Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On May 3, 9:58=C2=A0am, TPS <the...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On May 2, 11:38=C2=A0pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:=
>
> > > Les,
>
> > > I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
>
> > Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
> > you was an idiot.
>
> > > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when t=
hat
> > > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=
=BF=BDThat fact
> > > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start=
. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
> > buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
>
> Yeah - what if? =C2=A0You can still dare to dream.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What about it all being in Syria?
>
> > Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
> > Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
> > else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
> > innocent.
>
> > The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
> > follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>
> > And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
> > Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
> > all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
> > briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
> > like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>
> > So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
> > "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>
> > Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>
> > Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>
> > Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
> > election? Blame Bush.
>
> > Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>
> > Osama who? Thank Bush.
>
> > Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>
> > Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>
> > >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>
> > Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
> > budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
> > percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
> > more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
> > one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
> > budget it actually eats up.
>
> Are you serious? =C2=A0There's plenty of information about how much we hav=
e
> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis=
_says_w...,
> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> analysis."
10%? LOL
So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
All libs think about is money spent, not rewards reaped.
>
> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// ww=
w.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=3D1&state=3D53&...
>
Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
than 1% of the population.
I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
> Shall I continue?
Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
> > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> > not worried about any war costs.
>
> The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
LOL
>
> > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been sp=
ent
> > > on alternative fuel research!
>
> > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> > times?
>
> Tell us. =C2=A0Why don't you find out how much the federal government
> spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
> Iraq war. =C2=A0Then try out a little perspective on spending.
Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
HEY, TPS DEBATED WITHOUT MAKING AN INSULT!
Good for you!
On May 3, 9:58=C2=A0am, TPS <the...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On May 2, 11:38=C2=A0pm, ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 8:34=EF=BF=BDam, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:=
>
> > > Les,
>
> > > I appreciate your thoughtful response. =EF=BF=BDSeriously.
>
> > Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
> > you was an idiot.
>
> > > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when t=
hat
> > > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! =EF=
=BF=BDThat fact
> > > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start=
. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
> > buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
>
> Yeah - what if? =C2=A0You can still dare to dream.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What about it all being in Syria?
>
> > Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
> > Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
> > else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
> > innocent.
>
> > The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
> > follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>
> > And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
> > Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
> > all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
> > briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
> > like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>
> > So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
> > "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>
> > Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>
> > Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>
> > Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
> > election? Blame Bush.
>
> > Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>
> > Osama who? Thank Bush.
>
> > Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>
> > Libs =3D they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>
> > >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>
> > Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
> > budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
> > percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
> > more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
> > one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
> > budget it actually eats up.
>
> Are you serious? =C2=A0There's plenty of information about how much we hav=
e
> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>
> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis=
_says_w...,
> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> analysis."
10%? LOL
So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
All libs think about is money spent, not rewards reaped.
>
> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// ww=
w.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=3D1&state=3D53&...
>
Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
than 1% of the population.
I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
> Shall I continue?
Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
> > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> > not worried about any war costs.
>
> The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
LOL
>
> > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been sp=
ent
> > > on alternative fuel research!
>
> > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> > times?
>
> Tell us. =C2=A0Why don't you find out how much the federal government
> spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
> Iraq war. =C2=A0Then try out a little perspective on spending.
Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
HEY, TPS DEBATED WITHOUT MAKING AN INSULT!
Good for you!
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:07:49 -0700 (PDT),
ronald mcasswhipper@hotmail,com wrote:
>On May 3, 9:58 am, TPS <the...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 2, 8:34?am, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > Les,
>>
>> > > I appreciate your thoughtful response. ?Seriously.
>>
>> > Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
>> > you was an idiot.
>>
>> > > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
>> > > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! ?That fact
>> > > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. ?
>>
>> > There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
>> > buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
>>
>> Yeah - what if? You can still dare to dream.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What about it all being in Syria?
>>
>> > Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
>> > Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
>> > else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
>> > innocent.
>>
>> > The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
>> > follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>>
>> > And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
>> > Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
>> > all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
>> > briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
>> > like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>>
>> > So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
>> > "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>>
>> > Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>>
>> > Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>>
>> > Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
>> > election? Blame Bush.
>>
>> > Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>>
>> > Osama who? Thank Bush.
>>
>> > Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>>
>> > Libs = they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>>
>> > >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>>
>> > Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
>> > budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
>> > percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
>> > more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
>> > one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
>> > budget it actually eats up.
>>
>> Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
>> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>>
>> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
>> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
>> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
>> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
>> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
>> analysis."
>
>10%? LOL
>
>So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
>
>Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
>
>All libs think about is money spent, not rewards reaped.
>
>
>
>>
>> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
>> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location type=1&stateS&...
>>
>
>
>Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
>than 1% of the population.
>
>I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
>
>
>> Shall I continue?
>
>Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
>
>
>
>> > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
>> > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
>> > not worried about any war costs.
>>
>> The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
>
>
>Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
>
>LOL
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
>> > > on alternative fuel research!
>>
>> > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
>> > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
>> > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
>> > times?
>>
>> Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
>> spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
>> Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
>
>Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
>that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
>from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
>
>HEY, TPS DEBATED WITHOUT MAKING AN INSULT!
>
>Good for you!
Must have gone out behind the gay bar to the doghouse and got a Mulay
job last night...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:07:49 -0700 (PDT),
ronald mcasswhipper@hotmail,com wrote:
>On May 3, 9:58 am, TPS <the...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On May 2, 11:38 pm, ronald mcasswhip...@hotmail,com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 2, 8:34?am, Mike Pritchard <m...@no-spam.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > Les,
>>
>> > > I appreciate your thoughtful response. ?Seriously.
>>
>> > Surprising, isn't it? Seeing how you said anyone who disagreed with
>> > you was an idiot.
>>
>> > > But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
>> > > was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! ?That fact
>> > > is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. ?
>>
>> > There are still 3000-6000 yo tombs found in Egypt. What if we find WMD
>> > buried some day? You sound pretty naive about the possibility.
>>
>> Yeah - what if? You can still dare to dream.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What about it all being in Syria?
>>
>> > Did you know Saddam said he bluffed about WMD to look strong to the
>> > Iranians? Sounds like you read some Mike Moore books and not much
>> > else. Oh and they never found the OJ knife... doesn't mean he's
>> > innocent.
>>
>> > The most hyped reason was the UN resolutions that Saddam didn't
>> > follow. Oops, you forgot about those as well.
>>
>> > And what about the Senate that went along with war? Feinstein,
>> > Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and other Dems (plus over 70% of Americans)
>> > all agreed with Bush. Hillary even admitted she didn't read the
>> > briefing. Then they all jumped ship as soon as the polls went south
>> > like typical, back-stabbing libs.
>>
>> > So, if you want to blame Bush for everything, because he's the
>> > "decider", then blame him for EVERYTHING, not just the bad stuff.
>>
>> > Do you have a job right now? Blame Bush.
>>
>> > Have you been blown up by a terrorist? No? Thank Bush.
>>
>> > Was there ever a draft that the libs promised would come after the re-
>> > election? Blame Bush.
>>
>> > Saddam and his three sons are dead, thanks to Bush.
>>
>> > Osama who? Thank Bush.
>>
>> > Numerous terrorist attempts *foiled* - thanks to Bush!
>>
>> > Libs = they appreciate nothing and do nothing.
>>
>> > >Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>>
>> > Why don't you tell us. And then tell us how much of that makes up our
>> > budget. "Billions" sounds like a lot, but without saying how much of a
>> > percentage of the US budget, it is a meaningless stat. Maybe you spend
>> > more of your personal budget on cigarettes or beer. I've yet to see
>> > one lib who has cried over the cost of the war say how much of the
>> > budget it actually eats up.
>>
>> Are you serious? There's plenty of information about how much we have
>> to sacrifice to fund the Iraq war.
>>
>> According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
>> "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
>> to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
>> 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
>> Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
>> analysis."
>
>10%? LOL
>
>So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
>
>Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
>
>All libs think about is money spent, not rewards reaped.
>
>
>
>>
>> The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
>> war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location type=1&stateS&...
>>
>
>
>Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
>than 1% of the population.
>
>I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
>
>
>> Shall I continue?
>
>Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
>
>
>
>> > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
>> > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
>> > not worried about any war costs.
>>
>> The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
>
>
>Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
>
>LOL
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
>> > > on alternative fuel research!
>>
>> > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
>> > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
>> > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
>> > times?
>>
>> Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
>> spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
>> Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
>
>Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
>that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
>from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
>
>HEY, TPS DEBATED WITHOUT MAKING AN INSULT!
>
>Good for you!
Must have gone out behind the gay bar to the doghouse and got a Mulay
job last night...
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 04 May 2008, 18:13
-- deleted messages --
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
> > According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
> > "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> > to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> > 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> > Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> > analysis."
>
> 10%? LOL
>
> So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
>
> Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
>
Right. Keep holding your breath for THAT to happen.
> > The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> > war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location type=1&state=53&...
>
> Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
> than 1% of the population.
Have someone check the math for you, sparky. We're talking about just
Washington STATE.
> I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
And you've gotten the opposite.
> > Shall I continue?
>
> Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
>
> > > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> > > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> > > not worried about any war costs.
>
> > The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
>
> Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
>
> LOL
>
>
>
> > > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
> > > > on alternative fuel research!
>
> > > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> > > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> > > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> > > times?
>
> > Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
> > spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
> > Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
>
> Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
> that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
> from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
>
IOW, you brought up the cost of midnight basketball programs, but
couldn't actually be bothered to find out what that cost is. Par for
the course.
> > According to http :// www .boston,com /news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis says w...,
> > "The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared
> > to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than
> > 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said
> > Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget
> > analysis."
>
> 10%? LOL
>
> So we're spending what the average church goer gives in tithe.
>
> Not bad at all. Well worth it if Iraq turns out to be a solid ally.
>
Right. Keep holding your breath for THAT to happen.
> > The amount of money that Washington State taxpayers have spent on the
> > war could provide 1,882,219 people with health care for one year. http :// www .nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location type=1&state=53&...
>
> Another meaningless stat. 1.8 million sounds like a lot, but it's less
> than 1% of the population.
Have someone check the math for you, sparky. We're talking about just
Washington STATE.
> I'd rather have a stable Middle East.
And you've gotten the opposite.
> > Shall I continue?
>
> Nah, you proved *my* point. I'm satisfied.
>
> > > Where is Obama/Hillary going to get the $30-40 billion for a homeowner
> > > bailout? What about the billions more for health care? Seems they're
> > > not worried about any war costs.
>
> > The war costs obviously make it difficult to engage in such projects.
>
> Do you even know what the other 90% of the budget is spent on?
>
> LOL
>
>
>
> > > >Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
> > > > on alternative fuel research!
>
> > > Just imagine if Clinton didn't fund midnight basketball or other pet/
> > > pork projects by libs never happened. Imagine the money we would could
> > > have spent. Imagine if Hillary didn't vote against nuclear power 7
> > > times?
>
> > Tell us. Why don't you find out how much the federal government
> > spends on midnight basketball, and compare that to the costs of the
> > Iraq war. Then try out a little perspective on spending.
>
> Why don't you admit midnight basketball acheived nothing and compare
> that to the cost of the Iraq war, which could end up saving the world
> from mass destruction in the future? Try a little perspective.
>
IOW, you brought up the cost of midnight basketball programs, but
couldn't actually be bothered to find out what that cost is. Par for
the course.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
Mike Pritchard wrote:
> As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons
> figured the best course of action, was to establish a strong US
> foothold in the region, so that America would have access to OIL.
Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle convinced themselves they were making a
sweeping geo-political change that would benefit not only America but most
of the world. Of course oil is always an element when it comes to the
middle-east, but there are so many other factors there that believing it all
comes down to keeping America's gas-tanks filled for another decade or two
is too simple. For one thing the stability of the world economy depends on
middle-east oil, even if not a drop of Iraqi oil ever went to the U.S. a
disruption of the flow of oil from the Gulf could trigger a worldwide
depression. It's also easy to see them believing they were creating another
Turkey, a secular democracy to counter Iran and the other dictatorships in
the region. Oil just isn't the whole story.
> Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been
> spent on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where
> we could tell the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no
> longer need it!
Yup, not to mention funding education and infrastructure upgrades and health
care and so on, instead we're pissing away billions every month in Iraq.
> That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians
> are focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting
> for.
Americans in general have yet to see the writing on the wall, the day when
they could haul a trailer-load of ATVs behind a giant pickup truck to amuse
themselves roaring around in the wildnerness on gasoline-burning vehicles is
coming to an end. Forget heating their homes and powering their industries,
Americans won't even moderate their behavior when it comes to their toys,
too many want a muscle-car and a huge SUV to haul a boat around. And
there's Hillary Clinton, promising that as President she'll do something to
get those gas prices back down--anything to get elected, reality comes a
distant second.
Mike Pritchard wrote:
> As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons
> figured the best course of action, was to establish a strong US
> foothold in the region, so that America would have access to OIL.
Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle convinced themselves they were making a
sweeping geo-political change that would benefit not only America but most
of the world. Of course oil is always an element when it comes to the
middle-east, but there are so many other factors there that believing it all
comes down to keeping America's gas-tanks filled for another decade or two
is too simple. For one thing the stability of the world economy depends on
middle-east oil, even if not a drop of Iraqi oil ever went to the U.S. a
disruption of the flow of oil from the Gulf could trigger a worldwide
depression. It's also easy to see them believing they were creating another
Turkey, a secular democracy to counter Iran and the other dictatorships in
the region. Oil just isn't the whole story.
> Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been
> spent on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where
> we could tell the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no
> longer need it!
Yup, not to mention funding education and infrastructure upgrades and health
care and so on, instead we're pissing away billions every month in Iraq.
> That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians
> are focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting
> for.
Americans in general have yet to see the writing on the wall, the day when
they could haul a trailer-load of ATVs behind a giant pickup truck to amuse
themselves roaring around in the wildnerness on gasoline-burning vehicles is
coming to an end. Forget heating their homes and powering their industries,
Americans won't even moderate their behavior when it comes to their toys,
too many want a muscle-car and a huge SUV to haul a boat around. And
there's Hillary Clinton, promising that as President she'll do something to
get those gas prices back down--anything to get elected, reality comes a
distant second.
Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?
On May 4, 1:29 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Pritchard wrote:
> > As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons
> > figured the best course of action, was to establish a strong US
> > foothold in the region, so that America would have access to OIL.
>
> Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle convinced themselves they were making a
> sweeping geo-political change that would benefit not only America but most
> of the world. Of course oil is always an element when it comes to the
> middle-east, but there are so many other factors there that believing it all
> comes down to keeping America's gas-tanks filled for another decade or two
> is too simple. For one thing the stability of the world economy depends on
> middle-east oil, even if not a drop of Iraqi oil ever went to the U.S. a
> disruption of the flow of oil from the Gulf could trigger a worldwide
> depression. It's also easy to see them believing they were creating another
> Turkey, a secular democracy to counter Iran and the other dictatorships in
> the region. Oil just isn't the whole story.
>
> > Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been
> > spent on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where
> > we could tell the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no
> > longer need it!
>
> Yup, not to mention funding education and infrastructure upgrades and health
> care and so on, instead we're pissing away billions every month in Iraq.
>
> > That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians
> > are focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting
> > for.
>
> Americans in general have yet to see the writing on the wall, the day when
> they could haul a trailer-load of ATVs behind a giant pickup truck to amuse
> themselves roaring around in the wildnerness on gasoline-burning vehicles is
> coming to an end. Forget heating their homes and powering their industries,
> Americans won't even moderate their behavior when it comes to their toys,
> too many want a muscle-car and a huge SUV to haul a boat around. And
> there's Hillary Clinton, promising that as President she'll do something to
> get those gas prices back down--anything to get elected, reality comes a
> distant second.
Nice.
McCain
Bruce Jackson, & countless PNAC neo-fucks.
What's neoconnection?
On May 4, 1:29 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Pritchard wrote:
> > As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons
> > figured the best course of action, was to establish a strong US
> > foothold in the region, so that America would have access to OIL.
>
> Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle convinced themselves they were making a
> sweeping geo-political change that would benefit not only America but most
> of the world. Of course oil is always an element when it comes to the
> middle-east, but there are so many other factors there that believing it all
> comes down to keeping America's gas-tanks filled for another decade or two
> is too simple. For one thing the stability of the world economy depends on
> middle-east oil, even if not a drop of Iraqi oil ever went to the U.S. a
> disruption of the flow of oil from the Gulf could trigger a worldwide
> depression. It's also easy to see them believing they were creating another
> Turkey, a secular democracy to counter Iran and the other dictatorships in
> the region. Oil just isn't the whole story.
>
> > Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been
> > spent on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where
> > we could tell the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no
> > longer need it!
>
> Yup, not to mention funding education and infrastructure upgrades and health
> care and so on, instead we're pissing away billions every month in Iraq.
>
> > That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians
> > are focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting
> > for.
>
> Americans in general have yet to see the writing on the wall, the day when
> they could haul a trailer-load of ATVs behind a giant pickup truck to amuse
> themselves roaring around in the wildnerness on gasoline-burning vehicles is
> coming to an end. Forget heating their homes and powering their industries,
> Americans won't even moderate their behavior when it comes to their toys,
> too many want a muscle-car and a huge SUV to haul a boat around. And
> there's Hillary Clinton, promising that as President she'll do something to
> get those gas prices back down--anything to get elected, reality comes a
> distant second.
Nice.
McCain
Bruce Jackson, & countless PNAC neo-fucks.
What's neoconnection?
