It would be naive, in my opinion, to think that hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. His regime has been linked to al queda and is without a doubt a source of funding for their operations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that one of the few things these animals respect is brute force. That is the only way they have ever achieved anything in their histories.

Second to our failure to finish things in the gulf war (a sign of weakness) was the feeble attempt by Clinton of lobbing a couple of cruise missles into the desert after the first attack on the WTC. (another sign of weakness, see the pattern?) We have tried and tried diplomacy and it doesn't work. The extremists still call for jihaad against us and as long as they can count on financial and other support from "legitimate" governments they will continue to do so. They don't think like us and we can't make them think like us so we need to think like them and act accordingly. It seems like they are always going to hate us so we better make them FEAR us or we will never be safe.

It always amazes me that such seemingly well educated, well read, thoughtful people still can't seem to see the forest for the trees....

 

Talk about the kettle calling the other kettle black! You should really take a step back and read what you write sometime. I haven't laughed so hard while online in a long time reading some of these "hick ***" statements!

 

Chris316:

I figured youd love that post. I don't know what you people put in the corn-cob pipe of yours and smoke, but it must be damn good....

At least you have a sence of humor.

 

I'm not sure if there has been a documented and supported direct link betwee Iraq and al Qaeda. Iraq is one of the most secular Islamic countries in the world. While the general population is overwhelmingly Muslim, any Islamic lip service Saddam has paid in the past has been patently transparent. If mullahs were to supplant Saddam in Iraq, then you would see tremendous social, cultural and political changes. One thing that would unite Iraq with al Qaeda is their mutual hatred of United States, so it is conceivable and possibly likely that Iraq has given support (exactly of what nature, I'm not sure) to al Qaeda. But all in all, that's an example of politics making strange bedfellows, rather than a natural, foregone conclusion.

 

Does anyone know when "Desert Glass" is going to take place.

I was kind of hoping to find out so that I might try to get a tailgate party going for some of us here on F150. You know partying and waiting for them to light the CANDLE and send it on over to Iraq. We could all do a count down till light off.

Any input would be great.

 

I know I said I wasn't going to post here again, but I couldn't resist.

Greenspan just said, and I will paraphrase so certain peoples can understand:

Deficit = Bad


P.S. I've concluded that some people just argue for the sake of arguing and no amount of reasoning or common sense will change their minds. People like me always get sucked into that trap. I'm learning, though. Had a classmate in high school. His name was Anthony. Such an argumentative little cuss. He was short, squat, and ugly. All he had was his mouth. All blow, no go. Eventually, we learned to just ignore him. I forgot that lesson from so long ago. I don't know whatver happened to Anthony. He sure left an impression, but he certainly didn't leave a mark.

 

Dennis' real name is Anthony.

 

Dennis

I seriously have to come to the conclusion that you are not interested enough or intelligent enough to grasp the underlying subject, perhaps you can demonstrate the opposite.

So what if Greenspan said deficits are "bad"? And if anyone needs explaining so "peoples can understand" it's you.

Greenspan is a conservative Keynesian economist. I am a liberal Keynesian economist. We BOTH agree that deficits in general are BAD. We BOTH agree that deficits in times of severe recessions are necessary. He believes in LOW to MODERATE deficits. I believe in HIGH deficits. Greenspan is nothing more than an economist with an opinion, just because he says something doesn't make it "right". And besides, you didn't hear him say all deficits were bad, you merely heard him expound on his economic "colors". So, congratulations, you just heard Greenspan say just what everyone would expect him to say, conservative Keynesians don't like deficits....

As an argument against both Greenspan's (and my) viewpoint is the new and popular "supply-side" economists, who have literally thrown out both the basic Keynesian model that has saved us many times and the neo-Keynesian model of economics. So in a sense, both Greenspan and I are on the same team...

Greenspan is a self-admitted Ranyd (sp?) admirer, Keynesian economist, a "laissez-faire" pragmatist, and even is for returning to the gold standard. Do you even know what that means? I have met Greenspan, I have spoken with Greenspan, and I believe the difference between you and I is I understand and can support my position, whereas you "want deficits to be bad" and don't have a clue as far as understanding the underlying arguments for or against your position.

 

This war business is sickening and quite unnecessary. I'm one that does not think we should invade Iraq.

Our biggest problems, as a country right now, revolve around our dependance on oil. If we didn't need oil to run our country, then Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 would never have happened. Iraq would have had no interest in annexing Kuwait and even of they did, we wouldn't have cared in the least about it.

Rid ourselves of this dependance on oil and we rid ourselves of nearly all turmoil in the world.

The Middle East has just one resource and that's oil. If we take away the value of oil, the Midddle East will resemble East Africa overnight. Without money from oil, Iraq wouldn't pose a threat to anyone, in any sense. Not only wouldn't they have any ambutions of obtaining nuclear weapons, but they wouldn't have any means because they wouldn't have any money.

Beyond Iraq; there is the issue of Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. His and their hatred of the West stems from our presence in Saudi Arabia; the Muslim holy land. We're there, because we don't want Iraq to come along and take their oil. 75% of Saudi Arabia's economy is centered on oil. This oil is virtually their only export. Only 1% of their land is farmable. This is not a country that can survive without oil. Bin Laden's family made their fortune in construction. If there were no use for the oil in Saudi Arabia, there would be no need for construction either. The Bin Laden wealth would dry up, along with the wealth of all other Islamic extremists in the Middle East.

What's going to happen........We're going to invade Iraq, no question about it. Every night, we'll hear on the news how many American's died. Saddam Hussein will eventually be killed and we'll be forced to occupy the country indefinately, creating more hatred among Islamic extremists and more continued threats of terrorism. As long as we're in the Middle East, we'll be dealing with terrorism. As long as we need oil, we will be in the Middle East.

As for this business of liberals and conservatives..... We're all just people, that are the sum of our genes and circumstance. No "one" is entirely better than the other.

If our government spent as much time and money developing an alternative to oil as it did trying to control it, we would have no need for it. We'd also be alot better off as a nation and as people because we wouldn't be so concerned about controling the fate of the entire world.

Conserative vs liberal.....Who do you think controls the oil companies and thus controls our government and foreign policy at the moment???

Don't be a butt monkey. Play nice with the other members here

 

Spoken from the heart you can bet...


Ever wonder why noone would ever play with you on the playground cpadyl?

 

Ummm....Because I ate dirt and picked my nose??

 

AjRagno:

Excellent post. I agree with your points of view as far as we need to really look into another source of energy which may or may not include oil. I would agree if we were not so dependant on oil we could bascially let the middle east just sit there and rot.

However, with that said I do believe we need to begin looking into and developing another source of energy to one day replace oil. But we should not do it as some people would like to see by setting high gas milage standards which makes cars more expensive to buy, or fuel oil that most can't afford to heat their home. Nor would I force a type of energy that don't work yet such as electric cars. They do work but they are not realistic.

My point is one side wants another source NOW, and want to try to make oil so hard to get or expensive that we are forced to use something else that don't work well yet.

My plan would be something like this. Some may disagree with it but thats fine its open to debate.

First I would allow more drilling in the US so as to get off as much of middle east oil as possible. Second we need a serious president, be it republician or democrate to really set an energy policy that has time limits that make sence. Say something like 10 - 15 years to begin transforming from gas burning engines to another source. To make it more vesable to big business I would offer big time tax breaks for those that are able to implement another form of energy that will work for the masses, and while doing that taxing the other business that either fail to try or just don't do anything. I know as a republician I am talking "taxing" like I said to get serious about it you need some incentives and disavantages for it to work. Big business can do it, especially if there is big money involved.

For the time being we will for the forseeable future be dependent on oil from over seas and need to defend our national interest. Even though some make "oil" sound like its something only the rich want to defend it really isn't. We all need it because of our current situation, gas buring cars, home heating oil etc. If we don't have it then it will effect all of us. The less money you make the more it will effect you not having oil, or a low supply because prices will be HIGH.

I would love to be president for 4 years. That is all I would get because by the time I was done I would most likey have pissed off every special interest group out there. So no money for re-election. If I were that would be one of the first things I tried my damnest to implement a REAL energy policy.

Any donations????