NationStates Jolt Archive

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?

And I thought it was the Democrats who are labeled as whiners.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?

Bah, I don't think you have to worry about Iraq cutting off the oil. :roll:

We are not at war. War is something that has to be declared. We are at police action....

If taxes are cut, how do you propose to pay for this very expensive non-war ?

The future of Alaska and Florida are more important than the non-war. I have no problem with nuclear power and I have never heard (not to say that it does not exist) the argument about birds and wind power before.

Americans will always vote for cheap gas over having thier children killed and degraded for a completely pointless non-war.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.

Wrongo fanboy. I actrually educate myself and think about things before I form an opinion. And be careful, lest some one accuse you of being just the opposite (I.E. being for something simply because Bush is)

WE ARE NOT AT WAR !!!! We have not declared war, Bush has used presidental power to send troops to Iraq. (BTW, where is Osama ??)

Every nation in the world is always in danger of being attacked anywhere at anytime. Look at Iraq....

Ok. iLock

*Does the lockomotion*

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.
If you are at war then an act such as 9/11 would be an act of war and not terrorism?
If you are at war a uniformed iraqi can walk up to and kill any US service man anywhere in the world then surrender and after the war is over you must let him go?

Republican... often mad at Democrats.
Democrat... often mad at Republicans.
Independant... often mad at both Republicans and Democrats.
Apathetic... tired of being mad.
Extremist... just mad.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.

Wrongo fanboy. I actrually educate myself and think about things before I form an opinion. And be careful, lest some one accuse you of being just the opposite (I.E. being for something simply because Bush is)

WE ARE NOT AT WAR !!!! We have not declared war, Bush has used presidental power to send troops to Iraq. (BTW, where is Osama ??)

Every nation in the world is always in danger of being attacked anywhere at anytime. Look at Iraq....
We havent "declared war" since WW2! Does that mean that Vietnam, Korea, and both Iraq Wars are not "wars"?

My second point you made for me! The SPR is for War time emergancies, according to your thought process, we don't need to open up the SPR because it is not war time.

and Osama is sleeping in a fuck ing cave right now somewhere in Pakistain.

We havent "declared war" since WW2! Does that mean that Vietnam, Korea, and both Iraq Wars are not "wars"?

Yep. That is what it means.

second point you made for me! The SPR is for War time emergancies, according to your thought process, we don't need to open up the SPR because it is not war time.

I never said that it should be opened. That is a point I agree with you on.

and Osama is sleeping in a f--- ing cave right now somewhere in Pakistain.

Then why are we in Iraq......

We havent "declared war" since WW2! Does that mean that Vietnam, Korea, and both Iraq Wars are not "wars"?

Yep. That is what it means.
You can have that view. You can also try to tell the veterans of those wars that they are not veterans and should not recieve what they are entitled to because they were not in a war.

and Osama is sleeping in a f--- ing cave right now somewhere in Pakistain.

Then why are we in Iraq......
Multi-tasking. Ever heard of it?

You can have that view. You can also try to tell the veterans of those wars that they are not veterans and should not recieve what they are entitled to because they were not in a war.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. Jebus, make up your own arguements rather than creating fictitious statements for me.
My father served in Korea, and my brother served in Desert Storm. I think that they are intitled to all that they have comming. That still does not make this a war.


Multi-tasking. Ever heard of it?
Yes I have. And BTW sarcasim is the last resort of those without an arguement. My point is this, we went into the middle east to get the person responsable for the 9-11 attacks. We did that for a while, and then bush decided that he wanted Iraq, so focus was lost and we went into an unjust attack on a foriegn nation. Multi tasking is one thing, diverting resources to satisfy a personal vendetta is quit another.

And BTW sarcasim is the last resort of those without an arguement.
Crackers. There goes my post....

Republican... often mad at Democrats.
Democrat... often mad at Republicans.
Independant... often mad at both Republicans and Democrats.
Apathetic... tired of being mad.
Extremist... just mad.

Left-Wing...tired of getting mad at being called mad.

You can have that view. You can also try to tell the veterans of those wars that they are not veterans and should not recieve what they are entitled to because they were not in a war.
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. Jebus, make up your own arguements rather than creating fictitious statements for me.
My father served in Korea, and my brother served in Desert Storm. I think that they are intitled to all that they have comming. That still does not make this a war.
Why should your brother and father reciecve veterans benefits when you even say they were not in a war?
Multi-tasking. Ever heard of it?
Yes I have. And BTW sarcasim is the last resort of those without an arguement. My point is this, we went into the middle east to get the person responsable for the 9-11 attacks. We did that for a while, and then bush decided that he wanted Iraq, so focus was lost and we went into an unjust attack on a foriegn nation. Multi tasking is one thing, diverting resources to satisfy a personal vendetta is quit another.
You liberals about jizzed in your pants when Bob Woodward said that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th. Are you forgetting that? Bush has two seperate agendas for our soldiers that are fighting in two seperate wars in the middle east.
1. Find and kill all of Al-Queada
2. Make Iraq a democratic country

where is it written that the US cannot attempt to accomplish two seperate missions in the same region?

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?


Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!
Cutting gas prices would help everyone, not just the rich.

Why should your brother and father reciecve veterans benefits when you even say they were not in a war?

Umm, because they are veterans.....You don't have to have fought in a war to be a vet.

You liberals about jizzed in your pants when Bob Woodward said that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th. Are you forgetting that? Bush has two seperate agendas for our soldiers that are fighting in two seperate wars in the middle east.
1. Find and kill all of Al-Queada
2. Make Iraq a democratic country

where is it written that the US cannot attempt to accomplish two seperate missions in the same region?

There you go, making assumptions again. When did I say I was a liberal ? And I have never once "Jizzed in my pants" that is just a crude and unproductive satement.
But the problem with Bush's double agenda is that he told the American people that he want the troops to go to the middle east to find Al-queda (BTW killing them was never part of his original plan as stated to the U.S. he wanted to capture and prosicute them.).
The U.S. can accomplish two missions at once, but it should never be done as underhandedly as this was, and the primary objective (in this case finding Osama) should not suffer.

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!

Clearly it's Clintons fault. If he hadn't ended up with such a huge surplus, and instead left the country horribly in debt, Bush might not have been able to afford the war...

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!
Cutting gas prices would help everyone, not just the rich.
Not the rest of the world it wouldn't, green house gases etc etc.
Some policy on the saving of fuel may be a better idea.
Tax luxury cars at a higher rate etc don't just make it less expensive to drive all the time.

You liberals about jizzed in your pants when Bob Woodward said that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th. Are you forgetting that? Bush has two seperate agendas for our soldiers that are fighting in two seperate wars in the middle east.
1. Find and kill all of Al-Queada
2. Make Iraq a democratic country
It becomes a question of priorties then, doesn't it? If we don't have the resources, and Bush didn't think we should be in the practice of 'nation building' (the fact that he had this in the works early negates the 'different world' defence of that statement) then why in the hell are we there? We should be making a priority out of #1, but #2 is taking all of our resources.

where is it written that the US cannot attempt to accomplish two seperate missions in the same region?
Our track record...

damn, sarcasm...curse you Celeborne!!!!

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!
Cutting gas prices would help everyone, not just the rich.
Not the rest of the world it wouldn't, green house gases etc etc.
Some policy on the saving of fuel may be a better idea.
Tax luxury cars at a higher rate etc don't just make it less expensive to drive all the time.

Do it by gas mileage. The better gas mileage your car has, the less you pay for petrol.

YOU SET ME UP! YOU SET ME UP!

Ummm....Sorry :)

this was for Cannot think of a name

Why should your brother and father reciecve veterans benefits when you even say they were not in a war?

Umm, because they are veterans.....You don't have to have fought in a war to be a vet.

You liberals about jizzed in your pants when Bob Woodward said that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th. Are you forgetting that? Bush has two seperate agendas for our soldiers that are fighting in two seperate wars in the middle east.
1. Find and kill all of Al-Queada
2. Make Iraq a democratic country

where is it written that the US cannot attempt to accomplish two seperate missions in the same region?

There you go, making assumptions again. When did I say I was a liberal ? And I have never once "Jizzed in my pants" that is just a crude and unproductive satement.
But the problem with Bush's double agenda is that he told the American people that he want the troops to go to the middle east to find Al-queda (BTW killing them was never part of his original plan as stated to the U.S. he wanted to capture and prosicute them.).
The U.S. can accomplish two missions at once, but it should never be done as underhandedly as this was, and the primary objective (in this case finding Osama) should not suffer.

Alfred Verdross (1890-1980), an Austrian professor, defined war as "the state of force between states with suspension of peaceful relations."

I believe that Gulf War 1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam fall into this definition.

Also, the United Nations defines "major wars" as military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year. Gulf War 2, Korea, and Vietnam fall under this definition. The all-knowing, all-powerful, UN classifies the US in Iraq as a war, are you happy now?

Alfred Verdross (1890-1980), an Austrian professor, defined war as "the state of force between states with suspension of peaceful relations."

I believe that Gulf War 1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam fall into this definition.

Also, the United Nations defines "major wars" as military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year. Gulf War 2, Korea, and Vietnam fall under this definition. The all-knowing, all-powerful, UN classifies the US in Iraq as a war, are you happy now?

That is all fine and good, however for the United States of America to be "at war" there has to be a formal decleration of war. This has not happened.

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!

Clearly it's Clintons fault. If he hadn't ended up with such a huge surplus, and instead left the country horribly in debt, Bush might not have been able to afford the war...

God forbid someone leaves the country with surplus.

What are you gonna do now Lamar?

What are you gonna do now Lamar?

Please stop spamming this thread.

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!
Cutting gas prices would help everyone, not just the rich.

Ok... so with the biggest deficit in US history mounting up, you suggest tax cuts?!

No wonder the US is screwed.

Ok... so with the biggest deficit in US history mounting up, you suggest tax cuts?!

No wonder the US is screwed.

The only reason we're screwed is because we've allowed our government to become a bloated monster. The deficit is so large, it will never go away.
Cut taxes deeply, and cut spending even more!

Do it by gas mileage. The better gas mileage your car has, the less you pay for petrol.

Isn't that true already? The better gas mileage you get, the less you are paying for gas.

NA, if you believe that striking in 2 separate nations at the same time is considered multi-tasking, you need to rethink your sensitivities to those of us who actually served. The military is not some tool that you simply stick into places to multi-task and do your bidding. That type of callous belief seems to come from a lot of those in your party, that the military is simply chess pieces they can move around the board without much thought about the lives behind the pieces. That just pisses me off to no end.

Your revered Bush said in the presidential campaign that he would not stretch our military resources thin. He said he would not engage in nation building. He said that he would help the military with benefits and pay raises. He said that he would not use the military as the world's police force. Each one of those statements are now broken promises.

To say that there was a plan in place before 9/11 to invade Iraq means that all pretexts for invading Iraq were false. Every pretext for invasion was tied into protecting our country following the heinous acts on 9/11. But if that's the case then how do you draw up a war plan calling for a pre-emptive strike before such an act has taken place? Think NA, use some common sense when thinking about this. Connect the dots and see what you see. Its not a pretty site.

Either you were lied to by Bush about all of the rationale for going to war. Even if for some weird reason a nuclear weapon were found in Iraq, he STILL lied to the American people if that war plan for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike was drawn up any day before 9/11. Think about that for a while.

And NA, before you choose to speak so disrespectfully about our military again, you might want to take the time to choose more appropriate words.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.

Wrongo fanboy. I actrually educate myself and think about things before I form an opinion. And be careful, lest some one accuse you of being just the opposite (I.E. being for something simply because Bush is)Well, it's good to see that there are some people who are "actrually" educated, but you can see why people would think what New Auburnland thinks.

WE ARE NOT AT WAR !!!! We have not declared war, Bush has used presidental power to send troops to Iraq. (BTW, where is Osama ??) Right, just like Vietnam wasn't a war. :roll:
As for Osama, remember when your arguement was "BTW, where's Saddam?" or are you just going to act like it never happened?

Every nation in the world is always in danger of being attacked anywhere at anytime. Look at Iraq....In case you forgot, we are in danger of being attacked. It already happened on the 11th of September three years ago, and N. A.'s point is that it can happen again.

Ok... so with the biggest deficit in US history mounting up, you suggest tax cuts?!

No wonder the US is screwed.

The only reason we're screwed is because we've allowed our government to become a bloated monster. The deficit is so large, it will never go away.
Cut taxes deeply, and cut spending even more!Uh, the Reagan deficit wasn't supposed to go away, either...
By the way, cutting taxes is what caused much of the deficit, and it's hard to make Dems cut spending. Any action that lowers the government's income creates a deficit.

Back to the original point--only in the American media can someone get away with calling a suggestion that we temporarily stop filling the strategic reserves--which are at their highest point ever right now--a depletion of those same reserves. It's ludicrous--worse, it's a lie.

For the record, that's what John Kerry suggested--a temporary halt to the continued filling of the strategic reserve. He hasn't suggested opening the taps just to get gas prices to go down. So get your shit straight, New Auburnland.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?

the Democrats are thinking about the people of the US tryign to make things better for them and help the economy, which will not get better if people have to spend all their money on gas just to make it to work.

The republicans are thinking only of themselves and their pocketbooks and the next big oil deposit and/or money making war. Well of course war costs money but only taxpayer money... the Republicans who own the big businesses always make the profit.

interesting.

By the way, cutting taxes is what caused much of the deficit, and it's hard to make Dems cut spending. Any action that lowers the government's income creates a deficit.

I support the Republicans much more than the Dem's, but they are equally guilty in allowing the govt to grow unchecked. I'm sick of both of them!

dp

By the way, cutting taxes is what caused much of the deficit, and it's hard to make Dems cut spending. Any action that lowers the government's income creates a deficit.

I support the Republicans much more than the Dem's, but they are equally guilty in allowing the govt to grow unchecked. I'm sick of both of them!You're right, of course, that both sides are guilty of expanding government, although the government did shrink somewhat under the Clinton administration.

For me, the problem isn't that government is too big or too small--it's that right now, thanks to the gutting of regulatory bodies by installing corporate shills at the head of them, it's largely ineffective. We're not getting our money's worth--but big business is. That's the problem.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)



Hmm, slightly late into this one... but most importantly, you do realize that the tax on gasoline was strongly supported by members of the Republican party such as Paul O'Neil (secretary of treasure before Bush ... dumped him). It was designed to cut back on foreign dependency on oil by making them hurt. Least that's how it was explained to me while reading O'Neil's own book.

For me, the problem isn't that government is too big or too small--it's that right now, thanks to the gutting of regulatory bodies by installing corporate shills at the head of them, it's largely ineffective. We're not getting our money's worth--but big business is. That's the problem

Very well said. The EPA is a prime example of just what you stated.

For me, the problem isn't that government is too big or too small--it's that right now, thanks to the gutting of regulatory bodies by installing corporate shills at the head of them, it's largely ineffective. We're not getting our money's worth--but big business is. That's the problem

Very well said. The EPA is a prime example of just what you stated.And the FDA. And the FCC. And the SEC. The list goes on and on.

By the way, cutting taxes is what caused much of the deficit, and it's hard to make Dems cut spending. Any action that lowers the government's income creates a deficit.

I support the Republicans much more than the Dem's, but they are equally guilty in allowing the govt to grow unchecked. I'm sick of both of them!You're right, of course, that both sides are guilty of expanding government, although the government did shrink somewhat under the Clinton administration.

For me, the problem isn't that government is too big or too small--it's that right now, thanks to the gutting of regulatory bodies by installing corporate shills at the head of them, it's largely ineffective. We're not getting our money's worth--but big business is. That's the problem.

I agree... we're not getting our money's worth.

However, I don't think that big business is benefitting much either.
I work in an industry that is highly regulated. Sometimes I wonder why
we're even in business. The oil industry is so regulated, that new production capacity hasn't been added in years. Now another new requlation is about to be put in place that will require many plants to be retrofitted to make the plants remove more impurities. Some plants will
be retrofitted, others will simply be closed. That means even less capacity.
Less capacity = Higher Prices. It will also cost companies more to produce,
because of the new regulation. Guess who gets to pay for that? That's right... You and I. Big business doesn't benefit from the govt as much as people think. Other than winning govt contracts, (which someone has to do), they see the govt as a hinderance rather than a sugar daddy.

I find it difficult to feel sorry for an industry that consistently looks to find ways to avoid environmental regulations, and that has a history of continuing to pollute because the fines are cheaper than the cost of retrofitting plants. I grew up in an area dominated by the oil industry. I sold insurance in areas that were so polluted by chemical plants that the premiums were 5 times what they were in other parts of the state, and people still bought them because they knew they'd wind up with cancer from the crap they were breathing and drinking.

And under the current administration, the EPA has been gutted. Old lawsuits have been withdrawn, news ource review is practically done away with, and the EPA budget has been cut so as to further hamper enforcement. If that's not a boon to the energy industry, I don't know what is.

Back to the original point--only in the American media can someone get away with calling a suggestion that we temporarily stop filling the strategic reserves--which are at their highest point ever right now--a depletion of those same reserves. It's ludicrous--worse, it's a lie.

For the record, that's what John Kerry suggested--a temporary halt to the continued filling of the strategic reserve. He hasn't suggested opening the taps just to get gas prices to go down. So get your shit straight, New Auburnland.

Hello? Bush apologists? Hellooooooooooo?

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

A 9/11 style attack on our refineries would have the economic impact 100 times of what Sept 11th had on this nation if we do not have sufficent oil in the SPR. We are at war, we could possibly be attacked anywhere at anytime and that is something some people forget.

Wrongo fanboy. I actrually educate myself and think about things before I form an opinion. And be careful, lest some one accuse you of being just the opposite (I.E. being for something simply because Bush is)

WE ARE NOT AT WAR !!!! We have not declared war, Bush has used presidental power to send troops to Iraq. (BTW, where is Osama ??)

Every nation in the world is always in danger of being attacked anywhere at anytime. Look at Iraq.... Not by us as we did nothing to instagate this attack on our land. Those people in the middle east are monster's they kill eachother off they dont just want to kill us, they want to take everything we own and destroy it in front of us!

Hello? Bush apologists? Hellooooooooooo?

now i'm no democrat, but it sure is telling the way that these threads seem to develop an echo when the far-right types have their lies called and debunked.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?

Since when were we at war? The last "War" we declared was over a year ago and it ended with a photo-op on a air craft carrier with the words, "Mission Accomplished" in the background. I'm not sure if that was even a war, as in Congress backed the president with a resolution.

So yes, if everything's as good as BushCo says it is (we're winning the war on terrorisim, the economy's recovered, more jobs are being created, etc.) then I certainly do expect those oil reserves to be opened and the price of gas lowered.

Unless, of course, you are implying that everything isn't as hunky-dorey as our President would lead us to believe...

Re: Democrats Piss Me Off!
This is almost hard to believe.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)You know what we pay in the UK? 69p a litre. You're spoilt at the petrol pumps.


They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.Its not desolate in Alaska. Experts in every field except the oil industry say that drilling will cause a vast negative impact on the environment in Alaska, and for not that much oil in the first place

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?Oh, so oil spills cause a problem do they? Makes inconvieniance for the environment and for buisnesses in the area does it? Well, we should try getting rid of some single-hulled VLCCs that generally tend to cause oil spills then shouldn't we?

So you hate Democrats huh?

Well if you speak Latin you should understand why they are truly sinister politicians!

I for one am glad taxes aren't being lowered. For, if you look at Iowa, our great schools are losing money. My county has had to instate a 1 cent tax, and the district I am in is using this money to build a new school, for overcrowding is occuring! If any penny is taken out of taxes, millions could easily be lost, or at least many thousands. So Democrats don't piss me off in Democratic Iowa, for I am an independent, but I am glad we have these taxes to help fund for education. (Which is still losing money due to recent hard times).

For me, the problem isn't that government is too big or too small--it's that right now, thanks to the gutting of regulatory bodies by installing corporate shills at the head of them, it's largely ineffective. We're not getting our money's worth--but big business is. That's the problem

Very well said. The EPA is a prime example of just what you stated.And the FDA. And the FCC. And the SEC. The list goes on and on.
I'm used to having to thank Incertonia for laying it out clear, but Thunderland-that's what's needed to be said for a while (your first post about treating the men and women in the military as disposable for our whims). So thank you for doing what you thought was neccisary and reminding me that I owe it to you to make sure that your services are not being used in vain to settle some armchair general's penis issues by opposing the frivolous(sp) use of our military.

That could have been clearer. oh well. Hopefully you get the idea.

I'm used to having to thank Incertonia for laying it out clear, but Thunderland-that's what's needed to be said for a while (your first post about treating the men and women in the military as disposable for our whims). So thank you for doing what you thought was neccisary and reminding me that I owe it to you to make sure that your services are not being used in vain to settle some armchair general's penis issues by opposing the frivolous(sp) use of our military.

That could have been clearer. oh well. Hopefully you get the idea.

Loud and clear and greatly appreciated. I suppose its not fair to simply label a party for disregarding the military....but I'm biased.

We are at war, but Democrats don't want to admit it. They want to begin depleting strategic oil reserves to bring down the price of gas.
( http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B36B31D0F-DA9E-42A6-A435-BFEEFC5E0132%7D&siteid=google&dist=google )

Democrats don't want to cut taxes on gasoline or the refining thereof. But the next time you pay for your gas at ... say ... $2/gallon, just think of it as $1.30/gallon plus tax. (And this actually understates the amount of tax levied on gas because it is taxed at every stage of production and transport.)

They don't want to drill for oil in a desolate region of Alaska or well off the coast of Florida. They've nearly shut down drilling in California. They've shut down coal-fired plants because they're too dirty, but they don't want to invest in nuclear power and wind turbines kill too many birds.

In short, Democrats are excellent at saying what you can't do. And at ignoring a war in order to get reelected because they gave people cheaper gas.

What do you think will happen if there is another attack like 9/11 and we need those oil reserves? Imagine a tanker cracking open in a port like Houston. Have you seen Houston? It's huge and there are refineries for miles. A major oil spill would shut down the port for weeks, if not months. There would be billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars lost in our economy. And we couldn't truck in enough oil to satisfy the voracious refineries.

But hey, there'd be Democrats in power and that's all that counts, right?
You bring up good points. There's one main problem with Democrats in particular and leftist whiners in particular: They believe in panaceas. As in: "Well, you can't build nuclear power plants, and you can't build coal plants, and you can't build wind turbines, but incredibly unreliable solar panels that cost 10000x the other options will solve all of our energy needs!" They just don't understand the concept of trade-offs..

Well, it's good to see that there are some people who are "actrually" educated, but you can see why people would think what New Auburnland thinks.
I am glad that you took the time to point out an added key stroke and point it out, as if that makes a difference. But thanks for showing how petty you are.
I do not see where pointing out where I disagree with him and the current regime automaticly makes me a liberal.

Right, just like Vietnam wasn't a war. :roll:
As for Osama, remember when your arguement was "BTW, where's Saddam?" or are you just going to act like it never happened?

I really hate those little eye rolly emoticons. Just state your point please.
No I do not think that Vietnam was a war, if you would have read the other posts you would have known that.
I did say "where is Saddam" I never acted like that did not happen, I wish you people could make a point with out trying to put words in my mouth and being sarcastic. That is a very poor debating style.
Asking where Sadam was before he was found in no way takes away from the fact that we do not have Osama in custody and are waisting resopurces and lives in Iraq.

In case you forgot, we are in danger of being attacked. It already happened on the 11th of September three years ago, and N. A.'s point is that it can happen again.

I don't think anyone will ever forget Sept. 11 (that is a very insensitive statement to make, BTW). No one doubts that it could happen again, I don't think I ever said that. Did you have another point to make ?

Not by us as we did nothing to instagate this attack on our land. Those people in the middle east are monster's they kill eachother off they dont just want to kill us, they want to take everything we own and destroy it in front of us!


I think that is an over simplified and racist view of the middle east, have you been there ? Do you know people from there ?

Can I just simply say that both Democrats and Republicans piss me off and leave it at that

Can I just simply say that both Democrats and Republicans piss me off and leave it at that

Yes, you may.

That Bush is no longer in power is the only thing that matters.
That is the basis for your opinons. If Bush is for it, you're against it. If Bush wants it lower, you want it higher. If Bush has a proactive approach, you want a reactive approach.

What's wrong with that? We all know Bush's opinions and his positions. And I've personally found that, with basically no exception, I'm opposed to all of them. Zigging when Bush Zags sounds like a pretty good strategy for me.

What's wrong with that? We all know Bush's opinions and his positions. And I've personally found that, with basically no exception, I'm opposed to all of them. Zigging when Bush Zags sounds like a pretty good strategy for me.

wwbd? do.

what would bush do? do opposite.

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!
Cutting gas prices would help everyone, not just the rich.

Ok... so with the biggest deficit in US history mounting up, you suggest tax cuts?!

No wonder the US is screwed.
our nation has functioned while in a deficit for a large part of our history, why would a little big bigger deficit than the one we have now run our country into the ground? After all, right after our nation was "born" we were in debt to the French for a shit load of cash.

Because we can see the danger coming. The deficits we've run in the past and haven't paid off have grown into a massive national debt that we're siply paying interest on right now, and the bigger it gets, the bigger a chunk of our government's yearly budget gets eaten up by that debt service. The coming danger is, of course, the retirement of the baby boomer generation, and while it may sound simple to say "we'll have to cut social security," that's a political impossibility.

Why? Because old people vote. They vote more often and more consistently than any other demographic group, and if politicians know anything, they know who votes. So not only can you bet on the fact that Socal Security and Medicare won't get smaller, it's a safe bet that they'll get larger as time goes on. And the money's got to come from somewhere.

Now, this would be a problem in the best of times, but when you factor in that we're adding half a trillion more debt each year, the picture in the future looks pretty damn bleak.

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.

hm, i can understand that!

You are referred here:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147005

have a nice day :lol:

You are referred here:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147005

have a nice day :lol:
thanks for the SPAM!

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.Go ask an economics professor what would happen if we tried to renege on our debt. Guess who owns most of it right now? China and Saudi Arabia. Think they could eff up our economy if we tried to bail on the trillions in debt we owe them?

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.Go ask an economics professor what would happen if we tried to renege on our debt. Guess who owns most of it right now? China and Saudi Arabia. Think they could eff up our economy if we tried to bail on the trillions in debt we owe them?
The Saudis would never collect, and China won't attempt to collect for another 40 years or so

And what do the Saudis control the world's biggest supply of? And what do we need more than any other nation on earth? And do you really want to start a world war over it? Think these things through, man.

Well let's look at the Republican policies instead shall we?
Cut taxes for the rich and increase spending.
Erm, I'm no economist but even I know those numbers don't work out. Hence: Hellooooooooooooo deficit!

Clearly it's Clintons fault. If he hadn't ended up with such a huge surplus, and instead left the country horribly in debt, Bush might not have been able to afford the war...

Aloha to that, Monkeypimp.

If only Al Sharpton had been the successful Democrat candidate. I hope I'm not flamed for my pick. He seemed the most decent of all the "others."

And what do the Saudis control the world's biggest supply of? And what do we need more than any other nation on earth? And do you really want to start a world war over it? Think these things through, man.
whats the big deal with fighting the saudis? they already dont like us (sept 11th hijackers) so why not just beat their ass and get rid of the shitty royal family

NA, if you believe that striking in 2 separate nations at the same time is considered multi-tasking, you need to rethink your sensitivities to those of us who actually served. The military is not some tool that you simply stick into places to multi-task and do your bidding. That type of callous belief seems to come from a lot of those in your party, that the military is simply chess pieces they can move around the board without much thought about the lives behind the pieces. That just pisses me off to no end.

Your revered Bush said in the presidential campaign that he would not stretch our military resources thin. He said he would not engage in nation building. He said that he would help the military with benefits and pay raises. He said that he would not use the military as the world's police force. Each one of those statements are now broken promises.

To say that there was a plan in place before 9/11 to invade Iraq means that all pretexts for invading Iraq were false. Every pretext for invasion was tied into protecting our country following the heinous acts on 9/11. But if that's the case then how do you draw up a war plan calling for a pre-emptive strike before such an act has taken place? Think NA, use some common sense when thinking about this. Connect the dots and see what you see. Its not a pretty site.

Either you were lied to by Bush about all of the rationale for going to war. Even if for some weird reason a nuclear weapon were found in Iraq, he STILL lied to the American people if that war plan for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike was drawn up any day before 9/11. Think about that for a while.

And NA, before you choose to speak so disrespectfully about our military again, you might want to take the time to choose more appropriate words. Quoted and bumped becaus I DARE Any conservtive to try and pick apart his arguments...

NA, if you believe that striking in 2 separate nations at the same time is considered multi-tasking, you need to rethink your sensitivities to those of us who actually served. The military is not some tool that you simply stick into places to multi-task and do your bidding. That type of callous belief seems to come from a lot of those in your party, that the military is simply chess pieces they can move around the board without much thought about the lives behind the pieces. That just pisses me off to no end.

Your revered Bush said in the presidential campaign that he would not stretch our military resources thin. He said he would not engage in nation building. He said that he would help the military with benefits and pay raises. He said that he would not use the military as the world's police force. Each one of those statements are now broken promises.

To say that there was a plan in place before 9/11 to invade Iraq means that all pretexts for invading Iraq were false. Every pretext for invasion was tied into protecting our country following the heinous acts on 9/11. But if that's the case then how do you draw up a war plan calling for a pre-emptive strike before such an act has taken place? Think NA, use some common sense when thinking about this. Connect the dots and see what you see. Its not a pretty site.

Either you were lied to by Bush about all of the rationale for going to war. Even if for some weird reason a nuclear weapon were found in Iraq, he STILL lied to the American people if that war plan for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike was drawn up any day before 9/11. Think about that for a while.

And NA, before you choose to speak so disrespectfully about our military again, you might want to take the time to choose more appropriate words.
Oh.... where the fuck do I start???

Point 1. I am in the military, so don't talk to me like I am a fuck ing civilian.

Point 2. At my level, you do not think of war as people shooting at each other, you think of every batallion, brigade, company, troop, battery, and tank as a chess piece and the battle is a chess game. Losses are going to happen, our job is to make sure there is the least amount of losses as possible. It sounds cold and heartless, but thats the way it is. And I do not associate myself with any party, but I dispise the democratic party. Since you were in the military you would understand the fact that the President is the Cdr-in-Chief, I do not have the authority to question his decisions, only Congress and the American people can.

Ponit 3. The President did say before he was elected that he would not stretch our military. That was before Sept. 11th. And if we are not to be the world's police force, who is? The UN did a great job in Somalia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sudan, Uganda, Georgia, and Kosovo didn't they? Until the UN enforces what they pass, the job of the worlds police will fall onto the shoulders of US and NATO soldeirs.

Point 4. When NBC weapons are found, our war in Iraq will be justified to the entire world. Bush had a plan to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th, just like how the USA has a plan to invade every country. It is common knowledge that the Pentagon has war plans on every country on the planet.

Point 5. If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, then Bush did not lie to me, he was fooled by the Intel like how 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen, and I was.

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.Go ask an economics professor what would happen if we tried to renege on our debt. Guess who owns most of it right now? China and Saudi Arabia. Think they could eff up our economy if we tried to bail on the trillions in debt we owe them?
The Saudis would never collect, and China won't attempt to collect for another 40 years or so
Never mind who owns the debt. Right now, interest rates are at historical lows, and US Debt is spinning out of control.

When the interest rates start to rise and they will, consumers will spend less, jobs will be lost, personal and company bankruptcies will increase, the stock market will dive, and recession and/or a depression will cripple the economy.

You won't even know what hit you.

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.Go ask an economics professor what would happen if we tried to renege on our debt. Guess who owns most of it right now? China and Saudi Arabia. Think they could eff up our economy if we tried to bail on the trillions in debt we owe them?
The Saudis would never collect, and China won't attempt to collect for another 40 years or so
Never mind who owns the debt. Right now, interest rates are at historical lows, and US Debt is spinning out of control.

When the interest rates start to rise and they will, consumers will spend less, jobs will be lost, personal and company bankruptcies will increase, the stock market will dive, and recession and/or a depression will cripple the economy.

You won't even know what hit you.
here is another theory,

when the gas prices drive inflation thru the roof then our economy will be in the shitter along with the rest of the worlds. we need to do something about the gas prices now, the deficit can be delt with later.

i think the deficit is a load of shit. no country we owe money to is going to come up to us and try to collect, so it kind of like owing the late fee at a movie store that went out of business. No one is going to make us pay it.Go ask an economics professor what would happen if we tried to renege on our debt. Guess who owns most of it right now? China and Saudi Arabia. Think they could eff up our economy if we tried to bail on the trillions in debt we owe them?
The Saudis would never collect, and China won't attempt to collect for another 40 years or so
Never mind who owns the debt. Right now, interest rates are at historical lows, and US Debt is spinning out of control.

When the interest rates start to rise and they will, consumers will spend less, jobs will be lost, personal and company bankruptcies will increase, the stock market will dive, and recession and/or a depression will cripple the economy.

You won't even know what hit you.
here is another theory,

when the gas prices drive inflation thru the roof then our economy will be in the shitter along with the rest of the worlds. we need to do something about the gas prices now, the deficit can be delt with later.

I have a better idea, more people should start riding bikes or walking.

I'm sick of people in minivans constantly coming inches away from running me over.

No. when gas prices go though the room we will just have to get tough and shut up. You do know that even at 2$ a gallon the US pays less then almost any other nation for gas?

Maybe just maybe it will get SO expensive that we will actually begin producing ALT_Fuel and Hybrid cars that can get 60mpg an not 10!

No. when gas prices go though the room we will just have to get tough and shut up. You do know that even at 2$ a gallon the US pays less then almost any other nation for gas?

Maybe just maybe it will get SO expensive that we will actually begin producing ALT_Fuel and Hybrid cars that can get 60mpg an not 10!
even with Europe's high (as compared to the US) gas prices they have not switched to ALT fuel cars in large numbers. I can see gas prices going as high as $5 or $6 a gallon before the majority of Americans see ALT fuel cars as a real option when compared to gasoline fueled cars.

Quoted and bumped becaus I DARE Any conservtive to try and pick apart his arguments...
I just did, what do you have to say now?

Quoted and bumped becaus I DARE Any conservtive to try and pick apart his arguments...
I just did, what do you have to say now? Ok, While I am sure there are others out there far better than I, I shall give it a go, kay?
*ahems*

Point 1. I am in the military, so don't talk to me like I am a f--- ing civilian. Ok, well, it wasn't my post to begin with, so we will skip this one.

Point 2. At my level, you do not think of war as people shooting at each other, you think of every batallion, brigade, company, troop, battery, and tank as a chess piece and the battle is a chess game. Losses are going to happen, our job is to make sure there is the least amount of losses as possible. It sounds cold and heartless, but thats the way it is. Well I admit, that does sound cold and heartless, I would like to think that even the most Cold general would care for every life of his forces, and not think of them as mere things or obgects... And I do not associate myself with any party, but I dispise the democratic party. Since you were in the military you would understand the fact that the President is the Cdr-in-Chief, I do not have the authority to question his decisions, only Congress and the American people can. Ok, two things here, one, we are in a two party system, so your either with us, or against us! (heh) Also, What do you mean you do not have the Authority to Question your President? did you sign away your god given rights as an American when you joined? Are you no longer a Citizen? When did this happen? If anything, those in the Armed Forces who defend this nation should have the highest right to question the wisdom of their supreme commander!

Point 3. The President did say before he was elected that he would not stretch our military. That was before Sept. 11th. (sighs) you make it so hard not to become Sarcastic. Look. Going into Afghanistan IMHO was needed, The US needed to just bomb something, we were mad, we were ALL mad then, and it felt good to bomb some helpless people. But that was it, it was JUST Afghanistan, now, we are not going to agree here, I’m going to say going into Iraq is silly, and has nothing NOTHING to do with 9/11, your going to argue just the opposite, and neither one of us is going to change our minds. so next issue.

Point 4. When NBC weapons are found, our war in Iraq will be justified to the entire world. Whoa, ok, stop right there. 'When' we find WMD's/NBC's? So, you really do still believe that Saddam had the 'massive Stockpiles’? er, ok, moving on. Bush had a plan to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th, just like how the USA has a plan to invade every country. It is common knowledge that the Pentagon has war plans on every country on the planet. Really? I didn't know that, but I guess it is because I’m just a stupid 'Liberal' huh? So, your telling me we have plans to invade every nation? So if New Zealand tomorrow suddenly has nukes trained on us, we already have a plan attack? Fricken amazing. But you see, the problem is with this, there’s a difference between having a plan of attack, and using it, here look at my last point.

Point 5. If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, then Bush did not lie to me, he was fooled by the Intel like how 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen, and I was. See right here, the Intel issue. Now if im president, and I tell my nation, my people and the world that I KNOW for a FACT that not only does Saddam have WMD's but I know where they are, EXACTLY where they are. Does that not, in anyone way make me somewhat responsible when we attack and then say "Golly gee whiz! Our Intel must have been wrong!" You see, The President is the highest person in the land, what’s the phrase? 'The Buck Stops Here' ? Your right, 77 Senators and 296 Congressmen were 'fooled' ( I won't say Lied to) by his Intel. But the President is the President, If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, The Bush shouldn't be walking around making jokes of himself "Now were are those WMD's, are they here? No..."
See he should take responsibility. He said we MUST Got to war; we HAD to go to war NOW!!! It was URGENT!!! He told us to go to war because of what is now totally wrong Intel... Is he not responsible? Does it not make this war wrong?

Thank you,

Quoted and bumped becaus I DARE Any conservtive to try and pick apart his arguments...
I just did, what do you have to say now? Ok, While I am sure there are others out there far better than I, I shall give it a go, kay?
*ahems*

Point 1. I am in the military, so don't talk to me like I am a f--- ing civilian. Ok, well, it wasn't my post to begin with, so we will skip this one.
Good

Point 2. At my level, you do not think of war as people shooting at each other, you think of every batallion, brigade, company, troop, battery, and tank as a chess piece and the battle is a chess game. Losses are going to happen, our job is to make sure there is the least amount of losses as possible. It sounds cold and heartless, but thats the way it is. Well I admit, that does sound cold and heartless, I would like to think that even the most Cold general would care for every life of his forces, and not think of them as mere things or obgects... And I do not associate myself with any party, but I dispise the democratic party. Since you were in the military you would understand the fact that the President is the Cdr-in-Chief, I do not have the authority to question his decisions, only Congress and the American people can. Ok, two things here, one, we are in a two party system, so your either with us, or against us! (heh) Also, What do you mean you do not have the Authority to Question your President? did you sign away your god given rights as an American when you joined? Are you no longer a Citizen? When did this happen? If anything, those in the Armed Forces who defend this nation should have the highest right to question the wisdom of their supreme commander!
Has anyone close to you ever died? Remember how sad you were? Did you cry? Now what if a general did that same amount of grieving, times 4 (4 soldiers in a tank crew) every time he lost a tank. the battle would never be won. you have to put emotions aside and think of them of pieces. commanders do not need to get emotionaly attached to every soldier in their unit while the battle is being faught.
By the "i do not have the authority to question his authority" comment, i meant that I am a lowly Sergeant, there is a chain of command to follow, and the President is not immediatly on top of me. If i disagreed with the president, i would write my congressman and vote against him in the tradition of our democracy.
Point 3. The President did say before he was elected that he would not stretch our military. That was before Sept. 11th. (sighs) you make it so hard not to become Sarcastic. Look. Going into Afghanistan IMHO was needed, The US needed to just bomb something, we were mad, we were ALL mad then, and it felt good to bomb some helpless people. But that was it, it was JUST Afghanistan, now, we are not going to agree here, I’m going to say going into Iraq is silly, and has nothing NOTHING to do with 9/11, your going to argue just the opposite, and neither one of us is going to change our minds. so next issue.
By "before Sept. 11th" remark, i was saying that the US did not have a reason to get heavily involved in international affairs. we turned our backs on afganistain and did not help rebuild that nation and look what happened.
Point 4. When NBC weapons are found, our war in Iraq will be justified to the entire world. Whoa, ok, stop right there. 'When' we find WMD's/NBC's? So, you really do still believe that Saddam had the 'massive Stockpiles’? er, ok, moving on. Bush had a plan to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th, just like how the USA has a plan to invade every country. It is common knowledge that the Pentagon has war plans on every country on the planet. Really? I didn't know that, but I guess it is because I’m just a stupid 'Liberal' huh? So, your telling me we have plans to invade every nation? So if New Zealand tomorrow suddenly has nukes trained on us, we already have a plan attack? Fricken amazing. But you see, the problem is with this, there’s a difference between having a plan of attack, and using it, here look at my last point.
Yes I do believe NBC weapons will be found in large numbers in Iraq.
Yes we do have a plan to invade New Zealand if they throw some nukes at us.
Yes we invaded and liberated Iraq.

Point 5. If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, then Bush did not lie to me, he was fooled by the Intel like how 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen, and I was. See right here, the Intel issue. Now if im president, and I tell my nation, my people and the world that I KNOW for a FACT that not only does Saddam have WMD's but I know where they are, EXACTLY where they are. Does that not, in anyone way make me somewhat responsible when we attack and then say "Golly gee whiz! Our Intel must have been wrong!" You see, The President is the highest person in the land, what’s the phrase? 'The Buck Stops Here' ? Your right, 77 Senators and 296 Congressmen were 'fooled' ( I won't say Lied to) by his Intel. But the President is the President, If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, The Bush shouldn't be walking around making jokes of himself "Now were are those WMD's, are they here? No..."
See he should take responsibility. He said we MUST Got to war; we HAD to go to war NOW!!! It was URGENT!!! He told us to go to war because of what is now totally wrong Intel... Is he not responsible? Does it not make this war wrong?
Well, you're not President, and you are not running for that office, so I do not care what you would have presented to the American public if you were president. Most people were fooled by the Intel. Even if there are no NBC weapons found in Iraq (there will be some found, even if the CIA has to plant some in the desert somewhere), getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do for this world, wether the UN liked it or not.

Ok, that all seemed resonable, you reubtted almost evryone one of my comments with seemingly well measured arguments, good for you. But you missed one.

Point 5. If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, then Bush did not lie to me, he was fooled by the Intel like how 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen, and I was. See right here, the Intel issue. Now if im president, and I tell my nation, my people and the world that I KNOW for a FACT that not only does Saddam have WMD's but I know where they are, EXACTLY where they are. Does that not, in anyone way make me somewhat responsible when we attack and then say "Golly gee whiz! Our Intel must have been wrong!" You see, The President is the highest person in the land, what’s the phrase? 'The Buck Stops Here' ? Your right, 77 Senators and 296 Congressmen were 'fooled' ( I won't say Lied to) by his Intel. But the President is the President, If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, The Bush shouldn't be walking around making jokes of himself "Now were are those WMD's, are they here? No..."
See he should take responsibility. He said we MUST Got to war; we HAD to go to war NOW!!! It was URGENT!!! He told us to go to war because of what is now totally wrong Intel... Is he not responsible? Does it not make this war wrong?
Well, you're not President, and you are not running for that office, so I do not care what you would have presented to the American public if you were president. Most people were fooled by the Intel. Even if there are no NBC weapons found in Iraq (there will be some found, even if the CIA has to plant some in the desert somewhere), getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do for this world, wether the UN liked it or not.
You completly evaded the point here. I am saying the excuse "Even if there ARE no WMD's, it was still the right thing to do" Im sorry, that simply doesn't Jive. Now, Answere my question. Is our Presdent responsable? Does he or does he not bare responsiblity for taking us to war? The Intel is False, you have said so. This means he was wrong. Does that not make this war wrong? Do not say we did it to free Iraq, we didn't, do not tell me we did it to get rid of Saddam, we didn't. Do not say the previous two arguments together Justify this war. They do not.

Bush took us to war on one reason, that Iraq HAD WMD's, if this is wrong IS HE RESPONSIBLE?

You completly evaded the point here. I am saying the excuse "Even if there ARE no WMD's, it was still the right thing to do" Im sorry, that simply doesn't Jive. Now, Answere my question. Is our Presdent responsable? Does he or does he not bare responsiblity for taking us to war? The Intel is False, you have said so. This means he was wrong. Does that not make this war wrong? Do not say we did it to free Iraq, we didn't, do not tell me we did it to get rid of Saddam, we didn't. Do not say the previous two arguments together Justify this war. They do not.

Bush took us to war on one reason, that Iraq HAD WMD's, if this is wrong IS HE RESPONSIBLE?
I am saying that if no NBC weapons are found, then false Intel led us to war with Iraq. As an Intel analyst, i can honestly say that we have the best equipment in the world when it comes to satilites, phone taps, and email cracking. The only thing that can with out a doubt, 100%, confirm that something is where we think it is, is HUMINT (human intel.). Since the end of the cold war (i believe after the Munich Olympics) we should have realized that the new threat would come from terrorism, especially of Mid-east origin. we had our HUMINT geared toward the non-existant Soviet threat when we should have been training our 97Es and 97Bs in Arabic and Farsi languages and culture. the Intel community has failed at this, and it took Sept. 11th as a wake up call for our guys to realize what we were weak at. The only HUNINT the US recieved of Iraq's NBC weapons were from anti-Saddam Iraqis. We should have known that those sources were not reliable (when I say we, i say the intel. community). Without the HUMINT, I still felt that our SIGINT and IMINT showed that Saddam had NBC weapons. I believe on over dependance on anti-Saddam Iraqis for our HUMINT was one of the contributing factors for us going to war with Iraq.

I blame the Intel. community for not adjusting to the emerging threat after the end of the cold war as the primary reason we went into Iraq to find NBC weapons that, so far, we have been unable to find.

Point 1. I am in the military, so don't talk to me like I am a f--- ing civilian.

The fact that you say you are in the military only further legitimizes my original statement. You should know better. And I’m not one of those people who believe that just because someone wasn’t in the military they can’t speak out negatively about what’s going on. So long as the person speaking understands the human element to the matters at hand. But if you’re military and still don’t understand that fact, then I wonder what on earth are you thinking?

Point 2. At my level, you do not think of war as people shooting at each other, you think of every batallion, brigade, company, troop, battery, and tank as a chess piece and the battle is a chess game. Losses are going to happen, our job is to make sure there is the least amount of losses as possible. It sounds cold and heartless, but thats the way it is. And I do not associate myself with any party, but I dispise the democratic party. Since you were in the military you would understand the fact that the President is the Cdr-in-Chief, I do not have the authority to question his decisions, only Congress and the American people can.

No, you’re wrong. You not only think of every movement of larger formations but also of how it will affect each and every individual as well. Yes, the good of the whole outweighs the importance of the good of the one. But don’t get caught up in thinking that because of this you can neglect the importance of that one’s position in the whole.

Losses do happen. Everyone realizes that the day they sign up. But when losses are treated as though they have no meaning, there is a problem. Case in point, you do NOT fly onto an aircraft carrier, holding up its return to port after having been on duty for such a long time, and tell the world that mission is accomplished when it clearly was far away from reality.

As a member of the military, it is your responsibility to follow moral orders. It is ALSO your responsibility to understand and object to immoral orders. Did you forget this part? A soldier can be held accountable for their actions even if they state, “I was only following orders.” You are not a sheep. You are not a machine. You are a person with choices inside a greater structure. Even if those orders are from the President, you can be held accountable for your own actions. History and the present have taught us the truth of this.

And you can choose to despise the Democratic Party as much as you’d like, but think about how uninsightful the president was when he coaxed the combatants to “Bring it on!” Ever have a CO that was so gung-ho that you feared he would recklessly endanger the lives of you and those you serve with? What did you feel about that person?

Ponit 3. The President did say before he was elected that he would not stretch our military. That was before Sept. 11th. And if we are not to be the world's police force, who is? The UN did a great job in Somalia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sudan, Uganda, Georgia, and Kosovo didn't they? Until the UN enforces what they pass, the job of the worlds police will fall onto the shoulders of US and NATO soldeirs.

Each of the actions you list have taken place before 9/11. Which means that either the president was lying about not using the military as the police of the world and stretching its resources thin or he was a moron and didn’t understand the implications of what he saying. Either way, not the type of person you want calling the shots. The job of the world’s police is in the UN’s hands. And the UN may not have had complete successes in their missions but perhaps they would work a lot better if they had the full support of the US and NATO. Instead, we get to shoulder the burden for a job that isn’t ours. Use 9/11 as your justification all you want, but you forget the fact that after 9/11 our military had a job that it needed to do in Afghanistan. Not in Iraq. I’m reminded of an old saying: “when you pull a weed, make sure you do it by the roots or it will grow back.” We lopped the head off the weed in Afghanistan and declared it done. Now the weeds are growing back and our resources are already accounted for elsewhere. 9/11 is not an excuse someone can use to haphazardly commit the military to whatever whim needs served.


Point 4. When NBC weapons are found, our war in Iraq will be justified to the entire world. Bush had a plan to invade Iraq before Sept. 11th, just like how the USA has a plan to invade every country. It is common knowledge that the Pentagon has war plans on every country on the planet.

Is it the policy of the Pentagon to focus on one country and work and rework the plan for invasion of one country to such an extent that they lose focus on everything else? Even Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld were against such thinking during the first 9 months of Bush’s presidency. When weapons are found? If weapons were the sole rationale, then perhaps we should have used the UN’s inspectors to find them.

Also, about that plan in Iraq, why was it Bush’s policy to link Iraq to 9/11 in the first place? That’s pretty damned disingenuous.

Point 5. If the Intel on the NBC weapons was wrong, then Bush did not lie to me, he was fooled by the Intel like how 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen, and I was.

Fooled by the slant that he asked Intel to put on it in the first place? Do you remember that Cheney started his own Intelligence branch? Do you remember that the intelligence divisions placed limited credibility upon what Chalabi was reporting but then Cheney’s intelligence department used Chalabi and his informants as a primary source of information? This is the same Chalabi now under investigation for selling American intel to Iran? The same Chalabi convicted of fraud in Jordan? The same Chalabi who had not been in Iraq for 50 years? The same informants who hadn’t been in Iraq for 12 years?

Congress was given the information that Bush and Cheney asked to be put together. They were led to believe that this information was from credible resources and were not spun to favor any specific course of action. Bush was not fooled by the intel because he and Cheney set the protocols for how the intelligence would be gathered in the first place. There is an inherent difference between Bush saying he was fooled and Congress saying they were misled. If you are fooled by your own misdoings, then you are a fool.

Oh heavens, thank you for that Thunderland! I really had a hard time not lossing it last night making my responses. I mean, he still completly dodged my question. Yes or no, is Bush responsible.

Heh, no problem. I would like to have posted that earlier but got caught up in meetings this morning.

Hhhmmm, perhaps it is GOOD that America is being dicouraged from using oil? The U.S is the world's largest user. Compared to the UK, they use 90 times as much! (Based on the fact that the USA consumes the amount Britian uses in a year, in a day, and America has roughly 4 times the population of the UK.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: coal powered cars!!! Sure it will mess up the environment beyond belief but you'll be giving thousands of people in my state employment opportunities!!! C'mon, you know you want to drive around in a car that has the capability to produce a smoke screen. Why, its almost James Bondlike!!!