There's something I just don't get. [Election]

[Galleazzo]

The Repubs are pushing hard that we're more likely to get a 9/11 terrorist attack under Kerry than under Bush.

Let me get this straight:

9/11 freaking happened under Bush!!!

So WTF, mate? How do you figure we're safer under the party in power DURING the terrorist attacks?

Just fucking mental.

:rolleyes:

[Sean]

I believe the general reasoning well hear in this thread is that 9/11 is really Clinton's fault or that Bush's war on terrorism and general macho behavior gives them a better sense of security.

But then again I'm just speculating I don't really think I'll feel any different if kerry or bush is elected.

[Keller]

I agree with Tijay. No matter who gets elected, we are stuck in Iraq and taking a proactive stance on preventing terrorism. Unless we change military personel, both candidates offer more of the same.

[Nakiro]

Terrorist attacks can happen under any administration (9/11 shows that to be true, as no one expected it to happen).

The Bush admin is advocating that they are going to be even more likely under Kerry because of his weak defense spending record.

Take that however you want, but it doesn't mean its true, as does nothing either election commity has claimed for that matter.

[Tsa`ah]

It has become tradition to blame the short comings and faults on the prior administration will taking credit for all of the positives no matter who was actually responsible.

Bush Sr took credit for the growth and surplus of the Clinton administration, Bush Jr blames the Clinton administration and 9-11 for the economic crash and 9-11.

Clinton blamed plenty on Sr, but I haven't seen him taking much credit for the things happening in the current administration.

As I said ... Tradition. Each party does it.

In this case, and bias can be pointed to, the current administration is playing on fear while trying to convey experience on their part or inexperience on Kerry's part.

I agree with your sentiment that we're no safer with Bush than we would be with Kerry. It's just one of the few facets of the incumbent’s center piece.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Clinton blamed plenty on Sr, but I haven't seen him taking much credit for the things happening in the current administration.


I couldn't imagine why Clinton wouldn't take credit for this administration.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Keller
I couldn't imagine why Clinton wouldn't take credit for this administration. Possibly because under Clinton the budget was in surplus for the first time since before Vietnam, while Bush is riding it to the tune of $500 billion a year, more than any Administration ever has.

If I started spending jack I didn't have, took out loans I didn't intend to repay and kited checks I didn't have the jack to cover, my business would go under and my ass'd be in prison. Clinton nutted up and said "We're gonna stop spending what we don't got" and freaking pulled it off. Bush tossed that out the window BEFORE 9/11.

The only time Bush really nutted up was in sending troops to Afghanistan, and then he monkeyed out before the dust settled for a cooler war so his business buds could have their oil. Meanwhile al-Qaeda is fucking in Afghanistan and we got fewer troops there looking for Osama than there are cops in Manhattan. I bet Clinton wouldn't want credit for that either.

[Slider]

Okay, let me try once again to explain that we DID NOT fucking go to war in Iraq for Bush to make money. Got it?

And if you don't want to take my fucking word for it, fine. Would you beleive Hillary Clinton? Here is the speech she gave on the floor of the Senate Oct 10th 2002 on S.J. Res 45 wich Authorized the President to use armed forces in Iraq.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Note that in that speech, she clearly states that in 1998 "the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change." That would have been under Bill Clinton. NOT George Bush the first, or the second.

She further states, and again I quote "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. "

So, fine, you want to beleive that this was all some fucking fantasy made up by the Bush Administration to line their pockets, you go right on ahead...But not even Hillary Clinton agrees with you.

[kheldarin]

Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

[Warriorbird]

:snicker: It's about a lot of things. It's about getting troops out of Saudi Arabia. It's about money for Haliburton. It's about actually doing some good for the people that we put into a horrible situation. It's about reelection. It's about "doing what Daddy didn't do." It's about planning by a bunch of conservative Jewish folks (Wolfowitz and friends) to lash out at the Islamic world. It's about securing more fuel reserves for America. It's about distracting the American populace from 9/11 while waving it like a banner.

It's about a lot of things... some of them are actually good things. Many, many of them are dubious.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

Why spent over 100 billion dollars on a war for oil when oil can be bought for way less? It just doesn't make sense to do it that way, considering we get about 10% or so from the Middle East anyway. Europe benefits more from their oil than we would. It's just nonsensical to believe it was all about the oil.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

Actually.. since you are making this baseless claim.. it would be your responsibility to back up your assertion.

[Warriorbird]

Of course it isn't just oil. But that begs the question... why spend 200 billion... there? What determines what international situations we aid, and which we ignore?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tijay
I believe the general reasoning well hear in this thread is that 9/11 is really Clinton's fault or that Bush's war on terrorism and general macho behavior gives them a better sense of security.

But then again I'm just speculating I don't really think I'll feel any different if kerry or bush is elected.


I think the 9-11 commission lay blame at the doors of both Bush and Clinton.

[Warriorbird]

Heh heh. Funny hearing you talk about the 9/11 commission. I mean, Bush was so blameless! He takes so much responsibility for his actions. That's what being a Republican is all about, y'know. Taking responsibility.

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

Why spent over 100 billion dollars on a war for oil when oil can be bought for way less? It just doesn't make sense to do it that way, considering we get about 10% or so from the Middle East anyway. Europe benefits more from their oil than we would. It's just nonsensical to believe it was all about the oil.

The world is running out of oil and US reserves at a all time low. Methods for finding and drilling oil have had to become more sophisticated has we are know mining smaller veins of oil. So $100 Billion is small potatoes in order to secure the oil in Iraq. If the US were to be denied oil by the Arab nations it would make the great Depresion look like good times.

Saudi is run by one very large family essentially, who luckily for the west are a bunch of greedy assholes who couldn't give a rat's ass for their fellow country men. If that were to change we would be fucked.

The US Government needs to get serious about funding alternative sources of energy. and not just the piddly amount Bush has done so far after pressure from US Companies who were afraid the would miss the boat

[Slider]

yup, had to be about the oil....couldn't possibly have been his nuclear weapons program, his genocide of the Kurds, the atrocities commited against his own people, his supporting terrorists through-out the Middle East, his continued lack of co-operation with U.N. resolutions, none of it...hell...he's really a nice guy when ya get down to it...but that Bush guy...he's a REAL bastard.

[peam]

Originally posted by Slider
yup, had to be about the oil....couldn't possibly have been his nuclear weapons program, his genocide of the Kurds, the atrocities commited against his own people, his supporting terrorists through-out the Middle East, his continued lack of co-operation with U.N. resolutions, none of it...hell...he's really a nice guy when ya get down to it...but that Bush guy...he's a REAL bastard.

You forgot the weapons of mass destruction.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Slider
yup, had to be about the oil....couldn't possibly have been his nuclear weapons program, his genocide of the Kurds, the atrocities commited against his own people, his supporting terrorists through-out the Middle East, his continued lack of co-operation with U.N. resolutions, none of it...hell...he's really a nice guy when ya get down to it...but that Bush guy...he's a REAL bastard. If that was truly the case we have a ton of countries we need to start invading for for the sake of liberation and regime change.
Saddam is a bastard, a down right dirty mother fucker who we caught. We've know that for years.

Of course the United States wants to protect their oil interests among other things. Why wouldn't we?

[CrystalTears]

Okay so where does it say we're running low on oil? I'm curious.

Also out of curiosity, in order to guarantee the oil, wouldn't you have to proclaim that area as a US territory? You can't just invade a country and say "this oil is mine!". It screams Daffy Duck cartoons to me.

[Edited on 10/26/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

Hahahahaha

[imported_Kranar]

<< You can't just invade a country and say "this oil is mine!". >>

The U.S. did it over bananas.

Surely the U.S. can do it over oil.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Okay so where does it say we're running low on oil? I'm curious.

Also out of curiosity, in order to guarantee the oil, wouldn't you have to proclaim that area as a US territory? You can't just invade a country and say "this oil is mine!". It screams Daffy Duck cartoons to me.

[Edited on 10/26/2004 by CrystalTears]

Gasoline prices.

Halliburton contracts.

[Hulkein]

Eh, gasoline prices are complex.

Ya have the lack of refineries in our country because of tree-huggers. Refineries in my area (Philadelphia region) are running at like 98% capacity.

Little thing called hurricanes? There were about four of them that caused all the Gulf of Mexico operations to close.

Than there is that Nicaraguan or Brazilian oil strike.

And if you think we invaded Iraq to give Halliburton a contract than you're a pretty paranoid person.

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Okay so where does it say we're running low on oil? I'm curious.

Also out of curiosity, in order to guarantee the oil, wouldn't you have to proclaim that area as a US territory? You can't just invade a country and say "this oil is mine!". It screams Daffy Duck cartoons to me.

[Edited on 10/26/2004 by CrystalTears]

The first link (Real Player format) is a documentary on oil & alternative sources of energy. It is about an hour long but excellent. All the Energy Analysts here agree we are running out of oil the only question is when will it dry up.

Documentary (Real Player) (http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/sb.20040613.rm?title=Bekijk%20DE%20WATERSTOFREVOLU TIE%20in%20SMALBAND%20lange%20versie%2070%2 0min.%20tot%20100%20kbs )

This from Utah Department of Natural Resources.

In the next 20 years, according to calculations by the Energy Information Administration, our nation's demand for oil is expected to jump 30% and natural gas by more than 50%. The reality is that our domestic production is declining. We now produce nearly 40% less oil than we did in 1970. Unless policies are changed, production will continue to decline. The projection is just over five million barrels per day by 2020, down from a high of 9.4 million barrels per day 30 years ago. Failure to meet this challenge may harm our prosperity, damage our national security, and may affect the way we live our daily lives." (IPAMS Wildcatter Weely, Issue 13, 2001, 4/6/2001, Quoting Interior Secretary Gale Norton)

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Okay so where does it say we're running low on oil? I'm curious.

Also out of curiosity, in order to guarantee the oil, wouldn't you have to proclaim that area as a US territory? You can't just invade a country and say "this oil is mine!". It screams Daffy Duck cartoons to me.

[Edited on 10/26/2004 by CrystalTears] You also can't just invade a country and say "you are now all liberated!" It screams unlikely to me that we would care that much. Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world, second to Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration claims to be participating in and facilitating the rebuilding of Iraq; however, the intent and methods that have been presented to the American people are half-truths, the methods are morally questionable, and the monetary amounts are extremely insufficient. The government has made massive monetary claims and has crafted a dually funded financial system that holds donated monies for Iraqi reconstruction from world nations and captures all revenue from future Iraqi oil and gas production. While it might appear to us that the our government is generously providing grants, the grants are not adequate to cover the real cost of rebuilding. Iraq has massive debts and the oil reserves aren't sufficient to make existing payments, cover operational expenses of the country, and pay for reconstruction costs. This has not been conveyed to the American people. The Bush administration is either being deceitful or very short sighted. Your pick.

[Back]

Hey, xtc... mind cleaning up that link so it dosen’t stretch the browser window?

[Warriorbird]

"his supporting terrorists through-out the Middle East,"

Riiight.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Slider
he's really a nice guy when ya get down to it...Not only that, but before we went to Iraq, everyone was smiling and flying kites. It's true! I saw it in F9/11!

Bush: the anti-happiness and anti-kite candidate.

And since you don't know me so well, Slider: Yes. This portion of the post is sarcastic.
Originally posted by xtc
Analysts here agree we are running out of oil the only question is when will it dry up. The Malthusian Trap never happened. I'm going to go ahead and take a skeptical stance on this too.

[CrystalTears]

We've been running out of oil since I was a baby. :P

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Slider
he's really a nice guy when ya get down to it...Not only that, but before we went to Iraq, everyone was smiling and flying kites. It's true! I saw it in F9/11!

Bush: the anti-happiness and anti-kite candidate.

And since you don't know me so well, Slider: Yes. This portion of the post is sarcastic.
Originally posted by xtc
Analysts here agree we are running out of oil the only question is when will it dry up. The Malthusian Trap never happened. I'm going to go ahead and take a skeptical stance on this too.

Oil, unlike food, is an non renewable source of energy. Facts are facts. China is using 30% more oil than forecasted this year despite no increase in population so your denigration of The Malthusian check is really off base.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Facts are facts.Spin is spin. :)

I was specifically referencing the Malthusian trap of the UK, where Malthus figured that UK would starve out on account of overpopulation, only it didn't, on account of the UK conquering everything.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
Facts are facts.Spin is spin. :)

I was specifically referencing the Malthusian trap of the UK, where Malthus figured that UK would starve out on account of overpopulation, only it didn't, on account of the UK conquering everything.

Yes food is renewable and the population grew.

Oil is a non-renewable source of energy and their has been an increase in demand despite no increase in population.

That is why I can't understand why attacking Mathus' theories has any relevance here.

[Warriorbird]

"We've been running out of oil since I was a baby."

Yeah, I hear Bush is working on an oil generation program. He's also given us low gas prices!

[Keller]

Seeing that it takes thousands of years to convert every acre of underground sludge into the raw goop that we turn into oil ... it seems we HAVE been running out of oil since ALL of us were born.

HOLY SHIT BATMAN!

[Parkbandit]

Oil certainly won't last forever and we need to act now to explore other energy sources. I would LOVE to one day tell the Middle East to go fuck themselves and shove their oil up their ass.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I would LOVE to one day tell the Middle East to go fuck themselves and shove their oil up their ass.

Amen.

Raven

[Hulkein]

<<Yes food is renewable and the population grew.

Oil is a non-renewable source of energy and their has been an increase in demand despite no increase in population.

That is why I can't understand why attacking Mathus' theories has any relevance here.>>

It can have some relevance. While it is a non-renewable resource Mathus' theories do hold some ground.

Who is not to say we won't discover a way to use oil so what we have is greatly expanded? Or that we won't come up with the technology to dig deeper and find deeper wells of oil?

Ya never know when we may stumble on a technology that allows one barrel of oil today to equal a hundred barrels through more effective ways of refining/using it.

[CrystalTears]

I mean we ARE talking about 20 years. Look how far computers have come around in the last 5 years, let alone 20. We may end up running our cars on pure bean gases. :D

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
We may end up running our cars on pure bean gases. :D

Or maybe even on turkey shit. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html)

Raven

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by kheldarin
Galleazo, cmon, this has been proved many fuckin times over. The war isn't/wasn't ever about the oil.

So you can save your "no blood for oil" ranting bullshit for someone else.


Could you please provide documentation to back up your assertion that Iraq is not ultimately about oil?

Actually.. since you are making this baseless claim.. it would be your responsibility to back up your assertion.


It's your responsibility to open your eyes and actually read the post correctly. I didn't call his claim baseless, I merely asked for documentation on how he arrived at his decision that Iraq is not about oil. Imagine that I actually was trying to learn something. Stop being such a troll.

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
We've been running out of oil since I was a baby. :P

There's lots of oil out there. The problem with finding it begins with the environmentalists.

Now, next to oil what is another source that the US has tons of that fuel can be made from?

Grains. The US has plenty of sources for oill, Alaska is a virtually untapped resource. So don't say the US is over there for oil.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oil certainly won't last forever and we need to act now to explore other energy sources. I would LOVE to one day tell the Middle East to go fuck themselves and shove their oil up their ass.

We have had that potential for over 20 years.

Our ag surplus can be converted to oils and various alcohols.

Bio-diesel is already a viable option and has been.

We already have the capacity for wind farms, solar farms, and solar needles. Certainly individual rural homes can easily unplug from grids as could smaller urban communities.

Nation wide we could be residentially independent of petroleum within 10 years leaving fossil fuel consumption exclusively for commercial, government, and military usage.

Why won't it happen? Special interests.

We'll be paying 6 bucks a gallon by the time any real effort is put into alternative resources.

[Ilvane]

Yeah Carl, there's an idea..tear up the wildlife refuge and a few other natural beauty areas and get enough oil to last maybe 10 years..that's worth it!

I agree with PB(gasp!) I wish we could stop relying on oil, and find alternative forms of energy. We don't have too much of a chance of that with Bush and Cheney in office..:lol:

-A

[Back]

I agree here also. We need the oil monkey off our backs. Because its harming our environment/us to drill/process/use it.

Of the two candidates, one seems headed in a better direction on this issue.

[Dhuul]

Seriously I think this country is fucked up enough that if a terrorist attack happens this week, Bush will win the election...it will give him a boost, because he's "tough on terror."

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Yeah Carl, there's an idea..tear up the wildlife refuge and a few other natural beauty areas and get enough oil to last maybe 10 years..that's worth it!


-A

Gold Jacket, Green Jacket.... Who gives a shit???

If it comes down to me having power or some animals having a home... well sorry but I win out. Right now oil is our source of energy and until we find some other reliable energy source we have to look at whats in front of us.

[CrystalTears]

Let's not bring up animals as a resource or their precious needs, please! One USA tragedy at a time! :lol:

Besides, 20 years, 10 years.. these are all short-term predictions. I've yet to see a source that states that precisely in X amount of time we will no longer have oil. People need to relax a little bit. :)

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Let's not bring up animals as a resource or their precious needs, please! One USA tragedy at a time! :lol:

Besides, 20 years, 10 years.. these are all short-term predictions. I've yet to see a source that states that precisely in X amount of time we will no longer have oil. People need to relax a little bit. :)

Environment is a concern, which includes the habitat of animals, some already endangered.

It's not that we'll run out of oil in our life time, but we will be paying out of the nose.

When petroleum costs go up, the price on all consumer goods goes up; your utility bills go up.

Industry suffers because there's only so much cost that can be passed on to the consumer. Shipping costs sky rocket, the cost of operation sky rockets.

Reserves and supply directly influence every facet of your life outside of breathing.

Right now gas costs for the average consumer are just above 2.00 a gallon nationally. Next year when they're hovering at 2.50 a gallon, what effect do you think that will have on paying the utility bills alone?

The blue collar job market is very adversely affected by this. When the cost of living goes up, the wages increases will not be enough to cover that hike. When the blue collar work force isn't spending money, a ripple affect occurs.

[CrystalTears]

Er... the animal thing was a joke. Humor is always lost on the too serious. :smug: