Iran says attack us please

[OswaldTheOsprey]

We are in Iraq for one reason: it is a strategic location for the US to maintain a presence in the Middle East.  The Middle East will remain a vital US interest so long as oil is the primary source of liquid fuel for the world. 

What you describe is more suited for an imperial power than for a humble republic.

OswaldTheOsprey

Even a humble republic would be brought to its knees in utter defeat if OPEC shut off the oil flow.

I would not describe the US’ actions as imperialistic; at least not in the sense that the word has been used in history.  Imperialistic powers made their money by seizing the treasure of the lands they conquered.  The US does not do this.  The US creates economic opportunity in the world and creates money in an altogether historically novel way.

What you describe is imperialism with subtlety.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

I disagree as it leaves economic prosperity available to others as well as to yourself.   

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

We are in Iraq for one reason: it is a strategic location for the US to maintain a presence in the Middle East.  The Middle East will remain a vital US interest so long as oil is the primary source of liquid fuel for the world. 

So come on all you big strong men.
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam etc etc

and needs patriotic, conserative americans to give their lives for OIL.

Don't create a stampede to the recruiting office 

[Peter1469]

We are in Iraq for one reason: it is a strategic location for the US to maintain a presence in the Middle East.  The Middle East will remain a vital US interest so long as oil is the primary source of liquid fuel for the world. 

So come on all you big strong men.
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam etc etc

and needs patriotic, conserative americans to give their lives for OIL.

Don't create a stampede to the recruiting office 

Or change the world fuel from oil to alcohol!  http://energyvictory.net/

Or do nothing like Gaunt.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

We are in Iraq for one reason: it is a strategic location for the US to maintain a presence in the Middle East.  The Middle East will remain a vital US interest so long as oil is the primary source of liquid fuel for the world. 

So come on all you big strong men.
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam etc etc

and needs patriotic, conserative americans to give their lives for OIL.

Don't create a stampede to the recruiting office 

ROFLMAO!

OswaldTheOsprey

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

I've stated on this board a long time ago that I support increasing the gas tax if the extra money was dedicated to an all out effort to develop new technologies that would get us off oil.

When I was younger, I did volunteer and joined the Navy in the early 70's, Peter. The ship I was on repeatedly patrolled off the coasts of North Vietnam in the combat zone. I'm far too old to join any military organization now, even if I did support dear leader's concept of world domination ... which I don't.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

whats the matter oz, choking on your own hypocrisy

Hypocrisy?
I'm not the one who raves and rants for war but won't reveal their own background. Can anyone say chickenhawk?

OswaldTheOsprey

we're not discussing your diet.  we are discussing your unwillingness to acknowledge the realities of today?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

so gunnit what happened to you that you can thump your chest regaling your service in the past and at the same time diminish the service of those in the present??

[Peter1469]

I've stated on this board a long time ago that I support increasing the gas tax if the extra money was dedicated to an all out effort to develop new technologies that would get us off oil.

When I was younger, I did volunteer and joined the Navy in the early 70's, Peter. The ship I was on repeatedly patrolled off the coasts of North Vietnam in the combat zone. I'm far too old to join any military organization now, even if I did support dear leader's concept of world domination ... which I don't.

So you will prefer to pay $5+ a gallon for gas than to pursue policies that you somehow think dominate the world?  You have a warped view.  It is not US policies that are dominating the world- it is OPEC’s.  They are taken $65 million per day (as of 2007 when oil was $70 a barrel) from us, and much more from the rest of the world.  I would hardly count that as an American domination. 

I get it- your 1st choice to alternative energy.  But we have not taken those steps.  So your 2nd choice is to let the OPEC nations screw us. 

We share the same 1st choice.  It is with the 2nd choice that we differ. 

Both of my uncles served in the Navy during Vietnam. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

whats the matter oz, choking on your own hypocrisy

Hypocrisy?
I'm not the one who raves and rants for war but won't reveal their own background. Can anyone say chickenhawk?

OswaldTheOsprey

we're not discussing your diet.  we are discussing your unwillingness to acknowledge the realities of today?

Among other things, I was discussing your penchant refusing to reveal your own background while clamoring to get otber people into war.

OswaldTheOsprey

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

irrelevant.   

[OswaldTheOsprey]

irrelevant.   

You are quite irrelevant.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

So you will prefer to pay $5+ a gallon for gas than to pursue policies that you somehow think dominate the world?  You have a warped view.  It is not US policies that are dominating the world- it is OPEC’s.  They are taken $65 million per day (as of 2007 when oil was $70 a barrel) from us, and much more from the rest of the world.  I would hardly count that as an American domination. 

I get it- your 1st choice to alternative energy.  But we have not taken those steps.  So your 2nd choice is to let the OPEC nations screw us. 

We share the same 1st choice.  It is with the 2nd choice that we differ. 

I wonder if you gave the choice of $5 a gallon gas to the 4,125 troops who gave their lives for dear leaders lust to control Iraq's oil or the 30,000+ who have been injured in Iraq -- what would they choose

I never said that we should allow OPEC to screw us. By developing alternative energies and eliminating our need to use their products ... we could tell them to go cheney themselves. They could go ahead and kill each other and we wouldn't give a damn ... just like our attitude towards anything that happens in Africa.

But it will never happen with two oil men in the white house and a republican party dedicated to idealogical idiotcy.


 

[Peter1469]

I wonder if you gave the choice of $5 a gallon gas to the 4,125 troops who gave their lives for dear leaders lust to control Iraq's oil or the 30,000+ who have been injured in Iraq -- what would they choose

I never said that we should allow OPEC to screw us. By developing alternative energies and eliminating our need to use their products ... we could tell them to go cheney themselves. They could go ahead and kill each other and we wouldn't give a damn ... just like our attitude towards anything that happens in Africa.

But it will never happen with two oil men in the white house and a republican party dedicated to idealogical idiotcy.

As to your first point it is utter partisan nonsense.  The US has seized no oil fields.  Had we wished to Saudi Arabia would have been much easier pickings. 

As to your second point- I don’t think that you can point to anything that I have said that is contrary.  You just may not recognize it since I don’t substitute the words “go fuck yourself” with the childish “go Cheney yourself.”  (But until we create an alternative the Middle East remains a strategic part of our national security interests.)  I have made my position on replacing the oil economy with an alcohol economy.  You have only insulted the Shrub administration and the republican congress (such as it is, controlled by democrats and all.)  Do you prefer a solution or more whining?   

As to your last comment, it is more utter partisan nonsense.  The democrats have been in power enough in recent history to get us off oil if they had any inclination to do so.  Your statement makes me believe that you are either (a) a bucket-carrier for the democratic party, (b) stupid, or (c) both.  Which is it? 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

irrelevant.   

You are quite irrelevant.

OswaldTheOsprey

yet still you respond