Anyone want a cut of 600 Billion Dollars?

[anthonycea]

We all know that war is dirty and evil.

But do you know that they are profitable for many shareholders of defense related manufacturers and military service vendors :confused:

You know the old saying, the love of money is the root of all evil......

Well the war in Iraq is projected to go on for years, maybe another 7 or so.

The costs are way above what Bush told us and are growing faster than ever and having a great effect on the American nation, running our budget deficit to record numbers and putting children that have not been born yet in debt some $40,000.00 each thanks to Cheney and Bush.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-18-csm-iraq-costs_x.htm?csp=N009

Despite the yawning federal deficit, Congress hasn't blinked at this price. And while annual defense spending is now as high as it ever was during the Reagan buildup, the U.S. economy as a whole is much larger, making it easier, in economic terms, for the nation to shoulder the bill.

Yet the costs for Pentagon operations are likely to pile up in years ahead. By 2010, war expenses might total $600 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Much depends on when — and how many — U.S. military personnel can be withdrawn from the Iraqi theater of operations.

"We can't be any more certain about the trend of the defense budget than we can be about the number of troops that will be deployed overseas," says Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The demands and unpredictability of war have, in essence, turned the defense budget into a two-part allocation. First is the regular budget request, which contains acquisition and research and development funds as well as personnel and operations costs, and which Congress considers in its normal appropriations process. Second is the supplemental appropriations — the add-on emergency spending requested by the administration later in the year.

Congress gave final passage to a 2005 supplemental defense bill just last week. Of the $82 billion contained in the bill, all but $76 billion will pay for Defense Department operations costs. The cost of the U.S. military in Iraq is running about $5 billion a month, estimated the former Pentagon comptroller earlier this year.

Fighting in Iraq "is lasting longer, and is more intense, and the cost to keep troops in the theater of operations is proving to be much greater than anyone anticipated," wrote Rep. John Spratt (D) of South Carolina, ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, in a recent Democratic report on war costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

How did we end up with leaders who consider the money first (OIL MONEY) at the expense of the entire world population, costing not only money out of everyone's pockets but the lives of 100's of thousands who did not have any thing to do with the reasons for conflict.

[Crazy_Rob]

Money and power will make people do just about anything. And as long as gas prices are cheap here in the US, nobody is going to give a f*ck about what happens anywhere else in the world.

[anthonycea]

Hey BIG GUY, cheap gas is .27 cents a gallon, not $2.30 - $3.50 a gallon, some are predicting $5.00 here in the states and don't put it past Cheney to rig that.

[debunked]

here we go again...............................

[anthonycea]

Do you want to hide facts Debunked, the story is ongoing, are you like all Republicans and still have your head buried in the sand :confused:

[Blogmaster]

here we go again...............................
nuff said :)

I see you're in real estate now, my partner Josh happens to actually be from medford, small world ...

[gworld]

Money and power will make people do just about anything. And as long as gas prices are cheap here in the US, nobody is going to give a f*ck about what happens anywhere else in the world.

It is funny that as soon as the war is mentioned, every body even the opposition starts to argue on a same line of thinking. :rolleyes:

Opposition: The government went to war to get cheap oil.

Government: no we didn't.

have you ever tried to think out of the box ? What if the purpose of war was not to get cheap oil and what is good for American consumer but actually to raise the price of oil?

Give it some thought and the purpose of war becomes more clear. :)

[anthonycea]

Oh you poor Republicans know all is lost since Bush is losing all support from the American people on the war and the economy.

Looks like your Presidents poll ratings are way down and dropping like a rock on the above issues and oil guys :o

[Crazy_Rob]

Looks like your Presidents poll ratings are way down and dropping like a rock on the above issues and oil guys :o

WHy does that matter though?

[Crazy_Rob]

It is funny that as soon as the war is mentioned, every body even the opposition starts to argue on a same line of thinking. :rolleyes:

Opposition: The government went to war to get cheap oil.

Government: no we didn't.

have you ever tried to think out of the box ? What if the purpose of war was not to get cheap oil and what is good for American consumer but actually to raise the price of oil?

Give it some thought and the purpose of war becomes more clear. :)

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was simply pointing out that most Americans are not concerned w/ world events unless it impacts them directly.

Just an observation, my friend. ;)

[GTech]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.



One factor should help in the short term: Seven months into the fiscal year, Congress is only now passing the $82 billion emergency war spending bill for fiscal 2005, which means that much of the money will be spent in 2006. That should reduce the 2005 deficit while bringing down war costs next year. Wyss said the deficit should continue to fall in 2006 and 2007.


http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_125112415.html

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8A5PG8O0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down

Crude oil prices shed almost $2 a barrel to a three-month low on Wednesday after government data showed U.S. crude stocks rose a larger-than-expected 4.3 million barrels, the 13th increase in 14 weeks.

The U.S. Department of Energy's midweek inventory data reported U.S. crude oil inventories rose to 334 million barrels in the week ending May 13 from the previous week. That is up 34 million barrels from a year ago.

"It seems like every barrel around the world, hiding under every rock, has come to America in these past weeks," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.


Hey ST, I painted my cardboard box this weekend! You know, now that we're all poor and eating out of trash bins because Bush (with the aid of Karl Rove, no doubt) has ruined the world. Oh, the doom and gloom!

[anthonycea]

The make money on war then oil after we gain the oil fields plan is still in progress for the Cheney administration, but too bad that the Russians and China are not supporting our bases in Iraq.

But what the hell Gworld has a good point, look at the chart on the American Stock exchange oil index since Bush has been in office :p

Investors who bet on Bush raising oil prices are sitting in a good position (mostly Bush friends like Ken Lay) :cool:

[GTech]

The oil fields belong to the Iraqis. It's kind of hard to say we are stealing oil in one sentence, only to suggest we are not because we haven't stolen their oil fields yet.

Maybe Russia and China are not happy that the oil for food program they were so richly profiting from was pulled from under their feet? Wouldn't you be mad, if someone stopped your corrupted profit machine?

[Blogmaster]

Hey ST, I painted my cardboard box this weekend! You know, now that we're all poor and eating out of trash bins because Bush (with the aid of Karl Rove, no doubt) has ruined the world. Oh, the doom and gloom!
Awesome, I may have to move into your box until I'll be able to afford my own ;)

[anthonycea]

So you are admitting that we are in another Vietnam, right GTech :confused:

[gworld]

The make money on war then oil after we gain the oil fields plan is still in progress for the Cheney administration, but too bad that the Russians and China are not supporting our bases in Iraq.

But what the hell Gworld has a good point, look at the chart on the American Stock exchange oil index since Bush has been in office :p

Investors who bet on Bush raising oil prices are sitting in a good position (mostly Bush friends like Ken Lay) :cool:



The biggest heist in history

It has been a lot of discussions about if the war was right or wrong and people calling each other names. Here is some numbers about the war and I let you decide what you think about it.

According to energi information administration (a government office, no left organization):

"During 2003, the United States produced around 7.8 million barrels per day"

According to telegraph the price of oil before the talk of war could be described as follows:

"When he indicated on Wednesday that war in Iraq was all but inevitable, the oil price climbed 48 cents a barrel to $28.27, a third higher than at the beginning of the year. The $18 to $25 a barrel range is considered ideal."

If we consider that the production will be the same and take that the price would have been in the higher range of $25, and today price at $50 Then a simple math shows us the war is generating:

(50-25)*7.8 Mil=$195 million extra profit every day just in domestic production or $71,175,000,000 /year for oil companies.

even the energy department acknowledges this for 2004 report:

"Financial Performance

Twenty-four major U.S. energy companies reported overall net income (excluding unusual items) of $16.7 billion on revenues of $213 billion during the second quarter of 2004 (2Q04). This level of net income represented a 67% increase relative to the second quarter of 2003 (2Q03) (see EIA's "Financial News for Major Energy Companies "). Domestic upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $6.3 billion of net income, with domestic refining and marketing operations also earning $6.3 billion. Foreign upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $5.0 billion of net income, with foreign refining and marketing operations at $1.3 billion.

Independent oil and natural gas producers, oil field companies and refiner/marketers reported a sharp increase in net income (up 75%) during Q compared to Q (see EIA’s "Financial News for Independent Energy Companies"). This increase in net income was due primarily to large increases in the prices of natural gas and crude oil, and a rise in gross refining margins of 49% year-over-year. "

I don't think there is any need to quote any information about the relationship between Bush family and oil industry and I don't even say anything about the profit from weapon industry. Here are the numbers, draw your own conclusion.

Sources:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../06/wirq506.xml

[anthonycea]

GTech knows better, he will have to answer for his propaganda for criminals one day. Right GTech :confused:

[GTech]

So you are admitting that we are in another Vietnam, right GTech :confused:

Is there a magic forumula you applied to some post of mine to come to such a rediculous conclusion?

Not even in the same category. The only similarities are that the Democrat party, the mainstream media and people like John Kerry and "Unca" Ted Kennedy betrayed our soldiers then, and they are doing no less today.

But you have to remember Anthony, I'm not disappointed in the Iraqis freedom and I'm not disappointed in fighting terrorists. That disappointment seems to lie in your court, for whatever reason. Defeatism?

[anthonycea]

So what you are saying is that Vietnam was a just war and spraying agent Orange was good :confused:

[Blogmaster]

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was simply pointing out that most Americans are not concerned w/ world events unless it impacts them directly.


True, now replace "Americans" with any other nationality and it will be true as well.
So why are we supposed to be perfect?

[anthonycea]

What he is saying TOOT is that jets fly over our homes but drop bombs on poor peoples homes and how would you like it if your ass was in fear like they are :confused:

[GTech]

Uh, yea, if you go back up one post, you can see where I said "Vietnan was good and spraying agent orange was good too." I also talked about how Cheney hit me in the head with a haliburton briefcase and how bush snuck into my garage one night to steal my can of oil.

</sarcasm>

Didn't you see it?

You have to remember Anthony, I'm not disappointed in the Iraqis freedom and I'm not disappointed in fighting terrorists. That disappointment seems to lie in your court, for whatever reason.

So what you are saying, as usual, is that you hope for the worst for your country?

[anthonycea]

Cheney and Bush are the worst for this nation GTech, when will you get that through your thick skull :confused:

[GTech]

About the same time you stop being disappointed in Iraqi's freedom and start posting against terrorists. What are the odds?

[anthonycea]

So since Russia and China are sending weapons into the war zone we should call them Nuclear powered terrorist nations GTech :confused: :o

[YianG]

Yes! Another political debate!

But I will need some time to put my thoughts together. Keep it going guys.

[Design Agent]

True, now replace "Americans" with any other nationality and it will be true as well.

Not true. Most of the 'people' of the world know more about the US than the US. in knowledge terms.

Most countries outside the US have alot of input from the US - from Baywatch to technology. What Iceland does has almost no impact on the US but what the US does has a huge Impact on Iceland.
Can you name the Icelandic president ? I bet evveryone in Iceland knows bush ;)

[GTech]

Doesn't matter to me, call them what you like! Maybe we should call them victims and sympathize with their plights?

[anthonycea]

Yes! Another political debate!

But I will need some time to put my thoughts together. Keep it going guys.

These are not debates, they are truth against propaganda and GTech's gang loses each one :eek:

PS: No GTech, we should just start WWIII and get this shit overwith.

Ready for the big flash of light that your side is rushing us into GTech :confused:

What the hell GTech, war is good, look at what we got done in Vietnam :o

[gworld]

I also talked about how Cheney hit me in the head with a haliburton briefcase and how bush snuck into my garage one night to steal my can of oil.



How come you don't answer my post with numbers from energy department? :confused:

can you name one other industry that had 75% net income increase from quarter to quarter and makes 70,000,000,000 dollars extra profit a year without any investment or increase in cost? :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Yes! Another political debate!

But I will need some time to put my thoughts together. Keep it going guys.

Welcome to the debate! We always have fun with these. It typically goes in a circular fashion. Anthony posts about Bush stealing oil. We disprove it. So Anthony shows his disappointment in Iraqi freedom. We respond to it. Then Anthony makes up something new about Halliburton, and we debunk it. Then Anthony brings up Nixon (we haven't figured that one out yet, it seems to be just a stalling technique) and we let him him know Nixon is dead and no longer makes politcy. Then Anthony will inject something useless about Vietnam, to discredit their service to our country. And then he will talk about the price of oil, except that it's back down, then the economy, which is good, but if you listen to him, we all eat out of trash bins and live in card board boxes.

Those are pretty much the standard circular talking points. But it's always fun :D

[anthonycea]

Gworld, GTech never answers facts or points, he just searches for RNC approved propaganda to post and PR from the White House :p :o :p

[Design Agent]

Let me give you a simplified version:
1. AC thinks the republican neo cons are all bad.
2. Gtech thinks the sunshines out of their %$£*

Neither has ANY middle ground...

[YianG]

I'm totally with you anthonycea. I believe the perpose of this Iraqi war is for profit than anything else, and this sdministration, in fact this whole system, has been ripping people off for too long.

But I also see a lot of facts coming from different side of view, and they appears to be as valid as anything we could put up. So i call it a debate, because it is facts vs. facts. If you take everything other people have to say as propaganda, you will never want to listen to them because you will only try to make them look wrong. If it is going to be shouting at the wall, what's the point of starting this discussion?

My point is, it is true that US propaganda, like in all other countries, mislead its citizen so the people in power can abuse their power. But That doesn't automatically make all Republican or war supporters' speeches "propaganda". They might have good point, too, and we should respect those valid argument accordingly.

And remember, there is always a middle ground for the Hutts. ;)

[GTech]

How come you don't answer my post with numbers from energy department? :confused:


What's to answer? You don't like oil companies? Supply and demand get out of balance and the cost of oil goes up? Supply comes back in line and cost goes down?


can you name one other industry that had 75% net income increase from quarter to quarter and makes 70,000,000,000 dollars extra profit a year without any investment or increase in cost? :rolleyes:

Is it a multiple choice question? Just because an industry makes money, doesn't mean I disapprove of them. I have nothing, either for, or against oil companies. They, like any other company are in business to make a profit, not give handouts. They deliver gasoline to the station, I buy it. I have nothing against Marriott Hotels. They provide rooms to stay in, I sleep in them. No one owes me a handout. I make my own way and I don't complain about others that do the same.

[anthonycea]

Funny how GTech has made a name for himself worldwide by crawling out from under his rock to post to all of these threads.

It makes you wonder how much Cheney pays him to fumble his defense here on DP :o :p :D

[Blogmaster]

Not true. Most of the 'people' of the world know more about the US than the US. in knowledge terms.

Most countries outside the US have alot of input from the US - from Baywatch to technology. What Iceland does has almost no impact on the US but what the US does has a huge Impact on Iceland.
Can you name the Icelandic president ? I bet evveryone in Iceland knows bush ;)
I don't even know where Iceland is - just kidding, right below Greenland, correct? (i swear I didn't have to look it up)

I was referring for the reason human beings vote for their political representatives though. And I am convinced that everywhere in the world people vote based on who they believe will satisfy their own pesonal interest before anything else, no matter narrow minded the issue may be. people will decide based on issues such as if you have to clean your dog's poop off of the sidewalk and how high the fines should be if you violate the laws.

Human nature is selfish, that's just how it is. Everyone only looks at his/her own situation and wants to come out well or whatever they consider well.

The problem and the reason we are here is that Anthony cannot accept that.

Like someone here said before: blame the democrats for running Kerry
and as I wanna add:

look back 8 years ago and blame Al Gore for not allowing to let Clinton (the man who ever got him up therre in the first place) to help him campaign.
People don't respect spineless assholes like that.

I am NOT a republican but in the past 8 years I could not see a better choice than Bush. I was fo Perot in the 90s and then for Clinton once but not everything that glitters is gold. Those guys like Clinton don't care about Americans like Anthony wants us to believe, they are all in it for themselves.
Sorry, but I don't believe in people and their motives too much, we are what we are, the good, the bad, the ugly. I choose to eliminate what in my mind are the worst possible solutions and what was left for me to vote for was Bush.

[Design Agent]

Is it a multiple choice question? Just because an industry makes money, doesn't mean I disapprove of them. I have nothing, either for, or against oil companies. They, like any other company are in business to make a profit, not give handouts. They deliver gasoline to the station, I buy it.

Yes and now is the time for some COLLECTIVE responsibility. 'I just buy it' doesnt cut it these days. ;)

[anthonycea]

So what TOOT, I remember people that voted for Nixon TWICE, he was the originator of election fraud in America and was indited for it and put up for impeachment.

Bush stole both elections, he did not beat Gore or Kerry, get real man :o

[Design Agent]

I was referring for the reason human beings vote for their political representatives though. And I am convinced that everywhere in the world people vote based on who they believe will satisfy their own pesonal interest before anything else, no matter narrow minded the issue may be. people will decide based on issues such as if you have to clean your dog's poop off of the sidewalk and how high the fines should be if you violate the laws.

In the UK we now have a technical dictatorship. Labour is the best 'for us' but still 75% voted AGAINST him.

[YianG]

Is it a multiple choice question? Just because an industry makes money, doesn't mean I disapprove of them. I have nothing, either for, or against oil companies. They, like any other company are in business to make a profit, not give handouts. They deliver gasoline to the station, I buy it. I have nothing against Marriott Hotels. They provide rooms to stay in, I sleep in them. No one owes me a handout. I make my own way and I don't complain about others that do the same.
That's a real typical capitalist way of thinking, I must say. Yes the oil company do what they do, but you can also apply the same ideology to tobacco companies, or even better, coccaine industry in south america. They exist, they have their own system, and they work, but it doesn't make them good.

The reason we form societies, make laws, create government is so because things can be done the right way with everyone's best interest. Oil companies now shares too big of a tie with the people in power, and it is dangerous what kind of impact they can have with every decision they make now. It should not have been allowed in the first place. But it happened, and we should be ashamed of it, not to justifiy it so it looks like we never got anything wrong.

Sorry I always seem to be talking about principles instead of factual discussion. I'm just not too big on arguing over little things. Bush's administraion is seriously flawed on principles, anyway.

[Blogmaster]

In the UK we now have a technical dictatorship. Labour is the best 'for us' but still 75% voted AGAINST him.
Honestly, I don't know what you mean :confused: Labour is Tony's party, correct? And he got elected :confused:

[GTech]

Yes and now is the time for some COLLECTIVE responsibility. 'I just buy it' doesnt cut it these days. ;)

Nor does "we're their to steal oil" with absolutely no foundation. But who would have thought?

[Blogmaster]

Sorry, I am not as educated about these things as GTech or some others. Anthony is very educated as well. However when it comes time for him to interpret what he has learned, he will drop the information that was inconvenient for him and then pick the few out of context lines which he uses to prove himself right.

Sorry, Anthony, but that is how I see it ...

[GTech]

That's a real typical capitalist way of thinking, I must say. Yes the oil company do what they do, but you can also apply the same ideology to tobacco companies, or even better, coccaine industry in south america. They exist, they have their own system, and they work, but it doesn't make them good.

That would be, because I'm a capitalist. I earn my own living. I do not expect my government to give me every whim and need I have. I have the opportunity to succeed and I use that opportunity.

Some people prefer handouts. Some people think their governments should provide for their every need.

[anthonycea]

That's a real typical capitalist way of thinking, I must say. Yes the oil company do what they do, but you can also apply the same ideology to tobacco companies, or even better, coccaine industry in south america. They exist, they have their own system, and they work, but it doesn't make them good.

The reason we form societies, make laws, create government is so because things can be done the right way with everyone's best interest. Oil companies now shares too big of a tie with the people in power, and it is dangerous what kind of impact they can have with every decision they make now. It should not have been allowed in the first place. But it happened, and we should be ashamed of it, not to justifiy it so it looks like we never got anything wrong.

Sorry I always seem to be talking about principles instead of factual discussion. I'm just not too big on arguing over little things. Bush's administraion is seriously flawed on principles, anyway.

Great post my man, the above is one of the best posts in DP History, you hit the nail on the head and I am sending green your way :o

[Design Agent]

Honestly, I don't know what you mean :confused: Labour is Tony's party, correct? And he got elected :confused:

This is eactly what I mean. You are not exactly someone who knows nothing and considering we are one of your biggest 'allles'. It shows how far outside of the US many look - No offence, but it is a question of need rather than any other reason. The US is a VERY big place in every sense, there is little need to look abroad for many of its citizens (as Not_so_Crazy_Rob said earlier) without specific interest.

Due to our system you could win 100% majority in parliament with around 650 votes or so I believe. We have whats called First past the post. A system where you win by 1 vote in your local area and you win (there are about 650 ish areas). So yes Blair won, with 25% or so.

[GTech]

DA, just to get a better understand of your last post...are you disappointed in that system? Is there effort being made to change your system of voting?

[YianG]

But I believe Iraqi should be left out of this Capitalism of yours... if they were ever given such option? And when you insist on putting it upon them, I wonder which side of the Capitalism they will end up...?

[anthonycea]

That would be, because I'm a capitalist. I earn my own living. I do not expect my government to give me every whim and need I have. I have the opportunity to succeed and I use that opportunity.

Some people prefer handouts. Some people think their governments should provide for their every need.


So it is fine to sell porn, guns and dope as long as you can make a buck, damn GTech, maybe I should become a hit man because there is good money in it :o

[Blogmaster]

That would be, because I'm a capitalist. I earn my own living. I do not expect my government to give me every whim and need I have. I have the opportunity to succeed and I use that opportunity.

Some people prefer handouts. Some people think their governments should provide for their every need.
This is what America has always been based on. We have more opportunity than any other nation on earth but also less of a safety net than many European nations. Everyone wants a piece of us and when things don't work out, people get frustrated and blame the system. It doesn't add up for me. We are what we are and the best thing to do is make the best out of your lives and do what you can to make a good living for yourself and your loved ones. I personally think there should be more of a safety net but believe in our system overall. It's based on survival of the fittest, but how can people succeed when they spend all their time and energy complaining instead of getting in on the race ...

[anthonycea]

What race TOOT, the one to import all manufactured goods from China, our enemy :confused:

Do you even know what made America great in the first place man :confused:

It was manufacturing might and we are losing that.

Oil and war greed has destroyed this nation and it is about time you learn this.

[Design Agent]

DA, just to get a better understand of your last post...are you disappointed in that system? Is there effort being made to change your system of voting?

For 15 years the government that wants to win says ther will change it to PR (propertional representation). But of course when they get in power that idea goes straight out of the window.

Hence, years of cons and now years or labour. Always reasonably strong governments though. No hung parliaments or anything like that.

[GTech]

We have laws to regulate such industries. Who am I to say someone cannot sell guns when our Constitution guarantees all the right to bear arms? Who am I to say someone cannot sell porn, when it's been fought at the supreme court?

Dope? No. It's illegal here.

So to answer your question, except dope (or something that was illegal by our laws), you bet, it's fine to sell anything to make a buck. Isn't that what business do, sell goods and services to consumers that want them?

[Blogmaster]

The main reason we are losing is division amongst ourselves when it comes to international business and politics IMO

[Design Agent]

We have laws to regulate such industries. Who am I to say someone cannot sell guns when our Constitution guarantees all the right to bear arms? Who am I to say someone cannot sell porn, when it's been fought at the supreme court?

Dope? No. It's illegal here.

So to answer your question, except dope (or something that was illegal by our laws), you bet, it's fine to sell anything to make a buck. Isn't that what business do, sell goods and services to consumers that want them?

Where do you draw the line ? Where the law says or your morals?

[anthonycea]

You would not think that if you lived next to a pawn shop and someone bought a gun and robbed the guy next door (YOU) :o

How about if your kids got hold of some easy porn, is that alright with you too :confused:

PS: Contact me GTech, I have some great ideas for Gun and Porn sites and you can build them for me and we can make BIG MONEY:o

PSS: I get to interview all the WebCam Models GTech and set up the cameras :)

[YianG]

The main reason we are losing is division amongst ourselves when it comes to international business and politics IMO
Which is why it is important to keep in mind that we are not trying to WIN in a discussion, but to understand what could the problem be, and what we might do to improve it. This is supposed to be the job of the politicians, but too bad the word "con" is the opposite of the word "pro", thus our Congress never make any progress. So it is up to the citizens to have good awareness of what's going on.

[GTech]

What race TOOT, the one to import all manufactured goods from China, our enemy :confused:

Do you even know what made America great in the first place man :confused:

It was manufacturing might and we are losing that.

Oil and war greed has destroyed this nation and it is about time you learn this.

I'd be more than happy to learn it, if you could actually substantiate it. The problem is, you go with your feelings on the issue, rather than facts.

Manufacturing...we've manufactured outside the US for years. I don't recall any of your posts whailing about all the Heinz ketchup factories overseas when John Kerry was running.

We manufacturer outside the US to keep prices down. If we didn't, then you would be on here complaining about the price of sneakers at Walmart being $500.00 instead of $19.99. But loosing manufacturing jobs to keep prices low is not new, to this administration, or any other. It's been going on for a hundred years now during both Democrat and Republican administrations.

[anthonycea]

Is that why Bush is putting pressure on China to unpeg their currency right now GTech???

The administration knows under their leadership this nation is economic toast, even GM is going broke because of high oil prices, Toyota and the other imports are taking giant share :eek: :eek:

What about the military bases your hero wants to close?????

Even you can not think that will raise his approval ratings :p :p

[GTech]

Where do you draw the line ? Where the law says or your morals?

It has to be where the law is. There are many things I disagree with in terms of selling products. But just because I disagree with them, doesn't mean they cannot operate as a business. Imagine if we all laid down our own morals on every business. What business would be left? Imagine if we rediculed Evian for selling bottled water, when we can get it at the faucet from the back of Burger King for free?

I, like many others, have morals and values that I stand for. But I'm not so closed-minded that I would say another business doesn't have the right to exist or make a profit because I don't agree with them. Or even worse, because they are making more money than I think they should be making.

[Blogmaster]

Which is why it is important to keep in mind that we are not trying to WIN in a discussion, but to understand what could the problem be, and what we might do to improve it. This is supposed to be the job of the politicians, but too bad the word "con" is the opposite of the word "pro", thus our Congress never make any progress. So it is up to the citizens to have good awareness of what's going on.
Absolutely, awareness and a genuine interest as well. it often starts in the homes where kids pick up the parents' attitudes towards political parties and are very pre dispositioned to side with one before even knowing anything really. No, there is no winning, doesn't matter who is right but what is best. I believe something good will come out of these threads because many people visit Digitalpoint and read (non members) and it will help them make up their own minds or even (God forbid) inspire them to think for themselves :eek: :D

[Design Agent]

It has to be where the law is. There are many things I disagree with in terms of selling products. But just because I disagree with them, doesn't mean they cannot operate as a business. Imagine if we all laid down our own morals on every business.

If everyone thought like that Slavery would still exist.

[Blogmaster]

And by the way, I don't watch international politics because after 30 minutes of national news I am so done with hearing about problems, murders, hatred, blame and all that shit, so no offense UK guys, but by the time our news channel visits your side of the pond, I have most likely already switched programs or tuned out.

[YianG]

The price of sneakers are now indeed pretty low, except for the fact that back in the days most people have a job but sneakers are expensive, and now it is a lot of people don't have a job but the sneakers are now real cheap. Manufacuring used to be the backbone of American economy. It is only a matter of time before the living standard rise and the majority moves onto the a different kind of economy structure. We are in a transition period, things are going to be tough, and it is important for us to find the alternative. But what alternative is there? What can we do to replace this big hole labor outsourcing has left us?

And that still doesn't change the fact that US companies and government is making big bucks out of the war. How can people repect this nation outside of US if that's what they see in us...

BTW, this thread has grown rapidly in the past 30 minutes. I have never seen anything like this before.

[Crazy_Rob]

True, now replace "Americans" with any other nationality and it will be true as well.
So why are we supposed to be perfect?

Then....

And by the way, I don't watch international politics because after 30 minutes of national news I am so done with hearing about problems, murders, hatred, blame and all that shit, so no offense UK guys, but by the time our news channel visits your side of the pond, I have most likely already switched programs or tuned out.


:p Ha ha ha ha!

And that folks, is how you distract people from the real "news".

[anthonycea]

Oil and war thefts by businessmen hooked up with Cheney are the name of the game now.

Too bad the rest of us who are not in this game are slaves to it as it is the only game in town (AMERICA), there used to be a saying in America, "there is no business like show business"......

Well folks, to Republicans (Nixon boys = Houston Oil and War Association) there is no business like "The Oil and War Business".

God forbid honest Americans support these criminals.

[GTech]

Is that why Bush is putting pressure on China to unpeg their currency right now GTech???


Are you suggesting that is true? Are suggesting it's not because their currency policies are distorting world trade?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/worldbusiness/18china.html?ei=5065&en=2bb7332574ce5063&ex=1116993600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


The administration knows under their leadership this nation is economic toast, even GM is going broke because of high oil prices, Toyota and the other imports are taking giant share :eek: :eek:


That would explain the unexpected 52 BILLION dollars our government made in April, that will reduce the deficit? And further explain that while our economy is so weak, as you describe, that our government made an extra 52 BILLION in revenue for hard working tax payers? Tell me that adds up, please!


What about the military bases your hero wants to close?????


Base realignments are neither a Republican or Democrat affect. Base realignments happen out of necessity and changing times. You may also recall that it happened on Clinton's watch, but really, I don't see base realignment as a bad thing for either party. It's just something that has to be done when our objectives and threats change.


Even you can not think that will raise his approval ratings


I'm sure if Bush were in a popularity contest, he could just pay terrorists and our enemies off. I also know that no matter what he does, you'll always be against him and I know the reasons why. But it's fun to pretend!

[Design Agent]

Then....




:p Ha ha ha ha!

And that folks, is how you distract people from the real "news".


So how do you manage to see like the rest of the world CR? ;)

[Blogmaster]

What real news? Do you watch crossfire and Meet The Press? What makes you think that you are enabled to make informed decisions. It's not about what you listen to but what you accept as the truth. I don't have time or energy to deal with what is going on all over the world. The problem is we don't fix our own problems united. All that bitching and complaining leads nowhere really. Yes, Europeans know about our politics but I doubt they know about political issues in Africa and South America. Why ? Because they prioritize based on what is important for THEIR needs, so: point made (clearer).

[GTech]

Oil and war thefts by businessmen hooked up with Cheney are the name of the game now.

Let me know if you ever come up with anything credible. There is a difference between what you wish were true and facts.

[Design Agent]

Yes, Europeans know about our politics but I doubt they know about political issues in Africa and South America. Why ? Because they prioritize based on what is important for THEIR needs, so: point made (clearer).

Most Europeans I have met can give you an overview of basic African/ S american + world politics. I just think we consume different media.

Also, As France, UK, Spain, Germany, Holland, Portugal etc have alot of historical ties with the rest of the world (mainly due to the empire behaviour of our past).

[Crazy_Rob]

ST, have you ever watched a news program in Europe?

[Blogmaster]

Yes, Rob, and what I recall is a ton of redicule and sarcasm towards the American way of life and I have chosen not to subject myself to that kind of media again.

[Blogmaster]

Most Europeans I have met can give you an overview of basic African/ S american + world politics. I just think we consume different media.

Also, As France, UK, Spain, Germany, Holland, Portugal etc have alot of historical ties with the rest of the world (mainly due to the empire behaviour of our past).
Another reason that we don't follow UK politics a lot, is that we don't really worry about it. Thru out history the UK has done right by us (after the UK accepted we didn't want to be another Colony after the Boston Teaparty).
So really, when we don't know, maybe it is that we trust in you guys doing the right thing and simply want to stay out of the political game going on within your borders.

[anthonycea]

Let me know if you ever come up with anything credible. There is a difference between what you wish were true and facts.

Anyone can do a search on the following keywords.

Halliburton Oil fraud

KBR overcharges military

Cheney Chairman Halliburton

Bush Ken Lay

Happy Research GTech :o :cool:

[Crazy_Rob]

Really? I didn't pick up on that. Where was that?

[anthonycea]

Here is some help for you GTech, as I know you have real problems finding true facts.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Halliburton+Oil+fraud&x=56&y=14

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=KBR+overcharges+military

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Imagine that, a predefined search string to sort through a million moonbat conspiracy theories, just for me!

Let's see, CBS has surely lost it's credibility. NewsWEAK's just went out the door. NYT, well, we all know their credibility issues.

Yea, just let me know when you find something credible ;) Just any little ol' news article you can find would be a start!

[Design Agent]

So really, when we don't know, maybe it is that we trust in you guys doing the right thing and simply want to stay out of the political game going on outside OUR borders, except where it has a direct impact on us

thats a bit clearer

[Crazy_Rob]

NewsWEAK's just went out the door.

Why is that?

[anthonycea]

Your right GTech, all that stuff is false :p :o :p

Did you get all the sand out of your eyes when you pulled your head out of the sand :confused:

[GTech]

I guess the sand's still there. Hey, did you have a quick link to the ABC report on how Cheney is making millions off oil executives? Oh wait, nevermind, it doesn't exist :D

[anthonycea]

For your information and I know this comes as new information to you, he is the top defense and oil executive in the world :o

[GTech]

And still, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, NYT, LAT, et al cannot uncover his ties to making millions off oil executives? No dirt on a halliburton connection?

Imagine that :D

[anthonycea]

Don't worry GTech the "Republican propaganda Network" (Fox News) won't say a word :p :o :p :D

[GTech]

Apparently there is no word for any of them to say ;) And who more, than the NYT or LAT would want to break such a story, that doesn't exist?

Been fun man, I gotta run. Been on a three week business trip (oops, I mean, decorating my card board box!) and am heading home.

Thanks to all for a spirited debate and session!

[YianG]

And still, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, NYT, LAT, et al cannot uncover his ties to making millions off oil executives? No dirt on a halliburton connection?

Imagine that :D
What about Cheney?

And have a good rest!

[anthonycea]

You be good GTech, make sure you stop in Houston to get your paycheck :o :p :p :p

[Blogmaster]

DA the UK puts its own interests first as well ...

[anthonycea]

They are slaves to the Bank of England, BP and Shell Oil TOOT, as our leaders are, that is why we move in lock step :o

[Design Agent]

Never said it didnt. But then I dont have to defend the UK because most of the world believes bush is up to no good. As he is not our PM we dont have to same issue.

Barclays (on of our biggest banks) was founded on selling leg chains - so I read somewhere.

[anthonycea]

As long as slavery (low wages, no benefits, Mexican labor) is legal GTech would say he is all for it :o

[Design Agent]

As long as slavery (low wages, no benefits, Mexican labor) is legal GTech would say he is all for it :o

According to his previous comments I would have to agree with you.

[gworld]

So it is fine to sell porn, guns and dope as long as you can make a buck, damn GTech, maybe I should become a hit man because there is good money in it :o


Anthony,

These are respected type of businesses in comparison with greed of oil business.

So far it is over 150,000 people killed in IRAQ, so the oil companies can generate extra profit, how many people do you know that died from watching porn. :)

[Crazy_Rob]

Look at what Shell Oil did in/to Nigeria.

[anthonycea]

What did Shell Oil do Rob :confused:

PS: How many people died from Porn, I know John Holmes did :o :eek: :p

[Design Agent]

Crzy Rob looks like Eminem almost.
They turned nigeria into a wasteland..according to man prominent nigerians.

[Crazy_Rob]

A neighbor of our's 15 years ago died while watching porn.

------
Shell/ Niger Delta article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3796375.stm

[Design Agent]

I thought that was going to be a story about your neighbour.

[gworld]

What did Shell Oil do Rob :confused:

PS: How many people died from Porn, I know John Holmes did


John holmes didn't die as innocent bystander in order for porn companies to make more profit, plus with so much free sex he had, what a way to die. :D

[GTech]

So far it is over 150,000 people killed in IRAQ, so the oil companies can generate extra profit, how many people do you know that died from watching porn. :)

Do you have a source for that number? Also, what oil companies are generating extra profit and how? There are lots of uninformed experts parading numbers these days in their quest to portray outrage over Iraq. Oddly enough, most don't care about what saddamn did to his people or what terrorists are doing, or whether the Coalition is rebuilding infrastructure that was ignored for years while saddam and his hinchmen masacred over a million people and lived the life of luxuary. Go figure :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1610143,00.html

I often wonder why those that seem to hate Bush so much, never seem to have any outrage at the terrorists that have come into Iraq and are killing Iraqis. Makes ya wonder...

[anthonycea]

Yeah well the Sunni's and the Shiite's will fight forever over the oil money Gtech...

Bush and Cheney are out in a few years.....

Wonder who will last longer GTech :confused:

[gworld]

Do you have a source for that number? Also, what oil companies are generating extra profit and how? There are lots of uninformed experts parading numbers these days in their quest to portray outrage over Iraq.

Don't you read the posts? how is generating extra profit? uninformed experts? :confused:

My source was UNITED STATES ENERGI INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, you mean the goverment office is uninformed and you know more?

Here is the link to my original posting:

The biggest heist in history (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=16527&page=2&pp=10)

Here is the calculation part agian, so may be you read it:

According to energi information administration

"During 2003, the United States produced around 7.8 million barrels per day"

According to telegraph the price of oil before the talk of war could be described as follows:

"When he indicated on Wednesday that war in Iraq was all but inevitable, the oil price climbed 48 cents a barrel to $28.27, a third higher than at the beginning of the year. The $18 to $25 a barrel range is considered ideal."

If we consider that the production will be the same and take that the price would have been in the higher range of $25, and today price at $50 Then a simple math shows us the war is generating:

(50-25)*7.8 Mil=$195 million extra profit every day just in domestic production or $71,175,000,000 /year for oil companies.

even the energy department acknowledges this for 2004 report:

"Financial Performance

Twenty-four major U.S. energy companies reported overall net income (excluding unusual items) of $16.7 billion on revenues of $213 billion during the second quarter of 2004 (2Q04). This level of net income represented a 67% increase relative to the second quarter of 2003 (2Q03) (see EIA's "Financial News for Major Energy Companies "). Domestic upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $6.3 billion of net income, with domestic refining and marketing operations also earning $6.3 billion. Foreign upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $5.0 billion of net income, with foreign refining and marketing operations at $1.3 billion.

Independent oil and natural gas producers, oil field companies and refiner/marketers reported a sharp increase in net income (up 75%) during Q compared to Q (see EIA’s "Financial News for Independent Energy Companies"). This increase in net income was due primarily to large increases in the prices of natural gas and crude oil, and a rise in gross refining margins of 49% year-over-year. "

[GTech]

gworld, I was not very clear in my post. Do you have numbers to substantiate the 150,000 death toll claim? Because that number is incorrect which is why I posted the link below. I should have separated this sentence from the oil question because you seemed to skip right over the death toll number.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1610143,00.html

And on the oil question, I should have been clearer on it as well, because your outrage is over Iraq and you seem to be suggesting that we're getting rich off Iraqi oil. I'd like to know which companies.

[gworld]

gworld, I was not very clear in my post. Do you have numbers to substantiate the 150,000 death toll claim? Because that number is incorrect which is why I posted the link below. I should have separated this sentence from the oil question because you seemed to skip right over the death toll number.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1610143,00.html

And on the oil question, I should have been clearer on it as well, because your outrage is over Iraq and you seem to be suggesting that we're getting rich off Iraqi oil. I'd like to know which companies.

The death toll number is based on study done by researcher from John Hopkins university and it is published in Lancet the English medical journal. it is estimate of dead civilian in Iraq but I am not sure if you count dead Arabs as people and therefore, for you the number can be lower.

I didn't say anything about outrage over Iraq war and didn't say a word about IRAQ oil. I am discussing the facts as reported by United State government agency. I am not suggesting anything either, the report and a simple math shows that war generates an extra 70,000,000,000 dollar profit in domestic production for oil companies (industry). The report mentions 24 major oil companies, so it pretty well covers the whole industry.

Can the reason for war was as simple as to push the price of oil up and make it more expensive. If you remember the oil bust in state in 1980's, the domestic oil production was not very profitable with low price of oil and high cost of production in America.

[GTech]

The death toll number is based on study done by researcher from John Hopkins university and it is published in Lancet the English medical journal. it is estimate of dead civilian in Iraq but I am not sure if you count dead Arabs as people and therefore, for you the number can be lower.

Considering I highly advoctate the freedom of Iraqis, where others (such as yourself and Anthony) are disappointed in their freedom, that's not a fair comment. I'll go with the UN Reported number that isn't exaggerated beyond belief. I didn't expect you would have a source for it, but thought I would ask and give you the opportunity to back it up.

[Crazy_Rob]

I'll go with the UN Reported number that isn't exaggerated beyond belief.

Your sources are whatever is convenient and fits your beliefs. Last week the U.N. was the most evil, corrupt organization in the World.

BTW- your link is broken.

[GTech]

My sources disprove many "assumptions" made by the likes of "blame/hate America first" crowd. Which is precisely why you don't care for them.

The death toll has been assumed by many. There are some good resources for them here:

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/05/civilian_deaths.html

But those that prefer to blame America first, generally give Americans credit for the deaths caused by terrorists. After all, it's not the terrorists fault they are killing anything with a lung. They are just victims :rolleyes:

[gworld]

Considering I highly advoctate the freedom of Iraqis, where others (such as yourself and Anthony) are disappointed in their freedom, that's not a fair comment. I'll go with the UN Reported number that isn't exaggerated beyond belief. I didn't expect you would have a source for it, but thought I would ask and give you the opportunity to back it up.

It is funny that on one side government says that UN is a communist organization with crooks as leader and on the other side pro war people like you try to use it as source.

I told you that my estimate was form Lancet and you say that Lancet is not a source? :confused:

Lancet has been around since 1823, so I think it is a source, here you can learn about Lancet: Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/about)

The article was also published in Washington Post (you know the small newspaper published in USA), here is the link to the article:

Civilian Death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)

Stop using words like freedom, democracy,... as a cover and discuss the issue. I didn't say one word about the war and if it is freedom or occupation, what I was discussing was the motive behind the war and how it was profitable for oil companies.
Stick to subject and answer the question, don't jump all over the map. :)

[GTech]

It's not an accurate source, but one that anti-war people will grovel at. The toll they estimated was 100,000, not the 150,000 you inflated it to for dramatic purposes.

But how was that report made? The 100,000 deaths claimed by a Lancet study was based on telephone surveys of 808 Iraqi households in 11 provinces. The UN survey is based on surveys of 21,600 Iraqi households in all 18 provinces.

The Lancet number is for all excess deaths (which includes the increase in murder, accidents and disease) while the ILCS number is for deaths directly related to the war (which just includes deaths caused by the coalition and the insurgents).

In other words, for dramtic purposes, ALL deaths, whether by disease, accident, natural death, or other, is factored into that number. Which makes it an inaccurate number to blame deaths on Americans for. It also does not account for the deaths of Iraqis PREVENTED by US Troops that Saddam would otherwise committed against his people. 50,000 people a year is what saddam was knocking off.

I'll use freedom and democracy any time. Because I support freedom for ALL PEOPLE, everywhere.

[gworld]

We can discuss the numbers for ever without getting anywhere and it is not the point either.

So I ask you a question, what is the reasonable number of Americans and Arabs who should die so the oil companies can make their extra profit?

Doesn't look to you suspicious the government which is closely associated with oil industry and military complex goes to a war that directly benefits these companies?

Can 70,000,000,000 dollars profit per year be a strong motive for some people to push the America to war?

Please do not insult my intelligence with your speech about freedom and your love of democracy and answer the questions.

[GTech]

We can discuss the numbers for ever without getting anywhere and it is not the point either.

So I ask you a question, what is the reasonable number of Americans and Arabs who should die so the oil companies can make their extra profit?


I'm not the one that believes we are there for oil profit. Nor have I seen any valid investigative reporting by any news agency that lends credibility to that, or any republican or democrat that has put for any valid information to suggest this. Just because it's an assumption, doesn't mean it's true.


Doesn't look to you suspicious the government which is closely associated with oil industry and military complex goes to a war that directly benefits these companies?


Having former ties with any industry whose profits increase doesn't mean anything. Many presidents have connections with people from many industries. Just because someone has a friend or friends with an industry that does well, does not make them a partner in their business succeeding or failing.

If there was a smoking gun here, our news media here in the US would be the first to be all over it. But all there is, is mere speculation by the fringe left and those who are looking for something that isn't there. Our news media here has no ethics or no boundaries with which they will report anything to damage our credibility, even if it's not true (as we see just this past week with NewsWEAKs flub). So, when you can move out of the conspiracy theories and show a credible report that lends truth to something that is marginally conspiratorial, let me know. Let everyone know!


Can 70,000,000,000 dollars profit per year be a strong motive for some people to push the America to war?


I don't know. This is assuming your numbers and the information you are trying to use as justification is true. But from another perspective. Companies grow. Look at Google. One day they are worth what they have in their pockets, the next, they are worth billions. Is it a crime for a company to do well? When have oil companies NOT made a profit or increase in profits from year to year? I'm not concerned with what oil companies make. But if you find something more than wishful speculation that shows Bush/Cheney went to war for oil, do let me know. I suspect though, just like Anthony cannot, neither will you.


Please do not insult my intelligence with your speech about freedom and your love of democracy and answer the questions.

You flatter yourself with your own self-importance. My suggestion is to carry on a civil conversation and stop whining about how you *think* your intelligence is being insulted. After all, I'm not the one disappointed saddam isn't still in power and that Iraqis have freedom. That's your disappointment.

[gworld]

Obviously you know nothing about economy, finance or logic since you can not even make a difference between a company valuation such as Google and the real profit generated for the oil industry. My calculation were quite simple, an easy multiplication of numbers from energy department but it seems that is advanced math for you and it can not be trusted.

So I will argue this the way you do.

The sky is blue.

black hat SEO is bad.

Freedom is good.

nothing has got nothing to do with anything.

You are WRONG.

[GTech]

Yes, if only your magic forumula were accurate and accounted for profit/loss, acquisitions, and all the variables. If you think it's so accurate and so simple, submit it a a news source and see how many laugh back at you :D

But, just like your over-bloated 150,000 Iraqi dead statement (cushioned with your own 50,000 increase for dramatics), it's merely fabrication.

If economy, finance and logic mean fabricating your own numbers and padding them the way you did, then you are quite correct. I know nothing about it ;)

[Blogmaster]

the reasonable number of Americans and Arabs who should die so the oil companies can make their extra profit?


GWorld, this question is based on your assumption that this is the reason. In the court of law this would turn into "objection sustained".

I am not saying this is not one of the reasons or a contributing factor but calling it THE reason, no, I do not believe it is.

[gworld]

Yes, if only your magic forumula were accurate and accounted for profit/loss, acquisitions, and all the variables. If you think it's so accurate and so simple, submit it a a news source and see how many laugh back at you :D



"Thanks to crude prices that averaged $41 a barrel in New York last year, the world's ten biggest oil companies earned more than $100 billion in 2004, a windfall greater than the economic output of Malaysia. Together, their sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion for 2004, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."

New York Times

Obviously New York Times is not laughing, if you like to learn about these things, you have to stop reading only comics and read the finance and news section. :)

[noppid]

I want 15 Keys of ICE! :)

[anthonycea]

Funny, folks like GTech who bury their heads in the sand, keep saying that rich investors do not benefit from high oil prices and war dollars spent by the USA to buy weapons and provide food and housing for the troops (Halliburton = Dick Cheney), GTech, you have no way of justifying your propaganda, we all know it is fraud like every word out of Bush and Cheney's mouth. :p :o :p

[GTech]

"Thanks to crude prices that averaged $41 a barrel in New York last year, the world's ten biggest oil companies earned more than $100 billion in 2004, a windfall greater than the economic output of Malaysia. Together, their sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion for 2004, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."

New York Times

Obviously New York Times is not laughing, if you like to learn about these things, you have to stop reading only comics and read the finance and news section. :)

I'm not the one outraged at a company for making a profit. Nor am I disappointed saddam isn't still in power. These are your disappointments, for whatever reason.

Amazingly lacking from your disgust of oil riches, is your outrage over the OPEC cartels trillions of dollars in riches. Not a peep about all those countries saddam bought off with oil vouchers or those involved with the oil for food scandal. I guess oil outrage is conditional these days :rolleyes:

[Blogmaster]

Funny, folks like GTech who bury their heads in the sand, keep saying that rich investors do not benefit from high oil prices and war dollars spent by the USA to buy weapons and provide food and housing for the troops (Halliburton = Dick Cheney), GTech, you have no way of justifying your propaganda, we all know it is fraud like every word out of Bush and Cheney's mouth. :p :o :p
I think your head is in the sand when you ignore the huge payoffs that the UN representatives have received. Look at the French politicians. They go against us to distract from their own bs. Like Clinton starting the war in Eastern Europe to help us forget about Monica.

[GTech]

BTW gworld, when I do a search for the article you reference (without a source url) with: "which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."
the only result in Google shows this site:

http://prorev . com/2005/02/ worlds-top-ten-oil-cos-show-100.htm

Doing another search on :
"which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."
I come up with fourteen results. None of which are from the NYT as you suggest.

Perhaps it's not me, that's reading comic books?

[gworld]

BTW gworld, when I do a search for the article you reference (without a source url) with: "which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."
the only result in Google shows this site:

http://prorev . com/2005/02/ worlds-top-ten-oil-cos-show-100.htm

Doing another search on :
"which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."
I come up with fourteen results. None of which are from the NYT as you suggest.

Perhaps it's not me, that's reading comic books?

No I am sure that you only read the comic section, plus you don't know how to search in Google either. Here is the link that you want:

Top ten oil company (http://prorev.com/2005/02/worlds-top-ten-oil-cos-show-100.htm)

Before you start on another non sense speech about Saddam and UN, I will already accept that Saddam was bad, bad man and UN is bad too. Freedom is very good and sky is blue.

Do you have anything to say about this subject? :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Interesting, as my search yielded the same link as yours. Are we both lacking in search engine skills?

Let's summarize it and move on:

1) You are only outraged at US Oil companies for making money.
2) You are not concered about the OPEC cartel which sets those prices or their riches.
3) You are comfortable making up your own death toll numbers to justify your cause (presumably a "blame America first" cause).

Duly noted. I think I've got the picture! Now that I understand that, I can surely sleep better at night :D

[gworld]

Interesting, as my search yielded the same link as yours. Are we both lacking in search engine skills?

Let's summarize it and move on:

1) You are only outraged at US Oil companies for making money.
2) You are not concered about the OPEC cartel which sets those prices or their riches.
3) You are comfortable making up your own death toll numbers to justify your cause (presumably a "blame America first" cause).

Duly noted. I think I've got the picture! Now that I understand that, I can surely sleep better at night :D

If you found it then why did you say that you didn't?

You are avoiding the questions again, to put your mind at ease I can agree with you OPEC is bad, Russians are bad, French are bad, Chinese are bad and as I mentioned before Saddam is very very bad man :). I am not outraged about oil companies profit either because I do not believe in involving emotions in a discussion that should be based on facts, but all this got nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The question is to investigate the facts and try to find motives for the war and why it happened.

Since it has been proved by reports from US energy department and through different sources that war was very profitable for oil companies, do you accept this as a fact that war was profitable for oil companies or not?

Answer yes or no.

[GTech]

If you found it then why did you say that you didn't?


I said I didn't find anything from the NYT, which is where you suggest the article is from, without providing a source. A link to an obscure blog that supposedly posts comments from the NYT, is not the same as the source article from the NYT. But we can leave it at that, as it doesn't really matter anyway.



You are avoiding the questions again, to put your mind at ease I can agree with you OPEC is bad, Russians are bad, French are bad, Chinese are bad and as I mentioned before Saddam is very very bad man :). I am not outraged about oil companies profit either because I do not believe in involving emotions in a discussion that should be based on facts, but all this got nothing to do with the subject at hand.


What question[s] do you suggest I'm avoiding? I've taken quite a bit of time to respond to your outrage over US oil companies making a profit. You may not like the answers, but I'm certainly not avoiding anything. I suppose I could suggest the same about your silence over your math skills with 150,000 deaths. Maybe we can start talking about the country you are from and criticising it. I'm sure I could fabricate some outrages ;)

Standard operating procedure...when finally put on the spot, to break the final silence; saddam is bad, opec is bad, UN is bad, et al. Then right back to the greedy oil companies making a profit and it's outrageous. I can't think of a single reason why I'm not surprised :rolleyes:


The question is to investigate the facts and try to find motives for the war and why it happened.


Hate to break the news to you, but that's not a question at all. Your goal may be to investigate facts to uncover a motive (insert: conspiracy theory), but I've yet to see any valid data or report that suggests we are at war for oil. Do let me know though, when you find that report. If you uncover some smoking gun, be sure to send it to CBS and NewsWEAK first. No fact checking required there. I have every confidence in the mainstream media here in the US (I presume you are not in the US by some inconsistencies in your comments) will be the first to report anything damaging, whether true or false, with no regard to our country.

If you are in search of motives for war, perhaps you will be interested in the conditions layed out to saddam. Each a violation of UN Resolution(s) that saddam had a choice to comply with, after years of sactions (that he avoided to get around...courtesy of the oil for food program) and bought off UN votes with his oil vouchers:


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.


There you have it. Motive du jour! Which one do you think was the most difficult for saddam to consider? My guess is "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population..." Or, perhaps it was the WMD that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, et al, suggested saddam had and wanted to go to war with Iraq in 1998. Hmm, but if "Bush lied," didn't these prominent democrats lie first? Or were they moved to Syria? So many complexities, considering that Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to invasion and sent a nice little gift to Jordan in the form of 20 tons of WMD. Can't imagine where those pesky little WMDs mysteriously appeared from.


Since it has been proved by reports from US energy department and through different sources that war was very profitable for oil companies, do you accept this as a fact that war was profitable for oil companies or not?

Answer yes or no.

Perhaps the entire economy here is recovering because of the war? Probably not, as Anthony seems to suggest the world economy is crumbling and we all live in cardboard boxes. Oil companies make profits. That's the business they are in, like any business. Google makes profits, Johnson and Johnson makes profits. Many large companies make profits and those profits increase, year after year.

What you fail to provide with your "simple math formula" is whether these "supposed" profits are net or gross. You fail to mention how OPEC prices increase, which naturally means their gross revenues will be reported higher to offset the rising cost of oil. You fail to provide information such as research and development costs. The only thing you show is, that oil companies make a profit. Gross, net? If gross, then how is the rising cost of oil factored in, to offset the gross gains? Would not their gross profit naturally be higher, but offset with the cost of goods sold because of the rising cost of oil being imported? And if so, wouldn't it be prudent to look at net gains? What new research and development, equipment, etc offset those gross gains? There's lots of factors that are omitted from your "simple math formula" and data.

Your research is focused on one thing. They saw profit increases on a yearly basis. Shall I name other companies that see gains in profits from a year to year basis? And if I do, will it be the fault (or success) of the current US administration?

Your question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, because you have failed to produce anything more than an outrage that profit was earned, with no additional data to break the issue down. But even if you did, you are still left with a conspiracy theory. A potential motive, which has nothing more than wishful thinking behind it.

Have Oil companies profitted over the past few years? Sure. What company isn't in the business of making a profit? Oil companies intentionally raise prices every summer and realize HUGE profits. Do I like it? Nope, but I don't sit around and dwell on their profitability. I don't devise outrage and pretend to be victimized by the all-mighty oil company who is the evil of the world, when I pull up to the pump once a week to fill up my car with gasoline. I don't whine and moan about prices as they go up and *almost* reach the price of a gallon here, that it was in Europe back in 1985.

So again, I summarize; you have outrage over oil companies making a profit. We all have our callings in life, right? I think it's fare to say your calling is trying to find a way to prove the US is in Iraq for oil. Perhaps the main flaw with your quest to prove such conspiracy theory is the sheer lack of any proof by any credible source, coupled with the fact that when I fill up at the gas pump tomorrow on my way to Walmart to do some shopping, I'll wonder why the price of gas hasn't dropped to $.99 cents a gallon, because you suggest we're ravaging the oil fields in Iraq to steal their oil.

If we're there to steal oil, why am I not seeing $.99 cent gas at the pumps? Which US oil company is stealing that oil? I want to send them a letter of outrage because if we're getting all that free oil now, I demand lower gas prices :rolleyes:

[anthonycea]

Here is some help for you GTech, as I know you have real problems finding true facts.

http://vivisimo.com/search?v%3Asources=Web&query=Halliburton+Oil+fraud&x=56&y=14

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=KBR+overcharges+military

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Funny how GTech and TOOT avoid commenting on these links left in my prior post in this thread.

[gworld]

So again, I summarize; you have outrage over oil companies making a profit. We all have our callings in life, right? I think it's fare to say your calling is trying to find a way to prove the US is in Iraq for oil. Perhaps the main flaw with your quest to prove such conspiracy theory is the sheer lack of any proof by any credible source, coupled with the fact that when I fill up at the gas pump tomorrow on my way to Walmart to do some shopping, I'll wonder why the price of gas hasn't dropped to $.99 cents a gallon, because you suggest we're ravaging the oil fields in Iraq to steal their oil.

If we're there to steal oil, why am I not seeing $.99 cent gas at the pumps? Which US oil company is stealing that oil? I want to send them a letter of outrage because if we're getting all that free oil now, I demand lower gas prices :rolleyes:

Who is we? is it the people who are losing their jobs due to import from China or is it the soldiers who died in Iraq or oil company management and share holders who made billions.?

You assume that government represents a unified mass of people who are Americans but in reality any government Republican or Democrats, left or right represents the interest of special sections of the people.

Your assumption about cheap oil would have been correct, if the government represented the whole country and Iraq oil field would have belonged to the American people as a occupier of that country but it is not so.
The only thing that has happened that we have helped the American oil companies to take control of these fields from other companies and naturally it is to the best interest of these companies to sell the oil with highest price possible.

If everybody believed that we should only accept what ever it is in the newspapers, there was no use for this forum or discussion in general. That is the reason that I try to look at the facts and draw my own conclusion while it seems for you independent thinking is a dirty word.

[mizt]

Talking point 1 -
If we where in it for oil wouldn't we support the PLO instead of Israel? They not only have oil but would improve our image in the middle east.

Talking Point 2 -
You damn liberals prevent the republicans for years from drilling in Alaska. Does it make any sense to base a national economy on the likes of a porcurpine Carbiou? Maybe the gas prices would be alot cheaper if they would allow it?

Talking Point 3 -
Do you not remember the people in Baghdad when the tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein (or did your liberal newspaper forget to add that?) and how happy the people are? Would you like to live in a country where mass murder is common and men rape women without punishment? The responsibility of good is to stop evil?

Talking Point 4 -
What are you guys going to say if we have to take care of North Korea? Honestly I don't want them to be killing my family with a nuke? Would it be ok if they killed yours instead?

[anthonycea]

Oh yeah, Republicans are going to save the world, what a joke man, we are the most hated nation on the face of the earth, next the EU will turn against us as China and Russia are against us.

When will you Republicans learn that no one in the world wants to be ruled by narrow minded thieves and liars who only care about ripping off the population for every dime they have :confused:

As far as our support for so-called Israel, they are our 51st state and have bribed every leader in this nation and our bias toward it (this man made state) has caused these folks to conduct terror against the USA.

If we as a nation were fair they would have no problems with us.

[mizt]

Wow! You totally avoiding all my questions? Get to the point and stop spinning? Would you rather live under Saddam Hussein or George Bush? Would you rather live in a dictatorship (you wouldn't be talking to us now) or democracy?

[anthonycea]

Answer this, why did Bush Senior who is behind this current administration let Saddam live in 91 if he was such a great danger :confused:

Sounds to me like this nation and the world was ripped off by his leadership and we are still being robbed daily.

[gworld]

Talking point 1 -
If we where in it for oil wouldn't we support the PLO instead of Israel? They not only have oil but would improve our image in the middle east.

Talking Point 2 -
You damn liberals prevent the republicans for years from drilling in Alaska. Does it make any sense to base a national economy on the likes of a porcurpine Carbiou? Maybe the gas prices would be alot cheaper if they would allow it?

Talking Point 3 -
Do you not remember the people in Baghdad when the tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein (or did your liberal newspaper forget to add that?) and how happy the people are? Would you like to live in a country where mass murder is common and men rape women without punishment? The responsibility of good is to stop evil?

Talking Point 4 -
What are you guys going to say if we have to take care of North Korea? Honestly I don't want them to be killing my family with a nuke? Would it be ok if they killed yours instead?

Stupid point 1- PLO doesn't have a piece of dirt to stand on, let alone oil. There are strong lobby groups that support Israel in state and in the same time Israel will work as American police in the area.

Stupid point 2- The drilling in Alaska will not lower the price because with the cost structure in North America, most oil companies will go broke on domestic production if the price drops. Remember the oil bust and bankruptcies in Texas in mid 1980's.

Stupid Point 3- Do you remember the people in Chile, Iran,... who got rid off the dictators and American government who brought back the dictators such as Pinochet and Shah? Who is the friend of USA in that region, Saudi Arabia, here is the picture of democracy in that country

http://www.keralamonitor.com/gifs/beheading.jpg

Stupid point 4- If having a nuclear bomb is a reason to attack a country then all other countries have a reason to attack USA. How are the North Koreans going to attack your family? They have no long range missile delivery system to reach USA, or do you think they will post it with DHL?
What country has the highest military budget in the world and always trying to develop new weapon systems? will you be surprised if I say USA.

[MELLA]

I Haven't read the last 14 pages or so, because I am allergic to Anthony's posts at the moment..

But can anyone recap in 10 words or less how would one go about getting a cut of this 600 billion dollars?

[anthonycea]

Strange that they are our friends, but at the same time are in business with folks like Henry Kissinger (to rip off the American people and the world on oil = this started with Nixon and Kissinger in the first oil crisis in 1973 when Kissinger was Nixon's secretary of state) who had to resign from the 9/11 commission that Bush nominated him for (because of conflict of interest), because his firm, Kissinger & Associates represents the Saudi's in Washington.

PS: Mella, just join the Republican party and they might give you a job in Iraq driving an oil tanker for Halliburton :o

[gworld]

I Haven't read the last 14 pages or so, because I am allergic to Anthony's posts at the moment..

But can anyone recap in 10 words or less how would one go about getting a cut of this 600 billion dollars?

Look at the oil companies shares in states or BP, shell in Europe. Most of them already gone up but since this war is going to continue with many years forward, all these companies will have excellent profit development compared to tradition industries.
There are also many small partnership listed on Dow that buys you shares in certain fields and because they are small, the public has not notice it as much as big boys companies and better prices. these partnership usually have low P/E ratio and good dividends which will earn you excellent income (much better than anything bond or banks can offer) and in the same time you will enjoy the price increase in the shares.

[MELLA]

I am blonde. Post with over 10 words send me to beddy byes.


Ps; thanks for explaining <3

[gworld]

I am blonde. Post with over 10 words send me to beddy byes.


Ps; thanks for explaining <3

Buy oil company shares with high dividends. ;) (7 words)

[MELLA]

...but 10 including the words in brackets + the emo.

Thanks babe! :D

[GTech]

Wow! You totally avoiding all my questions? Get to the point and stop spinning? Would you rather live under Saddam Hussein or George Bush? Would you rather live in a dictatorship (you wouldn't be talking to us now) or democracy?

Anthony and gworld do not want the Iraqi people to have freedom. That's why they are so disappointed saddam isn't still in power. They prefer people be oppressed, rather than free. They whine and make up oil stories that don't exist. Strangely enough, they are not interested in real oil thieves like OPEC or the UN. Never an outrage for corrupt oil or terrorism. Somehow I don't imagine Anthony as having a "support our troops" magnet on the back of his car! His bumper sticker would read "Zarqawi is really a nice guy. He's just misunderstood."

If only we were stealing oil, I could have filled up today for $.99 cents! If we're going to get the blame for doing something we're not, least we could get, is the benefit of low oil prices :D

gworld, no follow up data to make an informed decision about oil profits? Gross/net gain figures? I didn't think so ;)

[anthonycea]

You mean support our women GTech :confused:

Bush sent 19,000 of them to the front lines and many of them are weekend warriors that signed up for the National Guard :eek:

Now laws are going through congress to keep women off the front lines, is this the type of policy that you Republicans support, sending poor young women to die :confused:

We all know Bush and Cheney could not care less about them......

Oh the price we pay for freedom for the Iraqi people (Oil Money).

[GTech]

You mean support our women GTech :confused:


No, I mean you would never support any of them, men or women. But that's not really news, is it?


Bush sent 19,000 of them to the front lines and many of them are weekend warriors that signed up for the National Guard :eek:

Now laws are going through congress to keep women off the front lines, is this the type of policy that you Republicans support, sending poor young women to die :confused:


Women have fought hard over the years to NOT be discriminated against in military positions, though they still serve in administrative and support positions for the most part. I'm not surprised that you would discriminate against them though.


We all know Bush and Cheney could not care less about them......


Don't you mean "We all know "Anthony" could not care less about them?" I don't know of anyone on the forum that puts down our men and women in the military more than you. If there is someone I'm missing, please let me know!


Oh the price we pay for freedom for the Iraqi people (Oil Money).

I wouldn't include "you" in that "we." I'm pretty sure nothing is worth fighting for in your book. What a shame we didn't get any of that UN oil money. At least then, you would be right about *something* ;)

[anthonycea]

Oh I completely support the military men and women as you fabricate your usual propaganda to justify sending them to their deaths for oil money though GTech.

You and Big Dick should really be ashamed of yourselves :o

PS: Wonder why no one is joining now GTech, maybe mothers are not falling for Bush lies anymore and will not let their kids join :confused:

[GTech]

Yea, right :rolleyes:

And you support freedom for Iraqis as well (well, at least the freedom of saddam to mass murder). It's all quite apparent from your posts.

[mizt]

Was the reason that the liberals got there butt kicked in the election any clue to you guys? You can't blame it on the media, there liberal, so blame the war on bush with your media. Hmm that still didn't work.

I'm sure Bush senior wanted Saddam out, but he didn't have enough time. After all Saddam did try to kill Bush senior.

Anthony can you explain the Oil-for-food program to me? Then with all your research etc... explain to everyone else how corrupt it was? I'd appericate that

[anthonycea]

Yea, right :rolleyes:

And you support freedom for Iraqis as well (well, at least the freedom of saddam to mass murder). It's all quite apparent from your posts.

If he was such a killer why did Bush Senior a former head of the CIA let him live during the first Gulf War GTech :confused:

History proves he is not so Intelligent :o

When did Bush actually win an election in this nation Mizt :confused:

[GTech]

I smell a "stolen election" post coming on :D

I know he won't talk about the oil for food program. That's one subject he avoids at all cost!

[GTech]

If he was such a killer why did Bush Senior a former head of the CIA let him live GTech during the first Gulf War, turns out he is not so Intelligent :o

As this has been covered numerous times in similar "bush stole my can of oil" posts, I can only conclude that you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Put simply, as has been many times before, it was not our goal to overthrow Saddam in the first gulf war. We were there to help kuwait against your hero.

[anthonycea]

I will talk about it, if Bush Senior and Big Dick would have taken him out in the first Gulf War there would have been no UN oil for food program, you can blame that on the Dick's also :o

[GTech]

Still having trouble with reading comprehension, I see :D

[anthonycea]

No GTech, I don't avoid giving answers as you (see post # 127) Republicans do :o

[GTech]

I'm glad you are changing your ways. So we can expect your next post to address Mitz question about the oil-for-food program?

Probably not, huh?

[anthonycea]

See post # 149 GTech, I don't avoid giving answers as you do :)

[gworld]

Why Republicans so interested in exporting democracy and freedom?

Because they have no use for it at home. :D

While the constipation is becoming a piece of junk at home, soldiers have to go to Iraq and die to give Iraq's people freedom. :confused:

[GTech]

I didn't think so, but it was worth a shot. Wonder what new oil outrage gworld is cooking up?

[GTech]

Why Republicans so interested in exporting democracy and freedom?

Here's 113 reasons out of approximately a million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

[gworld]

I didn't think so, but it was worth a shot. Wonder what new oil outrage gworld is cooking up?

I have explained for you 100 times that I am not outraged over oil price or war. For me the war has been very beneficial. I have made more money by investing in oil in the last couple of years that you probably make in your life time.

In fact you can say that while you are getting scr*wed at the pump, I am one the guys who is scr*wing you.

So why am I complaining? Because there are capitalist that will look at long term investment situation and those who are just interested in what they can get today.

The transfer of money from consumer section to oil companies while making some people rich, does not increase the production and produce any type of real wealth. The cost of military spending will result in increase taxation and the resource which is needed to keep this country competitive with rest of world, instead will be spend on the war. The country will go down the drain, the same way soviet collapsed under the cost of war in Afghanistan.

For me is important to have a good life and financial situation not only today but also for my children and that is the reason I am against this madness.

[GTech]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It sounds as though you are suggesting that you partake of the very thing that supposedly outrages you. If I had that kind of money, I certainly wouldn't be sitting around on a forum confirming my disappointment over oil outrage.

But since you've laid it on the line, I'll do the same. I've struggled at first about this war and whether it was the right thing to do. On one hand, we have democrats who in the late 1990s (including John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) who begged Clinton to go to war and overthrow saddam. The Clinton policy was regime change, no less than that of Bush. So we have both parties that want the same thing, UNTIL Bush decides to actually take action. We have Clinton, time and again, saying that the he supports the war in Iraq. If a former Democrat president sees the same thing a Republican president sees, then obviously there is something there.

Putting all that aside though, regardless of WMD, an al qaida connection, and all the rest, when I started hearing the reports of mass graves, acid baths, women and children being murdered, mass graves that were being uncovered and all the deaths and torture...the things we heard "rumors" of, but were suddenly being confirmed with overwhelming evidence...that's when I knew it was right, regardless of the initial intentions.

You said I may not count Arabs as "people." Nothing could be further from the truth. I may disapprove of Islam in the strongest manner, but these are people. People uday and his brother tortured beyond human imagination, people in masses that saddam and his regime murdered. Women, children...

I don't care what religion or what color your skin is or where you are from, NO ONE and NO PEOPLE in this world, deserve to live under those conditions.

So be it that there are those that gripe and complain about civilian deaths. I'm saddened by innocent lives being killed, but we're not in Iraq to kill Iraqis and we are not at war with them. We are fighting terrorists that have infiltrated their country from abroad, and killing Iraqis with no regard for their lives because they think it is their religious duty. Our men and women are fighting those battles today, so that they can live tomorrow.

And the likes of Anthony who degrade the freedoms of 60 percent of that country that freely chose to vote, despite warnings of death if they did, who proclaim we are just there for oil when our men and women are there FIGHTING these terrorists to prevent them from killing Iraqis, not to mention the brave Iraqi soldiers that are dying fighting these terrorists, is just wrong.

I share your same importance. A good life, a good financial situation and security for my children. If for whatever reason, MY country was EVER under the conditions the Iraqi people were under, I'd pray to God that some foriegn military would come in and change the situation.

If you guys are so concerned about Iraq (which I've yet to see in any of your posts), then why not ask real Iraqis, or those that sought asylum here in the US after being tortured and having family members killed, if they are happy he is gone? It's not an easy process, and terrorists coming in to kill Iraqis and our military have certainly not made it any easier, but ask THOSE that voted, if they don't want the VERY same thing you want...a good life and financial situation not only today but also for my children.

I bet they'll tell you, they want the same thing.

And there are plenty of other places we *could* be, taking care of those commiting genocide in the name of their religion. God knows, the United Nations sure won't do anything about it. The only thing they are go at doing, is nothing.

[anthonycea]

Forget the UN, they did not invade nor are they (most of the member nations) involved in this war, but Bush is sure asking for troops now GTech :o

[GTech]

And I have no doubt you hope those troops won't materialize, so that Iraqis can continue to suffer while other countries enjoy their oil voucher money they were bribed with. I'm sure nothing would make you happier :rolleyes:

[anthonycea]

The same thing will happen in Iraq that happened in other places where we withdrew, the NATO forces will replace our troops when the USA agrees to withdraw and share the rebuilding of Iraq with EU nations.

Thus this war just gives Russia and the EU all the power as it was before Trillions were stolen on war and oil by the Republicans.

Nothing but death and destruction was done and the US has become much weaker as a result.

[GTech]

I'm quite sure the Iraqi people are glad you are not on their side Anthony. At least we know what you stand behind and what you don't.

[anthonycea]

Tell us all how we are going to WIN this war GTech, Bush said that is was over in May of 2004, remember the victory celebration on the battle ship :confused:

Did that keep the Russians and China from sending weapons into the war zone :confused:

Too bad they did not think the war was over!

[GTech]

Anthony, I laid out everything I had to say on the previous page. And I think your responses tell the story about your position.

[gworld]

Gtech

It seems to me that you can not make a difference between election speech and the process behind a policy making decision.

Nobody gives a damn about what happens to people in Iraq, they are just the pawns in the game. If the government cared about freedom or torture, why don't we care about Palestinian who have been living in refugee camps since 50s. Why don't we care about what is happening in Africa? why do we contract torture and send people to other countries be tortured?

While I accept the flag waiving and democracy speeches are useful for advertisements during elections, it had got nothing to do with real discussion.

[anthonycea]

So there is no end in sight by your lack of response, right GTech :confused:

Like all good Republicans, Zell Miller who sold out his own party to support Bush at the Republican convention (he was bribed by Bush Senior) is now using ADSENSE in this thread to sell his book.

What a sorry bloke that man is.

[GTech]

Gtech

Nobody gives a damn about what happens to people in Iraq, they are just the pawns in the game. If the government cared about freedom or torture, why don't we care about Palestinian who have been living in refugee camps since 50s. Why don't we care about what is happening in Africa? why do we contract torture and send people to other countries be tortured?


I have no doubt that neither you, nor anthony care about the Iraqi people. I think you've both made that very clear. But just because the two of you don't care about them, doesn't mean others don't. Just because you two don't care if they are tortured, doesn't mean our troops are not helping build their infrastructure, protecting them from terrorists, building schools, etc. You may not care about these things, but I do.

Why don't we care about Africa? Good question. Why didn't we take action in Rwanda? Why are we (nor the UN) doing anything about the slaughters in Dufar? If your position on these places are the same as with Iraqi people, then I suspect you don't really care about them either. I do.

As for Palestinians, I suspect you and anthony will care about them. I don't support terrorists and those that intentionally target children in their quest for virgins. But if Arabs truly cared for them, why are they not doing anything for them? Isn't it oddly strange that Arab countries are so obcessed with a very narrow strip of land, that peace is not an option, only ridding Jews (the sons of apes and pigs...as they put it) is their only option? Sounds like religious tolerance to me :rolleyes: I wouldn't be surprised that you supported them though. After all, they are just defending themselves by killing innocent children. Don't you remember the Chrisitan uprising and riots around the world when the Palestinians desecrated the Bible and a Christian church? Probably not, because Christians and Jews didn't take to the streets in riots and killing people:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44324



While I accept the flag waiving and democracy speeches are useful for advertisements during elections, it had got nothing to do with real discussion.

It's not part of my discussion. Go back and re-read my comments on the previous page and let me know if you find any flag waiving. The flag waiving is right next to anthony's response that he cares about Iraqi people's freedom. In other words, it's not there.

[anthonycea]

But Bush Senior and Big Dick do, that is why they left Saddam in power and stretched this war out from 1991 15 years plus GTech :confused:

Is that how we really care for the people of Iraq?

We have been at war 15 years and we have got nothing done but destruction, damaged our military and got in debt up to our eyeballs all the while Halliburton and the Houston Oilmens Association have enriched themselves.

Did Saddam gas the Kurds after the first Gulf War GTech, whose fault was that????

[gworld]

You are still missing the point. I suppose you are not used to scientific discussion and that is the reason you do not know the steps in proving or disproving a theory.

We are not discussing who is a better person and what we care about or not. We are not discussing how bad UN or Russians are. We are not discussing Islam vs Christianity and we are not discussing what shade of blue the sky is.

The subject of discussion was to find the possible motives for government decision to go to war.

[anthonycea]

Again Gworld, this war started in 91 and has really never ended, we had a no fly zone for years before the second invasion.

[GTech]

The subject of discussion was to find the possible motives for government decision to go to war.

Then I suggest you stay on topic, if that is truly what you want. And when I do offer motives to the discussion, instead of skimming right over them like you did last time, offer some feedback.


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.


Add those motives to your fault finding investigation :D

[anthonycea]

What WMD GTech :confused:


I thought is was already proven that Bush and Blair lied about all that :o

Did we find them yet :confused:

[GTech]

Was it?

http://cshink.com/united_nations_inspectors.htm

Since you can't read the NYT's article without a subscription, you can read it here:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-5017.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/112546.shtml

Supposing the above didn't exist, and you could actually use the "but, but, but what about WMD?" line, does that mean that these prominent democrats lied first?


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


No outrage? I didn't think so ;)

I'm surprised you don't remember the last week punch the NYT tried to give to Bush about the looting of WMD from Iraq. A classic move by them, but it didn't stick. It was fun to watch the liberal come up from the "but, but, but what about WMD" punch lines to grovel at Bush because their was looting. Can't have it both ways!

[anthonycea]

Since he was such a great threat why did Bush Senior and Big Dick leave him in power in the first "so-called Victory" in the Gulf war in 1991 GTech :confused:

The Republicans will have a hard time explaining that, won't they GTech, in fact they will not even address it :o

[GTech]

Reading comprehension...see previous posts that have answered same question about twenty times in past two months. Then take ginseng!

No outrage over the Democrat lies? Oh wait, were they lies?

[anthonycea]

So to you we were victorious in the so-called first Gulf War that has now become a 15 year war that is going to go on for another 10 years or so and will have cost the American nation Trillions of dollars and many thousands of service men and womens lives.

What about those Iraqis that were destroyed by bad decisions by both Bush administrations GTech?

Great policy by the Bush administrations and their oil and war executive Dick Cheney to keep prices high and business strong. :o

Right GTech :confused:

[GTech]

Reading comprehension...see previous posts that have answered same question about twenty times in past two months. Then take ginseng!

No outrage over the Democrat lies? Oh wait, were they lies?

[anthonycea]

Your posts get better every time you post them GTech :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

[Blogmaster]

I wished I had time to read - btw I like your double-up on the smileys. Just like the 70s tv show's title: "Eight is enough" ;););););););):D

[isaiasd2003]

Money and power will make people do just about anything. And as long as gas prices are cheap here in the US, nobody is going to give a f*ck about what happens anywhere else in the world.
ut oh, I guess people are gonna freak when they see the results after the war, I'm into history, and those cheap prices on gas will be HISTORY! lol shazamalama gone! lol;) :D Fortunitly I'm working on a new form of energy. Ever looked at a car? Were driving around old old dinosaurs! We haven't really advanced the technology of what makes it do what it does for a long time. I wont get any further into it, so don't bother replying with criticism :p :rolleyes: .

[sachin410]

Hey BIG GUY, cheap gas is .27 cents a gallon, not $2.30 - $3.50 a gallon, some are predicting $5.00 here in the states and don't put it past Cheney to rig that.

1 american gallon = 3.785 litres.

Thats means you pay $2.3-$3.5 for 3.785 L
or 0.61-0.93 $ a litre.

In India we pay more than a 1 $ for each litre . Considering incomes in India, you are definitely getting gas cheap.:D .

[Shoemoney]

last may called.....