posted on September 17, 2002 08:02:07 PM new
I think if we have to go through with it, we'll bill Iraq. At least I would. I'd have the UN set up a payment schedule. Have the rest go toward the Iraqi population. They should realize several times what is spent on the human factor there now.
posted on September 17, 2002 08:49:23 PM new
I nearly lost my dinner looking at the link. Who the hell is going to pay for that? We don't have the money - we're in a Recession headed towards a full-blown Depression. We just can't keep BORROWING the money endlessly. The Republicans and Bush have gotten us so far into new debt that it is doubtfull that the United Staes could ever do more than make the interest payments. I say that if Bush and the Republicans want to go after Saddam so badly, let them pay it out of their own pockets and stop using our Great-Grandchildren's FUTURES!
posted on September 17, 2002 09:44:21 PM new
Borillar,Thats just the first estimate.The feds will cut more programs,I expect the grants to dry up and be available to the insiders.This is the war behind the war,people will scream when it starts to really hurt.Some people don't feel it right now,but they will.
posted on September 18, 2002 03:07:58 AM new
Don't worry Borillar - I know you don't think I know anything about money or economics - but it's not REAL money anymore.
It is based on the full faith and credit of the US - so all the politicians have to do is inflate it or repudiate it when the system stalls. If they said it was based on the "honor of the politicians" instead of the "full faith of the government" how many would get worried? Yet aren't they the same thing phrased different?
posted on September 18, 2002 06:56:25 AM new
Just read this in the last week or so on UPI.
The amount we're going to reimburse Pakistan [to meet expenses incurred during the war on terror in So. Asia].....
taken from the article: "Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, told a news briefing in New York that participation in the Operation Enduring Freedom has cost Pakistan more than $700 million and said the rest of the amount would also be reimbursed soon.
"Budgetary allocation has already been made and $300 million will soon be paid," he added.
posted on September 18, 2002 09:47:51 AM new
I don't want to sound two-faced here, but I have to say that re-imbursing Pakistan verifiable amounts of moneies is OK. We, as Americans, had to go over to Afghanistan and make a deadly response to the pre-emptive attack by Al-Queda on 9-11. If we didn't, it would have just cost us more in the long-run.
But that isn't a license to throw away money either. I'm not going to pay $6,000 for a pair of Pakistani Soldier Sandals or Boots for instance.
Going after Saddam is Bush's Private War for Bush Oil Empire and Bush and the GOP can damn well fund it with their own, private fortunes! As a matter-of-fact, they can just hire their own mercenaries to go do the job and leave the USA out of it altogether!
posted on September 18, 2002 09:53:46 AM new
>Don't worry Borillar - I know you don't think I know anything about money or economics
That's not the case at all. I've never thought about it. I don't have an opinion about it one way or the other.
The "faith" does not come from the government, but from the people; whether it be currency or War. So long as we believe in the Dollar, so will the rest of the world.
I was going to mention this at some point, but We the People have a WOMD ourselves. If we all chose to, we could all agree to loose faith in the Dollar and allow it to return to paper with ink on it. That would crash the entie nation, but it would make all of the Rich and Elite just as poor as those living in shacks on the edges of farm fields in rural America.
posted on September 18, 2002 10:04:38 AM new
Borillar - I just have to ask you if you ever read the post oklahomastampman made in response to a post krs made on this subject.
Since you've repeated this same opinion Going after Saddam is Bush's Private War for Bush Oil Empire and Bush and the GOP can damn well fund it with their own, private fortunes! many, many times I am interested in what you thought of his/her response to that article.
[Basically taking the article apart and showing that this was done during the clinton administration....not bush's.]
editing to be a little more clear...The article was about Afghanistan...and Bush's interest in oil there. Oklahomastampman used the dates to show this happened during clinton's administration. Which is exactly my point. It doesn't matter what administration is in charge, having affordable oil is a concern to ALL americans...it runs our society. The world runs on/depends on oil, not just the US.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 18, 2002 10:42 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2002 02:21:32 PM new
I may have, Linda, I do not recall it.
That the US intelligence agencies receive a hundred or more "threats" per day is real. How they were handled and how they are going to be handled is being investigated by Congress and hopefully, we'll be able to shore up our intelligence gathering and analyzing systems.
Is Bush working in America's best interests when he, as the President of the United States of America and representative of the interests of the American people, pursues his own private interests? That's generally not a great idea. Did Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang leaders show poor judgment in underestimating the terrorist organizations within Afghanistan that they was dealing with in their own interests? 9-11 proved just how stupid they were to do that.
Your question, I take it, assumes that Bush and Cheney and others opportunists in the White House pursuing their own good and their own personal, private enrichment was good for America, because it concerns oil, and Americans are dependant upon oil? Linda, that's a stretch of the imagination in my opinion, and I'm sure that many people on here can point out that there are other methods of getting our supply of oil just fine which does not include the furthering of the greedy enrichment of the opportunists that are currently running the White House.
As far as our dependence upon oil is concerned, we've debated this issue many ways in many threads here in the past. If Congress could pass a law that mandated that all vehicles sold in the USA within the next five years must run on electricity or alternative, non-polluting fuel, we would no longer be dependant upon oil so heavily. In fact, as someone recently pointed out in another thread, the majority of our imported oil comes from Canada, and if such a law were successfully enacted upon, Canada alone could supply every conceivable need for oil that we would need after that. Clearly, the dependence upon oil consumption is a marketing ploy, not a real necessity in the sense that it can be changed, e.g. it's not a case of where we MUST HAVE IT except for that is how things are done these days. Therefore, think about every soldier, sailor, or serviceman who has died for Bush Oil in the past and what they really fought and died for.
posted on September 18, 2002 03:27:52 PM newDid that answer you question? No.
Did Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang leaders show poor judgment in underestimating the terrorist organizations within Afghanistan that they was dealing with in their own interests? 9-11 proved just how stupid they were to do that. [sigh] That was my point. The thread was posted to slam Bush and his oil interests. Proved he wasn't involved at all. It was clinton, acting in what he felt were the best interests of our country in regard to oil.
Oklahomastampman, took the article paragraph by paragraph and pointed out the mis-statements and the dates. Showing this [the talk of the Afghanistan oil pipeline] began and ended during the clinton administration.
As you told someone else, you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is oil is a national interest and concern not just when a Bush is in office.
If Congress could pass a law that mandated that all vehicles sold in the USA within the next five years must run on electricity or alternative, non-polluting fuel, we would no longer be dependant upon oil so heavily. I'd love to see what would happen to the political careers of anyone who tried that. They'd probably be impeached. I recently posted an article on here where Ford was discontinuing their electric car sales. WHY? THEY WEREN'T SELLING. Can't force people to buy and drive something they don't want to. And besides, Borillar, you know gasoline isn't the only way we're dependent on oil. It's used in all kinds of products, home heating, etc. etc. etc.
You mention other sources for purchasing oil. I wasn't aware than under a democratic president we were purchasing oil from a different country [or set of] than we are now. Please share. And are we paying more [per barrel] from some countries than others? Wouldn't help much if we [say] boughy more oil from Canada, if either they didn't have more to sell to us, or they charged twice as much as we are currently paying.
Doesn't really matter. Point is our country is currently dependent on oil from other countries...no matter the party of the president.
posted on September 18, 2002 03:53:46 PM new
Borillar,
Your last little paragraph shows you know little about economics, less than nothing about engineering and manufacturing. Such absurdiy in 1 paragraph gives liberals a bad name.
posted on September 18, 2002 04:31:35 PM new
The world economy does run on oil. There is no economical or sustainable replacement on the horizon.
Electric cars ? And what do we use to generate all the electricity to fuel/re-charge these cars ? Perhaps we could burn oil to generate the electricity ? Do you know how many power plants would have to be built to service increased demand for electricity in displacing gasoline?
It also makes no difference "where" the oil comes from that we use. Oil is a fungible international commodity. If the West stopped/banned buying oil from any source, the price of oil would go up to reflect the supply loss, no matter where the oil came from.
If the US used only oil from South America and Canada, that means that some other user(s) would have to shift their purchases to the sources that the US no longer uses or get in a bidding war for the oil from these sources. The oil will still be purchased at world market prices if they shift to other suppliers.
Bottom line: you cut the source of oil from any well head producer and the world wide price of oil goes up. Just taking part of Iraq's output out of the market saw oil jump from $9 a barrel to $17.
Many people seem to think that there is a magic energy source that will displace petroleum. It doesn't exist.
posted on September 18, 2002 04:50:49 PM new
Linda, I wasn't aware that your question to me was rhetorical. Otherwise, I would have ignored you as usual.
I am also aware that we depend upon oil for many things besides automotive use. However, the point I made was that if all vehicles were shifted off of oil, Canada alone could supply all of the oil that we'd ever need. Therefore, Linda, try upgrading your reading comprehension.
>You mention other sources for purchasing oil. I wasn't aware than under a democratic president we were purchasing oil from a different country [or set of] than we are now. Please share.
Oklahomastampman's post I seem to recall that I read as much as I could without laughing at it. Shifting the blame away does not change any facts of the case. That was left open for people to see that or not.
Now, unless you have a real question for me, I'll get back to work.
posted on September 18, 2002 04:56:28 PM new
> Borillar, Your last little paragraph shows you know little about economics, less than nothing about engineering and manufacturing. Such absurdiy in 1 paragraph gives liberals a bad name.
DeSquirrel your post, as per usual, shows how little that you are able to comprehend what you read. That you are unable to absorb the point or points being made and instead focus instead upon some non sequitur reveals your inability to participate in discussions with adults.
posted on September 18, 2002 05:03:54 PM new
>The world economy does run on oil.
Fact.
> There is no economical or sustainable replacement on the horizon.
The first part is also a true fact, the second part is not. While the price of oil is kept below a certain price thresh hold, no economic alternative is viable. There are alternative fuels that are replaceable and, if it were more economical, sufficient industry would certainly exist and would be using them.
As far as Electric Cars go, I suggest that you take up this discussion with DeSquirrel, who claims to be a Master-Economicist and Mechanical Engineer par excelance and who is so clever that he can both prove and disprove himself in the very same sentence. I suggest a new thread for the both of you.
posted on September 18, 2002 06:31:59 PM newthe point I made was that if all vehicles were shifted off of oil, Canada alone could supply all of the oil that we'd ever need. Therefore, Linda, try upgrading your reading comprehension.
As usual, you can only insult all when you don't agree. My reading comprehension? Better check yours out.
On your statement "if all vehicles were shifted off of oil..." yeah, that's likely to happen in our life times. Dream on.
posted on September 18, 2002 07:03:11 PM new
Where is all the electricity generation going to come from when we shift to electric cars ?????? It is all but impossible to site a coal or nuclear generation facility right now. Where is the generation capacity for these electric cars ? Electric cars do not run on perpetual motion, they have to be re-charged at short intervals.
There is no energy source that is efficient or economical on the horizon to displace petroleum use.
posted on September 18, 2002 08:26:49 PM new
Reamond
STOP trying to confuse Borillar with all that engineering and infrastructure stuff.
AND as to perpetual motion, if you find the previous electric car thread where Borillar challenged my "opinions" about physics and engineering, you'll discover there was a French scientist that invented a machine that once started, continued on and made energy. Unfortunately he was quieted by the Republicans acting in concert with the evil corporations (or was it vice versa??).
posted on September 18, 2002 09:03:36 PM new
what does "fungible" mean?
very impressive word........
never mind, I looked it up:
SYLLABICATION:
fun·gi·ble
PRONUNCIATION:
f?n?j?-b?l
ADJECTIVE:
1. Law Returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain. 2. Interchangeable.
NOUN:
Something that is exchangeable or substitutable. Often used in the plural.
ETYMOLOGY:
Medieval Latin fungibilis, from Latin fung? (vice), to perform (in place of).
OTHER FORMS:
fun'gi·bil?i·ty —NOUN
[ edited by profe51 on Sep 18, 2002 09:09 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2002 10:05:22 AM new
>As usual, you can only insult all when you don't agree. My reading comprehension? Better check yours out.
That statement was made because you still are not comprehending what I am saying in plain English!
posted on September 19, 2002 11:19:02 AM new
The price of war in Iraq is more terrorism in America...not only from our own government but also from the mid-east.
Retaliation is a sure bet. Get ready for it.
And when it happens who will be dumb enough to ask why did this happen?
posted on September 19, 2002 01:23:35 PM new
No, no! It will be justification to go hit them some more! Just like we've used false pretexts before to start wars, this adminsitartion is aware that the middle-east will all rise up to attack us if we go in there and make an unprovoked attack! And don't expect the local Iraqi people to to get onto their hands and knees and thank us for removing this monster: they'd rather remove us too at the same time!
It's an incrediably stupid move on Bush's part and it is one that will get a lot of Americans killed right here at home in retaliation!
posted on September 19, 2002 10:12:23 PM new
so then...we hit them and they hit us because we each hit each other, does that make terrorism "fungible" ?
I recently posted an article on here where Ford was discontinuing their electric car sales. WHY? THEY WEREN'T SELLING. Can't force people to buy and drive something they don't want to. And besides, Borillar, you know gasoline isn't the only way we're dependent on oil. It's used in all kinds of products, home heating, etc. etc. etc.