Where are the whiney libs

[market-tech]

Where are all the whiners when the facts are posted. I posted a thread titled "Kerrys flip flops - very long" a few days ago. It documents all Kerrys blowing in the wind flip flopping votes and positions. Did all you whiners miss it or is it too documented for you to agrue that the guy can't hold a thought or position for more a few hours eh, I mean minutes eh, I mean............. Yea, for those of you driving at night with your lights off, I'll bump it to the top.

[acmanko]

wel Kerry might be flip-floping but it's better then Shrub getting all our boys killed in a war about oil

[market-tech]

If you really believe that you must live under a rock somewhere! I can't believe there are actually people out there that believe all this is about oil.

[acmanko]

wel stupid. oil went from the high 20's a barrel to the mid 40's a barrel. do you need it wrote on your mirror every morning.

[bootlen]

Oh yeah. That's really gonna help him get re-elected.

[bb]

Originally posted by acmanko
wel Kerry might be flip-floping

Maybe your not an idiot after all

[acmanko]

I know i'm not an idiot, i'm nothing like James.

[acmanko]

wrong button.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by bb

Originally posted by acmanko
wel Kerry might be flip-floping

Maybe your not an idiot after all

================================================== =========

Oh, he's an idiot alright.

[acmanko]

you have no idea. who or what i am,

[bootlen]

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

[market-tech]

Originally posted by acmanko
wel stupid. oil went from the high 20's a barrel to the mid 40's a barrel. do you need it wrote on your mirror every morning.

Ac,
So we went to war for oil so the price could double? Please explain your logic, oh yea, and a little documentation regarding "we went to war for oil" would be nice, or is this just another wild lib allegation.

I initially brought myself down to your level by adding a nasty name at the end of my post, but then figured I would not lower my standards that low.

[bootlen]

Somebody give ac a hanky.

[acmanko]

uh. go fill your SUV with gas and then explain to me how it 's not about oil. Explain how exxon/ mobilr and shell/ texaco have records profits and explain how it's not about oil. look at your power bill and explain about it not being about oil. If shrub wasn't a weak ,paltry do as daddy did , sniveling little cry baby we'd done kicked ass and had oil for little of nothing.

[market-tech]

bootlen was right, you are an idiot!

[RoBoTeq]

Consider me on board with acmankow being an idiot.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
you have no idea. who or what i am,

================================================== =========

So why don't you have the scrotum to tell us? Your posts reveal you know so very little but claim to know everything. How is it someone who knows everything be so very misinformed?

[acmanko]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Consider me on board with acmankow being an idiot. we have known for sometime that you where an Idiot.

[caosesvida]

well I don't know who is the idiot, but the war in Iraq and the support that we give isreal, and the way we have supported iran, iraq and the saudi's in the past definetly has somethings to do with oil. We want stability in the oil fields so that the world economy we be somewhat stable. To say that we went to war FOR oil is just as inccorect as saying oil has nothing to do with it. A stable economy in the world helps keep radicals/terroists with a lack of purpose. If everyone in the world had the standard of living that we do there would be very few suicide bomers around. World wars have been because of economy, hitler was able to lead the germans in a crazy "we can conquer the world" idea because they were in a severe depression, when you don't have anything to loose and someone promises you food and greatness what do you expect them to do? such as with the terroists. You get a few intelligent bu misguided people who prey on people who have nothing and convicing them they should blow themselves up to go to heaven is not that hard.

[rob10]

The #1 and #2 reasons for the Iraq war are oil and the containment of terrorism. We need oil to remain the one and only superpower. Also being the ultimate nation upon earth we must stomp out muslimic terrorism from the face of the planet!! If this means that we control certain nations through imposition of puppet governments, so be it!! If this is too much for the panty wearing libs to stomach, then they should stay out of leadership positions!!

[ozone drone]

Kerry's favorite breakfast? ...Waffles

Until confronted by workers at Aun't Jemima's, then his favorite was ...Pancakes

When the workers at Eggo confronted him, he said .. Let me clarify my position.

"Actually I stack both waffles and pancakes on the same plate. I alternate, one day a pancake on top of the stack and the next day a waffle on top"

[remember]

market.

you need a history lesson covering the 20th century.

iraq and the middle east have been a strategic location in the 1900's and today ,because of its resources,oil.

when britian claimed these parts of the ottoman empire after WWI,their oil reserves were in their scopes.

this war is about oil.

we destabilized that entire region(with britian) during the cold war,to keep the oil flowing while competing with the soviets.

we assinated mosadeg(a democratically elected leader) in iran to reinstate the reign of the pahlavi dynasty in 1954,because of oil(anglo-arabian oil co).we supported tyrants and dictators to secure oil contracts.egypt,saudi-arabia,kuwait,UAE,etc.


iran hates us for these decades of tyrants we forced on them.the iranian revolution was backlash to our policies for decades.and the result of that backlash was the popular support of fundementalist clerics that railed the west.

if iraqs main export was broccoli,we would let them kill each other till kingdom come.look at rawanda.

we supported saddam while he was killing his people ,to keep oil contracts.this mess of a puppet dictator was allowed for oil.

and this war was likely for oil.one of the main reasons.

if you (or anybody else) could see the results of dick cheney's energy task force,which from the seven pages released in the judicial watch lawsuit,was compiling the worlds oil reserves.where the reserves are,and their likely amounts.,where the distribution points are. a global picture of where the worlds remaining oil is.

we have been covering the globe ,cornering all of those markets.

the field under iraq,iran,saudi-arabia,is the largest.
now we have a military presence on it.see where we go.

the caspian sea reserves,and beside the current baku-tiblisi-ceyehn pipeline going to turkey,there is the pipeline that has been in the works for 10 years,going thru afghanistan.which has been worked out now that we have a friendly gov't in there.

columbia,plan columbia,we are based there,a major oil producer.(as well as the bogus war on drugs)exxon,occidental

africa

deals in the works for five or six years with khaddafi.to get occidental back into libya,among others.

as well as angola,niger,sudan,equatorial guinea,etc.
we are building naval ports now.
not to mention friendlies like mark thatcher trying to overthrow gov'ts there.

venuzuela,
the cia fomenting attempted coups of nationalists like hugo chavez.they didn't get it yet,but they are trying.

russian oil companies are merging with western companies like exxon/BP
and so on.

the worlds reserves may be reaching their peaks. several of the worlds major companies have had to reduce the estimates of their reserves.royal dutch/shell...BP

and the competition for that finite supply will be increasing with roads and car factories being built in china and india.and their economies booming.

all economies require growth,theirs and ours.

without a stable energy supply,there can be no economic growth.
so if you look at the larger picture ,this move in the gulf is timed as a way to keep the oil flowing to US/british companies.

now as for economics,those companies aren't patriotic. they will sell that refined product to the highest bidder.

US troops may secure afghanistan so exxon/chevron/unocal can build their pipeline,but that oil is going to china/india.
and they aren't going to be paying america taxes on that money,that is corporate welfare at its best.

and americans will pay just like everybody else.

and if bush wasn't so incompetent,that oil would be flowing out of iraq.and if you want a detailed history lesson on how companies can make money on a countries nationalized assets,you can look how the anglo-arabian oil co. jilted the iranians out of their fair share of "their" oil.so someone saying that oil belongs to the iraqi's,doesn't mean anything. and the profits can still be negotiated away from the people.all you need is corrupt puppet official to sell out their countrymen.and oil gives you that kind of cash.look at the shahs of iran,or the house of saud. or saddam. halliburton was one of those companies buying oil from him and the UN oil for food program.


so in a big sense,the only reason we care about the middle east is about oil.
and in a specific sense,we have a footprint there now and whether oil ever gets on the market,only time will tell.but the pattern is the same as always,and the same people are in charge,so you can bet they are up to the same thing.

[sline-dawg]

what good is oil if you can't sell to someone ?? like you said if they had broccoli, who would care. my lights, suv and computer don't need broccoli to run, but my shop does need electricity to produce the things that make my living... if you don't need energy then don't pay for it.. leach off society.

[RoBoTeq]

Let's start calling you "badmemory" or how about just plain wrong?

Originally posted by remember
market.

you need a history lesson covering the 20th century.

iraq and the middle east have been a strategic location in the 1900's and today ,because of its resources,oil.

when britian claimed these parts of the ottoman empire after WWI,their oil reserves were in their scopes.

this war is about oil.

1901 - Brit William D'Arcy is "granted" the right to drill for oil in Persia (now Iran)
1908 - D'Arcy's drilling finally pays off. Persia is ruled by Shah and a constitutional representative assembly, with British and Russian joint influence.
1920 - Ottoman Empire all but gone.
1922 - Britain declares Egypt an independent Monarchy.
1927 - Oil found in Iraq
1932 - Iraq and Saudi Arabia become Independent
1933 - Standard Oil starts oil exploration in Saudi Arabia.
1934 - Oil exploration begins in Kuwait by British/American company.
1938 - Oil discovered in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

In other words, oil did not become a major factor of these countries until after they had become independent.

All the rest of that lengthy post is rhetorical heresay and just downright more bad history.

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by bb

Originally posted by acmanko
wel Kerry might be flip-floping

Maybe your not an idiot after all

no, he's an idiot!

[market-tech]

This whole thread started by me asking why the whiney libs were not responding to my posting of John Kerrys flip flops in a different thread (Titled John Kerrys Flip Flops-very long). As they always do, they have turned the thread around to something completely irrelevant to the original question.

[bobby7388]

There is no doubt that oil is in the equation, but to say that we(America) have gone to war in Iraq/Afghanistan to conquer the worlds oil is just ludicrous.
If you want to discuss economics you first have to have a grasp on how micro/macro economics work and how oil relates.

A good economic policy includes domestic and foreign sectors to increase the output of the generating country. If, for instance, we can't sell our goods(no matter what they are) to foreign markets due to a slow economy we are the losers, but if we can sell to strong economies we win.
Now, what creates a strong economy? stable oil production and flow, Energy. The world benefits, not just us.
You can throw out negative conspiracy accusations all you want, and include some basic facts to boot, but your lacking the whole picture to give your assumptions any credibility.


Saddam, by invading Kuwait created more problems for the world economy than you know, he and he alone could have upset the world market very quickly, instead folks like you think waitng to see what happens next is the best medicine.
Think of this as aggresive surgery with a healing process, and the terrorist are the infection.

[air of honesty]

The "Peacock Throne" had not existed for years. The British and Americans recreated this central government so they would have someone to 'bargain' with about oil rights and commerce. Very few Bedouins and others accepted this then, and some still do not.

We have GOT to face the fact that we stepped in and created much of the political crap in the Mideast ourselves, and now we have to deal with the fallout. We invented the "Shah", and we took him down. A myriad of other actions now come of age.

These people have a right to live in the manner of their own traditions, just as we do. As long as they keep it in their space, it's their business. When and how we intervene in that should take a lot more under consideration that the latest figures on barrel per day output. Peoples in Africa are suffering under conditions that should make any champion of Democracy spring to action. But...

Unfortunately, we've raised the stakes well beyond that over the last 60+ years. We shouldn't be so suprised that it's coming back on us. We just need to get real and deal with it. If we don't like 'Human Rights' abuses (what a 'Liberal' thing to say), that's another issue.

[acmanko]

Bringing up the Shah of Iran only rekindles memories of another Republican president who did more harm then good. Lets keep this on the sorry exploits of the present administration.

[remember]

bobby and robo.


you talk about the need to sell goods,macro/micro economics.

there will be no excess oil. somebody wants it.
they always will. and a countries bottom line doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a companies bottom line.

so if you want to get particular,"bring it on".

what companies are you saying don't have a stake in this situation,the little refiners,local distributors?the big oil intrests are the ones we are talking about.


and robo,that little part of a timeline,doesn't mean anything.what is your point?

from the beginning of your timeline,d'arcy was in favor with many of the british elites/lords, that a concession in persia would help block the russian movement in that territory,which could interfere with trade routes to india.and later on the oil could be used to fuel the navy over coal.and a british port in the persian gulf was to be very important.

not to even get into the next levels of beginnings of this area's story beginning about 40 years before that.

you talk about "the british" gave these countries their autonomy. that is a joke. that is about a gradeschool level of depth.does anyone doubt that britian never got out of the region.it wasn't until the US got the stakes of WWII ,that the british empire had to relinquish some of its grip. those dynasties they dealt with(pahlavi(quahars before that),ibn saud,etc)took over official seats of power. but that is meaningless,except that more papers need be filed to keep an air of pretense.in fact ,it was the deals made by these rulers,that made these oil companies ,like the anglo-arabian oil co,iran;a lot of money while jilting the people in that country.the pahlavi's were the puppets of the west and the revolution in 1979,was the direct result of the sentiment of the people. look at the " sovereign" gov't in iraq. is that proof to you that alawi is ruling iraq. do you think that western companies will not be able to get sweetheart contracts?do you think he is going to be giving orders to the american troops there now?.


you guys try to dismiss the actual myriad of agenda's and wrap it all up in some nice neat little gradeschool summation,on you way to justify what you don't understand today.



and to the point of your post,john kerry's flip/flops.

like what?much of what the republican spin cycle calls a flip/flop, is just a mis characterization of what he said.the problem is that republicans can't grasp nuance ,so to them anything but," YES or NO is beyond their grasp.and as far as his stance on things....
who cares,he is an idiot,but bush is an incompetent idiot.
so the choice is just for show.



[Edited by remember on 09-26-2004 at 12:41 AM]