Gas prices rantings

[Troutfisher]

Us spending billions over seas and not helping our own homeless people is a disgrace to me

Where do you think your taxes go?

Overseas, what part did you miss?

Your taxes go towards paying Welfare and other government programs to pay those "homeless" people, which I find hysterical, because "homeless" people here have it WAY better off than homeless people in Africa and other countries. "Homeless" people here can go to Wendys and apply for a job to work the cash register. Heck, people with down syndrome can make a living taking orders at Wendys, so there should be no reason at all for "homeless" people to not work at a place such as this.

Sorry to veer off topic.

Do you have evidence that Bush is profiting from the oil business? No. Can you even argue that his policies are explicitly for furtherment of the oil industry? NO! You may "beleive" that is his motivation, but there are clearly many more reasons for his policies and actions.

Come up to Minnesota everyone, you can get E85 gas for around 1.40 per gallon. It's made from our corn. I'm sure you've had to of

I love your thinking C312...you and I share the same views.

[cabela10]

c312, Watch CNBC and CNN, they talk about Bush having his hand in the oil and profiting.

Also, I'm not defending these cruel people, but I don't think we have to be the world peacekeepers.  We have enough issues in our own country to worry about.

c312, Where did you get your information about E85?

The Iowa Corn Growers E85 Web site says that if you have a flex-fuel vehicle and burn E85 (85% ethanol, 15% regular gasoline), you'll experience a gas mileage drop of 5-15% compared with regular gasoline. Taking the middle, a car that gets 25 mpg on regular gas would get 22.5 mpg on E85.  Is that really a huge difference when your talking about 50cents less a gallon?

If you recall, this whole post is about gas prices, if you don't like what the alternative is, then why come and b*tch about the prices when we have other sources.  If you buy E85, you are helping out the farmers who grow these crops, it's a win-win situation to me.

Troutfisher, clue me in on what adult can afford to live off of $5 an hour working part-time.  Also, Wendy's or anyother fast food place would not hire somebody that walked in off the street, you need some sort of education to work at those places too.

[Dan:]

you're gonna need to provide me with evidence in the form of a reputable article or something of the sort to support your statement concerning Bush making "millions" on oil....simply saying that  CNN or CNBC mention something doesn't equate to evidence. (And personally, I have never heard any refutable news broadcast suggest that Bush is basing his policy around helping the oil industry to benefit himself.) Some people suggest he is helping his supporters in the oil industry, but again, that's no more than speculation and assumptions.

The issue is that we shouldn't have to pay these high prices for real gas. The gas could and should be cheaper than it is right now. We shouldn't have to accept the price as it is and look for alternatives, we should be able to drill in domestic areas and have affordable, higher efficiency gas.

Also, Wendy's or anyother fast food place would not hire somebody that walked in off the street, you need some sort of education to work at those places too.

you mean like a high school diploma? Like the kind that the government provides with money from OUR taxes in the public school system? I'll admit that some people have a hard time earning a living and need help, but I think we should more closely monitor some of those people to make sure that they are actually doing all they can to become self sufficient.

No responses to the other things?

[Troutfisher]

Troutfisher, clue me in on what adult can afford to live off of $5 an hour working part-time.  Also, Wendy's or anyother fast food place would not hire somebody that walked in off the street, you need some sort of education to work at those places too.

First off, no fast food place offers $5, they pay $5.25, and almost all employers pay some over the minimum wage.  Combine that with food stamps, HUD, the Low Energy Assistance Program, Medical Cards, Community Soup Kitchens and other various giveaway programs and they surely won't be poor.  Or maybe since they aren't doing anything constructive to society we could send them to Iraq instead of the brave men and women currently serving there now who some people have no appreciation of, and constantly belittle and cut down?

[BucketmouthAngler13]

I usualy keep my nose out of this stuff, but I'm going to share my .02.

What is better, number one or number two?

#1

100 billion dollars spent on war. Some people in Amercia get paid less. Gas prices are 75 cents higher. Thousands of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people live and die free.

$2

No money spent on war. Some people in america get better pay. Gas prices normal. Thousands of Iraqi's are under tyrant rule, a million have been murdered becuase Saddam doesnt like them, and the number of his victoms grows each day. If they dont like the goverment, they disapear and are never heard of again. Hundreds of inocent people are inprisoned and abused.

In bolth #1 and #2 there will be American deaths. How many US troops have died in the war? How many US civilians died in 9/11?

Freedom has no price. 100 trillion zillion dollars shouldnt be standing in the way of another free country. People complain about gas prices all the time, while the people in Iraq have much more to complain about than that. They had to complain about getting murdered by the thousands. If there wasn't 2500 US troops that took the sacrifice, then there would be several million more people on this planet under a rule of death.

If every American took up arms and gave all their money to fight a war that should be fought, this world would be a better place to live, even if you had to pay 4 bucks for each gallon of gas.

JMHO and nothing more.

God bless America, Canada, Mexico, Britain, Japan, Germany, Iraq, and every other country that is free or should be free!

*edited for typo

[cabela10]

The issue is that we shouldn't have to pay these high prices for real gas. The gas could and should be cheaper than it is right now. We shouldn't have to accept the price as it is and look for alternatives, we should be able to drill in domestic areas and have affordable, higher efficiency gas.

We both agree on this 12,000,000%

[Troutfisher]

Go Bucketmouth!  

[Panamoka_Bassin]

Well, look what happens when you don't pay attention to a thread for a while...

First off, let me say that just because people don't live in a certain area doesn't mean that oil drilling won't affect the ecology is a load. The earth is a preciously balanced place, with symbiotic relationships throughout. Take for example the Brazilian rain forest. Not too many people living there, but we all should agree that over cutting of this area will jeopardize the world wide ecosystem. Its my belief that any wide spread industrialsation (sp?) WILL impact not only the immediate area, but will also have huge global impacts. Another example would be from a major volcanic eruption in, say, Indonesia. Its not anywhere near the good ole USA, but all that ash and debris in the atmosphere would certainly affect us in the long run. Not to be all namby-pamby, but perhaps some fore-thought is a good thing.

That being said, I do think that if its done concientiously and ecologically, drilling US soil for oil is a good thing. Not only would it help us to be less reliant on other countries for oil, it would also offer many jobs fo Americans which puts money into the economy and hopefully works the trickle-down theory to its best means.

For all of us quoting statistics on either side of the arguement, just from reading this thread it should be obvious that there is an abundance of "support" for both. Statistics are designed that way. What skews them is who's interest is in play when the statistics are put together. If the oil companies pay the statistician, they will get favorable numbers for their cause, and the opposite is certainly true. Environmentalists can hire people to make the numbers and results favor their views. Remember, statistics don't lie, statisticians lie.

This has become a very good thread, and I'd like to see more debate on this subject. The one thing we all agree on is that gas prices currently suck.

[Water Dog]

AMERICA'S future depends on an energy strategy that combines using known oil and gas resources, developing new fuels and technologies and common-sense conservation.

It would be great if scientists discovered a wonder energy source that's clean, inexpensive and inexhaustible. Absent such a breakthrough, it would be wise to use available resources while continuing the hunt for the next generation of practicable fuels.

For the United States that means developing domestic oil and gas reserves. Unfortunately, many known reserves lying beneath federally owned lands are completely off-limits by law or are effectively inaccessible because of stringent leasing requirements.

The largest and best known of these is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), on Alaska's northernmost shore. More than 10 billion barrels of oil are believed to be there. With the United States consuming about 21 million barrels a year, ANWR should be opened for sensible, environmentally friendly development.

A recent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) survey of 99 million acres of government lands, estimated to hold 21 billion barrels of oil and 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, showed about half the oil and more than a quarter of the gas are blocked from full development.

It makes little sense especially considering the lead time required to put a potential reserve into actual production to heighten America's energy vulnerability by keeping domestic sources out of reach.

Only the 1.5 million acres or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That's less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

That's roughly equivalent to developing or working in a 2000 acre area in a State the size of South Carolina.

There would be no negative impact on animals. Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

Our advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller. The oil companies should be commended for their environmental stewardship of Prudhoe Bay. By applying that knowledge they will do even better in ANWR.

As practical environmentalists we can all support oil exploration and development in ANWR.

[Guest avid]

Y'know, I know this is off topic, but just answering your view, Avid, I would like to say this.  What if the President during the time of WW2 had not taken us into war because it was too much money?

World War II was the last truly righteous war the us was involved in.  In the Pacific were attacked by the Japanese who destroyed most of our pacific fleet and attacked our asian basis.  This was clearly an act of war by a hostile government and we responded appropriately.  Yes, including nuking them

Their allies the Germans were obligated to declare was against us as a result of Tri-partate agreement whereby Italy, Japan, and Germany formed an alliance declaring any hostility toward one would be considered an attack on all three.  Also Hitler and Germany were in the process of conquering Europe.

Saddam Hussein did not attack us,

Nor was he in any position to attack anyone else when we invaded in Gulf two.  To equate the two wars is beyond comprehension.  

Our nation was under threat of annihilation by powers that had the desire and capacity to do so.  Iraq after gulf one was a toothless bully who was a threat to no one but his own people.  Sad, yes.  but certainly not unique.  Look at any map of the world and in each region of the world you will find tyrants.

Troutman, how do you get me into these confrontations.

Someone give me a chill pill.

[fishbear]

What we are doing in Iraq and elsewhere is just an excuse for the oil companies to raise prices.... when gas hit 3.00 a gal. last year, the big guys were making record PROFITS, this means after ALL expenses and taxes.(in the billions of dollars), and the ceo of one had his salary raised to over 2.5 mil. per year.  So dont blame the President or the war... blame who really is costing you... the oil companies.  They pay big bucks to keep really fuel efficent cars off the market.... If a college kid can make a car get 80-90 mpg,, then so can the car manufacturers,,,  but they wont since the oil companies are lining their pockets not to.  It is all a game for profit... just like the pharmacutical business and healthcare....

BUT  the alternative of living in a socialist country where the government decides if you can get healthcare or your drugs or where and when you can drive is a lot worse,,, just ask anyone from the old Russia or East Bloc countries....is  not an option I want to even consider.

Do you want someone to tell you, you cant go fish your favorite lake or stream because it is out of the area you are allowed to travel?????????

I beleive in anyones right to express their displeasure with the government, and the way this country is run,,, that is why we have the freedom of speech,,,, but I ask you this, are you being active in finding a solution?  do you vote???  or do you sit on the sidelines and just holler about what you dont like????

We live in the richest, most treasured country in the world, remember that you could have been born in Somalia or Iran, or China, but through the grace of God, you were born American,,,You can hunt, fish, visit any state you wish, voice your opinion, have a protest march,, and not one Government Official will shoot you or hang you or gas you because you did.

And I for one thank God every day for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I will get off my soapbox now, sorry for going off topic just a wee bit here.

[Panamoka_Bassin]

Anyone catch the State of the Union address last night?  I wonder if Dubya has been reading this thread...

[Troutfisher]

I suppose Avid, that we should have waited until Saddam had killed people in the United States before we attacked him, right? We should have waited until he came over here and slaughtered some of our people first. It had now been proven that Saddam was creating and had in possession WMD's such as Mustard Gas and other chemical weapons.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

"If that's the case, why didn't they announce it earlier?" the official asked.

The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it's possible to determine if this is "old or new stuff. It is known that Iraq used sarin during the Iraq-Iran war, however.

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.

The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he added. The discovery reportedly occurred near Baghdad International Airport.

Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq, and it's thought that fighters there may be upping their attacks on U.S. forces by using such weapons.

The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.

"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said.

Officials: Discovery Is 'Significant'

U.S. officials told Fox News that the shell discovery is a "significant" event.

Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War.

In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo (search) cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.

Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.

Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Not sure quite when this discovery was made (I believe it broke in late 2005 or early 2006), but it certainly proves that this murderous dictator possessed these types of weapons.

Also, if you haven't seen it, check this out.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

[cabela10]

Troutfisher, you really believe the things that comes from the Bush offices? We invaded Iraq because Bush & Company made everyone believe that they had WMD and he was wrong. He even admited it. Can't wait for Bush to be gone in 2 more years... 2 more year, 2 more years.

Maybe we should get this topic talking about gas prices again... gas here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota is $1.83

[Troutfisher]

Troutfisher, you really believe the things that comes from the Bush offices?

This information did not come from the Bush offices, it came from Fox News.  Did you not just read my post? WMD's were found. By the way, even if no WMD's were found (which they were), going to war for the wrong reasons is not necessarily bad. Abraham Lincoln went to war not to free the slaves, but that was what happened. By the way, WMD's were not the main reason we went to war. A murderous dictator who killed 1,000,000 of his own people might just be a valid reason.

Gas is $2.09 around here.

[Dan:]

Troutfisher, you really believe the things that comes from the Bush offices?  We invaded Iraq because Bush & Company made everyone believe that they had WMD and he was wrong.  He even admited it.  Can't wait for Bush to be gone in 2 more years... 2 more year, 2 more years.

Maybe we should get this topic talking about gas prices again... gas here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota is $1.83

They have not found the stockpiles we thought there were. We HAVE found some stockpiles, but not the size that we thought were there. We HAVE found connections to terrorists in Iraq. We HAVE taken a murderer out of power.

troutfisher, the article might have been written by someone at Fox, but it is based on information they were given by the Bush administration; it says so in the first sentence.

cabela, just because something came from the Bush administration doesn't mean it's wrong. That's an awfully paranoid and unfounded way to think.

I hate when people think they can completely discredit one source yet have no sources for doing so...lol

[Water Dog]

I hate when people think they can completely discredit one source yet have no sources for doing so...lol

If you research a subject to support your position, you run the risk of proving yourself wrong. Besides, it's much easier to just proclaim, "thus and so". TINC

[Troutfisher]

If you research a subject to support your position, you run the risk of proving yourself wrong.  Besides, it's much easier to just proclaim, "thus and so".  TINC    

I see your point and agree.  

[Panamoka_Bassin]

And yet, through all this postulating by the Bush administration, I am still paying $2.45 per gallon here on Long Island.  

[cart7t]

I usualy keep my nose out of this stuff, but I'm going to share my .02.

What is better, number one or number two?

#1

100 billion dollars spent on war. Some people in Amercia get paid less. Gas prices are 75 cents higher. Thousands of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people live and die free.

$2

No money spent on war. Some people in america get better pay. Gas prices normal. Thousands of Iraqi's are under tyrant rule, a million have been murdered becuase Saddam doesnt like them, and the number of his victoms grows each day. If they dont like the goverment, they disapear and are never heard of again. Hundreds of inocent people are inprisoned and abused.

In bolth #1 and #2 there will be American deaths. How many US troops have died in the war? How many US civilians died in 9/11?

Freedom has no price. 100 trillion zillion dollars shouldnt be standing in the way of another free country. People complain about gas prices all the time, while the people in Iraq have much more to complain about than that. They had to complain about getting murdered by the thousands. If there wasn't 2500 US troops that took the sacrifice, then there would be several million more people on this planet under a rule of death.

If every American took up arms and gave all their money to fight a war that should be fought, this world would be a better place to live, even if you had to pay 4 bucks for each gallon of gas.

JMHO and nothing more.

God bless America, Canada, Mexico, Britain, Japan, Germany, Iraq, and every other country that is free or should be free!

*edited for typo

If you want to save people from oppresion, I start with Africa. Far worse atrocities are happening there than in Iraq but what the hey, I'm sure this country would care if they could suddenly discover some substantial oil reserves in the ground.

Sadam has been murdering people for years.  He was killing his own back during the IRan/Iraq war when we were supporting him.  The evil dictator moniker is nothing new, this country has known it for years.  In fact many of those mass graves that were found contained the bodies of of ****es and Kurds killed in the overthrow attempt by those groups right after Gulf War 1.  Those people needed our help then but we turned a deaf ear.  

Americans knowledge of the middle east and our history of incompetance over there is astounding.  We have rarely ever shown any sort of adeptness at dealing with those people and their conflicts.  What's worse is we're over there only because of the oil.  If no oil existed, we'd care as much about the Iraqies as we do those people in Africa where entire populations are being exterminated on a daily basis.

[Dan:]

lol, it's all about oil!!!  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

"entire populations being exterminated on a daily basis" - I know it's a hyperbole, but come on.... :-?

If it were about oil, our oil prices wouldn't be so high for so long

If it were about oil we wouldn't still be there, we would have killed Saddam, rebuilt oil wells, and put in a guy who would sell to us and leave. We wouldn't care whether or not he was a good person or not.

I agree about Africa, we need to go there and kill some dictators and establish some framework for government before we keep sending in loads and loads of money. The difference though, is not that Iraq has oil, but that Iraq is a much more organized evil. Africa is chaotic. Warlords and factions kill each other, vying for power. In Iraq there was one man that was a figurehead for the oppression and murder. Also, remember, much of the destruction that is happening in AFrica was CAUSED by colonialism from Northern countries so I don't think many want to jump back in right away. Also, Africa's problems are heavily caused by factors like AIDS and extreme universal poverty. These are problems that are much harder and take longer to fix than having to reverse the actions of a regime like in Iraq.

Iraq and Africa are NOT the same.

[cart7t]

lol, it's all about oil!!! :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

"entire populations being exterminated on a daily basis" - I know it's a hyperbole, but come on.... :-?

If it were about oil, our oil prices wouldn't be so high for so long

If it were about oil we wouldn't still be there, we would have killed Saddam, rebuilt oil wells, and put in a guy who would sell to us and leave. We wouldn't care whether or not he was a good person or not.

I agree about Africa, we need to go there and kill some dictators and establish some framework for government before we keep sending in loads and loads of money. The difference though, is not that Iraq has oil, but that Iraq is a much more organized evil. Africa is chaotic. Warlords and factions kill each other, vying for power. In Iraq there was one man that was a figurehead for the oppression and murder. Also, remember, much of the destruction that is happening in AFrica was CAUSED by colonialism from Northern countries so I don't think many want to jump back in right away. Also, Africa's problems are heavily caused by factors like AIDS and extreme universal poverty. These are problems that are much harder and take longer to fix than having to reverse the actions of a regime like in Iraq.

Iraq and Africa are NOT the same.

Iraq and Sadam Husseing were reduced to a paper tiger after Gulf 1.  Anyone reading the Dueffler report would understand why Sadam wanted to give the impression he "might" have WMD's.

[Dan:]

lol, it's all about oil!!!  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

"entire populations being exterminated on a daily basis" - I know it's a hyperbole, but come on.... :-?

If it were about oil, our oil prices wouldn't be so high for so long

If it were about oil we wouldn't still be there, we would have killed Saddam, rebuilt oil wells, and put in a guy who would sell to us and leave. We wouldn't care whether or not he was a good person or not.

I agree about Africa, we need to go there and kill some dictators and establish some framework for government before we keep sending in loads and loads of money. The difference though, is not that Iraq has oil, but that Iraq is a much more organized evil. Africa is chaotic. Warlords and factions kill each other, vying for power. In Iraq there was one man that was a figurehead for the oppression and murder. Also, remember, much of the destruction that is happening in AFrica was CAUSED by colonialism from Northern countries so I don't think many want to jump back in right away. Also, Africa's problems are heavily caused by factors like AIDS and extreme universal poverty. These are problems that are much harder and take longer to fix than having to reverse the actions of a regime like in Iraq.

Iraq and Africa are NOT the same.

Iraq and Sadam Husseing were reduced to a paper tiger after Gulf 1.  Anyone reading the Dueffler report would understand why Sadam wanted to give the impression he "might" have WMD's.

That didn't really argue against anything I said seeing that I didn't mention WMDs in my last post, but anyway....Anyone reading the Duelfer report would also know that Saddam was almost certain to continue persuing WMD programs (including nuclear weapons) if he could get sanctions lifted and therefore posed a potential threat in the future.

[cart7t]

lol, it's all about oil!!! :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

"entire populations being exterminated on a daily basis" - I know it's a hyperbole, but come on.... :-?

If it were about oil, our oil prices wouldn't be so high for so long

If it were about oil we wouldn't still be there, we would have killed Saddam, rebuilt oil wells, and put in a guy who would sell to us and leave. We wouldn't care whether or not he was a good person or not.

I agree about Africa, we need to go there and kill some dictators and establish some framework for government before we keep sending in loads and loads of money. The difference though, is not that Iraq has oil, but that Iraq is a much more organized evil. Africa is chaotic. Warlords and factions kill each other, vying for power. In Iraq there was one man that was a figurehead for the oppression and murder. Also, remember, much of the destruction that is happening in AFrica was CAUSED by colonialism from Northern countries so I don't think many want to jump back in right away. Also, Africa's problems are heavily caused by factors like AIDS and extreme universal poverty. These are problems that are much harder and take longer to fix than having to reverse the actions of a regime like in Iraq.

Iraq and Africa are NOT the same.

Iraq and Sadam Husseing were reduced to a paper tiger after Gulf 1. Anyone reading the Dueffler report would understand why Sadam wanted to give the impression he "might" have WMD's.

That didn't really argue against anything I said seeing that I didn't mention WMDs in my last post, but anyway....Anyone reading the Duelfer report would also know that Saddam was almost certain to continue persuing WMD programs (including nuclear weapons) if he could get sanctions lifted and therefore posed a potential threat in the future.

Almost certain to persue is no reason to start a war. neither is attacking a country to depose an evil dictator. There are plenty of them to go around all over the globe.  

Look at it this way, had 9-11 never happened, we never would've gone to war.  there was no link to terrorism in Iraq concerning 9-11 (which is the game GWB played with the American people) either before or after Sept. 11.  Bush played on peoples fears to go in.  Now he's possibly created one of the biggest blunders in the history of this country.  Perhaps, since there was no immediate need to go to war in Iraq since they didn't really pose an immediate danger, we might have put together a fact finding committee to study Iraq.  I'm sure had anyone spent anytime looking at the facts outside of the terrorist hyperbole that was going on at the time, they would've concluded that the intelligence was false, that there was no reason to go to war.

[Troutfisher]

If we wanted oil so bad, why would we ship our troops halfway across the world when we could go to Mexico and get theirs, or Venezuala? Not the reason we're at war.

Perhaps, since there was no immediate need to go to war in Iraq since they didn't really pose an immediate danger, we might have put together a fact finding committee to study Iraq

Well, since he was no immediate danger to us, we should have let him build up more weapons, kill his own people with the snap of his fingers, and become a bully to non-terroristic states, right?  Meanwhile, this fact finding committee can sit back aimlessly and observe the way he murders his own people?

No.  If a mad dictator is hell bent on killing his own people and us if he had the chance, then he needs to be taken out.  Tell me of another madman dictator who has killed millions, and I'll bet that the U.S. will go after them as well.  Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, and other madmen hate America.  Peace talks and letting them do what they will is ridiculous and will never work.  Blunt force are the only things these terrorists understand.