We Stay So We Don't Lose

tabs · 04-15-2007, 01:05 AM

Both Political Parties in the US are delusional and are drinking Kool Aid. The Democratic Party is saying we can't win so we should pull out of Iraq, The Repblicans say we can't pull out until we win?

The Dems have it right we can't win, but we can't pull out either. The USA has to stay so that we don't lose. The US loses if the conflict in Iraq esculates beyond its borders and the free flow of oil is put at risk of disruption. The risk of that happening is so high that the US dare not leave Iraq.

What does the US stand to lose...EVERYTHING WE HAVE. That is why the war in Iraq stands to be the Greatest Diaster the US has ever faced.

The simple truth is that the world economy depends upon oil, without oil there is NO ECONOMY. The Free Market System that the US has built since the end of WW2 will crumble and that will be the end of the American Empire.

The American Empire is not built on occupation nor military force but Free Markets where Coke Cola, Disney, Malbough, Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford and even the Big Oil companies can set up shop around the world and influence cultural and political will with the making of a $$$$.

All of that comes to an end if the free flow of oil is disrupted.

The genius of the American System and the thing that made America Great is not its military, intellectual prowness nor Goodness. Its the idea of Liquidity and Cash Flow. Once the US became the Reserve Currency for the World we became an Empire and not merely a Nation.

MichiganMat · MichiganMat's Garage

Like all issues in life, this oil issue will be solved organically. It took us millions of years to evolve into human beings, it took the world society only a decade or two to evolve into an information society, I think we can solve this energy issue in a matter of years if given the right motivation.

The loss of oil may be the best thing that ever happened to us, maybe GWs folly will be our reward.

Zef · Zef's Garage

At the end...is really have a winner...!

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tabs
[B]Both Political Parties in the US are delusional and are drinking Kool Aid. The Democratic Party is saying we can't win so we should pull out of Iraq, The Repblicans say we can't pull out until we win? [B]

Tabs, you need some political cheering up. Try this !

Aurel

David · David's Garage

That cheered me up, thanks

Moneyguy1 · 04-15-2007, 10:53 AM

So, tabs......

The solution is that there is no solution.

Unless you have a solution.....

Do you have a solution?

I don't.

tabs · 04-15-2007, 11:58 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aurel
[B]

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
[B]Both Political Parties in the US are delusional and are drinking Kool Aid. The Democratic Party is saying we can't win so we should pull out of Iraq, The Repblicans say we can't pull out until we win?

Tabs, you need some political cheering up. Try this !

Aurel

And I suppose U think the Democratic party and Liberal establishment are any better? Have another sip of that Blue Koolaid then...U seem to like it.

If U don't believe the Democratic Party is any better than the Repblican Party then at least we are on the same page.

The truth be known both Parties are filled with a bunch of self agrandizing whores and aren't much different from each other, except for the coloring of their language.

They basically all stand for nothing, and all jockey to see who is first in line at the buffet of the public treasury.

tabs · 04-15-2007, 12:12 PM

The Solution in the Iraq...History shows us that to stop the violence in Iraq you gotta put your foot down hard. That means if your shot at from a village you burn the village. If one of your trops is killed, U line up ten of them and kill them. Thats RESPECT ME STYLE. Can the Liberal Media or US people stomach that?

In the 1920s thats what the Brits had to do, and eventually they lost the stomach for it and left.

If U can't, then according to the indiginious population of the Region the US is just a bunch of weak puppies, and we have allready lost.

The best possible solution for the US in Iraq is to find another Iraqie Strongman and put him in power. Let him do the dirty work of stabilizing the place. Almost anybody would be better than Sadam.

Ironically thats what all the Sectarian Violence in Iraq is about..who is going to rise to the top of *****pile and become the next strongman?

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
And I suppose U think the Democratic party and Liberal establishment are any better? Have another sip of that Blue Koolaid then...U seem to like it.

If U don't believe the Democratic Party is any better than the Repblican Party then at least we are on the same page.

The truth be known both Parties are filled with a bunch of self agrandizing whores and aren't much different from each other, except for the coloring of their language.

They basically all stand for nothing, and all jockey to see who is first in line at the buffet of the public treasury.

We are on the same page, Tabs. I would have posted the same link about the democrats if I had found it.

Aurel

the · 04-15-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Almost anybody would be better than Sadam.

Why? Wasn't Saddam basically a non-religious dictator?

Yeah, he played the religion card every now and then when it suited him, but I think he was really more into his cars and palaces than trying to please Allah. And he'd rattle sabers at the West from time to time, but I don't think he really cared about the West all that much. He mainly cared about himself and his power.

I agree, it's going to eventually take another ruthless dictator to get that country under control again.

But I think the next one very well could be worse than Saddam. A REAL Islamic zealot. Much worse for the US.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
Try this !

Aurel

Long but good.

tabs · 04-15-2007, 12:47 PM

Unfortunately Sadam was broke so we had to fix it. He went off the reservation in 1990 with his invasion of Kuwait. So he had to go, he was messin with our oil.

Yes an Islamic Repblic that is hostile to the USA would be terrible for the USA, since we would have caused it ourselves. That is part of the reason that this is such a diasteer.

As Commander in Chief GW has to take responsibility for this diaster. However it really wasn't his idea, it was the people who he trusted and had confidence in that led him to believe this would be an easy gig. He also continued on with these people far to long out of loyalty, or the belief that given sometime things would eventually get better. However this has debacle has cost him his Presidency. Not even die hard supporters now think Iraq is anything but a losing proposition. They continue to hold unto the belief that in 20 years GW will be hailed like Truman as sticking to his guns and being right in the end. However if this results in the end of the American Empire it all becomes a moot point.

Joeaksa · 04-15-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
The Solution in the Iraq...History shows us that to stop the violence in Iraq you gotta put your foot down hard. That means if your shot at from a village you burn the village. If one of your trops is killed, U line up ten of them and kill them. Thats RESPECT ME STYLE. Can the Liberal Media or US people stomach that?

In the 1920s thats what the Brits had to do, and eventually they lost the stomach for it and left.

If U can't, then according to the indiginious population of the Region the US is just a bunch of weak puppies, and we have allready lost.

The best possible solution for the US in Iraq is to find another Iraqie Strongman and put him in power. Let him do the dirty work of stabilizing the place. Almost anybody would be better than Sadam.

Ironically thats what all the Sectarian Violence in Iraq is about..who is going to rise to the top of *****pile and become the next strongman?

Been preaching the above for years now. They understand one thing and that is force. You show them force and they will back off but give them an inch and they want a mile.

We are there and no way out now. We have to finish the job THEN get our troops home IMHO.

the · 04-15-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Unfortunately Sadam was broke so we had to fix it. He went off the reservation in 1990 with his invasion of Kuwait. So he had to go, he was messin with our oil.

He went off the reservation in 1990, but he was quickly put back on the reservation in 90/91.

He seemed to be fairly well contained at the time Bush and his cohorts decided to swing a bat at the hornet's nest.

tabs · 04-15-2007, 01:03 PM

If the Bushists or the Dems had ever read a History book they would have realized that Iraq was a Hornets nest. However at the time the illerates that run our government had no idea it would turn out to be so troublemsome. We were assured by policy experts such as Paul Wolfowitz that the US would be greeted as Liberators, much as the French greeted the US after WW2 and that in the sprit of democracy the Iraqies would all join together and form a US style or at least European style Democracy and we would all live happily ever after.

the · 04-15-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
If the Bushists or the Dems had ever read a History book they would have realized that Iraq was a Hornets nest. However at the time the illerates that run our government had no idea it would turn out to be so troublemsome. We were assured by policy experts such as Paul Wolfowitz that the US would be greeted as Liberators, much as the French greeted the US after WW2 and that in the sprit of democracy the Iraqies would all join together and form a US style or at least European style Democracy and we would all live happily ever after.

I agree, that's why Bush did it. It had nothing to do with Saddam messing with our oil supply, or Saddam no longer being on the reservation (he firmly was).

In addition to what you posted above, I believe the following lead Bush to it:

1) It was going to be his defining moment, which he felt he lacked. He never had a "cause." The closest he came to one was tax cutting, but that's not very sexy. This was going to be his legacy (unforunately for him, he got that wish).

2) He wanted to show up Daddy. He's always had an inferiority complex to Daddy (for good reason). Daddy wasn't man enough to get the job done in '91, Jr. was going to show him, and show him good.

In the end, GWB was a small, incompetent man, the empty suit that many portrayed him as. He probably would have bumbled through 2 terms ok, because this is a big ship with a lot of checks and balances.

But 9/11 put him in a position to blow it big time, and he seized on that opportunity to make the biggest presidential mistake of our lifetime.

Moneyguy1 · 04-15-2007, 01:19 PM

tabs.....

With your collection of firearms and a little training......

the · 04-15-2007, 01:27 PM

Also, as to my (2) above, it was outrageous when Jr. didn't consult with the former President or his advisors before going into Iraq. Bush Sr. says he was never consulted. Bush Sr. and his people had been through this before, it was crazy for Bush Jr. to not make any use of that experience or knowledge.

Bush Sr.'s response when asked if he was consulted or ever gave advice to Jr. about going into Iraq was equally outrageous. He basically said no, he wasn't asked, but if he was, he would have advised against it (for the VERY reasons everyone now sees so obviously).

When asked why he didn't just call Jr. up and tell him, his answer was basically "The boy's gotta learn on his own."

C'mon! That's what you say when your 8 year old is about to ride his bike down a hill that is too big for him and wipe out. It's not a good answer when your boy is about to blow up the world.

Moneyguy1 · 04-15-2007, 01:31 PM

"It's my son and I will defend him no matter what." I agree. Poor attitude if the results of the son's actions could even remotely have serious consequences.

But, on the other side, a higher Father was consulted.....

tabs · 04-15-2007, 01:47 PM

I think U maybe Projecting a bit The. GW had his defining moment when he went to NYC after 911 and said, "We hear You." GW had a 90% approval rating off that one. The Afgan campaign had gone brilliantly, it went so fast it made everybodys head spin. Perhaps it gave them a false confidence that everything would be so easy. With the Northern Alliance joining in and all.

GW isn't incomeptent nor is he stupid. GW is not a man to explain things hes rather closed mouthed, he has a great deal of loyalty to his people, he really doesn't lie very well..thats why he stumbles in his speechs and when given scripted answers. However if U have ever heard him in a one on one conversation you find he is a pretty bright guy.He is also a man who ponders his decisons, thinking/struggling about them aka consulting his Higher Father. I find it rather cynical in our day to criticize a man for asking for some help from a higher power to help him reach a tough decision, but thats my own opinion.