Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Longhorn85
New member
So there is no war on terror, after all?
Drums of War bangin' for Iran?
- Thread starter Longhorn85
- Start date
Mavafanculo
New member
The "war on terror" is neccessary but exagerrated to scare the sheeple and congress into compliance and usurp more and more basic liberties. They are using it to expand the power of government as they never would have been able to do sans the "glavanizing event...".
then they apply the tools and powers that they said were needed to "fight the terrorists" and apply them against US citizens in everyday criminal cases. That was the intent all along.
and Iraq is a diversion in the neccessary war vs terrorists. nice conflation try, but that one's toast already.
then they apply the tools and powers that they said were needed to "fight the terrorists" and apply them against US citizens in everyday criminal cases. That was the intent all along.
and Iraq is a diversion in the neccessary war vs terrorists. nice conflation try, but that one's toast already.
Longhorn85
New member
Mavafanculo said:
You have quotations, but you don't give a source.
Do you agree or not agree that we are engaged in a war vs global terrorism, and that Al Queida is the main threat in this war?
Mavafanculo
New member
Longhorn85 said:
didnt you learn your lesson about questioning my quotes ? I guess not.
the "galvanizing event" quote is something you should be very familiar with.
"war" on terror yes, just like there is a war against narco trafficers, murderers, polluters. The Intel Reports indicate "al queda" has been strengthened by our involvement in iraq. They use it as a recruiting tool. We've created a new generation of terrorists who have a burning hatred of the US. Good job bushman.
look it up cheech.
bw1
Banned
Mavafanculo said:
1) Exaggerated...9/11 I remember, oh but of course we "deserved" it according to the "radical left" Put up the list of terrorist attacks against the US...do we need to?
2) Yep, Bush wants to attack and prosecute innocent "citizens".
3) Toast already..pass that along to the troops and their families. I think the will give you a different outlook to what's really going on there. If any one thinks the US military "can't" win in combat, their "mis guided". Funny how the left says "if we win in Iraq it's bad for us politically". Go terrorist
4) Iraqi terrorist, oh wait that's right there are no "Iraqi" terrorists, "nice" fellas", have been found trying to cross the Mexican border into the US.
Talk about putting your head in the sand. Mav your a smart guy and at least can argue your side intelligently without the normal name calling. But, let's face the facts, we are in a war with Radical Islamic's who want to KILL Americans period. We need to stop them, we need to hit them hard. All they understand is force and their going to get it.
Longhorn85
New member
Mavafanculo said:
Glad we are in agreement on that. Now, let's allow the branch of govt responsible for the execution of wars to do their job.
For those playing along at home, that would be the Executive Branch.
bw1
Banned
Mavafanculo said:
Yes, let's not make them mad, they will attack us. Screw that pacifist BS. maybe a group hug? Intel reports, funny what happens when the "intel" reports claim we are winning this war? or, do we just pick and choose which reports we want to beleive for political purposes.
Mavafanculo
New member
bw1 said:1) Exaggerated...9/11 I remember, oh but of course we "deserved" it according to the "radical left" Put up the list of terrorist attacks against the US...do we need to?
Strawman argument. no reasonable leftie argues that "we deserved it". not me either lol.
AAP got it right - it was the Christo-Fascist rigthwing that said the gays and promiscuity "...brought God's wrath upon NYC..." oollloooolloooo fucking tools
2) Yep, Bush wants to attack and prosecute innocent "citizens".
not the point. If they wanted to degrade the bill of rights and lessen civil liberties vs US citizens they should have made the case on the merits and not used the backdoor of "we need these tools vs the terrorists" and then use them vs US citizens in routine criminal cases.
3) Toast already..pass that along to the troops and their families. I think the will give you a different outlook to what's really going on there. If any one thinks the US military "can't" win in combat, their "mis guided". Funny how the left says "if we win in Iraq it's bad for us politically". Go terrorist
ur mixing apples and grapefruits. Conflating = bush/longhorn trying to tie 9/11 and sadaam and iraq together in people minds.
nobody said we cant "win" with military strength. but win what? do you know what the point of the surge was? The latest NIE says we're making military gains, and the surge and our Iraq involvement is failing and likely doomed.
nobody says "go terrorist", and also, according to our Intel Services, "al queda" and "terrorists" are a small part of the mess that we're fighting against in Iraq. But FAUXNEWS is doing its part to confuse the issues apparantly.
4) Iraqi terrorist, oh wait that's right there are no "Iraqi" terrorists, "nice" fellas", have been found trying to cross the Mexican border into the US.
see above
Talk about putting your head in the sand. Mav your a smart guy and at least can argue your side intelligently without the normal name calling. But, let's face the facts, we are in a war with Radical Islamic's who want to KILL Americans period. We need to stop them, we need to hit them hard. All they understand is force and their going to get it.
agree -
The talking heads have done a good job of confusing people into thinking if ur against the war in iraq you're against defeating terrorism. sad but oolllooollooolo -
Iraq was and is a diversion to the war vs terrorism. its like as if we bombed Iceland when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Iraq has little/nothing to do with defeating islamic terrorists. The NIE's have said we're helping them not hurting them by our involvement in Iraq.
You gonna believe them (CIA, DIA, State Dept, etc) or the Bush apologists and the talking heads on FAUX?
people on my side arent against war, they're against THIS war. A sad waste of time money and blood. Cheney's war profiteer buddies are pretty happy about things tho....
This isnt a black and white thing. even tho Bush "...doesnt do nuance..." (
), thinking people must.see my response in red above ...
bw1
Banned
1) You are contradicing yourself, c'mon no reasonable "right" winger believes gays and promiscuity caused 9/11 that's just non sense. It was a attack on our country, way of life and freedom. We need to respond, with deadly force. Where ever that takes us.
2) Again, Bush wants to prosecute innocent civilians Left wants to give "terrorists, civil rights and attorneys..give me a break.
3) You first must have military victory....then a functioning stable country can evolve.
4) No diversion, who do you think we are fighting over there?
Go to get to the office, have a good day Mav. Oh get Mikchael Savage's book, liberalism is a disease" Maybe I'll send it to you for Christmas, lololol
2) Again, Bush wants to prosecute innocent civilians
Left wants to give "terrorists, civil rights and attorneys..give me a break.3) You first must have military victory....then a functioning stable country can evolve.
4) No diversion, who do you think we are fighting over there?
Go to get to the office, have a good day Mav. Oh get Mikchael Savage's book, liberalism is a disease" Maybe I'll send it to you for Christmas, lololol
Mavafanculo
New member
bw1 said:
when are you guys gonna learn I dont make stuff up? lol
and you're right. only crazy people believe stuff like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_8d...=en&newwindow=1&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as
-
Rev. Jerry Falwell (with Rev. Pat Robertson)
blames pagans, abortionists, feminists
& gays and lesbians & the ACLU for bringing on the
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington
Partial transcript of comments from the
September 13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club
JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system..
JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God. ~~~
PAT ROBERTSON: > Amen
-
Last edited:
Mavafanculo
New member
bw1 said:1) .... We need to respond, with deadly force. Where ever that takes us.
That was Afghanistan (or Afstanighan as the imbicile called it). Then we pulled out early to prepare for the fake war in iraq
2) Again, Bush wants to prosecute innocent civilians
NOOOOOOOOOO.
In america, you're still innocent until proven guilty.
point is they are using the "tools they need vs terrorists..." in ORDINARY CRIMINAL CASES against your neighbors, not just terror cases.
3) You first must have military victory....then a functioning stable country can evolve.
Tell that to our combined Intel Services. You know better than them?
4) No diversion, who do you think we are fighting over there?
Research that question. and source it. then maybe you'll change your mind about Iraq.
Go to get to the office, have a good day Mav. Oh get Mikchael Savage's book, liberalism is a disease" Maybe I'll send it to you for Christmas, lololol
I wont ruin your day and tell you about Savages 60's history. whooooo heeeee oololloollo
see red
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
AAP said:
Actually Iraqi terrorists at the command of Sadaam tried to kill former President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait. Clintion responded with a lame cruise missile strike. Enough with the HISTORY lesson.
It's time to stop looking backwards in time, and look FORWARD towards a victory against terrorists - wherever they may be. Constantly hand wringing and nitpicking about details that happened yesterday doesn't do US any good.
AAP why you so butthurt?
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
Americans are Americans wherever they stand. A threat to one of us is a threat to all of us.
I'm not talking about a tourist robbed for his wallet. I'm talking about soldiers being bombed in a German bar, airplanes being blown up over the skies of Scotland, and assasination attempts on ex Presidents.
Wherever Americans are the victims of terrorism, we must strike back against the assailants.
I'm not talking about a tourist robbed for his wallet. I'm talking about soldiers being bombed in a German bar, airplanes being blown up over the skies of Scotland, and assasination attempts on ex Presidents.
Wherever Americans are the victims of terrorism, we must strike back against the assailants.
juiceddreadlocks said:
Hardly.
It is entertaining to say the least to watch how far people go in their spin attempts to justify what the rest of the world already knows. Clinging desperately to their own own fleeting images of delusions that things really are just the way they want them to be and that if they spin spin spin hard enough, everyone will see it that way too.
Come join the real world.
Listen, I was just asking. Conservatives will always rule the world, that's all there is to it.AAP said:
Mavafanculo
New member
Longhorn85 said:
Governor's Call For U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq Greeted With Standing Ovation At National Guard Conference
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, Aug. 26, 2007
(AP) A call by Puerto Rico's governor for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation from a conference of more than 4,000 National Guardsmen.
.............
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/national/main3204570.shtml
-
redsamurai
Banned
BigRupe said:
what are you saying here? That those of us who disagree with the war in Iraq have no balls? Let me also inform you that the war has cost 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives..........with some estimates from red cross getting close to 6 figures. I don't "want" to beleive red cross........I can't even fathom being part of a country that could perpetrate this against a nation of simple people for what is now obviously "dubious reasons". And all "conservative" and "peaceful, god fearing" people in this country are coming up with one mealy mouthed, feckless explanation for why the war was totally justified in the eyes of god despite our initial reasons being "not so truthful".
We don't have the "balls" to do what's right? And how exactly do explain "right"?? I'm not one for pulling out immediately because we royally fucked up that place and we have some obligation to fix it........but at some point we just have to concede we're fucking idiots and we don't have a firm intellectual grasp on the rest of the world. There's people out there that just don't want what we're selling and we just really need to get over that fact.
redsamurai
Banned
Longhorn85 said:
and that in the end is all you and your kind really care about isn't it? "VICTORY"!!! Yet because of the complex nature of the beast called humanity............your so called victory is made of complete air. We're dealing with people that hold grudge's for "MILLENIA"!!!! Do you think if we start selling pepsi and coke to them that they'll just "forget abou it"??? This is exactly the problem with this administration which right now I'm almost positive you must be affiliated with in some way..................they have no vision, no clarity to understand that which they're dealing with. And it's going to bite all of us in the ass.
redsamurai
Banned
Longhorn85 said:
dude, read a newspaper............even the Israeli newspapers were admitting disaster. And again, you just don't have it ole boy............you ask "how many terrorists did they kill?"..........like a thousand more aren't just around the corner. You really don't seem to grasp the situation.........I mean you really don't get it. Do you think Hezbollah was even throwing their top officers and soldiers at the Israeli's? They threw kids at them...........young boys eager for their 75 virgins..........and they still didn't do too bad. And yes ole boy.........Hezbollah is alive and well in Lebanon and run a good portion of the country. The lebanese military are the ones keeping them preoccupied right now or they probably would have launched another offensive against Israel because the first one was a BOOON for them...............please educate yourself better on current affairs.
redsamurai
Banned
bw1 said:
This is getting maddening.............dude.................your making the argument for having cleaned up afghanistan and maybe actually caught the head Towel named.........oh what's his face............yeah, bin laden. Instead we left to go take out Saddaam. Logically, according to your statements......you should be INFURIATED we left afghanistan which.....shocker..........is now experiencing a resurgance of Taliban and Al quaeda. So when all is said and done..............my god did we fuck up. Our war in Iraq didn't make a single fucking dent........not one dent........in Al quaeda's ability to generate income, plan attacks, train folks...........NOTHING!!! I mean fuck.............can we at some point drop a logic bomb into this debate and wake the fuck up?? Nobody is doubting we've got a problem that has to be dealt with..............but invading one country after another isn't going to work. And I hate to break it to you..........but this is one war that the military can't win.........it's not their battlefield. This is a covert war that is only going to be won by our intelligence services................end of story.
redsamurai
Banned
AAP said:
that's right..........didn't he and robertson say that it was the rampant man on man action in this country that got us 9/11?? My god.......people listen to these clowns............this country isn't going to last.............sorry, it isn't.
redsamurai
Banned
bw1 said:
you don't listen to your own people very much............because actually that's exactly what they say.
redsamurai
Banned
juiceddreadlocks said:
I hate to disrupt your fantasy..........but the people who rule the world are hardly conservative. They do what they want, when they want, wherever they want. That means all the things that get us thrown in prison.......they do at will. Conservatism has become merely a smokescreen to guilt people into following some flawed moral ideology resembling neofascism.
Longhorn85
New member
redsamurai said:
...
Mavafanculo
New member
redsamurai said:
Yep. And of course last time I checked, those people saying that were... what? Yep, conservative Repubs.
Of course, given the general mindframe of the type of people that fall into the conservative brainwashing agenda, it doesn't surprise me at all. Reality has never been anything but an inconvenience to them.
Gotta get up pretty early in the AM to bump a longhorn thread where AAP doesnt see it.AAP said:
-just sayin.
BTW, conservatives in 08, it'll happen.
Longhorn85
New member
Conservatism is what America wants.
That's why all the democrats shy away from the term that best describes most of them -- LIBERAL.
I am confident of the following:
1) The war on terror (including the Iraqi front) will continue well into the next adminstration.
2) That duly-elected administration will be a republican one.
3) Liberals will continue to be ankle-biters and tomato throwers.
4) We will win the war.
That's why all the democrats shy away from the term that best describes most of them -- LIBERAL.
I am confident of the following:
1) The war on terror (including the Iraqi front) will continue well into the next adminstration.
2) That duly-elected administration will be a republican one.
3) Liberals will continue to be ankle-biters and tomato throwers.
4) We will win the war.
Longhorn85
New member
AAP said:
So, will everything change for the better when Bush is replaced in Jan 09?
Longhorn85
New member
Mavafanculo said:
I don't think that the PR National Guard is an appropriate representative sample of the US military. Do you?
From the last Presidential election:
"In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Longhorn85 said:
Hello, welcome to 3 years ago.
Wonder what their opinions are now that they have learned, like the rest of us, just how deceived they truly were about the entire "war" in the first place.
Ahhh... the lies.. the deception... the scandals... the lack of respect for the sacrifices made in the name of this so called "war"... all those things certainly won't be supporting those #'s you claim above. Heck, November of last year certainly put those claims to rest.
U.S. Troop Support for Bushie
2004 you say 74%
Jan 2, 2005 = down to 63%
Jan 3, 2006 = down to 54 %
Wonder what new lows Bushie would find himself at in the 2007 poll? Oh there it is...
2007 = 35%
Quick stats here :
The latest Military Times poll offers the most telling evidence yet that this is beginning to change. Although the reasons for the recent military flight from the Republican Party can only be guessed at, it's a safe bet that disgust at Bush administration bungling in Iraq is the single biggest factor.
The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war.
--
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.
(so much for support of Bushies "stay the course" mantra.)
2004 you say 74%
Jan 2, 2005 = down to 63%
Jan 3, 2006 = down to 54 %
Wonder what new lows Bushie would find himself at in the 2007 poll? Oh there it is...
2007 = 35%
Quick stats here :
The latest Military Times poll offers the most telling evidence yet that this is beginning to change. Although the reasons for the recent military flight from the Republican Party can only be guessed at, it's a safe bet that disgust at Bush administration bungling in Iraq is the single biggest factor.
The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war.
--
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.
(so much for support of Bushies "stay the course" mantra.)
Mavafanculo
New member
Longhorn85 said:
The article says there were 4,000 Nat Guard in attendence. You think the island of PR has 4,000 Nat Guardsman?
It was a National Guard conference held in Puerto Rico, not a conference of Puerto Rican National Guardsman.
and AAP already dealt with the rest of the military ^^
patsfan1379
New member
AAP & Mava pretty much pwned everyone in this thread.
meh, Obama may just be the guyAAP said:
Dude sure has a lot of charisma. I woulndt mind a libra who would leave guns alone, it's not like the budget allows for increasing social programs anyways. I know everyone sees him as ''change'' but wtf is he proposing? I'm sick of hearing of the change and how we've fubar'd the world, how is he or anyone going to bail our economy out when big brother china comes knocking? (seriously asking for an alternative here).if hillary or whoever wins... what have they said about china, budget, iraq (besides get out) and long term energy stability?AAP said:
AAP said:
dude I'm not trashing the dems, I'm asking what they're proposing.
Mavafanculo
New member
patsfan1379 said:
we're like the Harlem Globetrotters and Longhorn is the Washington Generals.
AAP just dumped a bucket of confetti on his head.
Forge
New member
Longhorn85 said:
Things will not change for the better. It does not matter whether a Republican or a Democrat is voted in, Bush has put our country into an impossible situation that will be uncomfortable to fix.
If we stay, we stretch our military and economy to the point of collapse for a loosely defined goal of ”victory”. Staying puts our country at great risk and leaves us vulnerable, not to mention paralyzed to react to any true threats that may arise. This course breeds US hatred and would (or has) increase terrorist activity levels against our country. We enable the very enemy we are hunting. Cheney himself predicted this very scenario over fifteen years ago as the result of a possible US occupation in the Middle East.
Pulling out allows our country to recover but leaves Iraq (and the entire region) in a state of chaos that will have unfavorable repercussions to the world for decades. We doom the Iraqi people to decades of poverty and fear. Hatred for the US escalates to never before seen levels worldwide, ensuring that we are a prime terrorist target for many years to come.
There is no pretty way out of this. We can’t win the war without becoming that which we fight, and giving up allows our enemies to recover and regroup against us with renewed vigor. Whatever happens next, the fallout from this war will be legendary. But not in a good way for the American people.
Nothing is going to get better, LH. We are past that point already.
patsfan1379
New member
pwned by spellbinder
Mavafanculo
New member
Forge said:
Eisenhower, a Repub, warned about the Military-Industrial Complex in his exit speech.
By design or incompetence, the Bushies have succeeded in gauranteeing an "enemy" for us to fight into the next century. They elevated a street gang into a Movement.
They made a mess of a region into a clusterfuck of a region. Everything they touched turned to shit. All the work of previous administrations, repub and dem, wasted.
-
patsfan1379
New member
George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ.
redsamurai
Banned
longhorn...........what is "victory"?? What do you define as that?
Longhorn85
New member
You guys represent the worst of the "doom and gloom" crowd.
Victory for the US in this situation could equal:
1) Stabilization of duly elected govt in Iraq, containment of terrorist activity by the Iraqi govt with support from the US including a permanent presence of troops (about 10% of what we have there now).
2) Iraqi oil flowing and generating profits, some of which go to fund our presence there. Developed Iraqi economy and employment.
3) Permanent US military presence in the heart of the middle east, with a continuous improvement of facilities and security for our guys.
4) Iran kept in check with forces ready to pounce, if necessary.
5) Builiding of a coalition of US-friendly nations in the region with combined military cooperation and training (Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon).
Victory for the US in this situation could equal:
1) Stabilization of duly elected govt in Iraq, containment of terrorist activity by the Iraqi govt with support from the US including a permanent presence of troops (about 10% of what we have there now).
2) Iraqi oil flowing and generating profits, some of which go to fund our presence there. Developed Iraqi economy and employment.
3) Permanent US military presence in the heart of the middle east, with a continuous improvement of facilities and security for our guys.
4) Iran kept in check with forces ready to pounce, if necessary.
5) Builiding of a coalition of US-friendly nations in the region with combined military cooperation and training (Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon).
Last edited:
Longhorn85
New member
AAP said:
1) We have had forces in Europe since the 1940s and in Korea since the 1950s. Freedom ain't free.
2) We can have taxpayers subsidize if you prefer. Write your check now.
3) To impose our national will in that vital region of the world
4) Yeah, just like that, except no assasination attempts on US Presidents and funding of terrorists in the West Bank.
5) Jordan and Kuwait are already in cooperation. I just want to add a few more.
Longhorn85
New member
AAP said:
Death and injuries occur in Korea today, during accidents as a result of combat training. This happens wherever the Army is, and it accounts for many deaths in Iraq. It is a dangerous business.
The combat stopped in Korea in 1954 but Soldiers continue to train and defend. Same in Europe and I expect the same for Iraq.
Longhorn85
New member
...and you guys have smashed the record for gloom&doom-wringing-of-hands-no-solution-offerred-plain-old-bush-bashing.
Mavafanculo
New member
Longhorn85 said:
Mavafanculo
New member
redsamurai said:
he and bush define victory as pushing the inevitable humiliation of pulling out of Iraq in defeat into the term of the next President.
Joe Biden has it exactly right:
Democrat Joe Biden charged Tuesday that President Bush's policies in Iraq are designed to confuse voters and ensure that a chaotic end to the war is delayed until after he leaves office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070828/ap_on_el_pr/biden_iraq_2
Longhorn85
New member
Mavafanculo said:
defeatist - someone who is resigned to defeat without offering positive suggestions
S
Spartacus
Guest
Chris Matthews is a pinhead
patsfan1379
New member
Longhorn85 said:
Insanity - Repeatedly doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome.
S
Spartacus
Guest
saddam was in violation of numerous UN peace agreements from the first Iraq warAAP said:
IMO we went into Iraq to position ourselves for a confrontation with Iran
it was posturing because Iran is the greater threat and always has been the primary reason to go into Iraq
this whole deal still has to be "played" out
we are not done yet
United Arab Emirates et.al. are preparing for a possible Iranian attempt to interdict the strait of hormuz
S
Spartacus
Guest
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZW20070827000005/SecMarkets/pagMoney
Monday, Aug 27, 2007
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By Matt Chambers
As tensions simmer between the U.S. and Iran, a big energy threat hangs over the world.
Iran has said that if the U.S. attacks, it will respond by disrupting trade through the Strait of Hormuz -- the narrow gateway that tankers use to bring oil from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. About two-fifths of the world's seaborne oil passes through the Strait.
Now sheikdoms in the United Arab Emirates -- the third-biggest OPECOPEC oil producer -- are looking at projects that would keep oil and commerce flowing if the Strait is blocked. The U.A.E. won't say the projects are a direct response to Iran's threats -- but the plans would clearly help in the event of an emergency.
Many of the plans center on the U.A.E.'s sleepy eastern coast, which is on the open-ocean side of the Hormuz choke point. Abu Dhabi, the key oil producer among the U.A.E.'s seven semi-autonomous enclaves, is planning an oil pipeline to the eastern emirate of Fujayrah, where it can be carried to the sea without passing through the Strait. And a host of other development is being considered for Fujayrah, including a larger port and the world's biggest liquefied-natural-gas storage and trading hub.
In terms of volume, blocking the Strait of Hormuz "is probably the biggest single energy-security risk that exists in the world," says Lawrence Eagles, head of oil markets at the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based energy watchdog for the world's most industrialized nations. "There is a lot of discussion on these issues, and from an energy-security perspective, it would be very welcome to have any opportunity to bypass the Strait of Hormuz."
For the IEA, the issue is an important one. In the event of an oil disruption, the IEA will likely release emergency stocks held by member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While at the end of 2006 there were 1.5 billion barrels of oil in the emergency stocks, representing about 88 days of oil output through the Strait, this would take time to coordinate and distribute.
more...
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZW20070827000005/SecMarkets/pagMoney
Monday, Aug 27, 2007
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By Matt Chambers
As tensions simmer between the U.S. and Iran, a big energy threat hangs over the world.
Iran has said that if the U.S. attacks, it will respond by disrupting trade through the Strait of Hormuz -- the narrow gateway that tankers use to bring oil from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. About two-fifths of the world's seaborne oil passes through the Strait.
Now sheikdoms in the United Arab Emirates -- the third-biggest OPECOPEC oil producer -- are looking at projects that would keep oil and commerce flowing if the Strait is blocked. The U.A.E. won't say the projects are a direct response to Iran's threats -- but the plans would clearly help in the event of an emergency.
Many of the plans center on the U.A.E.'s sleepy eastern coast, which is on the open-ocean side of the Hormuz choke point. Abu Dhabi, the key oil producer among the U.A.E.'s seven semi-autonomous enclaves, is planning an oil pipeline to the eastern emirate of Fujayrah, where it can be carried to the sea without passing through the Strait. And a host of other development is being considered for Fujayrah, including a larger port and the world's biggest liquefied-natural-gas storage and trading hub.
In terms of volume, blocking the Strait of Hormuz "is probably the biggest single energy-security risk that exists in the world," says Lawrence Eagles, head of oil markets at the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based energy watchdog for the world's most industrialized nations. "There is a lot of discussion on these issues, and from an energy-security perspective, it would be very welcome to have any opportunity to bypass the Strait of Hormuz."
For the IEA, the issue is an important one. In the event of an oil disruption, the IEA will likely release emergency stocks held by member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While at the end of 2006 there were 1.5 billion barrels of oil in the emergency stocks, representing about 88 days of oil output through the Strait, this would take time to coordinate and distribute.
more...
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZW20070827000005/SecMarkets/pagMoney
S
Spartacus
Guest
it's not just the US that has a beef with Iran
I asked a simple question about how you dems propose to actually change anything... no answer. Thanks, guess you're the same as always... better than now but we dont know how.
S
Spartacus
Guest
I think WMDs was used as a selling point to the US public for sureAAP said:
you can't really try to sell a long term we have to do this to counter Iran and it's nuke program etc.
Amadenijahd is a fanatic along the lines of a Hitler type
his vision is for Iran to dominate the mid-east and to project nuclear threats
the kind of ambitions that has the other mid-east countries worried and western europe etc. too
that's why we are placing anti-ICBM missles in Poland and the Czech republic
MichaelScott
New member
rnch lol @ lh
juiceddreadlocks said:
Before we fix things there, we first have to fix things here in order to get the major obstacles out of the way of progress. Those obstacles being bushie and his entire lying conniving administration.
You can't fix anything when you have that blunderfuck staggering around incompetently still fucking things up.
redsamurai
Banned
you sir, are an american imperialist monkey ........no more no less. I wonder what our reaction will be when China wants to put a base in California to "stabilize us"........hmmmmm? I think every redblooded mother fucker in this country is going to start some mad insurgency..............which, sigh at having to explain this yet again, is exactly what's going to happen in the middle east. These are sovereign nations, they do not want us there........they do want our presence, our culture in any way shape or form.........and it's their god given right to that.
Longhorn85 said:
redsamurai
Banned
bw1 said:
that could take generations.............no seriously. Repairing the credibility of the U.S in the worlds view might take two or three presidents.
redsamurai
Banned
are you asking if Israel has the god given right to reclaim babylon and resume control of the middle east?............I think you'd know my answer to that.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in the last post..............Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself. But if they keep expanding into land that isn't theirs, sorry...I'm not an Old Testament kind of guy, than they have to expect resistance in all it's forms. Do I like hackjob in Iran, no......he's a goof. And if we leave Iran alone we'll isolate said goof. How does the "supposed" most powerful country in the world get ruffled by the words of that clown? Israel can defend itself...........there's no need for us to establish permanent presence in Iraq.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in the last post..............Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself. But if they keep expanding into land that isn't theirs, sorry...I'm not an Old Testament kind of guy, than they have to expect resistance in all it's forms. Do I like hackjob in Iran, no......he's a goof. And if we leave Iran alone we'll isolate said goof. How does the "supposed" most powerful country in the world get ruffled by the words of that clown? Israel can defend itself...........there's no need for us to establish permanent presence in Iraq.
bw1
Banned
redsamurai said:
Good to know you think they have the right to defend themselves
If you want to kid yourself about the geniuine hate for America, it's allies and our way of life by extreme radical Islam, feel free. Is it right they murder and torture those who don't agree with them to push their belief's?
redsamurai
Banned
bw1 said:Good to know you think they have the right to defend themselves
I do not kid myself about the genuine hate for america...............but I also understand it. Almost every country in the middle east has a beef with the U.S for one reason or another............take Iran. Who put the Shaw in power there in 1952? Just take a guess. And people aren't supposed to be bitter about internal meddling from an outside country? We're still sore at them for overthrowing the Shaw in 77 and routing the Delta Force operation.
I have no sympathy for radical Islam, it's a disgusting theology............but one which the United States helped to foster it's strength. The U.S can never and will never defeat radical islam unless we own up to this. If we refuse to acknowlege history that is mere years old..........we're never going to get to the core of the problem because we're in denial. And more generations of muslims will born into radicalism.
Longhorn85
New member
redsamurai said:
...flatterer!
Similar threads
