triple post robin?
triple post robin?
Last edited by blaknoize; 06-24-2010 at 07:18 PM.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
political bump, aka funding rally, aka, AMERICA, AMERICA God shine his grace on thee
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I have yet to see a source that says he wanted to be a war president. Your link proves MY point, not yours. Hell, you even highlighted it and still didnt comprehend it.
aw my BB post didnt go through
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Mine dont go though about half the time since the upgrade to the new VB.Originally Posted by blaknoize
aw my BB post didnt go through
Quoting this so you dont forget what we were talking about.
This is an endless debate about why we're in Iraq.
Iraq could of had the possibility to attack, could of even wanted to attack, but they didnt. Now we're there for oil and thats that. Saddam went from being powerless to a man with WMD's we cannot locate. Bin Laden is a country-wide murderer who will never be found, which is inexcusable.
No matter what historical documents u can dig up, or words from random people throughout history to dispell that fact. We're busy getting oil, beating the sht out of innocent people and blaming everyone else for who actually started this thing. We will not find the actual man at fault even though we know who he is, where he resides and who he rolls with, we will never let go of the oil there and we will use every single possible excuse to be there until we as a people (or the militants themselves) revolt against this wasteful war.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
You keep bringing up your idea that we are there for the oil, yet you cannot find a single bit of proof that anyone is profitting from it. Cant say the oil companies are because their profit margin hasnt changed and the price of crude is determined by commodities traders, not the oil companies. Cant say the govt cause the war is costing us more than oil would be. Cant say OPEC countries because the stability that is now in the middle east is keeping oil prices from that region pretty flat.
Even if this entire war was about oil I would understand it if it was actually used correctly. Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy and therefore our way of life. Since our govt decided that they were too pussy to go against the environmental idiots and let companies drill on our soil, we needed to have a source that could be counted on to be there at all times.
So this post is a contradiction? I dont need to have substantial proof. You dont have to make profits to get oil. We need the oil therefore no matter what the cost in actual dollars it is and/or man-power the fuel must come to us. The government does not need to make capital (although they are) nor do the companies assigned but with the fuel coming, general operations can proceed in daily life of this country.
I speak solely of the oil because there is NOTHING else in the country to be there for beyond oil. We are "rebuilding" the country to stall. We didnt rebuild any other country we got mad at. Vietnam, Japan, Afganstan... so why do we need to have a reason to "rebuild" Iraq? If they were a problem like the others we're labeled, then why would we assist them in anything? We fight to get people off the nuts of America (kinda) or to tell them what to do.
There's a reason to be in AFGN, no reason to be in Iraq. And there is certainly no reason (if Iraq is truely at fault for something related to the 9/11 attacks and magical collapse of WTC#7) to be there assisting them in rebuilding the country and reconstructing THEY'RE Government.
And about me not finding info on this subject. I dont need to go about looking for it when we can all simply search google or yahoo or msn or any other number of engines out there.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Wait... so they did find WMD's in Iraq?
Fuck, where have I been. Last I watched the speeches on it, it appears they didn't find any.
Businesses make our weapons.. Businesses are in business.. to well.. make profit.
How could they NOT make profit? I guess, let's start with square 1...
Someone makes our weapons. Now, I don't know who that may consist of exactly, as there are numerous manufactures, and numerous weapons. We have contracts to buy said weapons. Some folks claim these contracts aren't giving you a very good bang for the buck.
Then.. after we blow it up.. which of course, requires destroying the weapons we just purchased and the area we attacked.. We then rebuild the area.
The materials to rebuild this area, and the labor, and contractors come from somewhere. Now I'm not sure who that may exactly consist of.. as last I checked there were thousands over there... and they were recruiting for more. Let it also be said, that the very idea of blowing something up to rebuild it.. which is innately wasteful (apparently a key trait of being a neo-conservative).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Now I find it interesting that Haliburtons stock in 2002 was worth $5 a share, and it magically skyrocketed year over year with record profits, and was doing extremely well.. and as well as that, stocks skyrocketed to $60 in 2008. Even if you think this is coincidence or aligned with market trends.. There are numerous military industrial stocks that have made record profits since the war began, and magically numerous members of our government have owned said stock.
You have to realize.. that profit is still occurring, whether you think it's too much or not enough, these companies that make up the military industrial complex are making money.. and are traded publicly all the time...
Now oddly enough, I consider your take on our military left wing propaganda, as war is the health of the state. As proven throughout history time and time again, the state takes advantage of every ounce of war in order to do as much to destroy our rights as possible. I mean at this point of time, our left president is supporting the.. again, leftist ideas of the Bush Administration. Prescription drug plan? Patriot Act? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? You know, Obama furthered the drug plan and went with a broader national health care plan, but the expansion of government involvement in health care is a concept that is a left-leaning idea... regardless of the extent. Oh.. he also re-authorized the Patriot Act, and has expanded our war in Afghanistan, expanded activity into Pakistan.. supports action in Iran. Has been instrumental in furthering sanctions on Iran.. which will eventually lead to further hostilities between us.
I don't see why you aren't a big fan of Obama, actually? He's taken everything Bush has done which IMO was about as far to the left as you can get, and impressed me by going even further left than I had even imagined possible in America without riots.
Your obsession with big government stems from the war just as much as it does the left's social programs. The only difference is war costs lives, and money destructively blowing shit up, and and social programs at least help people. Now, I could justify it if we actually had an enemy. But we are nation building in Afghanistan, as we are not searching for Al Qaeda. 15 of the members from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia to begin with. So we go to war with numerous other countries, in order to... Fight terrorism, when 15 out of what 18 terrorists weren't from any of the countries we are in?
I just don't see it. We are in countries rebuilding their government to fight the POSSIBLE spread of terrorism.. But somehow, killing someones relative is going to fight the possible spread of terrorism? It seems to me that would be what creates the terrorist is the desire for revenge and the feeling of oppression?
Anyways, I just don't see war is being any higher of standing than a welfare state. It seems like even more of a waste. I mean ultimately I suppose if everyone took care of themselves, it'd be a lot more efficient than being taxed heavily and funneling tax dollars through bureaucracy to render services.. But then again, that's why I'm about small government
Anyways, it looks like Obama has no intentions of slowing down the war, so I reckon you could at least be happy with that aspect of it..
That being the case, I think this is gimmicky legislation at best. I don't like legislation that would unfairly be biased towards people who make below 35k. I do believe the legislation is for every citizen's first 35k, but for ppl who make say 100k, as a percentage of their income, being in a higher tax bracket, it wouldn't really be near as much savings as the person who makes 35k. While I realize that they may or may not be able to afford it better, depending upon their financial obligations, it doesn't seem fair to punish someone to me for being successful.
Perhaps I'm over-thinking it though
this.
Mine's the red one.
You actually believe that defense contractors having massive growth and profits is a new concept? That has been taking place since LONG before modern warfare and into the times of the roman legions. Should we blame WWII on defense contractors too? You can easily make a case that the US invited war with Japan when we cut off oil and steel to them after their invasion of China. As it was, the oil and steel corporations were making massive profits by price gouging the hell out of japanese buyers in the couple years leading up to our embargo.
You point out some of the reasons I was never a Bush supporter on anything but his foreign policy. His domestic policy was pretty much a joke.
So why would I be a fan of Obama again? He is attacking my bank accounts with his massive tax increases. He is attacking my freedoms by eliminating my choices in my health care. He is attacking my finances and retirement by attacking Wall Street as a whole and completely ignoring the causes of the mortgage meltdown.
My obsession with big govt stems from their inability to do the most basic things with any kind of reliability. We wont even go into anything complex.
Social programs dont help anyone. They are designed to reward people for being dependent on the govt. That makes them a very easy target for vote buying programs.
Just because our enemy doesnt believe in traditional borders doesnt mean they arent an enemy.
Building a working govt is the only way to make sure al-Qeada doesnt come back. Rooting them out and killing them now is the smaller part of the battle. Making sure they dont come back will take a strong, stable govt.
Again, we are not fighting a traditional country. We are fighting a sect that has no borders. Saudi's have been strong against terrorism in their country so they do not become another Iran. It is most likely the self centered approach of the monarchy that they must do it to prevent their execution or exile, but they result is the same.
I am happy with that, but as we have already seen, his relaxed intelligence gathering has already led to more attacks, or at least attempts, on US soil than in 8 years of Bush and his intelligence gathering focus.
What separates Saudi from Iran? Aren't they both oppressive to their people? Aren't they both militant Islamic theocracies? According to The Economist's Democracy Index, a list that ranks governments from least to most authoritarian, Iran is 145 and Saudi is 161. Only 6 other countries including North Korea and Burma were more authoritarian than Saudi. The United States is 18th on that list.
Whats your source for "his relaxed intelligence gathering has already led to more attacks, or at least attempts, on US soil than in 8 years of Bush and his intelligence gathering focus." ??? Because I really haven't seen any info about anything that W(orthless) did with the PATRIOT act or FISA wiretapping, etc as actually having discovered a plot or stopped an attack. And we know that their approach to intelligence gathering and acting judiciously on intelligence was all fucked in the build up and planning stages of the war (no WMD's found, Saddam evaded capture for 2 years, anarchy following the initial success of the invasion, etc).
How is Obama "attacking my bank account with massive tax increases"? From everything I have read most people but the very highest earners are paying less taxes. I know I paid less taxes last year, as well as brought home more money on payday since they lowered the payroll deduction.
[QUOTE=Total_Blender;39071093]What separates Saudi from Iran? Aren't they both oppressive to their people? Aren't they both militant Islamic theocracies? According to The Economist's Democracy Index, a list that ranks governments from least to most authoritarian, Iran is 145 and Saudi is 161. Only 6 other countries including North Korea and Burma were more authoritarian than Saudi. The United States is 18th on that list. {quote]
I never said anything about Saudi being anything more than tough on terrorism and you will notice I also said it was for their own self interests that they are. The Saudi royals are very oppressive to their people and very oppressive to foreigners.
1. the lack of WMD's was either a huge intel blunder, or an equally huge intel success, but if it was a success we, as normal people, will never know. I will go along with the fact that it was a blunder and I will point out that during the Bush admin there was a lot of emphasis put on intel sharing among the services. That was a complete 180* turn around of the competitive atmosphere between th services during the Clinton admin and the most significant cause in us not being able to stop the attacks of 9/11.
2. I can count, thats how I know we have been attacked more times under 1.5 years of Obama than 7.5 years of Bush. After 9/11 not a single attack or successfully attempted attack on US soil. Since Obama has been in office there have been 3. The underware bomber, Times Square bomber, and Major Nidal Hasan. Luckily only one of those attacks was successful. On the other hand, there have been 2 well publicized attacks that were foiled before they were attempted. I know there were several of those during the Bush admin also, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
3. Bush was FAR more secretive with intel than Obama has been. If I remember correctly Obama has already pissed off the CIA and FBI on a couple occasions by letting the world know things better left secret so they could be exploited.
These arent going to be direct taxes. The taxes will be covered up as things like cap and trade, and the health care bill.
For Bush you said "successfully attempted attack" but you counted the failed attempts for Obama.
There was the "shoe bomber" that happened under W's watch, which was a failed attempt. There were also several successful attacks. I guess you have forgotten about the anthrax letters and the DC sniper, also the many attacks on our embassies (which are all sovereign US territory). Its typical of conservatives to have a selective memory when it comes to the years 2001-2009, lol.
Completely forgot about the shoe bomber and I don't remember much about the Anthrax because I was in asscrackistan during that. I believe most of those letters were found to be nothing more than a white powder though.
When I get home I will have to do a little more reading on the DC Sniper. Wasn't he nation of islam though?
Terrorism is terrorism, whether its a domestic terrorist or Al Qaeda. The DC Snipers were both bat shit insane, but they stated their motive was to cause a general panic and "shut things down," and the main guy wrote a whole bunch of gibberish about "Jihad against the United States". He tried to make a conncetion between himself and Al Qaeda but the officials aren't buying it. Even if he had been involved with Nation of Islam in the past, he had become isolated the the years leading up to the shootings.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
