasting my time talkin to people who say I don't know what i"m talkin about...

These people are the same that says OJ is innocent when he was first accused...

OMG..

[unkokusai]

I'm going elsewhere to talk about political science... Oh wait, my classroom in college .



Good idea, go learn something first.

[wind draft]

yeah I'll learn something no kung fu from you..

haha.. just playing..

what is stfu?

[unkokusai]

what is stfu?



Its what you should do until after you finish your education.

[wind draft]

and what's that since you know everything..haha

[unkokusai]

and what's that since you know everything..haha

If you can't figure out what STFU means, you need to get your money back from Joe's Jr College and Grill and start over somewhere else.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I hear they have good Burgers there.

[wind draft]

and what's that since you know everything..haha

and read these:: This is why I said what I said=.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_War_of_Independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936-1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

just so you know in the medieterran sea.. there is a huge supply of natural gas.... let see here??>.. any brainer can think right?...


and if you don't want to tell me what stfu you just don't know yourself..

wow is all these "kungfu master" on here so edgy?/..

[unkokusai]

You are citing Wiki-F-ing-pedia as your source? No wonder you can't figure out something so simple.

Maybe you should take a few extra classes, maybe a summer program back in whatever high school you dropped out of?

[wind draft]

what are you talkin about?... I had links before that wasn't wiki.. but have you read the links I posted?.. I don't get... All I said was basically USA had interests in allow Palestine land be divided in two Palestine and Israel. And that the population of Jews rose after the Holocaust, giving more reason to legitmize that land to be divided so the Jews would have an establish state.

What is wrong with that?....

Plus I was talkin to merrprankers..Wikipedia said basically what I said...

Unkokusai you jumped on the band wagon and decided to open your mouth and said : Good idea, go learn something

[golden arhat]

stfu means shut the fu ck up

and please do

[laugarkuen]

stfu means shut the fu ck up

and please do

No please don't WD, though please do read over your posts (if only quickly) before posting them. Just to iron out the spelling etc. It would make them much easier to follow.

My spelling is terribul but I do try to make my posts readable.

[Merryprankster]

My opinions are at least grounded in research. I'm not going to play the "who knows more game."

Again, you lack credibility because you got basic history wrong. It's that simple. You also miscast the role of the UN. That's a related but different issue. If you're going to develop an opinion, you owe it to everybody to research and come to a decison.

I'm a lot of things, but poorly informed on this issue is not one of them. Some of the people here find me abrasive, aggressive, arrogant, etc. But not even the heaviest of my detractors will ever accuse me of not having a solid grasp of the subject I'm choosing to write about. By contrast, it appears that even when you are right, you manage to be right despite shoddy research.


All I said was basically USA had interests in allow Palestine land be divided in two Palestine and Israel. And that the population of Jews rose after the Holocaust, giving more reason to legitmize that land to be divided so the Jews would have an establish state.


FINALLY something that at least makes some sort of sense. And I don't disagree with it at all. The population of Jews did rise after the holocaust. But your history is still flawed. The Zionist movement was well in swing before the holocaust and WWII, and significant numbers of Jews were moving to Palestine before anything started going sour in Europe. The history of Israel did not begin at the end of the holocaust.

Feel free to go somewhere else and argue international politics, though. Trust me when I tell you you won't be missed, if this is the level of discourse we can expect from you.

[FuXnDajenariht]

im gonna use sumat from fux's sig

I DARE U TO MAKE LESS SENSE !!!!!!!!


thank you...

thank you...

i've been quoted atleast once. my work here is done. :D