America under siege?[just perris in a rant]

[mlakrid]

So does this mean we will be at the forefront of the war against genocide?
Like Rwanda, Mayalasia or anywhere else...I know we were in Serbia/Croatia but we were there on Clinton's watch. What happened To Rwanda on Bush's watch?
The excuse or reason, that we are removing an evil despot from power is very flimsy, When you consider that we are not in Rwanda or any other African country where genocide is being practiced. Of course he has plans for a long term democratic revolution in the Middle East, but at the same time he ignores something like Africa?
That bothers me that he would claim to be on the side of humanity, but would ignore devestation and genocide somewhere where it is resource poor.
I Dont believe that we should be the world's policeman, but having the capability and power, gives us that responsibility. I think it is just convenient that Iraq can pump oil, whereas Rwanda can export mango.

I dont disagree, however, I would point out that unlike in Iraq, Africa is run by warlords, who only band together long enough to over throw enemies and begin attacking each other again. Iraqis (for the most part) want the country to be free, and although they do have amny factions who will always have infighting (Sheites and Sunis for example) they would rather have the ability to choose what to do.

In Africa you choose a side and you die either way, because if you side with one warlord and the other takes over, they dont exactly care...

The countries you mentioned are some of the worst, but lets look at the one we did try to interevene and you already mentioned; Serbia... Did we accomplish anything? Hardly... Just because we look like a bully, doesnt mean thats our goal... Democracy and people being able to choose their path in life.. thats a HUGE benefit to everyone (so long as the area doesnt become unstable)

Also Lee, just because Bush went to war in Iraq doesnt mean he was after the oil. We have one of the Single largest oil deposits in the world right here in America... Under the tundra of Alaska... and if I could make a point, Bush has already said we need to reucde our dependency from Middle east oil, but then he gets flack from all the damn tree huggers...

Which do you prefer?

A) Oil from countries we liberate

B) Oil from Alaska where we will have to damage the ecology

pick your poison..

 

[Kr0m]

Speakin of Rwanda.. anyone see the movie Hotel Rwanda?

 

[Ohzopants]

Why is that wmds are safe when the US has control of them but not other countries? The US is a democracry (allegedly anyway) and we have already seen, right here, that its people wants them to be used.

 

[tom9042]

What the hell does this mean ?? You want to start a flame war ??? I will be more than happy to oblige. I don't care for or will tollerate remarks like this ...

When you say such nasty things about our neighbors to the north (Canada), I, as an American, must stop and disagree. Canada is not a U.S. state and can do what it wants. It did not believe the link between 9/11 and Iraq and didn't believe that Iraq was dangerous (except to its own citizens). Canada was like most of the rest of the world. (Sorry UK, your friendship to the US really screwed you this time.)

I can read and argue in this thread with only a slight rise in my blood pressure. If one of my three sons had been killed in this stupid war, which takes our focus off of fighting terrorism, then I'd really be a ranting fool.

 

[Sazar]

I just wanted to point out Kerry's comments.

There was a provision voted for, after a lot of loud noise by the republican lawmakers, to authorize the use of force IF NECESSARY v/s Iraq.

This was NOT supposed to suggest that Bush SHOULD use force, simply that he could use it as an option once all other alternatives had been exhausted. He did not. He choose to use force as one of the primary options once his far from nuanced threat to Saddam to accept exile.

Kerry has maintained he would give the same authorization if asked for it again because he felt it was correct and prudent to give the president the authority required if the situation arose. He has also maintained he would not have attacked without provocation though in his idiotic rambling way he has now settled on a position of "I would have attacked Iraq but not in the same way".

There is a reason I did not vote for Kerry and this was one of them. If I have a principled stance and I know its against Rove, I would define my position rather than have some meglomaniac define it for me and paint a caricature for the world to see and discern without really learning anything about the actual person.

Next time someone posts a link to what Kerry said, I hope they know the background to that statement because you are basically doing the job of the neo-conservative hawks by providing an overly edited version of what really happened. Let the media be retards, we are a little above them I would hope.

 

[falconguard]

I dont disagree, however, I would point out that unlike in Iraq, Africa is run by warlords, who only band together long enough to over throw enemies and begin attacking each other again. Iraqis (for the most part) want the country to be free, and although they do have amny factions who will always have infighting (Sheites and Sunis for example) they would rather have the ability to choose what to do.

In Africa you choose a side and you die either way, because if you side with one warlord and the other takes over, they dont exactly care...

The countries you mentioned are some of the worst, but lets look at the one we did try to interevene and you already mentioned; Serbia... Did we accomplish anything? Hardly... Just because we look like a bully, doesnt mean thats our goal... Democracy and people being able to choose their path in life.. thats a HUGE benefit to everyone (so long as the area doesnt become unstable)

Also Lee, just because Bush went to war in Iraq doesnt mean he was after the oil. We have one of the Single largest oil deposits in the world right here in America... Under the tundra of Alaska... and if I could make a point, Bush has already said we need to reucde our dependency from Middle east oil, but then he gets flack from all the damn tree huggers...

Which do you prefer?

A) Oil from countries we liberate

B) Oil from Alaska where we will have to damage the ecology

pick your poison..

so we can go after a government , that most of us disapprove of but is pretty much stable,but we can't sort out warlords? ummmm
talk about overly ambitious. The point of that is moot, Bush has already agreed to open the tundra to drill oil. Only those damn tree huggers are protesting the EPA studies that can give him and the oil companies access to it. so they are good for something.

funny but he defined that policy before the invasion, in hindsight it looks like careful planning, as gas prices rise around the nation...hmmmmm probably just a coincindence, no?

 

[ThePatriot]

I just wanted to point out Kerry's comments.

There was a provision voted for, after a lot of loud noise by the republican lawmakers, to authorize the use of force IF NECESSARY v/s Iraq.

This was NOT supposed to suggest that Bush SHOULD use force, simply that he could use it as an option once all other alternatives had been exhausted. He did not. He choose to use force as one of the primary options once his far from nuanced threat to Saddam to accept exile.

Kerry has maintained he would give the same authorization if asked for it again because he felt it was correct and prudent to give the president the authority required if the situation arose. He has also maintained he would not have attacked without provocation though in his idiotic rambling way he has now settled on a position of "I would have attacked Iraq but not in the same way".

There is a reason I did not vote for Kerry and this was one of them. If I have a principled stance and I know its against Rove, I would define my position rather than have some meglomaniac define it for me and paint a caricature for the world to see and discern without really learning anything about the actual person.

Next time someone posts a link to what Kerry said, I hope they know the background to that statement because you are basically doing the job of the neo-conservative hawks by providing an overly edited version of what really happened. Let the media be retards, we are a little above them I would hope.

My reason for posting that link was not to simply defend Bush's actions or to say that Kerry would have done exacly the same thing, as I said just after it, but rather to point out that Kerry was getting the same intel as everyone else, from the top on down. Call it whatever you like, but his idiotic rambling said what it said. He would have done the same on the same intel. Yes, he may have taken the long road, as I also stated, but seriously, after 12 YEARS of non-compliance, the oil-for-food fiasco, firing at our aircraft regularly(that's not provocation?), massacring his own countrymen...etc, do you honestly think the outcome would have been ANY different? Some will now insert the comment that at least we would have tried...well...we tried for 12 YEARS. That wasn't prudent enough? Yes indeed, the media are retards, and maybe that atricle was a bit simplistic, but it made my point.

 

[Xie]

When you say such nasty things about our neighbors to the north (Canada), I, as an American, must stop and disagree. Canada is not a U.S. state and can do what it wants. It did not believe the link between 9/11 and Iraq and didn't believe that Iraq was dangerous (except to its own citizens). Canada was like most of the rest of the world. (Sorry UK, your friendship to the US really screwed you this time.)

I can read and argue in this thread with only a slight rise in my blood pressure. If one of my three sons had been killed in this stupid war, which takes our focus off of fighting terrorism, then I'd really be a ranting fool.

This is one of the best posts I've seen in this thread. Agreed 100%.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

I dont disagree, however, I would point out that unlike in Iraq, Africa is run by warlords, who only band together long enough to over throw enemies and begin attacking each other again. Iraqis (for the most part) want the country to be free, and although they do have amny factions who will always have infighting (Sheites and Sunis for example) they would rather have the ability to choose what to do.

In Africa you choose a side and you die either way, because if you side with one warlord and the other takes over, they dont exactly care...

The countries you mentioned are some of the worst, but lets look at the one we did try to interevene and you already mentioned; Serbia... Did we accomplish anything? Hardly... Just because we look like a bully, doesnt mean thats our goal... Democracy and people being able to choose their path in life.. thats a HUGE benefit to everyone (so long as the area doesnt become unstable)

Also Lee, just because Bush went to war in Iraq doesnt mean he was after the oil. We have one of the Single largest oil deposits in the world right here in America... Under the tundra of Alaska... and if I could make a point, Bush has already said we need to reucde our dependency from Middle east oil, but then he gets flack from all the damn tree huggers...

Which do you prefer?

A) Oil from countries we liberate

B) Oil from Alaska where we will have to damage the ecology

pick your poison..

Most of your Oil comes from Canada figure that huh

 

[Ohzopants]

Which do you prefer?

A) Oil from countries we liberate

B) Oil from Alaska where we will have to damage the ecology

pick your poison..

Oil extraction is damaging to the ecology wherever it is done. Doing it in the middle east in not better.

 

[fimchick]

Most of your Oil comes from Canada figure that huh

Hmmmm, let's see...

We still buy more than half our imported oil from OPEC countries, 15 percent of which comes from volatile Arab OPEC countries. We import less than 20% of our oil from Canada, the rest coming from Mexico, Venezuela and
OPEC-member countries. Next time, before you go making wild claims, check the facts first.

Canada: leading the world in being just north of the United States. Heheh ok ok! Just a harmless joke =]

Edit: To clarify the first sentence -- 15% of the oil imported from OPEC comes from volatile countries.

 

[Xie]

~20% > 15%

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Yes 20% from Canada oh wait thats more than 15% from the so called volotile combined yes what a wild claim I made.

LOL USA leading the way under Canada's ass since 1776 sorry I meant below us that is

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

In 2002, Canada led the world in our sources of imports, at 17%, with Saudi Arabia (13.7%), Mexico (13.5%), and Venezuela (12%) in a virtual three-way tie for second

Here given this is 2002 but hell just the same you guys hate us damn Canadiens but love to take our oil timber and beer LOLOL

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

This is because worldwide supply is tight and 1) gasoline demand in the US is up despite high prices - 4.3% more than 2003. Americans simply refuse to conserve. This is not trivial considering that the US, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 45% of the gasoline produced on earth.

And you seem to be real hogs when it comes to consumation.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

World Consumers and Importers 2003: see EIA here for more info. Leading Oil Consumers

USA (20 million barrels per day)
China (5.6)
Japan (5.5)
Germany USA (11.1 million b/d)
Japan (5.3)
Germany (2.5)
South Korea (2.2)

Leading Oil Importers Leading sources of US imports

Canada (17%)
Saudi Arabia (14.5%)
Mexico (13%)
Venezuela (11%)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG what an outragious claim I made damn Canadiens in 2003 as well the leaders in your source for OIL damn those crazy canucks we hate them !!!

lolol

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Canada: leading the world in being just north of the United States. Heheh ok ok! Just a harmless joke =]


Hey just in passing show me what years the USA was voted a better place to live then Canada and how many years the USA was voted #1 in the world ... and I will show you Canada !! I have nothing against the USA but sorry you know nothing at all about Canada trust me.

 

[fimchick]

Yes 20% from Canada oh wait thats more than 15% from the so called volotile combined yes what a wild claim I made.

LOL USA leading the way under Canada's ass since 1776 sorry I meant below us that is

OK OK I know it's hard to read and comprehend numbers, so let me explain to you again -- 15% of our oil was imported from volatile members of OPEC, THE REST WAS FROM NON-VOLATILE. Only 17% was imported from Canada, THAT LEAVES 83% OF OIL BEING IMPORTED FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.

I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[mlakrid]

My reason for posting that link was not to simply defend Bush's actions or to say that Kerry would have done exacly the same thing, as I said just after it, but rather to point out that Kerry was getting the same intel as everyone else, from the top on down. Call it whatever you like, but his idiotic rambling said what it said. He would have done the same on the same intel. Yes, he may have taken the long road, as I also stated, but seriously, after 12 YEARS of non-compliance, the oil-for-food fiasco, firing at our aircraft regularly(that's not provocation?), massacring his own countrymen...etc, do you honestly think the outcome would have been ANY different? Some will now insert the comment that at least we would have tried...well...we tried for 12 YEARS. That wasn't prudent enough? Yes indeed, the media are retards, and maybe that atricle was a bit simplistic, but it made my point.

Thank you Patriot.. at least ONE other person sees what basket I was putting my Eggs in...

I wish more people could see it...

 

[fimchick]

Hmmm, it posted the same message twice. Sorry