|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Apr 19, 2011 8:56:17 GMT -5
Entertaining... maybe that's what we need... a political reality show, like American Idol... American Politico! yes, and Pat can be the host. ;D
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 10:06:04 GMT -5
Yeah invade em all and let the dust settle it. Out of one side of his mouth he says we have spent 1.5 billion in a useless endeavor in Iraq, and out of the other side of his mouth he wants to put more boots on the ground to seize oil facilities. Does he not realize how much money and how many boots it would take to seize and keep control of these facilities? WHAT A LOON!
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 10:12:57 GMT -5
Actually, what he's saying is "let's get some value for the trillion+ that we've already spent".
Why should we spend trillions to liberate iraq and then let them become another bloated hotbed of Islamic extremism who charges us $5 for gas? Why not seize their production capacity until we're repaid... plus interest?
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 10:22:44 GMT -5
And like I asked, how much money and lives will that cost us to sieze and control, Hugo Chavez?
|
|
|
Post by dino on Apr 19, 2011 10:32:35 GMT -5
A trillion here, a billion there, a trillion here, a billion there....just like in Libya.....and what are we getting for that billion?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 10:54:45 GMT -5
And like I asked, how much money and lives will that cost us to sieze and control, Hugo Chavez? I didn't hear him say anything about Chavez. There's plenty of work to be done exploiting he places that we've already paid for.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Apr 19, 2011 12:03:17 GMT -5
I wonder if Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam etc. have paid us back yet? Wonder if they paid the families of soldiers who lost their lives over there? Jeez What's a life worth? Trump is just a clown distraction!
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 12:12:27 GMT -5
So, after all the claims that we were over there to help instill democracy, what we were really after WAS the oil. Next time we should just skip the democracy hyperbole and just say up front, "We don't care about you at all, we're just here for the oil".
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Apr 19, 2011 12:25:58 GMT -5
So, after all the claims that we were over there to help instill democracy, what we were really after WAS the oil. Next time we should just skip the democracy hyperbole and just say up front, "We don't care about you at all, we're just here for the oil". I've read that this is what companies do! They make plans ahead to take hold of assets. He he he No I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 13:39:41 GMT -5
So, after all the claims that we were over there to help instill democracy, what we were really after WAS the oil. Next time we should just skip the democracy hyperbole and just say up front, "We don't care about you at all, we're just here for the oil". If we really cared about all that nicey nice stuff we would be in Ivory coast, ghana, and eritrea.
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 13:44:26 GMT -5
And like I asked, how much money and lives will that cost us to seize and control, Hugo Chavez? I didn't hear him say anything about Chavez. There's plenty of work to be done exploiting he places that we've already paid for. That was me calling you & Trump "Hugo Chavez" for advocating what is essentially the American nationalization of someone else's oil industry. I could MAYBE see attempting a takeover if the original deal with the Iraqi or Libyan people was an oil deal in exchange for their freedom and they reneged. But as far as I can tell, we never made such a deal. Or is all the Bush "war for oil" rhetoric true?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 14:12:38 GMT -5
I think we all knew that it was more or less true. I can't recall ever having liberated anyplace that didn't have something that was strategically important to us.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Apr 19, 2011 14:21:51 GMT -5
I think we all knew that it was more or less true. I can't recall ever having liberated anyplace that didn't have something that was strategically important to us. So you are agreeing that Trump is correct?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 14:36:41 GMT -5
I think we all knew that it was more or less true. I can't recall ever having liberated anyplace that didn't have something that was strategically important to us. So you are agreeing that Trump is correct? More or less. Look at it this way. After all this bluster about seizing oil fields, just imagine how accommodating the Iraqi parliament would be when it comes time to parcel out contracts for oil production. The mere whisper of another President who wouldn't mid blowing some stuff up would send them scurrying.
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 14:47:10 GMT -5
So you are agreeing that Trump is correct? More or less. Look at it this way. After all this bluster about seizing oil fields, just imagine how accommodating the Iraqi parliament would be when it comes time to parcel out contracts for oil production. The mere whisper of another President who wouldn't mid blowing some stuff up would send them scurrying. More likely it would just give those Islamic douchebags one more reason to hate us and more desire to come over here and blow things up.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Apr 19, 2011 15:07:20 GMT -5
Last time I checked, they don't require any more encouragement to make whatever mayhem their tiny little brains can conjure up. We're already paying the price for their 12th century mindset, so why not have some heap gas while we're paying it?
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 16:04:51 GMT -5
Like I stated before, if the original deal had been, "We invade your country, kill off your leader(s), give you the opportunity for freedom, and you give us oil", then I say, fine, the swarthy ones owe us oil. But since that deal was (probably) not made, or any deal for that matter, us going in and demanding and/or just taking the oil kinda makes us a bully.
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Apr 19, 2011 16:12:50 GMT -5
Like I stated before, if the original deal had been, "We invade your country, kill off your leader(s), give you the opportunity for freedom, and you give us oil", then I say, fine, the swarthy ones owe us oil. But since that deal was (probably) not made, or any deal for that matter, us going in and demanding and/or just taking the oil kinda makes us a bully. OK... so what DO we get for the TRILLIONS we have spent over there? The satisfaction of a job well done?" Seriously? And this is coming from the same mouths that said we didn't need to be over there wasting all of that money in the first place. I agree with that but really, are we expected to just throw our economy in the shitter for their benefit? I think not. I once saw a sticker on a motorcycle helmet that sums it up rather nicely... "Ass, Gas or Grass. Nobody rides for free."
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Apr 19, 2011 16:26:09 GMT -5
It's the primary job of a "super-power" to meddle in the affairs of others and to thanklessly save the ill informed and down-trodden from themselves.
As much as some of us have bemoaned the cost of making Iraq free (that's a laugh), they aren't just going to give up their oil. And now we have a (useless and ill advised in my opinion) military action that will be prolonged and escalate for who knows how long. At the cost of millions of dollars and hundreds of American lives more. How many of our soldiers are really going to be OK with the possibility of death for oil.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Apr 20, 2011 6:04:36 GMT -5
So, after all the claims that we were over there to help instill democracy, what we were really after WAS the oil. Next time we should just skip the democracy hyperbole and just say up front, "We don't care about you at all, we're just here for the oil". Whether the gov't is selling a war or a program like TARP or the current, 'we must raise the debt ceiling' parade.... they always follow the simple formula which has worked every time. Wrap it all up in fear, then attach it to a couple of lame reasons and never state the real reason or consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Apr 20, 2011 13:56:51 GMT -5
So, after all the claims that we were over there to help instill democracy, what we were really after WAS the oil. Next time we should just skip the democracy hyperbole and just say up front, "We don't care about you at all, we're just here for the oil". Whether the gov't is selling a war or a program like TARP or the current, 'we must raise the debt ceiling' parade.... they always follow the simple formula which has worked every time. Wrap it all up in fear, then attach it to a couple of lame reasons and never state the real reason or consequences. And there you have it. In an odd way, it's true. We have became a reality show nation. The tail wags the dog.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Apr 25, 2011 12:39:13 GMT -5
The latest on the Rumpster..............
Anyone know what kind of "interest" the Rumpster has in Chicago?
|
|
|
Post by Diremaker on Apr 26, 2011 13:12:26 GMT -5
Yes. Voters.
|
|
|
Post by dino on May 12, 2011 18:37:02 GMT -5
"It'll be a landmark running for the Indianapolis 500 later this month, as the event celebrates its 100th anniversary as the premier open-wheel racing event in America. All of which only gave some fans more reason to be ticked off when Donald Trump was announced as this year's pace car driver.
Annoyed by political implications detracting from the spirit of racing, many fans were up in arms when Trump was announced as the official pace car driver, evidently prompting the celebrity businessman and possible presidential candidate to change his plans. In his place, organizers at the Speedway have invited none other than A.J. Foyt to drive the Chevrolet Camaro SS Convertible that will serve as the official pace car. As a four-time Indy 500 winner, Foyt is among the most decorated drivers ever to lap the Brickyard, and his nomination will surely come as more welcome news to the legions of open-wheel devotees."
|
|
|
Post by dino on May 16, 2011 12:06:12 GMT -5
Trump announced he's not running....but said if he did run there's no doubt he'd win the nomination.
|
|