|
Post by TwinswithJimv2.0 on May 23, 2007 11:53:35 GMT -5
See in the news that Stephen Harper is boosting moral with our troops over in Afghanistan with a speech about what good work they are doing.....here's a thought get your head out of your ass and give our troops some useful Intel. You have troops over there fighting for how many years now, trying to find Osama Bin Ladden, and no one can tell where he is? He's a fu*king 6 foot 7 Arab running through the mountains in a fu*king dress, how hard is he to spot? Hell a kid that opened up any “Where’s Waldo” book could probably do a better job spotting Osama than our own intelligence agency can. They can have amateur footage of the Sasquatch by some inbred hill billy caught on a disposable camera but they can’t find a giant Arab in some mountains using satellites….. Please they know exactly where Osama is, and they don’t want to pull our troops out, instead they would rather have Tim Horton’s open a chain of Coffee shops in the Middle East and keep our boys over there getting killed. Harper you are a D*ck
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 23, 2007 17:55:26 GMT -5
See in the news that Stephen Harper is boosting moral with our troops over in Afghanistan with a speech about what good work they are doing.....here's a thought get your head out of your ass and give our troops some useful Intel. You have troops over there fighting for how many years now, trying to find Osama Bin Ladden, and no one can tell where he is? He's a fu*king 6 foot 7 Arab running through the mountains in a fu*king dress, how hard is he to spot? Hell a kid that opened up any “Where’s Waldo” book could probably do a better job spotting Osama than our own intelligence agency can. They can have amateur footage of the Sasquatch by some inbred hill billy caught on a disposable camera but they can’t find a giant Arab in some mountains using satellites….. Please they know exactly where Osama is, and they don’t want to pull our troops out, instead they would rather have Tim Horton’s open a chain of Coffee shops in the Middle East and keep our boys over there getting killed. Harper you are a D*ck It's interesting that the hunt for osama didn't continue for long after 911. There was always the stories of having him barely slip through their fingers but what has been happening lately in the manhunt? I think the bush family is walking a political tightrope on this one. They have close financial ties with many of the bin ladens. I feel he will never be caught for this reason. BTW I take offense at you calling harper a DICK. LOL
|
|
|
Post by TwinswithJimv2.0 on May 23, 2007 20:51:33 GMT -5
Don’t know if its so much that the Bush Family is walking a tight rope or more that Republicans are using the war as a means to fuel a hallow American economy and set up for a landslide win in the 2012 election.
Think about this for a second, there is alot of money in Oil, and lots of money in weapon development and weapon supplies, so right now the American government is doing what they can to hoard all the oil (which we all know Bush’s family is into oil) as well as make as many enemies as they can so the demand of weapons is in high demand. They are pissing off Iraq, Iran, Afghan, Korean, China, Russia, Mexico, and annoying the rest of the world, the Republicans know they have no shot at holding office next election so they are setting up this false economy based on wars and conflict with other countries, creating a big huge mess that will collapse and plunge the world into a recession as soon as the next president walks into office and tries to fix the mess Bush leaves.
It is pretty brilliant if you think about it, sacrifice the next election so that when 2012 comes around the people will be so pissed with the state of the country they will blame the government that is in place at the time instead of blaming the Republicans of now.
BTW your right calling Harper a dick is pretty offending to all Dicks, lol
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 24, 2007 3:14:57 GMT -5
A landslide win for the Republicans in 2012? Are you nuts?
Let's review:
The Republicans were in power in both the House and the Senate when the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. There was also a Republican President. The Republicans had full control over the Federal Government.
The President made a nice showing immediately following 9/11 and promised the victims of the families that the perpetrators would be caught and brought to justice. Under the guise of a "Global War on Terror", the President sent American troops into Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein. This diversion of troops into Iraq was never going to bring justice to the families of the victims or the American people. Instead, it made more victims of American soldiers and spread U.S. defense forces way too thin.
On an aircraft carrier, the President proudly and triumphatly proclaimed that the "mission" had been accomplished. I suppose he wasn't lying, if the objective was to remove Saddam Hussein. However, the objective was to hunt down and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So the Republicans track record on the war on terror is abysmal at best.
The American people voiced their discontent with the war by putting the Democrats in control of the House during the midterm elections. The American people have grown very tired of the war in Iraq -- a war that many Americans feel the U.S. should have never entered into in the first place.
The Democrats are currently locking horns with the President over a timetable for withdrawal. The President refuses to set a withdrawal date, and has vowed to veto any bill passed by the Democrat controlled Congress.
The government of Iraq appears to be joining the chorus of the House in insisting that a timetable for withdrawal be established. This, from what I've seen, appears to be consistent with what the American people want as well.
The President's refusal to play ball with the Iraqi's and Democrats on this issue will probably lead to a Democrat President being elected in 2008, and will probably lead to the Democrats getting control of the Senate as well.
It is extremely unlikely that Osama Bin Laden will be captured in the interim. And it is highly doubtful that Al Quada will launch any major terrorist attacks in the interim either. My guess would be that Osama Bin Laden is laughing it up right now and expecting the Republicans to be annihilated in the 2008 elections. I seriously doubt that Osama Bin Laden will do anything to prevent that from happening.
Regardless, the Republicans, who were once viewed by the American people as being the best party to fight the war on terror, are now seen as a bunch of incompetent buffoons by many. I'm sure that many Americans now have the view that the Republicans were the worst party to fight the war on terror.
I would expect that the next terrorist attack will probably occur under a Democrat leadership. Probably after the Democrats work some sort of strategy to get the American troops out of Iraq. They may even re-deploy some of those troops into the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. I'm just speculating.
Regardless, if the Democrats win control of the White House and Senate, and they retain control of the House, they will probably -- and I'm just speculating -- focus on the actual war on terror. This will mean a realignment of forces and a strategic plan to focus on the primary objective: Capturing Osama Bin Laden. Should the Democrats prove successful in doing that, the Republicans will have no chance in 2012. Barring any unforeseen economic downturn, of course.
Even if a Democrat controlled Government were to pull off a successful withdrawal from Iraq, and not capture Osama Bin Laden, they will still appear to have been the better party for fighting the war on terror.
This, of course, all supposes that the war on terror remains the pressing issue for America over the next five years. "It's the economy, stupid" plays a big role in that as well. But um, I just don't see a Republican sweep in 2012. The Democrats would really have to fsck things up during their mandate for that to happen. Or, at least, something would have to happen that they could be blamed for.
My prediction is that the Democrats will win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2008. My guess is that they will lose the House in 2010, and retain the Senate. 2012 will see the first two-term Democrat President since Clinton, and the Democrats will lose control of the Senate, but win back the House. But my crystal ball has been known to be wrong on occasion. lol.
Please explain your theory to me, Jim. I'm intrigued.
|
|
|
Post by TwinswithJimv2.0 on May 24, 2007 10:39:41 GMT -5
A lot of what you are saying is exactly why the Republicans are going to win in 2012.
Either the Bro or the Hoe that is voted in as president next term will be screwed because for the better part of their 4 years they will be busy cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush and Rice.
Rice is starting another cold war with Russia, globally scolding North Korea, Pissing on Venezuela, blaming Canada for the American troubles, pretty much pissing off every country the US has dealings with. Next President is going to spend at least 4 years repairing the relations with Russia over this “defensive missile grid” alone never mind repairing and mending the relations with other countries Rice has pissed off.
Bush has started a war, he knows exactly where Osama is hiding out, but won’t go get him because if he does it could mean an end to his war. Before 9/11 the US economy was about to hit the shitter, but now that there are “evil doers” to fight in a war of terror, the US economy is boosted for now, the more countries he sends troops to, the more money the US makes, its simple math really. War demands that more War equipment and supplies are made, making more supplies and equipment means more jobs, more jobs means more money to spend on War, and the wheel turns……
However only problem is now the American public want the troops to return home. So instead of finishing the job he started out to do in the first place and finish this war and bring the troops home he is keeping the “war on terror” going so that he doesn’t have to deal with a failing American Economy. So the next president that comes in is going to start to pull troops back from the war Bush Started and not deflate the economy, combined with Rice’s disaster, better part of 4 years will be spent trying to clean up what the Republicans messed up. (also this is not even mentioning Bush has all his money tied up in Weapons development companies and Oil, which will no doubt have grown to quite a nice retirement bundle at the end of his presidency”
The Republicans don’t really care that Bush and Rice shot the party in the foot because they see the big picture and in 2012 will no doubt be blaming a failing American Economy on the Democrats (assuming either the Bro or the Hoe wins) as well as blaming poor relations with other countries on the next president. Lets face it a person is smart, but a people are stupid, and the American People have the attention span of a flea and will forget the crap Bush and Rice are doing today and blame the state of their country in 2011 on the Democrats.
At least that’s my theory…..but theories are like assh*les, everyone has one
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 24, 2007 11:24:47 GMT -5
You're making some odd assumptions. You're assuming that the war on terror will end with a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I don't think that that's an accurate assumption. You're also assuming that the disaster in Iraq is unfixable. Again, I think that's a fairly parochial view of the "big picture". Finally, you're underestimating the economic effects of leaving war. Which, by the way, can be quite substantial. Look at what happened following the end of the second world war and the ensuing cold war. And that's a really bad analogy on my part. lol.
Either way, I'm hardly an expert on this stuff and I have to admit that I haven't really been following the news that much over the last several months. So I'm quite ready to acknowledge that my view of the "big picture" is anything but all encompassing.
That said, I wasn't suggesting that the war on terror would end upon a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, merely that the focus of the war would be refined and more targeted. In other words, the war on terror would be conducted in a manner that was less damaging to U.S. foreign relations. Thus, a strengthening of international ties would develop.
With stronger international relations, a happy domestic population, a more effective strategy for dealing with terror, and an easing of "U.S. caused" tensions in the middle east, the economic picture at home would be quite rosy in my opinion. I really wouldn't anticipate much of a downside on the economic front. But like I said, I'm not even close to being an expert on this. I don't even qualify as an "amateur observer".
I don't know, maybe I'm just overly optimistic. Maybe I'm just so far removed from reality that I really am clinically insane. Who knows? It'd be fun to find out though. lol.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 24, 2007 11:57:52 GMT -5
Don’t know if its so much that the Bush Family is walking a tight rope or more that Republicans are using the war as a means to fuel a hallow American economy and set up for a landslide win in the 2012 election. Think about this for a second, there is alot of money in Oil, and lots of money in weapon development and weapon supplies, so right now the American government is doing what they can to hoard all the oil (which we all know Bush’s family is into oil) as well as make as many enemies as they can so the demand of weapons is in high demand. They are pissing off Iraq, Iran, Afghan, Korean, China, Russia, Mexico, and annoying the rest of the world, the Republicans know they have no shot at holding office next election so they are setting up this false economy based on wars and conflict with other countries, creating a big huge mess that will collapse and plunge the world into a recession as soon as the next president walks into office and tries to fix the mess Bush leaves. It is pretty brilliant if you think about it, sacrifice the next election so that when 2012 comes around the people will be so pissed with the state of the country they will blame the government that is in place at the time instead of blaming the Republicans of now. BTW your right calling Harper a dick is pretty offending to all Dicks, lol I see the "war on terror" as simply a codephrase for "the F'in empire is dying and we need to secure resources" The gamble is that they are spending vast amounts of energy in the hopes of acquiring a bigger payoff. There is no war on terror. They are in the center of the crude oil universe for one reason and it's not finding Osama. The US could have found 100 Osamas by now if that was their goal. An economy based on growth needs resources to accomplish it. You don't create something from nothing. The mighty US empire consumes a much higher percentage of oil than it produces and the precious liquid is becoming scarcer by the day. The predicament their gluttony has created for them is inescapable. Every great empire has experienced the same fate. The US situation right now is very similar to the fall of the Roman empire. Their only choices are to collapse or fight for their survival. But as with every other time this has happened their efforts will be futile. The Russian empire experienced their economic collapse and actually came through it in pretty good shape. Now they find themselves in control of vast natural gas and crude oil reserves and they are using those resources to leverage power throughout Asia. The US won't be so lucky. They have very little resources and only a mighty army with which to try to bully it from other nations. They can't afford to keep that up forever. The US economy was built on oil and converting every acre of farmland to the production of corn won't save them. Unfortunately our nation will be very much affected by a US economic collapse so I'm certainly hoping the Romans' gamble pays off, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 24, 2007 13:02:23 GMT -5
I see the "war on terror" as simply a codephrase for "the F'in empire is dying and we need to secure resources" The gamble is that they are spending vast amounts of energy in the hopes of acquiring a bigger payoff. There is no war on terror. They are in the center of the crude oil universe for one reason and it's not finding Osama. The US could have found 100 Osamas by now if that was their goal. There is a war on terror, it's just greatly exaggerated. Much like the reports of Mark Twain's death. Although, he really is dead now. lol. I agree that they're not in Iraq to find Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden just isn't there. lol. I do think that you overestimate the U.S. governments abiliities however. An economy based on growth needs resources to accomplish it. You don't create something from nothing. Goes without saying. The mighty US empire consumes a much higher percentage of oil than it produces and the precious liquid is becoming scarcer by the day. Right on both counts. However, "scarcer" doesn't necessarily mean scarce. There have been many reports that suggest that oil isn't as scarce as most people want to believe. The easy oil is becoming less and less, but there are enough oil reserves on this planet to last a very, very long time. The predicament their gluttony has created for them is inescapable. Most reports that I've seen suggest that there is no immediate threat of an oil shortage, nor is there any near term danger of the international oil supply becoming catastrophically low. Every great empire has experienced the same fate. The US situation right now is very similar to the fall of the Roman empire. Their only choices are to collapse or fight for their survival. But as with every other time this has happened their efforts will be futile. It is? Please do elaborate. The Russian empire experienced their economic collapse and actually came through it in pretty good shape. Now they find themselves in control of vast natural gas and crude oil reserves and they are using those resources to leverage power throughout Asia. The US won't be so lucky. They have very little resources and only a mighty army with which to try to bully it from other nations. They can't afford to keep that up forever. Russia has always had huge oil and natural gas reserves. That's nothing new. The problem is that most of it is a bugger to get at. Russia didn't just suddenly wake up and realize that they had oil. lol. The US economy was built on oil and converting every acre of farmland to the production of corn won't save them. Unfortunately our nation will be very much affected by a US economic collapse so I'm certainly hoping the Romans' gamble pays off, but I'm not holding my breath. What economic collapse? Which economists are you basing your assertions on? There is no immediate danger of oil reserves running catastrophically low. The United States has decades to go before they really need to seriously look at their oil situation. I think you need to get over the idea that our nations are just going to wake up one day and find themselves in the midst of a huge oil crisis. That's just not going to happen. What will most likely occur, is the industrialized world will bicker and fight over the easy oil. Once the easy oil is nearing its limit, oil companies and industry will begin to rethink their energy strategies. They're already rethinking their energy strategies, as a matter of fact, and the easy oil is still quite abundant. As oil becomes too costly to extract, alternative sources of energy will begin to see some momentum. What those alternative sources will be, I do not know. What I do know however, is that the the industrialized nations have a lot of time to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 24, 2007 14:32:04 GMT -5
There is no debating the fact that there is still a lot of oil around. The important thing to look at is consumption rate vs. discovery rate. The economics of net energy also comes into play. When it costs a dollar to make a dollar your done. Oil is still cheap energy but it won't always be that way. The US knows this and are acting to preserve their "non negotable" way of life. There is no war on terror. Job one would be to fight [terror]ists. Finding Osama would be a good start. Governments need to justify their actions in war with lies like it's about religion or some other ideology. If they told the truth these campaigns wouldn't even get off the ground. This is 100% about control of oil in that region. China and India are now competing with the US for that oil. It's simple, they control it or die. I know that sounds over simplistic but it's true. It doesn't matter what party runs the country if they are faced with the same economic realities.
Many countries are starting to look at protecting their own interests first. Venezuela is working in that direction and Canada is now debating whether to ensure that we keep some of Alberta for us. As this trend continues the US will become even more desperate as their sources of oil diminish. Bye Bye globalism. Bye Bye Free Trade. I'm no geologist but I know that the Ghawar and Cantrell oil fields are in decline and the North Sea is too. We just aren't finding any more giant fields.
If the foundation upon which the US economy was built (OIL) diminishes what do you think happens? Don't kid yourself, the average American may be in the dark but their leaders understand very well the predicament they are in. Fighting terrorists?? They haven't done much of that and I'm sure they won't waste much energy on it in the future. It's similar to when the English first came here and thought they could fight the natives with their customary gentlemens fighting style. It wasn't long before they learned that it wouldn't work. You can't fight terrorists with warplanes and tanks. The US war machine knows very well that they cannot infiltrate or defeat them. That's why they are not trying. But it should be obvious to everyone by now what they are trying to do in the region. You can't fight terrorism if your not seeking out terrorists. If there is so much more oil out there then maybe they just like wasting resources looking for terrorists where there are none. And maybe they are investing billions into spreading democracy throughout the Islamic countries. Maybe the US is just stupid and I am over estimating them??
Oh, You're wrong about alternatives. There is no alternative (or combination of) that can replace the cheap energy we get from oil. The current model of "the growth economy" is not sustainable without cheap fossil fuels.
The debate will rage on however and time will tell. Hindsight is 20/20
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 24, 2007 16:19:12 GMT -5
I hate to abandon the debate at this point, but this is really an area that I know virtually nothing about. I'm not a geologist, an engineer, an economist, or anybody that would really be privy to any of the information that I would need to adequately debate this. I do believe that I am half-assed decent at noticing which way herds (people) travel, so I can offer observations. But when you get down to the nitty-gritty of things like economics and oil consumption, etcetera, I'm really out of my league. So I'm going to step aside at this point. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge than myself will debate this particular issue further with you. I'd look pretty silly telling you that you're wrong, when I really don't have a clue. p.s. I really can admit when "I just don't know". Contrary to popular belief. Oh, and your karma just went from -76 to -75. I exalted you. Looks like I might be changing after all. lol.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 25, 2007 10:31:04 GMT -5
I hate to abandon the debate at this point, but this is really an area that I know virtually nothing about. I'm not a geologist, an engineer, an economist, or anybody that would really be privy to any of the information that I would need to adequately debate this. I do believe that I am half-assed decent at noticing which way herds (people) travel, so I can offer observations. But when you get down to the nitty-gritty of things like economics and oil consumption, etcetera, I'm really out of my league. So I'm going to step aside at this point. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge than myself will debate this particular issue further with you. I'd look pretty silly telling you that you're wrong, when I really don't have a clue. p.s. I really can admit when "I just don't know". Contrary to popular belief. Oh, and your karma just went from -76 to -75. I exalted you. Looks like I might be changing after all. lol. This is one of those "ignorance is bliss" issues. Most people prefer to keep their heads buried deep in the sand rather than face the truth. Reactions like "technology will save the day" are commonly used by folks who don't realize that energy drives technology and not the other way around. I really can't blame them either. I sometimes wish I could go back to knowing nothing about this issue and just deal with it like everyone else when TSHTF. Technology will surely play a part in delaying the inevitable and in development of alternatives but in the coming years everyone will have to learn to live with less. We have built up a bloated complex system that is not sustainable. My generation may get lucky if we find a couple more giant fields but our kids will have to deal with it when those fields go into decline. At that point the world could be consuming 100 million barrels a day or more. Then our kids have to find more giant oil fields or face an even steeper cliff. You get the picture. We need a miracle energy that can replace crude oil and fast. It is true, we live in interesting times, no doubt. Sorry for veering off topic Roy. Now back to "The Bro or the Ho"
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 25, 2007 13:18:27 GMT -5
This is one of those "ignorance is bliss" issues. Most people prefer to keep their heads buried deep in the sand rather than face the truth. Reactions like "technology will save the day" are commonly used by folks who don't realize that energy drives technology and not the other way around. I really can't blame them either. I sometimes wish I could go back to knowing nothing about this issue and just deal with it like everyone else when TSHTF. If you don't mind my asking, RichardNoggin, what is it that you do? How is it that you are so in the "know" about this subject? Why is it that this particular subject is so important to you?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Nemo on May 25, 2007 13:47:20 GMT -5
If you don't mind my asking, RichardNoggin, what is it that you do? How is it that you are so in the "know" about this subject? He doesn't "know". He's a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 25, 2007 16:12:37 GMT -5
This is one of those "ignorance is bliss" issues. Most people prefer to keep their heads buried deep in the sand rather than face the truth. Reactions like "technology will save the day" are commonly used by folks who don't realize that energy drives technology and not the other way around. I really can't blame them either. I sometimes wish I could go back to knowing nothing about this issue and just deal with it like everyone else when TSHTF. If you don't mind my asking, RichardNoggin, what is it that you do? How is it that you are so in the "know" about this subject? Why is it that this particular subject is so important to you? I work for one of the big oil companies. For many years the history of energy has fascinated me. From the invention of the steam engine through the industrial revolution to the present day mega machine powered by 30 billion barrels of crude a year. The ingenuity of humans is incredible. The future of energy is an even bigger fascination for me. What will power our future? Hydrogen? Fusion? Nuclear? One things for sure, it can't be oil forever. It's finite and we're not exactly conserving it.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 25, 2007 16:17:11 GMT -5
If you don't mind my asking, RichardNoggin, what is it that you do? How is it that you are so in the "know" about this subject? He doesn't "know". He's a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure what's theoretical about a finite resource being finite. I'm not sure what's conspiratorial (is that a word?) about any of this. If you know that I don't know then you must know something more? Care to share any of your knowledge of the subject. Just skip the part about how we're screwing with your money though, OK?
|
|