Close to Victory in Iraq!!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…

I’m no warmonger, just a realist. We live on oil. I wish we didn’t. But the ME is where the oil is so either we control it (and our destiny) or we do not.

That’s empire talk there Headhunter. Your beliefs follow in heavy footsteps… a couple of things called the English, Spanish, French, Ottoman Empires… take your pick. Danger, boyo.

Like many, Irish, you think the world would continue more or less w/o American firepower. Will it? Go into Newark and find a neighborhood which the police have given up on. There’s the world w/o the USA.

Newark is bad because everything is rife with corruption and the cops and the Mayor (for the past twenty years) have been as crooked as can be. That’s the American way.

So basically, if we can’t control our own cities, how in the fuck do you think we’re going to control the world, especially one that is exploding with sectarian enmity that has been seething for millenia? We’re going to control it with our American capitalist corruption and payoffs? (I’m not anticapitalist, I’m just saying that capitalism will inherently carry with it a good amount of corruption.)

Fuck man, you’re way off base here. I know you want that American Empire, but there are those amongst us who wish to use the pen before the sword- you know what happens to people (and countries) that live by the sword, don’t you?[/quote]

You keep mistaking wanting to control our own destiny with wanting to establish some global American Empire.

We are addicted to oil. Its our lifeblood. OPEC is our ‘dealer’. Should we control our dealer or should he control us?

If we stop using oil, we’ll have a virtual shutdown of civilisation. If it becomes too expensive, this has the same effect, a shutdown of western civilisation. OPEC has declared war on us and we don’t even know it. They intend to bleed us dry; they can’t defeat us militarily so this is their alternative.

We, along with Europe, need to conquer the oil rich regions on earth. Yesterday would not be too soon.

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

…Did you totally ignore my question again?

Bring the troops home, dedicate war money to getting us totally off oil. No one dies.

No, I answered it. Oil is the very lifeblood of our civilisation. Without it, no food in the stores, no way to get to work, no ambulances to take people to the hospital, on and on. And despite all the blather about getting rid of oil, it’ll be at least 20 years for that to come close to happening.

Now, who should determine our future? Us or Ahkmajihad? The leadership in Somalia?

Twenty years with current funding. We poor ALL the war money into finding alternative energy and encouraging that market, and that’ll be a LOT quicker.

So the future of this country becomes contingent upon Congress (Congress!!??!!) funding energy research? The research is a gamble in and of itself, and you then want the same guys who built the levees in New Orleans to be in charge of distributing the money saved from the war?

Ann Coulter is right: If liberals had any brains, they’d be Republicans (title of her new book).

And its ‘pour’, not ‘poor’.

[/quote]

So we’re going to trust a retarded President and a Congress to know who the best war option is? How is this any less stupid?

At least one doesn’t sacrifice American lives.

63

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…

I’m no warmonger, just a realist. We live on oil. I wish we didn’t. But the ME is where the oil is so either we control it (and our destiny) or we do not.

That’s empire talk there Headhunter. Your beliefs follow in heavy footsteps… a couple of things called the English, Spanish, French, Ottoman Empires… take your pick. Danger, boyo.

Like many, Irish, you think the world would continue more or less w/o American firepower. Will it? Go into Newark and find a neighborhood which the police have given up on. There’s the world w/o the USA.

Newark is bad because everything is rife with corruption and the cops and the Mayor (for the past twenty years) have been as crooked as can be. That’s the American way.

So basically, if we can’t control our own cities, how in the fuck do you think we’re going to control the world, especially one that is exploding with sectarian enmity that has been seething for millenia? We’re going to control it with our American capitalist corruption and payoffs? (I’m not anticapitalist, I’m just saying that capitalism will inherently carry with it a good amount of corruption.)

Fuck man, you’re way off base here. I know you want that American Empire, but there are those amongst us who wish to use the pen before the sword- you know what happens to people (and countries) that live by the sword, don’t you?

You keep mistaking wanting to control our own destiny with wanting to establish some global American Empire.

We are addicted to oil. Its our lifeblood. OPEC is our ‘dealer’. Should we control our dealer or should he control us?

If we stop using oil, we’ll have a virtual shutdown of civilisation. If it becomes too expensive, this has the same effect, a shutdown of western civilisation. OPEC has declared war on us and we don’t even know it. They intend to bleed us dry; they can’t defeat us militarily so this is their alternative.

We, along with Europe, need to conquer the oil rich regions on earth. Yesterday would not be too soon.

[/quote]

This reminds me, HH, why aren’t we invading Saudi Arabia? They have a MUCH more oppressive regime than Iran, and the people there are NOT likely to start a revolution if we don’t invade.

How about Syria? We’d be helping out old pal Israel AND securing oil!

Et Cetera.

64

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

We, along with Europe, need to conquer the oil rich regions on earth. Yesterday would not be too soon.

[/quote]

Ok, what if this were reality: instead of fighting for democracy in Iraq, of fighing a war on terror, or looking for weapons of mass destruction, let’s say the President just said “America is sick of depending on foreign oil, we are going to attack Iraq and take their oil!”

Do you think a war so justified would fly? Do you think the American people would be for it or against it?

65

I am getting tired of the whole we went to war for oil crap. Maybe Beowolf is right, why not Saudi Arabia? They have so much more oil the Iraq. If what people say about Bush making things up to attack Iraq, why not Saudi Arabia instead?

Then again such a war would be so much easier. Just take over the oil, and carpet bomb everything else. Don’t spend all that money rebuilding their infrastructure, or doing anything for them, just take the freaken oil.

This type of logic only makes sense to people who watched a little too much Captain Planet.

66

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I am getting tired of the whole we went to war for oil crap. Maybe Beowolf is right, why not Saudi Arabia? They have so much more oil the Iraq. If what people say about Bush making things up to attack Iraq, why not Saudi Arabia instead?

Then again such a war would be so much easier. Just take over the oil, and carpet bomb everything else. Don’t spend all that money rebuilding their infrastructure, or doing anything for them, just take the freaken oil.

This type of logic only makes sense to people who watched a little too much Captain Planet.[/quote]

Everbody agrees we are they’re protecting oil interests. It is also the most logical conclusion (very little do with captain planet, much to do with common sense.)

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ann Coulter is right: If liberals had any brains, they’d be Republicans (title of her new book). [/quote]

68

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

This reminds me, HH, why aren’t we invading Saudi Arabia? They have a MUCH more oppressive regime than Iran, and the people there are NOT likely to start a revolution if we don’t invade.

How about Syria? We’d be helping out old pal Israel AND securing oil!

Et Cetera.

[/quote]

Didn’t I just finish saying to do just that?

We should conquer and administer these regions, for the benefit of ourselves AND the people who live there.

The British did this in India and India is a functioning democracy. Before, it was a collection of fiefdoms trying to slaughter each other. Hmmm…sound familiar?

We should pay for the oil but use the share given the locals for developing the regions to make lives better for them, not so some assholes can have a jihad.

Civilisation comes to the poor peoples of OPEC…how cool is that??

69

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

We, along with Europe, need to conquer the oil rich regions on earth. Yesterday would not be too soon.

Ok, what if this were reality: instead of fighting for democracy in Iraq, of fighing a war on terror, or looking for weapons of mass destruction, let’s say the President just said “America is sick of depending on foreign oil, we are going to attack Iraq and take their oil!”

Do you think a war so justified would fly? Do you think the American people would be for it or against it?[/quote]

He has to explain it in perfectly logical terms: "Well folks, we are completely dependent on oil. Without it, no food on grocery store shelves, no way for many of you to get to work, lots of folks would have no heat in the winter. There are lots of ways we are totally dependent on oil and don’t even realize it.

We either control our destiny or others will do so. With this in mind, I ask you to help me secure our sources of oil. The choice is yours: either we control the oil or men like Ahmanijihad and Chavez control it. What’s YOUR pick?"

Look, we can be slaves of whackjobs like OPEC oil ministers if we want. I’m sure most libs wouldn’t mind that at all. I don’t want to be.

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The British did this in India and India is a functioning democracy. Before, it was a collection of fiefdoms trying to slaughter each other. Hmmm…sound familiar? [/quote]

Now, you’re giving the Brits credit for Indian democracy? I find it very disturbing that you’re a teacher.

71

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The British did this in India and India is a functioning democracy. Before, it was a collection of fiefdoms trying to slaughter each other. Hmmm…sound familiar?

Now, you’re giving the Brits credit for Indian democracy? I find it very disturbing that you’re a teacher.

[/quote]

The leading Indians were all educated in British universities. They incorporated British ideals. Prime Minister Nehru and Gandhi were successful in showing the British public that they were capable of having a civil society. In short order, they were given independence, within the Commonwealth.

The British are responsible for most of the civilising that went on in the world. Think Australia, South Africa, Canada, and of course, the USA.

72

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The British did this in India and India is a functioning democracy. Before, it was a collection of fiefdoms trying to slaughter each other. Hmmm…sound familiar?

Now, you’re giving the Brits credit for Indian democracy? I find it very disturbing that you’re a teacher.

The leading Indians were all educated in British universities. They incorporated British ideals. Prime Minister Nehru and Gandhi were successful in showing the British public that they were capable of having a civil society. In short order, they were given independence, within the Commonwealth.

The British are responsible for most of the civilising that went on in the world. Think Australia, South Africa, Canada, and of course, the USA.

[/quote]

It’s laughable that you can type this as a serious statement.

But maybe you’re just kidding…

73

Here it is, seeing as how we are tapping into the oil reserves in Iraq and pumping the stuff out by the truckload…

…oh, wait, we’re not. But you want to go invade a country that has approximately 15 billion barrels more in proved reserves. waste of time.

Top countries will proven oil reserves, by the billions of barrels.

You want oil so bad HH, go invade the big dog…

  1.  Saudi Arabia  	 264.3
  2. Canada 178.8
  3. Iran 132.5
  4. Iraq 115.0
  5. Kuwait 101.5
  6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
74

[quote]Ren wrote:
Here it is, seeing as how we are tapping into the oil reserves in Iraq and pumping the stuff out by the truckload…

…oh, wait, we’re not. But you want to go invade a country that has approximately 15 billion barrels more in proved reserves. waste of time.

Top countries will proven oil reserves, by the billions of barrels.

You want oil so bad HH, go invade the big dog…

  1.  Saudi Arabia  	 264.3
  2. Canada 178.8
  3. Iran 132.5
  4. Iraq 115.0
  5. Kuwait 101.5
  6. United Arab Emirates 97.8[/quote]

Securing our oil is different from invading. Some countries will have to be invaded, while others who are allied with us don’t need be. If they sell the stuff at a reasonable price, none of that has to happen at all, btw.

Think of the USA as a 300 pound drug addict. If his dealer keeps jacking up the price, the drug addict can either switch dealers (preferable), become the complete slave of the dealer, or kill the dealer and be his own dealer. Until the 1st one is feasible, the 3rd one seems the best option.

I can’t believe how many guys here want US sovereignty to be surrendered to scum like Chavez and Ahminajihad! Guys, take some Alpha Male or some Cyp or SOMETHING…jeeezzz…

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’m no warmonger, just a realist. We live on oil. I wish we didn’t. But the ME is where the oil is so either we control it (and our destiny) or we do not.

That’s empire talk there Headhunter. Your beliefs follow in heavy footsteps… a couple of things called the English, Spanish, French, Ottoman Empires… take your pick. Danger, boyo.

Like many, Irish, you think the world would continue more or less w/o American firepower. Will it? Go into Newark and find a neighborhood which the police have given up on. There’s the world w/o the USA.

Newark is bad because everything is rife with corruption and the cops and the Mayor (for the past twenty years) have been as crooked as can be. That’s the American way.

So basically, if we can’t control our own cities, how in the fuck do you think we’re going to control the world, especially one that is exploding with sectarian enmity that has been seething for millenia? We’re going to control it with our American capitalist corruption and payoffs? (I’m not anticapitalist, I’m just saying that capitalism will inherently carry with it a good amount of corruption.)

Fuck man, you’re way off base here. I know you want that American Empire, but there are those amongst us who wish to use the pen before the sword- you know what happens to people (and countries) that live by the sword, don’t you?

You keep mistaking wanting to control our own destiny with wanting to establish some global American Empire.
[/quote]

The way you make it seem, the only way to control our destiny is by force. That’s an empire.

How many addicts do you know that control their dealer? None that I know. They can’t even control their own addictions- how can you expect them to control anything else? That’s the relationship between the two- and it cannot be changed unless you run the means of production… which could only be taken by force. Try again.

And so who is to lead this charge on the Middle East? You know how much gas it takes to run a division of Abrams tanks? Or f-15s? It’s hard to attack a country when your tanks run out of gas.

An addict waging war on his dealer. Sounds like someone is fucked in that one, and it sure as shit ain’t the dealer.

You are a fucking lunatic. I can’t believe they let you teach children.

76

A job requirement for being a teacher is that you ARE a lunatic.

Nations have gone to war many times in the past over resources. Oil is quite probably the most valuable commodity on earth, like blood to a body. We should therefore expect to have wars fought over it — whoever possesses it lives, whoever can’t possess it, well, their civilisation goes down the shitter.

Now, we can’t continue as we are. We are transferring incredible amounts of wealth to those who want to drain us. Having lost wars to Israel and the USA, they can’t defeat us YET. They must drain us first economically.

So the time is approaching: either fight or die. Get the oil and let our economies blossom, or die. Pick one. We’ve got toeholds in Irag and Ass-crack-istan. The time is now.

77

“Again, even if this had been done 1 million times in the past, IT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT AND SHOULD BE ROUNDLY CONDEMNED.”

To paraphrase JeffR from another thread…

78

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
“Again, even if this had been done 1 million times in the past, IT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT AND SHOULD BE ROUNDLY CONDEMNED.”

To paraphrase JeffR from another thread…[/quote]

Alright. Let’s follow your plan. Then:

When the lights go out in your apartment, when there is no food on the grocery store shelves, when there is no heat in the winter, maybe…just maybe, you’ll get it.

When a gang strips you of your coat and you are freezing to death, you can at least take comfort in the fact that America didn’t exert its bully-like ways to secure oil.

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
“Again, even if this had been done 1 million times in the past, IT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT AND SHOULD BE ROUNDLY CONDEMNED.”

To paraphrase JeffR from another thread…

Alright. Let’s follow your plan. Then:

When the lights go out in your apartment, when there is no food on the grocery store shelves, when there is no heat in the winter, maybe…just maybe, you’ll get it.

When a gang strips you of your coat and you are freezing to death, you can at least take comfort in the fact that America didn’t exert its bully-like ways to secure oil.

[/quote]

I have a better idea.

Draw your troops back, let some shithead assume power and simply buy the oil from him.

Since he is going to need the revenues to keep in power he has to sell.

After having not spent billions on the military and with cheap and stable oil prices you could repair your infrastructure to make it save for the 21st century.

80

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
“Again, even if this had been done 1 million times in the past, IT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT AND SHOULD BE ROUNDLY CONDEMNED.”

To paraphrase JeffR from another thread…

Alright. Let’s follow your plan. Then:

When the lights go out in your apartment, when there is no food on the grocery store shelves, when there is no heat in the winter, maybe…just maybe, you’ll get it.

When a gang strips you of your coat and you are freezing to death, you can at least take comfort in the fact that America didn’t exert its bully-like ways to secure oil.

I have a better idea.

Draw your troops back, let some shithead assume power and simply buy the oil from him.

Since he is going to need the revenues to keep in power he has to sell.

After having not spent billions on the military and with cheap and stable oil prices you could repair your infrastructure to make it save for the 21st century.

[/quote]

Nope, that’d make too much sense. Let’s just go to war with the whole motherfucking world in our quest for resources, just like the empires of old.

I mean, what the fuck? Headhunter don’t give two shits, it ain’t gonna be him fighting the goddamn war. Who will get drafted? Me, working class New Jersey 23 year old, I’m the one that will do the damn fighting, so chickenhawks like him can sit there and preach death and hatred.

Baby, ain’t that America…