Bush sez warwarwar - America sez whywhywhy
pride_of_america
there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
highways.
This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Voth
to write:
>And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
>there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
>some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
>by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
>highways.
>
>This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
>lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
Thanks for reminding me that I need to schedule some time off work to
go shopping for an SUV.
--
"If I order a book on bomb making, I would not be upset if someone
from the Federal government came to question me about it..."
- Randy Douglas in talk.politics.guns, May 2000
Jeffrey Ryle
will that gets us over there faster!
-jeff
"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
news:foh8quocckbhfj964...@4ax.com...
Morton Davis
> to write:
>
> >And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> >there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> >some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> >by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> >highways.
> >
> >This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
> >lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
>
> Thanks for reminding me that I need to schedule some time off work to
> go shopping for an SUV.
>
Naw, a big block V-8 with dual four barrels that squeals the tires when it
changs gears, or a big block V-8, high water roll your own homemade 4x4 that
screams when it moves.
Of course, a little over 100 years ago gasoline was an industrial waste
product that was thrown out by the millions of gallons by kerosine makers.
-*MORT*-
Joe Knapp
<Pride of America> wrote
> And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> highways.
Reminds me of the rhetoric of the isolationists trying to call the dogs off
Hitler, and cast aspersions on the motives of the U.S.
A sample from a leading demagogue of the time, retired Gen. Smedley Butler:
Radio broadcast, October 1939:
Now--*you mothers*, particularly! The only way you can resist all
this beating of tom-toms is by asserting the love you bear your
boys. When you listen to some well-worded, some well-delivered
*war* speech, just remember it's nothing but *sound*. No amount
of sound can make up for the loss of your boy. After you've heard
one of those speeches and your blood's all hot and you want to
bite somebody like Hitler--go upstairs to where your boy's asleep...
Look at him. Put your hand on that spot on the back of his neck.
The place you loved to kiss when he was a baby. Just rub it a little.
You won't wake him up, he knows it's you. Just look at his strong,
fine young body because only the best boys are chosen for war. Look
at this splendid young creature who's part of yourself, then close
your eyes for a moment and I'll tell you what can happen.
Somewhere--five thousand miles from home. Night. Darkness. Cold.
A drizzling rain. The noise is terrific. All Hell has broken loose.
A star shell burst in the air. Its unearthly flare lights up the
muddy field. There's a lot of tangled rusty barbed wires out there
and a boy hanging over them--his stomach ripped out, and he's
feebly calling for help and water. His lips are white and drawn.
He's in agony.
There's your boy. The same boy who's lying in bed tonight. The
same boy who trusts you... are you going to run out on him? Are
you going to let someone beat a drum or blow a bugle and make him
chase after it? Thank God, this is a Democracy and by your voice
and your vote you can save your boy.
To the Independent Republican Women's group, 1940:
The American people are fools. If they want to have their children
shot in order to keep Franklin Roosevelt on a pedestal, they will
just have to do it.
To the 1937 VFW convention:
It's your crowd that's going to do the dying and bleeding, not the
Wall Street bunch of flag wavers.
At Wesleyan University, March 1939:
If there is another war I intend to make James Roosevelt [FDR's son]
go to the front line trenches...I am not afraid! Let them shoot me!
I am all through. Let's get shot here at home if we're going to be
shot.
In _Common Sense Neutrality_, 1939:
These are some of the SMELLY things in this pit of European back-alley
politics into which we will be sucked if we don't watch our step--if
we are fools enough to get all excited about this brawl that is going
on over there, as such brawls have, almost since the dawn of history.
After the sinking of a U.S. gunboat on the Yangtze river in 1937:
The United States should get out of China and stay out... Why
don't those oil companies fly their own flags on their personal
property--maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.
> This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
> lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
Interestingly, then as now it was the far left pushing the "it's all about
oil" line (after the Molotov-Ribentroff non-aggression pact that is).
Joe
David Voth
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> was kind enough to write:
>"David Voth" <davi...@catholic.org> wrote in message
>news:foh8quocckbhfj964...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:03:49 -0600, Pride of America was kind enough
>> to write:
>>
>> >And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
>> >there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
>> >some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
>> >by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
>> >highways.
>> >
>> >This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
>> >lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me that I need to schedule some time off work to
>> go shopping for an SUV.
>>
>
>Naw, a big block V-8 with dual four barrels that squeals the tires when it
>changs gears, or a big block V-8, high water roll your own homemade 4x4 that
>screams when it moves.
I was thinking a '97 or '98 Jeep Cherokee 4-door 4WD with the V-8.
>Of course, a little over 100 years ago gasoline was an industrial waste
>product that was thrown out by the millions of gallons by kerosine makers.
Yes, they used to dump it in streams.
--
"I PAID taxes Judas - more than you do - that's my fucking beef"
- Trebor in talk.politics.guns, June 8, 2001
John P.
> This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
> lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
You are so right. I mean, if we'd all sold our 2 million ton SUV's and
ridden our bikes to work, the WTC would still be standing. Those
terrorist used those GIANT winged 100 billion ton SUV's just to try to
burn up more fuel and make us more dependent on them. If the WTC had
been something other than just 2 GREAT BIG GIANT 500 trillion mega super
ton SUV's, they'd never have been targets.
It's just about the oil. Man... you're a genius.
Geo
Mike Eglestone
> Pride, of, his Penis wrote:
>
> And the answer is oiloiloil.
In the first place, we have NO NEED for Iraq Oil. No matter what
happens, it will always REMAIN the property of the Iraq People. Just
in case you missed that part of American History, we do NOT take over
nations that we fight in wars. Never have, never will
In the second place, why do you give a shit if Americans die. You are
not now, and have never been, an American Citizen!
---
- SMS Mike - (United States Air Force, Retired)
Christopher Morton
>And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
Judy "Pride of America" Diarya says "the Jews" were behind 9/11.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Pat Hines
>
> And the answer is oiloiloil.
No, it isn't. The American Petroleum Institute, the lobby
and research agency for the US oil industry, has repeatedly
called for ending the sanctions against Iraq, as recently as
spring of 2001.
> American soldiers are already dying over
> there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> highways.
That's what freeedom is all about, choices. This war isn't
about oil at all, it's about power and the US government
going from being the world's policeman to the world's bully boy.
> This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
> lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
A typical sociofascist argument. All we need is more
government to thwart a government excess, which is what war
frequently is.
"If more government is the answer, it must have been a
really stupid question" autor unknown.
Pat Hines
Warren Stupidity
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Pride, of, his Penis wrote:
>>
>> And the answer is oiloiloil.
>----
>
> In the first place, we have NO NEED for Iraq Oil. No matter what
>happens, it will always REMAIN the property of the Iraq People. Just
>in case you missed that part of American History, we do NOT take over
>nations that we fight in wars. Never have, never will
>
Actually this administration has discussed what they refer to as the
'reprivatization' of iraqi oil post-invasion. This would in fact put
the iraqi oil fields, the second largest proven reserve in the world,
in the hands of Big Oil. It would also cut out the French and the
Russians, who both have deals with the current regime and the
'deprivatized' iraqi oil industry. So go figure why Russia and France
are not exactly gung ho about iraq-attaq.
Secondly, we most certainly do have a need for iraqi oil. That is what
this is all about, in fact the chickenhawk cabal wrote up exactly what
they are doing and why they are doing it. They know, as do quite a few
of their ultra-nationalist peers in various countries, that we are at
or near the global oil production peak, and are entering the global
end game struggle over control of dwindling oil reserves. (Dwindling
relative to demand, which increases with population, so don't bother
about citing absolute values for proven reserves, it is those numbers
relative to demand that are important. The problem is 'china goes
online'.)
This is the reason for iraq-attaq: establish military control over the
arabian peninsula/mesopotamian oil fields, eliminate all military
threats in the region. It is of course insanity, a stupid short
sighted bully-tactic doomed to failure and likely to wreck what is
left of our republic. The sane course is to get ourselves off of oil
as fast as we possibly can.
==
Mark Roddy
Warren Stupidity
Knee jerk rightwing libertarian nonsense. Government can help by
pushing R&D in directions it might not naturally go, due to the nature
of profit driven markets. Specifically, incentives for R&D into
non-fossil renewable replacements for our oil based economy should be
funded way beyond their current levels. We have known since the 70's
that we were going to get into this mess, now we are here, and we have
done pitifully little to get ready for it. The market will milk the
oil crisis for every cent it can extort, happily allowing government
and citizens to pay all sorts of external costs, including the lives
of the many soldiers who will die to defend Big Oil, while avoiding
the startup costs for, e.g. fuel cell automotive technology, until
there are no other choices.
==
Mark Roddy
Pride of America
> <Pride of America> wrote
> > And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> > there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> > some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> > by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> > highways.
>
> Reminds me of the rhetoric of the isolationists trying to call the dogs off
> Hitler, and cast aspersions on the motives of the U.S.
>
That just shows how stupid you are - comparing 1940 germany to modern
day Iraq. Back then germany had the most powerful military in the
world while today america could literally obliterate iraq overnite.
URANIDIOT.
Pride of America
> and this will prevent hussein from developing WMD how???
>
Who cares if uncle hussy does get nukes?. Nine nations already have
them including israel with 100 and america with around 10,000. And
america's nukes are controlled by a 24/7 drunk. The last thing the
world has to worry about is Iraq getting a nukes. Next question.
johnson
"Pride of America" <riema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com...
Why do you hate America so much? Why do you insist on letting Saddam have
these wmd's? Why don't you answer his question before asking for another
one?
pyotr filipivich
talk.politics.guns , David Voth <davi...@catholic.org> was inspired to utter:
>On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:03:49 -0600, Pride of America was kind enough
>to write:
>
>>And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
>>there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
>>some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
>>by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
>>highways.
>>
>>This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
>>lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
>
>Thanks for reminding me that I need to schedule some time off work to
>go shopping for an SUV.
The really sad part it that "Pride" is still out in the cold, doesn't
realize the VRWC has succeeded, and he can come in now.
"I've dropped my harmonica Albert"
"No Anchovies"
"Watch me Pull A Rabbi out of my Hat"
"We've go the Beef"
Meanwhile the left liberals luddites seem oblivious that all Bush needs to
do to make his friends in the oil biz happy is lift the sanctions. (Same goes
for the rice exporters. The US sold a lot of rice to the Iraqis before the
Gulf War.)
Do they oppose war "because" or do they have a real moral position they can
elucidate?
tschus
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then, the war would come to you."
Bertolt Brecht 1898-1956
Bert Byfield
>> In the first place, we have NO NEED for Iraq Oil. No matter what
gimme a break...
>>happens, it will always REMAIN the property of the Iraq People. Just
oh geez to be so young!
>>in case you missed that part of American History, we do NOT take over
>>nations that we fight in wars. Never have, never will
Such innocense is sweet but exceedingly dumb. We have never neglected to
rob blind anyone we had power over.
> Actually this administration has discussed what they refer to as the
> 'reprivatization' of iraqi oil post-invasion. This would in fact put
This administration is delusional. It doesn't matter what they discuss.
> the iraqi oil fields, the second largest proven reserve in the world,
> in the hands of Big Oil. It would also cut out the French and the
> Russians, who both have deals with the current regime and the
> 'deprivatized' iraqi oil industry. So go figure why Russia and France
> are not exactly gung ho about iraq-attaq.
It is because they have morals. The USA used to have morals, but now we
are nazis.
> Secondly, we most certainly do have a need for iraqi oil. That is what
Yep.
> this is all about, in fact the chickenhawk cabal wrote up exactly what
> they are doing and why they are doing it. They know, as do quite a few
> of their ultra-nationalist peers in various countries, that we are at
> or near the global oil production peak, and are entering the global
> end game struggle over control of dwindling oil reserves. (Dwindling
> relative to demand, which increases with population, so don't bother
> about citing absolute values for proven reserves, it is those numbers
> relative to demand that are important. The problem is 'china goes
> online'.)
This would give The Shrub some excuse, but in fact there is an
essentially unlimited oil supply in the Earth. We are attacking Iraq
because it is fun to murder people, if you are a nazi. The Shrub is a
nazi.
> This is the reason for iraq-attaq: establish military control over the
> arabian peninsula/mesopotamian oil fields, eliminate all military
> threats in the region. It is of course insanity, a stupid short
> sighted bully-tactic doomed to failure and likely to wreck what is
> left of our republic. The sane course is to get ourselves off of oil
> as fast as we possibly can.
Getting off oil is not an option in the foreseeable future. We could dig
up our own in Alaska, though. Still, it is easier to rob Iraq of theirs.
Morton Davis
"Bert Byfield" <bbyf...@caravelabooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A314CA0AF5bb...@24.24.0.10...
> >>> And the answer is oiloiloil.
>
> >> In the first place, we have NO NEED for Iraq Oil. No matter what
>
> gimme a break...
>
> >>happens, it will always REMAIN the property of the Iraq People. Just
>
> oh geez to be so young!
>
> >>in case you missed that part of American History, we do NOT take over
> >>nations that we fight in wars. Never have, never will
>
> Such innocense is sweet but exceedingly dumb. We have never neglected to
> rob blind anyone we had power over.
Yes. We certainly ROBBED the Germans and Japanese after WWII.
>
> > Actually this administration has discussed what they refer to as the
> > 'reprivatization' of iraqi oil post-invasion. This would in fact put
>
> This administration is delusional. It doesn't matter what they discuss.
Delusional best describes yourself.
-*MORT*-
Yardpilot
<Pride of America> wrote in message
news:f8h8qugsjnbmps509...@4ax.com...
> And the answer is oiloiloil.
Sososo.?
Pride of America
> "Pride of America" <riema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > them including israel with 100 and america with around 10,000. And
> > america's nukes are controlled by a 24/7 drunk. The last thing the
> > world has to worry about is Iraq getting a nukes. Next question.
>
> Why do you hate America so much? Why do you insist on letting Saddam have
> these wmd's? Why don't you answer his question before asking for another
> one?
Why shouldn't an arab nation have some nukes when israel has a 100 of them?
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
> there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> highways
Gawd, you are stupid, stupid, stupid, Judy. If it was just about oil,
all we need to do is have the U fukken N lift its' sanctions, and the
oil will flow.
And may I offer you apologies on behalf of the rest of the planet for
not organizing ourselves to suit you.
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
No, you're the idiot for not reading and/or comprehending what the man said.
Try again.
Sir Marksman
"Pride of hitler" <riema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c1753f7.02101...@posting.google.com...> > "Pride of hitler" <riema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Who cares if uncle hussy does get nukes?. Nine nations already have
> > > them including israel with 100 and america with around 10,000. And
> > > america's nukes are controlled by a 24/7 drunk. The last thing the
> > > world has to worry about is Iraq getting a nukes. Next question.
> >
> > Why do you hate America so much? Why do you insist on letting Saddam
have
> > these wmd's? Why don't you answer his question before asking for another
> > one?
>
> Why shouldn't an arab nation have some nukes when israel has a 100 of
them?
You are such a hypocrite. You don't want violent people to own firearms (you
also include DUI's which are not violent), yet you want a proven violent
individual, (Saddam) to have nukes.
You are a very sick individual. Get back on the Prozac.
Mary Woods
"Sir Marksman" <fascist-fr...@LIEberal.bull> wrote in message
news:zsmp9.11132$Ag4....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Based on what it has posted lately, I recommend Thorazine and in large
doses.
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
>
> Why shouldn't an arab nation have some nukes when israel has a 100 of them?
Because Islam and the Arabs are a degenerate culture that worships death.
"Case closed", judy
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
> these wmd's? Why don't you answer his question before asking for another
> one?
In order:
1) Judy hates herself, that's why she can't love America or anything
else for that matter.
2) She takes a gleeful delight in destruction for destruction's sake
because it's easier to tear something down than to build anything up.
3) She won't answer because she has no facts to back up her
contentions, just venom and an incredible hatred.
Snakehawk
No need, or at least no emergency. Iraq has never refused to sell oil
to the United States. Neither has Saudi Arabia or any other Middle
Eastern Arab country. In fact, the region has always been a source of
steady supply at reasonable prices. The Saudis have often sold their
oil to the United States at below market prices to keep the price and
the market stable. If Iraq would be allowed to develop its enormous
resources, America could be assured of sufficient oil to maintain its
economy far into the future. The aim of the Bush cabal is not to
secure America's oil supply, it is to secure control and enormous
profits for a small consortium of international oil barons.
That naive statement about America never taking over a defeated nation
just shows how Americans are misled about their leaders. Of course,
"America" never takes over the assets of the defeated country, but a
small army of international entrepreneurs alway follow the army with
ready cash to gobble up the assets of the defeated and bankrupt enemy.
It happened in Germany after both world wars, in Bosnia, and in
Serbia. The ever-present George Soros now owns a good part of the rich
Trepca mines in Kosovo thanks to the heroic "liberating" armies of the
West. That's why the American war cry today always includes such
phrases as "free markets," and "private ownership," along with
freedom, liberty, democracy, and civil rights.
Pride of America
> Pride of America wrote in message news:<f8h8qugsjnbmps509...@4ax.com>...
> > And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> > there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> > some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> > by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> > highways
>
> all we need to do is have the U fukken N lift its' sanctions, and the
> oil will flow.
>
You're the stupid one. Bush wants to turn iraq into a colony. He
doesn't want to buy the oil, he's gonna steal it. And you repugs say
"great - kill all the arabs you want. Just so i have cheap gas for my
3 ton suburban".
Sir Marksman
news:<aafe87ed.02101...@posting.google.com>...
news:<f8h8qugsjnbmps509...@4ax.com>...
> > > And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> > > there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> > > some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> > > by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> > > highways
> >
> > Gawd, you are stupid, stupid, stupid, POA. If it was just about oil,
> > all we need to do is have the U fukken N lift its' sanctions, and the
> > oil will flow.
> >
>
> You're the stupid one. Bush wants to turn iraq into a colony.
You have any proof fascist?
> He
> doesn't want to buy the oil, he's gonna steal it.
You have any proof fascist?
> And you repugs say
> "great - kill all the arabs you want. Just so i have cheap gas for my
> 3 ton suburban".
Never been said. Do you have any proof fascist?
Sir Marksman
> Geo <G...@sdf.com> wrote in message news:<3DA46927...@sdf.com>...
>
> > and this will prevent hussein from developing WMD how???
> >
>
> Who cares if uncle hussy does get nukes?.
US Citizens. Why are you an UN-American fascist?
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
>
> doesn't want to buy the oil, he's gonna steal it. And you repugs say
> "great - kill all the arabs you want. Just so i have cheap gas for my
> 3 ton suburban".
1. Iraq will be liberated.
2. If Bush wants the oil ALL FOR HIMSELF he's got one huge goddam SUV
and more power to him for that!
3. Dead Arabs? So what? How is this a bad thing?
4. I drive a Mustang.
5. It must have been hell growing up in your family, leaving you so
twisted with hate and envy.
Jim Kennemur
"Sir Marksman" <fascist-fr...@LIEberal.bull> wrote in message
Here you go, Sir Marks His Drawers.
This is your most recent supporter in action:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2002/ta021009.gif
JK
Yardpilot
"Jim Kennemur" <jek...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:aIJp9.4555$5S6.85...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
You are a ghoul. Dance, little ghoul. Do you feel all warm and fuzzy
squishing the blood of the innocent between your foul toes?
Sir Marksman
"Jim Kennemur" <jek...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:aIJp9.4555$5S6.85...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> news:WGEp9.496$nb....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "Pride of hitler" <riema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > Geo <G...@sdf.com> wrote in message news:<3DA46927...@sdf.com>...
> > >
> > > > and this will prevent hussein from developing WMD how???
> > > >
> > >
> > > Who cares if uncle hussy does get nukes?.
> >
> > US Citizens. Why are you an UN-American fascist?
>
>
> This [my] your most recent supporter in action:
>
> http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2002/ta021009.gif
>
Your post has been corrected. Why do you support terrorists?
Mr Memory
> And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> highways.
I do not think you have provided evidence to support your claim that the
desire to invade is due to maximize oil.
Other motives are logically possible - such as a desire to kill all their
leaders and convert them to Christianity, a desire to rule the world,
starting with a big standing army in the Middle East, a desire to
intimidate Syria and Iran, a desire to kill Saddam because unchecked he
will, someday, get nukes so that Israel can't get away with its arrogant
occupation of Palestine, a desire to ruin the US economy because the
Administration is run by communist moles, and so on.
It is hard to know which motive is the real one. The only thing we can
safely conclude is that the alleged motive - that Iraq poses a current,
grave threat to the safety of the USA, is implausible and therefore not the
real motive.
>
> This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
> lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
Mr Memory
news:foh8quocckbhfj964...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:03:49 -0600, Pride of America was kind enough
> to write:
>
>>And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
>>there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
>>some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
>>by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
>>highways.
>>
>>This is the stupidest war ever. All we need to do is downsize cars and
>>lower speed limits like we did in the 70s. case closed.
>
> Thanks for reminding me that I need to schedule some time off work to
> go shopping for an SUV.
Alternatively, you could just blow up a post office.
That would probably hurt our economy just as much, and cost you a lot less.
Just an idea.
Morton Davis
"Mr Memory" <Musi...@Portlandsquare.com> wrote in message
news:ao9d7...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Pride of America wrote in news:f8h8qugsjnbmps509...@4ax.com:
>
> > And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
> > there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
> > some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
> > by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
> > highways.
>
> I do not think you have provided evidence to support your claim that the
> desire to invade is due to maximize oil.
>
> Other motives are logically possible - such as a desire to kill all their
> leaders and convert them to Christianity, a desire to rule the world,
> starting with a big standing army in the Middle East, a desire to
> intimidate Syria and Iran, a desire to kill Saddam because unchecked he
> will, someday, get nukes so that Israel can't get away with its arrogant
> occupation of Palestine, a desire to ruin the US economy because the
> Administration is run by communist moles, and so on.
>
> It is hard to know which motive is the real one. The only thing we can
> safely conclude is that the alleged motive - that Iraq poses a current,
> grave threat to the safety of the USA, is implausible and therefore not
the
> real motive.
>
>
seen as posing a grave threat to the US before 9-11. You want to replicate
that error.
I love dipshits like you. No matter what the USA does, it's always wrong,
right?
-*MORT*-
p@u.c
Mr Memory <Musi...@Portlandsquare.com> wrote:
>Pride of America wrote in news:f8h8qugsjnbmps509...@4ax.com:
>
>> And the answer is oiloiloil. American soldiers are already dying over
>> there. Soon it will be your kid dying a lonely horrible death just so
>> some fat ugly impotent white republican can can feel like a BIG MAN
>> by driving his gas guzzling 3 ton Suburban at 100 mph terrorizing the
>> highways.
>
>I do not think you have provided evidence to support your claim that the
>desire to invade is due to maximize oil.
>
>Other motives are logically possible - such as a desire to kill all their
>leaders and convert them to Christianity, a desire to rule the world,
>starting with a big standing army in the Middle East, a desire to
>intimidate Syria and Iran, a desire to kill Saddam because unchecked he
>will, someday, get nukes so that Israel can't get away with its arrogant
>occupation of Palestine, a desire to ruin the US economy because the
>Administration is run by communist moles, and so on.
>
>It is hard to know which motive is the real one.
My vote is that Shrub wants revenge for the attempt Hussein made
on his father's life, back in 1993. Which is perfectly understandable --
but also leaves him eminently unqualified to make rational decisions
about what to do with Iraq. If someone tries to kill the family
member of a cop, you don't put that cop in charge of the case.
Mr Memory
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:31:56 -0400, Mike Eglestone
> <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Pride, of, his Penis wrote:
>>>
>>> And the answer is oiloiloil.
>>----
>>
>> In the first place, we have NO NEED for Iraq Oil. No matter what
>>happens, it will always REMAIN the property of the Iraq People. Just
>>in case you missed that part of American History, we do NOT take over
>>nations that we fight in wars. Never have, never will
>>
> Actually this administration has discussed what they refer to as the
> 'reprivatization' of iraqi oil post-invasion. This would in fact put
> the iraqi oil fields, the second largest proven reserve in the world,
> in the hands of Big Oil. It would also cut out the French and the
> Russians, who both have deals with the current regime and the
> 'deprivatized' iraqi oil industry. So go figure why Russia and France
> are not exactly gung ho about iraq-attaq.
>
> Secondly, we most certainly do have a need for iraqi oil. That is what
> this is all about,
Iraq now produces quite a bit of oil. The extra production were they
"liberated" would be pretty minor. The cost of invasion, hundreds of
billions of dollars, clearly is not economically worth the small extra
production.
So this argument strikes me as implausible.
in fact the chickenhawk cabal wrote up exactly what
> they are doing and why they are doing it. They know, as do quite a few
> of their ultra-nationalist peers in various countries, that we are at
> or near the global oil production peak, and are entering the global
> end game struggle over control of dwindling oil reserves. (Dwindling
> relative to demand, which increases with population, so don't bother
> about citing absolute values for proven reserves, it is those numbers
> relative to demand that are important. The problem is 'china goes
> online'.)
Well, I guess that could be - the "global end game" theory. But I am not
sure the White House buys into this theory. They seem to be of the school
which believes that a free market can provide unlimited amounts of
everything. On the other hand, they DO seem desperate to find new sources
of production, so maybe you're right.
OF course, at a certain somewhat higher price, supplies of oil not now
worth developing will come on line. Such as massive amounts of oil in oil
shale in the Rocky Mountains. In a global end game, with prices maybe
double those of today, those sources become competitive. So is "global end
game" really worth the cost?
I personally prefer good old world domination as a motive. It fits
President Bush's obsession with the Austin Powers movies, his primary
cultural reference point. It fits the SMERSH-like military doctrine
recently released. It fits the Napoleanic over-compensation apparent in the
very short Secretary Rumsfeld.
So of the various alternative explanations for the otherwise absurd desire
to invade Iraq, I think I'll go with good old all-American world
domination.
Starting with a big standing army in the Middle East.
>
> This is the reason for iraq-attaq: establish military control over the
> arabian peninsula/mesopotamian oil fields, eliminate all military
> threats in the region. It is of course insanity, a stupid short
> sighted bully-tactic doomed to failure and likely to wreck what is
> left of our republic. The sane course is to get ourselves off of oil
> as fast as we possibly can.
>
>
>
> ==
> Mark Roddy
>
Mr Memory
news:4Bdp9.38698$hb4.10119@sccrnsc02:
Could be. But now you have the burden of explaining why the Administration
plans to invade Iraq.
(I assume we can agree that the notion that we face risk from small, pinned
down Iraq is just this year's version of the stolen baby incubators)
My guess is - World Hegemony, not lust for oil.
What's your explanation for the "real" motive?
>
> -*MORT*-
>
>
>
Mr Memory
news:31fc4513.02101...@posting.google.com:
On the other hand, are the profits from those sufficient to pay the costs
of the war?
Halliburton made millions rebuilding Iraq after that last invasion, but our
costs were billions.
So I think you're right, but I don't think that plunder, at least not
alone, can explain our invasions.
I am more idealistic - I think we invade for good reasons - such as a
determination to rule the world.
Mr Memory
Two hundred billion, thousands of deaths, because they break UN rules?
No. We break UN rules ourselves, and strongly support others who do as
well.
Many are the UN rule breakers, few are those we feel like punishing.
In addition, it is not the role of the USA to enforce UN rule violations -
it is the role of the UN to decide to do that. Yet we have said we will
VIOLATE THE UN CHARTER to invade Iraq, whether the UN likes it or not.
The US does not spend huge sums just to enforce international rules.
So that can't be the "real" motive.
Even if you are correct that it "should" be reason enough - it obviously is
NOT the reason.
Al Qeda
> was not seen as posing a grave threat to the US before 9-11. You want
> to replicate that error.
AL Qaeda was widely seen as dangerous. Budgeting for counter-terrorism went
up many fold in the nineties, and would have gone up more except that the
Republican-controlled House blocked even more spending. So your statement
is just factually incorrect.
But let's assume you are correct. We don't think Iraq will attack us - we
actually believe that the CIA national intelligence estimate on that is
correct - well, your logic justifies invading Japan. They seem harmless -
just as Al Qaeda did. But we can't afford to wait for the mushroom cloud
over Seattle. We must invade them now.
>
> I love dipshits like you. No matter what the USA does, it's always
> wrong, right?
No, the US does many things quite well. The first Persian Gulf war made a
lot of sense, for instance.
I am not arguing in this thread about whether it is right or wrong to
invade Iraq. I am discussing WHY we want to invade.
The stated reason - your logic - that even though the CIA national
intelligence estimate is that Iraq has a very low probability of attacking
us - even though our military leaders agree that Iraq can be deterred
and contained - see, for instance, General Zitti, the former top US
military commander for the region - that we must invade - is too stupid to
be the "real" motive.
I am willing to believe that President Bush - like you - is not very smart.
But the rest of the Administration can actually speak, read, think and
reason.
So they aren't buying your - We must bomb Japan because the last thing we
want is to see that mushroom cloud over Seattle - logic.
What's the real logic?
>
> -*MORT*-
>
>
>
Mr Memory
Of course, Pops tried to kill Saddam MANY times, and I figure the Bush's
understand the fairness of a counter-shot.
Also I seriously doubt that the govt is going to give much weight to the
desires of President Bush, since he obviously is poorly informed and sort
of stupid.
I know that he has the Title of boss - but in big organizations, respect
for competence is going to trump that, IMO.
And other parts of the govt really support invasion. I view President Bush
as simply being told what to do, and not knowing any better than to agree..
>
>
>
Morton Davis
"Mr Memory" <Musi...@Portlandsquare.com> wrote in message
CITE.
>
> Also I seriously doubt that the govt is going to give much weight to the
> desires of President Bush, since he obviously is poorly informed and sort
> of stupid.
I guess that's why CONGRESS just voted to back Bush.
>
> I know that he has the Title of boss - but in big organizations, respect
> for competence is going to trump that, IMO.
I guess that's why Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are on board if the UN backs our
play?
>
> And other parts of the govt really support invasion. I view President Bush
> as simply being told what to do, and not knowing any better than to
agree..
>
>
For someone who chose the screen name "Mr. Memory", you appear brain dead.
-*MORT*-
Bert Byfield
> alone, can explain our invasions.
> I am more idealistic - I think we invade for good reasons - such as a
> determination to rule the world.
If that is true, we are in big trouble, because while we are fighting a war
of horror with the towel-heads, China will be busy replacing us as the
world's foremost superpower. China could even be the one that masterminded
and funded 9/11 as part of this effort.
Morton Davis
in any quantity necessary fight a war, can't supply and feed them if they
could. Tell me again how China is replacing us as a superpower?
-*MORT*-
Bert Byfield
>> > a determination to rule the world.
>> If that is true, we are in big trouble, because while we are fighting
>> a war
>> of horror with the towel-heads, China will be busy replacing us as
>> the world's foremost superpower. China could even be the one that
>> masterminded and funded 9/11 as part of this effort.
> Lat's see: a brown water navy, no real air power, unable to transport
> troops in any quantity necessary fight a war, can't supply and feed
> them if they could. Tell me again how China is replacing us as a
> superpower?
Time to see again. It is NOT 1911, it is 2002. China is one fourth of
the world's population. Clinton gave China nuclear missile technology.
They haven't got missiles like we do, but they have enough to kill
millions of Americans and that might give us pause if we thought of
going to war with them. They hate the white world for forcing opium on
them at gunpoint and other arrogant indignities. Their business has been
booming for years (look at our store shelves for "made in china" vs
"made in America"). They are controlled not by politicians, but by
determined professionals. After a war with the Mideast, the USA would
have lost several cities and be emotionally exhausted. China emerges as
the peacemaker. The world decides they would be better off with new
management, after we have exposed ourselves as stupid barbarians.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
Pride of America
God help us. Now these crazy repugs are blaming 9-11 on the chinese.
John P.
> God help us.
You keep saying that. Is there something I missed in the Bible where god
says "Blessed are the morons" that makes you feel he might single you
out for help.
What is it you'd like him to help you with? ... do you think that only
divine intervention can help cure your ignorance? Come on! ... even god
isn't *that* good!
Jamie Gregorian
Considering you blamed it on "DA JOOOOOOOOZ", you're not only a
hypocrite, you're a BAD hypocrite.