Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No I don't. Stealing someone's property is different from paying a fair market price for it. Being willing to defend a free market is not stealing. I think we fight to make sure the market for oil is free, not to steal oil.
I find that Bush speaks in ways some don't understand. The current conflicts in the Middle East relate to power and control, this in turn directly relates to control of Middle Eastern Oil. Terrorism is a strategy used by some in this struggle. Iran, specifically Sadaam, encouraged terrorism to create chaos in his efforts to control the region. Although not directly related to 9/11 there is a base connection. You are correct about WMD's. He did not have any. In hind-sight I guess if he actually had them, he would have used them - don't you agree.
|
Ace, I am not trying to be a smartass because I like the points you have made and the way you made them. However, Saddam and Iran were enemies and had fought a few wars, I am assuming you hit the wrong letter.
Ok, show me anything anywhere that shows Saddam's regime promoted terrorism before 9/11. He did not have anything to do with 9/11, nor did he train the terrorists nor did he have WMDs.... all 3 of those were used to sell this war, not the fact "it was to preserve the free market of oil" or whatever.
So this administration flat out lied to the people and other nations about why they wanted war. If I recall, anyone that spoke out against the administration at the time were called unpatriotic, "didn't have the facts, because those weapons did exist...." and so on.
As for your last sentence, yes, I do believe he would have used them. So in just saying that, the proof that the administration lied about the whole reason we went to war is sickening.
Then there are the people who say "he tried to buy yellowcake".....really and who states this? The same people we believed that said Saddam had Anthrax, Mustard gas and all kinds of nasties. Then were proven and in their own ways admitted to lieing?
Quote:
I don't understand.
I say - I am willing to go to war for the reasons stated. I support candidates who support my view. My candidates get elected and convince the American public, congress, UN, and others that it is o.k. to go to war. Then you, being against the war say - It is not up to you to sell your ideas on alternatives to war?
|
And as talked about above those people lied, were given false data and were cajoled, harrassed, and had their patriotism questioned if they said anything.
It wasn't a very "free speech" oriented congress then, just go back and read the posts, the papers and watch C-SPAN archives of how vicious that era was.
Quote:
|
If we let Islamic extremist control the Middle East, our lives would be dramtically different. I think in a negative way, therefore I am willing to fight. What do you think? And what are you willing to do?
|
But Saddam was a moderate. We in essence are putting extremists in power by this war based on lies.
Iran was the country that needed to be invaded not Iraq. Now it is too late, and Iran has the power to be a far greater threat now than Saddam ever could have been.
Quote:
|
Many of those Toyota's Honda's an Hyunda's are being made here in the USA. Toyota's stock trades on the NYSE. Chrysler is owned by a German company. Ford and GM have been on a downward slide for the past 40 years.
|
Very true, and they are very good employers. Nissan also.
Quote:
|
If people want hybrids and electric cars they will be produced. I don't have any close friends or family that own one, have ordered one, or is even thinking about getting one. Some are liberal, they tend to complain about oil consumption but still want enough horespower to pull a 15,000 boat (the one they dream about owning).
|
Well there are hypocrites on both sides and we all know this. People want a better world but most are unwilling to change any aspect of their life, they expect everyone else to.
Quote:
|
Tax other things. Perhaps a internet usage tax.
|
Perhaps, or go after the oil companies like you did the tobacco companies and sue them for billions..... billions supposedly earmarked for programs that help people and yet..... the money never showed up.
Quote:
|
Company's will follow the market leaders. Oil companies will diversify with the profits made from oil. The depression in the '30's was pretty bad, I don't know of any respected economist saying we are headed for another depression like that in the '30's.
|
Time will tell. I hope we don't get that bad.
Quote:
At one point the horse and buggy industry dominated transportation. The railroads where huge. Then automobiles came along, the airplanes. I am looking forward to what is coming next. change happens all the time. Out with the old in with the new.
Isn't that a good thing from your point of view?
|
I love this argument. The horse and buggy industry???? ahhh I miss watching Wall Street.
Yes, moving forward is always needed, however, you must also take into account the present. We're not training our workers to make the needed moves, our education system is shit and where the US was once the beacon of progression we are sorely lagging behind and becoming dinosaurs. Partly because our society became too lazy and partly because of greed from the top down.
Quote:
|
Perhaps you are correct. If managment is incompetant at those companies, those companies will die. Kind of like natural selection. Perhaps the new companies will be leaner, meaner, and more profit oriented.
|
But again, the US lags, we are not the leader anymore and we are leaving great debts and horrific financial and infrastructural futures for our children.
It's sad that the attitude this last quote shows is what the biggest problem is.
Management and the workers aren't working together to advance the companies anymore. It's sad, it's pathetic because of the greed, and it is suicidal to the economy and future of this nation.