Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
allthumbs

It appears Bush was right after all...

Recommended Posts

What's with the personal slams all the time? The name calling is silly. This going into major thread creep; I'll pass.

 

what name-calling? confused.gif And just what part of this discussion constitutes further thread-creep from the quote that I clipped from mattp?

 

Jim, the funny thing about your posts...you don't seem to realize just how left of center your politics consistently appear. I sentence you to go work for Exxon for 6 months. hahaha.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats are losing the heart of the overall debate not because they have truly compromised their values, but because they regularly compromise these values publicly to appeal to mainstream America, and then once in office go back to the same old left-wing playbook. (ie: socialized medicine, gay rights, pacifism, extreme environentalism, federalism, union activism, etc.) IMHO, these values, whether they have any validity or not, are no longer mainstream American values. Probably never were. To state their true values publicly is a good way to get through the Democrat primaries, but a political death sentence with the public at large. (I think Mr Dean will soon find this out the hard way.)

 

you are seriously delusional if you believe what you wrote. to refresh your memory about the values of mainstream america check out poll results on social issues. you'll find that a large majority of americans are aligned with democrats on issues such as the environment (2/3 say that whatever the cost everything should be done to protect the environment), health care (2/3 say the feds should insure that everyone has health care), and on, and on .... but don't take my word for it, check it out here: http://pollingreport.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps so j_b, but come election time, guess who's gonna be elected for a second term? Stick that shit in your pipe and smoke it. wave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j_b said:

The Democrats are losing the heart of the overall debate not because they have truly compromised their values, but because they regularly compromise these values publicly to appeal to mainstream America, and then once in office go back to the same old left-wing playbook. (ie: socialized medicine, gay rights, pacifism, extreme environentalism, federalism, union activism, etc.) IMHO, these values, whether they have any validity or not, are no longer mainstream American values. Probably never were. To state their true values publicly is a good way to get through the Democrat primaries, but a political death sentence with the public at large. (I think Mr Dean will soon find this out the hard way.)

 

you are seriously delusional if you believe what you wrote. to refresh your memory about the values of mainstream america check out poll results on social issues. you'll find that a large majority of americans are aligned with democrats on issues such as the environment (2/3 say that whatever the cost everything should be done to protect the environment), health care (2/3 say the feds should insure that everyone has health care), and on, and on .... but don't take my word for it, check it out here: http://pollingreport.com/

 

again this is because bi-partisan politics are antquated... people of the new generations are making their minds abuot individual issues rather then assigning themselves to a given party... obviously this is progress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree with this, but it is different than the common euro position that we are just goin in there to litterally steal oil... believe it or not many here and abroad are certain that this is the case... obviously this is just ludicrous... i agree with you, but not with those... that sy the "ONLY" reason is oil... obviously it is. With war there are many many factors that go into a pre-emptive strike... so say that oil is the only reason is just blatently stupid as well as false...

 

let's just do a thought experiment.

 

what is our most important interest in the geopolitical control of the middle east?

 

if iraq had no oil, would we have intervened?

 

you know, i know, everybody knows the answers to these questions. ergo, the major reason for going to iraq is control of the most important resource on earth over the next 20 years: oil.

 

now there may be other less important reasons but it does not change the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j_b said:

i agree with this, but it is different than the common euro position that we are just goin in there to litterally steal oil... believe it or not many here and abroad are certain that this is the case... obviously this is just ludicrous... i agree with you, but not with those... that sy the "ONLY" reason is oil... obviously it is. With war there are many many factors that go into a pre-emptive strike... so say that oil is the only reason is just blatently stupid as well as false...

 

let's just do a thought experiment.

 

what is our most important interest in the geopolitical control of the middle east?

 

if iraq had no oil, would we have intervened?

 

you know, i know, everybody know the answers to these questions. ergo, the major reason for going to iraq is control of the most important resource on earth over the next 20 years: oil.

 

now there may be other less important reasons but it does not change the above.

 

if iraw was completely unarmed, would we have invaded... nice try ace... rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

precisely my point. and how many us soldiers are or will be in liberia? only those necessary to protect the embassy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j_b said:

precisely my point. and how many us soldiers are or will be in liberia? only those necessary to protect the embassy.

 

no it doesn't... there are more than one thing that contributes to a country going to war. that is what it proves... we would not have gone into iraq if they were nto armed correct? and we also would nto if they had no oil correct? so then class, we can draw the conclusion that *gasp* there can be more than one reason to go to war! shocked.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it doesn't...

 

no it does not what?

 

there are more than one thing that contributes to a country going to war

 

quite right, but as far as the middle east is concerned none rank as highly as control of the most important resource on earth over the next 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming it was all about oil, don't you agree that this commodity is worth controlling...whatever the cost? Are you people so daft that you'd actually stand back and watch countries like Iraq, North Korea, and the like, become so powerful and so dangerous that we couldn't gain control? If you feel that way, you're as dangerous as those countries and you should not be taken serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our controlling it will lead to our wasting it, to the depletion of a form of energy that future generation will need, to unprecedented rates of global warming and therefore disastrous consequences, etc ...

 

scary emerging powers should be dealt with via international law (which we should support to the fullest, not undermine it). if you think the middle east situation is not more dangerous for all of us after the past few month, you are the dangerous one. note that the turn of events in iraq is not a surprise to many who forewarned bush about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said all along that we should nuke the fucking place. This is what you get when you pussy-foot around the special interest groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j_b said:

our controlling it will lead to our wasting it, to the depletion of a form of energy that future generation will need

 

whatever who care is it is wasted, it is not like it is air or something. Fuckin A pretty soon it will be all gone and we will drive electric cars, but have to dam up every stream to account for the extra energy needs so all the fishes are dead.... bla bla fucking bla... then we'll use animal fat to run our cars... we will kill all the animals... then we will use human fat (the U.S. will be the leading producer and consumer for a change wink.gif) and everyone will die... th world will be a perfect place once again with no people and God will be happy once again... the End... moon.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fence_Sitter said:

j_b said:

yeah, right. i see us rushing to liberia ...

 

liberia doesn't have oil... rolleyes.gif

 

But it does have offshore banking where many rich Americans and corporations hide money and avoid paying taxes... rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billygoat said:

Fence_Sitter said:

j_b said:

yeah, right. i see us rushing to liberia ...

 

liberia doesn't have oil... rolleyes.gif

 

But it does have offshore banking where many rich Americans and corporations hide money and avoid paying taxes... rolleyes.gif

 

so... then our reason for staying out of liberia has to do with taylor's reluctance to relenquish power unconditionally (though i guess that is changing on thursday or so his offer goes). we'll see what happens after that... Geek_em8.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j_b said:

yeah, right. i see us rushing to liberia ...

 

This reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which no matter what the question the host presented to the contestants, the correct answer was always "pork." Swap pork for oil and you've got the functional equivalent of a debate with this representative of the far left.

 

I'm looking forward to the identification of the commodities we sent our troops in to control in Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo, and our subsequent exploitation of them. Triple bonus points if you use the terms "cabal," "multinational," "neoconservative," and "corporate interests" and one verb of your choice from the "Not in Our Name" homepage in the first sentence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have a crack at it. Let's see... Haiti was because of the Marshall plan; Grenada the same; Panama offshore banking, money laundering (and cover-up) for Iran Contra, as well as the Marshall plan; Kosovo oil pipeline; Somalia was because of huge oil and mining leases recently obtained by American interests...See, even Clinton services the rich.

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide.... confused.gif

 

Worldwide, this behavior just makes us look like assholes who can't be up front. Actually, looking at our short but colourful history, we are assholes who are not forthcoming, break treaties and participate in genocide if it serves our "national interests".

 

Ha Ha! There you go fuck face the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billygoat said:

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide.... confused.gif

That's how I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which no matter what the question the host presented to the contestants, the correct answer was always "pork." Swap pork for oil and you've got the functional equivalent of a debate with this representative of the far left.

 

I'm looking forward to the identification of the commodities we sent our troops in to control in Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo, and our subsequent exploitation of them. Triple bonus points if you use the terms "cabal," "multinational," "neoconservative," and "corporate interests" and one verb of your choice from the "Not in Our Name" homepage in the first sentence.

 

And I would have to say that this is the non-argument that one usually gets from the right end of the spectrum when some objective facts back them into a corner. Rather than provide a feasiblie explanation that could back their opinion, there's nothing left in the quiver but sarcasim. And it's not to say you may don't have a point or two buried in there somewhere.

 

I think Trask was a bit more honest about it - oil is the reason and it's a good reason to be stomping around the mid-east. I don't agree - but the guy is a straight shooter - or an excellent troller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who doesn't believe oil is the reason? Oil is the strategic reason for all western nations to maintain an interest there. Hell, we built and operated the infrastructure there, and made the ME nations rich in the process. If Nixon hadn't gotten his dick caught in the door of Watergate, we probably wouldn't have allowed Kaddafi to start the domino effect of oil nationalization in the ME to start with.

 

As I understand it, Iraq still operates oil industry equipment that is over a half-century old. One could make the argument that it really still belongs to the British, under agreements made back then. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×