[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

And because of this we had to invade Iraq?

I say it's time to draw new lines in the sand and break that f*cker up. Give the Kurds the North and the oil there, give the Shia the West and South and the oil and let them know that they'll get foreign aid, security alliances and investment from us in return to access to their oil (double bonus for them as we'll also pay for that oil). We'll have to be a lot more clever with the Shia to keep Iran out of their pocket (or vice versa) but cleverness will come when the next administration is in place. I assume we thread water until then,

And you would stay to do this?

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

notloc_D--


Maybe, but would they have engaged in terrorism if the cookie had crumbled differently?

Some parts of the world have more terrorists than others. I don't think this is because there is a varying distribution of bad people geographically. Certainly everyplace has criminals, or at least jerks. I think that it's more because in some places, there's no perceived need for terrorism -- you're either happy with things, or if you aren't, there are better and more effective ways of trying to change things. In other places, terrorism is about all that's available.

What makes people happy, and what means they have for realizing it, will tend to determine how many terrorists you produce. If a person is miserable, and sees terrorism as a solution (or at least a way to exact revenge), then it's possible that whatever caused that misery is a cause for his actions. That isn't to say that the cause is necessarily to blame; the terrorist still chose to engage in terrorism. Nevertheless, if you're going to do stuff that seems likely to cause misery, and perhaps be a part of a chain that leads towards terrorism, it's certainly worth thinking carefully about whether you want to proceed.

For example, if you promote religion A, and oppress members of religion B, the B-ists will either roll over or fight back. Therefore, given the possibility of the fighting back, maybe you shouldn't oppress them to begin with. You can't lay all the blame at their feet, after all. Plus this just brings us back to the question of whether the B-ists, who are attempting to liberate themselves from the oppression of certain A-ists are even bad people. Perhaps they just want to be left alone, refuse to knuckle under, and lack alternatives.

I think you're trying to simplify things far beyond any reasonable point.

No, I believe you are oversimplifying things here...or maybe the word I am looking for is justifying poor behavior. If Faction A oppresses Faction B...the end result isn't terrorism when it comes to civilized people. Because, as many people have mentioned...terrorist comprise a small portion of muslims (or any given group)...right? The people of good and common demeanor find civilized ways to attack the problem while the criminals go about it in their criminal way. The best example...the civil rights movememtb in the US. Oppression doesn't have to breed terrorism.

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Actually, the more I read of Islam the more I have to say it has a lot going for it. It has a pretty clear set of guidelines for behavior that would eliminate things like crime and moral depravity and proscribes how women should submit to their men, that we pray as Jesus himself did, with the head touching the ground. The periods of fasting. Alms for the poor. It encourages people to study and to grow in the faith. The government would no longer practice the deceit that goes on in Washington that you guys so decry.

There would be no abortion, no drinking or drug use. And even though I believe that people should be free to practice their own sexual orientation, I would have to go along with whatever the Quran and the hadiths and the Imam said, so no homosexuality or any sexual relations outside of marriage.

Every Muslim is your brother, no matter his color. And you are judged only by your good works.

I tell ya, there's a lot to be said for it. And if I ever would convert I would try to put in a good word for you, James and Athens. After all, you guys certainly did your part toward helping Islam to gain control and for that you'd deserve some recognition.

I am not sure if your last sentence deserves:



or:



But, the way your posts are filled with doomsday messages, confusing answers, song lyrics, poetry, and of course the obligatory quote from google make me feel:



But as I realize that I think you are off base I tend to feel like this for you:



And then I think to myself, self, does it really matter what someone puts on a computer nerd forum? And then I feel like:



Which soon leads to me re-reading many of the posts here are thinking that many people who post here are:



Which, in turn, makes me feel much better about myself, and I go back to:



But, I just got off a 14 hour night shift, I am:



So I will just bid you a fond farewell for now.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

And because of this we had to invade Iraq?

We invaded Iraq for one reason and one reason alone: Oil.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by art_director

We invaded Iraq for one reason and one reason alone: Oil.

I'll agree that was the most important in terms of timing and US geo-political strategy.

I'm very impressed that you have vaulted past so many of the other posters to recognize what is now painfully obvious to me.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And you would stay to do this?

Yes, it is more logical to me to build countries based on established tribal and geographic regions than try to force disparate people into a sham of a nation that exists only because of lines on a map agreed upon by former colonial powers - as an example - any country in Africa.

But I thought you would be estatic with this - I did say we keep control of the oil, we just dump the areas where the insurgancy is most prevalent.

But let's jump back to your initial post - so you blaming the potential loss of this war not on false pretenses, poor planning, execution, support and through all this an inability to win the trust and backing of the average Iraqi but on people who protested the false pretenses, poor planning, poor execution and lack of support. That's interesting in an Animal Farm/1984 kind of way. But then again, we've always been at war with Oceania.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by James L

I am not sure if your last sentence deserves:



or:



But, the way your posts are filled with doomsday messages, confusing answers, song lyrics, poetry, and of course the obligatory quote from google make me feel:



But as I realize that I think you are off base I tend to feel like this for you:



And then I think to myself, self, does it really matter what someone puts on a computer nerd forum? And then I feel like:



Which soon leads to me re-reading many of the posts here are thinking that many people who post here are:



Which, in turn, makes me feel much better about myself, and I go back to:



But, I just got off a 14 hour night shift, I am:



So I will just bid you a fond farewell for now.

Of course you do realize that you yourself are someone posting to a computer nerd forum.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Of course you do realize that you yourself are someone posting to a computer nerd forum.

Hi, I am Canadian and like to throw rocks from my glass house at someone with bigger rocks then me

[James L]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Of course you do realize that you yourself are someone posting to a computer nerd forum.

[James L]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Hi, I am Canadian and like to throw rocks from my glass house at someone with bigger rocks then me

Hi, I am notloc_D, and I like to avoid answering direct questions asked of me in forums, and in private messages, but still whine and attack when on a regular basis.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Hi, I am Canadian and like to throw rocks from my glass house at someone with bigger rocks then me

I refuse to comment on the size of my rocks, that's a bit personal don't ya think.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Yes, it is more logical to me to build countries based on established tribal and geographic regions than try to force disparate people into a sham of a nation that exists only because of lines on a map agreed upon by former colonial powers - as an example - any country in Africa.

But I thought you would be estatic with this - I did say we keep control of the oil, we just dump the areas where the insurgancy is most prevalent.

But let's jump back to your initial post - so you blaming the potential loss of this war not on false pretenses, poor planning, execution, support and through all this an inability to win the trust and backing of the average Iraqi but on people who protested the false pretenses, poor planning, poor execution and lack of support. That's interesting in an Animal Farm/1984 kind of way. But then again, we've always been at war with Oceania.

I was amused by your comment about war with the mythical nation of Oceana which military war gamers and planners use when plotting hypothetical engagements and conflicts.

Even despite the arguable presence of every one of the conditions you cite, even to the extremity of their presence, unwavering support at home might have overcome the others. You must admit that even with the handicaps you've mentioned, al Qaeda is still counting on the support of the American people to weaken the American military.

As far as your bold plans to draw a whole new map for the people of that land, are you completely insensitive to what they have been trying to say these many months? Do you ignore that which Osama bin Laden had broadcast to the Arab and Muslim worlds before 2001?

Bill Meyer | 1440 KMED | Friday 25th June | Audio From the broadcast | 1 2 3 4 5 | Windows Media

Questions people are asking about 911 and it's aftermath are answered here

Why did 911 occur?
Emphasizing the “humiliation and disgrace” Islam has suffered at the hands of infidels and their compliant Middle East rulers for nearly a century, bin Laden has long complained that the United States “wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us.” Outraged by the presence of American troops desecrating Islam’s two holiest places: Mecca and Medina, in the 1990s bin Laden demanded that the United States leave the Persian Gulf, stop all sanctions against the Iraqi people and stop using Israel to oppress Palestinians - or else, “American civilians will no more be spared than military targets.”

What you propose is an example of the disrespect and disregard America has for the people of the region and an example of why jihad continues there today.

If you do not understand this today, how many more lives will you spend because of your ignorance?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Hi, I am notloc_D, and I like to avoid answering direct questions asked of me in forums, and in private messages, but still whine and attack when on a regular basis.

Yes. I have heard of a when. It is a cross between a hen and a wren. But I thought they were simple, plump and gentle little birds with no temper. Why would notloc attack them?

[Sosa]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'll agree that was the most important in terms of timing and US geo-political strategy.

I'm very impressed that you have vaulted past so many of the other posters to recognize what is now painfully obvious to me.

So you admit that oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent civilians (more than the "terrorists" have so far)? Then you complain when the natives of that area (the Osamas, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Iraqi nationalists) want to kick you butt, wherever it can be found?

Mojo2, you and people like you deserve to get your ass kicked!

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yes. I have heard of a when. It is a cross between a hen and a wren. But I thought they were simple, plump and gentle little birds with no temper. Why would notloc attack them?

All of the above...except they like to squawk at the lion when they are on the other side of the fence. They only have a temper when the lion decides to roar...to shut the when up

[cpt kangarooski]

mojo2--

Oh, and your argument is about the same as that of the judge, a few years ago, who instructed the rape victim she should have simply laid there and enjoyed it.

Nope. My argument is this: First, the threat of an economic depression is not much of a threat. You're overreacting, as if a bloody nose indicated that you were about to die. I'm saying that even if it happened, it would not be a big deal. Annoying, but certainly weatherable. Second, I value human life far more than you seem to. I would not kill anyone just because it would be good for the economy. You value money more than life, so you'e all for it. How many lives are worth one point on the Dow to you?

If Faction A oppresses Faction B...the end result isn't terrorism when it comes to civilized people.

I disagree. American colonists engaged in terrorism in the Revolution. Slaves engaged in it at times. The Irish did, the Jews living in British-controlled Palestine did, the Palestinians do. It's not uncommon amongst civilized peoples. However, it is usually a method of last resort, at least when engaged in in a somewhat organized fashion.

The best example...the civil rights movememtb in the US.

And frankly, that was amazing. But then, they were finally having successes in the courts, and were getting them enforced. Do you think that this would've continued if Plessy had been upheld?



At any rate, I'm wondering at the point of the thread:

The OP simply says that there are terrorists who are making various contingency plans. That is, they're being smart, and are preparing for various actions by the US, including pulling out. They already have a pretty good strategy for what to do if we're still there.

So it is a bad idea to say that because they have a plan, we cannot pull out. They have a plan for that too. Frankly, we ought to be following in their example by considering all the possibilities. That is responsible. Saying that something isn't an acceptable option only means that we cannot be sure of being able to react appropriately to the situation if it changes.

Of course, that mojo2 would make a leap from a rather dull point the terrorists aren't total idiots directly into insanity is no surprise.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I disagree. American colonists engaged in terrorism in the Revolution. Slaves engaged in it at times. The Irish did, the Jews living in British-controlled Palestine did, the Palestinians do. It's not uncommon amongst civilized peoples. However, it is usually a method of last resort, at least when engaged in in a somewhat organized fashion.

There is a difference between strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up women and children and dumping tea into the sea. A revolution isn't terrorism, it is an organized event.

And frankly, that was amazing. But then, they were finally having successes in the courts, and were getting them enforced. Do you think that this would've continued if Plessy had been upheld?

That is a good question. I don;t think so. Riots, yes. Terrorism, no.

At any rate, I'm wondering at the point of the thread:

The OP simply says that there are terrorists who are making various contingency plans. That is, they're being smart, and are preparing for various actions by the US, including pulling out. They already have a pretty good strategy for what to do if we're still there.

So it is a bad idea to say that because they have a plan, we cannot pull out. They have a plan for that too. Frankly, we ought to be following in their example by considering all the possibilities. That is responsible. Saying that something isn't an acceptable option only means that we cannot be sure of being able to react appropriately to the situation if it changes.

Of course, that mojo2 would make a leap from a rather dull point the terrorists aren't total idiots directly into insanity is no surprise.

This is the problem when dealing with fanatics..But a post-pullout insurection, in my opinion would be a great thing. Not because of the war or murder...but because it is going to force the Arab nations to make a decision. Fight fanaticism, or let it run rampant. It will let the west know who are true enemies are.

Best world scenario....fanatics attempt a coup...the arab nations send in peace keeping troops and make a statement to the world

[Sosa]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

This is the problem when dealing with fanatics..But a post-pullout insurection, in my opinion would be a great thing. Not because of the war or murder...but because it is going to force the Arab nations to make a decision. Fight fanaticism, or let it run rampant. It will let the west know who are true enemies are.

Best world scenario....fanatics attempt a coup...the arab nations send in peace keeping troops and make a statement to the world

Too bad the US didn't do the same thing. Thanks to the fanatics in the White House (and other fanatics who voted for them) the US is directly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives in an unjust war. It is the US who must make a statement to the world, by getting the hell out of Iraq. If it means losing the oil to the new rulers of Iraq (whoever they are, it will be more democratic than the puppet government now) so be it. We have no right to that oil. If you are willing to kill for the oil, don't complain when some of these Muslim nationalists come looking for you.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I assume we thread water until then,

Threading water. Lol - that created a very weird image in my mind.

As for breaking up Iraq, I think you'd need an army of 1 million present in area for 50 years to pull that one off. You'd have everyone except perhaps kurds in your way.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I was amused by your comment about war with the mythical nation of Oceana which military war gamers and planners use when plotting hypothetical engagements and conflicts.

Even despite the arguable presence of every one of the conditions you cite, even to the extremity of their presence, unwavering support at home might have overcome the others.

I'm glad I could make you smile, your response however makes me cringe. You truely are living in a Big Brother world. You seriously believe that flag waving and Apple® pie baking on the homefront is/was/will be enough to overcome the fact that DoD miserably planned the occupation, that we still don't supply our troops with proper Kevlar vest and up armored vehicles, that the local population neither trusts nor wants us there (except the Kurds), all this and more could just be overcome if I just get in a line for my "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon to put on my car. Good Lord are you delusional.

And as has been noted ad nauseam that saying a war based on false pretenses, planned and executed poorly and one that IMO only makes us less safe stinks does not equate to not supporting the troops who are over there fighting it. I love those poor bastards in Fallujah, Baghdad and elewhere, so much so that I do not want to see their lives ended or their bodies maimed in a futile effort. I am not against conflict, our entry in Afghanistan was warranted and that is where I feel our main efforts should have been. Iraq was not even a side show until we made it so and now, it is the main distraction for us, chews up our best and brightest and drains our treasury, the whole time Bin Laden and his Lieutenants still walk freely.

You must admit that even with the handicaps you've mentioned, al Qaeda is still counting on the support of the American people to weaken the American military.

As far as your bold plans to draw a whole new map for the people of that land, are you completely insensitive to what they have been trying to say these many months? Do you ignore that which Osama bin Laden had broadcast to the Arab and Muslim worlds before 2001?

What you propose is an example of the disrespect and disregard America has for the people of the region and an example of why jihad continues there today.

If you do not understand this today, how many more lives will you spend because of your ignorance?

Perhaps al Qaeda is counting on the American people to withdraw support for this war and bring our forces home. But who is to blame for this? Had the administration been upfront prior to our entry, had they listened to the experts on how much it would cost to occupy this country, not to disband the military, not to pursue an overzealous Baathis party purging policy, to not have a casual attitude towards torture so incidents like Abu Gharib wouldn't happen then perhaps the country (Iraq) would not be in the dire straits it is today. If less than half the people did not support the war before our entry and now, more than half do not support the war what do you think is tipping the scales the other way? Michael Moore? Cindy Sheehan? Some Phish fans waving a banner here and there? In reality one can look directly at 1600 Penn. Avenue to place blame for the lack of support.

And what I propose, establishing countries based on ancient tribal and religious affiliations and geography is not insulting to anyone. And working out an economic and security support agreement in exchange for a trade in a resource is neither insulting or degrading.

However, staying the course, which is obviously insulting to Iraqis and the Arab world seems to play right into al Qaeda's hands.

Note: I was not referencing the mythological nation made up in war games but the country that Big Brother rules in 1984 (Oceania) and who are at war with Eurasia.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sosa

So you admit that oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent civilians (more than the "terrorists" have so far)? Then you complain when the natives of that area (the Osamas, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Iraqi nationalists) want to kick you butt, wherever it can be found?

Mojo2, you and people like you deserve to get your ass kicked!

Sosa, please tell me the kind of punishment you would reserve for Osama bin Laden when you saw your babies and grandmother go without food and you would gladly take public transportation to work but your company was shut down because the banks couldn't give them the business loan they needed to make payroll because no one could afford the products they manufacture because of the fuel costs have driven the products out of affordability?

And so on.

What punishment for Osama for ruining your world?

By then would it not be too late to do anything to save the world you once knew?

Well, I have good news for you!

I just save a bundle on my car insurance.

No, actually, the good news I have for you is that the oil which powers our lives today is still flowing and we haven't had to do anything but spend more for it.

It is a shame that so many pay such a high price making this oil available to so many of us who do not appreciate it.

Sosa, I know you appreciate the price paid by so many people in Iraq so you and I can exchange thoughts on our petroleum made computers which were made in overseas factories powered by oil and transported here to this country by oil and which gets electricity from generators which are powered by fossil fuels from overseas and so on.

You do appreciate their sacrifice as you are ready to commit violence because of it.

Yes?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

mojo2--

Nope. My argument is this: First, the threat of an economic depression is not much of a threat. You're overreacting, as if a bloody nose indicated that you were about to die. I'm saying that even if it happened, it would not be a big deal. Annoying, but certainly weatherable. Second, I value human life far more than you seem to. I would not kill anyone just because it would be good for the economy. You value money more than life, so you'e all for it. How many lives are worth one point on the Dow to you?

I disagree. American colonists engaged in terrorism in the Revolution. Slaves engaged in it at times. The Irish did, the Jews living in British-controlled Palestine did, the Palestinians do. It's not uncommon amongst civilized peoples. However, it is usually a method of last resort, at least when engaged in in a somewhat organized fashion.

And frankly, that was amazing. But then, they were finally having successes in the courts, and were getting them enforced. Do you think that this would've continued if Plessy had been upheld?

At any rate, I'm wondering at the point of the thread:

The OP simply says that there are terrorists who are making various contingency plans. That is, they're being smart, and are preparing for various actions by the US, including pulling out. They already have a pretty good strategy for what to do if we're still there.

So it is a bad idea to say that because they have a plan, we cannot pull out. They have a plan for that too. Frankly, we ought to be following in their example by considering all the possibilities. That is responsible. Saying that something isn't an acceptable option only means that we cannot be sure of being able to react appropriately to the situation if it changes.

Of course, that mojo2 would make a leap from a rather dull point the terrorists aren't total idiots directly into insanity is no surprise.

Young men test themselves and try on various manners and dress in college. It is the place to stretch one's mind and experiment with every idea that comes to him. I apologize for the attempts to discourage your explorations.

There is one significant thing I will ask of you before we continue this discourse. Call an officer of your local bank, or a CPA or a trader or manager at an investment firm or an investment attorney or a real estate broker or your mayor or an economics professor and ask them what would happen if oil reached Osama bin Laden's price of $200/barrel.

Be sure to remember to ask if the resulting economic depression would be likened to, "a bloody nose."

I'll be anxious to hear their responses.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sosa

Too bad the US didn't do the same thing. Thanks to the fanatics in the White House (and other fanatics who voted for them) the US is directly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives in an unjust war. It is the US who must make a statement to the world, by getting the hell out of Iraq. If it means losing the oil to the new rulers of Iraq (whoever they are, it will be more democratic than the puppet government now) so be it. We have no right to that oil. If you are willing to kill for the oil, don't complain when some of these Muslim nationalists come looking for you.

It just occurred to me that you may not have been present or have visited or have read or have understood any of the evidence that has been posted and talked about these last 3 or 4 months dealing with Osama's intentions and the effect of it would have were he to achieve his goals.

From page one here is a re-post of some information you might find helpful.

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html
Quote:
One of Osama Bin-Laden's goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.


Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbi...00406020835.asp
By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.



Quote:
http://www.archiveondemand.com/qfil...topics.0410.htm
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the U.S. It was the first footage in more than a year of the fugitive al-Qaida leader. Now mainstream is speculating about very expensive oil. "Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?'' This report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead. On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says "we suspect it's well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.'' Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia's best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years -- $300 million at the moment.


Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1716957,00.html

There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region. Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. “I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.”

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm trying to decide which image more aptly describes your level of understanding of the danger. He has told you he's at war with you. Do you not believe him? He has shown you he is at war with you. Do you still not believe him? He has said it repeatedly. Do you remain steadfast in disbelief? He kills those who are trying to keep him from killing you and the country you, apparently, take for granted. Do you just naively not understand? Do you have your head up your rectum? Or is the truth too much for you to acknowledge?

blah blah...

Mojo, debating with you is very frustrating. You managed to quote me in three separate messages, yet you didn't even acknowledge or respond to anything I said.

Here's another generalization for the kids who like them:

When Republicans are hearing something that does a reasonably good job at questioning their beliefs, they simply turn up the volume and become louder and even more repetitive.

Seriously, this is exactly what you're doing. Not only that, but during several occasions in the past, you become rude, more aggressive, and hostile. What a winning combination.

So, I think I'll just ignore your responses if you continue like this. If I want a one-way conversation, I'll have it with some sort of inanimate object.

[cpt kangarooski]

Mojo2--

what would happen if oil reached Osama bin Laden's price of $200/barrel.

I don't think a hell of a lot. It's presently over a quarter of that. Actual gas prices (yes, oil is used in a lot of stuff, but I don't feel like looking through every industry) vary considerably, however. Europe has higher prices than we do, and they do ok. Their prices would not rise tremendously, if the government helped to regulate things (which is the same mechanism we in the US use to mitigate the harmful effects of depressions, and to minimize the depressions themselves). We'd be in for a shock, but only because our prices have been lower than they really ought to be.

Still, there are a couple of ways of avoiding even this.

We could be bloody-minded murders, and conquer ourselves some more oil. This is your preferred solution, because you don't value life, you value your personal material comfort.

Or, we could significantly lessen our reliance on oil so that even with reduced supply, the reduced demand is a mitigating factor. However, we need to start doing this yesterday, because it's not an easy thing to accomplish, and cannot be done overnight. The longer we wait, the longer we think that we can have as much oil as we want, cheaply -- which you appear to think will be as long as we can find suckers to die for it and victims to be killed for it -- the harder it will be.

This will likely bring some lifestyle changes -- less driving but more use of rail, tearing down suburbs and replacing them with farms located conveniently close to true cities, and so forth -- but that would hardly be a bad thing.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I'm glad I could make you smile, your response however makes me cringe. You truely are living in a Big Brother world. You seriously believe that flag waving and Apple® pie baking on the homefront is/was/will be enough to overcome the fact that DoD miserably planned the occupation, that we still don't supply our troops with proper Kevlar vest and up armored vehicles, that the local population neither trusts nor wants us there (except the Kurds), all this and more could just be overcome if I just get in a line for my "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon to put on my car. Good Lord are you delusional.

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The line is an apparent reference to a phrase - "hearts and minds" - often used by President Bush.

Once again, if President Bush says that public support is important and if the #2 al Qaeda leader says it is more than half the battle, who am I to question them?

And as has been noted ad nauseam that saying a war based on false pretenses, planned and executed poorly and one that IMO only makes us less safe stinks does not equate to not supporting the troops who are over there fighting it. I love those poor bastards in Fallujah, Baghdad and elewhere, so much so that I do not want to see their lives ended or their bodies maimed in a futile effort. I am not against conflict, our entry in Afghanistan was warranted and that is where I feel our main efforts should have been. Iraq was not even a side show until we made it so and now, it is the main distraction for us, chews up our best and brightest and drains our treasury, the whole time Bin Laden and his Lieutenants still walk freely.

A man who is blind either fears every step or fears no step. You would go into Iraq and herd that population around like your own cattle. Though that is why you are being attacked. Then you would remove any reasonable protection to the life giving teats from which you suckle as though you were a two legged SUV, even though that is why you invaded. It is good that only your own life is entrusted to your judgment.

Perhaps al Qaeda is counting on the American people to withdraw support for this war and bring our forces home. But who is to blame for this? Had the administration been upfront prior to our entry, had they listened to the experts on how much it would cost to occupy this country, not to disband the military, not to pursue an overzealous Baathis party purging policy, to not have a casual attitude towards torture so incidents like Abu Gharib wouldn't happen then perhaps the country (Iraq) would not be in the dire straits it is today. If less than half the people did not support the war before our entry and now, more than half do not support the war what do you think is tipping the scales the other way? Michael Moore? Cindy Sheehan? Some Phish fans waving a banner here and there? In reality one can look directly at 1600 Penn. Avenue to place blame for the lack of support.

As I have often advised in other instances where posters fall victim to their emotions, you must wait until the right time to play the blame game. Delaying gratification does not mean you will not be served. At this time your meal is still being prepared. If you would look at the OP you will see what was written is not an assessment of blame as much as a false alarm to enable you to really feel the agony of defeat and use whatever time is left to change that POSSIBLE outcome to one which has a more favorable conclusion.

And what I propose, establishing countries based on ancient tribal and religious affiliations and geography is not insulting to anyone. And working out an economic and security support agreement in exchange for a trade in a resource is neither insulting or degrading.

However, staying the course, which is obviously insulting to Iraqis and the Arab world seems to play right into al Qaeda's hands.

Note: I was not referencing the mythological nation made up in war games but the country that Big Brother rules in 1984 (Oceania) and who are at war with Eurasia.

Don't you really think that at this point, (if not before, then CERTAINLy now) that the people of Iraq should decide if, when and how their country should be partitioned or not?

What the invasion did was to secure the world's ability to purchase oil as had been done for generations. You want to impose your idea onto Iraqis to change the face of their maps of their land so it should be pleasing to you?

That is the height of arrogance and goes beyond our attempt to preserve our own lives and our own economy and the global economy. You are exactly what bin laden is fighting against.

[Macrobat]

Not to mention the fact that the Turks, a NATO member, and ally, would pitch a Class A hissyfit about the establishment of a "Kurdistan."

[besson3c]

RIRedinPA: I suggest talking to a toaster rather than Mojo. Me, I'm getting more mileage out of my trusty mop!

Hey Mojo, how about trying to respond to what people actually say for once? Quit with the shuck and jive.

P.S. Do you sell Buick LeSabres in your spare time?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Mojo2--


I don't think a hell of a lot. It's presently over a quarter of that. Actual gas prices (yes, oil is used in a lot of stuff, but I don't feel like looking through every industry) vary considerably, however. Europe has higher prices than we do, and they do ok. Their prices would not rise tremendously, if the government helped to regulate things (which is the same mechanism we in the US use to mitigate the harmful effects of depressions, and to minimize the depressions themselves). We'd be in for a shock, but only because our prices have been lower than they really ought to be.

Still, there are a couple of ways of avoiding even this.

We could be bloody-minded murders, and conquer ourselves some more oil. This is your preferred solution, because you don't value life, you value your personal material comfort.

Or, we could significantly lessen our reliance on oil so that even with reduced supply, the reduced demand is a mitigating factor. However, we need to start doing this yesterday, because it's not an easy thing to accomplish, and cannot be done overnight. The longer we wait, the longer we think that we can have as much oil as we want, cheaply -- which you appear to think will be as long as we can find suckers to die for it and victims to be killed for it -- the harder it will be.

This will likely bring some lifestyle changes -- less driving but more use of rail, tearing down suburbs and replacing them with farms located conveniently close to true cities, and so forth -- but that would hardly be a bad thing.

Once again, I invite you to ask someone in a position to know of such things, what the effect would be of an economic depression caused by bin Laden's intended $200/barrel price tag.

Someone might say it would be nothing. Another might say global destruction. Still a third might say the lost city of Atlantis will only re-appear when oil is at $200/barrel.

I am not a financial professional. Whatever I say might be wrong. Completely wrong. You must not trust my assessment. You must find out for yourself so that you might enlighten me in this discussion.

I will be waiting.

I just thought of this, if you regularly seek the counsel of learned men, you will one day be thought a learned man.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

RIRedinPA: I suggest talking to a toaster rather than Mojo. Me, I'm getting more mileage out of my trusty mop!

Hey Mojo, how about trying to respond to what people actually say for once? Quit with the shuck and jive.

P.S. Do you sell Buick LeSabres in your spare time?

Hello besson3c,, I am listening to ITMS and Chase Sanborn's, "Crazy She Calls Me," just began playing. Most of it is quite enjoyable. I accept it as it is.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Mojo, debating with you is very frustrating. You managed to quote me in three separate messages, yet you didn't even acknowledge or respond to anything I said.

Here's another generalization for the kids who like them:

When Republicans are hearing something that does a reasonably good job at questioning their beliefs, they simply turn up the volume and become louder and even more repetitive.

Seriously, this is exactly what you're doing. Not only that, but during several occasions in the past, you become rude, more aggressive, and hostile. What a winning combination.

So, I think I'll just ignore your responses if you continue like this. If I want a one-way conversation, I'll have it with some sort of inanimate object.

I have not seen your posts and apologize for any unintentional misses caused by an irregular viewing pattern after submitting my own post.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Once again, if President Bush says that public support is important and if the #2 al Qaeda leader says it is more than half the battle, who am I to question them?

Um, yeah, no argument there. Why don't you ask Bush why he's losing support on the war.

A man who is blind either fears every step or fears no step. You would go into Iraq and herd that population around like your own cattle. Though that is why you are being attacked. Then you would remove any reasonable protection to the life giving teats from which you suckle as though you were a two legged SUV, even though that is why you invaded. It is good that only your own life is entrusted to your judgment.

I do believe dimentia has set in. I'm sure you think you are being a wise sage here but please, save the parables and analogys and just try to speak clearly if possible.

As I have often advised in other instances where posters fall victim to their emotions, you must wait until the right time to play the blame game. Delaying gratification does not mean you will not be served. At this time your meal is still being prepared. If you would look at the OP you will see what was written is not an assessment of blame as much as a false alarm to enable you to really feel the agony of defeat and use whatever time is left to change that POSSIBLE outcome to one which has a more favorable conclusion.

Don't you really think that at this point, (if not before, then CERTAINLy now) that the people of Iraq should decide if, when and how their country should be partitioned or not?

Please save your advice, it is not wanted, helpful or intelligent. And is it not you who started this blame game - I believe by referencing those opposed to the war as being the reason why the war is failing.

As for your other part indeed the people of Iraq should determine their own destiny. But if you believe that shouldn't we pick up camp and leave then to let them sort it out? Actually the Kurds have already taken steps to be autonomous, mostly thanks to our support, and if you think they are going to suffer being a minority member of a Shia led nation your more of a fool than your post would lead one to believe, the Sunni insurgents are voicing their displeasure at the occupation and/or the thought of a Shia lead Iraq and well, the Shias have pretty much established their dominion.

What the invasion did was to secure the world's ability to purchase oil as had been done for generations. You want to impose your idea onto Iraqis to change the face of their maps of their land so it should be pleasing to you?

Pleasing to me? Good Lord, listen to yourself. I could easily turn the tables, you want to deny the Kurds their own homeland, the Shia the right to govern themselves and associate with whom they please, be that Iran or other nations, to please yourself. Here's a quick history lesson - other than in the 20th century there has never been a nation state known as Iraq, throughout the region's history it has fallen under the rule of the British, Turks (Ottoman Empire), the Iranians (Safavids), Turkman tribes, the Mongols, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Bablyonians and Summerians. The merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra into a nation state did not occur until after WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman empire.

You want to defeat bin Laden end the occupation and let the Iraqis govern themselves, choosing whether to stay united or split into 3 seperate nations. Provide them with whatever economic and other support they want or need. Offer equitable trade deals for the oil.

That is the height of arrogance and goes beyond our attempt to preserve our own lives and our own economy and the global economy. You are exactly what bin laden is fighting against.

Reread what you have typed. "We have secured the ability to purchase oil" which requires us to station troops in the heart of the Arab world. And my ideas are the height of arrogance. As I said, apparently the dimentia has set in.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by besson3c

RIRedinPA: I suggest talking to a toaster rather than Mojo. Me, I'm getting more mileage out of my trusty mop!

Hey Mojo, how about trying to respond to what people actually say for once? Quit with the shuck and jive.

P.S. Do you sell Buick LeSabres in your spare time?

I'm kind of enjoying the double speak, garble and randomness of thought.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

All of the above...except they like to squawk at the lion when they are on the other side of the fence. They only have a temper when the lion decides to roar...to shut the when up

You have a way with words.

[besson3c]

double post...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I have not seen your posts and apologize for any unintentional misses caused by an irregular viewing pattern after submitting my own post.

You've probably missed dozens of my posts in the past then, not to mention many others put together by other posters. I don't buy this, this is just your rhetoric.

You are perfectly welcome to start responding to my message, or anybody else's... it's still on this page. You even quoted me three times.

Why did you quote me? Why not just quote some random crap, or don't quote at all? How about this:

WHEN Diane Carr turned 37 with a compelling desire to have a baby and no true love to have one with, she began, gingerly, to explore the other option she had filed in the back of her mind.

Debra Taras, a psychologist in Philadelphia, with her daughter, Olivia, 23 months. Dr. Taras selected specific traits she wanted from the father of her child from a sperm bank questionnaire.

Like other single women who have found themselves sifting through online profiles of anonymous sperm donors recently, Ms. Carr, a real estate broker in Atlanta, was quickly convinced that buying sperm was the easiest way to have a baby without a partner. She also concluded that it has quietly become a socially acceptable choice, if only because so many are making it.

Ms. Carr's hairdresser, it turned out, knew someone who had just conceived that way, as did one of her own clients. An Atlanta chapter of a national support group for "single mothers by choice" formed two years ago and had 26 members.

blah blah blah.. Osama and $200 barrels of oil.. blah blah blah.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I'm kind of enjoying the double speak, garble and randomness of thought.

It's kind of like how Rumsfeld talks with the press and other people, he just sort of talks through the problem and sees if he can talk himself through the problem solving process. I admire his candor. Too bad his objectives are the same every time he speaks - to spin things in a way that makes him and his administration look competent.

Sorry, went off on a tangent here. This Mojo thing is contagious.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Um, yeah, no argument there. Why don't you ask Bush why he's losing support on the war.



I do believe dimentia has set in. I'm sure you think you are being a wise sage here but please, save the parables and analogys and just try to speak clearly if possible.

If you are disappointed in the answers it is only because you have come to expect and enjoy the anticipated responses. The responses I make are as genuine as any others. Accept them or not. Join me for discourse or don't.

Please save your advice, it is not wanted, helpful or intelligent. And is it not you who started this blame game - I believe by referencing those opposed to the war as being the reason why the war is failing.

As for your other part indeed the people of Iraq should determine their own destiny. But if you believe that shouldn't we pick up camp and leave then to let them sort it out? Actually the Kurds have already taken steps to be autonomous, mostly thanks to our support, and if you think they are going to suffer being a minority member of a Shia led nation your more of a fool than your post would lead one to believe, the Sunni insurgents are voicing their displeasure at the occupation and/or the thought of a Shia lead Iraq and well, the Shias have pretty much established their dominion.

While I beg the pardon of those who might take offense at our being there, the fact is that we are like the lion drinking from the river. It must drink or die. Any who believes the lion would die of thirst while the river flows is a fool. But the lion will not casually walk amongst the hyena and can not order it's world.

Pleasing to me? Good Lord, listen to yourself. I could easily turn the tables, you want to deny the Kurds their own homeland, the Shia the right to govern themselves and associate with whom they please, be that Iran or other nations, to please yourself. Here's a quick history lesson - other than in the 20th century there has never been a nation state known as Iraq, throughout the region's history it has fallen under the rule of the British, Turks (Ottoman Empire), the Iranians (Safavids), Turkman tribes, the Mongols, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Bablyonians and Summerians. The merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra into a nation state did not occur until after WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman empire.

Your research impresses me however, as it applies to your plans for the Iraqi people I suggest you study information concerning their views and plans.

You want to defeat bin Laden end the occupation and let the Iraqis govern themselves, choosing whether to stay united or split into 3 seperate nations. Provide them with whatever economic and other support they want or need. Offer equitable trade deals for the oil.

I believe if the United States left Iraq before the Iraqi military could defend the World's oil as well as we have that the USA would become one big suicide terrorist victim and we would be the suicide terrorist as well.

Reread what you have typed. "We have secured the ability to purchase oil" which requires us to station troops in the heart of the Arab world. And my ideas are the height of arrogance. As I said, apparently the dimentia has set in.

Any animal will fight to the death to save it's own life. Our civil and criminal courts recognize the imperative to preserve one's own life even at the expense of others.'

What we do there is preserve the life of this nation. The oil is that important. Beyond empowering the people to create their own government and helping them achieve what we ourselves enjoy is outside the considerations of our self preservation or their betterment simply because THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE POWER to decide such things themselves.

Why not begin drawing up your plans for iran or venezuela before that field becomes too crowded?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you are disappointed in the answers it is only because you have come to expect and enjoy the anticipated responses. The responses I make are as genuine as any others. Accept them or not. Join me for discourse or don't.

If by genuine you mean that you are trying to partake in a genuine conversation, no you aren't. You are wanting a platform for saying whatever you want to say, you don't want to have an actual conversation with us. This has been the case for a long time.

Still waiting for you to respond to my posts. You see, this is how conversation with human beings takes place: one person says some stuff, the other person responds by reacting to what the first person contributed to the conversation.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a significant other that likes to bitch about you not listening to her?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You've probably missed dozens of my posts in the past then, not to mention many others put together by other posters. I don't buy this, this is just your rhetoric.

You are perfectly welcome to start responding to my message, or anybody else's... it's still on this page. You even quoted me three times.

Why did you quote me? Why not just quote some random crap, or don't quote at all? How about this:

blah blah blah.. Osama and $200 barrels of oil.. blah blah blah.

I find the story interesting and touching and the "blah blah blah.. Osama and $200 barrels of oil.. blah blah blah," is humorous.

I've searched for the posts of yours I may have missed and whatever my original impediment was still afflicts me. Please re-post the posts I'm missing.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If by genuine you mean that you are trying to partake in a genuine conversation, no you aren't. You are wanting a platform for saying whatever you want to say, you don't want to have an actual conversation with us. This has been the case for a long time.

Still waiting for you to respond to my posts. You see, this is how conversation with human beings takes place: one person says some stuff, the other person responds by reacting to what the first person contributed to the conversation.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a significant other that likes to bitch about you not listening to her?

Huh, what? Did you say something?












Gotta go. TTYL! Have a good day.

[cpt kangarooski]

mojo2--

Our civil and criminal courts recognize the imperative to preserve one's own life even at the expense of others.

No, only if you're attacked first, and even then usually only if you have no other alternative, such as fleeing. Did Iraq attack us? Did they pose a realistic threat to us? Were we out of alternatives? The answers are no, no, and no.

What we do there is preserve the life of this nation. The oil is that important.

Wow.

First, our country is not in mortal danger due to high oil prices. Our lifestyle might be, but so what? Our country has survived not having cars in the past. In fact, our founders didn't even imagine cars. The ability to sit on your ass and use the drive through or go to Walmart are not important.

Second, there are alternatives to oil.

Third, the people of the US are no more important than other people anywhere else. Our lives are not so valuable that it is acceptable by any standard to kill others and conquer them when there is no actual threat to us, and we merely want to preserve our wasteful materialism. You've just said that you're willing to kill people for the sake of our economy. That you'd shoot a foreign child in the head for a penny off the price of gas.

Basically, you're the worst sort of human being and you're exposed as such. I think we're done.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I find the story interesting and touching and the "blah blah blah.. Osama and $200 barrels of oil.. blah blah blah," is humorous.

I've searched for the posts of yours I may have missed and whatever my original impediment was still afflicts me. Please re-post the posts I'm missing.

What part are you not understanding? {B}THE POSTS ON THIS VERY PAGE YOU QUOTED THREE TIMES[/B].

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Wow.

First, our country is not in mortal danger due to high oil prices. Our lifestyle might be, but so what? Our country has survived not having cars in the past. In fact, our founders didn't even imagine cars. The ability to sit on your ass and use the drive through or go to Walmart are not important.

Second, there are alternatives to oil.

Third, the people of the US are no more important than other people anywhere else. Our lives are not so valuable that it is acceptable by any standard to kill others and conquer them when there is no actual threat to us, and we merely want to preserve our wasteful materialism. You've just said that you're willing to kill people for the sake of our economy. That you'd shoot a foreign child in the head for a penny off the price of gas.

Basically, you're the worst sort of human being and you're exposed as such. I think we're done.

He has also argued in the past that even though the pretense for invading Iraq was mistruths/lies/incorrect (depending on how you want to look at them), this is morally okay because we are securing oil for our country.

Mojo, do you really think this is a Christian way of looking at things? Wait, why am I even bothering? He won't respond to this question... maybe if I flag it..

HEY MOJO! THIS WAS A QUESTION, YOU SHOULD RESPOND TO THIS. ABOVE. THE LAST PARAGRAPH. YEAH, THAT ONE. No, hold off on another rant about Osama and $200 oil.. stay on task buddy, stay with it. You can do it!

Now, deal with the backlog of points and questions people have asked you that you haven't even acknowledged.

Maybe you don't want to? Well then, why don't you post your stuff on http://IHeartGeorgeBush.com where you won't have to deal with any dissenting opinions. Yeah, just tune us out. That's a good strategy too.

[sminch]

as much as i'd like ot respond to everything else that's happened since i left yesterday, i'll just respond to this one thing which has been bugging me...

Actually you did invade the "stable country"! Even if you voted against Bush, even if you are personally against the war..., you have invaded because that's what democracy is: Every possible voter, even if unregistered, is equally responsible for the actions of its government as those who registered and voted specifically for the republicans, cause the winner of the majority gets it all, even the support of those that didn't vote or voted against the winning party. Otherwise the country would grind to a halt, taxes not being paid anymore, mass-strikes, even revolts would happen...

Taliesin

no, i didn't. i'm not from the US or any other part of the "coalition of the willing". the actions of my government amounted to nothing more than telling bush to get a grip.

sminch

[sminch]

i'm confused - you're talking about how osama et al are winning, that we know what they want and what it will do, but none of this is particularly surprising, is it? they don't like the west - did we not know this a few years ago? did the earlier attacks not clue you in? did we not stop and think about how invading iraq will look to the muslim world? how this was playing into his hands?

oh yeah, that's right - some of us did, and we didn't join your coalition. we were "with the terrorists", if i remember correctly.

so why the hell was iraq invaded? all this has done is turn a reasonably stable (albeit nasty (yes, we know)) country into a hotbed of terrorism and a recruiting ground for osama and his mates. wmd? links to al qaeda? a threat to the west? iraq was nothing, and these reasons were utter bollocks. were, because at least two of those three are now entirely correct, thanks to your gung ho, half arsed attempts to get your way.

of course, we were siding with the terrorists when we didn't support your crazy war, and now it's our fault that this war has turned out to be (shock!) the bad idea we always said it was. and now we get this reaction, and this is exactly what pisses me off about people of your ilk - full of piss and vinegar when you're looking for a simple answer to your problems (ie. don't like osama, can't find osama, attack another country instead!), then whiny little blame-merchants when things go wrong. grow a pair and reap what you've sown.

global recession? mate, if there is one it looks to me like your actions brought it on so don't try to find a scapegoat. and if there is as recession, it'll suck but it's hardly the first and it won't be the last. maybe it'll be for the best, anyway - we'll be forced to stop relying on oil so much, get the hell out of the middle east as a result, and osama will lose a hell of a lot of his leverage.

the cpt is right - you're more concerned about money than anything else, maintaining your lifestyle at the expense of others' lives. very christian of you. but then again, i guess they're dirty foreign muslims, so they don't count, right? that'll learn 'em for being the same religoin as a guy who attacked us!

sminch

[Sky Captain]

AAHAHAHA! The letter is a fake.

[tie]

As soon as we find Waldo and his stash of WMD, this will all be seen as well worth while. Spacefreak told me that there's going to be a big news release any day now; Bush has just been holding all the evidence back so the loony liberals can dig themselves a hole.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

AAHAHAHA! The letter is a fake.

Shhh! Let's not spoil the fun, eh?

[Sosa]

I'm surprised Zimphire has not joined this discussion. Mojo2 reminds me of Zimphire, making stupid jokes rather than trying to answer criticism.