SoxFanForever Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Don't fool yourself DBAH0, it's all Muslim Extremism. I really hope that was supposed to be green. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Ideologically bin Laden is a f***ing nutcase [won't touch the whole invisible man in the sky telling him to do things...] but tactically, he engineered one of the most destructive attacks for mere pennies compared to what the US is doling out. I mean, think -- plane tickets and box cutters and mace [if you hear Betty Ong's phone call, she says they have mace and pepper spray]. Dumb criminals I am not worried about, but it is guys who are smart and cause problems that are the ones to worry about. Plus, according to most policy wonks bin Laden is now simply a funding and figurehead for a more ideological movement and you cannot kill an ideology unless we get into the sticky little matter of genocide. According to one of London's leading medical journals the Lancet, there have been 100,000 unnecessary civilian deaths caused by the war. 100,000. That is civilian, not "terrorist". Also, with at $400 billion defense budget why are troops not equipped with night vision, armor, radios or BULLETS http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstorie..._305195404.html According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Armed Services Committee who speaks out against pork-barrel spending, there is a total of $8.9 billion of pork in this year's defense bill, which would go a long way toward upgrading all the equipment used by the National Guard. "I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says. "This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war. So I think that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business-as-usual situation." "The least sexy items are the mundane - food, repair items, maintenance – there's no big contract there," says McCain. "And so there's a tendency that those mundane but vital aspects of war fighting are cut and routinely underfunded." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawaiisoxfn Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 He also did one of the most cowardly things ever. Attacking innocent unarmed civilians who were just going to work. I cant guarantee the validity of the information I have, but watch the news. I know a lady whos husband is in Afghanistan. He says something big has happened. No guarantees, but it could be something. So watch the news! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 He also did one of the most cowardly things ever. Attacking innocent unarmed civilians who were just going to work. I cant guarantee the validity of the information I have, but watch the news. I know a lady whos husband is in Afghanistan. He says something big has happened. No guarantees, but it could be something. So watch the news! What would happen if the conspiracists were right that OBL would be caught before the election... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawaiisoxfn Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 What would happen if the conspiracists were right that OBL would be caught before the election... Ive already thought of that. It might be true, and honestly, I dont care just as long as we have him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Would the "War on Terror" end with the capture of OBL in most Americans' eyes? I would think that OBL's capture would give Kerry a boost as much as Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 According to one of London's leading medical journals the Lancet, there have been 100,000 unnecessary civilian deaths caused by the war. 100,000. That is civilian, not "terrorist". To be fair (and I am no fan of how the war's being conducted), the study doesn't say "unnecessary", it says "excess" deaths -- as in, in "excess" of the number of deaths that would have occurred without a war. (Some civilian deaths seem unavoidable.) I don't believe they distinguish between civilians and terrorists, except that foreign terrorists would not be counted. Also, that's 100k deaths from all causes, including murder, noncombat violence, and other. You didn't claim otherwise, I just think it should be made clear that they do not say that the invading forces killed 100k civilians. Still, it's a sobering study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Would the "War on Terror" end with the capture of OBL in most Americans' eyes? I would think that OBL's capture would give Kerry a boost as much as Bush. Question #1, yes. Statement #2, why? I'd really like to hear what you have to say on this. I think it's an undeniable win for Bush, unless you buy into the f/911-leave-OBL-alone-so-we-can-go-do-some-fear-mongering philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Question #1, yes. Statement #2, why? I'd really like to hear what you have to say on this. I think it's an undeniable win for Bush, unless you buy into the f/911-leave-OBL-alone-so-we-can-go-do-some-fear-mongering philosophy. If OBL is captured, Kerry is more justified in pulling troops out of areas if it becomes his job to do so. There will be no need for them to be over there, then in most people's eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Would the "War on Terror" end with the capture of OBL in most Americans' eyes? I would think that OBL's capture would give Kerry a boost as much as Bush. You would be a fool to think that the war on terror is over if OBL is captured... then again most people don't have a clue, so I guess it wouldn't surprise me if it were to play out that way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawaiisoxfn Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Catching bin Laden would not be a tactical victory, but a symbolic one. A HUGE symbolic one. It would be like them assassinating President Bush. Would it destroy our ability to retaliate? No, but it would be a huge blow to our morale. It wouldnt end the War on Terror, because wed have to continue to fight to keep someone else from taking his place as a symbolic leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Here's a question, not directed specifically at you SS, but I'd like to hear your opinion. What is the War on Terror? Where does it begin? End? Who are the soldiers? Who is the enemy? Ok that was alot of questions, but I tend to think that a WAR on terrrrr isn't a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 HMMMM....election is only a couple days away and this morning I paid $2.04 a gallon for gas (in Indiana no less) and no Bin Laden capture yet. I wonder when all of this is suposed to happen. i guess monday will be an interesting day. Gas prices fall AND Bin Laden is captured!!!! YEAH!!!!! juddling Creepy, I just heard on the news that oil prices are at the lowest they have been at for months now. I am now just waiting to hear if there is some news from the land of the Afgan rug!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Creepy, I just heard on the news that oil prices are at the lowest they have been at for months now. Phhhh, not where I am. I'm still paying 2.15-2.17 a gallon....If gas prices stay this high I am going to go to over there and look for the bastard myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 They've dropped sharply in an attempt to influence the election, but they're still higher than they were a few months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 They've dropped sharply in an attempt to influence the election, but they're still higher than they were a few months ago. BULL s***. It has NOTHING to do with the election. It's called market fluctuations. The real reason the drop is because the supply in the US (figures released late last week) was deemed to be higher then expected, which means there is less of a demand, hence a fall in prices. Sorry Cheat to come across like an ass, but it drives me crazy when people start putting s*** like that together that is just not the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 BULL s***. It has NOTHING to do with the election. It's called market fluctuations. The real reason the drop is because the supply in the US (figures released late last week) was deemed to be higher then expected, which means there is less of a demand, hence a fall in prices. Sorry Cheat to come across like an ass, but it drives me crazy when people start putting s*** like that together that is just not the truth. No need to apologize. It's not you that makes it appear improper. The First family of the United States has made a majority of it's wealth via the Oil business, and you can't fart in the president's Cabinet without someone he appointed with connections to Oil/Energy smellin it. If they wanted to avoid the appearence of impropriety, they should have done a better job hiding their ties to the business sector. /I'm not trying to start a flamewar here. I avoid them at all costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 And for every tie into oil that the Bush team has, Kerry has some folks there ready to step in. It's just disgusting how much BOTH of these guys are hanging off of some special interest's teat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 No need to apologize. It's not you that makes it appear improper. The First family of the United States has made a majority of it's wealth via the Oil business, and you can't fart in the president's Cabinet without someone he appointed with connections to Oil/Energy smellin it. If they wanted to avoid the appearence of impropriety, they should have done a better job hiding their ties to the business sector. /I'm not trying to start a flamewar here. I avoid them at all costs. Actually if you want the marketology of it.... -Norway's government settled a threatened oil strike in their nations infrastructure. -Nigeria's threatened oil strikes haven't materialized yet. -Yukos continuing bankruptcy problems haven't cut their output, and the Russian government has said they won't allow output to slide. -Saudi Arabia has publically stated that they have an extra 1.5 million BBD of capacity they could utilize if necesary. -Rumored terror strikes before the US elections haven't materialized. -Heating oil production fears have been eased by moderate weather in the northeast. -Iraq is producing 1.85 million BBD of oil, which is more than they were producing under the Oil for Food program, and is bonus production because the OPEC quota numbers for them are about 500,000 BBD. If the government really wanted to push down oil prices they wouldn't have started 5 days before the election. They would have done it a month or two ahead of time so that the peripherals such as heating oil, gasoline, kerosene, etc would have had time to decline, and there would have been time for those price decreases to sink in with the American consumer. As it stands now, only people who watch the financial reports know oil is at a month's low. Things such as gasoline are still not reflecting those declines, so most of the US doesn't have a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 ...so most of the US doesn't have a clue. Has anything more true ever been uttered on these boards??? 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.