Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 80
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,197

    Letter To The Democratic National Committee

    Dear DNC:

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year.

    When Clinton was president, I worked in a prosperous enterprise. But! in the last year, we had to close our operations.

    Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? My pain of losing my sons is indescribable. While it is trivial next to the loss of m! y sons, I regret to say that I also lost my homes. I simply have nothing left.

    I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I was homeless, all because of President Bush.

    And when the authorities found me, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested. If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democratic party. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, I guarantee you, I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my sons!

    Regards,
    Saddam Hussein
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, I guarantee you, I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my sons!
    If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 maybe he would of listened to the warnings of his chief of counter terrorism Richard Clarke about Al-Queda and Bin Laden, then maybe the families of those in the WTC or of coalition forces wouldn't of lost their sons.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    202
    Originally posted by bagpuss
    If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 maybe he would of listened to the warnings of his chief of counter terrorism Richard Clarke about Al-Queda and Bin Laden, then maybe the families of those in the WTC or of coalition forces wouldn't of lost their sons.
    Bush was not in office long enough, and neithor would have been Gore, to prevent 9-11. For 9-11 to have been prevented I believe it would have taken major reforms by the previous administration.
    Jimmy

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,197
    Originally posted by JWB
    Bush was not in office long enough, and neithor would have been Gore, to prevent 9-11. For 9-11 to have been prevented I believe it would have taken major reforms by the previous administration.
    Agreed ...
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by JWB
    Bush was not in office long enough, and neithor would have been Gore, to prevent 9-11. For 9-11 to have been prevented I believe it would have taken major reforms by the previous administration.
    Well I can't really comment on that, but Richard Clarke who seems to have some expertise in that area could and he seems to think that maybe something could of been done :

    He said it was "outrageous" Mr Bush was running for re-election on his record fighting terrorism, when in fact he had "ignored it" before the attacks.

    "He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

    He said Mr Bush appeared obsessed with the idea of blaming former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Bush was just finishing Daddy's work. He was blind to where the real problems were.

    Why were US soldiers sent into Iraq, when just a few hundred miles away there was a real nuclear threat, and real weapons of mass destruction, ready to be used in Libya?

    Why? Because Saddam tried to kill Daddy and Daddy wanted revenge.

    And the body bags just keep coming home.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    417
    blue27 are you trying to say bush let this happen so that he can kill saddam !

    he would have done so by assassination attempt !

    dont you think so !
    * `*:. .:*` * ~ X-Max ~ * `*:. .:*` *
    I love Wikipedia.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Originally posted by X-Max
    blue27 are you trying to say bush let this happen so that he can kill saddam !

    he would have done so by assassination attempt !

    dont you think so !
    The President of the United States cannot order an assassination of a foreign leader. It's against the law...he would get impeached if he did that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by X-Max
    blue27 are you trying to say bush let this happen so that he can kill saddam !

    he would have done so by assassination attempt !

    dont you think so !
    "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination,"

    But since when does Bush follow the rules?

    Bush can "circumvent the ban and legally carry out an assassination"

    four ways it can be done:


    Bush can declare "the existence of hostilities" and target persons in command positions, such as Saddam as "combatants."

    He can rationalize a targeted attack on Saddam as a legitimate self-defense operation under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, in light of evidence that Saddam was planning future attacks against the U.S.

    More, he can narrowly interpret Executive Order 12333 to prohibit only "treacherous" attacks on foreign leaders.

    Or, the president can simply repeal or amend the order "or even approve a one-time exception to it. An assassination order is not without precedent.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,197
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.

    Get the stupid Liberal blinders off, look around at the real world for a moment and talk about something that REALLY matters.
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Originally posted by Rob83

    Or, the president can simply repeal or amend the order "or even approve a one-time exception to it. An assassination order is not without precedent.
    Actually, the President cannot repeal or amend such an order. That power is stripped from the President on purpose; the framers of our government system were not stupid. The President can only suggest an amendment or repeal, congress would have to approve it.

    Regards,
    Waylon

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.

    Get the stupid Liberal blinders off, look around at the real world for a moment and talk about something that REALLY matters.
    Real World? That's the problem. We are too involved with what's in the world than to worry about our own damn country.

    We have poor health care system, poor education, our unemployment rate is up, jobs are being outsourced to other countries, our deficit is wayyy up.

    We save countless lives? We killed many innocent people. We lost our own men in a war that was not needed.

    Where are these WMD?

    Bush lied to the American people. Bush used the American people. Bush used the American Dollar to make himself rich.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    ATLANTA
    Posts
    11
    Lets get some large datacenter OWNERS in here and see what they have to say haha.
    GNAX Truly Fully Managed Dedicated Servers for the price of Unmanaged!
    irc.rizon.net #GNACORP
    http://www.gnacorp.net coming soon

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    KIA I really feel sorry for you man noone sohuld outlive their children. Bummer about the homeless part too. I guess its all downhill from here though and I wish you the best of luck with the future.
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Originally posted by pixel_fenix
    KIA I really feel sorry for you man noone sohuld outlive their children. Bummer about the homeless part too. I guess its all downhill from here though and I wish you the best of luck with the future.
    You obviously skimmed the post....please go back and read it in its entirety.

    Regards,
    Waylon

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    893
    Originally posted by Rob83
    We have poor health care system, poor education, our unemployment rate is up, jobs are being outsourced to other countries, our deficit is wayyy up.
    "It's foolish to blame Bush for the pain that comes with change. Twelve years ago, movies like "Reality Bites" depicted college grads working at The Gap - and voters blamed the first President Bush for a dead economy. No one dreamed of the millions of jobs soon to be created by the growth of the Internet.

    We can regenerate jobs through invention and innovation. Or we can wall ourselves off and blame the president for not fixing something that's not broken." More

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by bagpuss
    If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 maybe he would of listened to the warnings of his chief of counter terrorism Richard Clarke about Al-Queda and Bin Laden, then maybe the families of those in the WTC or of coalition forces wouldn't of lost their sons.
    Clarke is supposidly not partisan, yet has ties to the Democraps.

    You guys have to come up with new **** all the time, because all your old '****' gets blasted apart..
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    O didn't catch that. My bad you are indeed right.
    Last edited by cywkevin; 03-22-2004 at 10:56 PM.
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by Rob83
    Real World? That's the problem. We are too involved with what's in the world than to worry about our own damn country.

    We have poor health care system, poor education, our unemployment rate is up, jobs are being outsourced to other countries, our deficit is wayyy up.

    We save countless lives? We killed many innocent people. We lost our own men in a war that was not needed.

    Where are these WMD?

    Bush lied to the American people. Bush used the American people. Bush used the American Dollar to make himself rich.
    Make himself rich? Bush was already rich, how the hell did he get into office eh?

    Why do you think jobs are being outsourced? Ever heard of NAFTA. Recall who signed NAFTA? And why did Clinton sign it? More terrifs...

    War that was not needed? So we should just sit back and let Saddam kill his own poeple? We did it will Stalin, so might as well.

    War takes time, I can't figure out why the hell liberals can't figure that out? We've by no means reached anywhere near the end nor have we searched the entire country of Iraq...
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by pixel_fenix
    What did I miss? He said he lost two of his sons and was homeless for a brief period.
    Pay attention to the end of his initial post, or maybe I'm missing something you're trying to say..
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by interactive
    War that was not needed? So we should just sit back and let Saddam kill his own poeple? We did it will Stalin, so might as well.
    North Korea has no problem killing their own people, why isn't the US at war there?

    China has no problem killing their own people, why isn't the US at war there?

    Many former Russian republics have no problem killing their own people, why isn't the US at war there?

    Pol Pot killed 3 million of his own people. Why did the US pull out of there?

    You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.

    originally posted by x-max
    blue27 are you trying to say bush let this happen so that he can kill saddam !

    he would have done so by assassination attempt !

    dont you think so !
    Look at history. The US has made many attempts to assassinate other world leaders and have failed miserably in every case.


    Originally posted by KIAHost
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.

    Get the stupid Liberal blinders off, look around at the real world for a moment and talk about something that REALLY matters.
    KIAHost, if anything your post is ignorant. Just because people disagree with you does not make them ignorant. Instead of acting mature and presenting some tangible points, instead you choose to insult.
    Why bother starting a thread?

  22. #22
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.

    Get the stupid Liberal blinders off, look around at the real world for a moment and talk about something that REALLY matters.
    Most pointless comment I've ever seen in an attempt to *debate* something.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Grangeville, Idaho
    Posts
    841
    At the risk of being flamed here I will interject my $0.02 worth of post here.

    I am a Republican, Ex-Soldier (8.5 years in US Army) who fought in first war in Kuwait. Yes, sadam needed to be gotten rid of, yes 9/11 was a major tragedy, but I think this war is just plain wrong. This is my personal belief...... I have watched the progress of this war, and what it has done to this economy and the moral of our citizens and how we are viewed by other nations. No where in History that I can find has the USA and its citizens lost so much of its freedoms, its constitutional standing then it has today due to war.


    Blue27 said this "You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.
    "

    Human rights doesnt come into play in aggressive actions the US takes anymore.... it only takes agressive actions if one of our interests is at stake such as Oil, land, or if someone has a fleating chance of carrying a bigger stick than we do. I mean hell look at us screaming that everyone has nuclear weapons.. holy Sh*t people... the US has 100X more than any country yet we refuse to disarm... what kind of double standard is that? How can we tell people how to act in their country when we have all this crap to deal with in our own.... police our own county before we police others... it is no wonder when I travel outside the US, people look at us like pariah..... its because we cant bother to work with other countries...we would rather beat them into submission and follow our rules. How can we tell another country to be a democracy, when in fact, the USA is NOT a Democracy anymore?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    908
    Basically some of you think....If we save thousands of lives, but find no WMD, you still think the war was a waste?

    Has the world gone mad?
    Last edited by PCplayground; 03-23-2004 at 12:53 AM.
    I buy vBulletin licenses and vBSEO licenses!

  25. #25
    We hypothetically saved thousands of lives...at what cost?

    Do you really believe this 'war' was to save lives?

    Have you gone mad?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by KIAHost
    How in the world can you people be SOOO ignorant!

    You hate Bush so much that you can't admit what he did was right?

    Saddam was a friggin' lunatic that needed to be taken down. Hitler wasn't an imminent threat either but he was killing MILLIONS of innocent Jewish people and we went in and took him down.

    It's no different what we did here! We saved countless lives by taking him down.
    When Hitler was killing Jews (and others) America and Britain sat idly by pretending it wasn't happening, America was more concerned about working it's way out of the 30's recession by selling arms and materials for arms to Germany and Japan (amongst others) at the time, as usual America was looking after it's own interests.

    If you think Bush went after Iraq to save Iraqi lives you are even more deluded than you appear to be, there was an interview with Jay Garner the other day which summed it up perfectly, Garner was explaining his differences from that of the administration, his priority was to set up elections and get the Iraqis in charge oftheir own country, whilst the orders from above clearly prioritised the privitisation of Iraqs oil fields.

    Originally posted by interactive

    Clarke is supposidly not partisan, yet has ties to the Democraps.

    You guys have to come up with new **** all the time, because all your old '****' gets blasted apart..
    And how is that blasting it apart? That says nothing about the facts, there again facts aren't that important to you people are they.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,815
    Just some notes on the conservsation. Hitler also killed 5 million non-Jews, in addition to 6 million Jews.

    Also, the attacks on 9/11 were in planning for several years before Bush took office. Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism, even turning down Sudan's offering of Bin Laden.

    Those are facts.

    As for my opinions, well, nothing suprises me, Clinton was a worthless liar, and Bush is to. I'm sick of the black and white party line people. You're supposed of be a flaming liberal or a right wing windbag, where the hell did middle America go to?

    Until we start electing normal people who aren't corrupt lawyers bent on power (a la Clintons) or illiterate buffoons bent on settling scores (a la Bush), then we are going to get the same crap every election. Duverger's law is no more evident than in America.

    That's my 2 cents, don't expect change back.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by interactive
    Clarke is supposidly not partisan, yet has ties to the Democraps.

    You guys have to come up with new **** all the time, because all your old '****' gets blasted apart..
    DemoCraps?

    Why is that it's always the republicans who insult the Democrats as a group? No where on this thread have any Democrats insulted a Republican, except for Bush.

    Republicans seem to love to insult the Democrats by attacking them as a group and name calling.

    How immature.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Usually that is because the Republicans have no solid ground to stand on so they attempt to attack character in almost every instance.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Originally posted by Rob83
    DemoCraps?

    Why is that it's always the republicans who insult the Democrats as a group? No where on this thread have any Democrats insulted a Republican, except for Bush.

    Republicans seem to love to insult the Democrats by attacking them as a group and name calling.

    How immature.
    Perhaps not in this thread, but it's a two-way street.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,815
    "Democraps" and "Repukes" are some of the more popular names among the internet political forums I visit. The silly generalisations aren't confined to one group.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by Velostream
    Perhaps not in this thread, but it's a two-way street.
    I don't doubt that one bit. Democrats do resort to name calling as well. But I don't, and nobody in this thread has and there is no need to do that. From what I've seen, it seems that the Republicans are first to do the name calling. I've seen it on this forum and on others.. always a republican that resorts to name calling.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    417
    Originally posted by NewtSys
    At the risk of being flamed here I will interject my $0.02 worth of post here.

    I am a Republican, Ex-Soldier (8.5 years in US Army) who fought in first war in Kuwait. Yes, sadam needed to be gotten rid of, yes 9/11 was a major tragedy, but I think this war is just plain wrong. This is my personal belief...... I have watched the progress of this war, and what it has done to this economy and the moral of our citizens and how we are viewed by other nations. No where in History that I can find has the USA and its citizens lost so much of its freedoms, its constitutional standing then it has today due to war.


    Blue27 said this "You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.
    "

    Human rights doesnt come into play in aggressive actions the US takes anymore.... it only takes agressive actions if one of our interests is at stake such as Oil, land, or if someone has a fleating chance of carrying a bigger stick than we do. I mean hell look at us screaming that everyone has nuclear weapons.. holy Sh*t people... the US has 100X more than any country yet we refuse to disarm... what kind of double standard is that? How can we tell people how to act in their country when we have all this crap to deal with in our own.... police our own county before we police others... it is no wonder when I travel outside the US, people look at us like pariah..... its because we cant bother to work with other countries...we would rather beat them into submission and follow our rules. How can we tell another country to be a democracy, when in fact, the USA is NOT a Democracy anymore?
    The problem is that, the countries who develop nuclear arsenals should be able to control their technology / weapons and should not allow it to be sold to terrorist and other countries. The example here is the Pakistan an strong ally of USA in war on terror. Pakistani president and their nuclear scientist have agreed that he sold nuclear technology to Korea.

    There fore it is correct that not all the countries, specially the countries where extremists rule more then governments should not be allowed to developed Nuclear technology or they will simply start threatening other countries of the world.
    * `*:. .:*` * ~ X-Max ~ * `*:. .:*` *
    I love Wikipedia.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by X-Max
    or they will simply start threatening other countries of the world.
    Yes and we all know that's Americas job.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,197
    Originally posted by speedy007h
    Most pointless comment I've ever seen in an attempt to *debate* something.
    Maybe ... but I think you just topped it.
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    What was your MOS?

    I remember the liberals were using this "it's all about oil" crap back a few months ago, but look at gas prices now. It's evidently not "all about oil"...

    Originally posted by NewtSys
    At the risk of being flamed here I will interject my $0.02 worth of post here.

    I am a Republican, Ex-Soldier (8.5 years in US Army) who fought in first war in Kuwait. Yes, sadam needed to be gotten rid of, yes 9/11 was a major tragedy, but I think this war is just plain wrong. This is my personal belief...... I have watched the progress of this war, and what it has done to this economy and the moral of our citizens and how we are viewed by other nations. No where in History that I can find has the USA and its citizens lost so much of its freedoms, its constitutional standing then it has today due to war.


    Blue27 said this "You cannot use the human rights argument. It has been proven again and again that human rights are very, very low on the list of reasons for the US to take aggressive action against another country.
    "

    Human rights doesnt come into play in aggressive actions the US takes anymore.... it only takes agressive actions if one of our interests is at stake such as Oil, land, or if someone has a fleating chance of carrying a bigger stick than we do. I mean hell look at us screaming that everyone has nuclear weapons.. holy Sh*t people... the US has 100X more than any country yet we refuse to disarm... what kind of double standard is that? How can we tell people how to act in their country when we have all this crap to deal with in our own.... police our own county before we police others... it is no wonder when I travel outside the US, people look at us like pariah..... its because we cant bother to work with other countries...we would rather beat them into submission and follow our rules. How can we tell another country to be a democracy, when in fact, the USA is NOT a Democracy anymore?
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    Actually Clintons cabinet had Al Qaeda on their priority list. They gave this list to the Bush cabinet and they pushed Al Qaeda down to the 3rd tier list. Bush had a no hands rule on the middle east. And he made this very clear. He did this because he had a much larger priority and that was the cutting of taxes which was for something much bigger I won't get into with this topic.

    Now in saying that, Gore probably would not have stopped it anyways. What happened was something most people would have never imagined. What is really important now is that steps are taken to make this world safer. And I feel the only way that will happen is if the world unites together.

    And I personally do not feel any safer then I did after 9/11. Bombings in Spain, Turkey, and Indonesia (to name a few) tell me that we have not done what was needed.
    Alvin

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New York's Capital District
    Posts
    2,197
    Originally posted by alvinks
    Actually Clintons cabinet had Al Qaeda on their priority list. They gave this list to the Bush cabinet and they pushed Al Qaeda down to the 3rd tier list. Bush had a no hands rule on the middle east. And he made this very clear.
    And you get your information from where?
    Know It All Solutions Incorporated
    Web Design, Web Development and Web Hosting

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    The list I heard from news that came from the Clinton cabinet. As for him making the economy the number one priority that was by his own words. I have always followed Israel/Palestine situation way before Bush came into office and when he did he had a hands off policy as he did not want to be involved. This also went for countries like Haiti that have now collapsed.

    If you are asking where I get my sources from, they are...

    CNN, BBC, NPR, and a little bit of The Nation and Mother Jones though some views can be pretty liberal. And I am an independant who says it how he sees it regardless of party. I have plenty of issues with Kerry. Especially is protectionist views on the economy.

    And I read this stuff every day. It drives the people around me crazy because of it.
    Alvin

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    726
    Originally posted by interactive
    What was your MOS?

    I remember the liberals were using this "it's all about oil" crap back a few months ago, but look at gas prices now. It's evidently not "all about oil"...
    The desperate rush to privatise Iraqs oil field against the wishes of the Iraqi people would seem to suggest otherwise.

    It's also evident you know nothing about the oil market, the current hike in oil prices is being caused by several factors, an increase in demand by the worlds largest oil importer the US, OPEC cutting it's production by 3.5%, concern over the situations in Venezula, Iraq, Iran and Nigeria and a low level of commercial oil stocks that will be unable to absorb future shocks until they are restored to a satisfactory level. (the price was also not helped by Shell wiping 20% off their estimated oil reserves)

    Apparently you can't grasp the idea that securing a supply of oil in Iraq for the US is not for now, but in 10 - 25 years when demand will vastly exceed supply, even at maximum production.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •