• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

what is going on?

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We have been fighting in this war far to long. We hear about the Surge, we hear about progress being made. What the heck does it all mean?

What is the surge accomplishing? We hear about less bombings and attacks. Yet the war goes an an Americans and Iraqis and other are dying for nothing.
We need to know what this Surge really is and who is benefiting from it.

Iraq will never have a American style democracy, because that type of democracy allows cultural change and modernism. Islam, Shia or Sunni, would never permit this.

We are fighting and dying for Exxon Mobile Profits.
Look at the line of Bull Poop the the Oil Executives gave congress the other day. All smoke screen, lies and the religion of greed.

We need to send the right wing to Mars, Get them out of congress and regain control of America for the American people:).
 
We have been fighting in this war far to long. We hear about the Surge, we hear about progress being made. What the heck does it all mean?

What is the surge accomplishing? We hear about less bombings and attacks. Yet the war goes an an Americans and Iraqis and other are dying for nothing.
We need to know what this Surge really is and who is benefiting from it.

Iraq will never have a American style democracy, because that type of democracy allows cultural change and modernism. Islam, Shia or Sunni, would never permit this.

We are fighting and dying for Exxon Mobile Profits.
Look at the line of Bull Poop the the Oil Executives gave congress the other day. All smoke screen, lies and the religion of greed.

We need to send the right wing to Mars, Get them out of congress and regain control of America for the American people:).

Get who out of Congress? Last I looked, it wasn't what is commonly referred to as right wingers controlling Congress.

BTW, if it's not obvious by now, with a Democratic Congress, Democrats aren't going to get the U.S. out of either, even if elected President, so don't look to them to regain control for the American people.
 
shell-27 BILLION... exxon-39 BILLION... not including operating costs, but PURE PROFIT!--
Shell set to stir petrol storm with record profits of £13.6bn | Business | The Guardian

18 years later, exxon still has not paid the fine for the valdez spill--
Shocking: 18 Years on and Exxon Still Won't Pay $2.5 Billion for Valdez Oil Spill | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

exxon 3rd quarter 2007 PROFIT = 9.4 BILLION--
Exxon Mobil misses forecast for quarter earnings - Nov. 1, 2007

is it about oil, sure it is.

it's not about a free-flowing abundance of oil, but instead, it's about throttling the supply, thereby demand exceeds supply... in return, prices rise and profits skyrocket.
 
At the risk of being repetitious to those who thought we could have it all without taxes "FREEDOM IS NOT FREE." Pay the IRS (never caused a Depression or recession) or pay everywhere you shop. Guess what...now COSTCO and WAl-Mart are rationing rice in the US.:doh
 
What is being accomplished is that the Bush administration is passing the buck. Their plan has been to stay in Iraq, coming up with one excuse after another, one new plan after another, with the goal of staying in Iraq until there term is over. Then when a Dem takes office and pulls the troops out, the Republicans can say its all the Dems fault.

I've been saying it for years.
 
shell-27 BILLION... exxon-39 BILLION... not including operating costs, but PURE PROFIT!--
Shell set to stir petrol storm with record profits of £13.6bn | Business | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/28/royaldutchshell.oil

is it about oil, sure it is.

it's not about a free-flowing abundance of oil, but instead, it's about throttling the supply, thereby demand exceeds supply... in return, prices rise and profits skyrocket.

Guess what !! The company with the highest overhead on earth will probably set the record for new profits every year.

If this surprises you, I have another surprise for you . . .

Did you know that 2008 set a record for the highest numbered year so far ?
 
Guess what !! The company with the highest overhead on earth will probably set the record for new profits every year.

If this surprises you, I have another surprise for you . . .

Did you know that 2008 set a record for the highest numbered year so far ?

not fer sure, but i think i disagree with yer "highest overhead = record profits" logic...

record profits fer the oil companies did not happen UNTIL the iraq war.
explain?
 
Its all in here, think harder . . .

Guess what !! The company with the highest overhead on earth will probably set the record for new profits every year.

If this surprises you, I have another surprise for you . . .

Did you know that 2008 set a record for the highest numbered year so far ?
 
What is being accomplished is that the Bush administration is passing the buck. Their plan has been to stay in Iraq, coming up with one excuse after another, one new plan after another, with the goal of staying in Iraq until there term is over. Then when a Dem takes office and pulls the troops out, the Republicans can say its all the Dems fault.

I've been saying it for years.

Maybe you can help us spin it into a victory, so the enemy will not feel we were defeated like the Soviets.

Democrats passed the One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq buck to Bush, who removed UN resolution 687, and he passes it to Democrats to get out of Iraq.

It only seems fair.
 
Then when a Dem takes office and pulls the troops out, the Republicans can say its all the Dems fault.

I've been saying it for years.
....or maybe the Dems voted for the war because they knew they could turn it into a failure and blame it on the Republicans. I've been saying it for years. My theory is far more plausible because both strategies require a lot of help from the media. The Republicans can count on help from FNC but the Dems can count on help from the rest of the networks.

BTW, I already know you deny that the Dems voted for the war. Rehashing that debate would be beating a dead horse.
 
Get who out of Congress? Last I looked, it wasn't what is commonly referred to as right wingers controlling Congress.

BTW, if it's not obvious by now, with a Democratic Congress, Democrats aren't going to get the U.S. out of either, even if elected President, so don't look to them to regain control for the American people.
-
YUP! Those BAD Dems did nothing to stop the war in all the 8 YEARS they have been in control of Congress while Bush was Pres:doh:roll:!
-
Now how did I know that you Cons would be blaming the Dems for Bush's SCREWUPS and YOU Cons backing ANYTHING he says or does?
-
BTW: At least the Dems throw a bone every now and then to Americans rather then STICKING it UP Americans ASSES for 8 straight years like IDIOT bushe boy did!
 
-
YUP! Those BAD Dems did nothing to stop the war in all the 8 YEARS they have been in control of Congress while Bush was Pres:doh:roll:!
-
Now how did I know that you Cons would be blaming the Dems for Bush's SCREWUPS and YOU Cons backing ANYTHING he says or does?
-
BTW: At least the Dems throw a bone every now and then to Americans rather then STICKING it UP Americans ASSES for 8 straight years like IDIOT bushe boy did!


Leave the political bias at the door and perhaps there would be a valid sentiment in there... somewhere.
 
Maybe you can help us spin it into a victory, so the enemy will not feel we were defeated like the Soviets.

Democrats passed the One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq buck to Bush, who removed UN resolution 687, and he passes it to Democrats to get out of Iraq.

It only seems fair.

Sure, the Iraq war was the Dems fault.

The no spin zone.
 
-
YUP! Those BAD Dems did nothing to stop the war in all the 8 YEARS they have been in control of Congress while Bush was Pres:doh:roll:!
-
Now how did I know that you Cons would be blaming the Dems for Bush's SCREWUPS and YOU Cons backing ANYTHING he says or does?
-
BTW: At least the Dems throw a bone every now and then to Americans rather then STICKING it UP Americans ASSES for 8 straight years like IDIOT bushe boy did!

You really should learn the fundamentals of reading.
I asked the poster what he was talking about, by calling on congress to be liberated of 'right wingers'.
 
Sure, the Iraq war was the Dems fault.

The no spin zone.

I blame the war on the usurper Saddam, who did not have to invade Kuwait (to pay for the predictable war with his enemy), which ultimately created United Nations(of tyrants too) resolutions and Oil for Food that should have ended the first time the cease-fire was broken:

CNN - Iraqi defector to give excusive - Sept 21, 1995

But, then again, you might be right, "the Iraq war was the Dems fault":

"We are fighting and dying for Exxon Mobile Profits.
Look at the line of Bull Poop the the Oil Executives gave congress the other day. All smoke screen, lies and the religion of greed." (dragonslayer)

"Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders sent the following letter today to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman William E. Kovacic urging him to investigate record gas prices. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 gives the FTC the authority to probe possible market manipulation of gas prices, but to date, the Commission has failed to exercise its power to protect consumers from skyrocketing energy costs."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi

"Proponents of the infamous Kyoto Protocol on global warming argue that this is about the price that is required in order to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide to 7 percent below where they were in 1990, as mandated by the treaty. This price, they argue, will change behavior. Mainly, people will buy more economical cars."
More Gas about Global Warming

March 14, 2000"...if the U.S. is to ever even come close to meeting its commitments under the international treaty to combat global warming, prices at the pump may need to go up a lot higher than they have in recent months."
CNN.com - Higher gas prices could have a silver lining - March 14, 2000

"I believe the American people deserve a president who just isn't going to have a friendly talk, but who is going to fight to guarantee that we lower prices for Americans," Kerry said.” (John Kerry)
USATODAY.com - Kerry criticizes Bush on meeting with Saudi leader

“I'm here today to say if there was no deal, if there was no agreement, then stand up today and jawbone OPEC to lower the price," Kerry said. "They could up that production tomorrow. We need to have them answer why they won't do that." USATODAY.com - Kerry criticizes Bush on meeting with Saudi leader

Need to Jawbone OPEC, look for an OPEC member you can work with, as you want two known enemies (OPEC members) sitting next to each other; Now what country was the Jawbone of an ___ kicked out of prior to going to Mayor Jacques Chirac's Paris:

arrival%20iran.jpg

Air France is so nice.

“Glory be to the Bomb, and to the Holy Fallout. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end. Amen.”

Oh, I remember, the Jawbone of an ___ was expelled from not quite totally Saddam's Iraq.

June 30, 1979: “a weary Jimmy Carter was looking forward to a few days' vacation in Hawaii, as Air Force One sped him away from a grueling economic summit in Tokyo. He had earned it. Two weeks earlier, Carter had successfully concluded the SALT II arms control negotiations with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna, the latest in a series of foreign policy achievements since the dramatic Camp David summit the previous September.
Aboard the plane, the phone rang. It was Carter's pollster, Patrick Caddell. "I remember getting on the phone and saying, 'You people have got to come home now,'" Caddell recalls. "We were all saying the same thing: 'You have no idea how bad it is here.'"
The Energy CrisisThat week, the energy crisis that Carter had been trying to avoid since taking office had finally erupted. The OPEC oil producers' cartel had recently announced another in a series of oil price increases that sent gasoline prices skyrocketing and led to severe shortages. Long gas-pump lines and short tempers started in California and spread eastward, focusing Americans' outrage over a seemingly endless economic decline.”
American Experience | Jimmy Carter | People & Events

July 16, 1979: “Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq, after engineering the resignation of president Hasan al-Bakr.” Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 to January 31 2004 | Iraq | guardian.co.uk

Who would have thought old slave holding Democrats ignoring the 444 days of glory in Iran and endless calls for "Death to America," for the lukewarm "liberal" arts of war of Oil for Food and Peace for Greed on the backs of slaves, which lead to One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!, but attacking the evil Republicans freeing the slaves by removal of the containment of the cork in the bottle containing the scary Shiites of Iran in violation of the purposes of the United Nations is Okay? CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: Chapter I

“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

Oooh, it is not a war on terror, it is a war on WMD.

“Varney: Is it possible that America’s interests have, in fact, been well served by the war in Iraq? Let me explain that. We have taken the fight to the enemy. The enemy is divided completely. And the enemy is now killing itself, fighting each other. Is that not long term, in a way, in America’s strategic interests?
Clark: Well, actually, I don’t think so. The ‘enemy’ so to speak, were the people that attacked us on 9/11. Saddam had really nothing to do directly with those people. He didn’t encourage the attack, he didn’t aid it. He wasn’t part of it, in fact they viewed Saddam as part of the enemy camp. So we attacked Afghanistan, we took out the government that supported the people that attacked us and then, in my view, in a strategic blunder, moved against Saddam Hussein. He was contained. Yes he was an unpleasant person. Yes he was a potential danger like every tyrant I guess is. But he couldn’t directly strike the United States and he was performing the function of a ‘cork in the bottle’ in the Persian Gulf containing the power of Iran. We removed him.” (Transcript of Stewart Varney interview of General Wesley Clark on Your World Cavuto, Fox News)

“So yes as long as we are supporting harsh brutal governments blocking democracy and development because of our interests in controlling the oil resources of the region there will be a campaign of hatred against us.” (Chomsky) U.S. "Enhancing Terror"

Damn slavery (Oil for Food) supporting Democrats...

Oooh, oooh, Iran is dangerous, and the Shiites might attack the Sunni protectors of the Two Holy Cites. We need to protect them.

Operation Desert Shielder II--not in China's oil rich Sudan shielding black folks from the Fuzzy Wuzzy, but where someone other than Gorby will have to say, "that is far enough," keeping the blood sucking from ending--anyone?

"But this is an election year, and not even environmentalist Al Gore is going to risk telling voters that gas price hikes may actually help cool the planet." CNN.com - Higher gas prices could have a silver lining - March 14, 2000

I guess that is what is going on...
 
Last edited:
-
Hummm, how bout you mind your own business:roll:
BTW: Theres nothing but political bias in most all the threads!:roll:

CONS! Who made them?::rofl

Politcal bias gets you nowhere... certainly not to a rational and healthy decision.

I guess you would like this Conservative Republican to vote Republican this year instead of Democrat like I have in 2 of the last 5 elections, with one absention and one Independent Vote? This will end up being my THIRD DEMOCRATIC VOTE in the LAST 4 ELECTIONS kiddo, Stick that in your biased pipe and smoke it for a while and see what you come up with.

A better question you should be thinking about is: Who made people that can't think on their own? :rofl

Look in the mirror and reflect on that for a while too! ;)
 
....or maybe the Dems voted for the war because they knew they could turn it into a failure and blame it on the Republicans. I've been saying it for years. My theory is far more plausible because both strategies require a lot of help from the media. The Republicans can count on help from FNC but the Dems can count on help from the rest of the networks.

BTW, I already know you deny that the Dems voted for the war. Rehashing that debate would be beating a dead horse.
-
Try beating this dead horse:
Ahhhhhh, but you didn't say WHY the Dems voted for the war!:spin::spin:
BECAUSE BUSH LIED TO THE WHOLE WORLD about Iraq-Saddam being an imminent threat and having WMD which we all know now that ******* bush LIED about!!!:roll:


Try again!:roll:
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mpg
....or maybe the Dems voted for the war because they knew they could turn it into a failure and blame it on the Republicans. I've been saying it for years. My theory is far more plausible because both strategies require a lot of help from the media. The Republicans can count on help from FNC but the Dems can count on help from the rest of the networks.

BTW, I already know you deny that the Dems voted for the war. Rehashing that debate would be beating a dead horse

Are you completely overlooking the months and months of Bush Propoganda that declared that Saddam had WMD and he was preparing to use them on us and our allies? They gave press conferences and had all these nifty charts and diagrams and satelite images too! :lol:

C'mon now, if the Sarge is biased, so too, are you.

You guys have to be realistic if you are gonna be taken seriously. ;)
 
-
Try beating this dead horse:
Ahhhhhh, but you didn't say WHY the Dems voted for the war!:spin::spin:
BECAUSE BUSH LIED TO THE WHOLE WORLD about Iraq-Saddam being an imminent threat and having WMD which we all know now that ******* bush LIED about!!!:roll:


Try again!:roll:
Oh yeah I forgot, Bush tricked the Dems into voting for the war and tricked 33 other countries into joining the coalition. He also stole both elections, and he's a retard too.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah I forgot, Bush tricked the Dems into voting for the war and tricked 33 other countries into joining the coalition. He also stole both elections, and he's a retard too.

I don't know about 'tricked.' Many of the nations that are in the coalition joined for various reasons. Several were blackmailed/coerced into joining with threats of halting military and financial aid. Some British Generals are now coming out and saying the war was a mistake and that they knew it was bad from the first place but needed to maintain the UK's special relationship. It's more like "do it or suffer the consequences"
 
hegelian dialectic.
 
Back
Top Bottom