Things you won't hear in the U.S.

[jimpeel]

technically, yes. substantively, probably not.

what your remark did was drop back to the unseen hard of the market and minimize the impact of projections of political power. which is obviously not the case.

At least the last part is comprehendible.

Yes political processes do help control the market. Chavez and Ahmadinajad are leaders of countries which are members of OPEC so they control the prices through that function of the market. But what would happen if everyone in America stopped buying Citgo gas and shopping at those stations? Do you think that the price would come down elsewhere due to the glut of gas that Chavez would have to deal with to keep up his profits for Venezuela?

reading comprehension? ha ha you funny there professor.

Maybe some writing skills as well?

 

[jimpeel]

Damn! Iraqis think we're the great Satan and are dying to attack us and our military is keeping them keeping them from leaving their country?

You forget. It is not just Iraqis we are fighting over there. It is a proven fact that there are Syrians and Iranians, mainly, and a smattering of Egyptians and Saudis there too. The fact is that they are occupied at the moment so they aren't coming here. Do you think it just coincidence that there have been no further attaqcks on the U.S. and that those attacks in the planning have been thwarted?

Maybe we should try it your way and see what happens. It won't be pretty, though.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You forget. It is not just Iraqis we are fighting over there. It is a proven fact that there are Syrians and Iranians, mainly, and a smattering of Egyptians and Saudis there too. The fact is that they are occupied at the moment so they aren't coming here. Do you think it just coincidence that there have been no further attaqcks on the U.S. and that those attacks in the planning have been thwarted?

Maybe we should try it your way and see what happens. It won't be pretty, though.

You know...all one has to do to see the media bias is to google "Baghdad Church", or "St John's Assyrian Catholic Church" (include the quotes) to see whats going on. Of course, that would require an open mind...something most liberals claim to have, but fail to use.

 

[chcr]

You forget. It is not just Iraqis we are fighting over there. It is a proven fact that there are Syrians and Iranians, mainly, and a smattering of Egyptians and Saudis there too. The fact is that they are occupied at the moment so they aren't coming here. Do you think it just coincidence that there have been no further attaqcks on the U.S. and that those attacks in the planning have been thwarted?

Maybe we should try it your way and see what happens. It won't be pretty, though.

So, what your saying is it's okay to destroy their country to protect ours?

 

[spike]

So, what your saying is it's okay to destroy their country to protect ours?

Hell yeah. Take some random country and claim to be fighting all your enemies there for lack of a better reason.

I know if France was fighting a war that they'd rather fight it here than in their own country. Of course everyone would support that.

 

[Gato_Solo]

So, what your saying is it's okay to destroy their country to protect ours?

Depends on why its being destroyed. You know as well as I do that national interest almost always trumps international disdain. Every country has the same ideas. If they can get away with it, they'll do it.

 

[chcr]

Depends on why its being destroyed. You know as well as I do that national interest almost always trumps international disdain. Every country has the same ideas. If they can get away with it, they'll do it.

I do know it. I'm just not sure that makes it okay. Despite what Gonz frequently wants to spout about my lack of beliefs, I do have a very strong sense of right and wrong. Using a third party as a shield just seems wrong to me. On the one hand, yes please, protect the nation (which I remain unconvinced that the Iraq war in any sense does). The cost however, can be too high and no, I'm not referring to money.

Honestly, I think the nation needs protecting a lot more from what it's doing to itself than any outside threat. I'm not sure there is a credible outside threat right now. China will be in a few years but not yet.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I do know it. I'm just not sure that makes it okay. Despite what Gonz frequently wants to spout about my lack of beliefs, I do have a very strong sense of right and wrong. Using a third party as a shield just seems wrong to me. On the one hand, yes please, protect the nation (which I remain unconvinced that the Iraq war in any sense does). The cost however, can be too high and no, I'm not referring to money.

Honestly, I think the nation needs protecting a lot more from what it's doing to itself than any outside threat.

I, too, have a strong sense of right and wrong. I don't want to be in a war. Never did. Our elected leaders thought otherwise...Liberal and Conservative alike. Any problems associated with this fall squarely on their shoulders. Especially the ones who want us to pull out. They voted for this action for political expediency. No sooner than we finished rolling through Baghdad, these same people, once again for political expediency, started clamoring for our immediate exit. If they were so strongly against the action, they should've said no to begin with. Now, for the forseeable future, we will be stuck here, doing our best to clean up for one sides political expediency, and the other sides focus on saving money. Then...to add insult to injury...the public decides that this was a bad idea. This same public that voted in the ones who ordered us here. The same public that will not become involved enough to join up, but will scream from the rooftops about how we're fighting an 'illegal' war. I truly don't know which group is worse...the 'money-changers' or the 'rebels without a clue'.

 

[chcr]

Well, if you'll remember, I didn't decide it was a bad idea. I always thought so.

Now, you don't think that the feeling that they've been hoodwinked regarding the whole business has anything to do with the "public's" (a public that you, my friend are a part of) change of heart, do you?

In fact, from day one it's become more and more clear that this whole Iraq business is a put up job having nothing to do with national security. You keep railing about "cleaning up our mess" but it's not in fact our mess. It was there before we arrived and it will be there after we leave. If anything, we are exacerbating it rather than helping the situation.

I'll say it again. The current policy has no hope of working in either the short or the long term. Our only viable choices, in my view, are to stomp on their throats until they capitulate, a policy clearly fraught with many ancillary dangers, or simply stop wasting lives and resources on a hopeless situation with no hope of satisfactory resolution. Hell, no clear consensus of what a satisfactory resolution would be. What will really happen is that we'll continue on as we have been for a few more years until everyone is fundamentally disgusted with the whole thing, then we'll pull out with some self-righteous platitudes about how we "did the right thing" according to "the big picture." Despite what you or I think the best course of action would be, regardless of who gets elected, that's what is really going to happen.

I personally think that it's important to hang on to your self-respect and your ideals with all of your might. It's just as important to be realistic and dispassionate about what will really happen. Doesn't particularly satisfy me, but I'm not about to immolate myself in front of the Capitol to make my point.

 

[Gonz]

So, what your saying is it's okay to destroy their country to protect ours?

We're not the ones destroying it. We're the ones making it habitable again. Ole saddam & kids thought Baghdad was enough.

I do know it. I'm just not sure that makes it okay. Despite what Gonz frequently wants to spout about my lack of beliefs, I do have a very strong sense of right and wrong.

Instead of using it, you typically denounce a post. When called on it, you immediately refer to the NEVER MIND clause in your contract. We'll never know if you don't write something.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Leave it to Christians to confuse the situation.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Hell yeah. Take some random country and claim to be fighting all your enemies there for lack of a better reason.

Nothing "random" about it.

 

[spike]

Sure would be an illogical place to pick if you actually wanted to fight a War on Terror.

 

[Gonz]

Perhaps, Maj General spike would enlighten us on his battle plans?

 

[spike]

Focus on countries where the terrorists come from?

 

[Gonz]

Nice title.

Are the informational; paragraphs wriiten yet?

 

[jimpeel]

Focus on countries where the terrorists come from?

Your contention is specious. "Fifteen of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia!" your type always shouts. "They didn't come from Iraq!"

By your specious standard, we should attack Britain because that is where Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, came from. How far are you willing to take your contention; because if we were to take it to the utmost conclusion we would be invading half the world right now.

Hitler made his mistake with a two pronged war and lost. You want a 10, 15, or twenty pronged war. What doe you think the result of that would be?

 

[spike]

The idea being that Iraq was not the hotbed of terrorism and Iraqis have not been classically behind terrorist attacks on the US. So if you were going to have a two pronged war on terror it would make no sense for one of those prongs to be Iraq when there are far more obvious choices.

 

[2minkey]

Your contention is specious. "Fifteen of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia!" your type always shouts. "They didn't come from Iraq!"

By your specious standard, we should attack Britain because that is where Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, came from. How far are you willing to take your contention; because if we were to take it to the utmost conclusion we would be invading half the world right now.

hmmmm mebbe we should attack the most culturally salient source of that kinda ideology which 'um kinda produces twits like the 9/11 fags and mister reid?

that would immediately disqualify iraq, though, since saddam has about as much in common with them as you do with hugo chavez. hey yer both from the americas you must be the same!

oopsie.

 

[Gato_Solo]

hmmmm mebbe we should attack the most culturally salient source of that kinda ideology which 'um kinda produces twits like the 9/11 fags and mister reid?

Sure...when the public is willing to fogo those huge SUV's and V-8 power, we'll get right on that. Before you say it...what are you driving to lower our dependence on foreign oil?

that would immediately disqualify iraq, though, since saddam has about as much in common with them as you do with hugo chavez. hey yer both from the americas you must be the same!

oopsie.

Por que tu no callese?