Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/18/06 11:37 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: >> In the ARtic of Canada. There are even MORE untapped and undiscovered oil sources! but it's too far north, so nobody has gone up there yet. There are lots in Norhtern BC, and the rigs of Nova Scotia. But even at current levels Alberta's oil sands have at least 100 more years worth of oil left, and STILL proven but untapped oil wells in Alberta. However, if we haven't found any other sources of fuel in 100 years, then we deserve what we get. Russia also has huge oil reserves.

Oil shale and tar sands are much harder to refine then the light and sweet oil that we use now. The cost of refining these will most likely outweigh the cost of alternative and environmentally friendly fuels.

At 10/18/06 04:51 PM, Grammer wrote: And you're trying to downplay it by saying the number of kurds killed was "limited". Try thousands. Now the Iraqis have a chance to make their own future, and not under the rule of an oppressive dictator.

i'm not trying to down play it, and it was not just the kurds that suffered under the Baath party. my argument isn't should or shouldn't they suffer, i was simply trying to say that "liberating" the Iraqis was an attempt at justifying the war once most people started thinking the war was unjustified because no WMDs were found.

At 10/17/06 04:00 PM, WilliWowza wrote: Oh ok then, stick Saddam back in because we've got enough gas for the humvee!

I have known some republicans who have said similar to that.

At 10/17/06 09:03 PM, TheH3ntaiGuy wrote: Two) Most oil we need for gas comes from where? China? I hope not! Russia? Good luck with that one! Most of the Middle East with countries like iraq? There you go.

Canada is in the middle east now, huh?

At 10/20/06 10:09 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/18/06 05:42 PM, Peter-II wrote: --Getting at middle-Eastern oil reserves

If we wanted oil we could've just bought it, instead of starting a $400 bil war.

Yes, but either way, it's better if the oil is secured now. Think of the 9/11 attacks as being an opportunity opening up.

--Allow Republican party to be voted in again

And yet the Iraq issue is hurting the Bush admin, hmm.

That is avoiding the issue. The Republican party was voted in again, due to the group mentality which comes with a war.

Yeah, we need to stay in Iraq longer. The concern for oil isn't a factor right now; the problem is the state of Iraq. If the U.S. troops pulled out now, the Sunnis and Shiites would probably engage in civil war, and possibly topple the new government. Dropping out now would be irresponsible and selfish. We made this mess, we have to bear the burden of fixing it as best we can.

At 10/17/06 06:01 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 10/17/06 05:58 PM, T-N-T wrote:

so why was every one told it was because he was a threat to the west? if it was to remove an evil dictator, why did the US stop at Iraq, there are plenty worst world situations? why would you use violence that throws a country into a worst situation then it was before in order to "help" them?

We helped them because it was easy, and that they could actually bounce back, worse situations like china and N. Korea would be just plain silly. For example china has armys that could go toe to toe with ours, nukes to blast us, allys to back them up, it would be too muchwork and danger for the u.s and it would be unpresidented, with iraq the hole kuwaitt incident kinda shifted the playing feild, we could and we should and we did

At 10/20/06 06:41 PM, Boarean wrote: We helped them because it was easy, and that they could actually bounce back, worse situations like china and N. Korea would be just plain silly. For example china has armys that could go toe to toe with ours, nukes to blast us, allys to back them up, it would be too muchwork and danger for the u.s and it would be unpresidented, with iraq the hole kuwaitt incident kinda shifted the playing feild, we could and we should and we did

if its was easy, was it really a threat?
and as far as helping people, why didn't anyone even consider places like the Darfur region where even a minimal military presence may have saved lives without costing the lives of the troops there?
what does Kuwait have to do with anything?

The iraq war was a big and worthless waste of money. End of story.

It doesn't matter what we do, they are going to have a civil war. We should let them get it over with. Only from mass death and suffering on both sides for a decade will they understand the importance and power of getting along with each other.

Fuck Iraq, fuck it's oil, and most of all, fuck my country for getting involved.

At 10/20/06 08:03 PM, fasdit wrote: Fuck Iraq, fuck it's oil, and most of all, fuck my country for getting involved.

It's a sad state of affairs that one so young would have such a jaded world view.

But what's even sadder; folks like you who turn around and gripe about how President Bush's father should have "taken Saddam out when he had the chance" during Desert Storm, and that George W. is just "finishing what his father started." Kind of hypocritical if you ask me...

At 10/20/06 11:33 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/20/06 11:26 AM, Peter-II wrote:

If we wanted oil we could've just bought it, instead of starting a $400 bil war.

Yes, but either way, it's better if the oil is secured now.

The costs of the war severely outweigh any money we are earning from any oil.

www.costofwar.com

I didn't even click your link, because I'm aware of this. However, it is still a good idea for the Americans to secure it while they can. From their point of view, at least.

You don't start a war for oil. That makes absolutely no sense economically.

I don't see why. You have to fight over something.

And as I said, one of the factors among many.

Think of the 9/11 attacks as being an opportunity opening up.

Or I could look at it as a horrid tragedy which took thousands of lives, which I find to be less perverse.

Appeal to emotion argument. Totally irrelevant.

Have you checked Bush's approval ratings? Have you checked the Iraq war's approval ratings. The Iraq war isn't doign well in the court of public opinion.

Yes, I know. I didn't say the war would give Bush approval ratings. He was voted in again, though.

At 10/20/06 10:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/20/06 08:03 PM, fasdit wrote: Fuck Iraq, fuck it's oil, and most of all, fuck my country for getting involved.

It's a sad state of affairs that one so young would have such a jaded world view.

But what's even sadder; folks like you who turn around and gripe about how President Bush's father should have "taken Saddam out when he had the chance" during Desert Storm, and that George W. is just "finishing what his father started." Kind of hypocritical if you ask me...

Yeah it's also sad that there are mentally ill homeless people wandering around urban cities in the United States and instead of providing them with any special care we send all the money over to Iraq. I was in Chicago over the weekend and must have seen at least fifteen homeless people. Some of these guys just stand there and yell at stuff that isn't there. They used to have homes to live in, but lack of federal funding pushed them out into the cold.

Or hey, what about all the unemployed and impoverished Black people that live in places like Flint and Detroit Michigan, or the people in Gary Indiana. The ones that used to prosper from automotive and steel jobs but currently barely have a pot to piss in?

It's certainly excellent that we put our tax money into foreign affairs before our own citizens isn't it?

I never said anything about Bush Sr. or taking Saddam out when we had the chance. At least with Saddam in Iraq there was less fighting. I never agreed with this war from the very beginning and I never wanted Bush in office ever.

At 10/20/06 10:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/20/06 08:03 PM, fasdit wrote:

But what's even sadder; folks like you who turn around and gripe about how President Bush's father should have "taken Saddam out when he had the chance" during Desert Storm, and that George W. is just "finishing what his father started." Kind of hypocritical if you ask me...

Whats sadder is that we can't keep our noises out of foreign affairs and concentrate on our own problems.

At 10/23/06 09:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Whats sadder is that we can't keep our noises out of foreign affairs and concentrate on our own problems.

There are many occasions when the U.S. politicians have tried to fix problems:
1. Social Security
2. medicare
3. Education
4. Inflated real estate
5. Gun control
6. Stem cell research
7. Abortion rights
8. Gay rights
9. Etc...

The reason the problems above have not really been solved to the full extent is because it is difficult to reach a compromise on them and establish boundaries for decisions. Furthermore it is impossible to do so when the people who are supposed to be making those decisions are as divided as the 1/2, quite literally.

We americans needs gas and oil so that is what iraq is for

At 10/23/06 09:53 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/23/06 09:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Whats sadder is that we can't keep our noises out of foreign affairs and concentrate on our own problems.

There are many occasions when the U.S. politicians have tried to fix problems:
1. Social Security
2. medicare
3. Education
4. Inflated real estate
5. Gun control
6. Stem cell research
7. Abortion rights
8. Gay rights
9. Etc...

I can make most of those things better...

It's easy to increase medicare and education... Increase the tax on the rich (say the top 5%) and use that money to increase the education and medice for the poorer people of the community. Have Abortion legal but only under certain circumstances (i.e. upto a certain point of 24 weeks or only if the mother is underage/will suffer from the pregnancy). Gay rights? Gay people deserve the very same rights as heterosexuals... Stem cell research.. It's ok aslong as its from the umbilical cord or you could use stem cells created from adult humans... it's possible.source
Gun control, keep guns legal however increase certain restrictions like people having to be trained, no criminal convictions etc..

That is avoiding the issue. The Republican party was voted in again, due to the group mentality which comes with a war.

Correlational evidence, not causational. You need more proof that the sole reason Bush was re-elected was due to the War Rally mentality.

You're skirting the fact that the Democrats lost, and instead of concentrating on their problems and platforms, you're focusing on Republican failures.

That's actually one of the reasons WHY Kerry lost; too busy bad-mouthing Bush than formulating his own plans on how to govern the nation.

Bush may not have the best ideas, but at least he HAS ideas....

Americans like a leader who at least looks like they have a plan. The "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" approach Kerry and the Dems took is what lost them the election........

At 10/30/06 03:44 PM, neoptolemus wrote: I can make most of those things better...

Indeed you can and I agree with just about all your views there. The sad thing is you're one guy so it's easy for you to reach a compromise. If you had multiple personalities with moderate and extreme polarized views it would not be so easy. Sadly such is the case in congress: you have politicians of all shapes, colors, sizes and flavors and it makes it very difficult to strike a compromise. That's probably the reason why people like Barrack Obama; he is willing to compromise.

I heard of the umbilical cord stem cell development a few months ago, thank God for that. Now it should be easier to strike a compromise on that issue. Thanks for the link.

Im acually quite shocked how george bush tried to claim that Iraq was american soil just to get at the oil. Ohh that rimed.

I think iraq needs to sort out its own problems.

At 10/30/06 10:24 PM, internet-lord wrote: Im acually quite shocked how george bush tried to claim that Iraq was american soil just to get at the oil. Ohh that rimed.

I think iraq needs to sort out its own problems.

Honest to god, the value of the oil doesn't even come close to the cost of our tax dollars spent on the war. It would have been significantly cheaper to just buy the stuff. We don't own the oil anyways, it belongs to the Iraqi's.

At 10/30/06 11:38 PM, fasdit wrote:

At 10/30/06 10:24 PM, internet-lord wrote: Im acually quite shocked how george bush tried to claim that Iraq was american soil just to get at the oil. Ohh that rimed.

I think iraq needs to sort out its own problems.

Honest to god, the value of the oil doesn't even come close to the cost of our tax dollars spent on the war. It would have been significantly cheaper to just buy the stuff. We don't own the oil anyways, it belongs to the Iraqi's.

I know but bush tried to clain it as american soil so he could get at it. 2 birds with one stone I guess

At 10/30/06 11:38 PM, fasdit wrote: Honest to god, the value of the oil doesn't even come close to the cost of our tax dollars spent on the war. It would have been significantly cheaper to just buy the stuff. We don't own the oil anyways, it belongs to the Iraqi's.

Very much so.

But if things had gone to plan then the oil would now be under the control of a US-friendly nation instead of a US-hating dictator.

At 10/30/06 04:06 PM, Imperator wrote:

That is avoiding the issue. The Republican party was voted in again, due to the group mentality which comes with a war.

Correlational evidence, not causational. You need more proof that the sole reason Bush was re-elected was due to the War Rally mentality.

I wouldn't say it was the sole reason. The fact that Bush seemed more on the ball than Kerry (i.e., he stuck to his decisions) was also a factor. However, there is definitely a "war" mentality that comes with a country - that is, civilians will feel safer with the same leader if a war is going on.

You're skirting the fact that the Democrats lost, and instead of concentrating on their problems and platforms, you're focusing on Republican failures.

I'm not focusing on Republican failures in general, however a topic called "Do we need to be in Iraq" does seem to invite that kind of discussion.

That's actually one of the reasons WHY Kerry lost; too busy bad-mouthing Bush than formulating his own plans on how to govern the nation.

I agree.

Bush may not have the best ideas, but at least he HAS ideas....

Americans like a leader who at least looks like they have a plan. The "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" approach Kerry and the Dems took is what lost them the election........

I agree.