PDA

View Full Version : Violence Up, Not Down, In Iraq...McCain Owns War



Gayle in MD
01-15-2008, 01:40 PM
There is more than anecdotal evidence for the surge in violence in 2008. Statistics bear it out. There have been an average of 14 deaths per day from car bombs in Iraq in January, according to Iraq Body Count, besting the 2007 average of 8.5. And according to press reports, snipers have been killing an average of 38 Iraqis a day in the first half of January, less than the 56 per day in 2007 but substantially more than the 26 per day in 2006. Two weeks is too short a period from which to generalize, but it seems clear that the new year has not started out on a good foot, and it is already clear that December's much reduced casualty figures were a lull, not a trend.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/15/mccain/

This article provides links to the statistics.

Looks like after all the HOMO-hugging, kissing, dancing, hand holding, and sword slinging Bush did in Saudi Arabia, after the King got his cheap thrills, the Saudi's made it clear, in spite of bush's obvious begging pleas, no intention of lowering oil prices.

"Our interest is to keep oil supplies matching demand with minimum volatility in the oil market," Oil Minister Ali Naimi told reporters. "We will raise production when the market justifies it. This is our policy."

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Some negotiator, he goes over there and promises to sell them billions MORE in weapons, (it's a Republican thing, ya know) and they dance his little arse in circles, and then kick him up the road, ...
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bamadog
01-15-2008, 10:37 PM
Well Gayle, since you believe that the violence in Iraq is increasing and I believe it's decreasing, why don't we make a little wager.
Let's put up $1000 each. I say that US Military combat deaths in Iraq will be lower in 2008 than they were in 2007, you obviously believe they will be higher, as you continually state things are getting worse.
Why don't we let Deeman hold the money for the year?

What do you say Gayle?

Put your money where your mouth is.

BTW, this wager is open to any of your little chorus members as well.

nAz
01-15-2008, 11:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Well Gayle, since you believe that the violence in Iraq is increasing and I believe it's decreasing, why don't we make a little wager.
Let's put up $1000 each. I say that US Military combat deaths in Iraq will be lower in 2008 than they were in 2007, you obviously believe they will be higher, as you continually state things are getting worse.
Why don't we let Deeman hold the money for the year?

What do you say Gayle?

Put your money where your mouth is.

BTW, this wager is open to any of your little chorus members as well. <hr /></blockquote>

well I hope the toll will drop in 2008, i have lots of friends and two close family members there...

but i must say i find it disturbing to read that a wager is being offered involving the number of our troops dying over the rest of this year. sh!t next they will be wanting odds!

bamadog
01-15-2008, 11:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>

well I hope the toll will drop in 2008, i have lots of friends and two close family members there...

but i must say i find it disturbing to read that a wager is being offered involving the number of our troops dying over the rest of this year. sh!t next they will be wanting odds!
<hr /></blockquote>

I find it disturbing that the left is invested in our defeat in Iraq. I find it disturbing that the MSM is silent about progress there. I find it disturbing that the liberal Media will publish a hundred stories on Abu Ghraib for ever one story of our troops' heroism. I find it disturbing that the left constantly says they support our Troops while denigrating their mission. I find it disturbing that when the Commander of our forces in Iraq says we are making progress, the left calls him a liar and a traitor. I find it disturbing that the left gleefully talks about how violence in Iraq is up not down, but never the other way around. I find it disturbing that the Dem leadership proclaims the war is lost, and the surge a failure, while the evidence from men on the ground is just the opposite.

So let's put up or shut up. I say we are winning. And my money is on our boys.

nAz
01-16-2008, 12:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>

well I hope the toll will drop in 2008, i have lots of friends and two close family members there...

but i must say i find it disturbing to read that a wager is being offered involving the number of our troops dying over the rest of this year. sh!t next they will be wanting odds!
<hr /></blockquote>

"I find it disturbing that the left is invested in our defeat in Iraq."

that is just bull sh!t dude the left.. sorry the far left does not want that.

"I find it disturbing that the MSM is silent about progress there."

I agree they and Fox should just come clean and report the good and the bad.

"I find it disturbing that the liberal Media will publish a hundred stories on Abu Ghraib for ever one story of our troops' heroism."

thats probably because Abu Ghraib pretty much blew most of the credibility the US/military had in Iraq... what happen there made all the good our troops were building there go out the window with the people of Iraq.

"I find it disturbing that the left constantly says they support our Troops while denigrating their mission."

again that is BS... stop clumping what you feel the far left says with what the left says.

"I find it disturbing that when the Commander of our forces in Iraq says we are making progress, the left calls him a liar and a traitor. I find it disturbing that the left gleefully talks about how violence in Iraq is up not down, but never the other way around. I find it disturbing that the Dem leadership proclaims the war is lost, and the surge a failure, while the evidence from men on the ground is just the opposite."

well I know some people there and i know someone who meets regularly with troops coming home wounded and other wise, from what i understand
the troops are still wondering what happen to all the flowers that were supposed to be laid at their feet.
BTW im sick of how the right or far right in your case?? does not come down harder on the president and congress for not doing enough for the returning troops.

"So let's put up or shut up. I say we are winning. And my money is on our boys."


I say were not winning or loosing now, were just stuck... uh i believe it was someone in the left or right that said iraq would be a quagmire, think he was right?
god i hope they bring in the draft see how many chicken sh!t Americans run for the hills.

<hr /></blockquote>

BTW sorry for not separating my remarks... too lazy right now.

bamadog
01-16-2008, 12:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>

<hr /></blockquote>


"I find it disturbing that the liberal Media will publish a hundred stories on Abu Ghraib for ever one story of our troops' heroism."

thats probably because Abu Ghraib pretty much blew most of the credibility the US/military had in Iraq... what happen there made all the good our troops were building there go out the window with the people of Iraq.


<hr /></blockquote>


<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong! The people of Iraq thought the Media flap over Abu Ghraib was ridiculous. A
good friend of mine was in Iraq at the time, and told me several Iraqi soldiers asked him why the US media was making such a big deal over this. Saddam had hundreds of people tortured and murdered in Abu Ghraib. The MSM was doing it's damnedest to smear our troops, and paint them as villains. Same with Haditha.

If you can't see that the left was/is invested in our defeat in Iraq, then tell me, why is Harry Reid and other Dem leaders running around saying the war is lost? Where are all the stories about the heroism of our boys? Where are the stories about the savagery and barbarism of Al Qaeda? Where are all the stories about the good we've done over there? Where are all the feminist groups who should be lauding our President and our brave troops for liberating 13 million women in Afghanistan from a brutal sexist regime? Where are the stories in the MSM about the rape houses in Iraq? Where are the stories about the torture houses?
But there were hundreds of BS stories about Abu Ghraib!
Ridiculous!

So instead of just labelling my accusations "bs", why don't you cite some examples of the Dem leadership, the far left, or the liberal MSM demonstrating the will to win in Iraq?
Wouldn't that be a better way to debate?

wolfdancer
01-16-2008, 01:15 AM
I thought the same regarding a bet over the body count...our body count....and since 2007 had the highest number of U.S. casualties.....after pumping billions into the war.....I'd hope reduced deaths wouldn't be scored as a win????

LWW
01-16-2008, 04:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>This article provides links to the statistics.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Yes it does.

Did you review them?

I think not.

If you had you would realize you have been had ... again.

The stats the article links to shows that the gist of the article is to build a short term anomaly up as if it were the ongoing reality.

At best sweetheart, you have bought another unsupportable liberal myth.

Dawg, I'll take a slice of that wager if'n ya don't mind.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 08:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the same regarding a bet over the body count... <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Consider the source, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
....and since 2007 had the highest number of U.S. casualties.....after pumping billions into the war... <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">The right is unaware of that. They are forbidden, by their leaders, (or simply too lazy) to read books, or watch documentaries, heed warnings from partiots who resign over illegal behavior by Bush, Cheney, and their cabal of traitors, or allow reasonable, logical thinking to invade their empty heads. Their game is to use mythology, and lies, denial and slander, to weaken facts, and disuade patriotic dissenters, followed by illogical claims of superior intellect, and victory over those who sucessfully dispell their myths, and expose their ignorance.</font color>

Their cry, that Bush defeated the Democrats, will soon fall on deaf ears, since, unbeknownst to the sheep, the show down is just beginning. The appointment of a Special Prosecutor, investigating the illegal activities of this administration, from torture, signing statements, improper claims of executive priveledge, for which many REPUBLICAN LEGAL AUTHORITIES were either axed, or resigned from the Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel, the former Attorney General, Ashcroft, and his acting Attorney General, Comey, Certain CIA and State Department patriots, who also resigned, and the Administration's hidden documents, will expose the Bush administration for it's abuse of power, and unconsitutional bahvaior.

That these acts of treason against the Constitution of The United States Of America, will play out during the election campaign, with Republican supporters of George Bush, the Republican Candidates, composed of the son of a former lobbyist, the supporter of the war without end, and the radical right wing fundamentalist, at the lead, will put the Republican Party in precisely the arena of shame in which they belong.

As more evidence of Bush's failed economic policies, and our resulting weakened position on the global front, our degrading infrastructure, our suffering middle class, our medically neglected American Heroes, our accumulating debt to foreign enemies, and a deepening recession, emerge, our country will be free of the treasonist results of Republican Party Power, hopefully, long enough to re-build our nation, its spirit, its courage, it's infracture, it's Constitution and rule of law.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

We aint seen nothin' yet, my friend, the facade is crumbling around their deafened ears, and the sheep, don't even know it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

LWW
01-16-2008, 09:01 AM
I have a hard time deciding whether it is your ignorance or your arrogance that is most amusing.

LWW

eg8r
01-16-2008, 09:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like after all the HOMO-hugging, kissing, dancing, hand holding, and sword slinging Bush did in Saudi Arabia, after the King got his cheap thrills, the Saudi's made it clear, in spite of bush's obvious begging pleas, no intention of lowering oil prices.

"Our interest is to keep oil supplies matching demand with minimum volatility in the oil market," Oil Minister Ali Naimi told reporters. "We will raise production when the market justifies it. This is our policy."



Some negotiator, he goes over there and promises to sell them billions MORE in weapons, (it's a Republican thing, ya know) and they dance his little arse in circles, and then kick him up the road, ...
<hr /></blockquote> I might be missing something here, but how does this section have anything to do with violence being up in January?

eg8r

DickLeonard
01-16-2008, 09:23 AM
Naz the problem in Iraq is that We are now the Occupiers no longer the Liberators. Every so often the govt releases reports that another billion dollars worth of AK47s is missing. Nobody on the right is upset that just means more work/money for the Gun Lobby.

How are we going to win a war against an unknown enemy that we are supplying with weapons and ammo. That is not counting the 13 Billion in cold hard cash that we lost over there. My only hope for the money is that Cheney and Haliburton got the lost trailer and will divide it after the Incursion.

It is sad to say that all the great SNL ivers went to meet their Maker before he wanted them. We would have needed those Space Pampers to watch them reenact all the mistakes this Bumbling Administration committed.

The sad part is every mistake costs American lives. A cost tolerated by our brothers on the right.####

LWW
01-16-2008, 09:29 AM
Absolutely false.

We liberated Iraq, oversaw them writing a constitution and holding elections, and are in Iraq still at the request of the Iraqi govt fighting a counter insurgency operation.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 09:52 AM
Very true, Dick, since when Polled, Iraqis by seventy percent, want us out of there, a year ago, and more than that believe it is alright to kill American Troops.

Gross incompetence, ignorance of the tribal and religious factions among Iraqis, and exuberence on the part of the Administration to view every overcharge by their corporate cronies as successful free enterprise, through no bid contracts, and the revelations offered when Iraqis watched them allow their country to fall into complete chaos, their infracture and history descimated, with protection only for oil fields and structures, throwing a huge percentage of Iraqis into poverty, by exempting them from their previously held positions, in government, and in their military, has turned them against America, and againt one another, and they continue to fight one another for power.



No measurable progress has been achieved resulting from the surge. What few regions within Iraq have noted a reduction in violence, are now heating up again, as insurgents, still angry with our illegal occupation, resume their fight against the occupiers, and one another.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

DickLeonard
01-16-2008, 10:42 AM
LWW I think your wrong the United Nations has changed our status from a Regime changer to an Occupier. Our troops died installing a Govt of our choice not of the Iraqii people. We withheld money to the people who would have voted with an Iran faction and rigged an election favoring the regime we wanted. Hence the quaggmire we find ourselves in.

That information was in Cheney's book when he was the Seniors Bushes Defense Sec. Don't open Pandoras Box was the Warning then and it proved correct today. Just more of the bumbling of this Administration.

Where is Chris Farley when we need him. Sob,sob.####

bamadog
01-16-2008, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

No measurable progress has been achieved resulting from the surge. What few regions within Iraq have noted a reduction in violence, are now heating up again, as insurgents, still angry with our illegal occupation, resume their fight against the occupiers.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a constant drum beat of negativity from the left. When our troops watch or read the MSM all they hear is how they are losing an unwinable war. But the troops know that we are winning. They can see the progress all around them. The Dems and the MSM repeatedly ignore this progress because their only chance to win elections is to beat the drum that we are losing "Bush's war for oil".
They tried desperately to have us retreat from Iraq before the surge. Now that the surge is working, they call anyone who points this out a liar or a traitor.

Gayle, if you think that things are getting worse in Iraq, take my bet. When I win it, I will ask Deeman to donate the money to a Marine Corps Charity.

LWW
01-16-2008, 11:12 AM
And as evidence to support your conclusions what do have to offer?

What people assume has no relevance.

What can be verified does.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-16-2008, 11:46 AM
"I have a hard time deciding whether it is your ignorance or your arrogance that is most amusing."
You probably have a hard time deciding which shoe to tie first.
I had no problem though, deciding between ignorance and arrogance on your part...after reviewing the "facts" your facts, it looked like a tie !!!!

LWW
01-16-2008, 12:02 PM
Wolfie, I know you continue with this ... and if it elevates your self esteem please continue ... but if you believe that the opinion a puppet has of me matters to me ibn the least you are seriously in need of counseling by a more skilled provider of said services than I.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled delusion that are you are anything more than a mental midget desperately needing a pair of intellectual elevator shoes.

LWW

Deeman3
01-16-2008, 12:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>No measurable progress has been achieved resulting from the surge. What few regions within Iraq have noted a reduction in violence, are now heating up again, as insurgents, still angry with our illegal occupation, resume their fight against the occupiers, and one another.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

So, Gayle, should we surrender now or wait until a change in leadership in Washington to do so? </font color>

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 12:22 PM
LMAO. Reading right wing jibberish always reminds me of that scene in an old movie, with Walter Mathau, about infidelity, can't recall the name of it right now. Might be The Guide For The Married Man...Remember it? His wife walks in on him, in bed, with another women...

Wife: Oh my God! What are you doing? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Walter: Jumping up, reaching for pants: WHAT? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wife, pointing at woman: THAT! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Walter: What? /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Wife, incredulous: That woman! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Walter, seeing that the other woman is now dressed, and on her way out: What woman! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Making up the bed...

Wife: Stumbles around the room, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif No woman in sight, bed all made up, Walter now in full dress, adjusting his tie, on his way out, wife... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif wondering if anything at all actually occured.

Like I said long ago, they, the sheep, should be forced to prove they can follow the dots picture, on a children's paper restraurant menu, before they're allowed to vote! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

On the seldom occasions, when I read their posts, and they are seldom, very seldom, I wonder why it is they have no idea how completely irrelevant they truly are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle...hope I gave you a bit of a laugh.. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

LAMas
01-16-2008, 12:36 PM
It doesn't look like it.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

bamadog
01-16-2008, 12:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Walter: What? /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif


On the seldom occasions, when I read their posts, and they are seldom, very seldom, I wonder why it is they have no idea how completely irrelevant they truly are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


<hr /></blockquote>

FACTS are always inconvenient and irrelevant to the left. That is why they continually ignore them, and embrace their dogma instead. And that is why you, Gayle, refuse to back up your rants with facts. You simply don't have any. All you have is your tired, bumper-sticker dogma.

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 12:54 PM
Surrender? That's impossible. Our troops completed their mission nearly five years ago. don't you remember...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Saddam is dead. Iraqis are free to create their own government, provide themselves with a military, police force, and a peaceful society. If they have any trouble doing so, they can always use the thousands of missing AKA's, and billions of missing dollars, to rebuild their society, and infrastructure, with THEIR OIL.

The delay, is a result of Bush, refusing to leave until his and Cheney's oil deals are completed. Meanwhile, he's dancing, kissing, and holding hands with the Saudis, making a complete fool of himself, and our country, begging them not to throw our country the rest of the way into complete financial ruin, by continuing to hike up the prices on oil.

AH yes, the great decider, has now decided it's time to cowtow to his dear friends, the Saudis, you know, the country which REALLY supported the terrorists?

From the beginning of the surge, last September, eight months before September 19th, 746 AMerican soldiers were killed, about three times that number have been visably wounded, and about 10 times that many invisably wounded, including those who have suffered concusions that will debilitate them as long as they live. Another 80 or so billion dollars were wasted; Even worse, in
Financial Times we were told in terms of cost to the American society, would be on the order of one to two trillion dollars, and that was a figure that one of our foremost economists, Mr. Steiglets came up with. Now, another Nobel Prize winning economist, Laurance Klein, has stated that that figure is probebly very much short of the reality. The figures now being in the neighborhood of 6 trillion dollars.

Imagine what could have been done with that amount of money, with those resources, here, in terms of new schools, hospitals, health research, infrastructure, diplomatic humanitarian efforts in third world countries, in Asia, Africa, etc., we would totally have reaffirmed the honor of our previous stature in the world as a caring, intelligent, far sighted society.

Since last Christmas, all the expenditure have given us is an Iraq which is more vicious, more hostile to America, less willing to follow our lead, and more prone to support violent actions against us, now in Iraq, and surely in the future, all over the world.

If we continue, the 746 soldiers killed in Iraq in the eight months between December 07 to September 07 will be followed by many, many more, and the 80 or so billion wasted during that time, will be followed by atleast three times that amount, as predicted by our foremost economists,

We're likely to suffer further terrorist attacks around the world, and possibly here, and the continued loss of good will and respect it took us so many years to garner. You can be sure, Americans, by a great majority, will be disillusioned and angry, as their jobs continue to be outsourced, factories closed, wages flat and dropping, jobless rate increasing, foreclosures accumulating, along with our national debt.

The expert advice given to Congress this time last year was drowned out by others. Republicans, as they told us to be patient, to stay with the cause, avoid any precipitous actions, to devote more money, sanction another surge in the number of troops sent to Iraq.

To many, these were echoes of Vietnam. Yes, we were told the situation in Iraq was bad, but another surge, more money, would to the trick. Supposedly we've had successes, reason to hope, light at the end of the tunnel, our troops are still being killed, our circumstances here at home, have worsened, our "Facts" fed us by the administration, continue, upon scrutiny, by experts, to be questionable. Particularly regarding casualty numbers.

Progress touted by the administration, continues to be unvailed as just more unsettled arguing between Iraqai officials, who still cannot come to lasting agreements about their future, and division of power, and money.

Hundreds more American troops have died and been injured in Iraq, since last September, and billions more spent.

HOW MANY MORE AMERICAN TROOPS ARE YOU WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR THE IRAQIS, WHO WANT TO KILL US&lt;, DEEMAN? /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
01-16-2008, 02:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Surrender? That's impossible.


HOW MANY MORE AMERICAN TROOPS ARE YOU WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR THE IRAQIS, WHIO WANT TO KILL US&lt;, DEEMAN? /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> As few as we can to insure that Iran does not invade Iraq and take over turning Iraq into one more fundamentalist Islamic state. </font color>

Drop1
01-16-2008, 02:18 PM
I think US Military combat deaths,will be lower in 2008,because we will have less military personnel,in high risk areas,and less troops committed to a new surge,as the finishing touches on our oil from Iraq policy,is almost completed...but you knew that. In my opinion,it takes a real piece of sleaze to even propose such a wager.

SKennedy
01-16-2008, 02:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> LMAO.
Like I said long ago, they, the sheep, should be forced to prove they can follow the dots picture, on a children's paper restraurant menu, before they're allowed to vote! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

On the seldom occasions, when I read their posts, and they are seldom, very seldom, I wonder why it is they have no idea how completely irrelevant they truly are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Don't forget we are also too lazy to read...and of course if we did read, we wouldn't be able to comprehend anyway. To all who read and post here it should be quite plain how Gayle feels about those people who do not agree with her. We should not be allowed to vote as we are not as smart as her (but then again who is?), and she doesn't even read our posts because we are irrelevant. I sure wish I was smart enough to one day become so enlightened and tolerant!! If only.........

This post of hers has nothing to do with politics or a discussion of differing opinions. It is to bash those who do not agree with her. But she'll never see it that way. While I have disagreed with LWW's methods, etc., I will agree his question to Gayle regarding ignorance or arrogance was right on the money! Unless, of course, Gayle's post was only in humor as evidenced by her "grins" in which case I take all my comments back and ask that all disregard this post!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
01-16-2008, 02:48 PM
The stats the article links to doesn't even match what the article claims in the body of the article.

It doesn't matter. It's merely another left wing rant written solely for the consumption of people who want to believe the author's delusion.

The author knows that those who follow data will know the claims appear to be bogus on the surface and the links won't support the claims without serious imaginative distortion. That's OK because they aren't preaching to us.

OTOH they also know that their audience will buy the lie and never question how it was arrived at, and will in addition REFUSE to review the data after it's dubious nature is exposed.

The fact that they cannot see how ridiculous they appear is amazing, but alas they will rely on denial, hate, and inbred intellectualism ... which only allows the party line to be accepted ... as proof to themselves that they remain rellevant in any political discussion.

Partisans get NOTHING from the parties they would do a kamikaze mission for because they are owned already, body and soul.

The evidence surrounds them as the DNC agrees over and over to fund the war and agrees in private ... can't let the sheep know ... to waterboarding and worse.

Denial. No longer just a river in Egypt.


LWW
LWW

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 03:02 PM
I hear you...this from the article, the on-going update...on deaths in Iraq....

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/

bamadog
01-16-2008, 03:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> I think US Military combat deaths,will be lower in 2008,because we will have less military personnel,in high risk areas,and less troops committed to a new surge,as the finishing touches on our oil from Iraq policy,is almost completed...but you knew that. In my opinion,it takes a real piece of sleaze to even propose such a wager. <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, but the real sleazes are people like you and Gayle who continually carp about how we are losing "Bushes illegal war for oil" and post US Military death statistics as proof of that lie.
You don't have the intelligence to back up your conspiracy theories with facts, nor the nuts to back up your contentions about the deteriorating military situation by taking my wager.
You just want to flap your gums.
If you are right about us losing in Iraq, take my money and give it to a charity. If I am right about us winning, I'll contribute your money.
Let's see who's got the courage of their convictions.

LWW
01-16-2008, 03:48 PM
Down home we call it BHNC, or Big Hat No Cattle.

Up nawth I think they call it BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 03:49 PM
I suppose that means you are prepared to watch our youth die for another hundred years, like McCain?

No matter how long we stay, whatever is inevitable, will be. Sacrificing more life and treasure, will have no affect on the outcome. Just like Vietnam.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-16-2008, 03:52 PM
We will lose soldiers as long as we wish to remain a free nation.

There is nothing which has happened in Iraq which hasn't happened before.

Hyperbole gets nothing achieved, except keep the sheep believing.

LWW

bamadog
01-16-2008, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

No matter how long we stay, whatever is inevitable, will be. Sacrificing more life and treasure, will have no affect on the outcome. Just like Vietnam.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

This is exactly the kind of mindless defeatism that permeates, and animates, the Democratic party, in domestic as well as international issues. "We can't change the world, so why even try." This kind of impotence, and lack of resolve, will lead us to the sad situation Europe finds itself in.
Just another reason to keep the Dems out of power.

wolfdancer
01-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Maybe some of the other mud slingers here would like to join in on the "death pool" web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool)
Could even have a bonus prize on who come closest to the actual count.
I'd be hoping that he is right, that there are lower deaths then 2007...which was pretty grim for our guys.
In the end though...even one more death over there is one too many.
There's people here that are for the war, and some like myself oppose it....last thing I'd like to see though is wagering on the number of casualties....what would it prove?
As long as the war continues, we will lose American Soldiers. And this war seems to have no end in sight, despite the "surge". If the surge was such a great plan,
("let's hit them with more troops. Brilliant!!!") why was it not put into place sooner?
Not questioning the military genius of GWB...just wondering how f****k'ng long it took the brain trust to come up with this strategy?

bamadog
01-16-2008, 05:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Maybe some of the other mud slingers here would like to join in on the "death pool" web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool)
Could even have a bonus prize on who come closest to the actual count.
I'd be hoping that he is right, that there are lower deaths then 2007...which was pretty grim for our guys.
In the end though...even one more death over there is one too many.
There's people here that are for the war, and some like myself oppose it....last thing I'd like to see though is wagering on the number of casualties....what would it prove?
As long as the war continues, we will lose American Soldiers. And this war seems to have no end in sight, despite the "surge". If the surge was such a great plan,
("let's hit them with more troops. Brilliant!!!") why was it not put into place sooner?
Not questioning the military genius of GWB...just wondering how f****k'ng long it took the brain trust to come up with this strategy? <hr /></blockquote>

You're a fine one to be talking about "brain trust".
By your logic we should have just dropped the atom bomb on Japan in 1940, and saved all those lives.
Try to wrap your mind around this concept: war is fluid, it is a process. The battlefield is seldom foreseen because it evolves as a result of a myriad of actions and reactions.

bsmutz
01-16-2008, 05:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> We will lose soldiers as long as we wish to remain a free nation.
LWW <hr /></blockquote>
Maybe we could save some time and money and just kill them as soon as they enlist... Could you please explain just how our freedom was being threatened leading up to this war and how it has been continued to be threatened for the past 4 years? Or you could just apologize for making such an absurd statement.

Bobbyrx
01-16-2008, 06:31 PM
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

LWW
01-16-2008, 07:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> We will lose soldiers as long as we wish to remain a free nation.
LWW <hr /></blockquote>
Maybe we could save some time and money and just kill them as soon as they enlist... Could you please explain just how our freedom was being threatened leading up to this war and how it has been continued to be threatened for the past 4 years? Or you could just apologize for making such an absurd statement. <hr /></blockquote>
Are you really this out of touch?

OK, here's how it works.

We are the United States of America. Our survival depends on a supply of oil, as does the rest of the free world.

Most of the oil is in a very small region of the world that is unstable because of a completely buggered culture.

We are willing to pay goin market rates for this oil.

Saddam was a threat to that free flow of oil.

During his reign he attacked Israel, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in an effort to control the world's oil supply himself.

Along the way he sponsored terrorist attacks on US citizens and the citizens of our allies and killed over 1,000,000 of his own citizens.

He was a very bad man who should have been taken out long ago.

Denial of this on the part of the left is IMHO akin to denial of the holocaust.

LWW

Drop1
01-16-2008, 09:40 PM
You want a flash light?

LWW
01-17-2008, 04:49 AM
It wouldn't matter if he did because you surely have never been abvle to shine the light of truth on anything ... in fact you run from truth, that's why you get so much flak.

LWW

hondo
01-17-2008, 07:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> We will lose soldiers as long as we wish to remain a free nation.

There is nothing which has happened in Iraq which hasn't happened before.

Hyperbole gets nothing achieved, except keep the sheep believing.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

1. It hadn't happened since Nam. And I didn't think it would.
2. Don't bring up 9/11. The only thing 9/11 has to do with occupying Iraq is that it gave W the opportunity he was looking for.
3. It's almost as if some of you enjoy us being at war. I know that's probably unfair but it comes across that way.
4. I wonder how many of you 25 per centers have looked into the face of a dead 19 year old and thought, " well, he helped bring peace to Iraq" ?

LWW
01-17-2008, 08:58 AM
So, Desert Storm and Grenada and Haiti and Kosovo and Panama and other US involvement never actually happened?

LWW

Drop1
01-17-2008, 09:59 AM
Great response Low Wage,proving once again your low IQ,and no membership in Mensa. You call what you guys put out to be flak...you gotta be kidding. You cry like a stuck pig,and bellow like a castrated bull,but flak from you or the other defectives I have never seen,probably because you canīt find it on a search engine.

LWW
01-17-2008, 10:05 AM
The second part of your post was completely irrational and unintelligible ... so you are getting better.

As to the first part of your typical hate filled attack, anytime you want to match IQ's big boy my challenge is on the table.

Now, go sit with wolfie and whine abiout how I'm bragging and so mean to you.

LWW

Drop1
01-17-2008, 10:05 AM
Bamadog are you claiming you fought in a war,and have been in battle?

LWW
01-17-2008, 10:07 AM
What words did you have to warp to come up with that from his post?

BTW, I have no idea if he was or wasn't.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 11:25 AM
All such quotations are truly irrelevant. We have a virtual library, proving that the intelligence the congress was given by Bush and Cheney, was fixed by them, to justify their pre-conceived intention of invading Iraq, removing Saddam, and taking Oil from the Iraqis.

BTw, if you read The Pentagon Papers, you'll see that in spite of the fact that they were probably the most sophisticated publication of Foreign Intelligence Predictions ever published by our country, they were wrong, about everything.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 11:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Could you please explain just how our freedom was being threatened leading up to this war and how it has been continued to be threatened for the past 4 years? Or you could just apologize for making such an absurd statement.
<hr /></blockquote>

Bravo, but don't expect an answer. Since they reject the evidence, a library full of it, BTW, of how Bush and Cheney fixed the intelligence to their liking, to justify this war, such reasonable, pertinent questions as yours, cannot be addressed by those in our society who refuse to acknowledge the truth, the proven facts. If they could, it would reauire their acknowledging that thier votes in 2004, for this liar in the White House, helped to spill the blood of our troops for these past four plus years. That is something they will never take responsibility for doing, and something they will deny to their dying days. Hence, some of them still think we could have won in Vietnam, in spite of every foreign affairs expert who says otherwise. This is the biggest foreing affairs disaster in history, and so say the vast majority of historians, and statesmen, from the left and right. The far reaching costs we have suffered compliments of Bush, and Cheney, can never be justified.

One cannot debate with the sheep. Sheep are dumb, and they stink! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif I should probably be paying Bill Maher for his line, but it's the best decription I've heard of the Bush defenders, the nutty 28%, that is... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

LWW
01-17-2008, 11:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> All such quotations are truly irrelevant. We have a virtual library, proving that the intelligence the congress was given by Bush and Cheney, was fixed by them, to justify their pre-conceived intention of invading Iraq, removing Saddam, and taking Oil from the Iraqis.

BTw, if you read The Pentagon Papers, you'll see that in spite of the fact that they were probably the most sophisticated publication of Foreign Intelligence Predictions ever published by our country, they were wrong, about everything.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Could you link me to some of this library of evidence as well as where all of this Iraqi oil is going?

Afterwards, would you point me to where these claims are made in the PP sio I can verify this truly astounding data?

Or, do you want to admit that you just make up whatever fits your agenda knowing that your bots will buy it?


LWW

LWW
01-17-2008, 11:40 AM
Actually, I already answered ... it must have been the rationality of it that threw you off.

LWW

Bobbyrx
01-17-2008, 12:30 PM
"We 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
<font color="red">I don't think he was fixing intelligence prior to being in office </font color>

If we have stolen all this oil from Iraq, Bush wouldn't have to be sucking up to the Saudis like he's been doing the last few days

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 12:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If we have stolen all this oil from Iraq, Bush wouldn't have to be sucking up to the Saudis like he's been doing the last few days <hr /></blockquote>

We haven't stolen it yet. That was his intention, but he has mismanaged the war so badly, getting the oil at this time is impossible. The country is in dire cumstances. there is a civil war going on. Terrorists have infiltrated the country, to take advantage of a weak, government, that isn't even functioning.

As for your outdated statements, they do not reflcet the intelligence which was thrown out by the Bush administration. You can't go back and use statements that were made years before Bush, to justify what he did. Clinton, fought against the Republicans who spoke against what he did in Iraq. I've posted their statements, before, in quotes. did you ever read them? they were accusing Clinton of Wagging the dog.

Clinton destroyed what was left of SH's weapons, after the Gulf War. There was no sign of Sadda reinsstituting his WMD program. Inspectors were in Iraq, beginning to see that Saddma didn't have them. They were asking for more time to look. The Congress approved Bush using force, IF the inspectors believed that he had them. He led the Congress to believe that he would allow them to complete their search. Instead, he threw the inspectores out, gave the finger to the UN, and the Arabe countreis, which were mostly ALL against any invasion of Iraq, and did what he intended to do before he got into office, use whatever opportunity came up first to invade Iraq, and remove Saddam.

Now, we may end up with Iran taking over. do you think that is an improvment over Saddam? We had Saddam in a box. The sanctions had worked. The weapons were degraded. Inspectors had found proof that the infracture of the country was degraded, more degraded than anyone had imagined. Saddam was no immediate threat, period. Bush F-ed up big time!

I highly recommend that you read, House Of Bush, House Of Saud
If wishes were horses, George Bush could take a nice long ride. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

bsmutz
01-17-2008, 01:33 PM
"Are you really this out of touch?

OK, here's how it works.

We are the United States of America. Our survival depends on a supply of oil, as does the rest of the free world."

This has to be one of the dumbest postulations I have ever read in my entire life. Our survival has never depended on a supply of oil and hopefully never will. Using oil to run our infrastructure is a CHOICE that we have made and continue to make (mostly because of the huge profits that can be realized by making us dependent on it and keeping alternatives from competing). Yes, it might take a few years and some heartache to wean ourselves off of it (although I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't all that bad in reality).
LWW: "Oh, my God, OPEC has cut off our oil. Aaaarrrgghhh, we're all going to die!!!! Let's give up our country to the Iraqis and become their willing slaves to save ourselves!!!!"

Please, we survived just fine for millenia before oil was ever used as a fuel.
Again, I'll ask, how was our FREEDOM being threatened by Iraq leading up to and including the past four years of our war there? This time, please try to use your brain to come up with a real threat to our FREEDOM (or the apology/retraction will work, too).

LWW
01-17-2008, 01:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>Again, I'll ask, how was our FREEDOM being threatened by Iraq leading up to and including the past four years of our war there?<hr /></blockquote>
And you have been answered.

The fact that you lack the capacity to comprehend it is not my problem.

BTW, when you have to build a new universe to frame your point within ... you really never had one.

Now, you may go out side and continue howling B-B-B-B-BUT BOOOOSH!until your friends all show up.

LWW

eg8r
01-17-2008, 03:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As for your outdated statements, they do not reflcet the intelligence which was thrown out by the Bush administration. You can't go back and use statements that were made years before Bush, to justify what he did. <hr /></blockquote> This is bull. You did not like the quote and tried to talk it away saying Bush made up the intelligence. So Bobby did you one better and gave a small sample of quotes stating the same thing that were prior to W taking over. He does this to prove that the intel Congress was given is not any different than what they had been receiving for years under the Clinton administration. Now, since the quotes come prior to W's presidency you have no defense and nothing to say, so what do you do...you call them outdated. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif That is a riot.

Talk about sheep, does Clinton give you guys a few hours out each day to graze? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

LWW
01-17-2008, 03:41 PM
Once you embrace the philosophy of "FAKE BUT ACCURATE" ... which the left obviously has ... it's only a short leap in logic to the philosophy of "TRUE BUT FALSE" AKA doublethink as we were warned of in "1984".

LWW

bsmutz
01-17-2008, 04:08 PM
Ah, so you're saying that you can't answer the question then. Just what I suspected. Or perhaps you don't understand the question. Freedom is not tied to oil and I challenge you to prove that it is. Even if it was, between Canada (second highest oil reserves in the world) and the US, we have a couple of generations (at least) worth of reserves in the case that you present (without any proof) that Saddam may have been able to cut off the flow of oil from the Middle East. It seems to me in retrospect that he failed miserably when he took over Kuwait. I'll give you the fact that Saddam was a bad person and mistreated his own people and that probably the world is a better place with him out of the picture. But the fact still remains that he was in no way a threat to our FREEDOM that I can see. Iraqi people's freedom, yes; USA people's freedom, no.

Maybe you believe that we were in eminent danger of the Iraqi army taking over our country. Maybe you believe that if he cut off the oil, we would appoint him dictator to acknowledge his superior power. Whatever it is you believe, please enlighten us. If you have any facts to support your belief, please post those up, too.

I would expect that most any normal person, older than say 7 or 8 years old, would be able to comprehend that crude oil is a finite resource and that if mankind's (or some subset of mankind) survival is totally dependent on it then we would have to be collectively very short sighted. Are you honestly that naive? Aren't you the same person that posted a series of quotes by various entities throughout the years about our oil reserves and feeding the growing population, expressing your wonderment at where we would be if we had listened to them when they made those predictions? And then you bust out with the totally assinine conjecture that our SURVIVAL depends on the flow of oil and that is somehow tied to our FREEDOM.

If you actually decide to answer the original question this time (which I highly doubt you will given your past behavior when asked a simple question that you have no answer for), please try to be realistic about it and leave out your pet phrase that has no meaning for anyone other than yourself. You know, the b-b-b-b-but booooosh part.

I mean, come on, even if you thought the Mad Max movies were actually a docudrama, weren't there still some survivors? And didn't they mostly act freely?

hondo
01-17-2008, 05:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> So, Desert Storm and Grenada and Haiti and Kosovo and Panama and other US involvement never actually happened?

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

What was the difference between those and our situation in Iraq?
Think real hard. You can do it, buddy.

LWW
01-17-2008, 06:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Ah, so you're saying that you can't answer the question then. <hr /></blockquote>
No, but I freely admit that your tinfoil hat is tied down so hard it impairs your logic synapses.

You remind me of the Python episode where the moron is trying to convince you the parrot isn't really dead.

Saying "NO IT ISN'T!" when something clearly is doesn't make you convincing.

LWW

bsmutz
01-17-2008, 06:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
No, but I freely admit that your tinfoil hat is tied down so hard it impairs your logic synapses.

<font color="red"> Then why don't you answer? I don't have a tin foil hat and don't see where this has any relevance to the topic at hand. </font color>

You remind me of the Python episode where the moron is trying to convince you the parrot isn't really dead.

<font color="red"> This doesn't surprise me as I find it easy to believe that you identify with morons quite frequently. Try removing the mirrors in your house for awhile. </font color>

Saying "NO IT ISN'T!" when something clearly is doesn't make you convincing.

<font color="red">Neither does avoiding answering a question about a statement that you made. If it is so clear, then it should be easy for you to provide proof. Why is it that you can't? </font color>

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 07:34 PM
The quotes were made before inspectors were in the country, telling this administration that they were not finding any evidence of WMD's.

They were made before the the British Memo came out, also, which clearly sated that this administration was fixing intelligence to fit policy. That is only one example of what Bush et al did, decietfully, to justify this war, and to push us into an un-necessary war, by hype and cherry picking the intelligence, even inserting their own little cabal of Bushies, at the CIA, to cherry pick outdated, no longer true, statements, using a thug criminal's statements, CURVEBALL, who was a complete JOKE in the intelligence arena, as proof for thier lies.

Ed, Bush lied us into this war. WE all know that. It has been proven over and over. They knew there were no immediate threats, and no looming Mushroom Clouds, after they began to get information back from the inspecters, that's why they kicked them out, after lying to the representatives who gave them the power to use force, pretending that they would allow the inspectors to complete their search for proof of WMD's, and rushed us into Iraq.

If you still are unable to accept, and acknowledge that, then don't try to claim that you are not just another partisan BAH BAH BAH. the proof has been documented, over and over.

End of subject.

eg8r
01-17-2008, 10:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The quotes were made before inspectors were in the country <hr /></blockquote> There were many contradictory reports from the inspectors over the years. Also, because the inspectors were jerked around so much (and Saddam never followed the rules of the inspectors) and were never allowed to inspect when they were scheduled there is no telling what was hidden.

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, Bush lied us into this war. <hr /></blockquote> The war on terror, which is what Iraq is part of, was started by 9/11. Iraq is just one of the battles.

[ QUOTE ]
They knew there were no immediate threats <hr /></blockquote> The Germans were never an immeadiate threat and neither was Milosevic.

[ QUOTE ]
If you still are unable to accept, and acknowledge that, then don't try to claim that you are not just another partisan <hr /></blockquote> I never said I was not partisan, I enjoy balancing the board against your partisanship.

[ QUOTE ]
End of subject. <hr /></blockquote> If that was the end then you would quit posting it ad naseum on every thread. Just because you believe all that does not make it true.

eg8r

LWW
01-18-2008, 04:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
No, but I freely admit that your tinfoil hat is tied down so hard it impairs your logic synapses.

<font color="red"> Then why don't you answer? I don't have a tin foil hat and don't see where this has any relevance to the topic at hand. </font color>

You remind me of the Python episode where the moron is trying to convince you the parrot isn't really dead.

<font color="red"> This doesn't surprise me as I find it easy to believe that you identify with morons quite frequently. Try removing the mirrors in your house for awhile. </font color>

Saying "NO IT ISN'T!" when something clearly is doesn't make you convincing.

<font color="red">Neither does avoiding answering a question about a statement that you made. If it is so clear, then it should be easy for you to provide proof. Why is it that you can't? </font color>

LWW <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>
for the last time I answered your Q and the fact that you don't like the answer is none of my concern.

This is obviously a baiting tactic, and a lame one at that, by you ... so I'll just end with this: Your persistence with this is making you appear idiotic, are you sure you want to continue until you remove all doubt?

LWW

LWW
01-18-2008, 05:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>This has to be one of the dumbest postulations I have ever read in my entire life. Our survival has never depended on a supply of oil and hopefully never will. Using oil to run our infrastructure is a CHOICE that we have made and continue to make (mostly because of the huge profits that can be realized by making us dependent on it and keeping alternatives from competing).<hr /></blockquote>
Yes, that was pretty dumb on your part.

If you have a point explain to me the "CHOICE" we have if the oil tap is turned off tomorrow?

Also, if it depends on all of these huge profits then why didn't the situation change during the 90's when Exxon and many other oil companies were bleeding money?

Why doesn't Bush use his awesome power to open ANWR and offshore drilling? That would help the nation more than anything ... but a buck might be made so we can't have that.

I don't really expect answers because I already know you have none, but if you wish to blather about pie in the sky mindgames that let you hate without logic and speak without thinking ... well, don't let me stop you.

LWW

LWW
01-18-2008, 06:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>]Yes, it might take a few years and some heartache to wean ourselves off of it (although I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't all that bad in reality).
LWW: "Oh, my God, OPEC has cut off our oil. Aaaarrrgghhh, we're all going to die!!!! Let's give up our country to the Iraqis and become their willing slaves to save ourselves!!!!"<hr /></blockquote>
Yes, death is disheartening.

Now, again, please disclose this miracle energy source as I would like to invest a minimum of 6 figures in it.

Oh, I forgot, you don't have one ... but it sure sounds good to act like you do I guess.

LWW

LWW
01-18-2008, 06:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>]Please, we survived just fine for millenia before oil was ever used as a fuel.<hr /></blockquote>
Yes.

And we had a world where people from birth were raised as hunter-gatherers instead of trying to get the high score on Mario Brothers.

You my friend wouldn't survive the year if technology shut down.

Wake up son, this ain't a video game.

LWW

LWW
01-18-2008, 06:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>]Again, I'll ask, how was our FREEDOM being threatened by Iraq leading up to and including the past four years of our war there? This time, please try to use your brain to come up with a real threat to our FREEDOM (or the apology/retraction will work, too).<hr /></blockquote>
And again, I will point out that you are either blinded by ideology of just lack the cognitive skills to comprehend what you are proposing ... much less the answer ... and I'm starting to think it's a dead heat between which is the root of your issues.

Once again we have a member who believes bluster trumps investigation and fantasy trumps truth.

Sorry dude.

LWW

Bobbyrx
01-18-2008, 10:51 AM
"We haven't stolen it yet. That was his intention, but he has mismanaged the war so badly, getting the oil at this time is impossible."
<font color="red"> So if he had managed the war well, which I agree he has not, THEN he would have been able to steal the oil. So the purpose of the troop surge, made too late to steal the oil before he is out of office, must have been to make the country more stable so if a Republican wins the election, they could steal the oil...... </font color>

bsmutz
01-18-2008, 11:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
for the last time I answered your Q and the fact that you don't like the answer is none of my concern.

<hr /></blockquote>
No, you didn't answer the question. But we both knew you wouldn't because you can't.

LWW
01-18-2008, 11:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
for the last time I answered your Q and the fact that you don't like the answer is none of my concern.

<hr /></blockquote>
Actually I did, and we both know that rather than take it like an adult you will cackle as if you achieved something other than running.

Now, why are YOU ducking the points?

WHAT is this MIRACLE energy source you keep referring to?

Your silence is deafening my friend.

LWW
No, you didn't answer the question. But we both knew you wouldn't because you can't. <hr /></blockquote>

nAz
01-18-2008, 11:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> "We haven't stolen it yet. That was his intention, but he has mismanaged the war so badly, getting the oil at this time is impossible."
<font color="red"> So if he had managed the war well, which I agree he has not, THEN he would have been able to steal the oil. So the purpose of the troop surge, made too late to steal the oil before he is out of office, must have been to make the country more stable so if a Republican wins the election, they could steal the oil...... </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

hey bobby, you know just because we haven't actually gotten any oil out of there does not mean we wont one day... its win win for oil company's here.
ever since the war started oil price have gone through the roof and these companies and their industry in general have made unheard of amounts of profits, once Iraq stabilizes if it ever does i would think we will have a huge leg up over any other country that wants to get their hands on those proven reserves.
china will have to look elsewhere. I would think that the longer Iraq is in turmoil the higher the profits of oil companies would be here and abroad... ah but that just my conspiracy theory. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
01-18-2008, 11:39 AM
Read House Of Bush, House Of Saud and make up your own mind. Conncecting the dots, isn't that difficult, even without doing all the reading. We were told, this war was going to pay for itself, were we not? Cheney has been quoted, while he was CEO in the oil industry, "WE have to go where the oil is."

Rice, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld were all involved in the Oil Industry, and I suppose you're familiar with the huge retirement package given to Cheney by Halliburton? The secret meetings which Cheney went all the way to the supreme Court, to avoid revealing who was there, and what was agreed upon? the push to try to paint Iraq as a country which supported al Qaeda, when in fact, Saddam hated bin Laden, all the proof of the lies they told us to get us into Iraq, including that the OIL would pay for the war.

The mismanagement of the war, which they thought would be a piece of cake, and pay for itself, with their secret intentions of getting the contracts for their cronies, some of which have been signed, has put them in a trick bag,as Iraqis have stalled argueing over who gets the oil, and the violence has prohibited active oil production, hence, Bush is out begging the Saudis to lower the price of OIL, as America is now going down the drain, over debt, thanks George, Borrowed debt, thanks again George, corruption, thanks against George, price gouging by OIl, Pharmeceuticals, Credit Card Companies, all, thanks again George...I could go on, however, I won't. Do the research, or, just look at his poll numbers, Americans hate George Bush, and he will never be resurrected from the hatred people in this country have for him, because of what he has done to all of us.

Meanwhile, the country which is most likely to provide al Qaeda with Nukes, Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan, where we should have been for our future protection, instead of jerking off in Iraq, to line the pockets of Cheney, Rice and George Bush's cronies for seven years, over a non existant threat, must be dealt with, with a broken Army, outrageous debt, and economy showing numbers we haven't seen in twenty seven years, and a group of nuts, still defending the idiot in the White House.

America has the intellect, and the means and can do to free itself of oil dependence forever. Bush and Cheney, OILMEN in the White House, have blown our resources over something that we should have been replacing.

Jimmy Carter, was the ONLY president who tried to make Americans see where things would end up if we did not create a new Industrial Revolution, to free ourselves of foreign oil, and save our environment, instead, we ended up with Reagan, a good actor, (read BSer) and another friend of OIL, Big Business corporate fascists, and the top one and a half percent who get richer everytime a Republican gets his filthy ass into the White House, while the middle class pays for the lifestyles of the rich and famous, now, with the blood of their young.

Corruption, incompetence, and lies, are what this administration will be know for, forever.

Gayle in Md.

bsmutz
01-18-2008, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
If you have a point explain to me the "CHOICE" we have if the oil tap is turned off tomorrow?
<font color="red">I already pointed out the Canadian reserves and our own reserves that equal about 120 years at our present rate of consumption. If the price of oil gets too high, we have another hundred years of shale oil, the recovery of which is becoming less expensive with newer methods being developed. In the meantime, we are also making great progress in developing biofuels. There is also another new technology that is showing great promise. Apparently mixing aluminum with a small amount of galena gives off hydrogen and alumina, which can then be recycled and used again as aluminum. From what I read, products having their own on-board hydrogen generating plants should be on the market within a couple of years. Over in Japan they've found a way to run electic motors at more than twice the speed thought possible, resulting in a prototype car that will keep up with or beat anything currently in production, with the possible exception of the fastest and most expensive super cars. Battery technology is also moving forward in leaps and bounds. Wind and solar energy as well as ocean wave generated electricity are still relatively untapped resources.</font color>

Also, if it depends on all of these huge profits then why didn't the situation change during the 90's when Exxon and many other oil companies were bleeding money?

<font color="red">For reasons that I don't fully understand, our administration and the public at large seem to be reluctant to wean ourselves off of our oil dependency. Some obvious reasons are the lag time between a new technology being discovered and when it arrives on the market. The oil lobby is big in policy making. We, the consumers, are reluctant to change and apathetic about the potential consequences. </font color>

Why doesn't Bush use his awesome power to open ANWR and offshore drilling? That would help the nation more than anything ...

<font color="red"> There's no reason to do that right now, but it could certainly be done if necessary (to protect our FREEDOM, ha, ha, ha). Environmental concerns seem to be main sticking point, as I'm sure you already know. </font color>

I don't really expect answers because I already know you have none,
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Well, as you can plainly see here, you're wrong about that, too. Funny that I have to provide all the answers to these questions for you when all I really wanted in the first place is for you to answer ONE question, which you have now refused to do for days and numerous posts. </font color>

Gayle in MD
01-18-2008, 11:51 AM
No doubt, that's what they were aiming for, but it turned into total FUBAR.

By the time those Iraqis stop killing one another, we could have been free of much of our oil dependence altogether. Not much drilling going on over there in the middle of a civil war, and Iran, one of Maliki's best friends. Not to mention the other regional results, in the surrounding countries, which greatly affect our National Security, from having hit that bees nest with Bush's big stick.


Secret Meeting...

Cheney, "I can promise you that over the course of this administration, we'll have oil at six dollars a barrell before we leave."

Oilmen, "How?"

Cheney, "Just like we planned, Iraq, easy to get to, higher profits, along with gougeing the grunts here, just like always. We'll do it the same way Bush did it in Texas, you know, the stadium deal, we get rich, taxpayers foot the bill. SHHHH, mums the word." /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Gayle in Md.

bsmutz
01-18-2008, 11:52 AM
Sorry, I was typing my response to your second post while you were going off on me for my response to your first one. I'll not reply to 3 and 4 as it is now becoming obvious that you do not intend to ever answer the question that I asked. Here, I'll make it real easy for you:

The United States was and is about to lose its ability to govern itself as a free nation because it was PROVEN and/or HIGHLY SUSPECTED due to clear intelligence that Iraq was/is about to _______________________________________.

Just fill in the blank, buddy.

LWW
01-18-2008, 12:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
If you have a point explain to me the "CHOICE" we have if the oil tap is turned off tomorrow?
<font color="red">I already pointed out the Canadian reserves and our own reserves that equal about 120 years at our present rate of consumption.<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, this is what you said:
[ QUOTE ]
Our survival has never depended on a supply of oil and hopefully never will.<hr /></blockquote>
Now, Canadian, British, Mexican, and all other oil outside of our boundries does not BELONG to us.

Are you advocating that we invade Canada in response to an Arab multinational dictator who runs prices to $500/bbl?

Please.

ANWR?

I agree that this should be opened up but it's 20 years before we see a benny if we start today and the moonbats have effectively screwed us for 20+ years there.

Shale oil?

I agree that this needs developed and holds promise. OTOH it's also years down the road.

Now that your BDS has deluded yourself into thinking you have a solution, WHAT is this miracle energy source that we can use should the ME turn the tap off?

Oh, that's right, you didn't have a clue what you were talking about but hope top save face by fabricating a time machine teleporting the nation a generation into the future.

LWW

LWW
01-18-2008, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>There is also another new technology that is showing great promise. Apparently mixing aluminum with a small amount of galena gives off hydrogen and alumina, which can then be recycled and used again as aluminum. From what I read, products having their own on-board hydrogen generating plants should be on the market within a couple of years. Over in Japan they've found a way to run electic motors at more than twice the speed thought possible, resulting in a prototype car that will keep up with or beat anything currently in production, with the possible exception of the fastest and most expensive super cars. Battery technology is also moving forward in leaps and bounds. Wind and solar energy as well as ocean wave generated electricity are still relatively untapped resources.</font color>
More laboratory nonsense.

Some of this may become feasible, none of it is workable yet.

The average human without hunter gatherer skills doesn't make it a month in the wild.

Please, surely with the fate of humanity clinging on the decision you have more to offer me than "Wait 2-25 years for a uberelectric Japanese motor!"

Don't you?

LWW
Also, if it depends on all of these huge profits then why didn't the situation change during the 90's when Exxon and many other oil companies were bleeding money?

<font color="red">For reasons that I don't fully understand, our administration and the public at large seem to be reluctant to wean ourselves off of our oil dependency. Some obvious reasons are the lag time between a new technology being discovered and when it arrives on the market. The oil lobby is big in policy making. We, the consumers, are reluctant to change and apathetic about the potential consequences. </font color>

Why doesn't Bush use his awesome power to open ANWR and offshore drilling? That would help the nation more than anything ...

<font color="red"> There's no reason to do that right now, but it could certainly be done if necessary (to protect our FREEDOM, ha, ha, ha). Environmental concerns seem to be main sticking point, as I'm sure you already know. </font color>

I don't really expect answers because I already know you have none,
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Well, as you can plainly see here, you're wrong about that, too. Funny that I have to provide all the answers to these questions for you when all I really wanted in the first place is for you to answer ONE question, which you have now refused to do for days and numerous posts. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
01-18-2008, 01:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There were many contradictory reports from the inspectors over the years. Also, because the inspectors were jerked around so much (and Saddam never followed the rules of the inspectors) and were never allowed to inspect when they were scheduled there is no telling what was hidden.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong again. They were reporting that Saddam was giving them access, and that they were not finding anything. This is the reason why Hans Blix stated that the war in Iraq, was an illegl war. The Administration rushed into Iraq when they began to realize that they were not going to be able to build a case for the war that would be acceptable to the international community, nor to the Congress, or the AMerican People. Additionally, the administration had stated, in closed meetings with the Congress, that they would not go into Iraq until the searches were complete. Intelligence is a moot point, since the administration fixed the intelligence. The UN did not approve, now did most of the surrounding countries.

[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror, which is what Iraq is part of, was started by 9/11. Iraq is just one of the battles.

<hr /></blockquote>

The "War On Terror" is just a phrase created by this administration, designed to cloak anything they wanted to do under the umbrella of 9/11. Theeir plan was to invade Iraq before they ever got into the White House. A simple google of The Project Of The New American Century, prove that, along with the names on the letter, all members of the Bush Administration. Iraq, had no terrorists, until we drew them into Iraq. Even now, they only represent 20% of the violence. Iraqis are in a civil war. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
The Germans were never an immeadiate threat and neither was Milosevic.

<hr /></blockquote>

The war in Iraq, is not comparable to any other war. We weren't asked for help, and they weren't attacking any allies. They were no immediate threat, to anyone, at the time we invaded them. They were one of many many countries, which were, and are, killing and torturing thier citiznes. If not for their oil, we would never have invades them, in a war that is illegal. Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world. Thank YOu George Bush!

[ QUOTE ]
If you knew anything about foreign affairs, or this administration, I'd acknowledge it. You don't reasearch, and hence, your sttatements are never accurate. You said over and over that Valarie Plame was just a secretary, and thought that Richard Clarke, was a terrorist. Regardless of your insults, Ed, facts cannot be distorted. George Bush calls Iraq part of the world on Terror, but he leaves out that he created that circumstance. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq, until we drew them in there. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
If that was the end then you would quit posting it ad naseum on every thread. Just because you believe all that does not make it true.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Correct, just because I believe it is true, doesn't make it true, what makes it true, is that is is true,. and I can prove that it is true. While you, OTOH, cannot prove a single thing you write about it.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-18-2008, 01:14 PM
You seem to think that the more turmoil the better for the oil companies and Gayle seems to think that Bush has screwed it up so bad that HE can't even steal it now as planned. How about this possibility. Unfortunately our country is dependent on oil and I don't like it anymore than you do but that is how it is now. Any chance that Bush and Co saw Iraq as a chance to stabilize the Middle East by overthrowing a dictator, stabilizing the government, letting them SELL their own oil to any country willing to pay their price and reinvesting the profits in their own country. Other countries in the area seeing how well Iraq was doing might follow suit, increasing the availability and lowering the price of oil for all. Is this pie in the sky?....by all means. Does it have a chance to work?.....probably not, especially the way Bush has run the war. Has anything else worked over there?....not that I've seen. But I just don't believe the only reason he went over there was to STEAL the oil and GIVE it to the oil companies...

LWW
01-18-2008, 02:35 PM
That's because you are arguing on logic and they are arguing on emotion.

LWW

bsmutz
01-18-2008, 02:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> surely with the fate of humanity clinging on the decision
<hr /></blockquote>

Uh, dude, this is YOUR fantasy, not mine. Remember?

<font color="red"> The United States was and is about to lose its ability to govern itself as a free nation because it was PROVEN and/or HIGHLY SUSPECTED due to clear intelligence that Iraq was/is about to _______________________________________.

Just fill in the blank, buddy. </font color>

LWW
01-18-2008, 03:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> surely with the fate of humanity clinging on the decision
<hr /></blockquote>

Uh, dude, this is YOUR fantasy, not mine. Remember?

<font color="red"> The United States was and is about to lose its ability to govern itself as a free nation because it was PROVEN and/or HIGHLY SUSPECTED due to clear intelligence that Iraq was/is about to _______________________________________.

Just fill in the blank, buddy. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
No, it's the reality of the world in which we live.

You having fantasies about how it might work out if we merely had a bigger govt and some pixie dust is what has stopped this from being a conversation.

LWW

bsmutz
01-18-2008, 03:34 PM
<font color="red"> The United States was and is about to lose its ability to govern itself as a free nation because it was PROVEN and/or HIGHLY SUSPECTED due to clear intelligence that Iraq was/is about to _______________________________________.

Just fill in the blank, buddy. </font color>

Come on Long Winded Wienerhead, you can do it! As you always say, "The silence is deafening."

eg8r
01-18-2008, 03:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. They were reporting that Saddam was giving them access, and that they were not finding anything. <hr /></blockquote> I am not wrong and you are completely ignoring the facts if you don't think Saddam stood in their way many many times especially the times when he kicked them out of the country. You are only interested in "reading" the parts that suit your position.

[ QUOTE ]
The "War On Terror" is just a phrase created by this administration <hr /></blockquote> Well this is the Administration responsible for it so they get to pick the name. I don't really care if it does not suit your partisanship.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct, just because I believe it is true, doesn't make it true, what makes it true, is that is is true,. and I can prove that it is true. <hr /></blockquote> The only people on the board you have proven anything to are the sheep that follow you.

eg8r

LWW
01-19-2008, 04:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The only people on the board you have proven anything to are the sheep that follow you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
And they are getting to be fewer of them every day.

That's why the length and intensity and desperation of her posts as of late.

Truth and logic are taking root in the forum and starting to win the day ...

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-19-2008, 08:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not wrong and you are completely ignoring the facts if you don't think Saddam stood in their way many many times especially the times when he kicked them out of the country. You are only interested in "reading" the parts that suit your position.
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">what the hell does that have to do with what George Bush did in 2003? NOTHING. I just watched six men who had careers with the CIA, nearly all of them either former directors, or assistant directors, and every one of them stated that Bush has ruined our ability to get intelligence because he has demonstrated to the world that we're unreliable, that we torture people, that we out our secret agents, causing us to have severe difficulties gettin any disssenters in other countries to trust us, and come aboard to help us. Canada, this week, designated the United States with third world countries, that torture.

Saddam had no WMD's. this panel of men all told the same story about Iraq. They lied to Colin Powell, told him their info was iron clad. but they didn't tell him the source was a man, in Germeny that they had never even talked to. Before we invaded, the inspecters had the run of the country, and had visited over 600 known sights, NO WMD.

It as as pointless trying to post with you, as it is with those others from AZB. None of you know what the hell you're talking about. Anyone who had done the research, knows immediately, how thoroughly ignorant all of you are, regarding the proven facts, on this whole Iraq matter.


/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

You're all a waste of time, and worse, completely ignorant about things you should know about. No wonder this country is in such a mess.


</font color>

Gayle in MD
01-19-2008, 08:39 AM
You seem to think that the more turmoil the better for the oil companies and Gayle seems to think that Bush has screwed it up so bad that HE can't even steal it now as planned. <font color="blue">That's right, he can't, but the terrorists have been siphoning oil for four years, selling it, and buying IED's and other weapons, and milliles. WE're pouring money into Iraq, and they're laughing up their selves. The people with the government power have stonewalled us throughout the occupation. The Arab world, China, India, Russia, they're all licking their chops. They've got us right where they've all always wanted us. Our policies used to be humanitarian for the most part. Republican foreign policies have ruined our credibility all over the world, from Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush I and II. </font color> How about this possibility. Unfortunately our country is dependent on oil and I don't like it anymore than you do but that is how it is now. <font color="blue"> that's right. We could have been free of this mess by now had we continued on the path of freedom from Oil that Carter tried to put us on. REagan took the damned solar panels off the White House, why the hell do YOU think he did that? Overturned much of the legislation that was moving toward fuel economy. Why? </font color> Any chance that Bush and Co saw Iraq as a chance to stabilize the Middle East by overthrowing a dictator, stabilizing the government, letting them SELL their own oil to any country willing to pay their price and reinvesting the profits in their own country. <font color="blue">If that had been their only plan, why are they overthere trying to push through oil contracts, for American companies? They took on a policy that was dangerous, without proper planning, out of naive and irresponsible, arrogant and pompus expectations, refusing to listen to experts, lying to Americans, and the world, and then they turned it over to their incompetent cronies to prosecute. And no, they didn't give a damned about the Iraqis, they did it for the oil. People aver being slaughtered in Africa. Why didn't they go there? There are dictators all over the world. Pakistan HAD nukes, why didn't they go their? May I ask, have you ever read a single book about any of this?</font color> Other countries in the area seeing how well Iraq was doing might follow suit, increasing the availability and lowering the price of oil for all. Is this pie in the sky?....by all means. <font color="blue">The other countries did not want Bush to invade Iraq. What good relationships we had with other countries before the invasion, have been degraded by his policies. Saudi Arabia and China are laughing all the way to the bank. Bush is over there begging them to give us a break on the price of oil, now that he can see that the people who warned him against this fiasco were right, and we're going down the tubes due to his econimic policies, and between a rock and a hard place in Iraq, AND Afghanistan, he's over there begging, kissing Arabs, holding hands, he's a joke, and he's made our country weaker, and multiplied terrorists, and the number of people, and countries who hate America. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of our own 16 National Security Intelligence Agencies. </font color> Does it have a chance to work?.....probably not, especially the way Bush has run the war. <font color="blue">Exactly. </font color> Has anything else worked over there?....not that I've seen. <font color="blue">AGain, exactly, hence their stupidity in trumping up false reasons to hit that bees nest with a stick, in the first place, ignoring people who warned them, who had spent thirty and more years doing nothing but studying the Middle East, living there, and working with them. </font color> But I just don't believe the only reason he went over there was to STEAL the oil and GIVE it to the oil companies... <font color="blue">Well, he knew he couldn't steal ALL of it, but his intention was to put his own people in place over there. It didn't work out that way. Our mission, for the last thirty years, should have been energy independence, but the billionaires, and OIL power in this country, and the politicians who are in bed with them, have blocked any posibility of that happening. Those of us who were around and saw the gas line, and realized what would surely be our plight if we didn't address this problem decades ago, have watched it come to this. Who do you think put the money up for George Bush's little oil failure in Texas? Saudi Arabia. </font color>

eg8r
01-20-2008, 10:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
what the hell does that have to do with what George Bush did in 2003? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you crack me up.

eg8r

bamadog
01-20-2008, 10:14 PM
Name the six CIA men. Or is it a secret?