I was under the impression that these constant attacks by insurgent forces in Iraq on the pipelines were the reason the prices are higher -causing a decrease in output.

Charlie I am PRO-CHOICE

I want to CHOOSE what school my tax dollars sends my children to.

I want to CHOOSE what retirement account my hard earned money goes into, so that it is there for when (and if) I get there.

And I want women to be able to CHOOSE what to do with their bodies. You are not happy with that. Now you want me to be for this choice for the exact same reason as you are for it. NOT HAPPENING!

No, I am not holding you to a different standard. It is about choice. You don’t even choose the right thing to do. You want the government to make all of us do it.
“I don’t drive a Mini Cooper because you don’t, and unless the government makes us I won’t, even if it is better for my health and well being.”

THIS IS THE LOGIC THAT WE ARE DEBATING AGAINST! IGNORANCE RUNS RAMPANT IN THIS WORLD!

- i replyed to thachize’s comments of the rainforest in which he said we had better things that were more important which is completely not true and i gave an example of skin cancer which is caused by UV rays from the holes in the ozone layer that WE created.

- saddam may not have stood on the conditions, but if we had the guy, why didn’t we take him out during the gulf war? seems to me that we were saving his punishment for something much more big.

- clinton’s era may have produced negative results in the stock market and economy and so, but if the bush adminstration had the right mind, wouldn’t they act instead of leaving the economy to fall into a pitfall? his tax cuts may satisfy the general public, but we’re still suffering from high oil prices (which effects nearly everything else.)

- the fact that we overtook iraq should explain the state in whcih the middle eastern media is. remember the news channels of iraq showing the beheadings? they have been shushed so far, and the news station that Bin Laden’s tapes were aired most frequently was shut down for a month, probably to be replaced by an american controlled press. we want the enemy to like us, so we control what they see.

WWII:
Yes, we were attacked by Japan and we did declare war on both Japan and Germany. However, after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us. Besides, German U-Boats sunk many of our merchant ships heading towards England, I think that serves enough as an attack to something from us. Wouldn’t it be resonable to enter the war by going against the AXIS evne if certain parties of them didn’t attack us (say Italy)?

Korean War:
At that time, in the beginning of the Cold War, we are doing much of what we’re doing now, declaring war on a hardly existant enemy. What I mean is, if we’re declaring war on terror, back durign the Korean War, you could say that we declared war on COMMUNISM. Same goes for Vietnam.

But see, the fact that most American’s could give a less of shit about history makes them ignorant. You brought up numbers of deaths in our current war compared to the larger amounts in the previous wars. Oh, c’mon. America’s army is pretty damn good with all its state-of-the-art equipment, and we’re going against a bunch of raggy rebels equiped with an AK and probably religious literature. I wonder who’ll have more deaths? In WWII we went against countries like GERMANY & JAPAN. They had considerable wealth, yet we squashed them but, yes, losing a lot of soldiers at the same time. I’m sure you could say that Vietnam, we had advanced weapons, but unlike the open spaced battle grounds of Iraq (most of it is done in desert surroundings), Vietnam had lots of foilage and the Vietcongs were experts in manuvering with guerrilla tactics. AN ENEMY UNDERESTIMATED.

So what have we learned? WWII - all guts and glory, we overthrow Hitler and crush the AXIS. Korean War - we gained land almost all of Korea was ours, until we lost it all and was pushed back to the boundary of communist and independent which we have today. So that was a loss. Vietnam - after retreating and political issues, vietnam was overtaken from the northern communist party, until recently it became independent, mostly ON ITS OWN.

So a war based on the same situation as the last two failed ones (highly advanced soldiers go against rebels) you’d think we’d spend more time being cautious than using heaps of manpower and lives of soldiers to try to win. Hell, this war’s not even over, and when it does, I bet the death count would probably be up there.