This will start some

[fscrig75]

...... The rest of what you said is the real reason we are in Iraq, OIL! Always has been!

Yep your right, get used to it. You need oil just as much as everyone else. Just think what its going to be like when the supplies really start to run out. Lets see what Russia, China, India start to do then. All that wonderful oil just off our coasts, is that still territorial water? All that oil in Alaska, that Russia is still pissed about selling it to us so cheap.

 

[fscrig75]

Detente was also his brainchild, French term meaning to relax, in Russian it means discharge (gonorrhea).

Honestly I don't really know many of the ins and outs of Nam. But doing a little reading on Detente, seems like it worked fairly well. Some good treatys came out of, SALT I & II, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Outer Space, Biological Weapons Convention and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.

 

[Ecomike]

I am not saying that Iran is not a danger in the Middle East, especially a Nuke armed Iran, but let's do a reality check. How many wars has Iran started since the end of WWII, and how many wars other than the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1979 (or was it 80?) has Iran been involved in fighting.

Now, compare that to how many wars have we fought in someone elses back yard since WWII, and how many governments out CIA has helped to topled to push our agenda in the world.

How would we be reacting if we had no nukes, and Iran did, and Iran was occupying Mexico, with a huge Iranian naval fleet parked at our front door? No doubt that would bring out the religeous fanatics here too!

I think Obama is just what we need right now, to bring the international community back together to solve these problems diplomatically. I have no doubt if that fails, meaning real diplomatic efforts by Obama failed, not the BS Bush used and later called diplomacy, that Obama would turn out to be a fierce hawk leading a united USA to fight a truely necessary war, with the rest of the world supporting us this time.

It's a shame Bush Jr. did not have the brains and political know how his father had when it came to foreign affairs.

 

[tbburg]

Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.

So did Yasser Arafat.

 

[Ecomike]

LOL....I just like busting the myth on that....

Obama has run his mouth before about how he "has been against the war from the beginning" and "never voted to send troops into Iraq"....

Which is true....

However, he also never voted AGAINST sending troops to Iraq....because he didn't HAVE a vote in the decision! :roflmao:

politicians make me laugh...

:roflmao:

They do have a marvelous way with words, "Like Read My Lips! No new taxes!!!! :roflmao:I am quoting President Bush Sr. I forget the details, but I think he just raised old taxes, thus keeping to his word, LOL. :roflmao:

I remember many times listening to Polis respond (note I did not say answer) to a Journalists questions with a 10,000 word rant that says nothing, commits to nothing, waves the american flag talks about moms apple pie, patriotism, and so on but never came close to answering the question. And then of course the Journalist would rephrase the question and it would start all over again.

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.

 

[Darky]

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.

Yeah like, "Change, Unity, Happy, Love". Nice principles, not sure how great that'd all work out in real life.

 

[tbburg]

:I think Obama is one of the few politicians in a long time that has bucked that trend.... When opens his mouth he actually says something.

O,.....

K,......

What is it he actually says?

 

[tbburg]

Yeah like, "Change, Unity, Happy, Love".

Darky, I think your and my posts got reversed there:confused1

 

[fscrig75]

I am not saying that Iran is not a danger in the Middle East, especially a Nuke armed Iran, but let's do a reality check. How many wars has Iran started since the end of WWII, and how many wars other than the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1979 (or was it 80?) has Iran been involved in fighting.

Well I guess the answer is zero. So its ok if the UN wants us to do something? Well that would be why we went into Korea. I guess you can't blame that on us, it was the UN asking. What about when Saddam went into Kuwait? I guess we could've let him keep it, then he could just roll through Saudi and taken all their oil too.

I think Obama is just what we need right now, to bring the international community back together to solve these problems diplomatically. I have no doubt if that fails, meaning real diplomatic efforts by Obama failed, not the BS Bush used and later called diplomacy, that Obama would turn out to be a fierce hawk leading a united USA to fight a truely necessary war, with the rest of the world supporting us this time.

For some reason I just can't see Obama being a "Fierce Hawk". What I can see is him not doing a damn thing because the UN Security Counsil didn't give him permission. The world didn't want us going into Iraq mainly because they didn't want their dirty little secret about the oil scam most of the world had going on with Iraq. France, China, Russia, Germany, hmmmm those seem like the biggest name that were against us going in there in the first place.
As for Bush's BS diplomacy I do believe we've had some of the first face to face talks with Iran since the early 70s.
How about Carter's diplomacy that left our Marines in the hands of the Iranians till Ronny Raygun got them out.
Or how about Clinton lack of balls to stand up to the North Koreans allowed them to get the Nuke, that Bush has begun to get rid of. Or how Bill screwed up with allowing our troops to be under foreign command in Somalia(UN), which is the reason the Rangers couldn't get the support they needed. And then our troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, oh but wait thats ok since the EU and the UN said it was ok to go in there. Why did Bill wait till hundredes of thousands people died their before we rolled in?

 

[fscrig75]

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.

What is he saying? Inflate my tires.(sorry I had to take a shot):roflmao:

But seriously he isn't saying anything new. He swore up and down that he was going to take our troops our in a 16 month phased with drawl. Now its when the commanders on the ground think it can be done.

He was solidly against drilling. Now he is softening his stance and changing his mind.

And before you start McCain is just as guilty. He was against drilling, now he's for it.

We are all just voting for the lesser of two evils. Neither is better than the other.

 

[JNickel101]

I am pretty sure the Middle East will be glowing in the dark before we pulled our Navy out of the Persian Gulf, no matter who won the next election. So I don't see the Iraq lack of a Navy as an issue. The rest of what you said is the real reason we are in Iraq, OIL! Always has been!

Well hell, if we were allowed to drill our own, we wouldn't have a reason to be there

 

[8Mud]

Honestly I don't really know many of the ins and outs of Nam. But doing a little reading on Detente, seems like it worked fairly well. Some good treatys came out of, SALT I & II, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Outer Space, Biological Weapons Convention and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.

Regan (and advisors) finally outspent the Russians and all but ruined there economy, that was the end of it for while. Though Russia is back on it's feet now and flexing it's muscle.
If Detente had continued and Russia had the breathing room to regroup, no telling what would have happened. Likely they would have rearmed and reconstituted in half the time.
You're right though, there is still an argument going on, whether he helped or hurt. Regan sure enough saw an opportunity to make detente work for him and seems to have helped the old USSR to implode. It may have been the plan all along or just opportunity knocking.
Funny that Russia invaded Georgia a day after the ceremony closing the base near my house. The draw down in Germany is almost complete.

 

[Ecomike]

O,.....

K,......

What is it he actually says?

I am so glad you asked. :wave1: After reading this three times, I really wanted a good excuse to post it! This is the speech Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois;

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

 

[8Mud]

For the sake of argument, let's suppose we continued the VN war, that Ford sent us back in, and that we went back in force to stop the NVs. How many North & South Vietnamise and Americans would have died if we had continued fighting the war, how many died (slaughtered) after we left versus the number that died while we fought an unwinable war. Yes, I know you think the war was winable, so humor me on that point, and do the body count math.

The estimate is more people died (as a result of) after our pulling out in 18 months than died in the previous ten years, due to the war (I've heard between 3 1/2 and 6 million). The dieing spread well beyond Vietnam's borders, all sorts of atrocities were perpetrated when the Sheriff was gone. The purges started as the war was winding down and continued for years.

 

[JNickel101]

I wonder why the guy who wrote that speech isn't running....instead of the guy who got the A+ in performing speeches.

I still think its funny Obama won't do a town hall metting with McCain....he's lost without his teleprompter/podium :roflmao:

 

[tbburg]

I am so glad you asked. :wave1: After reading this three times, I really wanted a good excuse to post it! This is the speech Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois;


...... I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him......


.....Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, .....

First pass through and these 2 beauties just popped right out at me. I wonder what he had in mind,...

 

[Tom R.]

He swore up and down that he was going to take our troops out in a 16 month phased withdrawel.

Yep, and he said he would gather the JCS to discuss the plan to do it. Shows how little he knows about military structure and who actually conducts military operations. To my knowledge, only one commentator picked up on this and pointed out Obama's serious blunder.

If you support socialism, then vote for Obama.

 

[scottmcneal]

So mike, how are you doing today? Just wanted to say hi... :wave:

 

[JNickel101]

lol....and flaunt your sig block

:cheers: i love it....

 

[RichP]

Was that in 73 or 79? If it was in 73 the parked tankers could have been part of the OPEC oil embargo, yes? OPEC flaged ships, dangling oil offshore at us as a way to make their point :twak: to us? But it sounds like you are saying Exxon-Mobil took advantage of the OPEC oil embargo to cut supply further and boost prices.

Were any of those supertankers back then? Where they anchored offshore and pumping the oil to the shore via a pipeline? I don't know or recall enough about the supertankers historical timelines, but I recall plans early on to set up the supertankers to anchore way offshore and have them pump the oil to shore.
Anyway, intersting postes, story and hands on history there, just digging for the rest of the story, the good stuff as you put it!

Super tankers could not get up to the terminals on the delaware till around 84 or thereabouts, not positive of year, my FiL brought the first one up though, the whole family went down to watch and I remember the pilot saying he was sweating bullets the last few miles. No, they were not pumping from underwater lines either. You have to remember too that during that 1st 'shortage' we were still pumping 80% of our own oil domestically. If you research a bit more you will find out that none of the refineries shut down during this period except the normal ones for their yearly maintenance.