|
Post by Seattlekat on Mar 19, 2003 5:58:50 GMT -5
Ky Kid - just to let you in on a "secret" - North Korea has nukes and are crazy enough to "use them"!!
Now is NOT the time and place to get involved with NK!! That WILL come later!!
Iraq is not about OIL!! If it was - we - the USA - would follow the policies of the "French" - they are about oil and their company Fina. AND - do nothing!!!
Saddam is a threat - pure and simple!!!
Glad you are "aiming high" the USAF is a very honorable profession!! Spent 20+ there myself!!
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 19, 2003 7:30:12 GMT -5
I prefer walking to mini-vans.
I prefer walking to mopeds.
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 19, 2003 20:35:45 GMT -5
Yeah, fully intend on attending the Air Force Academy and becoming a pilot. I'm really looking forward to it. Next year is my final year of high school.
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 19, 2003 23:20:04 GMT -5
I prefer walking to mini-vans. I prefer walking to mopeds. Good to hear--you're certainly helping our environment more than me. Most of us aren't fortunate enough to be able to go about our normal lives without cars/trucks/minivans/SUVs.
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 20, 2003 3:00:13 GMT -5
good thing nobuddies mentioned BMW motorcycles
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 25, 2003 19:36:57 GMT -5
I'm not anti-war, but I am anti-going to war with Iraq right now. Heck, I'm not some kind of weird pacifist hippy. (No offense to those of y ou who are Remember, my goal is to become a pilot in the Air Force. I think the real threat is North Korea, but we refuse to fight with them, because they don't have (all together now) OIL. It's all about oil, and maybe something to do with son wanting to take revenge for daddy. If only Gen. Norman I can't spell his last name would have talked to the president before signing the peace treaty after the Gulf War we wouldn't be here right now. It's all about the OIL?? I don't understand how this is true, however many of the people protesting are using this as an excuse to protest, although, much of their protest is really aimed at George W rather than the actual War. First of all, the US does not even get much of their Oil, if any at all, from Iraq. A few weeks ago my economics professor put up the typical sign or bumper sticker you see around that says "No Blood For Oil" He said "You know what that tells me about the person....Economic Illiterate." Ok, from one of his economic arguments...When oil prices rise, it cause recession. When we have recession, we have an increase in the unemployement rate. "Every 1 percent increase in the unemployment is rate is associated with an additional 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 20,000 heart attacks, and 4000 more admissions to mental institutions." The war is not about oil, that is a rediculous argument!
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 25, 2003 20:48:15 GMT -5
Well, I'm not economically illiterate. To claim that would be ridiculous. However, I do not agree with the premise of this war. In the history of the United States all wars we have fought have been fought because we've been provoked. Of course now that's changed. As the war rages on you won't find me protesting. I still think part of this war has to with oil. Instead, you'll find me hoping and praying that the mission objectives are met quickly and with little bloodshed. I am in complete support of the United States and hoping for victory. However, I fully disagree with the premise of this war. I didn't disagree with the first Gulf War. We had just cause to be there. Don't get me wrong I sincerely dislike Sadaam Hussein and want him to be removed. However, by the international community. We now, have very little support of other nations. Look no farther than the likes of France, Switzerland (I thought they were always neutral), Egypt, Russia, Turkey, and so forth. Now our allies basically consist of Britian, Israel, and Japan (Do they even have a military?) I still believe part of the war has to do with oil. IMO, a lot of our middle-eastern involvement is for this very reason. Without oil this country would have a serious problem functioning. Speaking of economics. Our president knows elections are coming up in a year and half. Right now, the economy is in the pits. We all know that a presidents approval rating shoots through the roof during times of crisis. We also know that wars create jobs, which creates more spending, which boosts the economy. Our big spending goes over much easier if we seem to have a reason to be spending. (we're on pace to set a record deficit of 400 billion dollars this year) Thus, we conclude: War=more jobs=more spending=better economy=happy citizens=high approval ratings=4 more years in office=
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 27, 2003 13:22:06 GMT -5
Speaking of economics. Our president knows elections are coming up in a year and half. Right now, the economy is in the pits. We all know that a presidents approval rating shoots through the roof during times of crisis. We also know that wars create jobs, which creates more spending, which boosts the economy. Our big spending goes over much easier if we seem to have a reason to be spending. (we're on pace to set a record deficit of 400 billion dollars this year) Thus, we conclude: War=more jobs=more spending=better economy=happy citizens=high approval ratings=4 more years in office= First of all KY, you say that you still believe this war is about oil, but you haven't explained why this is about oil, since the US gets very little if any of its oil from Iraq, and Bush has already said that we don't intend to be drawing any oil from Iraq after the war as well. Yes the $400 billion dollar deficit is going to be the largest, numerically, in history; However economically you cannot just look at the numbers. You have to take inflation, the rising of wages, etc. into consideration. Percentage wise, the $400 billion dollar deficit will not be a record setting amount when it is applied to Real GDP, rather than nominal GDP.
|
|
|
Post by TedRay80 on Mar 27, 2003 17:46:58 GMT -5
First of all KY, you say that you still believe this war is about oil, but you haven't explained why this is about oil, since the US gets very little if any of its oil from Iraq, and Bush has already said that we don't intend to be drawing any oil from Iraq after the war as well. Yes the $400 billion dollar deficit is going to be the largest, numerically, in history; However economically you cannot just look at the numbers. You have to take inflation, the rising of wages, etc. into consideration. Percentage wise, the $400 billion dollar deficit will not be a record setting amount when it is applied to Real GDP, rather than nominal GDP. Wow! Very astute post ChrisR. You've been doing your homework!
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 27, 2003 22:23:18 GMT -5
Sure I explained it. I said much of our middle eastern involvement has to due with oil. That and religion is the main reason we're involved so much in the middle east. Would you admit that? So, since I believe that the reason we often find ourselves in the middle east is because of our need for oil, get my reason.
So, while oil may not appear to be the underlying reason for the war (and it may not be, because I don't know what's going through Bush's or Blair's head. However, apparently most of the international communtiy don't understand their reason either, because most nations are opposed to the war.) it is still the backbone, imo, of most of our middle-eastern policy. If it is not then why with our supposedly anti-imperialistic view would we be CONSTANTLY involved with everything that is the Middle-East.
Q: How much of our oil comes from the Middle East in general? I sincerely would like to know that, because I don't know.
As for the 400 million dollar deficit I only included that to show that we are spending a lot of money. Note the sentence:
I think that adequately proves that we are spending a whole lot of money. I said nothing that wasn't a fact. Now, of course one must take into account inflation and so forth to get an exact estimate of where this ranks historically. But since I wasn't attempting to say this administration is spending too much money on nothing important, (as you will notice: "it goes over better if there is a reason") I felt no need to get that data. Just by looking at the raw number one can conclude we spent a lot of money. So while those things would have helped to get a better picture of just how the spending ranks with historical deficits, it isn't needed to just prove we are spending money, and a lot of it. Throw in the fact I don't have the means to calculate that sort of thing, and I had no other choice but to go on raw data.
I said nothing of deficits that wasn't factual. There is no need to disect that part since it was nothing more than a side note and only included to show that we have large deficits.
Can we conclude we have a large deficit by looking at the number 400 billion?
|
|
|
Post by truth on Mar 28, 2003 0:55:37 GMT -5
Ky Kid wondered --- Can we conclude we have a large deficit by looking at the number 400 billion? Naayyhh. You see large budget deficits are part of a responsuble physical policy; it's all part of the return to the tinkle down theory. Wherein, those with money to loan - called The Rich on some streets - get higher returns - called Usury in some circles - all guaranteed with the sweat o'da' brow of the month-to-month crowd - called Da Common Folk around these parts. So, all-in-all, The Rich tinkle down on Da Common Folk. And, Da Common Folk are taught to say "but Jethro, when you cipher with dis bigger number it makes dat other bigger number less bigger. Jes' don't brake your'n back carry'n all dem naughts around." I think you'll learn more if'n you read up on the Laffer Theory; it's a real Laugher; if you don't need shelter, food, clothing, or health care. Here's the numbers you're about to be tinkled on with: Looks like $400 billion would set some type of record to me. Maybe my mortgage company will accept a lower payment, so as to keep my housing costs at a constanr percentage of my total salary. It's true, the war is not all about oil; but it is somewhat about oil. Looks to be mostly about who's got the bigger wang - Bush or Saddam. Sure is a costly ruler(s).
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 28, 2003 2:16:52 GMT -5
How much of our oil comes from the Middle East? Honestly I don't know at this point, but will see what I can do in the next day or so to find out. I cannot guarantee these numbers, but from what I have heard, the majority of the oil we receive in the U.S. comes from South America. Someone was saying to me that one thing that is hurting our oil prices is oil strikes in Columbia, a major distributor of oil to the U.S. Like I said, I may be wrong in saying this, but will see what I can do soon to find out the truth.
Here is a question that I have. Before September 11, What if the U.S. announced that Afghanistan was a threat and we were planning on sending troops to the country to replace the leadership and end the potential threat to the U.S.? At that point, half of the nation would have been protesting the idea, however once we were personally attacked, I didn't hear anyone disagree with sending troops to Afghanistan.
Clearly, the people in Iraq are in a sad state, obviously wanting someone to end their suffering and end the leadership of Saddam. They seem to be living in fear of their lives because if they are found opposing Saddam, not only they will lose their lives, but their entire family will lose their lives. I think America is being completely selfish in saying this is unjustified. We have the good life here, and that is all that matters. The well being of other human beings is not of our concern. We are lucky that we have the freedom to speak out against our leadership. In his last election, Saddam received more than 99% of the vote. I wonder what happened to the small fraction of the population that did not vote for him? My guess is that they are no longer living.
|
|
|
Post by ForeverBigBlue on Mar 28, 2003 8:53:28 GMT -5
Here is a question that I have. Before September 11, What if the U.S. announced that Afghanistan was a threat and we were planning on sending troops to the country to replace the leadership and end the potential threat to the U.S.? At that point, half of the nation would have been protesting the idea, however once we were personally attacked, I didn't hear anyone disagree with sending troops to Afghanistan. Once we were attacked, you are exactly correct: people did NOT disagree with sending troops to Afghanistan. I like to think, realistically or not, that the United States is a mighty force to be reckoned with and one that you do not provoke to anger or retribution. Bin Laden's merry group of terrorists did exactly that. And, the US waited until they had strong evidence as to who was responsible for those attacks before they started bombing away. In this situation, do we have EVIDENCE that Iraq was a threat to the US? I know we get what information the government WANTS us to get and Bush has seemed hell-bent on this war for quite some time, but his reasons for the war also seem to have changed from month to month. That, in a nutshell, plus the fact that Iraq did NOT attack the US first, are IMO the primary reasons you have so many protesters to this war...and the protesters are not just in the US. They are WORLDWIDE. Am I anti-war? You bet. Am I an avid supporter of our troops and do I pray many times a day for their safety and well-being and for the innocents in Iraq to be freed from their current situation? ABSOLUTELY. But do I like the fact that the US stormed in (without widespread support from long-time allies) and started bombing without provokation? Nope. I've said it before and will do so again: I understand some wars are necessary and that some innocents will lose their lives as a result, but it has to be done. But that doesn't mean I will ever be in favor of ANY war. I will, however, be fully supportive of all our armed forces as I understand & greatly appreciate the fact they put their lives on the line to ensure we maintain the many freedoms we sometimes take for granted.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 28, 2003 10:47:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that bush has changed his reasons for going to war with Iraq week to week. I still like the comparison to September 11. Obviously, our attacks were justified once we were personally attacked on 9-11. There is a lot of information that our government knows that they don't/can't tell the world publicly. Did our government perhaps have any hints that there might be some terrorist events coming up? Most likely yes, but they probably didn't realize the extent, or that what happened was a possibility. I just think that once we have been attacked once, and lost thousands of our own lives on our own land, that we are going to be more careful about potential threats, in order to prevent what could possibly happen. Am I for War? No, if this was possible to end without war, then by all means that is the way I would like to handle the situation. I suppose we could sit around like part of the world and the Clinton Administration did and allow Saddam to continue to build his arsenal of illegal weapons, only creating more of a threat in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 28, 2003 11:27:46 GMT -5
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
- Abraham Lincoln - April 6, 1859
|
|