On May 4, 12:15 pm, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:42:30 -0400, wrote:
>
> >> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> > This is news?
>
> I don't think he was supposed to make that a talking point......because I
> think we are still supposed to think that we went there because of WMD's or
> to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator or something like that.
>
> I look forward to more senior moments from this guy...
All this time, I thought the Ronald Reagan impersonation
was just an act.
On May 4, 11:51=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:42:30 -0400, =A0wrote:
> > McCain admits Iraq was about oil. =A0Hmmmm...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DehmRJZp1TY8&feature=3Duser
>
> This is news?
And here *I* thought it was all about the threat that OPEC was
contemplating switching to the Euro instead of the dollar. Some
consider that the dollar has no actual value, but is help up by
commodities such as oil, some think it was important that the entire
region was taught a lesson.... a lesson that Iran seems to have
trouble understanding. (Hillary WILL nuke them, you know!!)
On May 5, 9:04 am, "Ken Johnsen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> I'd support that.
>
> But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110 barrel
> and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
Why don't we just squeeze it out of Dick Cheney? Certainly
Udai Hussein had something useful for crushing humans
in his rumpus room.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:42:30 -0400, wrote:
>
>> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> This is news?
I don't think he was supposed to make that a talking point......because I
think we are still supposed to think that we went there because of WMD's or
to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator or something like that.
I look forward to more senior moments from this guy...
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
I'd support that.
But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110 barrel
and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
>
On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:16:45 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:04:30 -0400, "Ken Johnsen"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>>
>>I'd support that.
>>
>>But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110 barrel
>>and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
>>>
>>
>
>You're assuming that it was done for the general public. Look at the
>end result - oil companies are reporting record profits every quarter
>and mister John Q takes it up the a** once again. The rich just keep
>getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer - business as usual.
>
>My $.02 worth
>Bill
Bill, where were you when I needed you. I didn't hear you ( or anyone
for that matter) screaming about ole Frank and his friends all losing
their jobs when oil dropped from $39 to $12 back in the mid eighties.
You, of course, notice all those double and triple names for oil
companies, so where were you guys when those companies were forced to
merge or go out of business, which would ultimately lead to less
competition. I guess you and all the rest were basking in the glow of
a super hot economy driven by cheap energy, and didn't have time to
protest about what was happening to ole Frank and his friends. :)
I guess I'm " rich" cause I own some of those terrible oil companies
in mutual funds in my IRA, which is what I'm living on in retirement.
Very glad to have them there, cause I also have Citibank and Chase in
there and you know where that's been going. I hope those oil companies
keep making profits, pay their taxes, and maybe, just maybe the
government tax monster will be sated enough to leave me alone and not
raise my taxes.
It_ was_ all about oil. But it wasn't about exploitation or "taking"
something that doesn't belong to you. It was and is about keeping a
scarce commodity in a free market condition and not letting any
popcorn dictator get control of that commodity and manipulating world
economies based on that control.
You want cheaper oil, use less, or lobby for drilling in the places
that are currently forbidden. Or quit living on cheap credit, and
allow the dollar to strengthen. You want cheaper gasoline, let them
build some new refineries in your back yard, there's already enough of
them in south Texas.
my $.02 worth
Frank
"Ken Johnsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> I'd support that.
>
> But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110
> barrel
> and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
Precisely!
On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:04:30 -0400, "Ken Johnsen"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
>I'd support that.
>
>But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110 barrel
>and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
>>
>
You're assuming that it was done for the general public. Look at the
end result - oil companies are reporting record profits every quarter
and mister John Q takes it up the a** once again. The rich just keep
getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer - business as usual.
My $.02 worth
Bill
It cracks me up to see the lack of imagination from newsgroups.
McCain, Clinton, and even Obama can stand there and tell you what
they plan to do and why they think we are there. The only one that
may actually know why we are there would be McCain with his background
in the military and his time in the senate, but he isn't going to
tell.
Oil is so easy to explain and easy to accept as a reason to go to
Iraq, but
take a look at the world map and see where this country sits. Keep in
the
back of your mind that we are loosing most of our European air bases
and
will not have the strategic positioning that we are used to.
As someone said earlier, why not just take the oil? We could but it
would be
a constant police state. If we can "free the people" they will want to
keep us
there. This way we end up with a small amount of realestate to hold
our planes
and we can be anywhere in 60 minutes. Look at a map.
Lou
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the
world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack
Obama
On May 5, 9:05 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ken Johnsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> > I'd support that.
>
> > But if true, why didn't we just take the oil, instead of paying $110
> > barrel
> > and paying to rebuild with our tax dollars?
>
> Precisely!
By and large the American electorate is not so immoral as
to support a government that conquers another country
just to exploit it's resources. Some other justification has
to be fabricated, or it has to be done indirectly, for instance
by supporting a dictator in exchange for access to his country's
resources, while claiming that it's because he is an ally
in the fight against communism or some such.
--
FF
On May 4, 12:15 pm, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:42:30 -0400, wrote:
>
> >> McCain admits Iraq was about oil. Hmmmm...
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmRJZp1TY8&feature=user
>
> > This is news?
>
> I don't think he was supposed to make that a talking point......because I
> think we are still supposed to think that we went there because of WMD's or
> to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator or something like that.
>
> I look forward to more senior moments from this guy...
I wish he had said that in 2003 and run hard against Bush
for the Republican Nomination, instead of apologizing for
Bush and kissing chistofascist butts.
--
FF
"Bill" wrote
> You're assuming that it was done for the general public. Look at the
> end result - oil companies are reporting record profits every quarter
> and mister John Q takes it up the a** once again. The rich just keep
> getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer - business as usual.
>
> My $.02 worth
Make that $120.02 ...
You're told that when demand increases, price increases, right? Today there
was a news article that was preparing you for a bright tomorrow with the
little nugget that _decrease_ in demand is also going to cause the gas
prices to rise.
IOW, no matter what, BOHICA!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)