Fuck Bush's war and fuck Congress too

let me ask you this...do you think we should take out saddam? i assume you will say no and that terrorism cant stop terrorism and that we should all hug and smoke up right? let me know...i have quite a bit of insight to offer on this matter than most people dont take into consideration.

This shit is funny. Alright, to the guy that said we hardly get any oil from the middle east: you're wrong. In 2000, we imported 56% of the oil we used. Two thirds of the oil reserves in the world are located in 5 countries, iraq, saudi arabia, kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Those are just a few. This proves that this war is mainly about oil.

People have mentioned that this is an economic war, but no one has really mentioned why. History has shown that war has brought us out of some of our worst economic downturns. We had WWII after the great depression, the last iraq war when bush sr was pres. and others. So, this is also about bringing us out of an economic downturn.

Has anyone ever considered that if Sadam Hussain didnt' exist, that we would create someone just like him? History has shown that we have been in a war every 11 years, this new war would definitely fit in with that schedule. As the premier world power, our government feels that we must reassert our power on the world stage every few years by going to war with an smaller nation. You can call this being bullies, but it's not a new tactic. Look at our war history since WWII. Vietnam, there's an unnecessary war, with a country that severely outmatched militarily, too bad we didn't listen to ourselves after korea (never fight a ground war in asia). Korea, there's another one. What about our war to remove Manuel Noreaga? There's a tough one. Send in a few thousand special forces soldiers and we had ourselves a country by morning. Iraq the first time, we bombed the shit out of them for simply invading kuwait, and what did they do? they surrendered. The only problem is that we fucked up the last time around, we neglected to kill the whole reason the war even happened. So what do we do now? Fix our mistake 12 years later. And now for the pinnacle of asserting our authority-Japan. Not only do we fire bomb the shit out of them and kill about a million, we nuked them...twice! We nuked a country about the size of California twice, and mostly just to prove to Russia that we'd do it, although there's no proof of the second part.

Anyways, this shit isn't new, and we're not the first people to be pissed about it. If ur really mad, quit bitching on a bulletin board and do something about it. Otherwise, as citizens of the US (most of you) that haven't left, you have no choice but to support it. As Socrates said to his friend Crito, by not leaving the state although you are readily able to do so, you have entered into a just agreement to abide by its laws and support its actions because they are responsible for your safety in a sort of paternal way.

As George Carlin says, war is all about who's cock is bigger, just look at the shape of the bombs.

Put simply, Iraq has reached the necessary critical mass of evils that makes it imperative for us to take Saddam down. The formula to apply is: hostile Islamic regimes that support religious fanaticism and terrorism, and possess weapons of mass destruction, cannot be allowed to continue.Surely Saddam Hussein’s Iraq meets those criteria.Forget about Iraqi links to 9/11. They may well exist, but are not directly relevant. Saddam has terrorist training bases under his control, including the infamous base where a jetliner sits, used to practice hijacking. It doesn’t matter whether the 9/11 attackers actually trained there. Future killers may have or will.The West has turned a blind eye to state sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East for decades. Terrorists trained, funded, and controlled by hostile regimes like Iraq and Iran have killed dozens of Americans over the last 20 years, and we have let it pass. This lapse of moral courage led directly to the murder of another 2,800 Americans and others on 9/11. To continue to turn a blind eye to this evil would shame their memory and encourage future attacks.Saddam’s support of radical Islamism is also clear. He views himself as a historic leader of epic proportions, unifying the Arab states against the West. His invasion of Kuwait, had it been unopposed, would likely have been followed by seizure of Saudi oil fields, and more importantly seizure of the holiest sites of Islam. As the self-professed defender of the faith, Saddam would have been a threat to rival Hitler.Since 9/11, Western leaders have handled the issue of radical Islamism with kid gloves. Fearing inflaming the passions of the Arab street or offending potential Arab allies, our leaders have carefully tried to detach the War Against Terrorism from efforts to stem the flow of hateful, poisonous radical Islamism. But this political convenience disguises an ugly truth: radical Islamism makes for the worst potential foe the West has ever faced.In World War II, Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority may not have been the motivation for his conquests, just as Islamic doctrine is really not the motivation for men like Saddam Hussein. Their real motivations were and are conquest and empire. But an ideology that makes it easy to de-humanize your enemies and justify barbarous crimes against them is extremely useful to tyrants. But radical Islam is potentially worse than Nazism, since it inspires religious fanaticism. If Westerners are devils and infidels, it is easy to murder them by the thousands. You are doing God’s work.This is where possession of weapons of mass destruction comes in. For 50 years, the West and their counterparts in the Communist world held back from use of such weapons, knowing that even a mostly successful attack would result in devastating retaliation. In such an attack, the country responsible would be clearly known and there would be no doubt that a counter attack was justified.But a small number of unknown terrorists, driven by suicidal fanaticism, could launch an attack in the U.S. and leave few clues. Who would we attack in response? How do we deter such monsters?Currently Iraq is the only nation that has reached this critical mass of evil. (Hostile, sponsors terrorism, possesses weapons of mass destruction) Syria, Iran, and Libya are hostile and sponsor terrorism, but don’t possess weapons of mass destruction. North Korea may possess such weapons, and is hostile, but has few documented links to terrorism. These nations can and should be handled with diplomacy or coercion.But a successful attack on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein should greatly aid in convincing these other nations to reconsider their embrace of the evil of terrorism. If, against all logic, they continue to fund and direct covert terrorist attacks against us, then perhaps we move against them as well.Part of my embrace of an attack on Iraq is based on the well-justified faith I have in our armed forces. Plenty of armchair generals and pacifists in wolf’s clothing are making much of the dangers and difficulties of fighting Saddam. I think most of these worries are overstated. The threat of Saddam using his chemical or biological weapons in a last, desperate gambit is real. But I have no doubt whatsoever that our fighting men will take him down in the end.

So debate it if you like. But let’s be real about the threat and get serious about eliminating it.

Nicely done.

VERY well put... wow... thats got to be the best researched, most well written post ive seen in awhile...


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Thanks...I'm just waiting for someone who lacks further intelligence to talk some more shit about how this is just bush's war. Or that he is a wreckless cowboy endangering us all with his economic intentions. I study this stuff as part of my major in college so bring it on you liberal punks. :)

Very nicely put, though I don't agree. ;) This radical punk would rather sit around, hit the bong and make love than shoot missiles.

Anyway, the only thing I can think of worse than radical Islam would be.... radical Christianity. Does the term 'crusade' bring up any thoughts?

Furthermore- have you considered the fact that the US also fulfills each of your requirements for a 'critical mass of evil'? We may not believe that we sponsor 'terrorism', but many, many nations have a different perspective on that than we do. Blowing up chemical factories in Sudan could certainly qualify, don't you think? Or how about invading a country?

This war may or may not be for economic gain- but the fact is, that our economy cannot SUPPORT the war without serious ramifications. A year ago the US government had a surplus- now we're running a 109 billion dollar deficit, and will be deficit spending for the next six years, at least. We've dumped 47 billion more dollars into defense spending, and meanwhile the economy slumps. The defense budget for this year is 396 billion dollars, and war on Iraq will cost us an estimated two billion dollars A DAY. Whether or not they are evil, whether or not they will attack us again, whether or not we need oil, this country will not be able to put up a war without serious financial ramifications.

And I'm tired of people saying how war is good for the economy. Sure, WWII pulled us out of the Depression... it also put us over 200 billion dollars in debt. War may seem good for the short-term, but in the long-time it ass-rapes your nation financially. And the long-term has finally come around to face us, now that a fifth of our government's budget goes to paying the interest on our national debt.

Yip YIp YIP YIP YIP

nyeeee e ee ee e eeeeee
e
ftannggg ftiung

ni ni ni ni ni yibble yibble

yark yark

MOOOOOOO

graaawwwwwwwwwwww yip yip yip yeep yeep yeep

Bwaaaaaap bwaaaappp dribble

so kamikazee...your saying war doesn't stimulate the economy?

agh noone read my post on the economy

'Yea people don't understand the meaning of an economic war. War stimulated the economy back during the first World War's because we were an industrial nation. Take a look around, where are all the American industries at? Oh yea they've packed up and found cheaper labor elsewhere. This is one reason we have ghetto's, the blue collar base of America has nowhere to get jobs. America sells ideas not products... although we still are the leading exporting nation in the world. This isn't early 20th century America anymore, we are the same as Japan, we sell technology and ideas, not hordes of steel which we wouldn't even be using for most of the military anyway.'

That is one reason why i have a problem w/ last emperor's post, and that he used a simple fact that we get 56% of our oil from the middle east ast PROOF of this being a war geared toward oil.
Fuck i have to go to class, I'll add more when i get back.

Going back to 'should we take out Saddam.' No we shouldn't! It is against international law, and we cannot set a double standard. If we take out Iraq's leader, shouldn't they have the right to take out ours? SuPilot, not all liberals are hippies, maybe its this stereotypical mindset that is upsetting me. You have some valid information to share but just stop with all the hippie crap. Why is your opinion any more valid than mine?
________________________________
Andrew

SUVs Suck!

since you bring it up i can say with certainty that my opinion is more valid than yours because it is more researched. i sense your feeling of inferiority towards me and for that i apologize. i relate hippies to liberals just to joke around...of course i am not being absolute. your just not as informed as you should be if you are going to be taking a side in an argument such as this...and that can be said about many others on this thread. for whatever reasons you feel hugging solves problems and unfortunately that isn't always the case. hopefully you ski better than you talk politics...

After having read a few of the replies on this thread, here are my two cents... is milatary action justified? i guess so, but heres another idea... it would seem that if milatry action was not absolutly necisary that there is no way that we would go after sadam. its true hes not the greatest human on the earth, but there ar immense economic benifits to having him there. its a fact that about 25 percent of the worls oil supply are located in saudi arabia, our main supplier. the saudi nation isn exactly what you would call a military power. we are allowed to keep american military in that country and thereby afford a bit of protection to the saudis and the other nations on the arabian peninsula. if we keep saddam around, that keeps the saudis in need of american prtection, in exchange for that protection we can get som oil at a good price. what if saddam was gone? the saudis could tell us to beat it out of their country, as there is no longer a threat, generally speaking. this can also be seen in our relations with japan. if the japanese failed to buy into the us economy, as they do in mass amounts, we could simply pull the american troops from okinawa, and let n. korea and china do as they will. the point i am trying to make here, is that to forego these vast economic benifits, there must be a real threat brewing in iraq. its plain to see, but some of the folks on the board here are blind to it... if saddam is so keen to wipe out eniter kurdish villages in hi own land, how happy will he be to deliver som weapon to the isrealis who he probably likes even less... the longer we let him sit, the more pressing the situation gets.. again, to say that this war will be economicly benificial is a bit silly. to say that it will get us oil at a better price is ludicris.. cmon kids...

sorry about the spelling.

anewmorning...how are you pocket rockets in the park? pipe, rails etc.... just tell me what you think about them allaround

in case you haven't heard, sadam has been considering to cut off our oil supply for awhile now, so yes, part of the motivation is oil. The other part is superiority and keeping our waning patriotic spirit alive. If sadam is out, it will be easier to get oil out of iraq, since iraq holds around 100 billion barrels of oil, 1/10 of the world supply of about 1024 billion barrels. Also, consider that neighboring nations may not want sadam in power and especially not with weapons of mass destruction, so if we take out saddam, we please the surrounding nations. If we please the surrounding nations, they are sure to benefit us economically, which we really need. The only way the government can really help the economy is by putting money back into it, and a war does this at the tune of 2 billion a day according to someone above me. Remember, we privatized our national defense weapons production, so therefore the money goes to the private sector. Private companies with more money will hire more people to account for the increased production and because they can afford to. So like i said, it will help the economy, you just have to think a little harder because times are more complex than they were in WW2.

As for knocking out Saddam, this just scares anyone in the middle east out of harboring terrorism, in case they didn't get the message in Afghanistan (or so we hope). I also agree that those weapons in Iraqi hands are bad for everyone, especially us. After all, we were the ones that bombed the shit out of his country. Last year i did a project on oil, and if the US were to fully drill all of its oil supplies, besides alaska, we would only produce about 3% of the total world production. Is that really worth the environmental consequences, probably not.

On the political side of things, why do you suppose bush hasn't attacked yet? Approval ratings. When it is in his political interest to attack, he will. Unfortunately for him we have that crazy sniper picking off women and children in the DC area. As long as people are worried about buying an 18 pack at the local kwickie mart, they won't give a shit about Iraq. Anyways, kicking foreign ass has always been in the Bush game plan for re-election, didn't work the first time, so he's being careful about going back for seconds in Iraq. I could say a lot more, but i've talked way too much. Fight the power, if that's what you feel, if not, sit back learn from this generation's mistakes.

We dont get an 'Oil supply' from Saddam... as far as I know, Iraq and the UN has a food for oil program, in which Iraq trades oil for goods like food, medicine, and such. We get what oil we DO get from the mideast from the more 'friendly' and 'capitalistic' countries of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and such. And if Saddam ever pulled another Kuwait invasion style deal, we'd have UN approval in a heartbeat...


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Oil oil oil, bleh, it not the lifeline of America, we can do without it here, I found the post I made about this like 3 months ago.

For one the states wouldn't be producing the oil for profit, it would be for sustenance. We don't have to worry about oil prices until they rise to around 30 dollars, that would mean gas prices of around 2.30 p/gallon. However, If oil producers believed they could sustain a price of $30-plus/bbl, then others would find it worth the trouble of refining low-grade oil and tar sands. (The world’s heavy oil resources are conservatively 10 times greater than conventional oil, but they go largely untouched when oil prices are low.)

If the Middle East decided to keep oil prices high around for ann extended period of around $30-plus/bbl, LNG (liquefied natural gas), a resource that’s usually burned as waste, would start to flood the market. Because LNG requires liquefaction and specialized tankers, LNG is extraordinarily capital-intensive, costing nearly twice that of oil today. So no one pursues it unless energy prices are high in the long-term.

When oil prices are high, you have to add emerging technologies that convert natural gas directly to gasoline to the equation. All these other sources coming on line, combined with competition-inspiring lost market share for traditional oil, would have to cause a price collapse. Oil prices aren't really a big deal to worry about.

i think a limited war to oust sadam and his regime is the best possible answer. ideally, negotiation and tolerance would reign supreme, but some on. the economy is in a major slump, our big businesses are all put to shame by these scandals and shitty financial managament. this is not why he is going to war, but a diamond in the gold rather. military action will be taken undoubetly, and i see a small, organized war to be in order.

i guess i would consider myself to be a communist in general, and a green when im not feeling too liberal. this is what i want, and a global economy/gopvernment would be wonderfull


'He got fired? What did he do?'
'He jumped off of the roof again'

A communist? You believe that everyone should be conformed into a society ridded all their individuality? Well if that's your opinion, then so be it.

But as far as the war....here's what I think of it. From what I believe, this 'war' is not at all about oil, or stimulating the economy. It is purely about, as Bush stated in his speech, ridding the world of a terrible human being, Suddam Hussien.

Americans do not want another attack like 9/11, therefore they wish to rid the world of all threats to America. Suddam is a major threat, thus the President wants to kill him and elimate a threat to the US.


-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Most people misunderstand TRUE communism... read Karl Marx's work and you'd understand that it's not what the Soviets turned into what we call communism.

If it were possible, true communism would be s utopia.


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

well, i was referring to the russian communists, my mistake.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Suck on this smart guys because
Overall, 72% of our imports come from outside the Persian Gulf's OPEC nations. And 85% of the heating oil we use is refined in the U.S.

Look I found a picture

I know it's from 2000 but it hasn't changed that drastically.

And being a smartass does solve things? Ok, I am inferior to you, is that what you want to hear? I am entitled to my own opinion as are you. Just because I do not have the time to research and backup my opinions for a fucking online forum doesn't make me stupid. I don't want to spend a half and hour to debate something I have no control over. I would rather wisely spend my time than argue with someone I will never see.
________________________________
Andrew

SUVs Suck!

he just stated that he didnt mean to start with the inferiority thing. What he meant is that he is stating more facts while you are speaking more from emotion. The factual opinion is factually right but it doesnt make it 'morally' right.. but your standpoint might be from a 'morally' right position, but that doesnt mean that other people see it that way...

facts are facts, thats the bottom line, you can't argue with them.


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Well this is my last post for this thread. Yes, my last few post have been speaking from emotion, and SUpilot has good things to day, but I just don't agree with them. I don't have the time or wish for that matter to research topics for 30 minutes to post on internet forum. Personally I think it is a waste of my time. Just no need to insult me for not agreeing, we are talking politics, so ofcourse their is no 'right' answer. I did lose my temper once or, but whatever, most of have. Hope you guys can understand what I am trying to say in this incoherent and rambling post.
________________________________
Andrew

SUVs Suck!

Simple fact, if you're going to debate, you support your premises with facts, expect to be given a hard time if you're not.

there is no right answer in politics?????? that is where you are wrong my son.

The fact is, if you arent going to back up your points, or you think its a waste of time, then dont fucking post... easy?


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

yea, bush is finishing up the work on his father. i wrote a whole poem on this war, i'll put it up in an article in a little while. but yea pretty much bush is finishing up his fathers work, fighting with no evidence, we're bombing for no reason.

right now half the world is starving or homeless, and instead of helping them we're spending twice as much as anyother country on military defense. thats just defense. total we've got 396 billion spent on military. for no reason. we're bombing just to show the world whos boss. its stupid. but, i dont have time here to put all my opinions and no one reads all the really long posts.

but, whos going to the D.C. protest....i was going....but its my grandpas 75th birthday....so i cant go anymore...>IM SO MAD. but that protest i did in front of bushes house in kport with my bro was good. so i did some service.










theres a natural mystic flowing through the air if you listen carefully now you will hear. its the first trumpet calling. might as well be the last. many more will have to suffer many more will have to die dont ask me why. things are not the way they used to be.

so it isn't about oil? even though we import 72% of ours? Well, apparently the US government is just a bunch of good samaritans, fighting to extinguish the eternal flame of evil. We are the world's police force that just goes around conquering nations when we feel they may eventually be a threat, even though we know that if they do anything with their weapons of mass destruction, the UN countries (mainly us) will kill them. Why do you think we helped kuwait in the first place? Because we like the sand? This whole war is based on oil, from way back in the early 90's and even before that. It's the reason we started to get involved in the middle east. Obviously it won't have a major effect on the world oil prices, but a definite ancillary benefit of asserting our power will be better relations with the major oil producing nations. It is the 'lifeline' of the middle east. However, I will admit that this is more of a confidence building war than anything else.

bush is finishing up the work of his father??? give me a break...stop watching news programs and then coming here to post what they said. have some original thoughts back by hard facts.

Desert Storm was based on the fact that Saddam invaded a somewhat helpless smaller sovereign country, not because of oil. Jackass.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT, and its backed up with cold hard facts, people just repeat the same damn stuff... NEXT ARGUMENT PLEASE.



-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Jesus christ did you not read the post!
Overall, 72% of our imports come from OUTSIDE the Persian Gulf's OPEC nations. OUTSIDE OUTSIDE OUTSIDE OUTSIDE.

yeah seriously...soem epeoplle aare stupidd

That poem was absolutely beautiful.


HHHHHHHHHhaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaa

Yes, SUPilot, I'm saying that THIS war will be horrible for our economy.

And I always find it interesting that people seem so concerned about retaining US oil holdings, rather than finding alternatives.

Great chart gravteck, by the way. That was very informative.

Well, you have to include some variables in that thought process, like, how mcuh alternatives would be, how effective they would be, and such... if we switched over to, say, methonol, or something similar, all the existing buisnesses based on gas and oil, would either have to completely rebuild, or just shut down, and people that currently own gas cars, and cant afford the alternative cars (because as we all know, alternative cars will be EXPENSIVE as all hell, at least at first, for awhile) wont be able to use their cars because oif the fact there is no gas.

However, cars like the Honda Insight, and such, ,are more feasible than straight out alternatives... I will give you that it was a good idea, and everyone will agree that we will eventually have to move to alternatives.


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Alternatives would be good, but its not like they can be introduced and be excpected to be used from one day to the next. Oil pretty much runs the world. Whether you like it or not. Without oil nothing would happen. To us its almost as essential as water and air. Can you fully replace water or air? Neither with oil, but there is a possibility for less use of it.

So why hasnt the US attacked Canada yet if it really was such an aggressive nation. Sure the Iraq war has something to do with oil, but like someone said its 'a diamond in the gold.' Canada, while it does not produce as much as other countries, has a way larger supply than Saudia Arabia. Currently, it is 3rd in natural gas, and 14 in Oil production. Yep, I went and wasted my time researching and learning. So why hasnt the US, the supposed bully of the world, invade and conquer us. Why has this same 'bully' in the past restructered the economies of two countries they conquered- or should I say countries that first attacked the States, and the States then defeated them in thier defense.

Its funny how many countries say that the US should mind its own business. When they do that- a policy of isolationism, world wars strangely seem to start. More recently, whenever there is an aggressive nation, or leader, the world expects someone to do something about it. So the States, usually with the help of Nato do. Suddendly, everyones telling them to mind their own business the next time. I hope this makes sense cause I can explain further.

Also, as far as the US not doing anything for the poor and impoverished nations. So... who is usually the first one with aid after an earthquake or a major hurricane etc? Who dropped food and medical supplies to the people of the very country of the government the were trying to overthrow? The US spends tonnes of money for aid to the third world countries. Yet the governments of some, not all, instead take this money and put it back into creating weapons and organizations that are meant to be used against the States. Or at the very least, to fund their own Civil wars, and further opress their own people.

When Hitler made Germany a superpower, what happended? What did Napoleon try and do? Bismark? Has Europe ever not been under a constant little game of whos turn is it to try and own the world now? I actually dont, despite many claims, see the US also trying to take over the world. Bush said it himself 'we liberate not conquer.' Believe it if you want, but the proof is right in front of you. Oh but Iraq was Liberating Kuwait, and Iran. Thats why when defeat was on the Horizon, they started the country on fire.

Anyway, what Im trying to say, is that there has to be a world police. The US isnt perfect, but they are doing a way better job than any other could. Yet they keep getting kicked in the ass for it. Maybe they should give a try at the ol game of World Domination. I bet they could come closer than anyone ever has. Why shouldnt they, its what every other country with power has ever done.

Listen to pilot. He says his stuff right. I try but cant right near as good as that.

So now North Korea wants to play too eh....

since we're such an apathetic nation that likes to help out people in need, then why didn't we help out cambodia when millions of people were being killed there? We had nothing to gain. We did have something to gain in kuwait, why do you think Bush invaded even though he said he wasn't going to do anything about it. You guys have this idealistic picture of our government. With our political system the way it is, the majority of the time, decisions made by politicians are based on personal gain. Why do you think campaign finance is such a big issue? Do you think that we would have the same policies on cigarette companies and guns if it weren't for their contributions? These things are obviously bad for our nation, yes, OUR nation, but politicians continue to allow them. So shut the fuck up if you're stupid enough to think we're helping because countries are in need, or we're invading iraq simply because he's a bad person. We've had the chance in the past, and we didn't, now all of the sudden bush is doing it? I guarantee there is alterior motives, i may not know what they are, but economics are a big part of it, especially sinking money into the private sector through increased arms production. With all of the recent bombings linked to al qaeda, one would think that Bush would get back on his high horse against them, but instead he is fighting saddam because he 'harbors terrorism'. Great idea, there's plenty of other countries that do the same and we haven't touched them. So shut the fuck up with the poor defenseless middle east talk, or the comparisons with hitler. Just because the guy has a mustache, he's not going to murder millions of innocent people. Not only that, he hasn't even done anything close to what hitler did to provoke it. At least we can all agree that this war is a bad idea, well at least most of us. But hey, i'm all for creating more resentment towards the US in the middle east by making an unprovoked attack.

oh yeah, by the way. on your graph, there were two of the middle eastern countries, and that is production. There's more than just Iran and Saudi Arabia in OPEC. So don't you think that part of that 37% for the rest of the world would be those other countries in the middle east. Also, we do not get our oil from a country's yearly production, we get it from their holdings. Like i said above, the middle eastern OPEC countries hold 2/3 of the world's oil.

thats Russian Communism, not pure. just like American Democracy, which is a very non-democratic society if you step back and take a look at it


'He got fired? What did he do?'
'He jumped off of the roof again'

line1260......thats some funny shit.

omfg thats the fucking funniest polictical cartoon ive seen in awhile, thats SO GREAT

anyways, LastEmporer... didnt you notice that the US producees a huge amount of oil? equal to that of Saudi Arabia? and the other 37 percent are countries that produce LESS than 4%, which is the smallest independance percentage listed.

Your argument doesnt hold water, you are totally throwing incomplete thoughts out that are based on the same stuff rehashed over and over... we countered your points, you're supposed to produce new ones. Saying the same thing over and over again when we already proved them wrong is just tiring to read.


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

i dont think its that funny at all. thewrod democracy means 'by the people'and that is not the way to descrinbe out nation. it is all based on The Constitution, which many, including myself, view as an economic document meant to keep The Framers rich and protect their financial future


'He got fired? What did he do?'
'He jumped off of the roof again'

Actually Andy, LastEmperor has a valid point... of the 11 member nations of OPEC (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela), only three of them are listed independently on that chart. That means that the other eight are within that 37% 'other countries'... and I'm willing to bet that they make up the majority of that percentage.

For some good OPEC/general oil information, check out this site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opec.html#NOPEC