PS. I take just as much flak from so called liberals for my views on capital punishment, welfare, gay rights etc.
You can ask any economist and they will tell you that there is no correlation between who is president and the economy. It does make for a good political issue. What did Clinton do his first two years in office? That’s right folks…nothing. It took a change in the legislative branch to get things moving…You guys do know what the legislative branch is right?
Isn’t it the truth.
a couple of more for you guys.
A president can push for a balanced budget, can have a clear and concise domestic agenda that placates spenders. A president can NOT push for wreckless tax breaks in the time of economic deficits.
I am not moronic enough to blame the economy now on Bush (though he has done nothing to help it) or to give Clinton all the credit for the economy during his terms. However, a good president knows how to maintain a good economy or spur the legislators to fix a broken one. Bush has failed on both of these points.
AvoidsRoids - I haven’t answered your question because it is ridiculous to me. I have never claimed that we fight for material wealth, though we do fight for our own interests, always.
Vietnam was only the stadium, the game was a war against communism. We were going to fight it somewhere, we chose Vietnam.
This was the question Z Man:
“Hmmmmm. I wonder what it was that the four nations that sent troops to help the USA in Vietnam were after? Or, if any of the liberals that spout so much venom can even tell me who those countries were and which one sent the most troops and, in fact, were the most ferocious fighters?”
Now, please point me to the answer as I appear to be too stupid to find it myself.
And, for the record, just what is the definition of a “SANDNIGGER” that you referred to in your post?
Same thing that GB , Australia and Italy are after in Iraq, better trade relations withthe largest consumer economy in the world.
That is part of the answer Z-Man but what about the second part of the question i.e., “Or, if any of the liberals that spout so much venom can even tell me who those countries were (that sent troops to assist the US in Vietnam) and which one sent the most troops and, in fact, were the most ferocious fighters?”
I am also still waiting for you (Z Man) to explain to me what you mean when you use the word “SANDNIGGER”.
Cravell,
You imply a lot with those little posts… as if somehow BUSH is responsible for deposing Lenin, Stalin, etc. Bush can’t even capture Osama OR Saddam. All he has done is declare war on a couple of countries that don’t even have a real defence. I agree that war has been necessary at different times throughout history, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept EVERY war.
Avoids,
Vietnam was a different situation, which I will address in a later post, but this country has never seen the level of corruption and profiteering that it has with the current administration. Oh wait, a BJ warrants crimes against humanity in your book. I would rather have a pres getting his knob polished in the oval office that a pres who is anally raping America without even so much as some lube or a reacharound! Nearly 100 BILLION dollars in NO BID contracts have been won by Bush friends since all this started in the last 2 years . Oil or not, someone is making some serious $$$ off of sweet little federal contracts, and they ALL contributed to the Bush campaign. Wake UP!!!
Tell the kid the war was probably about oil, after all:
“USA: Cheney Had Iraq in His Sight”
“Documents released under America’s Freedom of Information Act reveal that an energy task force led by vice-president Dick Cheney was examining Iraq’s oil assets two years before the latest war began.”
Go ahead and lie to your kids and tell them we invaded Iraq “to get rid of the bad man” or “to bring Democracy to Iraq”. What a load of bullshit.
This is from Newsmax, a right-wing website:
"Oil-Hungry U.S. Reconsiders Iraq
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, April 13, 2001
WASHINGTON (UPI) - The United States is entering a period of relative shortages of energy that will require an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including possibly revamping sanctions against Iraq, an independent task force of energy and foreign policy experts told the White House in a report released Thursday.
The report, drafted by a panel assembled by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, was submitted this week to the White House energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
In its comprehensive look at the United States’ energy situation, the panel warned that increasing domestic energy supplies and reducing consumption would not be enough to insulate the United States from the ups and downs of world oil markets, particularly in the volatile Middle East.
“Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil,” the report said. “Iraq has become a key ‘swing’ producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.”
Political turmoil in the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and potential internal unrest in the Persian Gulf states, gives Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein greater leverage in using his vast oil reserves as an economic and diplomatic weapon.
To offset Iraq’s “destabilizing influence” in the Middle East, the panel recommended the United States and its allies consider refocusing the sanctions more toward curbing Baghdad’s weapons development programs and less on stifling the Iraqi economy to the detriment of its everyday citizens.
“The United States should develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies,” the report said. “Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue.”
Once a new sanctions policy is agreed upon, restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry could be relaxed to allow more barrels of crude on to the world market, although such a move would not be without risk.
“Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade,” the report said. “However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his ‘victory’ against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime.”
9 year old: “So why aren’t we at war with North Korea?”
Mommy: “Err … on second thought, let’s close those blinds.”
This is to Avoids Roids. I am sorry that you were in Vietnam without knowing why. They told me father the same thing. He served from '66-'69, First Marine Division, First Marine Battalion, Hotel Company, First Platoon. His MOS was 0311. This is simply to speak to his credibility. Anyways, since I am one of those US=GG bad guys list, I figured I would try to answer your question. The Gulf of Tonkin was full of Oil, believe it or not. Chevron, Union, and several other American Oil companies had much vested there. When my father was on China Beach right before they sent him over, he told me that he could see dozens of tankers waiting to pick up their shipments. However, I do not believe that the American public would want to hear that 58,000 of its sons were killed for those reasons. Or that several thousand were taken prisoner and either humiliated on national TV or never heard from again (one of which happened to be an uncle of mine as well).
According to an article in the business section of the newspaper this morning
ChevronTexaco has QUADRUPLED profits this second quarter over last year.
30 billion dollars (thats gross income, not profit) in the second quarter alone this year.
yet 44,000 jobs shed by US companies in July alone and high unemployment. the number of “foreign flight” jobs is increasing.
mmmm… wonder who is benefiting from all the wars and globalisation policies??..
mommy, why did daddy lose his job yet his boss just bought 2 new houses?
JPfitness is right one- the Bush admin works without shame for the sole benefit of their pals in oil & other large economic interests.
try clearing the smokescreen left by FOXnews and other tools of the white house and get a look at what the fuck is going on not only abroad but at home.
“mmmm… wonder who is benefiting from all the wars and globalisation policies??..”
Well I don’t think it’s a fluke that the World Bank is 51%-owned by the US Treasury.