Obama to tear apart the country

[blackshine007]

people say hes a racist because he attended a church whose preacher was a racist. He also basicly said he didnt like white people in his book.

I have never even attempted to read his book. I would love to argue you down and say that what you are saying is totally incorrect. Until then, I would love for you to show some actual facts stating that. I believe he has 2 books. Please support your claim or stop letting the liberal media feed you bullshyt. The only thing decent I can say about the democrats is that they are down for the economy with no regards for any war. I think Bush was just a puppet and when McCain gets into office he will be just the same, except for anything war related. That's when his voice will speak out. Like I said, he plainly admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. I honestly think he would be a great Secretary of Defense. But he'd honestly would be a puppet, just like Bush. We don't need that.

[The12lber]

I have never even attempted to read his book. I would love to argue you down and say that what you are saying is totally incorrect. Until then, I would love for you to show some actual facts stating that. I believe he has 2 books. Please support your claim or stop letting the liberal media feed you bullshyt. The only thing decent I can say about the democrats is that they are down for the economy with no regards for any war. I think Bush was just a puppet and when McCain gets into office he will be just the same, except for anything war related. That's when his voice will speak out. Like I said, he plainly admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. I honestly think he would be a great Secretary of Defense. But he'd honestly would be a puppet, just like Bush. We don't need that.

Generally, the media is pro-government with no real bias towards any one party - especially considering this statement in relation to the currently little understood terms 'liberal' and "conservative'.

The one big exception is Fox News, they are generally biased against anything not well understood or liked by Rednecks. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly confident they poll the Squidbillies to figure out which political positions their pundits will push.

[The12lber]

I'm amazed that is all you took from the speech then turn around and call someone else an idiot.

It's also funny that you belittle the idea that Barack wrote the speech himself, I guess when you support a 72 year old that doesn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and "extremists" its hard to fathom a politician that can form a rational thought. He wrote the speech, accept it.

You have to be in Al Qaeda to take up arms against the United States. I mean, what are we doing? Occupying another country?

No sir, they invited us. Punch was served.

I just thought I'd take this opportunity to express along with you my discontent at the labeling of all insurgents as "extremists". I'm by no means on their bench cheering them along, but I can certainly empaphize with the position of a young man living a troubled existence in a country occupied by foreign soldiers who frequently kill/torture/disappear your countrymen. I'm pretty sure if I were an Iraqi, if my neighbor's family was lined up and gunned down after their daughter was gang raped by a fireteam of American soldiers I'd get an RPG-7 too.

Islam isn't the cause of the insurgency, the United States is. Rant off.

[On_Her_Face]

Generally, the media is pro-government with no real bias towards any one party - especially considering this statement in relation to the currently little understood terms 'liberal' and "conservative'.

The one big exception is Fox News, they are generally biased against anything not well understood or liked by Rednecks. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly confident they poll the Squidbillies to figure out which political positions their pundits will push.

Fox = mostly conservative
CNN = mostly liberal

however they can not just focus on one party (meaning saying good things about party A and bad things about party B) due to a law, but I forgot what the name of the law was

[The12lber]

Fox = mostly conservative
CNN = mostly liberal

however they can not just focus on one party (meaning saying good things about party A and bad things about party B) due to a law, but I forgot what the name of the law was

No offense but when you make those proclamations I think you're overly concerning yourself with political superficialities.

[On_Her_Face]

No offense but when you make those proclamations I think you're overly concerning yourself with political superficialities.

eh sorta lol

[R3RUN]

No offense but when you make those proclamations I think you're overly concerning yourself with political superficialities.

If you can't see that Fox is conservative and CNN more liberal then you are either retarded or deaf and blind.

[The12lber]

If you can't see that Fox is conservative and CNN more liberal then you are either retarded or deaf and blind.

I'm sorry, I forgot that all you have to do to be liberal is denounce Bush and all you have to do to be conservative is agree with him. My bad smart guy :_(

Unfortunately, I am not as smart as you to only concern myself with these things. I actually looked at the details because I am, clearly, retarded.

Fox news mostly plays host to xenophobia, homophobia, ethnocentricity, undisquised racism, warmongering, proponents of widening surveillance with diminishing civil rights, douchebags who insist its "enhanced interrogation" - not torture- and an occassional rich white guy who explains that the super rich and corporations turning record profits still have it just as bad as you. This isn't actually conservatism. This is idiocy with a neo-conservative (the inbred fourth cousin's once removed roommate of true conservatism) twist.

But seriously - no sarcasm - you obviously have no understanding of politics or what conservatism/liberalism are and lack anything greater than superficial understanding of what you see.

[Total_Blender]

Those of you who said "this country needs to get over the race issue" need to rethink that. Race is still an issue... predominantly African American schools in the inner city are far behind white schools, and out of the number of professional jobs in the US, African Americans are under represented, even with afirmative action. The hard data shows that we are not "equal" in any sense of the word.

Its not just racism toward African Americans, its racism toward other minorities as well. So many of you are quick to point out "Obama's Muslim roots", and point fingers to terrorism. What about the American terrorists? Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, The Unibomber, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc. We are all in an outrage over terrorists sporting beards and turbans but quick to forget that we have been attacked by our own terrorists more often.

Its going to take more to fix the issues of race than to say "OK kids, everybody play nice" lol

[On_Her_Face]

Those of you who said "this country needs to get over the race issue" need to rethink that. Race is still an issue... predominantly African American schools in the inner city are far behind white schools, and out of the number of professional jobs in the US, African Americans are under represented, even with afirmative action. The hard data shows that we are not "equal" in any sense of the word.

Its not just racism toward African Americans, its racism toward other minorities as well. So many of you are quick to point out "Obama's Muslim roots", and point fingers to terrorism. What about the American terrorists? Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, The Unibomber, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc. We are all in an outrage over terrorists sporting beards and turbans but quick to forget that we have been attacked by our own terrorists more often.

Its going to take more to fix the issues of race than to say "OK kids, everybody play nice" lol

Race issues will never be fixed, especially since people from the civil rights era are still alive.

[The12lber]

Its not just racism toward African Americans, its racism toward other minorities as well. So many of you are quick to point out "Obama's Muslim roots", and point fingers to terrorism. What about the American terrorists? Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, The Unibomber, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc. We are all in an outrage over terrorists sporting beards and turbans but quick to forget that we have been attacked by our own terrorists more often.

There's a lot of deep seated racism towards middle eastern people. Notice almost every villain in non-science fiction action movie/TV show is an Islamic extremist of Arabic descent - and they're always called terrorists. Its interesting how there are plenty of other bad people out there who utilize the exact same tactics but aren't called terrorists - various groups in South America come to mind. They're always called much friendlier names like paramilitary groups or guerillas, even though they commonly target police and civilians in bombings, intentionally destabilize the government, etc. I'm fairly confident the Cali and Medellin cartels managed to rack up a higher body count than Al Qaeda even when you do include 9/11.

Along the same lines, I like people who insist they don't hold anything against anyone for religious/racial factors but intimate Barack Obama is a Muslim of Middle Eastern lineage like its a bad thing (aside from the fact that this is totally false claim).

[BanginJimmy]

Those of you who said "this country needs to get over the race issue" need to rethink that. Race is still an issue... predominantly African American schools in the inner city are far behind white schools, and out of the number of professional jobs in the US, African Americans are under represented, even with afirmative action. The hard data shows that we are not "equal" in any sense of the word.

this is technically true, but then again, white people from those same schools arent doing any better. Maybe ALL of them should worry more about learning to read and write than they worry about American Idol or whatever it is. Also when you look at blacks that graduate from college, they percentages are FAR closer.

Its not just racism toward African Americans, its racism toward other minorities as well. So many of you are quick to point out "Obama's Muslim roots", and point fingers to terrorism. What about the American terrorists? Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, The Unibomber, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc. We are all in an outrage over terrorists sporting beards and turbans but quick to forget that we have been attacked by our own terrorists more often.

I have never heard of McVeigh being called anything but a terrorist. Same goes for the Unibomber. Oswald was not a terrorist though. He was just someone that assassinated a President. That doesnt make you a terrorist.
As far as Obama's "muslim roots" that simple BS and everyone with half a brain already knows it.

Its going to take more to fix the issues of race than to say "OK kids, everybody play nice" lol

This is true. We need to keep crackpot racists like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, the ACLU, and the NAACP away from a tv camera. They do nothing more than make a race issue when there isnt one. Duke Lacross team? Jena 6?

[The12lber]

I have never heard of McVeigh being called anything but a terrorist. Same goes for the Unibomber. Oswald was not a terrorist though. He was just someone that assassinated a President. That doesnt make you a terrorist.

I think he was pointing out that Arabs/Muslims are stereotyped strongly as being terrorists where as terrorist style acts by white christians are actually more common here in the 'States.

While there's no hard and fast definition of what is terrorism and what isn't, I'm pretty sure shooting the **** out of a sitting president is something you could definitely categorize as terrorism.

Also, saw your sig - sales taxes are inherently regressive. Its interesting how people love lining up to get shafted by the super wealthy in this country (8 years of Bush and plenty of retards who love McCain).

[ahmonrah]

dayum!!?? this thread is still wheezin?

i'll read the new responses before i speak.....

[93Polo]

Even if you don't like Obama, its impossible for him to split the country because...


THE COUNTRY IS ALREADY SPLIT AND HASN'T BEEN THIS DIVIDED SINCE THE CIVIL WAR.

The last 2 elections in 2000 and 2004 were basically 50/50 with votes, Bush cheating his way in basically.

Sadly, this country is very split and if anything Obama can ONLY bring us back together again.

Obama is basically cheating his way in as well:

by Ann Coulter
June 4, 2008

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[93Polo]

We broke Vietnam and Japan but that didnt mean stay there and allow our soldiers to be killed for years to come along with billions of dollars spent.

The US still has troops in Japan, Korea, and Germany as well spending millions rebuilding the countries.

[tony]

The US still has troops in Japan, Korea, and Germany as well spending millions rebuilding the countries.

You missed the point.. we don't have soldiers there fighting opposition any longer. Big difference between Japan, South Korea, Germany and Iraq

And again I wish people would come up with their own thoughts and rationalizations rather than consistently pasting the same stuff over and over. Make a point, if I need to read an Ann Coulter article I'll go to her website.

[93Polo]

You missed the point.. we don't have soldiers there fighting opposition any longer. Big difference between Japan, South Korea, Germany and Iraq

And again I wish people would come up with their own thoughts and rationalizations rather than consistently pasting the same stuff over and over. Make a point, if I need to read an Ann Coulter article I'll go to her website.

The points are Obama did not win the popular vote and relies on delegates from the Democratic party to get the nomination. The country is promoted as a democracy but the the candidate that the people have chosen will not be running.

The US troops had much less restriction in conquering a country than what they face today. Sadam maybe out but the country is far from conquered. If the US leaves now another dictator will pick where Sadam left off. I may not agree with entering Irag in the first place but we are in it now.

[Nerdsrock22]

Make a point, if I need to read an Ann Coulter article I'll go to her website.

Yeah I guess if were picking sides, I'm prolly on her side, but lets refrain from quoting her as she is a bit of an idiot.

[BanginJimmy]

You missed the point.. we don't have soldiers there fighting opposition any longer. Big difference between Japan, South Korea, Germany and Iraq

so just because there are alot of foreign fighters attacking US tropps we should give up and go home?

A fact that most people forget about is that most of the people attacking US troops are foreign. They flow into the country through Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to fight. They also bring in the money and weapons needed to continue the fight.

[tony]

The points are Obama did not win the popular vote and relies on delegates from the Democratic party to get the nomination. The country is promoted as a democracy but the the candidate that the people have chosen will not be running.

The US troops had much less restriction in conquering a country than what they face today. Sadam maybe out but the country is far from conquered. If the US leaves now another dictator will pick where Sadam left off. I may not agree with entering Irag in the first place but we are in it now.

There is no popular vote in the democratic primaries because of Caucus states, under Democratic rules each vote is not tallied.. therefor making Hillary's claim that she won the popular vote null and void because it completely dismisses the Caucus states Obama won. PLUS Hillary includes Michigan and Florida, two states that did not count from the beginning.

Who is more important to us, Iraq or this country? You're concerned about Iraq while we spend $12 Billion a month over there and the value of the dollar tanks pushing gas prices to $4 a gallon. Iraq has had more than enough time to create an effective government.. their wellbeing is not our #1 priority.

I mean when its all said and done who cares that gas is $7 a gallon.. the fact that Iraq isn't under dictator rule makes it all better.

You need to do more research instead of quoting articles.

[tony]

so just because there are alot of foreign fighters attacking US tropps we should give up and go home?

A fact that most people forget about is that most of the people attacking US troops are foreign. They flow into the country through Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to fight. They also bring in the money and weapons needed to continue the fight.

No, because there is no clear objective and nothing to be gained in occupying Iraq, that makes it a waste of time. The real threat was in Afghanistan and Pakistan.. not Iraq. Give one GOOD reason why we should stay? From what you've stated here all the surrounding countries are fueling the war so really.. whats the point?

Knowing when to quit is not the same thing as surrender.

[BanginJimmy]

No, because there is no clear objective and nothing to be gained in occupying Iraq, that makes it a waste of time. The real threat was in Afghanistan and Pakistan.. not Iraq. Give one GOOD reason why we should stay? From what you've stated here all the surrounding countries are fueling the war so really.. whats the point?

Knowing when to quit is not the same thing as surrender.

1 good reason is all you want?

Here you go


We went in there and dismantled an oppressive govt. Now the country is in shambles and unless we stick around to get it back on its collective feet it will be nothing more than a rich breading ground for future terrorists.

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

[Spektrewing386]

We shouldnt have been in Iraq anyway.

Why did we go?
-WMDs?
-free their people?


sounds like a bunch of BS. If Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to liberate people why didnt we invade some subsaharan African nation? Why didnt they decide to go into North Korea? They have WMDs and people that are not free.... hell you even have evidence of WMDs in North Korea. We could EASILY topple any subsaharan African nation, many were there is violence and oppression. North Korea is a third the size of Iraq, a blitzkrig on the DPRK would have effectivly eliminated the threat of them striking back, then a clean up of remaining forces would have been easy. We have clear evidence of WMDs in DPRK and evidence of human oppression. Why did we not invade DPRK?
Because Cheny and Rumsfeld and MANY others wanted the goodies in the middle east, and the joys it could bring them and the people and companies connected to them.

Liberating people and getting rid of WMDs is NOT the true reason we went into Iraq. Think about it, there are countries out there that have not free people, and have others that have WMDs. But the one thing they dont have is resources we need. Also dont forget about the few people it can benefit.

President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this very thing in his farewell speech to the American public:
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."


There is no good reason to stay in Iraq, our job is done there. And once we leave, the insurgent's job will be done too. There is other fighting for power and stuff, but we can leave that to the Iraqi army which we are training and the special forces that we will leave behind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmP8Bgof6KE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfetdjjb3YY -Why We Fight
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ -PBS documentary "Bush's War"

[tony]

1 good reason is all you want?

Here you go


We went in there and dismantled an oppressive govt. Now the country is in shambles and unless we stick around to get it back on its collective feet it will be nothing more than a rich breading ground for future terrorists.

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

lol You guys make this so easy.

Two names, Ibn Sheikh al-Libby and "CurveBall" You can look them both up and double check my knowledge. These are two seperate individuals who provided intelligence to the U.S tying Iraq to Al Qaeda. al-Libby (though it cannot be confirmed 100%) gave his statement under torture, "Curveball" never actually dealt directly with the United States and was a German informant.. problem was the intelligence was false. So the whole "Evil Dictator" thing.. yeah, okay. Seems like Iraq was pretty stable to me and once the U.N sanctions were lifted it seems like Iraq was on its way to economic prosperity.. they had nothing to do with 9/11.

On the second statement. We tried instilling a "level headed" (aka U.S friendly) leader in Ahmad Chalabi and guess what? The Iraqi people did not want him. If we are to stay it needs to be a joint effort with the United Nations.. if its only us then we are doing more harm staying there then if we left. What you've stated here is the politics of fear, "If we leave this and that will happen." Fear doesn't motivate me and I'm sorry to say for conservatives but those who are looking for change don't get motivated by fear either. Solutions motivate, bring the troops home, work on domestic security and building our military and it doesn't matter what Iraq does.

[The12lber]

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

I'm pretty sure that between Gulf War #2 and Gulf War #3 (Yes, there were three) approximately 0 Americans died at the hands of Iraqis. Shockingly enough, the same thing goes for Iran. Since the war began over 3,000 Americans have died there "defending freedom". We and our troops, who shockingly enough are Americans too, are safer here.

Iraq was about oil, empire and valuable defense/munitions contracts and it always was.

Accept it and move on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

[Total_Blender]

What you've stated here is the politics of fear, "If we leave this and that will happen." Fear doesn't motivate me and I'm sorry to say for conservatives but those who are looking for change don't get motivated by fear either. Solutions motivate, bring the troops home, work on domestic security and building our military and it doesn't matter what Iraq does.

QFT it was fear that was used to sell the war to the American people and the American people are only now seeing past it. Iraq was not a threat in 2002.The truth is that since Saddam's Baath party was actually a mutual enemy of Al Qaeda we could have probably used Iraq in some capacity as an ally in the war on terror.

Eventually Iraqis will have to take their country for themselves. A continued US presence will eventually just be a crutch for them. They can blame their problems on the US instead of actually taking initiative to do anything about them. Maybe Iran will have some influence, but whats best for Iraq to have long term stability is probably the support of it's neighbors in the region.

[SPOOLIN]

wow, and the survey says..............

[BanginJimmy]

I'm pretty sure that between Gulf War #2 and Gulf War #3 (Yes, there were three) approximately 0 Americans died at the hands of Iraqis. Shockingly enough, the same thing goes for Iran. Since the war began over 3,000 Americans have died there "defending freedom". We and our troops, who shockingly enough are Americans too, are safer here.

Iraq was about oil, empire and valuable defense/munitions contracts and it always was.

Accept it and move on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

there have been far more than 3 gulf wars. I can think of 3 involving only Israel.

If this all about oil then why arent we seeing the benefits of it? Let me guess, its because Bush is keeping it all to himself and will only use the oil he has stached away when he is out of office.

[The12lber]

there have been far more than 3 gulf wars. I can think of 3 involving only Israel.


Um, are you kidding me? Israel isn't bordering the Persian Gulf. Israel borders the Meditteranean. Iraq does, that's why in 1991 they called it the "Gulf War". That's why they called the Iran Iraq war of the 80's the "First Gulf War". Iran Iraq war, what is commonly called the Gulf War and the Iraq War = 3 Gulf Wars.

Work harder on your geography.

If this all about oil then why arent we seeing the benefits of it? Let me guess, its because Bush is keeping it all to himself and will only use the oil he has stached away when he is out of office.
Because Iraq doesn't export enough to offset the effect of tremendous increases in demand in addition to the increased cost of buying foreign petroleum with the weaker American dollar.

Oil is the only reason we involve ourselves in the Middle East, if you think otherwise you're a moron.

[BanginJimmy]

Oil is the only reason we involve ourselves in the Middle East, if you think otherwise you're a moron.

You are correct, but not in the way you are implying. It is in the US's best intrest to make sure those wells keep pumping and that crude continues to land on US shores. Just like Japan during WWII. Just like when Germany invaded Russia. The US MUST do what needs to be done to keep the oil flowing.

Personally I think we should leave the mid east all together and start drilling closer to home, too bad the dems wont let that happen.

[The12lber]

You are correct, but not in the way you are implying. It is in the US's best intrest to make sure those wells keep pumping and that crude continues to land on US shores.

Um, that's exactly what I was implying. And we'll do any morally objectionable things we have to do in order to accomplish that. Supporting totalitarian governments, invading and occupying foreign nations, overthrowing democratic governments to be replaced with U.S. puppets, etc.

[1SOL2NV]

Obama is going to open old wounds and it is not going to be pretty.

i think hilary will be the same way .... so i could care less ..... neg rep me all you want but thats my opinion .... america is trying to be world police and govern everybody .... i love my country ... but the way people are now days ... ha .we should have never went to iraq and stayed for this long .... it was never about osama ... bush stuck his nose into a place it should have never been. so **** him and the rest of the candidates for president . this country is going to **** ... and the sad thing is ... were letting it .

[BanginJimmy]

Um, that's exactly what I was implying. And we'll do any morally objectionable things we have to do in order to accomplish that. Supporting totalitarian governments, invading and occupying foreign nations, overthrowing democratic governments to be replaced with U.S. puppets, etc.

I agree with most of what you said, and I basicly agree with it. Face it, oil is the lifeblood of our country, and anyone that put that supply in jepordy is threatening our national security.

The bolded part is funny though as I dont remember the US ever removing a democratic govt and placing a puppet govt there.

[MoFo]

i think hilary will be the same way .... so i could care less ..... neg rep me all you want but thats my opinion .... america is trying to be world police and govern everybody .... i love my country ... but the way people are now days ... ha .we should have never went to iraq and stayed for this long .... it was never about osama ... bush stuck his nose into a place it should have never been. so **** him and the rest of the candidates for president . this country is going to **** ... and the sad thing is ... were letting it .

your style of typing hurts my brain...

i personally don't think obama will tear this country apart. the country right now is already in a very bad position. hilary from what ive heard has her moments and has been called bitchy at times. she's also a woman who im sure doesn't get laid often, so that right there can cause "consentration problems." lol but eh

[tony]

The bolded part is funny though as I dont remember the US ever removing a democratic govt and placing a puppet govt there.

From Wiki:

Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi was interim oil minister in Iraq in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006. Chalabi failed to win a seat in parliament in the December 2005 elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American neoconservatives, he has fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources. He is also wanted for embezzling nearly $300 million through a bank he created in Jordan.

[1SOL2NV]

your style of typing hurts my brain...

i personally don't think obama will tear this country apart. the country right now is already in a very bad position. hilary from what ive heard has her moments and has been called bitchy at times. she's also a woman who im sure doesn't get laid often, so that right there can cause "consentration problems." lol but eh

sorry lol

[TheDarkRacer]

How come ppl didnt try and stop bush from gettting re-elected like they are tryn to stop obama from getting elected? (p.s. i didnt read any of the 10 pages. Just food for thought.)
~TDR

[BanginJimmy]

From Wiki:

Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi was interim oil minister in Iraq in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006. Chalabi failed to win a seat in parliament in the December 2005 elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American neoconservatives, he has fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources. He is also wanted for embezzling nearly $300 million through a bank he created in Jordan.

that sounds to me like the US is allowing Iraqi's to freely elect their own leaders.

[Spektrewing386]

and now the US is comprimising Iraq's sovereignty with new US-Iraq pacts which will establish many permanet US military bases, even the iraqi's dont like it.