No, some people do. You right wingers just slap that catch call on all of us because you can argue against it easily.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right?
Isn't "right winger" a catch call?Bubbalo wrote:
No, some people do. You right wingers just slap that catch call on all of us because you can argue against it easily.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right?
We didn't go there for oil, we went there for the American dollar, which is backed by oil. Oil can be purchased only in American dollars, but the American dollar is deflating, and oil exporting nations in the middle east don't like that. So they're selling their reserves for Euros and preparing to accept the Euro for Oil. If they do so, they stand to increase the value of the Euro, and thus their own M1 (currency and checkable deposits) reserves, AND they increase quantity demand for their oil because by accepting a more diverse range of payments they decrease the costs of transaction.usmarine2007 wrote:
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
Want more details? Read the whole story in this purely analytical article: http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html by PhD holding Australian author Gavin R. Putland.
Evidence in observation of the US government's actions?
1. Afganhistan is the site of a future oil pipeline, the alternative to which would run through Russia.
2. Iraq began accepting Euros for oil 12 months before invasion.
3. The coalition of the willing's first act in Iraq was to revert pricing to the USD.
4. Iran has begun accepting future contracts of oil supply in Euro denominations (payment for future purchases of oil, essentially)
5. Iran is the next hotbutton nation and target of American politicians.
6. Cuba, Venezeula, Iraq, Afganhistan, and Iran all either export(ed) oil or were directly involved with oil infrastructure, and all are the most recent nations against which the US has taken hostile action.
I bet we could find reasons to invade Iraq for the sake of the fashion world too.
You must have missed the smiley face symbol.jonsimon wrote:
We didn't go there for oil, we went there for the American dollar, which is backed by oil. Oil can be purchased only in American dollars, but the American dollar is deflating, and oil exporting nations in the middle east don't like that. So they're selling their reserves for Euros and preparing to accept the Euro for Oil. If they do so, they stand to increase the value of the Euro, and thus their own M1 (currency and checkable deposits) reserves, AND they increase quantity demand for their oil because by accepting a more diverse range of payments they decrease the costs of transaction.usmarine2007 wrote:
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
Want more details? Read the whole story in this purely analytical article: http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html by PhD holding Australian author Gavin R. Putland.
Evidence in observation of the US government's actions?
1. Afganhistan is the site of a future oil pipeline, the alternative to which would run through Russia.
2. Iraq began accepting Euros for oil 12 months before invasion.
3. The coalition of the willing's first act in Iraq was to revert pricing to the USD.
4. Iran has begun accepting future contracts of oil supply in Euro denominations (payment for future purchases of oil, essentially)
5. Iran is the next hotbutton nation and target of American politicians.
6. Cuba, Venezeula, Iraq, Afganhistan, and Iran all either export(ed) oil or were directly involved with oil infrastructure, and all are the most recent nations against which the US has taken hostile action.
Do you run around saying it? No, I thought not. It is a term used to describe someone who typically has right wing views.usmarine2007 wrote:
Isn't "right winger" a catch call?Bubbalo wrote:
No, some people do. You right wingers just slap that catch call on all of us because you can argue against it easily.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right?
I say it to myself in the mirror every morning and evening.Bubbalo wrote:
Do you run around saying it? No, I thought not. It is a term used to describe someone who typically has right wing views.usmarine2007 wrote:
Isn't "right winger" a catch call?Bubbalo wrote:
No, some people do. You right wingers just slap that catch call on all of us because you can argue against it easily.
No, I was referring to all your allegations with regards to any nation's reasoning for entering the middle east. And hopefully educating you just a smidgen.usmarine2007 wrote:
You must have missed the smiley face symbol.jonsimon wrote:
We didn't go there for oil, we went there for the American dollar, which is backed by oil. Oil can be purchased only in American dollars, but the American dollar is deflating, and oil exporting nations in the middle east don't like that. So they're selling their reserves for Euros and preparing to accept the Euro for Oil. If they do so, they stand to increase the value of the Euro, and thus their own M1 (currency and checkable deposits) reserves, AND they increase quantity demand for their oil because by accepting a more diverse range of payments they decrease the costs of transaction.usmarine2007 wrote:
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
Want more details? Read the whole story in this purely analytical article: http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html by PhD holding Australian author Gavin R. Putland.
Evidence in observation of the US government's actions?
1. Afganhistan is the site of a future oil pipeline, the alternative to which would run through Russia.
2. Iraq began accepting Euros for oil 12 months before invasion.
3. The coalition of the willing's first act in Iraq was to revert pricing to the USD.
4. Iran has begun accepting future contracts of oil supply in Euro denominations (payment for future purchases of oil, essentially)
5. Iran is the next hotbutton nation and target of American politicians.
6. Cuba, Venezeula, Iraq, Afganhistan, and Iran all either export(ed) oil or were directly involved with oil infrastructure, and all are the most recent nations against which the US has taken hostile action.
Ummm....ok.jonsimon wrote:
No, I was referring to all your allegations with regards to any nation's reasoning for entering the middle east. And hopefully educating you just a smidgen.
That's because the voices in your head make you, it doesn't count. Same as the fact that I sometimes wear dresses doesn't count.usmarine2007 wrote:
I say it to myself in the mirror every morning and evening.Bubbalo wrote:
Do you run around saying it? No, I thought not. It is a term used to describe someone who typically has right wing views.usmarine2007 wrote:
Isn't "right winger" a catch call?
I like how you cease trying to argue at all when presented with a real argument.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm....ok.jonsimon wrote:
No, I was referring to all your allegations with regards to any nation's reasoning for entering the middle east. And hopefully educating you just a smidgen.
What am I arguing? What nations did I allege?jonsimon wrote:
I like how you cease trying to argue at all when presented with a real argument.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm....ok.jonsimon wrote:
No, I was referring to all your allegations with regards to any nation's reasoning for entering the middle east. And hopefully educating you just a smidgen.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-06 16:40:17)
usmarine2007 wrote:
What am I arguing? What nations did I allege?jonsimon wrote:
I like how you cease trying to argue at all when presented with a real argument.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm....ok.
usmarine2007 wrote:
So, since we went there for oil, and the Brits joined us, they went there for oil also yes?
usmarine2007 wrote:
I drink oil from Iraq every night before bed. It is yummy.
usmarine2007 wrote:
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative (I'm Libertarian), but I totally agree with that statement. I think an even better statement would be, "The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have been best spent by law abiding citizens and corporations for the improvement of their own lives and businesses."Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
Nevermind man.jonsimon wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
What am I arguing? What nations did I allege?jonsimon wrote:
I like how you cease trying to argue at all when presented with a real argument.usmarine2007 wrote:
So, since we went there for oil, and the Brits joined us, they went there for oil also yes?usmarine2007 wrote:
I drink oil from Iraq every night before bed. It is yummy.usmarine2007 wrote:
True...the Brits had their oil, it is our turn.
Considering what will happen to the dollar if we don't strong arm OPEC into using it, its more like "The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war could have purchased several books for less fortunate children."Turquoise wrote:
I'm not a liberal or a conservative (I'm Libertarian), but I totally agree with that statement. I think an even better statement would be, "The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have been best spent by law abiding citizens and corporations for the improvement of their own lives and businesses."Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
LOL... Well, it is true that many oil-producing nations will likely switch to Euros soon. Iran seems to be the first on the list. Iraq mysteriously showed interest in this right before we invaded... *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*jonsimon wrote:
Considering what will happen to the dollar if we don't strong arm OPEC into using it, its more like "The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war could have purchased several books for less fortunate children."Turquoise wrote:
I'm not a liberal or a conservative (I'm Libertarian), but I totally agree with that statement. I think an even better statement would be, "The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have been best spent by law abiding citizens and corporations for the improvement of their own lives and businesses."Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
If the Euro switch actually occurs, we're gonna need to restructure our society fast.
Any $ not spent in the war would not have gone to health care, education but rather to military spending and a U.S. hotel on the moon.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
Mason quote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.
That is probably the dumbest statement i have ever read in here... lol...
Let me get this right... We invaded Iraq for oil... then realized we didnt have enough troops so we switched our mission to create a Democracy in Iraq... lol... that makes no sense... thank you for the laugh though...
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right? So since we are just taking the oil, it is like we are paying for it right?
Mason quote:
We did. We didn't deploy enough troops at the beginning to secure the oil fields. Thats when it became a fight for Iraqi democracy.
That is probably the dumbest statement i have ever read in here... lol...
Let me get this right... We invaded Iraq for oil... then realized we didnt have enough troops so we switched our mission to create a Democracy in Iraq... lol... that makes no sense... thank you for the laugh though...
Love is the answer
Do you pay taxes? Do you own a house? If you don't you shouldn't be commenting on world affairs bieng that everything going on is funded by tax payers. Its the tax payers opinions that matter, not people still lliving at home with ma and pa. If you are a grown up my apologies.jonsimon wrote:
The brits went because blair is a pussy. The US went because our status in the world would be greatly impaired if oil-supplying nations accepted the euro as payment.
I won't even justify your ignorance with a respectable response.rawls wrote:
Do you pay taxes? Do you own a house? If you don't you shouldn't be commenting on world affairs bieng that everything going on is funded by tax payers. Its the tax payers opinions that matter, not people still lliving at home with ma and pa. If you are a grown up my apologies.jonsimon wrote:
The brits went because blair is a pussy. The US went because our status in the world would be greatly impaired if oil-supplying nations accepted the euro as payment.
I am very conservative, and very against wasteful spending.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
I feel that a lot of good things have happened in Iraq, and that in the long run they will be better off for our military's efforts.
At the same time, however, I can see a lot of other places that money could have been used for the benefit of Americans. Damn that is a lot of loot.
Alternitive energy is a joke (with the possible, but unlikely, exception of hydrogen fuel cells). Free gas for 4 years? Yeah right. Our government would have pissed it away regardless. None of us would have seen a penny of that money with or without a war.
Seriously this has to be one of the most interesting statements I have read in these forums. He is criticizing some for using a "catch all" while in the same sentence doing it himself."You right wingers"..lolBubbalo wrote:
No, some people do. You right wingers just slap that catch call on all of us because you can argue against it easily.usmarine2007 wrote:
Besides, most people accuse us of going to Iraq for oil right?
Edit: I saw someone else noticed it up there too.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-06 18:57:50)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, I wouldn't go that far. War is perhaps the most wasteful way that the government spends our money. I'd rather they just not spend much money at all, but if they're going to spend it anyway, alternative energy research makes more sense than war.weamo8 wrote:
I am very conservative, and very against wasteful spending.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
I feel that a lot of good things have happened in Iraq, and that in the long run they will be better off for our military's efforts.
At the same time, however, I can see a lot of other places that money could have been used for the benefit of Americans. Damn that is a lot of loot.
Alternitive energy is a joke (with the possible, but unlikely, exception of hydrogen fuel cells). Free gas for 4 years? Yeah right. Our government would have pissed it away regardless. None of us would have seen a penny of that money with or without a war.
Agreed.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I wouldn't go that far. War is perhaps the most wasteful way that the government spends our money. I'd rather they just not spend much money at all, but if they're going to spend it anyway, alternative energy research makes more sense than war.weamo8 wrote:
I am very conservative, and very against wasteful spending.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices."
I feel that a lot of good things have happened in Iraq, and that in the long run they will be better off for our military's efforts.
At the same time, however, I can see a lot of other places that money could have been used for the benefit of Americans. Damn that is a lot of loot.
Alternitive energy is a joke (with the possible, but unlikely, exception of hydrogen fuel cells). Free gas for 4 years? Yeah right. Our government would have pissed it away regardless. None of us would have seen a penny of that money with or without a war.
Which movie is this quote from? Karma for the first to get it.
“You Americans think that money is power. Money is not power, conviction is power. Whoever is the most committed wins.”