Which Republican Candidate and Why
01-29-2012, 07:29 AM
#41
This argument is silly. The thing with oil has never been about "having it" or "getting it". It is about controlling it. We want to profit from controlling it. And, in this, I don't just mean profiting from the sale, but from the ability to control it and manipulate prices and distribution. Having control and/or influence over the market as a whole. I don't have to explain to the simplest person what control over the global market of oil means. Saddam in Iraq was like Venezuela. He did what he wanted and would not "play ball". Well you see what happened to him.
Corporations have one purpose. Profit. So, if you are part of the military industrial complex, you need war for profit. There is your one example. The attack of Iraq is win win for the richest most powerful corporations in the world. The military industrial complex wins and the oil industry and wall street wins. Just follow the money. In our completely corrupt country, always follow the money.
01-29-2012, 05:19 PM
#42
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well for you to say we would be speaking German if it was not for US intervention in WW2 is foolish as the only reason we went in was b.c of the fear of communism spreading out of control after Russia defeated Germany. Remember by the time we got involved Germany was fighting with 80% of it forces on the eastern front, they were already losing. And remember we were backing the **** party up to the war (think Bush family). Don't take what you heard or here in class to seriously, as those books are there to manipulate your mind and are very biased.
It's true that the Germans failed in taking Russia, but Russia was utterly devastated to the point that Stalin had asked the Americans and Brits to open up a second front in order to thin out the Germans. I highly doubt that the Russians would have lasted without American intervention, much less beat back the Germans and take Berlin. The fact that Prescott Bush's company dealt with the ****'s financially does not mean the entire country was backing the **** party.
That example is hog wash and a horrible example.
So stolen official documents are hog wash, but I'm supposed to believe some guy on the internet about how the world works? Don't think so
Do you not realize we are the sole reason we have all these issues? Our intervening has caused all these problems....Iran did not start in 1979, it started back in 1953 by us KILLING a elected official.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, I'll admit there was some blowback with our very aggressive cold war interventions. As I stated before, though, we're not in the cold war anymore.
You misunderstood what I said. I said what empire or nation is around today that has gone around policing the world. And my answer already given was YOU WILL NOT. Every empire found out the hard way or changed there course.
No, you misunderstood what I said. There has never been an empire that has come close to what the United States does today. You have also failed to make a distinction between an empire and an occupation. Nation building would actually be a more appropriate term.
That is not where I was going with that. Just remember what I said the Chinese have figured us out. Only thing is, they might have bought the wrong country.
china hasn't bought any country. china only holds around 10% of our public debt, actually.
It's true that the Germans failed in taking Russia, but Russia was utterly devastated to the point that Stalin had asked the Americans and Brits to open up a second front in order to thin out the Germans. I highly doubt that the Russians would have lasted without American intervention, much less beat back the Germans and take Berlin. The fact that Prescott Bush's company dealt with the ****'s financially does not mean the entire country was backing the **** party.
That example is hog wash and a horrible example.
So stolen official documents are hog wash, but I'm supposed to believe some guy on the internet about how the world works? Don't think so
Do you not realize we are the sole reason we have all these issues? Our intervening has caused all these problems....Iran did not start in 1979, it started back in 1953 by us KILLING a elected official.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, I'll admit there was some blowback with our very aggressive cold war interventions. As I stated before, though, we're not in the cold war anymore.
You misunderstood what I said. I said what empire or nation is around today that has gone around policing the world. And my answer already given was YOU WILL NOT. Every empire found out the hard way or changed there course.
No, you misunderstood what I said. There has never been an empire that has come close to what the United States does today. You have also failed to make a distinction between an empire and an occupation. Nation building would actually be a more appropriate term.
That is not where I was going with that. Just remember what I said the Chinese have figured us out. Only thing is, they might have bought the wrong country.
china hasn't bought any country. china only holds around 10% of our public debt, actually.
I am not sure why as Americans we should give a **** about why Saudi Arabia does what they do, but I am quite certain that the USA did it for control of the oil and a strong control in the oil region. See the next answer.
Well that's funny, because Kuwait owns their oil fields. They were nationalized in the 70s after the British initially paid for them to be developed. Despite getting screwed, the British came to their aid during the Gulf War
This argument is silly. The thing with oil has never been about "having it" or "getting it". It is about controlling it. We want to profit from controlling it. And, in this, I don't just mean profiting from the sale, but from the ability to control it and manipulate prices and distribution. Having control and/or influence over the market as a whole. I don't have to explain to the simplest person what control over the global market of oil means. Saddam in Iraq was like Venezuela. He did what he wanted and would not "play ball". Well you see what happened to him.
Sure looks like we have a lot of control over that Iraqi oil
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...948787,00.html
Corporations have one purpose. Profit. So, if you are part of the military industrial complex, you need war for profit. There is your one example. The attack of Iraq is win win for the richest most powerful corporations in the world. The military industrial complex wins and the oil industry and wall street wins. Just follow the money. In our completely corrupt country, always follow the money.
Generally speaking, people who sell stuff do so to make money, or profit. Nothing new there. Somebody has to make the stuff they use over there, and yes they're going to make a profit. That includes everything from weapons to food to ac units. That must mean Trane is in on this HUGE conspiracy to make money for the AC Industrial Complex
And by the way, its not like these companies never sell anything during peace time. The military is ALWAYS buying stuff. So are foreign countries. It just so happens that most of these defense companies make other stuff too. Bell, for example, makes both military and civilian helicopters.
Well that's funny, because Kuwait owns their oil fields. They were nationalized in the 70s after the British initially paid for them to be developed. Despite getting screwed, the British came to their aid during the Gulf War
This argument is silly. The thing with oil has never been about "having it" or "getting it". It is about controlling it. We want to profit from controlling it. And, in this, I don't just mean profiting from the sale, but from the ability to control it and manipulate prices and distribution. Having control and/or influence over the market as a whole. I don't have to explain to the simplest person what control over the global market of oil means. Saddam in Iraq was like Venezuela. He did what he wanted and would not "play ball". Well you see what happened to him.
Sure looks like we have a lot of control over that Iraqi oil
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...948787,00.html
Corporations have one purpose. Profit. So, if you are part of the military industrial complex, you need war for profit. There is your one example. The attack of Iraq is win win for the richest most powerful corporations in the world. The military industrial complex wins and the oil industry and wall street wins. Just follow the money. In our completely corrupt country, always follow the money.
Generally speaking, people who sell stuff do so to make money, or profit. Nothing new there. Somebody has to make the stuff they use over there, and yes they're going to make a profit. That includes everything from weapons to food to ac units. That must mean Trane is in on this HUGE conspiracy to make money for the AC Industrial Complex
And by the way, its not like these companies never sell anything during peace time. The military is ALWAYS buying stuff. So are foreign countries. It just so happens that most of these defense companies make other stuff too. Bell, for example, makes both military and civilian helicopters.
I'd like to know where you guys get all of your information, though
01-29-2012, 05:33 PM
#43
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Japan did attack the US, which was an ally of Germany and Italy, the Axis Powers. They were on the same side so not sure how you can say that being attacked wasnt one of the main reasons we went to war. We were officially neutral before that point.
Also border control may not be uniquely Ron Paul, but using our current resources to do it, instead of spending more money, is. We still have military in a lot of places where it is no longer needed.
Also border control may not be uniquely Ron Paul, but using our current resources to do it, instead of spending more money, is. We still have military in a lot of places where it is no longer needed.
Whether or not the military is needed in certain places is certainly debatable. I won't get into that lol
01-29-2012, 05:41 PM
#44
Sure looks like we have a lot of control over that Iraqi oil
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...948787,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...948787,00.html
Generally speaking, people who sell stuff do so to make money, or profit. Nothing new there. Somebody has to make the stuff they use over there, and yes they're going to make a profit. That includes everything from weapons to food to ac units. That must mean Trane is in on this HUGE conspiracy to make money for the AC Industrial Complex
01-29-2012, 05:46 PM
#45
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea you are correct about the mineral deposits. And since the Chinese cut out a lot of what we get from them we needed a new supplier. So what better way than to just occupy a country and take it from them. But there is more to it.
In this chart you can see when the CIA was in control, business was a boomin but in 01 when the Taliban took over, business went down and that is not good for the "war on drugs" so we went in and took control of it and now they produce more than ever before.
In this chart you can see when the CIA was in control, business was a boomin but in 01 when the Taliban took over, business went down and that is not good for the "war on drugs" so we went in and took control of it and now they produce more than ever before.
Looks like some of that opium made its way to yours and speedtigger's houses
01-29-2012, 05:57 PM
#46
But, you need to avoid personal attacks. This thread has been a tremendous success and these type of tactics are exactly what will get it locked.
01-30-2012, 09:42 AM
#47
Not true. Almost a year before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt signed into law the Lend Lease Act, which effectively ended an era of American non-interventionism beginning after the first world war. The Act provided for billions of dollars in aid to the Allies.
Whether or not the military is needed in certain places is certainly debatable. I won't get into that lol
Whether or not the military is needed in certain places is certainly debatable. I won't get into that lol
I'm not really sure how you or anyone can say what would've happened had we not intervened, or what will happen if we dont police the rest of the world. If you can though i'd like the numbers to this weeks mega millions. I would think you can only look at what has happened so far based on intervention and make judgements based on those facts.
That's like the whole Iraq and WMD thing. Nothing was ever found, and a lot of lives were lost and money was spent. The Patriot act in my opinion just follows that line of thinking and takes it a step farther. Lets start taking away peoples civil liberties as a pre-emptive attempt to make the USA safer. Just like taking away guns. Hell how many people die from car accidents each year. I guess the next step is to take cars away. This country seems to be headed towards totalitarianism. That's why I would vote for Ron Paul he doesnt just say he opposes big government, deficit spending, and federal regulation he shows it with his voting record, and plans to try and do something about it. I also agree with him on a few other issues like ending the war on drugs, and the federal regulations of them, his foreign policy, and getting rid of the Income tax. Just seems to me like he represents the ideals of our founding fathers the most, and maybe that's the "change" we really needed in 2008.
01-30-2012, 10:50 AM
#49
Btw as it stands
I'm officially endorsing nike boot for president and vice presidential candidate dead cat.
But if i had to vote in a primary, my vote will go for santorum. But if I had to vote in a primary election, it is definately ANYBODY but obama.
It's gonna be interesting watching a debate vs obama.
I'm officially endorsing nike boot for president and vice presidential candidate dead cat.
But if i had to vote in a primary, my vote will go for santorum. But if I had to vote in a primary election, it is definately ANYBODY but obama.
It's gonna be interesting watching a debate vs obama.
01-30-2012, 10:55 AM
#50
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken on "intervening". When I read that word I thought of a more aggressive or active role. Semantics aside It still cost the USA money as did refusing to sell resources to Japan. But if you are saying that's a valid reason or that was why Japan attacked, then it further validates the claim that "intervening" causes us to enter into conflict.
I'm not really sure how you or anyone can say what would've happened had we not intervened, or what will happen if we dont police the rest of the world. If you can though i'd like the numbers to this weeks mega millions. I would think you can only look at what has happened so far based on intervention and make judgements based on those facts.
That's like the whole Iraq and WMD thing. Nothing was ever found, and a lot of lives were lost and money was spent. The Patriot act in my opinion just follows that line of thinking and takes it a step farther. Lets start taking away peoples civil liberties as a pre-emptive attempt to make the USA safer. Just like taking away guns. Hell how many people die from car accidents each year. I guess the next step is to take cars away. This country seems to be headed towards totalitarianism. That's why I would vote for Ron Paul he doesnt just say he opposes big government, deficit spending, and federal regulation he shows it with his voting record, and plans to try and do something about it. I also agree with him on a few other issues like ending the war on drugs, and the federal regulations of them, his foreign policy, and getting rid of the Income tax. Just seems to me like he represents the ideals of our founding fathers the most, and maybe that's the "change" we really needed in 2008.
I'm not really sure how you or anyone can say what would've happened had we not intervened, or what will happen if we dont police the rest of the world. If you can though i'd like the numbers to this weeks mega millions. I would think you can only look at what has happened so far based on intervention and make judgements based on those facts.
That's like the whole Iraq and WMD thing. Nothing was ever found, and a lot of lives were lost and money was spent. The Patriot act in my opinion just follows that line of thinking and takes it a step farther. Lets start taking away peoples civil liberties as a pre-emptive attempt to make the USA safer. Just like taking away guns. Hell how many people die from car accidents each year. I guess the next step is to take cars away. This country seems to be headed towards totalitarianism. That's why I would vote for Ron Paul he doesnt just say he opposes big government, deficit spending, and federal regulation he shows it with his voting record, and plans to try and do something about it. I also agree with him on a few other issues like ending the war on drugs, and the federal regulations of them, his foreign policy, and getting rid of the Income tax. Just seems to me like he represents the ideals of our founding fathers the most, and maybe that's the "change" we really needed in 2008.
Things were not nearly as intertwined then as they are today, especially considering our post-industrial economy. Just about everything going on in the world affects us in one way or another, and most people just don't think about that.
The fact that nothing was found does not mean that nothing was there. Saddam had been rejecting inspections periodically in the years leading up to the Iraq war. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
I'm with you on the patriot act and the civil liberties spiel, though I don't think things are quite as draconian as a lot of people like to present. It is a slippery slope though.
Drugs, on the other hand, should still remain illegal. People make the argument that beer does just as much harm as drugs, which is arguable. If anything, drugs will affect you in ways equal to or greater than beer including long term psychiatric effects, and it is much easier to accidentally OD on drugs than alcohol. Also, part of the point of the war on drugs is to raise the opportunity cost of using them. If you were to all of a sudden decriminalize them, the number of users would likely multiply. Another argument I often hear is that if you legalize drugs, especially marijuana, that people will grow it domestically and that would take money and power away from the drug cartels--not so. If you do this, the cartels will not sit on their hands and say 'oh well, it was a nice run while we had it'. Rather, they see competition and I guarantee you drug violence will increase dramatically. Ron Paul would be a fool to do any of this.
01-30-2012, 11:14 AM
#51
We can start a new thread debating the legalization of certain drugs. Because I can pull up scientific studies showing the benefits of quite a few of them from a medicinal perspective. And he doesnt advocate the legalization of drugs. Just to let the states decide and do away with the federal regulation. I could literally write pages on this subject, and we can in another thread. But to me the main issue with it is. It's none of the governments business. As long as you dont cause harm to others, in which case you would be tried and imprisioned. They shouldnt have that kind of power. Just like they shouldnt be able to tell you what kind of food you can eat, or what kind of car you can drive. You can argue it would be dangerous. But most drugs are still readily available, and easy to find. A lot of them are classified schedule 1 yet are prescribed as medicine. Lastly take a handful of aspirin and tell me it's not dangerous (dont really do this you will die).
Also here is some perspective from someone who actually knows what he's talking about on the subject of foreign policy in the middle east.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnH0dxdiRzc
Also here is some perspective from someone who actually knows what he's talking about on the subject of foreign policy in the middle east.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnH0dxdiRzc
01-30-2012, 11:22 AM
#52
01-30-2012, 11:59 AM
#53
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scheuer is a nut, plain and simple. How can he possibly deny that Iran is a threat to US national security, yet still insist that Al Qaeda is going to detonate a nuclear bomb inside our borders? Where does he think they're gonna get it from?
For every expert endorsing this or that, there is another endorsing something/someone else. Leon Panetta, for example, would clearly disagree.
And its not just about Israel. Iran could use it on anybody, including Saudi Arabia. The idea is to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons in the first place, so that they can't use them on anybody. For what its worth, though, Israel can sure talk big for a country that's been at the US tit for decades.
For every expert endorsing this or that, there is another endorsing something/someone else. Leon Panetta, for example, would clearly disagree.
And its not just about Israel. Iran could use it on anybody, including Saudi Arabia. The idea is to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons in the first place, so that they can't use them on anybody. For what its worth, though, Israel can sure talk big for a country that's been at the US tit for decades.
01-30-2012, 12:13 PM
#55
Drugs, on the other hand, should still remain illegal. People make the argument that beer does just as much harm as drugs, which is arguable. If anything, drugs will affect you in ways equal to or greater than beer including long term psychiatric effects, and it is much easier to accidentally OD on drugs than alcohol.
http://www.healthiertalk.com/prescri...nal-drugs-0112
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...on-drug-deaths
It should be a much greater priority to clean the sleaze out of the FDA far before we spend more money on "the war on drugs". When our own government stops participating in murder for profit, then they might have a platform for the moral high ground.
01-30-2012, 01:10 PM
#58
Scheuer is a nut, plain and simple. How can he possibly deny that Iran is a threat to US national security, yet still insist that Al Qaeda is going to detonate a nuclear bomb inside our borders? Where does he think they're gonna get it from?
For every expert endorsing this or that, there is another endorsing something/someone else. Leon Panetta, for example, would clearly disagree.
And its not just about Israel. Iran could use it on anybody, including Saudi Arabia. The idea is to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons in the first place, so that they can't use them on anybody. For what its worth, though, Israel can sure talk big for a country that's been at the US tit for decades.
For every expert endorsing this or that, there is another endorsing something/someone else. Leon Panetta, for example, would clearly disagree.
And its not just about Israel. Iran could use it on anybody, including Saudi Arabia. The idea is to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons in the first place, so that they can't use them on anybody. For what its worth, though, Israel can sure talk big for a country that's been at the US tit for decades.
I'll agree with your second statement though.
Last edited by Nwmembr19; 01-30-2012 at 01:15 PM.
01-30-2012, 04:50 PM
#59
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yarly
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66977
So someone's a nut because they have a different opinion than you? I would think he has a little more credibility considering he had over 20yrs in the CIA, worked as Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, and in the Osama bin Laden tracking unit in Counterterrorism. Then served as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit. Seems like he would know a few things about the middle east and the people and countries over there.
I'll agree with your second statement though.
I'll agree with your second statement though.
panetta and patraeus seem to agree on iraq and afghanistan. seeing as their intel is more current, i would be more inclined to believe them over this guy.
