It's NOT about Oil? What part don't you understand?

[JeremySF]

Only Bush's most extreme critics think the coming war with Iraq is about oil.

It's not!

Even if the U.S. was to seize Iraq's oil fields, the expense of the war and of occupation would far exceed any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels a day of production.

And a two-term presidency would be long over before Iraq's desperate economy could realize it's full capacity.

Yes, oil companies would love to get production-sharing agreements in Iraq, but they haven't even been allowed to participate in post-war planning. There are too many issues such as antitrust, competition law and international law.

In post-war Iraq Bush has been very public in saying that oil would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-food Program.

If you recall, the U.S. returned Kuwaiti oil back to Kuwait over a decade ago.

If America simply wanted cheap oil, Bush could cut a deal with Saddam which would be far easier and cheaper than going to war.

While there are many reasons for war with Iraq, particularly humanitarian reasons, the top reason Bush wants it is because by ousting Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq will send a strong message to other autocrats in the region.

First, that pursuing development of WMDs will not be tolerated.
Second, that other leaders need to reform their political systems.

For lack of a better word, an ice breaker is needed to address and unravel the Islamic world's frozen mass of dysfunction. Backward autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia only foster Islamist radicalism.

Since 9/11 we've done quite bit to diversify our oil supplies beyond the middle east. We've got new sources in Africa, Alaska, Russia, etc. In fact, Europe is more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.

Oil in this war is one thing: black gravy.

[Juicy D. Links]

too long can u summarize?

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by juicylinks
too long can u summarize?

no, but you can buy the cliff notes

[Rocky]

[xdcdave]

I heard an interesting report on the radio last night (coast 2 coast radio) about this war being about a Stargate that is located in Iraq. Apparently this Stargate will allow Saddam to go back in time and win the Gulf War conflict.

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried, I swear!

This filled up a 1 hour radio show!!

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by xdcdave
I heard an interesting report on the radio last night (coast 2 coast radio) about this war being about a Stargate that is located in Iraq. Apparently this Stargate will allow Saddam to go back in time and win the Gulf War conflict.

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried, I swear!

This filled up a 1 hour radio show!!

LMFAO

[ChrisH]

Oh it's all about oil to France. They have more applications to the UN for deals with Iraq then any country in the world.

It's ALL about oil

[DavePlays]

The biggest thing oil has to do with it is that it is where Saddam got his money and power.

That is exclusive of France - but excluding France is fine with me.

[theking]

Originally posted by xdcdave
I heard an interesting report on the radio last night (coast 2 coast radio) about this war being about a Stargate that is located in Iraq. Apparently this Stargate will allow Saddam to go back in time and win the Gulf War conflict.

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried, I swear!

This filled up a 1 hour radio show!!

He has been there and done that. During his interview with Rather he said that Iraqi forces were not defeated during the first Gulf War.

[Dildozer]

Originally posted by theking


He has been there and done that. During his interview with Rather he said that Iraqi forces were not defeated during the first Gulf War.

They didn't have time to be defeated they just surrendered at the first sight of american troops

[FlyingIguana]

Originally posted by Dildozer


They didn't have time to be defeated they just surrendered at the first sight of american troops

they went fuckabazoo

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by Dildozer


They didn't have time to be defeated they just surrendered at the first sight of american troops

That's not true....

They surrendered to CNN. LOL

But at least the French never surrendered to a news agency. Well not yet.

[Sly_RJ]

Originally posted by ChrisH

But at least the French never surrendered to a news agency. Well not yet.

Well duh! That would mean they were actually in combat!

[DamnGoodRatio]

It may not be about oil, but big oil is getting rich.

You see, the opec price of oil on the commodities market has spiked about $15 (US) per barrel. Did the price of a domestic barrel of oil stay the same? No, they also increased prices about $15 (also US) per barrel. That is why we all get hammered at the pump.

I will not even begin to explain why the price should not increase for about three to six months.

Cliff Note: It may not be about Oil, but the oilmen are making tons of cash!

[DyannaDoes]

It's on Yahoo News

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...g_to_rebuild_2

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by JeremySF
Only Bush's most extreme critics think the coming war with Iraq is about oil.

It's not!

Even if the U.S. was to seize Iraq's oil fields, the expense of the war and of occupation would far exceed any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels a day of production.

And a two-term presidency would be long over before Iraq's desperate economy could realize it's full capacity.

Yes, oil companies would love to get production-sharing agreements in Iraq, but they haven't even been allowed to participate in post-war planning. There are too many issues such as antitrust, competition law and international law.

In post-war Iraq Bush has been very public in saying that oil would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-food Program.

If you recall, the U.S. returned Kuwaiti oil back to Kuwait over a decade ago.

If America simply wanted cheap oil, Bush could cut a deal with Saddam which would be far easier and cheaper than going to war.

While there are many reasons for war with Iraq, particularly humanitarian reasons, the top reason Bush wants it is because by ousting Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq will send a strong message to other autocrats in the region.

First, that pursuing development of WMDs will not be tolerated.
Second, that other leaders need to reform their political systems.

For lack of a better word, an ice breaker is needed to address and unravel the Islamic world's frozen mass of dysfunction. Backward autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia only foster Islamist radicalism.

Since 9/11 we've done quite bit to diversify our oil supplies beyond the middle east. We've got new sources in Africa, Alaska, Russia, etc. In fact, Europe is more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.

Oil in this war is one thing: black gravy.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

and a website called "ratical.org" doesn't have an agenda.....


pu-lease.....

of all the reasons why this administration wants to go to war with Iraq, oil is not even in the top 5.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by JeremySF


and a website called "ratical.org" doesn't have an agenda.....


pu-lease.....

of all the reasons why this administration wants to go to war with Iraq, oil is not even in the top 5.

Why not read it first and then make your judgement.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


Why not read it first and then make your judgement.

I will read it later....no time right now.

[flashfreak]

if it's not the oil why is Bush so angry?
Iraq is destroying ALL al-samoud II misilles, they allowed ONU inspectors EVERYWHERE . But nooooooo... Bush wants bang-bang... ? WHAT FOR IF NOt THE OIL?

PS: please don't bother to post shit like: "saddam is a cruel dictator, we're bringing democracy in iraq..." ...

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by JeremySF



I will read it later....no time right now.

My friend you just don't get it. OIL PRICES ARE UP NOW! Just the threat of a war in Iraq has sent the prices rising. Our Presidents cronies are getting richer NOW! We don't have to take the fucking oil fields over for them to make money.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by flashfreak
if it's not the oil why is Bush so angry?

The reason Bush is probably so angry is:

1) Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.
2) Bush is a born-again Christian who thinks its his moral duty to weed out evil.

Let me say that I don't buy into most of the arguments for going to war with Iraq, such as an Al Qaeda/Saddam connection (although given Saddam's history of sponsoring terrorism and ties to terrorist organizations in Palestine, it's not out of the realm of possibility) or that this war will reduce terrorism (particularly in the short term).

3) Saddam has long had nuclear ambitions since the 70s. What would change now? Should we let him build nukes first? You know how problematic it is dealing with little tyrants with big bombs.

My personal reasons for supporting war with Iraq are Humanitarian and Strategic.

1) I think it was Stalin who observed:

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic." Sickening, no

Having had relatives survive (and not survive) the holocaust and Russian pogroms, I find it appalling when the West turns a blind eye to brutal regimes that wage genocide. I find it astonishing that we did nothing about genocide commited by brutal Rwandan, Burundian and Ugandan regimes, Saddam against the Kurds, Sudan (against the Christians), etc. move

2) We encouraged the overthrow of Saddam and in fact something like 21 out of 24 provinces rebelled. We didn't do shit. Now is an opportunity to make good on an old promise.

3) Toppling Saddam--a brutal dictator who makes Milosevic look like a Sunday school teacher--and implementing real democratic change in Iraq would send a clear message to the rest of the Arab world. Cultivating democracy in the Middle East, while obviously an incredible challenge, is not impossible. Look at Qatar for example, one of our strongest allies in the region. They are now enjoying real elections, their women can vote and hold public office...they've made tremendous strides over the past 10 years.

We do have an opportunity to establish a precedent.

4) I'd just as soon eliminate the possiblity that Hussein does acquire nukes.

Iraq is destroying ALL al-samoud II misilles, they allowed ONU inspectors EVERYWHERE . But nooooooo... Bush wants bang-bang... ? WHAT FOR IF NOt THE OIL?

There's been 13 years of non-compliance and Saddam has played this game time and again. Once he's up against the wall, he makes concessions and it looks like he's ready to comply. He's a master at this kind of manipulation.

PS: please don't bother to post shit like: "saddam is a cruel dictator, we're bringing democracy in iraq..." ...

[/QUOTE][/B]

I've cited many reasons beyond Saddam being a brutal dictator, although in mind this is a major reason why we should be going in.

I'm not going to defend every reason the administration is determined to go to war. There are literally probably a hundred reasons why we should, some public, others not.

But as I said, oil is not the reason. Oil is one thing, BLACK GRAVY. There are far more cost efficient ways to exploit oil than invading Iraq.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by ChrisH
Oh it's all about oil to France. They have more applications to the UN for deals with Iraq then any country in the world.

It's ALL about oil

Dead right!

Iarq owes France over a billion dollars in oil for weapons bought, including a nuclear power plant that the isrealis bombed back in the 80's. It has everything to do with oil.....for the French! Despite the bullshit they feed everyone about it being about humanitarian reasons.

FRANCE HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED DICTATORS!! Does the Munich treaty of 36 mean anything to anyone?

[Snapper]

Originally posted by flashfreak
if it's not the oil why is Bush so angry?
Iraq is destroying ALL al-samoud II misilles, they allowed ONU inspectors EVERYWHERE . But nooooooo... Bush wants bang-bang... ? WHAT FOR IF NOt THE OIL?

PS: please don't bother to post shit like: "saddam is a cruel dictator, we're bringing democracy in iraq..." ...

Because, MORON, he doesn't want another 9/11 but with nuclear weapons this time. Iraq has been backing, funding, providing refuge for terrorists for the last 20 years. ANY expert on the subject will testify to that.

Take your head out of the sand, you fuckin ostrich!!!

[playa]

Well i wish it was about oil

the price is at 1.53 per gallon here. if it can drop to $1 per gallon then i what do you have to loose?

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by playa
Well i wish it was about oil

the price is at 1.53 per gallon here. if it can drop to $1 per gallon then i what do you have to loose?

Are you serious? Gas is only $1.53?!?!? Shit, it's $2.30 for unleaded in SF.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Snapper


Dead right!

Iarq owes France over a billion dollars in oil for weapons bought, including a nuclear power plant that the isrealis bombed back in the 80's. It has everything to do with oil.....for the French! Despite the bullshit they feed everyone about it being about humanitarian reasons.

FRANCE HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED DICTATORS!! Does the Munich treaty of 36 mean anything to anyone?

Actully, not only France but Russia is also owed this money. Both countries fear that if we go to war with Iraq they'll never get repaid. A major, major issue for Russia.

While obviously Germany has major financial ties, I think Gerald Schroeder is the only one who is genuinely opposing war out of any minute amount of pacifiscm. He did get elected on an anti-war platform. Nonetheless, plenty of the top brass in Germany don't want war w/ Iraq b/c of far more sinister reasons.

[Snapper]

Originally posted by JeremySF



Actully, not only France but Russia is also owed this money. Both countries fear that if we go to war with Iraq they'll never get repaid. A major, major issue for Russia.

While obviously Germany has major financial ties, I think Gerald Schroeder is the only one who is genuinely opposing war out of any minute amount of pacifiscm. He did get elected on an anti-war platform. Nonetheless, plenty of the top brass in Germany don't want war w/ Iraq b/c of far more sinister reasons.

Yeah, here are some of the reasons

1. they are fuckin ostriches
2. They actually think naive wishing for peace solves any issue
3. They think supporting the arab world now will lead to a more powerful Euro by it being the official marking currency for barrels of oil
4. They Blame the US for all their problems

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Snapper



Iraq has been backing, funding, providing refuge for terrorists for the last 20 years. ANY expert on the subject will testify to that.

Totally. As I mentioned, this has long been documented. Saddam pays a $25,000 bounty to any family whose kid kills Israelis. Moreover, Saddam has long provided safehaven for terrorists. I don't know about Al Qaeda. I haven't seen any evidence that definitely supports it, but it's not unfathomable.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Snapper


Yeah, here are some of the reasons

2. They actually think naive wishing for peace solves any issue

I don't think most of the politicians are this naive, but this kind of naivetee is definitely endemic among the peaceniks. They naively believe there is always a peaceful solution to any problem.

3. They think supporting the arab world now will lead to a more powerful Euro by it being the official marking currency for barrels of oil

Very likely a factor/move

4. They Blame the US for all their problems

Muslim countries? Yes. European countries? No. Sure there are some European politicians might blame the U.S. for all their problems, but it's definitely a small minority. Ironically, European politicians blame the influx of muslims as the source of all their problems, particularly in France and Germany!!

[roly]

Only Bush's most extreme critics think the coming war with Iraq is about oil.

It's not!

Even if the U.S. was to seize Iraq's oil fields, the expense of the war and of occupation would far exceed any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels a day of production.

yeah but a controling influence on the supply (and hence price) of massive amounts of oil (which would be much more that 2.5 million barrels per day you say) , outside of opec influence, for the next X years is worth far more than the cost of war/occupation. If the price of oil rises too high so does inflation, which leads to unemployment and recession. and these costs are uncalcuable.

i read that israel has been pushing for this war for a long time also and that cheney and rumsfeld amongst others have been major lobbyists for the israelis for years, and that was a factor also.

[Que?]

So controlling the oilprice keeping it low has nothing to do with us economy??

That was a new one...

[NBDesign]

Originally posted by DavePlays
The biggest thing oil has to do with it is that it is where Saddam got his money and power.

At almost 2.00 per gallon here in Phoenix, He will be able to finance his war just fine.

FUCK Saddam and the camel he rode in on!

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by Roly
yeah but a controling influence on the supply (and hence price) of massive amounts of oil (which would be much more that 2.5 million barrels per day you say) , outside of opec influence, for the next X years is worth far more than the cost of war/occupation. If the price of oil rises too high so does inflation, which leads to unemployment and recession. and these costs are uncalcuable.

i read that israel has been pushing for this war for a long time also and that cheney and rumsfeld amongst others have been major lobbyists for the israelis for years, and that was a factor also.

You do realize that we are in a recession now. Oil prices continue to climb and if we do go to war with Iraq they think oil prices will go even higher. If it was about oil, now would not be the time.

It's not like we invade Iraq, then control all the oil. They said that was the motivation behind the last gulf war, yet we gave the oil right back to Kuwaitis. Will we get a discount once we return stability to Iraq? I'm sure. But, as I said, it is black gravy. There are far more compelling reasons to go war than oil.

As far as Cheney and Rumseld, being longtime lobbyists for Israel, I'm not sure. I do know they have been aligned with many neocons who have long believed Saddam Hussein should be toppled. He didn't just become a threat post 9/11. He's been defiant since the day he committed to disarming.

[rossiya2]

Originally posted by JeremySF
Only Bush's most extreme critics think the coming war with Iraq is about oil.

"We are in the Mideast for three letters, oil, O-I-L"
Republican Bob Dole addressing the U.S. Senate

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by ChrisH


That's not true....

They surrendered to CNN. LOL

But at least the French never surrendered to a news agency. Well not yet.

heheh
I was watching "Fairly Odd parents" with my kids and in the episode where Timmy gets the watch that has a Time Reset button, he's throwing water balloons at a bully..one of them hit pair of French people sitting outside a cafe and they yell "We Surrender!" funny shit......

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by rossiya2


"We are in the Mideast for three letters, oil, O-I-L"
Republican Bob Dole addressing the U.S. Senate

When was that quoted? I'm sure Bob Dole thinks differently now.

[roly]

Originally posted by JeremySF



You do realize that we are in a recession now. Oil prices continue to climb and if we do go to war with Iraq they think oil prices will go even higher. If it was about oil, now would not be the time.

It's not like we invade Iraq, then control all the oil. They said that was the motivation behind the last gulf war, yet we gave the oil right back to Kuwaitis. Will we get a discount once we return stability to Iraq? I'm sure. But, as I said, it is black gravy. There are far more compelling reasons to go war than oil.

yeah prices will rise when we're at war, but how long do you think this war is gonna last? yeah you gave the oil back to the kuwaitis but you were liberating kuwait, not invading it like with iraq, it's completely different. anyway to be honest i think the war does have benefits for all sides in the long run (excluding sadam) some innocent people will get killed, but they would anyway under his rule.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by roly


yeah prices will rise when we're at war, but how long do you think this war is gonna last?

Not long, but think about this. How much will this war cost the U.S. and the subsequent occupation cost the U.S.? Some say up to half a trillion dollars. The lowest I've heard is 100 billion dollars. The risk/reward and break-even point doesn't justify invading Iraq for oil. There are far more cost-efficient ways than that.

yeah you gave the oil back to the kuwaitis but you were liberating kuwait, not invading it like with iraq, it's completely different.

Yes, but most of the people claiming the oil-for-blood card now are the same ones who were calling it during the first war. Likewise, the administration has publicly made a commitment to turnover the fields to the Iraqi people. They've made it clear that the day after Saddam is ousted, they want the Iraqi people to feel better off than they did before.

anyway to be honest i think the war does have benefits for all sides in the long run (excluding sadam) some innocent people will get killed, but they would anyway under his rule.

so are you for or against this?

[wonton]

Originally posted by JeremySF


Totally. As I mentioned, this has long been documented. Saddam pays a $25,000 bounty to any family whose kid kills Israelis. Moreover, Saddam has long provided safehaven for terrorists. I don't know about Al Qaeda. I haven't seen any evidence that definitely supports it, but it's not unfathomable.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!

So does the government of Saudi Arabia yet they are our good chums. Attacking Iraq has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. Even the CIA admits that.

And I have already posted umpteen articles and links to articles on this board that PROVES that this war is about oil. It is not black gravy. It is not black gold. Now that peak oil is here and oil is set to run dry within 30 years or less - it is BLACK PLATINUM.

[roly]

Originally posted by JeremySF





so are you for or against this?

i don't think a case has really been made for war, and i do think the reasons they have stated for going to war are not the real reasons, or only half the story.

however i'm aware the world (and his own people) will be a better place without sadam and that if terrorists ever do get hold of wmd they will come from someone like him, so i'm swaying towards getting it done quick and hopefully not to many innocents or our troop's getting killed (i'm british), getting the oil flowing, and getting some of iraqs oil money spent on food and medicine for the people their rather than it being spent on his lavish palaces.

the only downside really is the innocents getting killed (and casualties on our side), but sadam is a guy who happily massacres his own anyway so there would be deaths anyway. I'm not so much arguing against war as disputing what the real reasons are. their are benefits what ever the real reasons.

[rossiya2]

Originally posted by JeremySF



When was that quoted? I'm sure Bob Dole thinks differently now.

To be a good spin doctor you need to get the message out in 30 seconds. I just don't believe that you believe what you are saying. To be good you need to say it like you believe it. However if you polish your skills I bet you can join the spinmaster pool traveling worldwide
and issuing statements from your thinktank to anxious journalists.

Bush Sr. was so edgy on the oil interest issue during his campaign that 4 of us being a journalist, a pilot and an army cornel converted him to supporting alternative fuels in one evening. A few reminders from our senator and he set the program up.

In October New York Times a plan was outlined that the pretense of a regime change is being disbanded and instead direct rule will ensue with General Tommy Franks playing an Islamic Patton of sorts. The objective will be extracting natural resources as quickly as possible from the colony.

Dick Cheney is head of the National Energy Policy commission and in 2001 he set Gulf oil as the #1 U.S. priority. Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world.

Since a picture is better than words:

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by roly


i don't think a case has really been made for war, and i do think the reasons they have stated for going to war are not the real reasons, or only half the story.

I won't disagree with you. The case they've made publicly has been pretty weak and governments frequently don't cite all the real reasons for going to war. My support for war has little to do with the case Bush/Blair have made. I've thought Saddam should have been deposed long ago. And I'm ashamed that we encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam insuiting that we'd have their back, and then we didn't do anything.

It's a job that we never finished.

however i'm aware the world (and his own people) will be a better place without sadam and that if terrorists ever do get hold of wmd they will come from someone like him, so i'm swaying towards getting it done quick and hopefully not to many innocents or our troop's getting killed (i'm british), getting the oil flowing, and getting some of iraqs oil money spent on food and medicine for the people their rather than it being spent on his lavish palaces.

the only downside really is the innocents getting killed (and casualties on our side), but sadam is a guy who happily massacres his own anyway so there would be deaths anyway. I'm not so much arguing against war as disputing what the real reasons are. their are benefits what ever the real reasons.

It's unfortunate that waging peace doesn't always get the job done.

I'm not so much arguing against war as disputing what the real reasons are. their are benefits what ever the real reasons.

I don't know all the reasons either, but the blood-for-oil mantra doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's far more complex than simply oil.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by rossiya2


The objective will be extracting natural resources as quickly as possible from the colony.

Source?

Dick Cheney is head of the National Energy Policy commission and in 2001 he set Gulf oil as the #1 U.S. priority. Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world.

I've never once said that oil plays no role in foreign policy, however, to argue that reason we are going to war is oil is incredibly oversimplified. There are numerous reasons which I've already cited on why Saddam should be deposed.

For the Bush administration this is a very ideological war. This is a war that really fits into their national security strategy that was outlined last year: counterproliferation, national security and national defense.


OIL = BLACK GRAVY

[unclebubba]

The point isn't whether America will make money... and the point certainly isn't the welfare of the Iraqi citicens (if we were worried about them we would have supported the resistance movement in Iraq like we promised we would back under George Sr)

the point is georgie and his buddies making money... war is always big money.

Dick Cheney's firm Haliburton has already received the contract to go set up Iraq's oil fields in the case of a war.
Do the math man... if you are an oil exec this war could make you a very pretty penny.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfield are all balls deep in the oil industry and they are running the country... how can a war in Iraq possibly not look like them protecting there own self interests.


Isn't it funny that we don't need to invade north Korea... where there's barely any oil, but we do need to invade Iraq.

[tony286]

I cant believe there hasnt been a big stink about how Haliburton. The company which Cheney was CEO of got the contract to fight the oil fires. If there are any during the war. Also I agree how N. Korea isnt that big of a deal to them. N. Korea scares the shit out of me, they have weapons that can reach us its not a maybe if.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by unclebubba

Isn't it funny that we don't need to invade north Korea... where there's barely any oil, but we do need to invade Iraq.

North Korea....apples and oranges.....

1) N. Korea already has nukes, which they will use. Shall we wait until Iraq does too?

2) We already fought a war in N. Korea. Risk/reward wasn't very good. And it will likely still not be good (see point 1).

3) When Iraq was defeated in 1991, he agreed to disarm. 12 years later he hasn't. We've tried everything and the only thing Saddam seems to respond to is the threat of invasion.

[unclebubba]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/081000-102.htm

neat link about our VP

Cheney is a pigfucker as far as I can tell

[unclebubba]

actually to be quite honest I could give a damn about the war one way or the other

what concerns me is the idea that king George the lesser has about unilateral action... we are becoming our own definition of a rogue nation.

also we have burned more political capital in the last few years than we'll be able to make up in the next 20.

I really can't believe Bush came out and said that the UN doesn't matter. We have been slapping countries around for that exact same attitude for years... Our economy will continue on its downward spiral towards the shitter if we become isolated from the rest of the world.

We've managed to alienate most of europe, all of the middle east, and I would guess large portions of the rest of the world... fuck Sadam the guys got lymphatic cancer he'll die in a few years with or without our help... but long after he's gone we're going to be dealing with the ramifications of an estranged europe and a broken UN... won't that be great

[cold_ice]

I dont give a fuck why were going to war. But fuck stop talking about it and do it or back down already.
All I konw is that it cost me over fifty bucks to fill my Expedition and that suxs ball. fuck bush fuck sadaam