Cindy Sheehan?

[bri]

So the dependencies just start. So now I ask. Why are airbases so important? In the end, there are a lot of reasons, but all of those reasons and the dependencies of the reaons will boil down to a single 3 letter word..

 

[montanablur]

HAHAHA...You've been hyptmotized.

Look into to my eyes... when I snap my fingers, you will wake up, you will know the truth....

No I do definitely do not believe that Osama is in Iraq. I believe the reason Osama has not been caught is because we have chosen not to hunt him down and chosen not to go to war with the country he has taken shelter in. Either that or he is a damn good hider, unfortunately I think the chances of this are remote and the chances that we are not even looking for him are high.

You have been brainwashed if you really believe Hussein, WMD and Osama are the reason we are in Iraq. I would almost guarantee Osama is not in Iraq. Further, we have not found any WMD AND Hussiens horrible rein of terrorism was either in a lull or over. Not saying Hussien is a great guy, but we funded his rein as well as gave him the makings for the weapons. Bush bluntly ended the search for WMD, and resorted to war.

The reason we are in Iraq is simple, airbases. I do not believe that our presence in Iraq will end quickly and I do not believe that our government is being honest when they tell us that our goal is to leave. Our goal is to have a presence in the middle east-- forever, or for at least the forseeable future. We are no where near pulling out, we are sending more each day.

"Snap"

I was being smug and sarcastic... We need a little smiley with smug and sarcastic features... I am fully backing you on that.

Ding Ding round Two Iran! THEY HAVE NUKES! No way they just want a cheap energy source, they all live in huts. :smug)

 

[syoung]

So the dependencies just start. So now I ask. Why are airbases so important? In the end, there are a lot of reasons, but all of those reasons and the dependencies of the reaons will boil down to a single 3 letter word..

SEX?

 

[SCSL]

Lmfao !!

 

[bri]

LOL. Guess again.

 

[Black Dog]

So do you think that the folks that were running against him would have been any better or didn't have just as messed up pasts? That's the thing I don't like about our elections.. Not enough people to choose from.. I'd like to see 50 people on the ballot. When it comes down to just 3 or 4 it is no longer about who you want it's about who you see as the lesser evil.. In my case it was Bush for my own personal selfish gun toting reasons...

Eric you say the reason you voted republican was due to the 2nd Amendment issue. And there are many people who continue to vote either way based on this, or one of the other hot-button topics, like abortion. Let's throw this one against the wall and see if it sticks...
These are fake issues. These issues are bandied about every election season exclusively for the respective parties to keep their base. For no other reason. There is no threat to your right to bear arms and no one in Washington is going to dare make abortion illegal. Think about it, if the dem's were successful in passing effective legislation that took away our guns, and the GOP were to overturn Roe v Wade, then their base would have no reason left to vote for them. With the 2nd Amendment issue off the table, then working class gun-owners, for instance, would start to look at their pocketbooks and ask themselves why in the world would they now vote republican against their own economic self-interest. I mean all the tax breaks go to only the top 1% of wage earners and to corporations, while the middle-class working man takes it in the shorts, thanks to the republican party representing the rich and big business. The middle-class would leave the party like somebody took a dump in the punch bowl. Do you see that?

In the last 30 years we have had ample opportunity, with republican presidents and congresses, to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v Wade. Has it happened? We have had democratically controlled congresses the majority of the time and with a democrat in the White House, yet we still have our guns. Every once in a while someone raises an assault weapons stink and they pass a bill with no teeth. A few specific models are banned and the manufacturer just changes a rifle stock or a trigger guard and renames it with a model number that hasn't been outlawed. This is a game. They need us to be afraid of these issues so that they can keep our vote, keep us distracted from the real issues, keep us from asking the questions we should be asking, and demanding the representation we deserve. Can you see that?

Rest assured, that gun under your pillow will always be there, every night, forever.

Now, how do you vote?

 

[BeachRover]

Bri / SCSL, I agree that forward air bases for strategic deployment are one of the major reasons that we are there. But I am also sure that oil is another. We can banter this about till the end of time but one thing remains; we constantly tell everyone that we are the most powerful country in the world yet we import 60% of our oil each year. If Canada (17% of our oil imports), Mexico (13%), Saudi Arabia (14.5%) Venezula (11%) told us to take a hike then we would find out that we aren't the "biggest kid on the block". I don't care how much military fire power and war time technology we develop none of it is worth a damn if you can't fuel the delivery. Current estimates have the US consuming approximately 21.93 million barrels a day. Rumaila, Iraq is the 5th largest oil deposit in the world with reserves of 20 billion barrels and Kirkuk, Irag is the 8th largest with 16 billion barrels. I will openly state that I am a Republican and will always be so because I support the ideology of the party as whole, not just the opinions of one man.

 

[SCSL]

If Canada (17% of our oil imports), Mexico (13%), Saudi Arabia (14.5%) Venezula (11%) told us to take a hike then we would find out that we aren't the "biggest kid on the block".

This is an interesting post. First I would say that, while Bri & I agree on a number of issues, we often derive the conclusions for different reasons and from different perspectivers. To clarify my position: I support building forward air bases, I'm not against it. And I'm not against the war in Iraq. I'm against our conduct of the war--not that we're being too aggressive, but that we're not being aggressive enough.

Regarding your quote above, while I understand your point on oil-dependency, this would never happen. Remember that oil remains an elastic commodity, subject to the same economic rules as any other. There is nothing unique about oil as a commodity (economically speaking). The oil producing nations cannot afford to stop selling us oil any more than we can get buy without buying it. The economies of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, & Venezuela are as oil-dependent as ours is---there as exporters, ours as importers. This also effects Canada, though not to the extreme of S.A. or Venezuela. The economies of S.A. & the emerates took a long time to recover from the oil embargo (as did ours, but theirs are more one-dimensional than ours so the impact was actually greater, and longer-term).

 

[montanablur]

SCSL

How does China and India affect oil producing nations dependency on the U.S.?

 

[pclawson]

Karen, you need to educate yourself. go to factcheck.org and you'll find out how wrong you are about the "lies". I'm so sick of hearing people speak so ignorantly. If you are against the mission thats fine, but at least base it on truth and not propaganda. Retention in the armed forces is very high. that says a hell of a lot about the mission.

 

[BeachRover]

This is an interesting post. First I would say that, while Bri & I agree on a number of issues, we often derive the conclusions for different reasons and from different perspectivers. To clarify my position: I support building forward air bases, I'm not against it. And I'm not against the war in Iraq. I'm against our conduct of the war--not that we're being too aggressive, but that we're not being aggressive enough.

Regarding your quote above, while I understand your point on oil-dependency, this would never happen. Remember that oil remains an elastic commodity, subject to the same economic rules as any other. There is nothing unique about oil as a commodity (economically speaking). The oil producing nations cannot afford to stop selling us oil any more than we can get buy without buying it. The economies of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, & Venezuela are as oil-dependent as ours is---there as exporters, ours as importers. This also effects Canada, though not to the extreme of S.A. or Venezuela. The economies of S.A. & the emerates took a long time to recover from the oil embargo (as did ours, but theirs are more one-dimensional than ours so the impact was actually greater, and longer-term).

SCSL, please allow me to clarify as well. I also am not against the war, I fully support our efforts and the troops that are there and agree that we should step up the "intensity". I also understand the economic impact of the oil exports on other countries. I do, however, feel that by assuming a position of power in a country that 2 of the top 20 biggest oil deposits in the world are located, will change our position globally concerning oil. I also agree that there is, economically, an interdependency between the US (imports) and SA & Ven. (exports). As much as we need the product they need to sell it. But would you not agree that even though oil is a commodity, it is one that the vast majority of the supply is located within a small supply source. This supply source does indeed need to move its inventory but is in a position to control the price to a much higher degree than if we were not so dependent on their inventory.

 

[SCSL]

But would you not agree that even though oil is a commodity, it is one that the vast majority of the supply is located within a small supply source. This supply source does indeed need to move its inventory but is in a position to control the price to a much higher degree than if we were not so dependent on their inventory.

Yes, to an extent. I say that only because we have opted to limit our own domestic production, as well as our refining capacity. Another example of politics distorting the market. The oil producing nations do not 'control' the price in the literal sense of the word. Rather, the price has less elasticity than, for example, sugar (another product with a distorted market due to agricultural subsidies). A good historic parallel is pepper, as controlled by the Porteguese & Dutch several centuries ago. The Dutch could set the price of pepper higher than we might think is rational today based on demand. Yet, they could not set the price so high that demand decreased and/or migrated to alternatives. Otherwise they couldn't sell it. Having enormous investments in the production, refinement, and transportation of the product, this would have devistating effect on their economies (as the Krakatoa eruption later proved). Oil is similar.

So to circle the wagons: yes you are correct, but by a matter of degree relative to products valued less highly, and still within the dynamics of the market.

Thanks for the great conversation.

 

[BeachRover]

I enjoyed the conversation as well.

 

[KEJ]

Karen, you need to educate yourself. go to factcheck.org and you'll find out how wrong you are about the "lies". I'm so sick of hearing people speak so ignorantly. If you are against the mission thats fine, but at least base it on truth and not propaganda. Retention in the armed forces is very high. that says a hell of a lot about the mission.

Paul, I'm quite educated on the points I've made. Saddam was NOT the architect of the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden was. We were not threatened by WMDs from Saddam. There were no WMDs found in Iraq before this recent war. We went into this war based in large part because of the premise put forth by this administration that Saddam still possessed WMDs and was a threat to the U.S. Then, despite the fact that this president knew better, he beat the drum over and over that we were threatened by Saddam and the HEAVY implication was made that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. I brought up the Downing Street Memos (which showed that this administration knew there were no WMDs) and that was ignored on this board.

Paul, you and I can disagree, but one thing you cannot call me is ignorant.

KJ

 

[bri]

Bri / SCSL, I agree that forward air bases for strategic deployment are one of the major reasons that we are there. But I am also sure that oil is another. We can banter this about till the end of time but one thing remains; we constantly tell everyone that we are the most powerful country in the world yet we import 60% of our oil each year. If Canada (17% of our oil imports), Mexico (13%), Saudi Arabia (14.5%) Venezula (11%) told us to take a hike then we would find out that we aren't the "biggest kid on the block". I don't care how much military fire power and war time technology we develop none of it is worth a damn if you can't fuel the delivery. Current estimates have the US consuming approximately 21.93 million barrels a day. Rumaila, Iraq is the 5th largest oil deposit in the world with reserves of 20 billion barrels and Kirkuk, Irag is the 8th largest with 16 billion barrels. I will openly state that I am a Republican and will always be so because I support the ideology of the party as whole, not just the opinions of one man.

To take SCSLs tack, I will be much less decisive. Frankly I do not really know what to think about the war. I support our troops for being there and for being brave, following orders and the like. But I do not necessarily believe that the reason that they have been told they are there is necessarily the truth or even (necessarily) such a just cause. That is the thing I waver on.

I do believe is that our sole purpose of being in Iraq was NOT to take out Hussein or to liberate Iraq. That is just a convienience for us and just one reason. I do think is that oil is huge driver for why we chose to go into Iraq and our long term plan to have permanent airbases there, of course there are other reasons too. In addition, America was easily convinced that the war was necessary in order to liberate Iraq and since this is such a compelling reason, many rallied behind the war, now this trend is starting to change. I have other reasons too, but will not bring them up (at least now). The reasons above, I believe are pretty solid.

A couple of other things to ponder is why did we not choose the countries that (pretty much openly) support Al Qaeda instead? And of course, which country do we "liberate" next?

 

[SCSL]

which country do we "liberate" next?

New Orleans,,,

 

[KEJ]

Paul here's a link to an article from your mentioned site, factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/article129.html

And another:

http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html


KJ

 

[Eric N.]

Eric you say the reason you voted republican was due to the 2nd Amendment issue. And there are many people who continue to vote either way based on this, or one of the other hot-button topics, like abortion. Let's throw this one against the wall and see if it sticks...
These are fake issues. These issues are bandied about every election season exclusively for the respective parties to keep their base. For no other reason. There is no threat to your right to bear arms and no one in Washington is going to dare make abortion illegal. Think about it, if the dem's were successful in passing effective legislation that took away our guns, and the GOP were to overturn Roe v Wade, then their base would have no reason left to vote for them. With the 2nd Amendment issue off the table, then working class gun-owners, for instance, would start to look at their pocketbooks and ask themselves why in the world would they now vote republican against their own economic self-interest. I mean all the tax breaks go to only the top 1% of wage earners and to corporations, while the middle-class working man takes it in the shorts, thanks to the republican party representing the rich and big business. The middle-class would leave the party like somebody took a dump in the punch bowl. Do you see that?

In the last 30 years we have had ample opportunity, with republican presidents and congresses, to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v Wade. Has it happened? We have had democratically controlled congresses the majority of the time and with a democrat in the White House, yet we still have our guns. Every once in a while someone raises an assault weapons stink and they pass a bill with no teeth. A few specific models are banned and the manufacturer just changes a rifle stock or a trigger guard and renames it with a model number that hasn't been outlawed. This is a game. They need us to be afraid of these issues so that they can keep our vote, keep us distracted from the real issues, keep us from asking the questions we should be asking, and demanding the representation we deserve. Can you see that?

Rest assured, that gun under your pillow will always be there, every night, forever.

Now, how do you vote?

Gun ban isn't a joke.. Not sure what guns you have around the house but some of mine are ones that would be on the chopping block is these four folks have their way..

My choice wasn't just because of guns either and despite what your income level may be I have actually been better off money wise with GW in office then I was with Clinton. Abortion I could care less about.. That's a womans personal choice to make.. As for who would I vote for.. The Republican canadite like I always do..