Bush = Active/Negative

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by mars01
Apples to Porter House Steaks.  They aren't even both fruits.

Next thing you'll be saying ahh look what a good job he is doing gas prices went from 3 bucks a gallon to 2.75 LOLH.

Record profits, 500 million dollar retirement packages - no justification can ease that BS.  Other countries.  Do these other countries refine their own oil?  What are arab coutries paying per gallon?  Answer less than 2.00 bucks.

Not even. Gas for the most part. When taxes are stripped away. Is selling for about the same worldwide. With the possible exception of the oil producing countries.

But hey. they are producing their own oil.

Here in Jersey we dont produce our own oil but we do have our own refineries. Thus more often then not Gas here is Cheaper then in other states.

record profits. Hey I dont like it either and also feel ripped off.
But. Fact of the matter is this is a free market economy. As such they are free to charge what they want or at least what the going rates are.
The object of a business is not to provide charity but to make as much money as you can.

Reducing their profit level to make gas cheaper may be the nice thing to do but its not mandatory.

We. The people can have far more effect on gas prices buy simply using less of it.
But so long as we insist on using it like its as plentiful as water. So long as our once minivan driving Soccer moms keep driving Durango's and Suburban's and other SUV's. And so long as the Dads have to have "Thayerr truuck". Vehicles they only own because its cool to own them and not because they need them the prices will remain high.
Most of these people actually use these monsters for going off road or transporting large objects about as often as I do brain surgery. And Im no doctor.

They only own them because its a status symbol

Those are the ones hurting the gas prices driving them up for the rest of us.

Yea I have an 8 cylinder vehicle. But I have a need for it for work and occasionally have the schlep a couple thousand pounds of material ,plus my equipment around.
Which doesn't work real well for very long in a 4 cylinder vehicle.

Just a 3% reduction in consumption would cause prices to fall.
I looked around yesterday when I was driving.
Lemme tell ya these gas guzzling vehicles make up a hell of alot more then 3% of the vehicles out there. and its easy to see the very vast majority of those drivers have no other real need to have them then to be able to say they have one.
If only half of these people switched to a smaller more economical vehicle prices would fall.

But one of the byproducts of the political correct society we now live in is the "shift the blame/feel good about ourselves" mentality we have.
We cant be at fault ourselves. we have to shift the blame somewhere else.

Now Im not saying the oil companies dont have some blame in this.
But more so then them.
But for alot of us We need to look no farther then the mirror to find the major culprit.

And if your already driving one of the smaller cars. Then you can point your finger at the people in these monstrosities and say "your fault"

[mars01]

Not even. Gas for the most part.

LOL, you got me. hahaha

[Sandman]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
I saw FMJ the other night too... lol

Hmmm... I missed it. When?

[mars01]

Hey now - you added a lot more crap Dred

record profits. Hey I dont like it either and also feel ripped off.
But. Fact of the matter is this is a free market economy. As such they are free to charge what they want or at least what the going rates are.
The object of a business is not to provide charity but to make as much money as you can.

Don't be naive and think there is not tampering going on here. Thats like saying you also believed that the tobacco companies had no idea what they were doing to people, when in fact they knew exactly what they were doing and who they were hurting for the almighty profit.

We. The people can have far more effect on gas prices buy simply using less of it.

You talk like gas is a convienience and we as the consumer have a ton of choices.  Yeah we can get back to driving cars with better fuel economy and yes it is our fault in that manner but that is about as far as it goes.  I don't buy your next statement one bit.

But one of the byproducts of the political correct society we now live in is the "shift the blame/feel good about ourselves" mentality we have.

Total cop out.  You can't really believe this crap.  There is a problem with the current oil situation and it is much more than just demand and market fluctuations.

If demand is such a problem then how can Venezuela get away with only charging $.14 a gallon for gas.  Even with their Gov subsidising.  How can oil be at it's highest availability in 8 years and OPEC below it's operating capacity and yet we still have record prices.

The price of crude fell yesterday, do you think the people at the pumps are going to drop their price as fast as they raised them.  Your right it must be all our fault.  LOL

"free market economy" is one thing that is also very easily taken advantage of to swindle people all you have to do is look at the big oil companies and OPEC to see this.  

IMO Clinton had his issues no doubt, but the world was a much better place 7 years ago, than it is today.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, it was after Bush 1 called off Gulf War 1 at 100 hours.

There were statements by Bush 1 saying he favored "regime change" IIRC, but I don't recall any published statements by the US that we would militarily support such an action. I also don't have any reliable data on any guarantees that were offered sub rosa. Do you?

Nonetheless, and no matter how long ago, the Iraqi boys and girls did rise up against their dictator. And, depending on which figures you choose, they paid the price of between 100,000 and 230,000 lives for doing so.

Maybe in 2002 these losses were an inhibiting factor?

After all, we're ready to fold up shop at ~10% of that.

Just pointing out that it's not like they didn't try at all. They did.

You're right. The Iraqi people were actively engaged in their own regime change when the U.S. stepped in, marched across the desert and removed Hussein from power in just three weeks, and then the Americans were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
You're right. The Iraqi people were actively engaged in their own regime change when the U.S. stepped in, marched across the desert and removed Hussein from power in just three weeks, and then the Americans were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.

What's this?

Can't admit that the Iraqi boys (and girls) at least TRIED to change their own regime?

Pretty hefty cost to it as well, even if you take the low estimate.

But it's "not really relevant". Why is that?

Did they fail to make the cut for enough deaths?

Did they quit too soon? How long should they have continued?

Is a time or total death criteria that they have to equal or exceed before they get credit from you for trying?

[Sandman]

They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.

An eight year old battle is not an active revolt. It's not relevant. They were not fighting any longer. Hell, if the Iraqi people gave Hussein as much trouble as their giving the current Iraqi government and the United States, I expect that his regime would have fell a long time ago.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Sandman
They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.

An eight year old battle is not an active revolt. It's not relevant. They were not fighting any longer. Hell, if the Iraqi people gave Hussein as much trouble as their giving the current Iraqi government and the United States, I expect that his regime would have fell a long time ago.

Saddam's regime was able to fight a war succesfully against any insurgents.  Democracies cannot.  Hitler really did pull off democracy's downfall, afterall.  (Well, at the very least, he made us squeemishly ineffective).

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
They went another eight years and did nothing. One can only assume that they were content with the status quo.

One could assume that.

Or one could assume that the revolt was so brutally suppressed, with the death of between 100,000 and 230,000 people... many of them non-combatants.... that they were beaten into submission.

Perhaps the "status quo" of having entire families exterminated was enough to make them submit.

An eight year old battle is not an active revolt.

Nor has anyone said it is at this time. It certainly WAS at that time, though.

It is also clear proof of "Iraqi boys" tried to change the regime.  And long before we did. Funny how you can't seem to even give them credit for trying. Not enough died? What?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad

It is also clear proof of "Iraqi boys" tried to change the regime.  And long before we did. Funny how you can't seem to even give them credit for trying. Not enough died? What?

If we tried as hard as they have, we'd still be part of England. Patrick Henry had it right.

[Toad]

If we hadn't had the immense help of the French Navy and the French Army we'd still be part of England.

Clearly, by your logic, they should not have sent French boys thousands of miles away from home to do what American boys should have done for themselves.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France....

...In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.


Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay.

Silly Frenchmen... they should have just let the American boys do it themselves.

Say what you want. I think the Iraqi boys showed a lot of brass... and paid the price.

In fact, I think it's a damn shame we didn't help them THEN, like the French helped us.

Probably would have turned out far better than this evolution.

[Sandman]

Hmmm... the French sent troops four years after the fighting started rather than eight years after the fighting stopped.

Good for them.

[Toad]

So you're now saying we should have gone earlier like the French did?

Or that you should always let the fight go on 4 years before you get involved?

[Sandman]

I'm saying that if the Iraqi people could have sustained a 2-3 year insurgency (kinda like now) against Hussein, I'd have felt much better about sending our people to help.

They weren't fighting. Why should we?

Now we've set the precendent. I'm sure we can find no shortage of countries ruled by pitiless dictators and inhabited by some poor sods, wallowing in their own oppression while waiting for a rich western country lousy with disposable wealth and lack of foresight to wade in and bring them liberty. Booyah, bring on the body bags.

[Toad]

So it's ok to offer military support to insurgents we find "useful" AFTER they've been in open, all-out conflict for a minimum of two years?

That's your personal yardstick?