Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.
Actually the U.S. imports almost none of its oil from the Middle East.. try again!


Where are we getting oil from after we run out? And - do you realize how much incredible power the United States gains when it controls all of this oil? If a nation were to attack us, we would be able to determine how much they get from our current situation with money 'bribes' in the middle east. There is more reason to control all of the Middle East oil flow than simply our own use.
The U.S. already has incredible power b/c the U.S. already does control all the world's oil, like it has since about 1920 or so.

I don't really care much about what happens when oil "runs out".. in the first place I don't believe oil is about to "run out" anytime soon.. in the second place, even if it did, it's about time we turned to alternative energies anyway..

[antiprefix]

psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.
Actually the U.S. imports almost none of its oil from the Middle East.. try again!


Where are we getting oil from after we run out? And - do you realize how much incredible power the United States gains when it controls all of this oil? If a nation were to attack us, we would be able to determine how much they get from our current situation with money 'bribes' in the middle east. There is more reason to control all of the Middle East oil flow than simply our own use.
The U.S. already has incredible power b/c the U.S. already does control all the world's oil, like it has since about 1920 or so.

I don't really care much about what happens when oil "runs out".. in the first place I don't believe oil is about to "run out" anytime soon.. in the second place, even if it did, it's about time we turned to alternative energies anyway..

Yes but no new renewable energy source alternative has produced even a FRACTION of the power that oil generates now.

So... what do you do now?

[psholtz]

antiprefix wrote: psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.
Actually the U.S. imports almost none of its oil from the Middle East.. try again!


Where are we getting oil from after we run out? And - do you realize how much incredible power the United States gains when it controls all of this oil? If a nation were to attack us, we would be able to determine how much they get from our current situation with money 'bribes' in the middle east. There is more reason to control all of the Middle East oil flow than simply our own use.
The U.S. already has incredible power b/c the U.S. already does control all the world's oil, like it has since about 1920 or so.

I don't really care much about what happens when oil "runs out".. in the first place I don't believe oil is about to "run out" anytime soon.. in the second place, even if it did, it's about time we turned to alternative energies anyway..

Yes but no new renewable energy source alternative has produced even a FRACTION of the power that oil generates now.

So... what do you do now?
I arrest David Rockefeller for high treason. That seems like as constructive a place to start as any..

[Borommakot]

psholtz wrote: Das Uberdog wrote: It doesn't prove that the government of Iran would act recklessly enough to nuke Israel.
Gee, I guess that would be Israel's responsible to look after now wouldn't it... :think:

I guess I'm still trying to figure why I, as an American, should care about this at all. I certainly don't think Iran would be silly enough to nuke the U.S. now would they? No, of course they wouldn't.. and since when was it my responsibility to die for Israel (or any foreign government?)
You should care if Israel is attacked and millions die. Should we care enough to send in an Iraq sized invasion force? Probably not since our economy could be better and the bulk of our troops are in Iraq keeping peace. If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons the nearby countries, i hope, would attack them. What Bush does with this news is another thing.

[psholtz]

Borommakot wrote: psholtz wrote: Das Uberdog wrote: It doesn't prove that the government of Iran would act recklessly enough to nuke Israel.
Gee, I guess that would be Israel's responsible to look after now wouldn't it... :think:

I guess I'm still trying to figure why I, as an American, should care about this at all. I certainly don't think Iran would be silly enough to nuke the U.S. now would they? No, of course they wouldn't.. and since when was it my responsibility to die for Israel (or any foreign government?)
You should care if Israel is attacked and millions die. Should we care enough to send in an Iraq sized invasion force? Probably not since our economy could be better and the bulk of our troops are in Iraq keeping peace. If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons the nearby countries, i hope, would attack them. What Bush does with this news is another thing.
If Israel does get bombed and millions of people die (which is probably inevitable at this point in history anyway), my heart would certainly go out to the victims and I would certainly keep them in my prayers.

However, would I commit U.S. forces to "defending" Israel or "reacting" to such an attack? Most unlikely...

[Nelson]

psholtz wrote:

However, would I commit U.S. forces to "defending" Israel or "reacting" to such an attack? Most unlikely...

There isn't a reason to. That's the idea behind Israel and the US uniting to destroy mutual enemies before Israel is forced to take drastic measures on its own, probably resulting in terrible economic loss in the United States.

[Utopian12]

Just because a country has nuclear weapons dosn't mean they are going to use them. if Iran attacked us or Isreal with nukes we and the whole world would openly turn and decimate them, the whole nation of Iran isn't suicidal, they won't use them! Probably the only reason they might want nukes is so that they can prove to the world that they are ready to join the nuclear age with the rest of us. What we would be doing with a preemptive attack is sentencing people to death before any crime has been committed, it's like not letting people own or build guns because they could potentially use them to kill, it's counter-civil. the American justice system is a wonderful system, alot better than some others that are and have been. One of the best things about it is it's "innocent until proven guilty" idealism.

If the Iranians feel they would be justified in attacking us, what they need is alittle culture shock to get them looking at the future in a more positive way, and not us sinking to that level in savage opposition, the more we fight them the more we are showing them that violent holy wars are the only way to get what you want, and after this war their will be cause for later wars and the cycle of bloodshed will never end. only if we show them that we wish peace will they be able to accept it, and we are going to have to compromise! if we truly wish to be the good guys in this world, we should be as scapegoats, we should open ourselves up to their barbaric attacks and show them that we are indeed ready to die rather than face a future where violence remains to be the language of the cultures.

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: psholtz wrote:

However, would I commit U.S. forces to "defending" Israel or "reacting" to such an attack? Most unlikely...

There isn't a reason to. That's the idea behind Israel and the US uniting to destroy mutual enemies before Israel is forced to take drastic measures on its own, probably resulting in terrible economic loss in the United States.
Why on earth would the U.S. ever want to "unite" w/ Israel?? I couldn't think of two countries which are founded upon more opposite philosophies or principles.. For starters, the U.S. is a land of religious freedom and tolerance, whereas Israel is -- basically by definition -- a land of "either you're a Zionist or you can get the *bleep* out" ...

Soooo... I suppose that's great if you're a Zionist.. more power to you. Now you have a country you can go and live in and feel all better about yourself.. But it's hard to imagine something more at odds with American principles of religious freedom and tolerance..... and that's just the start of dissimiliarties, which I won't go into further on this post.

At any rate, I'm not sure the US and Israel share any "mutual" enemies in common. The only real enemy of the United States always has been (and always will be, until it's eradicated from the face of this planet) the British Crown. Israel, on the other hand, owes its very existence to the British Crown, so...... already you have a huge conflict of interest between Israel and the U.S. right from the get-go.. As far as Israel's Arab enemies go, I'm not sure the U.S. has much of an interest there... a few of the American globalists certainly do (people like Bush or Rockefeller, etc), but once these traitors have been removed from power I'm not sure America will have much of *any* interest *at all* in what happens in the Middle East..

[Alexander The Great]

Nelson wrote: Slippy, you're just as bad as Republicans who compare Iraq to WW2.

Just because someone lies about weapons doesn't mean every time you see weapons it must be fabricated.

Actually it's WW3.
Against terror.

[Nelson]

psholtz wrote:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever want to "unite" w/ Israel?? I couldn't think of two countries which are founded upon more opposite philosophies or principles.. For starters, the U.S. is a land of religious freedom and tolerance, whereas Israel is -- basically by definition -- a land of "either you're a Zionist or you can get the *bleep* out" ...


Maybe I've just been exposed to too many books written by Howard Zinn in my time, but America wasn't exactly founded on the principles of religious freedom and tolerance. The puritans, just like the Jews, were not allowed to freely practice their religion.

Time for a crazy analogy

If there was no America to find(I'd say if America was already inhabited, but of course it already was and that didn't stop the puritans), and there weren't enough puritans to stage a revolution - what do you think the puritans would have done? What if the British Crown had decided to exterminate all of these religious men and women, and killed millions of them in a war? Then, finally, the world had crushed the British empire and the Allied forces of Germany, France, and Russia had decided to give the puritans a plot of land in some far away place.

I think the founders of the United States are much like the founders of Zionism in this way. And, I think if you found Israel to be a much larger country than it is, the idea of 'either you're a zionist or get out' would change, because there wouldn't be such a fear of the jewish race dying out.

psholtz wrote:
Soooo... I suppose that's great if you're a Zionist.. more power to you. Now you have a country you can go and live in and feel all better about yourself.. But it's hard to imagine something more at odds with American principles of religious freedom and tolerance..... and that's just the start of dissimiliarties, which I won't go into further on this post.

Israel upholds religious freedom and tolerance in its court system, and continues to be a country where people are free to express their religious beliefs without fear. Keep in mind, the vast majority of jews are Democrats in the US - and Democrats practically invented the word tolerance.


How do you mean that the US has had control over all oil since 1920, if you exclude its control over any portion of the middle east from that answer?

[psholtz]

Alexander The Great wrote: Nelson wrote: Slippy, you're just as bad as Republicans who compare Iraq to WW2.

Just because someone lies about weapons doesn't mean every time you see weapons it must be fabricated.

Actually it's WW3.
Against terror.
Wonderful.. I guess WW3 is going to be just as successful now as the war against drugs, crime, poverty and .... illiteracy have mmm... mmm.. :think:

Thanks but no thanks. I, for one, opt out of this "war"... I think it's a bunch of BS..

[Secondary Oak]

Anaximander wrote: Honestly, both the President of Israel and Iran are Iranian by birth. Weren't they even from the same town? Can't Israel get around a table with these guys and say; " We got nukes, you probably have or will have, let's admit that if a bomb goes off here, it goes off there as well" ? It worked for The US and the USSR, why not the M.E.?
There's a minor, really tiny difference, though: Israel is recognizing Iran and will be glad to do business with it and engage in diplomatic relations, whereas Iran does not recognize the state of Israel (to the point it will not allow its athletes to compete against Israelis in international competitions), has expressed explicitly its will to destroy Israel, and is actively funding and encouraging terrorist organizations that operate against Israel.

Can Israel get "around a table with these guys"? I'm sure it can, only it's highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Oh, and nobody cares about the Israeli president. A shame you don't see the great parodies about him on TV :lol:

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: How do you mean that the US has had control over all oil since 1920, if you exclude its control over any portion of the middle east from that answer?
The U.S. practice of forcing all oil transactions to be made on the U.S. dollar (i.e., the "petrodollar" pricing system) dates b ack (I believe) to the 1920. If an asset is priced in U.S. dollars, it's automatically a U.S. asset (insofar as its included in US GDP calculations, and other calculations). So technically speaking, the U.S. actually "owns" all the oil under the ground in Saudi Arabia (and everywhere else on earth), since all that oil is priced in U.S. petrodollars.

In other words, the U.S. already has control over all that oil.. it has for nearly a century.

[Nelson]

How does that in any way stop a country from purchasing oil?

Even if the US is at war with say, Japan, why couldn't Japan continue importing oil from the Middle East if the US had no military bases around there.

As far as I am aware, it is more important to actually have military force down there to enforce our regulations than anything else.

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: psholtz wrote:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever want to "unite" w/ Israel?? I couldn't think of two countries which are founded upon more opposite philosophies or principles.. For starters, the U.S. is a land of religious freedom and tolerance, whereas Israel is -- basically by definition -- a land of "either you're a Zionist or you can get the *bleep* out" ...


Maybe I've just been exposed to too many books written by Howard Zinn in my time, but America wasn't exactly founded on the principles of religious freedom and tolerance. The puritans, just like the Jews, were not allowed to freely practice their religion.
Yes, you probably have been reading too much Zinn.. Zinn, remember, is a Communist. I wouldn't trust much of anything that a Communist has to say.

If you're interested in understanding the principles the guided the founding of the American Republic, go back and read your Thomas Paine. He's probably the most important source for American ideals (including the ideals pertaining to religious freedom and tolerance).. also read your Thomas Jefferson (<- who counts the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom as one of his greatest accomplishments) ... Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams are good references here too..

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: How does that in any way stop a country from purchasing oil?

Even if the US is at war with say, Japan, why couldn't Japan continue importing oil from the Middle East if the US had no military bases around there.

As far as I am aware, it is more important to actually have military force down there to enforce our regulations than anything else.
It doesn't stop anybody from buying oil... why on earth would you want that? What it does do is force them to first buy U.S. dollars, which they then use to buy U.S. dollars, thereby artificially inflating the value of U.S. dollars.

Remember, the most important "export" the U.S. has produced since 1913 have been paper Federal Reserve Notes (those green things in your wallet that you probably understand to be "U.S. dollars", even though technically speaking this is a highly fraudulent name for those things).

Also, if the U.S. is fighting a war w/ Japan, why on earth would the U.S. want to stop Japan's oil imports? Remember, per my first two paragraphs, it's the bankers who are running and profiting from this whole racket, and they make even more profit from wars. It would be important for them to biuld up the Japanese war machine as powerfully as possible, so the U.S. and Japan could fight a nice, long, costly, bloody, debt-infested war..

Certainly they wouldn't want to stop Japanese oil imports.. that'd be insane if they're prepping Japan for a war w/ the U.S... :?

any other questions? 8)

[Nelson]

Haha nope.

I'm going to go find me a Jew and force em to tell me the truth 'bout this global domination thingamajig.

Thanks for the 'truth' of the matter, Psholtz.

[psholtz]

Nelson wrote: If there was no America to find(I'd say if America was already inhabited, but of course it already was and that didn't stop the puritans), and there weren't enough puritans to stage a revolution - what do you think the puritans would have done? What if the British Crown had decided to exterminate all of these religious men and women, and killed millions of them in a war? Then, finally, the world had crushed the British empire and the Allied forces of Germany, France, and Russia had decided to give the puritans a plot of land in some far away place.
The "puritans" didn't stage any Revolution in 1776.. the merchants did. America was founded as a British merchant/trading colony, and America has therefore always been a very "mercantile" nation, run (politically at least) by the "merchant" interests.

The rest of your paragraph is ... as you say, somewhat insane.. :lol:

Quote: I think the founders of the United States are much like the founders of Zionism in this way.
You would think that. You would also be extraordinarily wrong.

Quote: and Democrats practically invented the word tolerance.
Democrats are quite possibly the most bigoted, intellectually-intolerant, narrow-minded political group in America.. I won't comment further on this nonesense other than to repeat (again) that Democrats are quite possibly the most bigoted, intellectually-intolerant, narrow-minded political group in America. Certainly they're not the party of religious "tolerance"..

You're mistaking freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The Democrats are more for atheism (as per Communism) than they are about freedom of worship..

[Alexander The Great]

psholtz wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Nelson wrote: Slippy, you're just as bad as Republicans who compare Iraq to WW2.

Just because someone lies about weapons doesn't mean every time you see weapons it must be fabricated.

Actually it's WW3.
Against terror.
Wonderful.. I guess WW3 is going to be just as successful now as the war against drugs, crime, poverty and .... illiteracy have mmm... mmm.. :think:

Thanks but no thanks. I, for one, opt out of this "war"... I think it's a bunch of BS..

At least give it a shot.
Maybe it'll be succesful?

[psholtz]

Alexander The Great wrote: psholtz wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: Nelson wrote: Slippy, you're just as bad as Republicans who compare Iraq to WW2.

Just because someone lies about weapons doesn't mean every time you see weapons it must be fabricated.

Actually it's WW3.
Against terror.
Wonderful.. I guess WW3 is going to be just as successful now as the war against drugs, crime, poverty and .... illiteracy have mmm... mmm.. :think:

Thanks but no thanks. I, for one, opt out of this "war"... I think it's a bunch of BS..

At least give it a shot.
Maybe it'll be succesful?
It's a scam and a fraud and the entire U.S. government (save for perhaps a handful of individuals) should be arrested and prosecuted on racketeering charges stemming from this fraud (as well as many many other frauds)..

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "giving it a short", thanks..