PDA

View Full Version : It should be pretty simole



Qtec
07-28-2008, 06:41 PM
............Iraq was no iminent threat. They had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Why did GW invade Iraq.
Why did he attack a country that had never harmed the US"?



The truthful speech that GW should have given,

The POTUS,
"we have learned that Iraq possibly tried to import Yellowcake from Niger - 4 years ago.
- and we know that they were rejected- if that request ever happened.
Top WMD specialist[ just like VP] says, "who gives a $hit! Iraq can import a zillion tons of Yellowcake but it dopn't mean $hit./ They can,t do anything with irt. Efectively, if it happened, the Iraqis would be importing the bullet when they didn't have a gun or means to produce the bullet

Q.....lets hear some argument, not just your inane opinion,.

eg8r
07-29-2008, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">............Iraq was no iminent threat. They had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Why did GW invade Iraq.
Why did he attack a country that had never harmed the US"?</div></div>Instead of continuing to make new posts about the same subject, why don't you just read through the history?

eg8r

mike60
07-29-2008, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">............Iraq was no iminent threat. They had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Why did GW invade Iraq.
Why did he attack a country that had never harmed the US"?</div></div>Instead of continuing to make new posts about the same subject, why don't you just read through the history?

eg8r </div></div>

eg8r, Please post a source i am intrested.

mike

MAC
07-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Who cares if they were a threat or not we got rid of a evil tyrant and did the entire world some good, why cant anyone see that.

mike60
07-29-2008, 08:00 PM
MAC, That's not enough of a reason to lose over 4000 troops, a trillion dollar debt. Iraq was better under Saddam. We are not the cops for the world.
I'm glad Saddam is gone but it wasn't worth te cost.


mike

eg8r
07-30-2008, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r, Please post a source i am intrested.</div></div>Why should I post a source, does your browser not allow you to view the history on this forum?

eg8r

eg8r
07-30-2008, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are not the cops for the world.
</div></div>The only people who believe this are Americans. I wish it were true, but it simply is not the case. If you remember, Milosevic never attacked the US either.

eg8r

Qtec
07-30-2008, 02:53 PM
Did N Vietnam attack the US?
Did Saddam?
Noriega?
Castro?
Afghanistan?
etc
etc
etc

Why did you support the Iraq invasion?

This should be interesting - [if eg8r actually dares to respond. ]

Q

Bobbyrx
07-30-2008, 03:21 PM
I see you left out Germany.....

Deeman3
07-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Q,

Of course, Germany didn't attack the U.S. back in the 40's either. Of course, they didn't technically attack the Netherlands as well, maybe just occupied or moved in for a while. However, I did not hear widespread reports of the Dutch bring that fact up when the U.S. troops crossed from Belgium into Holland. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I backed the invasion of Iraq, right or wrong because I believed, as GWB said he did, that they possessed weapons of mass destruction, would consilidate the terrorists in less locations and keep them occupied for a time and would get Saddam out of the weapons hiding business. You can argue I was wrong on some of all those points. Aside from Japan and possibly the Spanish American War, I think most of them were not cases of us being directly attacked. MOst ended up being worthy fights in the end although many would have argued that at the time.

Maybe it is time we withdraw participation in any war where we are not attacked, I really have to consider that over time. I do wish we would withdraw all those troops occupying Western Europe, North Korea, Japan and other areas. It is about time the rest of the world take some responsibility for their own protection. However, if you are speaking Arabic or Chinese in 20 years don't some crying to the U.S. we will be busy drilling for oil.

MAC
07-30-2008, 03:30 PM
Im glad the world is not full of people that would rather sit around on their asses watching American Idol thinking everything is just hunky doory. If your country was being ran by someone like Saddam wouldnt you want someone to come to your aid and help you out of a bad situation? Put your self in those peoples shoes then tell me we didnt do the right thing. It just so happens the U.S. has enough morals and the ability to step in and do the right thing and we did, whats wrong with helping people??

I would be willing to bet that anyone on here that is against the war now was all for it after 9/11/. Its just that now its costing more money than we thought and gas is sky high you all have flip flopped like most lefties do in these situations. So whith that being said yes it is worth the cost in my opinion, anyone signing up in the military knows what the risks are. Hell most of my friends that are in were looking forward to some action.

sack316
07-30-2008, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is about time the rest of the world take some responsibility for their own protection. </div></div>

tap tap tap deeman. The more that I learn, the more that I see, the more I realize that the world seems to want us when they need it... then immediately go back to hating us after we do our (their) job. I sometimes think we should just isolate for a few years, and see what happens then. You know, like the rock band squabble thing, when one member says "fine, we'll see how you do without me!" After a failed solo career for said member, the the former bands years of stuggle and descent into obscurity we can all unite again one day to be televised on VH-1... or Al Jazeera.

Sack

mike60
07-31-2008, 05:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Im glad the world is not full of people that would rather sit around on their asses watching American Idol thinking everything is just hunky doory. If your country was being ran by someone like Saddam wouldnt you want someone to come to your aid and help you out of a bad situation? Put your self in those peoples shoes then tell me we didnt do the right thing. It just so happens the U.S. has enough morals and the ability to step in and do the right thing and we did, whats wrong with helping people??

I would be willing to bet that anyone on here that is against the war now was all for it after 9/11/. Its just that now its costing more money than we thought and gas is sky high you all have flip flopped like most lefties do in these situations. So whith that being said yes it is worth the cost in my opinion, anyone signing up in the military knows what the risks are. Hell most of my friends that are in were looking forward to some action. </div></div>

This is a prime example of youthful inexperience and why youth is wasted on the young. First, 90% of the Iraqi population have said it was better under Saddam, the country had water and electric power and hospitals and the telephones worked, but now of course everyone has a cell phone, oh yeah, and the place wasn't blown up every ten minutes. How many hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have to die for your friends to have a little action? You have the nerve to say it's been the right thing to do
without having the advantage of your family blown to bits and death squads killing people for something their great grandfather did. I feel sorry for anyone in combat,
civilian or NavySeal. It's inhuman to desire a free fire zone when you're there to prevent such things from being needed. I was Regular Army enlisted 1962-65, you figure it out. If it takes morals to start a war we're in deep shit. Not to stop a war is the immoral thing here my young troop. That would be a big help for those sad people.

michael

MAC
08-01-2008, 10:18 AM
If I was in there situation I would be glad someone stepped in and took action. Simple as that, I would like you to post something that shows 90% would rather have Saddam back. Then again Im just youth wasted on youth or whatever your trying to say what do I know?Also I know you said 90% of the poplulation but maybe it was more like 90% that were asked possibly?? If thats the case these people tend to be some what afraid of voicing what they really think for fear of being targeted by terrorists.

eg8r
08-01-2008, 10:32 AM
I support the Iraq invasion because Iraq has not held up to their end of the bargain for the previous decade. I also support it because Saddam needed to be removed.

eg8r

mike60
08-02-2008, 01:16 AM
My stock answer..............
Since you asked.....
Somewhere there is a world where this is illegal and it should be............

George Bush was appointed Resident by the Supreme Court Conservative majority when the fixed electronic voting machines couldn't seal the deal even with the 90,000 voters thrown off the registered to vote list in Florida and the staff of several Republican congress critters rioted in the offices of the Dade county election commission to stop a legal recount to ensure Bush an unearned term as Resident. The wonder of it all.
How a few well placed felons may disrupt an election and then use the justices to strip the state of the right to determine their own count when
it is obvious the chosen resident is losing. That numbers of citizens are so stupid that they defend the very group that disenfranchise their votes. You crackers and other fellow travelers are just being spun for the profit of a group so beyond your ability to comprehend that they've
got you volunteering your rights away to catch boogymen that are smarter than you and get away with crime and theft while you fools hold the door for them. You rant about the two important secret investigations that were actually well known by the bad guys that did so well when in fact both programs were already useless. Your little band of complainers, and you are few in number. Should just join up and go fight. Or drive a truck for the contractors until you get your ass handed to you by an EID or vote for McCain for a lot more WAR PROFITEERING by your
corporate money vacuum. You really are beneath contempt for just believing what is laughably called conservative. as if........


miguel
___

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 07:26 PM
Because in this country we have a Constitution which says that there are conditions which must be met before we launch a war against another country. There are safe guards which were put into place by the men who wrote that constitution, and there are good reasons why those safe guards must not be set assunder. The very bad results, should speak to you, and prove to you, how very wrong things ultimately have gone, because those safe guards were put assunder by the lies of George Bush. Saddam, was no innediate threat to the United States Of America. We are Americans, not Iraqis.

George Bush knowingly lied to the American people, the Congress, and the world, about the reasons for his rush to war. One of the greatest tragedies beyond the loss of lives, and the loss of the Iraqi artifacts and historical treasures, is that George Bush, so far, has gotten away with breaking our laws, over and over again, and has caused the deaths and destruction of untold numbers of lives, over four thousand of them Americans, and that the man who did attack us here in America, still goes free, and still builds his organization and plots his future attacks. WHY can't YOU see that?

Why can't YOU, and OTHERS LIKE YOU, see that we cannot invade and launch wars in every country which has fallen into the control of evil dictators, but we surely must not, through our own lack of principles, courage, and dilligence, become one of them because we allowed a President of the United States Of America, to lie our country into a war, and send our youth to die on those lies.

There is nothing blase' about war. There can be no lies to the American Public, created to assuage, through war, the grudges of just 0ne Priveledged Son, who choses to launch a war which sheds the blood of so many other sons of fathers, equally loved, and equally adored, on faulty reasoning, lies, and deceit.

George Bush had a grudge against Saddam because Saddam wanted to assassinate his father, George HW Bush. No one can blame him for that grudge, but that grudge does not give him the right to send so many other sons to their deaths to assuage his wrath against Saddam. Moreover, he, Goerg Bush, MUST be blamed for shedding the blood of so many in his selfish crusade against Saddam, while he himself has resided pleasantly, in the White House, the House of the People to whom he lied.

No President should send a country to war, unless it is a last resort, and unless the homeland is threatened, informed honestly of that theat, and is fully aware of that need. Those are the lessons we learned in the wars which have passed. Those were the reasons for all the promises which we made. George Bush broke those promises, and he has nearly broken our country through his poor judgement, colossal ego, and idiotic reasoning.

Worst of all, the real and present threats, (which George Bush chose to ignore for his personal favorite, control of the oil rich Iraq, and the many billions to be had by his cronies) have now grown, as our armed forces have been weakened, and our honor and credibility damaged. He has proven himself, more damaging to the United States Of America, it's constitution, its laws, and its honor, than the man who attacked us on 9/11, and he has killed many more innocent American people in the long run. Why can't YOU see THAT?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 07:38 PM
Since you are and were not in they're situation, you cannot and do not speak for them. They can speak for themselves, and they have spoken. The stitistics show that they want us out of their country, and that they say they are worse off now than they were with Saddam. These statistics were provided through door to door inquiries, as were those statistics which suggest that the number of Iraqis which have been killed through George Bush's War are six times the numbers which George Bush's puppets say were killed. Iraqis even in Baghdad, still do not have electricity and water for the greater part of the day and evening. There are also millions of Iraqis who are homeless, and are refugees.

You, sit in your safe home, with your electric buzzing, and your air conditioning cooling your backside, and have the audacity to speak for the Iraqi people, who did not ask for this invasion and occupation by our country, and then you justify it by ignoring the obvious results of a people who have been devastated by an illegal, un-necessary invasion by George Bush, and his neocon authoritarian cabal of dictators who seek the approval of the powerful Israeli Lobby which has pushed for this un-necessary, illegal immoral war for their own selfish purposes, and against the best interests of America?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 07:47 PM
Neither of those reasons are legal cause for invading another country. Neither are within the frame work of our Constitution, and neither are within the framework of our international agreements.

This was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, for regime change, also an illegal goal according to our international agreements, and our Constitution.

The removal of Saddam, removed the barrier to Iran. The removal of Saddam, removed a barrier to al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam has had nothing to do with getting the man who attqacked us on 9/11, who still goes free, plotting, and building his organization throughout the world.

The removal of Saddam, has caused over thrity thousand unjuries,
over four thousand one hundred American deaths, over three thousand dollars of debt, including estimates of care for our wounded veterans, and also contributes to higher prices for gas and oil, and a weakened dollar, and economy. it will leave the next generation, your children, and my grand child, burried in debt, which was accumulated while the right embraced their measly tax cuts, leaving the tab for their kids to pay.

The removal of Saddam, was not worth the price we have paid, and Iraqis say they are worse off now than ever before, in every single poll.

There is no justification for this illegal, immoral, war. It has broken our Army, and it has nearly broken our country.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-06-2008, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither of those reasons are legal </div></div>Oh on the contrary, the first reason was totally legal. The second reason was no different than going after Milosevic. Since you were not railing against Clinton then I cannot understand your double standard now. By the way, welcome back.

eg8r

MAC
08-06-2008, 07:46 AM
Gayle glad to have you back sorry for your loss. I keep hearing these things about polls and yet nobody will ablige in posting a link backing it up. These polls you guys talk about is not the same thing the Iraqi people are telling our troops while they are there.

"OBAMA FOR CHANGE, THATS ALL YOU WILL HAVE LEFT WHEN HES DONE"

NOW WHY CANT YOU SEE THAT?

Gayle in MD
08-06-2008, 09:41 AM
Thank you Mac,

Well my information comes through a great deal of reading, and from testimony, live, on C-span, and from the two reporters who have been in Baghdad throughout the war. when you say that the troops are saying that Iraqis don't want us to leave them, where is a link for that? We have a lot of troops over there, and while there are probably some Iraqis that would just as soon see us dying for their safety, as to have to die themselves for their own safety, I, personally, do not think our decision should be according to what Iraqis would like, but rather according to what is best for us.

Please name me one thing that our country has gotten out of all this? Do you think it was worth 4,133 young American lives to get rid of one man, who wsn't even a threat to us, just because he stone walled UN sanctions? don't you recall that the inspeectors were saying that they were not finding any WMD when Bush decided to rush into Iraq, refusing to give them the additional three months that they requested.

There simply is no justification for this war in Iraq, and there never was. Iraq is not our responsibility forever. Wve stayed far too long already, while ignoring other more formidable threats throughtout, and even strengthening our enemies through the invasion of Iraq. McCain is a nut to begin with, but his lies and deceit should be obvious by now to all.
I have not been a fan of Obama, however, he was intelligent enough to realize that invading Iraq was not supported by the intelligence, and it wasn't.

The majority of Democratics also voted against the invasion.

McCain, has been all for it throughout. McCain, has also voted against every effort to reduce oil consumption, voted against higher cafe' standards, voted against more money for renewable fuels, and voted against more money to provide propper equipment for our troops, and more educational support for their service.

McCain has basically supported everything Bush has done, including tax cuts during wartime, and borrowing our country into oblivion. McCain also voted against his own anti torture bill, and basically flip flopped on every major issue, including torture.

McCain is simply more failed Bush policies. We need to get out of Iraq, and leave the contry to the Iraqis. WE have gotten absolutely NOTHING out of this invasion, but huge debt, a stressed economy, reduced credibility, strengthened enemies, the Talliban, and Iran, higher oil prices, and we should not be spending billion of dollars rebuilding a country which is enjoying a 70 billion dollar surplus for the huge oil consumption that our presence in Iraq has greatly increased.

When McCain talks about winning the war, it is absolutely nauseating. WE lost when we went in, staying and running up more debt is absolutely absurd. What CAN we win? We are the losers regardless of what happens in Iraq.

John Murtha was right all along. He said that the Iraqis would take care of al Qaeda, and he was right. McCain lies about it, but the whole turn around of the Iraqis against al Qaeda, happened long before the "Surge". Fatalities increased right after the surge, and there are still car bombs in Baghdad. We're spinning our wheels, for nothing, and in face, we're endangering our own national security by further breaking our Army in a war that was wrong headed from the start.

We're financing the war from both sides, as we send billions upon billions out of our country for foreign oil, the cost of which is effected by the huge amount of oil presently used in Iraq by the DOD.

This is the most pronounced example of the military industrial complex taking the American tax payer for a ride, that we have ever seen, and it is bad for our country all around, and against our own best interests to continue at such a time of economic crises. We need now to focus completely on our own failing infrastructure, our own present disaster with foreign fuel dependency, and our own exhorbitant debts, compliments of George Bush. We already know that he has falsified the costs, by using emergency funding, and that the best estimates, suggest that this war in Iraq will cost in excess of three trillion dollars, all of it debt. It is absolutely absurd for McCain to suggest that we should stay a day longer than we already have. No one wins, in a war.

Gayle in Md.

MAC
08-06-2008, 03:23 PM
I'm sure you know atleast one family member or friend who is over there or has been over there. You should ask some of them about personal experiences dealing with the citizens over there and see what they have to say. I personally have have eight friends in different branches of the military. From what I have gathered from talking to them the majority of them are glad we are there aside from the occasional rock chucker.

I still think it was a good thing we went to war win or lose that one man is gone and that is a good thing. He may not have been a immediate threat at that time, but sooner or later he would have been and we dealt with him sooner rather than later and very well may have saved more lives than what has been lost.Regardless he needed to go.

Gayle in MD
08-07-2008, 09:51 AM
Mac,
The experts don't agree with you. They think Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in history. I agree with their summation. Saddam was not what we should have focussed on in 2003. A quick glance at Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, along with our oil situation, Iran's influence, and vast debts to China, are all results effected by the Iraq invasion.

AlQaeda and the Talliban are stronger than ever, dripping in money, equipment, and increased numbers and power, everything I have read points to the untimely, un-necessary invasion of Iraq as the cause of their expanded strength, and Iran's increased support of our enemies, and more aggressive actions, since. I really don't understand how anyone who is following the Middle East, and our greatest threats in terms of radical elements in the world, could say that invading Iraq for regime change was the correct decision in 2003.

Regardless, we cannot maintain our present troops levels, and as Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to spin out of control, the last thing we need is another severly unstable country in the Middle East, right in the middle of everything. What we are doing there now, in spite of some relief in terms of the violence, is not in our best interests. It's costing us a fortune to maintain our presence, pay people not to kill us, rebuild that country when our own is crumbling, and run up oil usage through our military efforts in a country that was no immediate threat to us. On every level, the invasion has hurt our country, and most of our experts, including our own 16 National Intelligence Agencies, agree on that. Our troops do not make our foreign affairs decisions. They are trying to survive, and certainly not able to educate themselves on the broader issues and threats which we face as a nation. Unfortunately, the administration was not able to see the broader issues involved, nor did they understand the region enough to make good decisions. There would have been no cause to cherry pick, and slant the intelligence, if in fact, Saddam had been a threat. He was not. Our Constitution demands certain circumstances be present whenever we use military force. In this case, the reasons were lies. That is the worst posssible kind of treason against our country, and George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, and probably somewhat unwittingly, even Colin Powell, committed treason against the United States Of America, when they deliberately set out to lie to the country, the Congress, and the world. The fact that Saddam in gone, is pitiful pittance for all the suffering and death and destruction which they have wrought upon American, and Iraq, through their deceit, and hidden agendas.


Gayle in Md.

MAC
08-07-2008, 10:48 AM
Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I do see and respect where you are coming from though.

Gayle in MD
08-08-2008, 11:24 AM
Thanks, and I also respect yours, I just think that since we know now that Bush and Cheney created the intel they wanted, and rejected the intel that didn't support their lies, and since our own 16 National Intelligence Agencies have reported al the negative, and even dangerous results of this illegal Iraq invasion, we should all be able to agree that it has been bad for our country, and bad for Iraqis, as well. Their country is, after all, in shambles, and they've lost thousands upon thousands of relatives, and millions have had to flee their homeland.

Defending a war when we know for certain the administration fixed intelligence to justify, doesn't fly for me. Knowing it was all in order to invade a sovereign country, for regime change, and other hidden agendas, in and of itself against the United Nations agreements, and our Constitution, and contrary to assurances given to the Congress, conditions under which any force would be used in Iraq, is actually treason.

When I think of all the strife, death, destruction, hearbreak, and dangerous National Security, negative results, I am truly in awe that there are Americans who think that killing one man could possibly be worth all the human misery. But then, it is devastating to me to think that there are actually Americans who could ever support torture, or defend a president who lied, over and over, saying "The United States does not torture people."

What a very sad and disgraceful state of affairs.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-08-2008, 12:27 PM
Awe, Buck up there Gayle. You aint seen nothin's yet! Wait until Irael bombs the crap out of Iran and gas hits $9 a gallon. That disenfranchised 70% that opposes Bush will be storming the White House demanding that Obama do something. If he won't drill here, I bet he will bomb there.

I agree, anyone who says the U.S. does not torture were out of town during the democratic debates. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

We shall see how well we observe our political leanings when Brazil is pumping oil 25 miles off Cape Cod. Someone is gonna get those dinasaurs out fo the ground. I hope it is us.

Gayle in MD
08-09-2008, 08:29 AM
I don't believe that our foreign policy should be dictated by the grudges between the Middle East countries. Such things should be addressed internationally, by a coalition of nations, not just America, as the lone police force for the world, IMO.

I hope that rather than increased drilling off the east coast we can become leaders in the energy problems the world faces. Nothing will promote that faster than these high prices for energy, IMO. It has been cheap oil that led to all this irresponsibility from our policy makers over the years. Aid for some of our citizens from our government as we make the transition is perfectly reasonable, IMO, as long as we DO make the necessary changes, and get serious about excellerated research and development to promote wind, solar, and more use of natural gas to provide the transitions we must make.

I surely don't think we should continue running our country into more debt, rebuilding Iraq, while they are enjoying billions in oil revenues for their private gain, as Americans continue with what amounts to Bush's welfare program for the former killers of our troops, and Americans get gouged at the pumps. Rebuilding Iraq, while our own bridges are collapsing upon us, when there is no reasonable reason to stay in Iraq that I can see. We may not have caused all the strife in the Middle East, but our policies have not been sucessful, IMO.

You might want to check out Larry King this weekend. T.Boone Pickens was interviewed on his program, Monday, I think, and they usually repeat their best weeknight shows on the weekend. He makes more sense than anyone else I've read or heard.

I think his website is http://www.Pickensplan.com

He's an oil man, and a Republican, BTW, and he's surely a billionaire with a desire to see America make the right and most effective choices, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
08-09-2008, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I hope that rather than increased drilling off the east coast we can become leaders in the energy problems the world faces. Nothing will promote that faster than these high prices for energy, IMO. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Exactly why the Dems don't want to open up drilling...they actually WANT the gas prices to stay high! </span> It has been cheap oil that led to all this irresponsibility from our policy makers over the years. Aid for some of our citizens from our government as we make the transition is perfectly reasonable, IMO, as long as we DO make the necessary changes, and get serious about excellerated research and development to promote wind, solar, and more use of natural gas to provide the transitions we must make.

<span style="color: #FF0000">For all the talk about "alternative" energy sources, I actually wonder if the proponents have considered one simple question...How willing would you be to hop on a cross country flight in a battery powered jet? </span>


Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Thank you for backing up what I have been saying all along. The reason Nancy wanted to shut down the house without an energy vote is because they know it will pass, and drive oil prices down.

Steve

eg8r
08-10-2008, 06:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope that rather than increased drilling off the east coast we can become leaders in the energy problems the world faces. </div></div>This is probably because you don't want to screw up your view as your on your big boat floating in ocean burning up fuel.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-10-2008, 07:02 PM
Sounds like you are jealous maybe, that she is living the good life....and that doesn't fit in with yours and Wally's idea that liberals are for the most part, on public assistance.

eg8r
08-10-2008, 07:04 PM
I am jealous. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I sit here in poverty without a pott to pee in. It is just the double standard that cracks me up and keeps me going each day.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-10-2008, 07:23 PM
if you actually do some reading on the topic...the experts all agree that drilling will not lower oil prices....
And what a remarkably **** statement to make that it's now the Democrats that want the gas prices to stay high.(while after 7 years of not addressing the issue, with both a Republican President and majority congress, ....it's only now that they are so concerned???)
well, it only took 6 years to come up with the "surge", so why am I surprised?
When you make an outrageous statement like that, maybe you could fill us in on the reasons why they want to anger their constituents?
Seems like big oil and their record big profits are more tied in with the Republicans, then the Democrats ????
Battery powered jets...you been watching the science fiction channel too much....I think with the energy/weight ratio of batteries, you might not get the plane off the ground.
You might think of alt energy as batteries, we lean more towards what Gayle mentioned, wind, solar, gas,.....
and coal...and shale oil

Qtec
08-10-2008, 07:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Exactly why the Dems don't want to open up drilling...they actually WANT the gas prices to stay high! </div></div>

Really?

Did you know....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We Tried Offshore Drilling and Oil Prices Doubled



At the end of 2006, the Republican Congress and the president enacted "The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act," which opened for drilling 8 million acres of the Outer Continental shelf estimated to contain more than 40 billion barrels of oil. Oil prices were only $60 a barrel then. In the two years since, prices have more than have doubled.

Doesn't that prove that legislation to permit offshore drilling increases oil prices? That seems to be the "logic" of John McCain and the Republicans. Late last month, "Republican John McCain on Wednesday credited the recent $10-a-barrel drop in the price of oil to President Bush's lifting of a presidential ban on offshore drilling."

That's right, the man who wants to be the next President of the United States believes that doing absolutely nothing -- which is what Bush did when he reversed his father's ban, since the congressional ban is still in place -- dropped oil prices $10.

And Conservative Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) just claimed, "Gas prices have gone down, and they've gone down in part because the market is realizing that this kind of pressure from the Congress may actually cause a change in American policy."

Something about the air in Arizona must lead to magical thinking </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One small final point. The EIA analysis concludes

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030 </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/we-tried-offshore-drillin_b_117263.html)

Its amazing how many people believe the propaganda.

Q

wolfdancer
08-10-2008, 08:23 PM
you're going to ruin their day with that story. Some here think we drill, find some oil and get back to $2 a gallon...if only the Dems
would let us.
It's easy to see how GWB got elected twice, maybe even without the voting fraud....as Mancken once said "never overestimate the intelligence of the avg Republican voter" (or sumthin like that)

sack316
08-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Nah, drilling won't get it back to $2 a gallon. Then again neither will "nothing". And I know, I know... it'll take five years, ten years, or twenty, or thirty or whatever random number one wants to throw out, for said oil to make an impact on the market. Then again, we have equally no clue how long it will take to make alternative means readily available enough to impact society either. We don't even know what the cost of that would be once it does anyway. I still am for the "anything and everything" solution... because meanwhile the clock is still ticking, and we're all still paying.

And BTW, trying to correlate drilling in the gulf with gas prices doubling? That's about as rediculous a thing as I've ever read. Granted, two events happened, and they happened in a certain order. But there is no cause/effect there. That's as crazy as the anti-porn people saying porn equals rape.. Sure, the two events do happen at concurrent timeframes... but any real data shows the opposite effect of what they are trying to prove. Same thing here, the idea is that by growing our own supply and ability to produce oil, that the cost will go down via A) it's our own! and B) we THINK the current suppliers price would go down in order to compete because they need our money (anyone remember how we became dependent on them in the first place???). The failure in that logic is that we're not the only horses in town needing it anymore... so the impact would not be AS GREAT as many would have us believe. But then again the point is to have some kind of impact. Q's correlation that more drilling may mean even higher prices... well wow I don't even know what to say to that lol. Too bad he doesn't realize if that correlation holds true, how then would the one he chastizes McCain for not be plausible as well?

Sack

Deeman3
08-11-2008, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't believe that our foreign policy should be dictated by the grudges between the Middle East countries. Such things should be addressed internationally, by a coalition of nations, not just America, as the lone police force for the world, IMO.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Of course, that works out fine if you are anxious to see Israel blown off the face of the earth or another Holocaust. </span>

I hope that rather than increased drilling off the east coast we can become leaders in the energy problems the world faces. Nothing will promote that faster than these high prices for energy, IMO. It has been cheap oil that led to all this irresponsibility from our policy makers over the years. Aid for some of our citizens from our government as we make the transition is perfectly reasonable, IMO, as long as we DO make the necessary changes, and get serious about excellerated research and development to promote wind, solar, and more use of natural gas to provide the transitions we must make.

<span style="color: #FF0000">That's great, you and I can afford the high gas prices, many cannot. </span>

I surely don't think we should continue running our country into more debt, rebuilding Iraq, while they are enjoying billions in oil revenues for their private gain, as Americans continue with what amounts to Bush's welfare program for the former killers of our troops, and Americans get gouged at the pumps. Rebuilding Iraq, while our own bridges are collapsing upon us, when there is no reasonable reason to stay in Iraq that I can see. We may not have caused all the strife in the Middle East, but our policies have not been sucessful, IMO.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> And I don't want to see us take that same wasted money and waste more of it here. </span>

You might want to check out Larry King this weekend. T.Boone Pickens was interviewed on his program, Monday, I think, and they usually repeat their best weeknight shows on the weekend. He makes more sense than anyone else I've read or heard.

I think his website is http://www.Pickensplan.com

He's an oil man, and a Republican, BTW, and he's surely a billionaire with a desire to see America make the right and most effective choices, IMO.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 07:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, that works out fine if you are anxious to see Israel blown off the face of the earth or another Holocaust.
</div></div>

Are you aiming that at me? If so, I am not only disappointed in you, but highly offended. You seem to forget, I am against military action and the killing of innocent people that always accompanies it. I'm against war, and I'm also against nation building. I'm all for stopping any genocide with an international coalition of nations. I'm also against propping up dictators, and doing business with communist countries. Had we supported the democratic desires of the people of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and others, instead of secretly doing business with the dictating despots, (and using swaggering cowboy rhetoric, and going off half cocked) which were opressing them, (thanks to Republican policies of REagan Bush I, and Bush II, for example) there would be many innocent people alive today, and a lot fewer refugees around the world.

Bombs, missles and wars are not the way to spread and support democracy around the world. Neocon Hawks have made the world more unsafem and I suppose we can put to bed the notion that reagan ended the cold war, once and for all, as we watch Russia in action?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's great, you and I can afford the high gas prices, many cannot.
</div></div>

I'm well aware of that, and you Republicans will be the first ones screaming about socialism when Obama tries to aid those poor people who will need aid as we transition away from dependence on oil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle: I surely don't think we should continue running our country into more debt, rebuilding Iraq, while they are enjoying billions in oil revenues for their private gain, as Americans continue with what amounts to Bush's welfare program for the former killers of our troops, and Americans get gouged at the pumps. Rebuilding Iraq, while our own bridges are collapsing upon us, when there is no reasonable reason to stay in Iraq that I can see. We may not have caused all the strife in the Middle East, but our policies have not been sucessful, IMO.


Deeman:
And I don't want to see us take that same wasted money and waste more of it here.

</div></div>

Could you explain this statement? I doesn't make any sense to me.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
08-11-2008, 08:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar
Thu Jul 3, 2008 8:04pm BST

(Adds White House comment, paragraphs 10 and 11)

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

<u>A record 1.6 million barrels a day </u>in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, <u>up 33 percent </u>from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div> The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.



Also, while U.S. gasoline demand is down due to high prices and a weak American economy, there is "strong economic growth outside the United States" where fuel is often subsidized and demand is high, said John Cook, director of EIA's Petroleum Division.

However, both the EIA and API admitted they did not know why daily U.S. gasoline exports to Canada skyrocketed to 41,000 barrels in January-April this year from 9,000 barrels in 2007 </div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 08:39 AM
Thanks Q,

I'd be happy if we could stop paying off everybody who's screwing us with our tax dollars, and we could start in Iraq.

We're building multi-million dollar hotels around the Bsghdad airport so that the American oil fascists, and Bush and Cheney's corporate fascists will have a nice place to stay, later, when the fly in to cut their oil American blood for oil deals. Meanwhile, we still haven't re-build New Orleans, and our own infrastructure is collapsing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gee, I wonder why none of the righties are complaining about Bush's welfare for Iraqi unsurgents and al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq that were killing our soldiers?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-11-2008, 08:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, that works out fine if you are anxious to see Israel blown off the face of the earth or another Holocaust.
</div></div>

Are you aiming that at me?
<span style="color: #999999">Not at you but at anyone who thinks, left to their own (The UN has no interest in acting with Israel), the Jews will be exterminated by the Muslims. Not only is thsi their stated goal, together, with the UN looking on, they would accomplish it. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's great, you and I can afford the high gas prices, many cannot.
</div></div>

I'm well aware of that, and you Republicans will be the first ones screaming about socialism when Obama tries to aid those poor people who will need aid as we transition away from dependence on oil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle: I surely don't think we should continue running our country into more debt, rebuilding Iraq, while they are enjoying billions in oil revenues for their private gain, as Americans continue with what amounts to Bush's welfare program for the former killers of our troops, and Americans get gouged at the pumps. Rebuilding Iraq, while our own bridges are collapsing upon us, when there is no reasonable reason to stay in Iraq that I can see. We may not have caused all the strife in the Middle East, but our policies have not been sucessful, IMO.


Deeman:
And I don't want to see us take that same wasted money and waste more of it here.

</div></div>

Could you explain this statement? I doesn't make any sense to me.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

<span style="color: #C0C0C0">What I am saying, as wastful as many of the things you cite are and should be curtailed, the enormous spending that Obama is proposing is just much worse and won't make our situation any better. </span>

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 09:24 AM
Oh, so spending for the rich Iraqis, and welfare for the bombing, killing, insurgents, and left over al Qaeda operatives, is sensible, but spending to help Americans, is wasteful, and socialism.

Please tell me how our "Situation" in this country is better due to the spending and borrowing we've done to invade Iraq? Please don't point to the elimination of Saddam as any proof. Our national Intelligence people said he wasn't likely to use WMD's against us even if he had them, which he didn't. It also said that we emboldened our enemies when we invaded Iraq. It seems more of our enemies have gotten out of hand since the invasion, and now Russia is acting up again, apparently REagan didn't REALLY end the cold war, and the Russians know we're broke, and have a broken army. Guess this is a good time for them to close down that big oil line going across Georgia?

The last people in this country that ought to tout their opinions on spending are Republicans, IMO.

We haven't gotten anything out of this mess in Iraq, and in fact, we'd be better off if Saddam was still there, and so would most of the Iraqis.

Costas, at the Olympics, asked Bush about all the problems we're facing, and he drew a blank! Said the country is doing great! McCain thinks the "Surge" has worked, but I just saw another long list of dead American troops at the end of the Meet The Press program yesterday, and we can't do a thing about Russia's invasion of Georgia. We're flying the Georgian coalition troops back to their country to fight the Russians, but we surely won't be able to assist them, like they assisted us, that's for sure. We better all be praying that the Russians don't take a notion to shoot one of our planes down. Can't defend our own threats here, but we can re-build Iraq, according to Bush and McInsane, but we've got plenty of time to suck up to the communist chinese while they kill the most peaceful people in the world.

I'm ready for a change, that's for sure, and I'd rather see Sponge Bob Square Pants in the White House, than another Republican nut!

Gayle in Md.



Unbelievable! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Deeman3
08-11-2008, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, so spending for the rich Iraqis, and welfare for the bombing, killing, insurgents, and left over al Qaeda operatives, is sensible, but spending to help Americans, is wasteful, and socialism.


Gayle in Md.



Unbelievable! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I never said that spending on Iraq is better than wasting it here. Both are not good. Just because we have spent money in Iraq we should not have is not reason, in itself, to waste more here as well. Not all spending here is socialism nor bad. We just disagree on what is wasteful and not helpful here. If waste in Iraq and at home could be eliminated, there would be plenty of money for appropriate social needs.

I think McCain will waste less and you think Obama will spend where it is needed. I do feel, even McCain will spend way too much and, for that, among other reasons, I am not supporting his candidacy.

I think Bush represented us well in China. He is the only leader saying much about the social issues we have with China. </span>

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If waste in Iraq and at home could be eliminated, there would be plenty of money for appropriate social needs.
</div></div>

Bravo! That's what I've been saying for years, and no body spends it faster on NOTHING of benefit to this country than Republicans.

I think McCain will waste more money that makes our situation here worse, just as Bush has done, and be just as much a blathering idiot, as Bush. He's a Hawk Republican, and we ought to know by nw what that leads to.

As for Bush representing us well in China, George Bush is an embarassment where ever he goes, and what ever he says. I think it's a disgrace that he went there at all while the chinese are killing Buddhist Monks, and financing the African Genocides.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-11-2008, 10:25 AM
Bush, of course, can do nothing that would be positive for you. If he had stayed home, he would have been cited for not taking the opportunity to engage the other world leaders and the Chinese on an important world stage.

The athletes appreciated his support and he was able to bring light to the things we would like to see the Chinese change. This should be a celebration for the athletes and only used as a political arena for encouragement of China and others to become more open and cooperative.

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush, of course, can do nothing that would be positive for you. <span style="color: #000066">That's about it, Deeman. After over seven years of his lies, treason, incompetence, debt, expanding government, disgracing the country with his torture, emboldeninng our enemies, breaking our Army, and abusing our troops, I have absolutely nothing but complete repulsion for the man. </span> If he had stayed home, he would have been cited for not taking the opportunity to engage the other world leaders and the Chinese on an important world stage. <span style="color: #000066"> Not by me. Had he stayed home, I truly would have applauded him for doing so. I didn't think we should have participated in a country that is practicing, and financing genocide.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The athletes appreciated his support <span style="color: #000066">Im sure they did, but I happen to think that genocide should be more important than playing games. If someting horrendous doesn't happen over there it'll be a miracle. WE should have boycotted, and our athletes should have been willing to make the sacrifice in view of China's horrendous inhumane activities. </span> and he was able to bring light to the things we would like to see the Chinese change. <span style="color: #000066">He could have done that right here in the Rose Garden. He has a world stage to highlight anything that he wishes, other than his close relationship with communist China, and his willingness to sell out our country. </span> <span style="color: #000066"> </span> This should be a celebration for the athletes and only used as a political arena for encouragement of China and others to become more open and cooperative. </div></div>

[color:#000066]Given China's horrendous human rights behavior, I cannot agree with you. When people are being opressed and murdered, I find nothing appropriate to celebrate. [

Gayle in Md./color]

eg8r
08-11-2008, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never said that spending on Iraq is better than wasting it here. Both are not good. </div></div>You see Gayle's true colors showing forth? She chastises our country for all the spending and borrowing, yet she is not pissed off at the spending and borrowing, except for the fact that it is not for the issues she sides with. She would prefer the waste being spent here and that is the difference between the left and the "true" conservative right. The "true" Conservative right believes none of that exorbitant spending and borrowing should have been done, domestically or overseas for any issue. You are completely right Deeman, both are not good, but you will never get someone like Gayle to admit to that.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 11:40 AM
BLA HA HA HA...the true conservative right doesn't exist, big boy.

The la la land right thinks they can live in the greatest country in the world, without paying taxes, and dictate to all the other countries, with a broken army, in debt to communists, and no credibility.

go take a run Ed...save youself.

eg8r
08-11-2008, 11:43 AM
I think a run would do more harm at this point.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 11:47 AM
Then take a nice long fast walk. Walking is just as good when you're just getting started in an exercise program. I'm glad you're taking the exercise seriously.

Gayle

wolfdancer
08-11-2008, 11:51 AM
I think he should take a nice long run...a la Forrest Gump

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 12:19 PM
LOL /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
08-11-2008, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WE should have boycotted, and our athletes should have been willing to make the sacrifice in view of China's horrendous inhumane activities.
Gayle in Md </div></div>

It seems quite easy for you to say "WE" should have boycotted...YOU would have had to do absolutely nothing at all. The Athletes, on the other hand, would have to give up what many of them have been working toward their whole lives. But it's ok to say "they" should have made the sacrifice.
Sounds like Algor telling all of us WE should give up this and that and cut back on everything, yet HE doesn't make any personal sacrifice.
You are good at telling others what they should do. Not quite as good as doing something yourself. What kind of sacrifice are YOU willing to make to support your cause?
Steve

eg8r
08-11-2008, 05:53 PM
Well, I have not been doing much walking but about 30 minutes a night riding the bike (not a lot more I can do sitting in a hotel room all the time). Starting next week I will not be traveling as much so I will be able to spend an entire month with a trainer. My body is so out of whack. By the time they actually send me back to Bethesda I hope to be able to take you on for that run. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-11-2008, 08:37 PM
does your browser not allow you to view the history on this forum?

You're kidding, right????....Mike is going to find the answer,.. here?????
Just because you keep posting the same old story without anything to back it up...that ain't "proof"...that's your political wet dream.

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 11:08 PM
Which cause? I don't have a cause, regarding the olympics, just an opinion. However Bush managed to provide us with the ultimate visual hallmark for his administration when he and Laura posed in their seats holding the American flag, backwards.

That was just before he arrived home and made his speech in the rose garden, blathering on at Russia, only he got Russia confused with Georgia. He said, "Quack, quack quack quack, quackety quack quack.

Does the man ever get anything right? Does McSame? Gee, are Bush and McSame really Siamese Twins who were separted at birth? Did they really have to divide one brain, for two twins?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 11:14 PM
Ed,
Get yourself some small weights, the kind that will wrap around your wrists or ankles, leather with velcro, about three or four pounds. You can even use them lying in bed. You'd be surprised what a sweat you can produce with just some light weights. Leg raises, and arm work. All of it helps.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

sack316
08-12-2008, 01:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed,
Get yourself some small weights, the kind that will wrap around your wrists or ankles, leather with velcro, about three or four pounds. You can even use them lying in bed. You'd be surprised what a sweat you can produce with just some light weights. Leg raises, and arm work. All of it helps.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

I agree with that. Heck, even if you don't have the small weights you can substitute canned goods in a strong sock and do the same thing. Another simple thing that a lot of people don't realize is that simply flexing is excersise... and will help. You can just lay on the couch and do that! Really a lot of small simple things that can be done to get the ball rolling... after that it's just a matter of keeping it up and staying motivated.

Either one of ya can feel free to PM or email me with any questions you may have in that area. Fitness and the such happens to be something I do know a lot about!

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 01:23 AM
Thanks Sac,
I was a serious dancer growing up, everything from tap dancing to ballet and jazz, and also on a swim team, and I've worked out throughout my life. I can't say enough good things about exercise.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-12-2008, 08:00 AM
wolfie, you just wish you even remembered anything about a wet dream.

eg8r

eg8r
08-12-2008, 08:01 AM
Anything will help I am sure. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

mike60
08-14-2008, 12:57 AM
Ed, I'm being serious and not trying to goof on you. I was hurt very badly in a bike crash and exercising in the pool is really a good way
gain flexibility and it feels good and helps you stay upright. Sweat is washed away and unnoticeable. It feels really good.
Stand in water up to the middle of your chest and just sort of move around. The water resistance is all the "weights" you need for a workout. Good luck and feel better soon.

mike