jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Well, I wish you well in your quest. Just be careful that the plan doesn't sacrifice the entire Middle East on the altar of political correctness.
Things you won't hear in the U.S.
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Well, I wish you well in your quest. Just be careful that the plan doesn't sacrifice the entire Middle East on the altar of political correctness.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
In other words, if our pulling out of Iraq to appease the anti-war types causes the Middle east to collapse into factional war, the consequences will be long lasting and worldwide.
What do you think will happen if the safety valve of American troops is removed? Isreal has nukes. Iran is close to having nukes. Pakistan, although a half a world away, has nukes. What if those fall into the hands of extremist Muslims?
We are talking about having nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist Muslims who will not hesitate for a single heartbeat to use them against the United States and European countries; and they will do so with a clear conscience.
Are you ready for the destruction of Isreal? Nuclear war? Iran knows that American troops, and the Iraqis they have trained, are on their border. They know that the U.S. has clearly stated that we will NOT let them acquire nukes.
Ahmadinejad has made speeches in which he states that Armageddon, the Islamic return of the twelfth Imam, will happen in his lifetime and that, Allah willing, he will start it. He has stated that he will destroy Israel. This is the same man who was the ringleader of the American embassy takeover in Tehran.
READ THIS.
Do you really want to leave the Middle East, unconstrained, to him?
spike
New Member
We'd be pulling out because it's dumb and a waste of taxpayer money to be there.
You think some extremist muslim Iraqis are going to steal nukes from Israel or some other country and launch them at the US if we leave Iraq? Where do you get this stuff?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
How much taxpayer money was wasted after three simple aircraft were flown into three buildings? What effect did this have on the economy as a whole?
Remember the color codes and how they went up and down with frightening regularity because some Arab got on a cell phone somewhere and said "Ahmed, we attack the Americans on Monday of next week!" placing police and military on full alert and overtime? Was that a good waste of taxpayer dollars? I think we finally figured out that they were simply yanking our chain with their "chatter" to make us panic and waste vast sums of taxpayer money; and we readily obliged.
<Sigh> ...
Please re-read the part about "Isreal has nukes. Iran is close to having nukes. Pakistan, although a half a world away, has nukes. What if those ("those" being Pakistan's) fall into the hands of extremist Muslims?"
If the fanatical Muslims get hold of nukes from such sources as Pakistan -- just look at what is developing there as this is written -- or Iran, they will not hesitate to use them on Israel and Israel will respond with their nukes. Remember that part in the post where I said "Are you ready for the destruction of Isreal? Nuclear war?"? It takes two to war if you haven't yet figured that out.
I can, however, see how you might have been confused by my wording. Sorry about that. I hope this straightens that out for you.
spike
New Member
This relates how?
Relates how? Yeah, the color codes were a brilliant use of money.
<Sigh> ...
So what does being in Iraq have to do with your doomsday fear mongering.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
The two towers alone cost two billion dollars. Then there were the financial collapses; the stock market plunging from 11,000 to 8,000; the added personnel for airport, bridge, dam, etc security; the cleanup of WTC at taxpayer expense; ad nauseum.
That's how it relates.
Maybe if we spend the money to kick the shit out of them over there we won't have to spend it here cleaning up the mess they make torching off a nuke in the middle of New York Harbor or San Francisco Bay.
The color went up every time some yahoo in the Middle east pushed our buttons. They knew we would panic and spend millions on overtime, extra manpower, etc.
That's how it relates.
Read the above about kicking the shit out of them on their soil instead of ours.
If Pakistan is taken over by radical Islamists do you truly beklieve that they will not exposrt Pakistan's nuke arsenal to other countries for use against the U.S. Israel, and Western Europe?
That's how it relates.
Tell me this.
- Are you willing to gamble that they will not come here and create carnage if we leave there?
- Are you willing to place the monetary savings of leaving there at a higher priority than the chance that they will come here and possibly kill hundreds of thousands of Americans?
- Do you believe that if they come here and cook off a nuke that your precious taxpayer dollars will not only be used to try to clean up the mess but to abrogate your rights and freedoms as well?
No fearmongering or doomsday scenario here. If they do these things, there will be no doomsday at all. If they were to take over worldwide, the Earth would simply continue on without the likes of you or me; because we would have long ago been led to the soccer field.
chcr
Too cute for words
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
And 1.6 trillion in losses here would BE cost effective?
You assume the world will go on in goodness and light if we simply stop being over there and spend the money over here instead. Just think how many programs could be funded with that money. What about our roads and infrastructure? Ad nauseum.
What crap.
The fact is that if we leave and the Middle East goes to hell in a handbasket we go with it. This economy runs on petroleum and the envirowackos here won't let us drill here so we can shuck off the Arabic oil dependency.
If you don't believe me, simply look at what has happened here lately with the cost of food because we are burning up the corn supply to try to use less foreign oil. Milk -- over 4.50/gallon. That's a 2.00 increase since August. Sodas -- up .25. Chicken -- up .30/#. Beef -- up .45/#. and it won't stop anytime soon.
Read this recent Time Magazine article on the fare reaching effects of corn ethanol production.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1633086,00.html?iid=redirect-ethanolessay
Then go to their "seek-n-find" page and take the test.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pdf/20070625_essay.pdf
Then go here and see how you did.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pdf/20070625_essaykey.pdf
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
....
The arrogance is overwhelming.
Get out of THEIR country and go back to yours and stay there unless invited!
you are like those bible thumpers who knock on peoples doors and tell me to find jesus, in my own house.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Again, from Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1612721,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom
Paved with Green Intentions
Thursday, Apr. 19, 2007 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSS Biofuels are touted as a planet-friendly substitute for coal and oil. While ethanol (made from corn or sugarcane) and biodiesel (made from soybean or palm oil) burn cleaner and produce less greenhouse gas than fossil fuels do, critics warn that biofuels have their own dark side. Cuba's Fidel Castro even called powering cars with food "sinister" policy, but here's a more level-headed breakdown of the impact and limitations of farming for fuel.
Corn. One-fifth of the U.S. corn crop is now turned into ethanol at 114 biorefineries, located primarily in the Midwest. To meet Bush's 2017 target of producing 35 billion gallons of ethanol, the entire current U.S. crop would need to be turned into fuel. So long, cornflakes?
Soybean. A dietary staple in Asia for 2,000 years, soybeans today are increasingly grown for oil and animal feed. The U.S. leads the world in soybean and corn production, but it would have to turn 100% of both crops into fuel in order to offset just 11% of U.S. on-road fuel consumption.
(Note: tthey said "on-road consumption. That leaves out all other uses such as home heating fuel, petroleum based products, etc. -- j)
Palm. Plantations of oil palms have been held responsible for 87% of the deforestation in Malaysia already. Growing demand for biofuels is expected to only increase the pace of destruction of rain forests on the biologically rich islands of Borneo and Sumatra.
Sugarcane. Boosters see Brazil, which meets 40% of its transportation fuel needs through ethanol, as a model to emulate. But critics warn that sugarcane encroaches on wildlife habitat, degrades soils and causes pollution when fields are burned.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1612721,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom
Paved with Green Intentions
Thursday, Apr. 19, 2007 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSS Biofuels are touted as a planet-friendly substitute for coal and oil. While ethanol (made from corn or sugarcane) and biodiesel (made from soybean or palm oil) burn cleaner and produce less greenhouse gas than fossil fuels do, critics warn that biofuels have their own dark side. Cuba's Fidel Castro even called powering cars with food "sinister" policy, but here's a more level-headed breakdown of the impact and limitations of farming for fuel.
Corn. One-fifth of the U.S. corn crop is now turned into ethanol at 114 biorefineries, located primarily in the Midwest. To meet Bush's 2017 target of producing 35 billion gallons of ethanol, the entire current U.S. crop would need to be turned into fuel. So long, cornflakes?
Soybean. A dietary staple in Asia for 2,000 years, soybeans today are increasingly grown for oil and animal feed. The U.S. leads the world in soybean and corn production, but it would have to turn 100% of both crops into fuel in order to offset just 11% of U.S. on-road fuel consumption.
(Note: tthey said "on-road consumption. That leaves out all other uses such as home heating fuel, petroleum based products, etc. -- j)
Palm. Plantations of oil palms have been held responsible for 87% of the deforestation in Malaysia already. Growing demand for biofuels is expected to only increase the pace of destruction of rain forests on the biologically rich islands of Borneo and Sumatra.
Sugarcane. Boosters see Brazil, which meets 40% of its transportation fuel needs through ethanol, as a model to emulate. But critics warn that sugarcane encroaches on wildlife habitat, degrades soils and causes pollution when fields are burned.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
So is your ignoreance. They don't care if we were to leave their country. The fact is that we WERE invited but in the eyes of the radicals, and people like you, we were invited by the wrong people -- the duly elected governments of those countries.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
yep, saddam invited you all right.
chcr
Too cute for words
Agreed. Your conclusions are not, however, supported by this argument.
In other words, what you're really saying is all the bad shit is happening anyway. Yet we should continue to throw obscene amounts of money at Iraq? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense at all and eventually (sooner probably rather than later) that kind of approach will destroy the country.
spike
New Member
I thought we were talking about Iraq. Not Saudi Arabia.
You think Iraqis are going to come fight us?
Again, we were talking about being in Iraq.
Yes, I have no reason to believe a bunch of Iraqis are going to cause carnage in the US.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Cerise
Well-Known Member
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." JFK
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
So you have the god given right to do what you want on foreign soil to have your version liberty brought worldwide?
Because that is what militant extremist think too, just replace liberty with whatever they believe in.