NationStates Jolt Archive

After seeing a Bush campaign commercial, that mentioned US troops in Iraq "defending America", I have to ask...

How in any way shape or form are we "defending America" by the war in Iraq?

If Saddam had no WMD's...and therefore no way to attack us, how were we ever in any danger from Iraq?

If Saddam had no links to Al Qeada, and even Colin Powell agrees this may be the case.....how were we in any danger from Iraq?

This is no disrespect meant to the troops over there....but we are NOT "defending american freedoms" or even America by an illegal and unjust war that the people of Iraq dont even want.

So..what on earth are we doing there?

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

Ummm...defending America by making Bechtel and Halliburton money. How was that defending America, you ask? Same reason that removing environmental regulations defends America. Which is...?
:shock:
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR LEADERS!!!! YOU SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO CAMP X-RAY, YOU TRAITOROUS LIBERAL!!!!!!


Just prepping you for the response this thread will get... :D

That would be the $86 Billion And Counting Dollar Question, really.

Maybe he meant to say "defending American buisiness interests...."

After seeing a Bush campaign commercial, that mentioned US troops in Iraq "defending America", I have to ask...

How in any way shape or form are we "defending America" by the war in Iraq?

If Saddam had no WMD's...and therefore no way to attack us, how were we ever in any danger from Iraq?

If Saddam had no links to Al Qeada, and even Colin Powell agrees this may be the case.....how were we in any danger from Iraq?

This is no disrespect meant to the troops over there....but we are NOT "defending american freedoms" or even America by an illegal and unjust war that the people of Iraq dont even want.

So..what on earth are we doing there?

Psst.. hey come over here, shhhh, don't be talking like that!

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/who2.jpg

While they might not be defending America directly, it could be argued that they are protecting American interests, namely: oil.

While this might not seem like a valid reason (or an effective one judging by the price of gas lately,) try to look at it from a global perspective. Oil is very important to much more than just the US so their SUVs can buzz around California; several nations depend on oil to sustain their economy.

And the US depends on those countries to buy their exports.

Do I agree with the situation in Iraq? No. Do I think the troops should be there? No. Do I blame the troops? By all means, no. Soldiers follow orders. If anything they have my respect for being dedicated enough to want to take such a ludicrous assignment. I’m not trying to push my opinion or attack anyone else’s, but there is much more at stake here than just the US’s “security” and Iraq’s “freedom.”

Oil is a major factor in world affairs. If you recall, not even a decade ago an oil flux in the market (a 2% surplus I think) sent the Asian market into a tailspin that it has yet to fully recover from. Oil is the deal-breaker in diplomacy, and OPEC is now in control of the oil prices that can make or break several emerging nations.

Neither Al-Qada nor Saddam are threats to the US, but OPEC is very much one. Now that the US has it’s boot in the groin of both OPEC and the Middle East, do you think they would want to leave before they got at least a few strings set up to pull before they left?

America is playing for all the marbles this time. If they can shut down OPEC and build a springboard to smite any Middle Eastern nation it views as a “terroristic threat,” then the American Empire will have no rival for a good while.

Try to look at things from a larger picture; even if you don’t agree with what you find, it might start to make more sense.

Everyone knows we need to kill those dirty thrid world citizens. It's (practically) metioned in the bible.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

If creating even more anti-American terrorists and isolating the US further is called 'protecting America'......yes.

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

If creating even more anti-American terrorists and isolating the US further is called 'protecting America'......yes.

Global Peoples,
I fully understand that this conflict is about oil.
but remember that we get more from Venezuela, than Iraq.
The question is if this will change with the new regime.
I think Bush intends to secure oil supply with Iraq..ensuring that an uninterrupted supply can be obtained regardless of OPEC, or political unrest in South America.
As for a staging point....thats a no brainer....we dont have any bases in Saudi Arabia anymore...they kicked us out..so im sure that a Military base is there to stay in Iraq.
What better way to invade Iran if need be?

What I oblect to is the inmplication that this war is about anything other than money, or oil.
This isnt about freedom, or american security......those were never in question.
Only our gas tanks, and economy.

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

Then why is it that those same 25 million people despise our very existance for being there?

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

tell that to the half of those 25 million who are still shooting at us and telling us to go home.

Then why is it that those same 25 million people despise our very existance for being there?

that's funny, I could re-call 82% of Iraqis thanking us for removing Saddam, just cause some of them don't want us ther edoesn't mean they hate us

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

tell that to the half of those 25 million who are still shooting at us and telling us to go home.

yes. Every single on of the....13 or so million Iraqis are shooting at us

Tha'd be WW2 right there, within Iraq

Global Peoples,
I fully understand that this conflict is about oil.
but remember that we get more from Venezuela, than Iraq.
The question is if this will change with the new regime.
I think Bush intends to secure oil supply with Iraq..ensuring that an uninterrupted supply can be obtained regardless of OPEC, or political unrest in South America.
As for a staging point....thats a no brainer....we dont have any bases in Saudi Arabia anymore...they kicked us out..so im sure that a Military base is there to stay in Iraq.
What better way to invade Iran if need be?

What I oblect to is the inmplication that this war is about anything other than money, or oil.
This isnt about freedom, or american security......those were never in question.
Only our gas tanks, and economy.

if GW was so concerned about oil he'd invade Alaska

and besides, why would he try to overthrough Hugo, if anything were he as oil thirtsy as you claim he would stop the revolution. a money hungary gun-buying dictatorship cuold give us oil alot cheaper than the comming left-wing republic ever invariably will.

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

No, the "liberation" message is only the new one..That came AFTER the WMD one fell apart.. now the "liberation" one is falling apart.. stay tuned though, I'm sure they will come up with another good (but dishonest) reason before the election!

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/tokyo.jpg

...but remember that we get more from Venezuela, than Iraq.

Yes, but imagine if we were to have control or a "strong influence" in Iraq, how much oil would we have then?

On a side note, since it's a popular theroy that the war was about oil, would it be a justifiable reason for the invasion if perhaps the oil was to be used to stabalize the economy in developing countries in Africa or South Asia, where getting it from South America might be more hassle than they are capable of headling? Even if the only purpose was to stablize the economy to create a new American market, it would benefit the country. Would that be (although very high-minded and far-fetched) a more justifiable position on the war?

Then why is it that those same 25 million people despise our very existance for being there?

that's funny, I could re-call 82% of Iraqis thanking us for removing Saddam, just cause some of them don't want us ther edoesn't mean they hate us

still doesnt change the fact that we really had no right to go into Iraq. sure, life was and is terrible there, but we dont need to solve all of the worlds "problems." maybe we should be looking inward for problems to fix before we go off and start any more fights.

Then why is it that those same 25 million people despise our very existance for being there?

that's funny, I could re-call 82% of Iraqis thanking us for removing Saddam, just cause some of them don't want us ther edoesn't mean they hate us

Do you not watch the news?

The Iraqi's are now indentifying themselves as pro-Iraqi..by being ANTI U.S.

If you dont realize that they simply dont want us there...your not paying attention.

No, the "liberation" message is only the new one..That came AFTER the WMD one fell apart.. now the "liberation" one is falling apart.. stay tuned though, I'm sure they will come up with another good (but dishonest) reason before the election!

no its not, its been there since 1990

still doesnt change the fact that we really had no right to go into Iraq. sure, life was and is terrible there, but we dont need to solve all of the worlds "problems." maybe we should be looking inward for problems to fix before we go off and start any more fights.

it seems to me that everytime life gets pretty terrible in a white country its our duty to up hold human rights and dignity. but when ever it happens to arabs we have no right to be there.

No, the "liberation" message is only the new one..That came AFTER the WMD one fell apart.. now the "liberation" one is falling apart.. stay tuned though, I'm sure they will come up with another good (but dishonest) reason before the election!

no its not, its been there since 1990

Incorrect.

There was never any mention of "Liberating" Iraq in the first Gulf War.
It was to liberate KUWAIT from Iraqi occupation.

Bush was justified in invading afghanistan but the world turned against him and he destroyed his credibility the day he lied to start an illegal war in Iraq to loot their country for Cheneys employer Halliburton--now Bush is rightly seen as being part of the terrorist problem and not the cure

Then why is it that those same 25 million people despise our very existance for being there?

that's funny, I could re-call 82% of Iraqis thanking us for removing Saddam, just cause some of them don't want us ther edoesn't mean they hate us

wanting to get rid of a dictator isnt the same thing as being happy to be occupied. just because they thought that being tortured and killed wasnt good doesnt mean that they are willing to do whatever the us tells them. they dont want a dictator, but they dont want a secular, puppet government either. its possible to hate both. also, "rescuing" people from a tin-pot dictator doesnt really make the us any safer. and even one enemy created because of an invasion makes the us less safe.

still doesnt change the fact that we really had no right to go into Iraq. sure, life was and is terrible there, but we dont need to solve all of the worlds "problems." maybe we should be looking inward for problems to fix before we go off and start any more fights.

it seems to me that everytime life gets pretty terrible in a white country its our duty to up hold human rights and dignity. but when ever it happens to arabs we have no right to be there.

what white country have we gone to the rescue of recently?

alright, Kosovo. but what else?

still doesnt change the fact that we really had no right to go into Iraq. sure, life was and is terrible there, but we dont need to solve all of the worlds "problems." maybe we should be looking inward for problems to fix before we go off and start any more fights.

it seems to me that everytime life gets pretty terrible in a white country its our duty to up hold human rights and dignity. but when ever it happens to arabs we have no right to be there.

Name two "white countries" that we were invloved in i the last fifty years, that prove your example...

I'll give you one......

Kosovo.

what white country have we gone to the rescue of recently?

starts in a yugo

ends in a slavia

or at least it did, untill America stepped up to plate and removed a brutal human rights violating dictatoarship

still doesnt change the fact that we really had no right to go into Iraq. sure, life was and is terrible there, but we dont need to solve all of the worlds "problems." maybe we should be looking inward for problems to fix before we go off and start any more fights.

it seems to me that everytime life gets pretty terrible in a white country its our duty to up hold human rights and dignity. but when ever it happens to arabs we have no right to be there.

when was the last time we spent 82 billion on any war for human rights? when was the last time we went in without an exit strategy? and why dont we go after pakistan or china or guantanamo bay if you are worried about human rights and diignity?

No, the "liberation" message is only the new one..That came AFTER the WMD one fell apart.. now the "liberation" one is falling apart.. stay tuned though, I'm sure they will come up with another good (but dishonest) reason before the election!

no its not, its been there since 1990

Well, Saddam actually gassed the Kurds in the 80's.. but who's counting.. as for the slap down of the Shia uprising.. well he may of been brutal, but Saddam did have every right, I mean what do you think Bush would do if a group of people tried to over throw the American government? Exactly!

So, all in all if liberation really is the true intent, all I can say is that's one hell of a delayed reaction. Don't kid yourself.. people who need liberation are the people in the Sudan. It's going to be another Rwanda all over again, but they don't have any oil.. so I don't think you're going to see them get any help any time soon. *sigh*

when was the last time we went in without an exit strategy?

Haiti


and why dont we go after pakistan? Because Pakistan can be delt with through diplomatic means, we tried that with Iraq and all we got was a strengthend Iraqi army and 13 years of the oil-for-palaces programe

alright, Kosovo. but what else?

slovinia

what white country have we gone to the rescue of recently?

starts in a yugo

ends in a slavia

or at least it did, untill America stepped up to plate and removed a brutal human rights violating dictatoarship

very good.

Name another.

One ocassion does not exactly set an established precedent.
And were talking about Genocide as the reason for going to Kosovo.

Well, Saddam actually gassed the Kurds in the 80's.. but who's counting.. as for the slap down of the Shia uprising.. well he may of been brutal, but Saddam did have every right, I mean what do you think Bush would do if a group of people tried to over throw the American government? Exactly!

yes I'm sure the demicratic convention in boston is going to end up with the army moving in, rapeing every women in sight, killing all the men under 14 and taknig shots at everybody thats left


people who need liberation are the people in the Sudan. It's going to be another Rwanda all over again

they're next

One ocassion does not exactly set an established precedent.
And were talking about Genocide as the reason for going to Kosovo.

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

when was the last time we went in without an exit strategy?

Haiti

hmm, seems to me we are out of there now. doesnt seem to be quite the quagmire it was supposed to be. and theres no way 500 americans died in the occupation, let alone thousands of civilians.


and why dont we go after pakistan? Because Pakistan can be delt with through diplomatic means, we tried that with Iraq and all we got was a strengthend Iraqi army and 13 years of the oil-for-palaces programe

yeah, because weve really been putting the pressure on pakistan to improve human rights. im sure its our top concern with them. and china, wow, i dont know how they can handle the pressure were putting on them. and guantanamo, wow, all the sanctions we are placing on ourselves, well, the un is just weak letting us get away with it. the point is, there is noooooo way we went in there looking to liberate iraqis. its not like human rights have ever, or will ever be the focus of foreign policy. and im sick of people like you pretending like it is.

il bet anything that by 2010, if Bush has his way, the US will be the first Empire in 150. not counting hitlers germany.

One ocassion does not exactly set an established precedent.
And were talking about Genocide as the reason for going to Kosovo.

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

where on earth did you get that number?

and if your refering to Iraq....why didnt we go in when these mass executions were taking place?

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

That's not what it was about in the beginning. Until the origional purpose of this war, elimination of Iraq's WMDs (if they exist) is met, this war, which we started for that purpose only, is unjustified.

the point is, there is noooooo way we went in there looking to liberate iraqis. its not like human rights have ever, or will ever be the focus of foreign policy. and im sick of people like you pretending like it is.

and you would know this right

you were there in the basement of the pentagon

you were there when GW was making the biggest decision of his life and possibly the post-communist world

you know for sure that the liberation of the Iraqi people had absolutley nothing to do with the war - how?

One ocassion does not exactly set an established precedent.
And were talking about Genocide as the reason for going to Kosovo.

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

where on earth did you get that number?

and if your refering to Iraq....why didnt we go in when these mass executions were taking place?

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

where on earth did you get that number?

and if your refering to Iraq....why didnt we go in when these mass executions were taking place?[/quote]

the ten thousand kosovarian women that were raped and killed as the yuogoslavian army advanced on pristina sparcked the American out cry that lead us down the richious path of war

and I'm insinuation we didn't cause we're a racist people with double standards.

the point is, there is noooooo way we went in there looking to liberate iraqis. its not like human rights have ever, or will ever be the focus of foreign policy. and im sick of people like you pretending like it is.

and you would know this right?

I know it. I'm not sure how old you are.. (not that, that really matters) but I'm 35 years old.. been around for a little while.. I assure you America doesn't do any thing that isn't in some way in their own interest. Certainly not going to war.

One ocassion does not exactly set an established precedent.
And were talking about Genocide as the reason for going to Kosovo.

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

genocide is a systematic killing of people based on an ethnic backgound or religion. so if it is the executions you are talking about, its not a genocide, just another run of the mill dictatorship. if you want to do away with those, youll have to take over about a third of the world, including china. and theres no way we have those kind of resources. so, sorry, no way liberating people will become our foreign policy

getting oil. Bush is "defending" american capitolism by taking iraqi oil and bringing it back here to lower the prices.

yes, it was all about oil, just keep telling yourself it had nothing to to with the unalianable freedoms of 25 million human beings

That's not what it was about in the beginning. Until the origional purpose of this war, elimination of Iraq's WMDs (if they exist) is met, this war, which we started for that purpose only, is unjustified.

In no way am I claiming that the end of Saddam Hussein's regime is a bad thing, anyone can see the abuses he committed. But the ends, especially when they change everytime they are not met, do not justify the means.

Wait a minute... why are you talking about freeing White people as opposed to Arab people from oppression?

I know it. I'm not sure how old you are.. (not that, that really matters) but I'm 35 years old.. been around for a little while.. I assure you America doesn't do any thing that isn't in some way in their own interest. Certainly not going to war.

how do you know that?

how can you possibly justify if even make the sweeping generalization?

Wait a minute... why are you talking about freeing White people as opposed to Arab people from oppression?

I'm saying that when ever white people are in need the country has no problem with sacraficing our blood and treasure to their good

but when we try to do the same for members of another race people always try to come up with more cynical motive, like Iraq being for oil

10,000 white people is genocide and 5 million arabs isn't?

where on earth did you get that number?

and if your refering to Iraq....why didnt we go in when these mass executions were taking place?

the ten thousand kosovarian women that were raped and killed as the yuogoslavian army advanced on pristina sparcked the American out cry that lead us down the richious path of war

and I'm insinuation we didn't cause we're a racist people with double standards.[/quote]

You didnt answer the question.

Where did you get youer numbers from..Ibelieve that 5 million is a gros exageration.
The actual number is closer to 1.5 million..if that.
Still a horrible attrocity....but my point is that we did not step in and get invloved in this when these killings were talking place....so tyour implications that we did so to "liberate" and fight for "the unalienable rights" of the Iraqi's is absurd.

the point is, there is noooooo way we went in there looking to liberate iraqis. its not like human rights have ever, or will ever be the focus of foreign policy. and im sick of people like you pretending like it is.

and you would know this right

you were there in the basement of the pentagon

you were there when GW was making the biggest decision of his life and possibly the post-communist world

you know for sure that the liberation of the Iraqi people had absolutley nothing to do with the war - how?

i saw his flipping press conferences! i saw what he told us on the news. do you just not remember? and if liberation is the only thing weighing on his conscious, or the main thing, then why arent we in libya yet? or sudan? or pakistan? why are we doing this shit in guantanamo if we are all about human rights? name 5 wars that have been about human rights the us has faught. but anyways, back to my point, the reasons he gave in the beginning were never about liberating iuraq, it was about wmd's and severing his ties with al-queda and eliminating an imminant threat. dont let yourself be lied to

genocide is a systematic killing of people based on an ethnic backgound or religion.

systematic rape, pilliaging and murdering of the shia ethnic group that Saddam through threatend him.

not to mention the Kurds. where was the UN then?

Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.

and if liberation is the only thing weighing on his conscious, or the main thing, then why arent we in libya yet? or sudan? or pakistan?

we will be, but our army is only so vast

Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.
LIKE WE DID WITH HIROSHIMA?


Okay, bad example


Still, what can you save after it's all gone? The land? The bullet-riddled, bomb-exploded land?

Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.

Its when you make a habit of it that it becomes problimatic

I know it. I'm not sure how old you are.. (not that, that really matters) but I'm 35 years old.. been around for a little while.. I assure you America doesn't do any thing that isn't in some way in their own interest. Certainly not going to war.

how do you know that?

how can you possibly justify if even make the sweeping generalization?

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things. so, judging by our actions over the years, by analyzing reasons given for going there, and based on memoirs of everyone from kissinger to shwartkoff, it looks like us foreign policy isnt based on human rights, which it shouldnt be. and back to the original point...how the hell does bombing people to protect them make the us any safer?

Wait a minute... why are you talking about freeing White people as opposed to Arab people from oppression?

I'm saying that when ever white people are in need the country has no problem with sacraficing our blood and treasure to their good

but when we try to do the same for members of another race people always try to come up with more cynical motive, like Iraq being for oil

Gotcha.

Who cares why we did it? Who's gonna stop us?

[quote="Schrandtopia"][quote=BackwoodsSquatches]\so, sorry, no way liberating people will become our foreign policy

Iraq, Haiti, Hawaii, Vietnam, Kosovo, North America, and more possibilities coming... Syria, etc...

"Liberation" won't become our foreign policy, because it already is. It's just a question of when it's appropriate.

[quote=The Wageslaves]Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.
LIKE WE DID WITH HIROSHIMA?
Okay, bad example
quote]

no, I'd say hiroshima is a pretty good example, kill a couple thousand japanese so we don't have to kill a couple million

and if liberation is the only thing weighing on his conscious, or the main thing, then why arent we in libya yet? or sudan? or pakistan?

we will be, but our army is only so vast

exactly, no way we can afford to be the world's liberator. and we arent. we never have been. and bush hasnt said anything about going into these places. how can YOU make such sweeping generalizations?

Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.Uh..Yeah...Right. That didn't make any sense then and still doesn't.

and if liberation is the only thing weighing on his conscious, or the main thing, then why arent we in libya yet? or sudan? or pakistan?

we will be, but our army is only so vast

Ok..your really convincing me that you dont know what your talking about.

Libya is run Khadaffi...who is co-operatring fully with the UN.

Sudan?
Theres no money to be made there.

Pakistan??

UH....those are our allies ......

Desist.

[quote=The Wageslaves]Sometimes you've got to destroy the village in order to save it.
LIKE WE DID WITH HIROSHIMA?
Okay, bad example
quote]

no, I'd say hiroshima is a pretty good example, kill a couple thousand japanese so we don't have to kill a couple million

We killed a couple thousand civillians to save "a couple million" military...

Gotcha.

Who cares why we did it? Who's gonna stop us?

I am

I know it. I'm not sure how old you are.. (not that, that really matters) but I'm 35 years old.. been around for a little while.. I assure you America doesn't do any thing that isn't in some way in their own interest. Certainly not going to war.

how do you know that?

how can you possibly justify if even make the sweeping generalization?

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things. so, judging by our actions over the years, by analyzing reasons given for going there, and based on memoirs of everyone from kissinger to shwartkoff, it looks like us foreign policy isnt based on human rights, which it shouldnt be. and back to the original point...how the hell does bombing people to protect them make the us any safer?

I think I'll let Freedomstein answer for me as well.. couldn't of said it better myself :)

genocide is a systematic killing of people based on an ethnic backgound or religion.

systematic rape, pilliaging and murdering of the shia ethnic group that Saddam through threatend him.

not to mention the Kurds. where was the UN then?

heh, couldnt have said it better myself. where was the us? we had, what, 20 years to protect these people and we decide to do it now... it seems like its past the statute of limitations to be using that as justification

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things.

most of our leaders are Christians, they tend to have a higher school of though

Desist.
never

Desist.
never

Then by all means..continue in error.

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things.

most of our leaders are Christians, they tend to have a higher school of though

now you are grasping at straws. where were the christains in rwanda? in laos? cambodia? the kurds in the 80's?

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things.

most of our leaders are Christians, they tend to have a higher school of though :roll: More like a High School train of thought.

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things.

most of our leaders are Christians, they tend to have a higher school of though

also, i stand by what i said before, all their actions, all reasons given, every theory of international relations taught in universities, all memoirs say that human rights aint a huge blip in the foreign policy radar

Excuse me...I am a moderate liberal or moderate conservative, probably voting for Kerry, but what is up with this??? When did the Democratic Party become the party for whining and kvetching? When did the Republican Party become the Crusaders?

First, Im sick of double standards. The US isnt right or wrong, its a country. Like any other. There are no "good" and "evil" countries. Thats an absurdly simplistic view that the United States is some horrible human rights problem. We have problems, like any other nation. In fact, look at France, they banned all form of religious dress etc in their country. Yet were the tyrants...?

If you dont like America, thats a shame. You have a right to your opinions and I respect that. However, those same rights are bought at a cost by those who die for America, the very same rights that people complain about. Free speech....except for Nazis and racists and 'ignorant' people. Freedom of religion (or lack)....except for atheism (yes, self-itnerest there. Im an atheist and STILL asked why I hate God and Jesus). Right to marry..except for homosexuals. Both sides have faults there. Rather like double standards, eh?

America, once again, is a country. its not a glorious crusader to defend the world, it has its own interests too. Like any other country. However, it IS the country that created the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and by far the largest mix of cultures that EVER walked the Earth. I would say America is doing pretty well, seeing as how were accused of being an "empire". What empire?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY TOOK!?!? I wouldnt mind cheap oil, yet were giving Iraq back on June 30th. Kinda makes it irrelevant about "no blood for oil" eh? Yes we will have special ties, and thats the result of what happens. Didnt stop France, Germany, and Russia from buying oil from Saddam, nor the UN.

Please, please dont pin the United States down as being an evil country. Look at any other country, and see if there is no blood upon thy fingers.


Its time both parties stop taking a child's view of things. The Democratic Party crybabies and the Republican Party bullies need to sit together and work out where the hell the country went these past 50 years. Maybe then, then the majority of the moderates of both parties and the 50% who dont VOTE can actually reform the system into something sembling sanity.


I know this wont give me many friends from either side, but it HAS to be said. Only the extremes are left. Dean/Sharpton on one side and Pat Buchanan/Bush on the other.

its called the realist school of thought. its what our leaders subscribe to. it says that action should not be taken unless it adds directly to the power of your state, among other things.

most of our leaders are Christians, they tend to have a higher school of though
http://www.repeat.blogger.com.br/spiderman.gif

So if leaders are Christians they are superior thinkers eh?
Tell me, what religion do the people of the former Yugoslavia believe in?
What religion are and were the Germans and Italians?
It's been said already but I'll repeat it.
No[ nation goes to war for the benefit of other nations. America, though it nobly aided Britain, did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the US. As for Japan, I seem to remember a little thing called Pearl Harbour bringing the US into the war for freedom. Nations will exert much influence to bring to bear on countries that have tyrants for leaders. They only spend gold and blood in their own best interests, which is probably how it should be, sad though that may be.

Excuse me...I am a moderate liberal or moderate conservative, probably voting for Kerry, but what is up with this??? When did the Democratic Party become the party for whining and kvetching? When did the Republican Party become the Crusaders?

First, Im sick of double standards. The US isnt right or wrong, its a country. Like any other. There are no "good" and "evil" countries. Thats an absurdly simplistic view that the United States is some horrible human rights problem. We have problems, like any other nation. In fact, look at France, they banned all form of religious dress etc in their country. Yet were the tyrants...?

If you dont like America, thats a shame. You have a right to your opinions and I respect that. However, those same rights are bought at a cost by those who die for America, the very same rights that people complain about. Free speech....except for Nazis and racists and 'ignorant' people. Freedom of religion (or lack)....except for atheism (yes, self-itnerest there. Im an atheist and STILL asked why I hate God and Jesus). Right to marry..except for homosexuals. Both sides have faults there. Rather like double standards, eh?

America, once again, is a country. its not a glorious crusader to defend the world, it has its own interests too. Like any other country. However, it IS the country that created the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and by far the largest mix of cultures that EVER walked the Earth. I would say America is doing pretty well, seeing as how were accused of being an "empire". What empire?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY TOOK!?!? I wouldnt mind cheap oil, yet were giving Iraq back on June 30th. Kinda makes it irrelevant about "no blood for oil" eh? Yes we will have special ties, and thats the result of what happens. Didnt stop France, Germany, and Russia from buying oil from Saddam, nor the UN.

Please, please dont pin the United States down as being an evil country. Look at any other country, and see if there is no blood upon thy fingers.


Its time both parties stop taking a child's view of things. The Democratic Party crybabies and the Republican Party bullies need to sit together and work out where the hell the country went these past 50 years. Maybe then, then the majority of the moderates of both parties and the 50% who dont VOTE can actually reform the system into something sembling sanity.


I know this wont give me many friends from either side, but it HAS to be said. Only the extremes are left. Dean/Sharpton on one side and Pat Buchanan/Bush on the other.

i dont hate america. its just not the crusader for truth and justice people make it out to be. and criticizing its actions in the past can help make it better in the future. a friend is someone who wiill let you know when your going down the wrong path, not someone who just blindly follows you without saying anything, no matter how stupid you are being.

anyways, wether or not politics are becoming more devisive or wether liberals or conservatives are america haters isnt really on topic. except, it just points out another reason why iraq doesnt make america safer. its polarizing us. its dividing us. people are feeling angry, and agitated and alienated. so now, not only has the iraq war killed the economy, woken up terrorists, and pissed off the world, its also divided the us by putting people into two angry camps.

Crownguard..did you read the very first post on this thread?
Thats what this thread is about.

Excuse me...I am a moderate liberal or moderate conservative, probably voting for Kerry, but what is up with this??? When did the Democratic Party become the party for whining and kvetching? When did the Republican Party become the Crusaders?

First, Im sick of double standards. The US isnt right or wrong, its a country. Like any other. There are no "good" and "evil" countries. Thats an absurdly simplistic view that the United States is some horrible human rights problem. We have problems, like any other nation. In fact, look at France, they banned all form of religious dress etc in their country. Yet were the tyrants...?

If you dont like America, thats a shame. You have a right to your opinions and I respect that. However, those same rights are bought at a cost by those who die for America, the very same rights that people complain about. Free speech....except for Nazis and racists and 'ignorant' people. Freedom of religion (or lack)....except for atheism (yes, self-itnerest there. Im an atheist and STILL asked why I hate God and Jesus). Right to marry..except for homosexuals. Both sides have faults there. Rather like double standards, eh?

America, once again, is a country. its not a glorious crusader to defend the world, it has its own interests too. Like any other country. However, it IS the country that created the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and by far the largest mix of cultures that EVER walked the Earth. I would say America is doing pretty well, seeing as how were accused of being an "empire". What empire?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY TOOK!?!? I wouldnt mind cheap oil, yet were giving Iraq back on June 30th. Kinda makes it irrelevant about "no blood for oil" eh? Yes we will have special ties, and thats the result of what happens. Didnt stop France, Germany, and Russia from buying oil from Saddam, nor the UN.

Please, please dont pin the United States down as being an evil country. Look at any other country, and see if there is no blood upon thy fingers.


Its time both parties stop taking a child's view of things. The Democratic Party crybabies and the Republican Party bullies need to sit together and work out where the hell the country went these past 50 years. Maybe then, then the majority of the moderates of both parties and the 50% who dont VOTE can actually reform the system into something sembling sanity.


I know this wont give me many friends from either side, but it HAS to be said. Only the extremes are left. Dean/Sharpton on one side and Pat Buchanan/Bush on the other.

i dont hate america. its just not the crusader for truth and justice people make it out to be. and criticizing its actions in the past can help make it better in the future. a friend is someone who wiill let you know when your going down the wrong path, not someone who just blindly follows you without saying anything, no matter how stupid you are being.

anyways, wether or not politics are becoming more devisive or wether liberals or conservatives are america haters isnt really on topic. except, it just points out another reason why iraq doesnt make america safer. its polarizing us. its dividing us. people are feeling angry, and agitated and alienated. so now, not only has the iraq war killed the economy, woken up terrorists, and pissed off the world, its also divided the us by putting people into two angry camps.

I wasnt adressing you. I make general points in my posts. Responses ot others merit far shorter typing, heh. :twisted: Short and excruciating.

Crownguard..did you read the very first post on this thread?
Thats what this thread is about.

It seems quite on topic. Dealing with defense of America also incldues what we are defending America FOR. It also includes a call for moderation on both sides. You have to practice what you allegedly preach, for I am far from the only one off that topic.

As for defending America, Ill answer that easily. No, the world isnt safer. No, we didnt find WMDs or whatnot. No, Iraq is not "mission accomplished". However, all of them were also legitimate attempts, and I will respect them for trying, instead of sitting back. Not that I respect them for being wrong, but that they defended America the best they feel they could.

All things have negative side effects. We cant strengthen homeland security, CIA, and FBI without drifting closer to totalitarianism. We cant fight terrorism without adequate intel and defense. Where is the balance? You cant have it both ways.

"Those who are willing to trade a small measure of freedom for a small measure of security lose both and deserve neither."

Excuse me...I am a moderate liberal or moderate conservative, probably voting for Kerry, but what is up with this??? When did the Democratic Party become the party for whining and kvetching? When did the Republican Party become the Crusaders?

First, Im sick of double standards. The US isnt right or wrong, its a country. Like any other. There are no "good" and "evil" countries. Thats an absurdly simplistic view that the United States is some horrible human rights problem. We have problems, like any other nation. In fact, look at France, they banned all form of religious dress etc in their country. Yet were the tyrants...?

If you dont like America, thats a shame. You have a right to your opinions and I respect that. However, those same rights are bought at a cost by those who die for America, the very same rights that people complain about. Free speech....except for Nazis and racists and 'ignorant' people. Freedom of religion (or lack)....except for atheism (yes, self-itnerest there. Im an atheist and STILL asked why I hate God and Jesus). Right to marry..except for homosexuals. Both sides have faults there. Rather like double standards, eh?

America, once again, is a country. its not a glorious crusader to defend the world, it has its own interests too. Like any other country. However, it IS the country that created the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and by far the largest mix of cultures that EVER walked the Earth. I would say America is doing pretty well, seeing as how were accused of being an "empire". What empire?

WHERE THE HELL IS THE OIL THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY TOOK!?!? I wouldnt mind cheap oil, yet were giving Iraq back on June 30th. Kinda makes it irrelevant about "no blood for oil" eh? Yes we will have special ties, and thats the result of what happens. Didnt stop France, Germany, and Russia from buying oil from Saddam, nor the UN.

Please, please dont pin the United States down as being an evil country. Look at any other country, and see if there is no blood upon thy fingers.


Its time both parties stop taking a child's view of things. The Democratic Party crybabies and the Republican Party bullies need to sit together and work out where the hell the country went these past 50 years. Maybe then, then the majority of the moderates of both parties and the 50% who dont VOTE can actually reform the system into something sembling sanity.


I know this wont give me many friends from either side, but it HAS to be said. Only the extremes are left. Dean/Sharpton on one side and Pat Buchanan/Bush on the other.


You just told the truth, and people here are afraid of that. It's sad that the Far-Left Liberals here have been lying and making false statements with NO proof, But you make me think that there are smart Liberals out there, keep it up.

BTW, If we are in Iraq for oil and to lower prices,then why are gas prices going up to record highs?

Not that I respect them for being wrong, but that they defended America the best they feel they could.

Thats just the issue at hand...we are not "defending america" by being in Iraq at all....

You just told the truth, and people here are afraid of that. It's sad that the Far-Left Liberals here have been lying and making false statements with NO proof, But you make me think that there are smart Liberals out there, keep it up.

BTW, If we are in Iraq for oil and to lower prices,then why are gas prices going up to record highs?

argg, its because we havent stabilized iraq yet. its not like the effects are going to be immediate. they cant get food into the heart of the country. they havent got the lights turned on, let alone started pumping oil. patience. and turning the country over doesnt mean that the oil companies dont have lucrative contracts to pump said oil. when they say it was a war for oil, they mean it was a war to place a pro-american, pro- oil company government in the country. and more oil for the companies doesnt mean cheaper oil, it just means they get to set oil prices, not opec. i mean, why would they start selling oil at a buck a gallon when they can still get two for it?

You just told the truth, and people here are afraid of that. It's sad that the Far-Left Liberals here have been lying and making false statements with NO proof, But you make me think that there are smart Liberals out there, keep it up.

BTW, If we are in Iraq for oil and to lower prices,then why are gas prices going up to record highs?

argg, its because we havent stabilized iraq yet. its not like the effects are going to be immediate. they cant get food into the heart of the country. they havent got the lights turned on, let alone started pumping oil. patience. and turning the country over doesnt mean that the oil companies dont have lucrative contracts to pump said oil. when they say it was a war for oil, they mean it was a war to place a pro-american, pro- oil company government in the country. and more oil for the companies doesnt mean cheaper oil, it just means they get to set oil prices, not opec. i mean, why would they start selling oil at a buck a gallon when they can still get two for it?

They have gotten the lights back and oil is pumping at a rate higher than what Bush thought it would. I am still waiting for the gas prices to drop!

Not that I respect them for being wrong, but that they defended America the best they feel they could.

Thats just the issue at hand...we are not "defending america" by being in Iraq at all....

Im aware of that. Read the rest of the post. I said I respect them for the willingness to take a stand, however wrong. I can admire standing up for principle, no matter how misguided. Yes, it was wrong, but we only think that NOW. Look back then at the polls, and it is a different story. Public opinion changes with the wind. You cant judge retroactively with utter objectiveness. Always, one's own opinions at the time are thrown in. Thats a problem historians etc have as well, as does anyone who isnt willing to realize that we DID vote to invade Iraq, we DID pas the Patriot Act, and we DID have a good majority for a war in Iraq.

Those arent lies today. Right or wrong, the people supported the war, even if BASED on a false pretense. We CHOSE this, the majority of the country did. Therefore, we can only see with hindsight.

I am not so sure that the Bush admin didnt believe there were WMDs there. Thats a pretty calculated and cold opinion to attribute to ANYONE. Just to please daddy? Oil? Nothing is that simple. Nothing.

Thats a problem historians etc have as well, as does anyone who isnt willing to realize that we DID vote to invade Iraq, we DID pas the Patriot Act, and we DID have a good majority for a war in Iraq.

Those arent lies today. Right or wrong, the people supported the war, even if BASED on a false pretense. We CHOSE this, the majority of the country did. Therefore, we can only see with hindsight.

Hindsight is 20/20 thats true....but

when did these issues come to a vote to the general populace?

I never voted for the war...or the Patriot act....did you?

Thats a problem historians etc have as well, as does anyone who isnt willing to realize that we DID vote to invade Iraq, we DID pas the Patriot Act, and we DID have a good majority for a war in Iraq.

Those arent lies today. Right or wrong, the people supported the war, even if BASED on a false pretense. We CHOSE this, the majority of the country did. Therefore, we can only see with hindsight.

Hindsight is 20/20 thats true....but

when did these issues come to a vote to the general populace?

I never voted for the war...or the Patriot act....did you?

Duly elected representatives...part of the game. However, can we have a pure democracy that would be any better? Truly? No one said the world was fair. We had to trust those who chose, unfortunately. Then again, in a counter, how many wanted it in public opinion? Wouldnt it have passed anyways? People arent as smart as they think they are.

Again...cant have it both ways.; We yelled for security in this country, afraid of another attack. We....got it. We got the cake, now we must eat it.

No insult to you, for I do agree with you on many topics. However, I have to be fair to both sides. Thats why Im a moderate liberal. Traditional liberalism, the kind Locke espoused. Not the Counter-Culture.

You just told the truth, and people here are afraid of that. It's sad that the Far-Left Liberals here have been lying and making false statements with NO proof, But you make me think that there are smart Liberals out there, keep it up.

BTW, If we are in Iraq for oil and to lower prices,then why are gas prices going up to record highs?

argg, its because we havent stabilized iraq yet. its not like the effects are going to be immediate. they cant get food into the heart of the country. they havent got the lights turned on, let alone started pumping oil. patience. and turning the country over doesnt mean that the oil companies dont have lucrative contracts to pump said oil. when they say it was a war for oil, they mean it was a war to place a pro-american, pro- oil company government in the country. and more oil for the companies doesnt mean cheaper oil, it just means they get to set oil prices, not opec. i mean, why would they start selling oil at a buck a gallon when they can still get two for it?

They have gotten the lights back and oil is pumping at a rate higher than what Bush thought it would. I am still waiting for the gas prices to drop!

it costs a lot to pump oil in iraq, what with the mass amount of security needed around the pumps. that stat just means that we're ahead of schedule on getting the oil infrastructure back up, not that its at full capacity or that we are pumping enough to even put a dent in oil prices. that said, read the rest of my post, oil companies wont dump oil on the market nor will they lower the prices. oil companies aint gonna share the wealth. so it was not so much a war for oil as a war for oil companies.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

yeah, okay, there ya go, ill buy that

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

yeah, okay, there ya go, ill buy that


Iraq's oil is pumping at a rate near to pre-war levels.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

what do you want me to give you?

"While Iraq has a lot of oil reserves, it is a small producer of oil. It produces only 1 billion out of the 66 billion barrels of oil produced in the world. Since OPEC regulates oil prices by raising and lowering oil production, most in Saudi Arabia, the war will make little difference to the long-term prices of oil. Since any significant increase in Iraqi production would require major investments, those increases, if they occur, are years away. In the short-run there will probably be a little less oil flowing from Iraq since the Iraqis were willing to run a very dangerous, crumbling, oil infrastructure. What they were willing to do, outsiders are not going to be willing to do so until that infrastructure is repaired and modernized, less oil is apt to be produced. The bottom line is simple. Oil prices are not going to be affected."

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/print/iraqwar.html

okay, so, no more oil will be flowing into the world market. its just that the oil is now changing hands. where that oil money used to go to iraqis or sadam, now it goes to exxon mobil. if you want me to waste more time, maybe i can scrounge up some stats to see exactly how much oil is being produced now and what percentage of the world market is. listen, 1 billion barrels makes for a good haul for any one company, but its not going to trickle down to you. i dont know what other explination you want for how oil companies can benifit from iraqi oil while prices can still go up

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

yeah, okay, there ya go, ill buy that

You seem to think I have a vested interest or something in being proven right. Gas stays the same for me, thats just wha ti heard in AP US Government. We DO have supplies of oil stored away since the 70's you know, the oil in Texas, Venezuela, OPEC, and other such countries. I wouldnt be suprised, since you cant RUN crude oil into gas.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

what do you want me to give you?

"While Iraq has a lot of oil reserves, it is a small producer of oil. It produces only 1 billion out of the 66 billion barrels of oil produced in the world. Since OPEC regulates oil prices by raising and lowering oil production, most in Saudi Arabia, the war will make little difference to the long-term prices of oil. Since any significant increase in Iraqi production would require major investments, those increases, if they occur, are years away. In the short-run there will probably be a little less oil flowing from Iraq since the Iraqis were willing to run a very dangerous, crumbling, oil infrastructure. What they were willing to do, outsiders are not going to be willing to do so until that infrastructure is repaired and modernized, less oil is apt to be produced. The bottom line is simple. Oil prices are not going to be affected."

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/print/iraqwar.html

okay, so, no more oil will be flowing into the world market. its just that the oil is now changing hands. where that oil money used to go to iraqis or sadam, now it goes to exxon mobil. if you want me to waste more time, maybe i can scrounge up some stats to see exactly how much oil is being produced now and what percentage of the world market is. listen, 1 billion barrels makes for a good haul for any one company, but its not going to trickle down to you. i dont know what other explination you want for how oil companies can benifit from iraqi oil while prices can still go up


That is a year old, April 2003. Got anything more up to date?

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

yeah, okay, there ya go, ill buy that

You seem to think I have a vested interest or something in being proven right. Gas stays the same for me, thats just wha ti heard in AP US Government. We DO have supplies of oil stored away since the 70's you know, the oil in Texas, Venezuela, OPEC, and other such countries. I wouldnt be suprised, since you cant RUN crude oil into gas.

no, i wasnt being facetious. its a good explination for why oil prices wont go down. i was just giving you props.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

what do you want me to give you?

"While Iraq has a lot of oil reserves, it is a small producer of oil. It produces only 1 billion out of the 66 billion barrels of oil produced in the world. Since OPEC regulates oil prices by raising and lowering oil production, most in Saudi Arabia, the war will make little difference to the long-term prices of oil. Since any significant increase in Iraqi production would require major investments, those increases, if they occur, are years away. In the short-run there will probably be a little less oil flowing from Iraq since the Iraqis were willing to run a very dangerous, crumbling, oil infrastructure. What they were willing to do, outsiders are not going to be willing to do so until that infrastructure is repaired and modernized, less oil is apt to be produced. The bottom line is simple. Oil prices are not going to be affected."

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/print/iraqwar.html

okay, so, no more oil will be flowing into the world market. its just that the oil is now changing hands. where that oil money used to go to iraqis or sadam, now it goes to exxon mobil. if you want me to waste more time, maybe i can scrounge up some stats to see exactly how much oil is being produced now and what percentage of the world market is. listen, 1 billion barrels makes for a good haul for any one company, but its not going to trickle down to you. i dont know what other explination you want for how oil companies can benifit from iraqi oil while prices can still go up


That is a year old, April 2003. Got anything more up to date?

it doesnt matter what the date is, the reasons are the same. did you read it?!?! iraq isnt going to bring more oil iinto the world market. a year isnt going to change that fact.

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

what do you want me to give you?

"While Iraq has a lot of oil reserves, it is a small producer of oil. It produces only 1 billion out of the 66 billion barrels of oil produced in the world. Since OPEC regulates oil prices by raising and lowering oil production, most in Saudi Arabia, the war will make little difference to the long-term prices of oil. Since any significant increase in Iraqi production would require major investments, those increases, if they occur, are years away. In the short-run there will probably be a little less oil flowing from Iraq since the Iraqis were willing to run a very dangerous, crumbling, oil infrastructure. What they were willing to do, outsiders are not going to be willing to do so until that infrastructure is repaired and modernized, less oil is apt to be produced. The bottom line is simple. Oil prices are not going to be affected."

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/print/iraqwar.html

okay, so, no more oil will be flowing into the world market. its just that the oil is now changing hands. where that oil money used to go to iraqis or sadam, now it goes to exxon mobil. if you want me to waste more time, maybe i can scrounge up some stats to see exactly how much oil is being produced now and what percentage of the world market is. listen, 1 billion barrels makes for a good haul for any one company, but its not going to trickle down to you. i dont know what other explination you want for how oil companies can benifit from iraqi oil while prices can still go up


That is a year old, April 2003. Got anything more up to date?

it doesnt matter what the date is, the reasons are the same. did you read it?!?! iraq isnt going to bring more oil iinto the world market. a year isnt going to change that fact.


Then why was the Iraq war about oil if it isn't going to effect prices at all?

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have heard that the problem isnt oil, but oil REFINERIES. That is, we cant process ENOUGH oil.....

yeah, okay, there ya go, ill buy that

You seem to think I have a vested interest or something in being proven right. Gas stays the same for me, thats just wha ti heard in AP US Government. We DO have supplies of oil stored away since the 70's you know, the oil in Texas, Venezuela, OPEC, and other such countries. I wouldnt be suprised, since you cant RUN crude oil into gas.

no, i wasnt being facetious. its a good explination for why oil prices wont go down. i was just giving you props.

My mistake, I offer my most sincere apologies, truly.

DAMN THIS PIECE OF CRAP SARCASM DETECTOR!!! *Bangs it on desk*

oh one other thing, i dont think we fought this war because of oil, i just dont think that the whole "well, oil prices should be dropping" argument holds any water


I have yet seen you back up your "argument" with anything but your own words, When you can prove your "arugment", then you can mock mine.

what do you want me to give you?

"While Iraq has a lot of oil reserves, it is a small producer of oil. It produces only 1 billion out of the 66 billion barrels of oil produced in the world. Since OPEC regulates oil prices by raising and lowering oil production, most in Saudi Arabia, the war will make little difference to the long-term prices of oil. Since any significant increase in Iraqi production would require major investments, those increases, if they occur, are years away. In the short-run there will probably be a little less oil flowing from Iraq since the Iraqis were willing to run a very dangerous, crumbling, oil infrastructure. What they were willing to do, outsiders are not going to be willing to do so until that infrastructure is repaired and modernized, less oil is apt to be produced. The bottom line is simple. Oil prices are not going to be affected."

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/print/iraqwar.html

okay, so, no more oil will be flowing into the world market. its just that the oil is now changing hands. where that oil money used to go to iraqis or sadam, now it goes to exxon mobil. if you want me to waste more time, maybe i can scrounge up some stats to see exactly how much oil is being produced now and what percentage of the world market is. listen, 1 billion barrels makes for a good haul for any one company, but its not going to trickle down to you. i dont know what other explination you want for how oil companies can benifit from iraqi oil while prices can still go up


That is a year old, April 2003. Got anything more up to date?

it doesnt matter what the date is, the reasons are the same. did you read it?!?! iraq isnt going to bring more oil iinto the world market. a year isnt going to change that fact.


Then why was the Iraq war about oil if it isn't going to effect prices at all?

because the contracts to pump those billion barrels now lie in american contractors hands. the money goes to americans, not iraqis, but the money being made on the oil is the same.

Maybe he meant to say "defending American buisiness interests...."

Ditto. Bush doesn't care about Americans, Iraqis, or anyone else. He just cares about helping capitalist-corporate America tighten its stranglehold on the world's economy. He only cares about making the rich even richer, and the poor even poorer (Which is pretty much the motto of capitalism.)

As far as I remember America stands for Freedom, and Justice. To defend America's principals is to defend Freedom and Justice.

How exactly is using Bunker Busters (low-yield nuclear weapons) giving Iraqi's any Freedom? They'll have to avoid certain areas for years or risk radiation poisoning.

How is using Carpet Bombing techniques Justice? They blanket an area with explosives that could lay dormant for years before suddenly exploding. Iraqi children years from now will be dying because they think they found something shiny which means they get to eat that night.

How is stripping America of it's rights to privacy Freedom or Justice?
"Terrorists hate our Freedoms. They hate what America stands for."
Good job protecting them, Mr. President. Donald Rumsfeld can sit around saying that they've never used the silenced search methods the Patriot Act allows but no one can come forward and say their were victim of, or witness to, said search without committing a crime.

How is pulling out of Fallujah, and giving Iraqi resistance fighters a MAJOR morale boost, Justice? The higher the morale, the more attacks we get. This cowardly, idiotic strategy will just end up causing more American casualties whether Civilian or Military.

I, honestly, don't give a flying fark whether the war was for Oil or whether the administration was just so scared-shiatless they needed to lash out to feel safer. The war is the biggest problem for America right now. We need to resolve this as quickly as possible. That means a massive assault on every goddamned town. Right now it doesn't matter how many Iraqi civilians die. We have to cut the head off while we have the chance. Rip the Band-Aid off fast so we (the whole world) don't feel the pain for too long.

Our enemy is not Iraqi resistance fighters, not Iraqi civilians, or even Al Qaeda (sp?) it is the idea of the glorious battle against the infidels. Beat them down with Carpet Bombs. I know this seems contradictory to what I said earlier but this war isn't supposed to be glorious, morally superior, or even honorable. For Bush to try and sell it as such is an affront to American decency.

The Hiroshima example is a good one. I'm disgusted by Hiroshima but it certainly got the point across. We aren't fighting massively enough. You have to literally "Shock & Awe" not just use it as a (not-so-)catchy Fox slogan. Am I pro-war? Hell no. I'm just against idiocy. War isn't valiant or courageous. War is Hell. Us Liberals need to realize that casualties are necessary to win the war. Destroy Fallujah, raze it if necessary.

Bush needs to stop being a damned pansy, grow a backbone, and lance this boil he created. Destroy them militarily, let the UN come in and rebuild, and Iraq will never trouble us again. In fact we might even get that "made for Fox TV" love I kept hearing they have for us. Stop listening to the idiot liberals (not saying liberals are idiots, just the ones that think we can afford to pull out of Iraq) whining about civilian casualties. Bush sure didn't care about that before the election was looming on the horizon.

Honestly, Republicans aren't the damned Crusaders. Crusaders don't rush in and slaughter people in the name of their own personal Justice. Oh, actually, they do. Maybe people just need to get re-aquainted with what a Republican Crusader is. And remember, God talks to Bush.

Honestly, Republicans aren't the damned Crusaders. Crusaders don't rush in and slaughter people in the name of their own personal Justice. Oh, actually, they do. Maybe people just need to get re-aquainted with what a Republican Crusader is. And remember, God talks to Bush.

Actually the Crusaders killed a heck of alot of people.

Why else would the Arabs still be pissed over events of 800 years ago.

As far as I remember America stands for Freedom, and Justice. To defend America's principals is to defend Freedom and Justice.

How exactly is using Bunker Busters (low-yield nuclear weapons) giving Iraqi's any Freedom? They'll have to avoid certain areas for years or risk radiation poisoning.

How is using Carpet Bombing techniques Justice? They blanket an area with explosives that could lay dormant for years before suddenly exploding. Iraqi children years from now will be dying because they think they found something shiny which means they get to eat that night.

How is stripping America of it's rights to privacy Freedom or Justice?
"Terrorists hate our Freedoms. They hate what America stands for."
Good job protecting them, Mr. President. Donald Rumsfeld can sit around saying that they've never used the silenced search methods the Patriot Act allows but no one can come forward and say their were victim of, or witness to, said search without committing a crime.

How is pulling out of Fallujah, and giving Iraqi resistance fighters a MAJOR morale boost, Justice? The higher the morale, the more attacks we get. This cowardly, idiotic strategy will just end up causing more American casualties whether Civilian or Military.

I, honestly, don't give a flying fark whether the war was for Oil or whether the administration was just so scared-shiatless they needed to lash out to feel safer. The war is the biggest problem for America right now. We need to resolve this as quickly as possible. That means a massive assault on every goddamned town. Right now it doesn't matter how many Iraqi civilians die. We have to cut the head off while we have the chance. Rip the Band-Aid off fast so we (the whole world) don't feel the pain for too long.

Our enemy is not Iraqi resistance fighters, not Iraqi civilians, or even Al Qaeda (sp?) it is the idea of the glorious battle against the infidels. Beat them down with Carpet Bombs. I know this seems contradictory to what I said earlier but this war isn't supposed to be glorious, morally superior, or even honorable. For Bush to try and sell it as such is an affront to American decency.

The Hiroshima example is a good one. I'm disgusted by Hiroshima but it certainly got the point across. We aren't fighting massively enough. You have to literally "Shock & Awe" not just use it as a (not-so-)catchy Fox slogan. Am I pro-war? Hell no. I'm just against idiocy. War isn't valiant or courageous. War is Hell. Us Liberals need to realize that casualties are necessary to win the war. Destroy Fallujah, raze it if necessary.

Bush needs to stop being a damned pansy, grow a backbone, and lance this boil he created. Destroy them militarily, let the UN come in and rebuild, and Iraq will never trouble us again. In fact we might even get that "made for Fox TV" love I kept hearing they have for us. Stop listening to the idiot liberals (not saying liberals are idiots, just the ones that think we can afford to pull out of Iraq) whining about civilian casualties. Bush sure didn't care about that before the election was looming on the horizon.

Honestly, Republicans aren't the damned Crusaders. Crusaders don't rush in and slaughter people in the name of their own personal Justice. Oh, actually, they do. Maybe people just need to get re-aquainted with what a Republican Crusader is. And remember, God talks to Bush.

wait, so first you are against indiscriminate killings and then you are for them? raising fallujah wont solve anything. do you realize what happened in north korea? we bombed everything to the point where there was nothing left to bomb, and still the north kept fighting. i suppose if we kill every last iraqi, then the problem will be solved. but, barring that, every civilian killed builds on the resentment towards america in that area of the world. i say we pull out, we did in vietnam and they were able to rebuild. if things are a mess, then the un can go in under a multi-national flag and try to rebuild with less resistance. As i see it now, the us will always be a target of hatred over there, and no show of force is going to change that. they know we have nukes, they know we can kill them all, and they simply dont care. this is why iraq is different than the invasion of japan or germany. also, they didnt start the war, so they have the mentality of people who have been invaded, not defeated. and that mentality is huge. bombs dont change minds. burning a country to the ground doesnt create peace nor stability. it is the most short term solution i have ever heard.