LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 And Afganistan has more oil than.... oops. Afghanistan was the actual threat where actual terrorists are. I was dismayed that the US put $0 in the 2003 budget to rebuild Afghanistan (my favorite Rummy quote: "We lowballed it." Can't get much lower than zero can we?) The difference is that Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring bin Laden whereas Iraq did not pose a threat to the US and did not attack the US. The neo-conservatives in high policy making areas of Congress (see Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and other members of PNAC) and the Administration seized on the opportunity to invade Iraq, something PNAC had been calling for since 1997 in order to gain control of the natural resource oil supplies that Iraq is full of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 And Afganistan has more oil than.... oops. Afghanistan, was (is) to keep "our" minds off of the economy, the environment, social services, etc... everything else that GWB has f***ed up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 And throwing a few missles at Iraq was to cover up a blow job, what else is new? You give too much credit to GWB for having the power to "F*** up everything". Should I remind you that Congress could have voted "NO" on the use of force in Iraq? That's just one example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Afghanistan, was (is) to keep "our" minds off of the economy, the environment, social services, etc... everything else that GWB has f***ed up! lmao. You crack me up, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 lmao. You crack me up, really. I could have sworn that Israel4ever was pro-bush when I used to be on here like 2 or 3 months ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 my call Bush 269 Kerry 269 Everything falls in the same way as in 2000, except that Kerry picks up victories in both New Hampshire and West Virgina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 I could have sworn that Israel4ever was pro-bush when I used to be on here like 2 or 3 months ago? Never! I am not a one-issue-voter!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 lmao. You crack me up, really. Really??? Do you feel any safer since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Never! I am not a one-issue-voter!!! I'm Glad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 If I was a terrorist, I would love nothing better than seeing US resources and attention tied up in a long, involved war in Iraq. At this point if the terrorist cannot even get his ass out of Iraq, I doubt they are a threat to the US. Terrorists are quick, mobile, and lurk in the shadows. We're still trying to fight a conventional war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Afghanistan was the actual threat where actual terrorists are. I was dismayed that the US put $0 in the 2003 budget to rebuild Afghanistan (my favorite Rummy quote: "We lowballed it." Can't get much lower than zero can we?) The difference is that Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring bin Laden whereas Iraq did not pose a threat to the US and did not attack the US. The neo-conservatives in high policy making areas of Congress (see Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and other members of PNAC) and the Administration seized on the opportunity to invade Iraq, something PNAC had been calling for since 1997 in order to gain control of the natural resource oil supplies that Iraq is full of. If we were really in this for the oil shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil under their terriroty and a lot better infrastructure to extract it with......or hell, we didn't even have to leave our own hemisphere, Venezuela is ripe for the taking down there. Why on earth would we go to war solely for 1.7 BPD of production? :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Actually i would rather of had us invade saudi arabia, there just as bad as the taliban was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 If we were really in this for the oil shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil under their terriroty and a lot better infrastructure to extract it with......or hell, we didn't even have to leave our own hemisphere, Venezuela is ripe for the taking down there. Why on earth would we go to war solely for 1.7 BPD of production? :rolly Like the world will stop selling us the batteries for our toys As long as we are the world's biggest energy hogs with a near endless list of ways to burn fossil fuels, they keep drilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 If we were really in this for the oil shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil under their terriroty and a lot better infrastructure to extract it with......or hell, we didn't even have to leave our own hemisphere, Venezuela is ripe for the taking down there. Why on earth would we go to war solely for 1.7 BPD of production? :rolly Saudi Arabia is our "ally". Plus Iraq is a tactical pivot (this is according to a Pentagon Policy Board presentation in May 2003 when it was reported), Saudi Arabia is a strategic pivot and Egypt is the prize. As Libertarian author Justin Raimondo states, "The calculated instability provoked by U.S. military intervention in Iraq plays right into the Murawiec-Perle scenario. As Al Qaeda garners growing popular support in Saudi Arabia, and the country descends into civil war, one or another wing of the House of Saud asks for U.S. intervention to avert anarchy – and the "strategic pivot" is ours." Iraq has a few trillion bucks worth of oil which is good for the growing merger of the military and industry (an unfortunate state of affairs in the growing military industrial complex, something that Eisenhower warned the American public about) plus it is a strategic pivot for further military action in the Mid-East. The oil was only part of the puzzle, a very lucrative piece of the puzzle since Iraq is, I believe, the #2 oil reserve. As for Venezuela, as long as Chavez is in power, the Bush administration is going to have very tense relations. Coups have been trying to oust him from power (mostly the economic elites in the area) As investigative reporter for the BBC, Guardian and other newspapers Greg Palast states: "Whatever else you hear about Venezuela, this is the story in a single frame. Like apartheid-riven South Africa, the whites, 20% of the population, have the nation's wealth under lock and key. The Rich Fifth have command of the oil wealth, the best jobs, the English-language lessons, the imported clothes, the vacations in Miami, the plantations. That is, until Hugo Chavez came along. Now the brown people, like community activist Lara -- and President Chavez himself-- have a piece of the action. "Negro e indio," Chavez calls himself. Black and Indian. And the blondes don't like it." The White House once said that Chavez' winning a crushing majority of the vote in his 2000 election did not confer "legitimacy" on Chavez' presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 http://electoral-vote.com/ just thought i'd let everyone know that this website, which started 5 pages of conversation, now shows Kerry ahead in the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederate_48 Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Yeah i noticed that too. He was ahead by alot a few weeks back then Bush took over so its been going back and forth for a while. Also those polls are before Bushs speech and the bounce so it can go back to Bush again. Ya gotta read the bottom of the page after the updates it really explains in detail whose leading where and how its been changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Saudi Arabia is our "ally". Plus Iraq is a tactical pivot (this is according to a Pentagon Policy Board presentation in May 2003 when it was reported), Saudi Arabia is a strategic pivot and Egypt is the prize. As Libertarian author Justin Raimondo states, "The calculated instability provoked by U.S. military intervention in Iraq plays right into the Murawiec-Perle scenario. As Al Qaeda garners growing popular support in Saudi Arabia, and the country descends into civil war, one or another wing of the House of Saud asks for U.S. intervention to avert anarchy – and the "strategic pivot" is ours." Iraq has a few trillion bucks worth of oil which is good for the growing merger of the military and industry (an unfortunate state of affairs in the growing military industrial complex, something that Eisenhower warned the American public about) plus it is a strategic pivot for further military action in the Mid-East. The oil was only part of the puzzle, a very lucrative piece of the puzzle since Iraq is, I believe, the #2 oil reserve. As for Venezuela, as long as Chavez is in power, the Bush administration is going to have very tense relations. Coups have been trying to oust him from power (mostly the economic elites in the area) As investigative reporter for the BBC, Guardian and other newspapers Greg Palast states: "Whatever else you hear about Venezuela, this is the story in a single frame. Like apartheid-riven South Africa, the whites, 20% of the population, have the nation's wealth under lock and key. The Rich Fifth have command of the oil wealth, the best jobs, the English-language lessons, the imported clothes, the vacations in Miami, the plantations. That is, until Hugo Chavez came along. Now the brown people, like community activist Lara -- and President Chavez himself-- have a piece of the action. "Negro e indio," Chavez calls himself. Black and Indian. And the blondes don't like it." The White House once said that Chavez' winning a crushing majority of the vote in his 2000 election did not confer "legitimacy" on Chavez' presidency. With "friends" like the Saudis, we definitely don't need enemies!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 wouldnt it be ironic if Bush wins the Popular Vote and loses the Electoral College. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 (edited) I bet there's martial law if that happens... or so the conspiracy says. Edited September 8, 2004 by kapkomet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 http://electoral-vote.com/ just thought i'd let everyone know that this website, which started 5 pages of conversation, now shows Kerry ahead in the election. And a day later Bush is back in front This thing is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I finally found the perfect quote to desribe this election. Granted this was made in reference to conspiracy theorists, but it is still valid here. "For skeptics, no amount of proof is sufficient. For Believers, no amount of proof is necessary." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 this is too crazy to follow... as the site reports, Zogby had Bush and Kerry tied in Missouri as of yesterday, today Gallup reports a 14% lead for Bush??? Too many people, too may polls... which one to believe, if any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Zogby was most accurate in 2000. Rasmussen does a rolling average poll. Both of those I tend to rely more heavily on. I will say that I had read somewhere that both Bush and Kerry internals gave Bush a four point lead after the convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.