Most of my opinion on that stems from talking with people that gave presentations at the union whose names I've forgotten. One was a lady that spent quite a bit of time in Iraq. The other was a member of CENTCOM.
Jay Leno Asks Why - OT
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
Now there is plenty of Al-Queda in Iraq. They didn't have much of a presence there before the war. The only WMD's Iraq had were the ones we gave them in the 80's. I can't necessarily defend all the people that voted for the war at the time, but to be fair, few people outside the administration were privy to all of the intelligence.
I find it funny no one mentions Saudi Arabia, where just about all of the hijackers came from and where Sunni fundamentalism is at its highest. Iran also had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Thanks. You are clearly qualified to speak as to where I get my information from. Where do you get yours from?
Another small factor - world production of oil has peaked in 2006. It will be the Chinese, Koreans,US fighting over a smaller oil pot. In fact, the Iranian and other oil fields are slipping dramatically. Having to rely on Venezuala, Nigeria and other dictator like countries is not a pleasant thought.
Chrysler (with GM) is coming out with a fuel conservative hemi for its largest vehicles - just in tiume 18 and 22 mpg for use by the guzzler group. Gas should reach $4 a gallon by end of summer. Big winners are expected to be schlumberger and Halliburton providing more oil drilling services.
Chrysler (with GM) is coming out with a fuel conservative hemi for its largest vehicles - just in tiume 18 and 22 mpg for use by the guzzler group. Gas should reach $4 a gallon by end of summer. Big winners are expected to be schlumberger and Halliburton providing more oil drilling services.
Leno took quite a jump with those poles. I doubt they were asking, “Are you glad you have electricity and running water and live in non-archaic environment?â€
If all presidencies were judged on these criteria I’m sure the approval ratings would be around 100% (minus New Orleans and the Gulf Coast…and parts of Hawkeye country).
I agree that we should remember how blessed we are as a nation, but we should always be serious about the direction we are going. I’m sure these pulls were focusing on environmental responsibility, foreign affairs etc., things the President can directly affect.
Leno is effectively saying, “so what if we are screwing over other countries and the environment and our lower and middle classes; you have water and clothes and drive-thrus, isn’t that enough?â€
That’s kind of shallow and irresponsible. :rolleyes5cz:
If all presidencies were judged on these criteria I’m sure the approval ratings would be around 100% (minus New Orleans and the Gulf Coast…and parts of Hawkeye country).
I agree that we should remember how blessed we are as a nation, but we should always be serious about the direction we are going. I’m sure these pulls were focusing on environmental responsibility, foreign affairs etc., things the President can directly affect.
Leno is effectively saying, “so what if we are screwing over other countries and the environment and our lower and middle classes; you have water and clothes and drive-thrus, isn’t that enough?â€
That’s kind of shallow and irresponsible. :rolleyes5cz:
I'm not the one who claimed they knew troops levels were not adequate. I don't know much about the war, only what is available to the public which I'm guessing is about 1% of everything. And unless you are privy to classified information, you have the same information that everyone else does.
It's so easy to throw out phrases like "war for oil", "3,000 lives lost", "underprotected troops"...everyone has heard that because that's what is on the news...
Where is the "women now have civil rights", "we have built a record number of schools", etc. coverage?
That's a really great observation! the War on Terror extands to a lot of non-terrorist related activities. It requires a leap of faith. "if Iran gets nukes, they'll sell them to terrorists who have the technology to put them in suit cases and set them off in the US and Europe."
It's definitly somthing to worry about. But it is a HUGE speculative leap to make for going to war (See Iraq).
Lots of people mention Saudi Arabia. And yes, there are threats within that country. However, we are alies with SA and their government helps control terrorism within their own borders unlike Iraq/Afganistan whose governments will AID terrorists with attacks against us.
You're right, we do always dwell on the negatives and never seem to celebrate the posatives. That isn't however any excuse to ingore the negatives. At you job, for instance, you probebly do much more problem solving than sitting around thinking about all the things your company has achieved over the last 50 years.
I don't think this is what your are suggesting, but I've heard it from others, and it scares me.
The troops in Afghanistan are fine with the numbers they have. The troops in Iraq is the concern right now. Are there to many or not enough. That is the real question. You may have heard by now that we are spread to thin. That troops are being called back into service. Well guess what guys. This has happened since America first became a country. Over 300,000 died in WW2 and over 75k in Vietnam. 3k while it sucks, still does not represent a huge number for a war. I was in New Mexico at the Bataan Death March Tribute and the older guys were literally laughing at us. Saying how WW2 and Korea would not have been won if that country reacted the same way toward those wars as this war. The NEW America would not have been able to handle 300,000 deaths in order to win a war. Oh well I could write a book on this so I am done for a while.
It's definitely not what I'm suggesting...I was using it to merely point out the amount of information that doesn't get presented in the main stream news (which is the only thing many people rely on). Also, there is so much misinformation out there...it is hurting the war.
I will agree that Biden's plan has more going for it than some that I have seen, but everything looks great on paper. The timetable (2008) is also very suspect. In a perfect world I suppose. The division of Iraq on ethnic lines does not seem like a bad idea, but I also don't know how many Sunni shrines would be in Shia areas, or vice versa.
Holding up Chavez as a shining example is pretty rich though. Almost like that other thread where you started out with "Marx had it mostly right...". Hand outs don't make people like you. It makes people expect more handouts.
Reagan made at least one huge mistake. He gutted nearly all of the government funding for alternative energy research that was started in response to the 1970's oil crisis. Now, we get to start it all over again, and we are 20 years behind.
There will be no more cheap oil, so the alternative energy research will most likely be carried out to fruition this time. China will shortly be wagging the oil "dog" (if they aren't already), just like they are wagging the natural resources "dog" for items like copper and steel.
Last edited:
1. I point him out as someone who has succeeded in getting a lot of the common man to like him by basically buying them.
2. Marx did have it mostly right with regard to capitalism and wealth distribution. I don't think anyone every really rebutted this in the other thread, although I haven't gone back to look. The fact that I throw some unpopular names out there doesn't mean that my points are incorrect.
3. So far you have not offered an argument, just said "no they don't." I can point to at least two examples, namely Chavez and Hezbollah, that have excelled at getting and maintaining power by essentially giving handouts. Honestly, handouts probably both make people like you and cause them to expect more. They are not mutually exclusive.
We could help solve a portion of our domestic oil problem by drilling in Alaska. However, that would (and has) open a whole different can of worms...
Although people are going to be begging for mercy when oil prices skyrocket this summer.
Although people are going to be begging for mercy when oil prices skyrocket this summer.
Nothing is getting done in Darfur because nobody knows where to start. It's such a disaster. If you try and help them (samalia) they will turn on you in a heartbeat. It's a huge and tricky undertaking there.
Just a general question for those of you who think we should be in Iraq:
What is the most positive outcome you can realistically see coming from this war?
There is a civil war at hand. Either we take a side, and help them win, or we get out of the way and let them handle it. A democracy only works when the majority has some concern for the well being of the minority, and the minority will resolve to attempt to make changes peacefully. I don't see either of those things happening.
What is the most positive outcome you can realistically see coming from this war?
There is a civil war at hand. Either we take a side, and help them win, or we get out of the way and let them handle it. A democracy only works when the majority has some concern for the well being of the minority, and the minority will resolve to attempt to make changes peacefully. I don't see either of those things happening.
Oil isn't the answer. Unfortunately, none of our presidents from 1980 to the present have understood this, or had the fortitude to do anything about the problem. Bush is at least giving lip-service to solving the problem. Time will tell if he comes through on his promises.
