Obama Opinions?

[Andy Moore]

Discuss.

[tymill]

It's a bright day!

[General Accident]

Good luck to the guy. He'll need it as he has an awful lot of damage to straighten out (political, diplomatic, economic etc) but I hope we see a new style of leadership now. I think the right man won. I may eat my words in a few years but for now :thumbsup:

[Alfonzo]

I'm chuffed he won, seems like a good guy - I hope so. Talk about a workload though, there's a few things to be sorted! Hope he can make a difference.
Wasn't at all keen on that Palin woman, so today's a good day in my books.

[Lee]

He cant be any worse than our leader.

Whoever voted gorgon brown in needs shooting, oh yes thats right we didnt get a choice :thumbdown:

[Northy]

I'm happy, I had a bet on him winning :woot:

G

[Chequered Flag Racing]

Whoever voted gorgon brown in needs shooting, oh yes thats right we didnt get a choice :thumbdown:

Talking with someone somewere and rumours are about that may happen to Obama before he's served a year in office :woot:. Not that I have any contacts you understand.


Rather see him in office than the other guy what ever his name is. Think he's to Old Skool for the modern day issue's. WW2 and and this is how we did it in my day sonny, etc.

[James]

He cant be any worse than our leader.

Whoever voted gorgon brown in needs shooting, oh yes thats right we didnt get a choice :thumbdown:

Agree, we should be able to vote party leaders in or out like the US.

Obamas a good thing, but change never happens overnight ...


ps. was 'gorgon brown' an intentional typo :woot:

[James]

I'm happy, I had a bet on him winning :woot:

G

1:1 ?

[trekkerkk]

mccain wouldve been to much like bush:thumbdown:
obama should be so much better:thumbsup:

trekkker

[Ted Maul]

I think Obama is a LIPO kinda guy, wheras McCain is still extolling the virtues of SAFT nicads....

[Northy]

1:1 ?

Lets just say I made money Ralph, and leave it at that :woot::woot::woot:

G

[stegger]

Agree, we should be able to vote party leaders in or out like the US.

Obamas a good thing, but change never happens overnight ...


ps. was 'gorgon brown' an intentional typo :woot:

You can if you join a party;) but is it worth it ? they are all career politicians who are just there to line there own pockets and who will sell their own memoirs after they leave office:cry:

[Lee]

Anyone seen the genius email going round with Obama on the bank note :thumbsup:

[Southwell]

No, hook me up. :woot:

[Lee]

Pm me your address :D

[mole2k]

With any luck he might be less likely to cause nuclear winter :p

[Andy Moore]

Interesting. Do you guys feel there is any danger of Obama changing the American system into socialism?

[ashleyb4]

It said on the news he was afro american but where is his afro?

A

[racingdwarf]

Interesting. Do you guys feel there is any danger of Obama changing the American system into socialism?

Yer, I heard this , I'm no expert in these things, but sombody was saying to me that Obama is like our labour sorta thing....God help you if you have now got a Mr Brown:woot:

He is also not keen on Iraq and afganistan.....I can see us being left carrying the can so to spk.......just have to wait

But I think he's a better choice than the other guy,

[glypo]

People don't consider policies though.

People seem to think Obama is the best thing ever, but some of his policies are a bit naff. Obama has talked against free trade, which should be a massive worry for us and the rest of the world. History has shown (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) that policies against free trade are very bad. The last time it happened it lead to the worst economic crisis ever and then the start of WW1. McCain is a big supporter of free trade, so with him there would not be this issue.

If I was an American, I probably would have voted for Obama. He has better tax policy for most. And Palin would have really put me off, I wouldn't have been able to trust a jesus nut like her. The world was not created 10,000 years ago, dinosaurs do exist and evolution is proven science - not a weak theory. Oh yeah, it’s a woman’s right if she has an abortion, not her decision. If McCain wasn’t a little too old, or there was a different VP nominee I think McCain would have been the better candidate.

We are facing a big economic crisis and now the president of the richest country is someone who has really come out of nowhere and has so little political experience. I just hope this doesn’t turn bad in a few years, or even months. Neither candidate is perfect, far from it, so I can’t see why everyone is so happy about Obama? I would have voted Obama probably if I was an American. But as a Brit, I can’t help but fear maybe McCain would be the better choice for the world and its economy.

Who knows, time will tell.

[c0sie]

Wow...deep thoughts Jason O.O

lol

[Juddy]

I think he is certainly a socilaist, and with Democrate control of the senate and house of representatives, he should'nt meet too much opersion in acting in a more liberal way.

But its promises of tax cuts for 95% of the population he might find diffecult to uphold, money needs to be spent and it has to come from somewhere.

He's got a tough job and he can only go one way now in public opinion, and thats down over the next few years, as he'll have to upset a few people. But lets hope he'll be remembered in 8 years as the man who changed modern world politics for the better ( which is about as far as our interests go).

But from M,L,K to B,O,B in 40 odd years, Mind boggling.:thumbsup:

[glypo]

In the long time it took me to write the above (had emails to send in between) there was mention of socialism by Obama. I think this is a silly American fear. Americas fear socialism because of WW2 (Nazi) and Cold War (Soviets), although both of these parties got in power on the promise of socialism, none of them actually delivered it. They both turned into states which just took advantage of their powers and were mostly capitalist rather than communist. Calling Obama a socilaist though, as many americans seem to think, is so silly. Obama is centre-left, and McCain centre-right. Neither of the candidates were even just left or right, let alone far-left or far-right. I think that Obama is jsut trying to take America into the kind of systems Europe has had for ages.

Many places, including here in the UK have national healthcare that is free (taxed). It makes no difference if you are rich or poor, when you fall ill you will get treated. There is no fear of massive medical bills or huge insurance premiums, and the healthcare is pretty good too. The UK is certainly not socialist, yet we have had systems like this since the 50's. Sure, our taxes are very high. Obama won't copy things exactly, but just take the best bits of a good idea.

IMO the best president in recent times was Bill Clinton by far. He was young (47) like Obama is (he will be 48 when takes office) and is also Democrat (centre left) like Clinton is. Clinton left the white house with the US having a $550 billion surplus - that is a lot! I am not saying Obama will be anything like Clinton (I fear he won't be nearly as good) but there is certainly nothing wrong with being a little to the left in America (unlike here where Labour can't get any worse). Clinton also wanted to reform healthcare too, couldn't get the people to buy it. But if he thought it was a good idea...

[Alfonzo]

Interesting. Do you guys feel there is any danger of Obama changing the American system into socialism?

Doesn't make much difference to us non Americans. Your idea of Socialism is probably our idea of mild 'right wing' TBH. I don't know what he intends as a direction but the rest of the world is largely pretty weary with Bush and all his dumb ass nonsense. Obama is young, intelligent, talks a good talk. Maybe it'll do some good with the Iraq and Afghanistan, although regarding 'carrying the can ourselves' (Racingdwarf) - I don't think we could even if we wanted to.

Glypo is right regarding that Palin nutter. As a non-American let me make it clear to all the US Ooplers out there - we generally can't understand and don't like all that crazy Palin sh*t.

Anyway, good luck to you with the new Big Man, hope it works for us all :thumbsup:

[c0sie]

Am I the only person who would do the Palin bird once the alcohol had kicked in?

:blush: :eh?:

[Alfonzo]

Am I the only person who would do the Palin bird once the alcohol had kicked in?

:blush: :eh?:

There's always one who lowers the tone :thumbsup::woot:

[c0sie]

:blush: :woot:

[Fabs]

People don't consider policies though.

People seem to think Obama is the best thing ever, but some of his policies are a bit naff. Obama has talked against free trade, which should be a massive worry for us and the rest of the world. History has shown (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) that policies against free trade are very bad. The last time it happened it lead to the worst economic crisis ever and then the start of WW1. McCain is a big supporter of free trade, so with him there would not be this issue.

If I was an American, I probably would have voted for Obama. He has better tax policy for most. And Palin would have really put me off, I wouldn't have been able to trust a jesus nut like her. The world was not created 10,000 years ago, dinosaurs do exist and evolution is proven science - not a weak theory. Oh yeah, it’s a woman’s right if she has an abortion, not her decision. If McCain wasn’t a little too old, or there was a different VP nominee I think McCain would have been the better candidate.

We are facing a big economic crisis and now the president of the richest country is someone who has really come out of nowhere and has so little political experience. I just hope this doesn’t turn bad in a few years, or even months. Neither candidate is perfect, far from it, so I can’t see why everyone is so happy about Obama? I would have voted Obama probably if I was an American. But as a Brit, I can’t help but fear maybe McCain would be the better choice for the world and its economy.

Who knows, time will tell.


I disagree with you, free trade got us in this particular crisis and something needs to be done in order not to let it go out of control again. Mc Cain a better candidate? That's like saying that bush was a good president :thumbdown:

[glypo]

Glad you disagree, I like discussion.

But free trade did not get us into this at all. There is a massive difference between free trade and deregulation. Deregulation is bad, and it's Gordon Browns deregulation of our banks that messed them up, and the deregulation of Wall Street that caused this crisis.

How can free trade cause a crisis though? Free trade just means everyone is free to trade with each other. Of course, every country has their import duty though, but it's not the same.

The idea of restricted trade is to tax heavily certain items being imported to encourage people to buy products made in their home country. This is the basis of restricted trade, how can you get Americans to buy American cars - heavily tax the European and Japanese ones. In theory it sounds like a good idea. But of course the rest of the world suffers, so as the international market drops as a result, domestic markets also drop when trade is restricted. Whether we like it or not, all of our economies are connected. Of course, when trade restrictions are put in place by one country, other countries (the ones affected) put in place restrictions of their own to retaliate and soon enough the whole world is doing it and we are at a world war.

Google for Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, there is bound to be a good wiki article on it, a perfect example of how to turn a recession into depression. This shows the consequence of restricted trade, and it's something Obama is in favour of to "boost" the American economy. Therefore I totally disagree with what you said, Free trade is not responsible for the current mess. Free trade is in fact responsible for every boom the worlds economy has seen. I really think you are confusing it with deregulation - which I agree is bad to an extent, although there needs to be a certain amount of compromise.

And I never said McCain was the better candidate. I simply pointed pointed out that Obama is not some amazing hero as it seems the media and general opinion seem to suggest. Both candidates have their strengths, and both certainly have their weaknesses. I was simply trying to give a fairer picture of the real world situation.

It's all very well for you to say McCain would be like another Bush, but it's totally unfounded. Without at least explianing the logic behind your comment it appears as a meaningless comment with no real weight as an arguement. McCain has a great track record in politics and has done lots of good for America, IMO a far cry from Bush.

As I say if I was an American, I think I would have voted Obama. But I think it would have been a tough choice. Regardless of impressions, you can never predict the future. I just hope for eveyones sake Obama is the right guy.

[Stu]

It's strange to see the words 'USA' & 'Socialism' together - it's a bit like 'Ice-cream' & 'Gravy'.

I find it very hard to beleive that the people of the US will allow Lady-Liberty to be eaten away in the same way we have in recent years.

[Al3xis007]

dont forget america added to the sticky financial situation we're in. i hope this guy can sort out the mess the last doofus left

[DaveG28]

Agree, we should be able to vote party leaders in or out like the US.

Obamas a good thing, but change never happens overnight ...


ps. was 'gorgon brown' an intentional typo :woot:

Have to disagree, for myself I prefer voting in a government than a person, if we voted for the leader, what if his party disagree with him? a PM cannot make law, only the house of parliament, so he'd have no power anyway!?

Go down that road and we end up with a president, senate, congress etc. Personally I prefer our method, but I don't claim it to be "right", just my preference!

[DaveG28]

Glad you disagree, I like discussion.

But free trade did not get us into this at all. There is a massive difference between free trade and deregulation. Deregulation is bad, and it's Gordon Browns deregulation of our banks that messed them up, and the deregulation of Wall Street that caused this crisis.

How can free trade cause a crisis though? Free trade just means everyone is free to trade with each other. Of course, every country has their import duty though, but it's not the same.

The idea of restricted trade is to tax heavily certain items being imported to encourage people to buy products made in their home country. This is the basis of restricted trade, how can you get Americans to buy American cars - heavily tax the European and Japanese ones. In theory it sounds like a good idea. But of course the rest of the world suffers, so as the international market drops as a result, domestic markets also drop when trade is restricted. Whether we like it or not, all of our economies are connected. Of course, when trade restrictions are put in place by one country, other countries (the ones affected) put in place restrictions of their own to retaliate and soon enough the whole world is doing it and we are at a world war.

Google for Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, there is bound to be a good wiki article on it, a perfect example of how to turn a recession into depression. This shows the consequence of restricted trade, and it's something Obama is in favour of to "boost" the American economy. Therefore I totally disagree with what you said, Free trade is not responsible for the current mess. Free trade is in fact responsible for every boom the worlds economy has seen. I really think you are confusing it with deregulation - which I agree is bad to an extent, although there needs to be a certain amount of compromise.

And I never said McCain was the better candidate. I simply pointed pointed out that Obama is not some amazing hero as it seems the media and general opinion seem to suggest. Both candidates have their strengths, and both certainly have their weaknesses. I was simply trying to give a fairer picture of the real world situation.

It's all very well for you to say McCain would be like another Bush, but it's totally unfounded. Without at least explianing the logic behind your comment it appears as a meaningless comment with no real weight as an arguement. McCain has a great track record in politics and has done lots of good for America, IMO a far cry from Bush.

As I say if I was an American, I think I would have voted Obama. But I think it would have been a tough choice. Regardless of impressions, you can never predict the future. I just hope for eveyones sake Obama is the right guy.

Completely with you, right down to the bit where I'd also probably have voted for him, but with some trepadation. Not afraid of the US version of socialism (its probably still to the right of our Tories!), but free trade for me is vital. For one, if he US protected their car industry I'm out of a job!!

I do have a sneaky feelig Obama wil be fine with free trade now he doesn't have the votes to win!!

[ashleyb4]

Aslong as he pulls the yanks out of iraq i dont car what he does.

A

[Lee]

Why do you want them out ash, they are there for a reason :confused:

[jimmy]

TO STEAL THE OIL AND MAKE YOU RICH LEE :woot:

[Lee]

Its quite funny that the oil companies control the price of oil to a point, when it is demand, they will hold back on production to keep the price high, but still make a lot of money. I personally dont see any advantage to bringing troops out of iraq, it will just end up being corrupt again and the rich getting richer, the way they work is, if you dont do what we say, we will set alight to an oil well :woot:

Which gets a bit warm :o

[James]

While we're moaning; well youre all paying a fair bit for your groceries but grain price (which basically effects most food prices) is currently £83/tonne and has been for about 2 months, this time last year it was £142.. Yet absolutely no reductions by the supermarkets in price, they increase it at the drop of a hat but wont reduce it when prices are lower.. Also their payment terms are now 90 days to suppliers, outrageous :mad:

[Fabs]

Its quite funny that the oil companies control the price of oil to a point, when it is demand, they will hold back on production to keep the price high, but still make a lot of money. I personally dont see any advantage to bringing troops out of iraq, it will just end up being corrupt again and the rich getting richer, the way they work is, if you dont do what we say, we will set alight to an oil well :woot:

Which gets a bit warm :o


Maybe the whole point is that you shouldn't be there in the first place, in my book it's called invasion.

[Northy]

*ding ding* round 1 *ding ding*

This thread is getting good :thumbsup:

[Lee]

How can you invade something that does not belong to anyone, nobody owns oil/gas until it is extracted from the ground, a company such as shell/ bp etc will come along and put forward a case to prove they have the money/ capabilities to extract the oil, when they get first oil onto the deck is when they start to pay a tax to the local government, the amount depends on regions but lets just say its billions a year.
If you were in iraq now, would you prefer a group of villagers pulling oil out of the desert or a respectful oil company who work safely and produce quality goods. The truth of the matter is that right now, there are next to no oil companies that will touch iraq because it is too volatile and they would have to pay extortionate rates to get engineers out there. I know I wouldn’t go for less than 300k tax free and even then it would be a last resort.
Please get your facts straight fabs, its called business and the way of the world, on a side note, do you feel the french have invaded the uk because Total have a huge presence in the north sea and centrica own british gas to name just 2?

[jimmy]

Unless fabs talks in riddles - he was clearly talking about troops and countries, not oil companies and oil fields. :p

[James]

The governmet owns all energy minerals in the UK (coal/oil/gas), pre and post extraction dont they? Erm well actually i know they do :eh?:

[burgie]

if that is the case, they should put an upper limit on the resale value of "our" own commodities.

[footey]

if all the troops are pulled out of IRAQ or AFGANISTAN then it means many people will have died for nothing :( so they should stay there untill the job they started is finished

[Lee]

The governmet owns all energy minerals in the UK (coal/oil/gas), pre and post extraction dont they? Erm well actually i know they do :eh?:

UK yes, james, onshore definately, just like if you found oil in a field, its not yours :thumbdown:

[footey]

i didnt know that lee that is rubish :confused:

[Lee]

Yup the UK is shhhheeeeeeiiiiiitttttteeee :thumbdown:

[DaveG28]

Lee, are you saying troops should be in a country to help oil companies get oil?? Or have you misread Fabs post??

Does the Iraq gov own all Iraqi oil by the way, or does some go to the US to pay for "liberating" them? And who decides which companies get the contracts to extract?

[Alfonzo]

Now there're some questions! :confused::woot:

[Lee]

Lee, are you saying troops should be in a country to help oil companies get oil?? Or have you misread Fabs post??

Does the Iraq gov own all Iraqi oil by the way, or does some go to the US to pay for "liberating" them? And who decides which companies get the contracts to extract?

No, dave it looks like i misread his post.

Although the government dont actually own the oil, its usually down to them and some commission who will decide who wins the contract, you will also find there is only ever 1 bidder;)


Companies will only ever research new areas and if there is a chance of oil then they are lucky, it has been known for companies to spend millions in exploration and building in a platform only to find that its hot air down there:thumbdown:

With regards to keeping troops in, i think the country is now a more stable and a better place to live. Could you imagine living there under saddams reign. Its not war right now, is there a major difference in what they are doing now to what they did in northern ireland :confused:


Its also recently been announced that iraq will have a say in who extracts their oil, and whoever gets the contract will have to join up with iraqi companies as a joint venture so that there is no strangle hold, this will also ease pressure as the government will not be seeing to bowing to the western world even though they know they cant do it themselves. This will be a massive turnoff for the uk companies and those of the western world, you will probably find the likes of saudi aramco get in there through the back door

[DaveG28]

No, dave it looks like i misread his post.

Although the government dont actually own the oil, its usually down to them and some commission who will decide who wins the contract, you will also find there is only ever 1 bidder;)


Companies will only ever research new areas and if there is a chance of oil then they are lucky, it has been known for companies to spend millions in exploration and building in a platform only to find that its hot air down there:thumbdown:

With regards to keeping troops in, i think the country is now a more stable and a better place to live. Could you imagine living there under saddams reign. Its not war right now, is there a major difference in what they are doing now to what they did in northern ireland :confused:

I agree they shouldn't just leave, and we should finish the job, I don't think we should have gone in at all though!! How long would it have taken Saddam to do this much damage? Water/electricity shortages as well as all the death and destruction!?

Generally I also think oil co's have a hard job in exploration etc when the Market fluctuates, for example Canadian Tar Sand development that's not viable at todays prices but was in the summer!! They could help themselves though with better PR!!!

[DaveG28]

Its up to Iraq who to have, if they want the Saudi's or joint ventures, they are a sovereign country!

[Lee]

They do a lot though to be fair but and give a lot back to communities, but its all in the name of offsetting tax, just like any other company would. Oil companies dont need to be everyones friend they look after their employees and do their best for the environment, if they dont then this hits them harder than any other publicity they plan to do. You would be suprised how many people would stop using shell fuels just because it was proven it died from a shell oil spillage, but its ok for pharmaceutical companies to sell pills which make people manic depressives after 6 months, but people dont think that those companies still make paracetamol or this years flu jab.

I thought saddam was already committing murder and that he killed hundreds didnt he?


The Tar sand development is going to kick off pretty soon, and there is already areas in the uk where they are gearing up for it, south wales being one ;)

[Lee]

Its up to Iraq who to have, if they want the Saudi's or joint ventures, they are a sovereign country!

Yes it is and they are trying to put off the western bidders with a 35% tax on any oil extracted.

Supposedly most of the major oil execs had left the pre bid meeting/breifing before the iraqi's had even addressed the media.

The successful bidders will be announced within 6 months, and their are some very stringent conditions, such as iraqis top to bottom with minimal expats, this just spells disaster in my eyes :thumbdown:

[DaveG28]

And the whole point is if it's a disaster they will get voted out and a gov will be elected which likes western companies more, so it's not a problem!

We killed more than hundreds by the way, or at least what we started has! Way more civilians than Saddam. Plus health/education/utilities have been made worse by us!

I think you'll find big Pharm co's get a bad press too Lee, do you have to be ex directory so some nut job can't find you and send a letterbomb? My bro does, just for working in medical research!

[Lee]

And the whole point is if it's a disaster they will get voted out and a gov will be elected which likes western companies more, so it's not a problem!

Its a big problem if you have just been awarded a 20 year contract:thumbdown:

We killed more than hundreds by the way, or at least what we started has! Way more civilians than Saddam. Plus health/education/utilities have been made worse by us!

But things had to get worse in order to get better, there are always casualties in war its a fact of life, im sure if innocent people could have been spared they would have

I think you'll find big Pharm co's get a bad press too Lee, do you have to be ex directory so some nut job can't find you and send a letterbomb? My bro does, just for working in medical research!

Yes been there done that, i have worked for 3 Pharma companies in my time, had protesters at the gates etc. My point was if you buy oil you know whose oil you are buying from (unless its a supermarket) if your buying tablets you dont 9 times out of 10, i just used that industry as an example

[millzy]

kay ha mi song chi cha so sonee fia.

means look at these two idiots

[DaveG28]

I'm sure our troops did what they could to minimise casualties, but who gave us the right to make the decision to make it worse???

I see your point about the 20 year contract, but again as a sovereign country, that's their right. What alternative method would you prefer for the decision to be made?

[Lee]

I'm sure our troops did what they could to minimise casualties, but who gave us the right to make the decision to make it worse???

I see your point about the 20 year contract, but again as a sovereign country, that's their right. What alternative method would you prefer for the decision to be made?


To stay out of the iraqi oil until it has settled completely and has proven its stability without western interference and corruption, possibly even silently subsidised by the western world as iraq needs money which is why they have opened bidding for oil again. When they have proven that then they should allow companies to come in and extract the oil at a discounted rate of tax until the money is repaid.


I dont think tony blair or bush wole up one morning and said "lets wreck iraq". How do we know its just out bombs that have taken down schools, treatment plants etc, do they not have suicide bombers?


Millzy, is that welsh or just your usual shite? :woot:

[DaveG28]

Yeah they have suicide bombers now. Just didn't before we turned up...

[Lee]

No they just killed people under saddams orders, its the same but it wasnt on every news channel and the net as soon as it happened for all to see.

[DaveG28]

No they just killed people under saddams orders, its the same but it wasnt on every news channel and the net as soon as it happened for all to see.


Not as many people. Not as frequently.

No one argues Saddam was nice, but that doesn't make what we did right. Still, can't see anyones opinion changing this long after the event so Millzy is probably right! Probably best to agree to disagree!

[Fabs]

Fact : There were no WMD in Iraq.

Fact : The US did not go there to free the iraqui people. If they did, why don't they go and free the people of EVERY country where a dictature is in place? Why don't they do anything in the many african countries at war?

Fact : Hussein's regime was a hard dictatorship, BUT he managed to keep the terrorists at bay, it's the invasion by the US military that allowed terrorists to get in there.

Fact : the only reason the US went there were that they weren't winning the war in Afghanistan AND they wanted the oil.

Fact : People die all the time in Iraq as a result of bombings.

How can you say it's a better place now and WHO gave the US the RIGHT to invade them? What would any of you were to say if another country invaded yours because they wanted to? What would you say if they demoted your leaders and put a regime on the model of theirs ignoring totally what the culture of your country is?

While I totally agree that Saddam's regime had to end, so do a lot of others and nothing is done about it. AND it has to be done through the people's will NOT forced by another country through invasion.

I am so glad my country didn't go to Iraq, this is maybe the only good thing our former president did...

[Lee]

How can you say it's a better place now and WHO gave the US the RIGHT to invade them? What would any of you were to say if another country invaded yours because they wanted to? What would you say if they demoted your leaders and put a regime on the model of theirs ignoring totally what the culture of your country is?...

Nobody gives someone a right to invade, if they did it would be called an invite, 2 of the worlds most powerful men had to make a decision and they had to stick by it or sit back and watch. Its not about oil, they will never make back in oil profits what they have spent on the war.



I am so glad my country didn't go to Iraq,

Only because they couldn't decide what side to join up with or who was winning :woot:

[Fabs]

Nobody gives someone a right to invade, if they did it would be called an invite, 2 of the worlds most powerful men had to make a decision and they had to stick by it or sit back and watch. Its not about oil, they will never make back in oil profits what they have spent on the war.

It was all about the Oil, the rebuild works etc... Maybe Blair was fooled by Bush but the US never went there for any other reason than to try and boost their economy.

[Lee]

so why spend 100's of billions of dollars if it was to boost their economy, the US is or could be self sufficient.

If your honest, saddam had to be stopped and nobody else had the balls to stop him. im not saying its right in what they did but he had to be stopped somehow

[footey]

its NOT about why they went in its now about the thousands of people that have lost there lifes if we was to pull out it would all be for nothing as it would go back to how it was run so they have to stay in there

[Lee]

exactly :thumbsup:

[DaveG28]

its NOT about why they went in its now about the thousands of people that have lost there lifes if we was to pull out it would all be for nothing as it would go back to how it was run so they have to stay in there
Agree we can't pull out now, I think we owe it to Iraq to see it out!

[Doomanic]

I am so glad my country didn't go to Iraq, we were too busy waving a white flag...

Fixed that for you.

[jimmy]

Bit of xenophobia and flag waving always goes down well. I find some of these posts slightly off topic and offensive so lets calm it down guys and keep on topic or take it onto some sort of politics discussion site as we don't want anyone falling out on here.

[DaveG28]

Sorry Jimmy! Hopefully not fallen out with anyone, like I said earlier am happy to agree to disagree!

[glypo]

Dick Cheney, former CEO and major share holder of Haliburton advises Bush to invade Iraq, one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

Haliburton is very involved in oil... and also who also got billions worth of supply contracts in Iraq... Haliburton. Dick Cheney profited hugely from it, as did the whole of the administration. Anyone who doesn't think the war was about oil is blind.

One of my brothers used to work for Haliburton, and when the war was first proposed he said straight away it was about oil while people were still talking about WMDs. America has nowhere near enough oil to sustain itself, so has to rely on states that aren't exactly friendly to it. So Iraq not only gives the administration money, but helps ensure their energy supply for the future.

We have the Falklands, plenty of oil there for when the North Sea runs out (though it's deep and hard rock and horrible ocean, but when there is enough demand...).

We can't just pull out of Iraq, it needs to be carefully planned. So I agree with the above also.

Anyone notice this on BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7709534.stm

I can't believe I share fears with Murdoch :wtf:

[Smartalec]

How much are they?

[Smartalec]

Oops, sorry, I misread the post .................... I thought it said 'who'll buy my pinions' :blush:

[DaveG28]

How much are they?

Oops, sorry, I misread the post .................... I thought it said 'who'll buy my pinions' :blush:


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[bondy]

Time for a go !!!!

Although I belive that oil is a major factor in the situation If the offending parties had not invited an invasion then things might be different !

Sadam started it all in the first place by invading a neigbouring country which he new all to well would be protected by us and the USA!!!
Thick or what ??? or intelligent maybee he new they would not finnish the job !

Then after he got away with that he then most likely funds and supports an extremist group who basically gave the USA the best excuse ever to finnish the job !

Put into simple terms !

Some one attacks your mate and trys to nick his sweets which he shares with you, you help defend him !

Someone smacks you in the gob ! You give him a smack back and take his sweets !

If that someone is a lot bigger than you then you deserve everything you get! :D


As for Obama which this thread was origionaly for "Give the guy a chance he has 4 years to try and sort things out " can he be any worse than bush ??? only time will tell !

[Southwell]

Imo it doesn't seem to matter who gets into power and what their intensions are the public always seems to get fisted.

[showtime]

at my work they're already running a book on how long before he's asassinated :eh?:




i'm more interested in the age old arguments like electric vs nitro :thumbsup:

[Fabs]

Electric nitro sucks :p

[Andy Moore]

Very interesting points guys, I appreciate the commentary. Its rather difficult to get an opinion which isnt highly biased here in the US, as everyone gets theirs news from the same places and has one of two very narrow viewpoints.

[DaveG28]

Very interesting points guys, I appreciate the commentary. Its rather difficult to get an opinion which isnt highly biased here in the US, as everyone gets theirs news from the same places and has one of two very narrow viewpoints.

Yeah that's something I've noticed on US news, they tend to get one republican and one democrat in to have an argument, rather than one commentator with a more balanced view! It's highly entertaining, but makes it a pain to work out the truth of things politically!!

Gotta love Fox news though, they are something else, we've nothing like that over here, so amazingly biased!!

[Lee]

Electric nitro



Where can you race these, they sound ace :woot:

[Andy Moore]

Yeah that's something I've noticed on US news, they tend to get one republican and one democrat in to have an argument, rather than one commentator with a more balanced view! It's highly entertaining, but makes it a pain to work out the truth of things politically!!

Gotta love Fox news though, they are something else, we've nothing like that over here, so amazingly biased!!

CNBC and CNN provide the biased viewpoint from the other end of the spectrum though. Fox just counteracts them.

[SlowOne]

There is more than a likeness to the election of John F Kennedy in 1960. He was the outsider, the charismatic young man who had the right things to say and was seen as hope for the future. Yet still there was a load of concerns about Socialism and Social Security and a National Health.

As it turned out, Kennedy was the man who faced down Nikita Kruschov and prevented him moving nuclear missiles to Cuba; Kennedy was the man who asked "not what this Nation can do for you, ask what you can do for this Nation"; Kennedy was the man who posed the challenge of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade..." He made peace, not war, he set challenges not taxes, and his premature passing was greeted with dismay the World over.

Obama has the same chance Kennedy had - a World in turmoil, a nation (USA) that has lost its way, a recession where big business has shot its bolt and can't lobby with any conviction, and a people who want to be lead. We can but hope that he sets a standard taht our tired politicians can't match, and we get some people who can lead, not tax.

The last 25-odd years have been an aberration in history, not a change. The next 25 years will be different, yet the same. We live in interesting times...

[gramey]

The sad part is that we as British people should care who the Americans elect as their President and what political leanings they have. Why should we concern ourselves with this? Basically because having slashed our armed forces to less than we'd need to defend ourselves we're totally dependent on the Americans to protect us. A consequence of this is that irrespective of whether it's a democrat or republican in the White House, when they say jump our government say's "How high?"
Sadly neither the US or our own government have learnt from history that the nature of the people your dealing with and the geographical nature of their lands is unlikely to result in peace and stability, just ask the Russians?
What appears to have been missed is that Saddam Hussein only got into power in the first place due to contra funding by the CIA. He was backed by the US when they went to war with Iran, come to that so were the Iranians as the US were unsure who was going to win so backed their horse both way's. Tens of thousands died in what after 5 years ended in stalemate and back at square one, then you wonder why Iran hates America.
When he failed to tow the White House line and went into Kuwait the US were forced to do something about him rather than lose face. Having done this, but without a mandate to actually get rid of him, they then had to come up with another reason to go back, hence the disinformation about WMD's.
One good ol' boy when asked about his placing an order for a Hummer H3 and it's fuel consumption and if it worried him genuinely replied "Hell no, why else did we invade Iraq".
If Obama restricts free trade it'll mean the yanks are back to having to accept home made sub standard over priced products that were shown up for what they were. When the likes of Honda & Toyota got round their restrictive practices previously by building assembly plants in the US and changing their brand name, Acura & Lexus, discerning Americans suddenly woke up to the fact that they didn't have to buy some shoddily made GM barge.
Will Obama be all things to all people, unlikely, will he do a better job than the ageing McCain, probably, does it really matter who's pulling Gordon Brown or David Cameron's strings, not really, we''ll still be their lap dog and do whatever they tell us to do.

[SlowOne]

Or...
The sad part is that we as British people should care who the Americans elect as their President and what political leanings they have. Why should we concern ourselves with this? Basically because having slashed our armed forces to less than we'd need to defend ourselves we're totally dependent on the Americans to protect us. We've always been dependent on the Americans for armed might, as has the rest of the World. We have not fought a war on our own since the Boer War. WW1 and WW2 depended on numbers made larger by the USA. We should concern ourselves because what the USA does drives what happens in the World. They are the largest single country with economic muscle. If we want to be independent, then a united Europe is our best chance, but no on wants to see that. A consequence of this is that irrespective of whether it's a democrat or republican in the White House, when they say jump our government say's "How high?"
Sadly neither the US or our own government have learnt from history that the nature of the people your dealing with and the geographical nature of their lands is unlikely to result in peace and stability, just ask the Russians?It seems to me that the point everyone misses is that the terrorists always win. With one exception in the last 250 years, terrorists have always ended up in power. The USA gained power by acting as terrorists against us, and one can add Angola, Zimbabwe, South africa, Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, Eritrea, The Balkans, Mesopotania (where the UK were overthrown and split it into Irna, Iraq, etc.) and Northern Ireland. Until this is acknowledged and we start talking not fighting, little is going to change. We have no choice but to support the Americans if we want to fight, but the real question is "why fight?"
What appears to have been missed is that Saddam Hussein only got into power in the first place due to contra funding by the CIA. He was backed by the US when they went to war with Iran, come to that so were the Iranians as the US were unsure who was going to win so backed their horse both way's. Tens of thousands died in what after 5 years ended in stalemate and back at square one, then you wonder why Iran hates America.
When he failed to tow the White House line and went into Kuwait the US were forced to do something about him rather than lose face. Having done this, but without a mandate to actually get rid of him, they then had to come up with another reason to go back, hence the disinformation about WMD's.
One good ol' boy when asked about his placing an order for a Hummer H3 and it's fuel consumption and if it worried him genuinely replied "Hell no, why else did we invade Iraq".Spot on - we fight terrorists (or, in this case, we create them!!) and we lose - no surprise!
If Obama restricts free trade it'll mean the yanks are back to having to accept home made sub standard over priced products that were shown up for what they were. When the likes of Honda & Toyota got round their restrictive practices previously by building assembly plants in the US and changing their brand name, Acura & Lexus, discerning Americans suddenly woke up to the fact that they didn't have to buy some shoddily made GM barge.The reason that Toyota, honda, Nissan et al put plants in other countries is because their production systems demand it. The Toyota Production system (sometimes misnamed 'Lean') depends on being as close to the customer as possible. Their plants are there because that's how their production systems make money, not because of any political reason. BMW and Mercedes made pots on money sending cars from Europe long before they built plants in the USA - on the back of huge US subsidies, it should be added!
Will Obama be all things to all people, unlikely, will he do a better job than the ageing McCain, probably, does it really matter who's pulling Gordon Brown or David Cameron's strings, not really, we''ll still be their lap dog and do whatever they tell us to do.The aberration here is Bush Junior, not the USA. Bush Senior did no such thing in Gulf War1, indeed the UK were a willing partner. There has to be two sides to a situation, and one can argue that Blair was as guilty of thinking he could go against history as Bush was.

It's too easy to blame our stupidity in years gone by on being bullied by America. No one has to be bullied, especially not by a waning power. If there's blame to be apportioned here, we have to shoulder ours. Recession/depression changes the World, as it did in 1929. It's hard to see how the current politicians will be able to afford to act as they have in the past, and with (as you rightly point out) Russia and China on the ascendency, expect more listening and conciliation, not shouting and fighting. No doubt some of the compromises will be derided on here in years to come, but since we are no longer a World power (and neither are the USA) we have to get used to it. :)

[gramey]

Sadly the Americans, and therefore the UK as well, are not the champions of the free world that they like to portray themselves as. They plunder oil from Iraq under the guise of anti terrorism, yet if they were that concerned with freedom and democracy why have they not lifted one finger to rid Zimbabwe of Robert Mugabe?
Drifted a bit off topic here, I guess only time will tell if the American public have made the right choice, and that time may be dependent on keeping him alive. Far too many racists over there with the legal right to carry arms for the Secret Service guy's to sleep easily at nights.

[Alfonzo]

SlowOne - spot on. :thumbsup:

[downtempo]

Glypo for prez!

Being an American this election proved to be difficult, don't get me wrong the voting process is something that I hold in high regard... the choices posed on me were the tough part.

Both of our candidates are warmongers, the difference is that McCain was willing to respect the borders of Pakistan, FATA and the NWAP in the search for al-Qaeda operatives. Obama has already stated that he would invade the sovereignty of these sensitive areas if he was given creditable military intelligence proving that bin Laden was within those borders.

The only thing that makes our current state of economy more comedic is our lame azz "War on Terror". We borrow billions from China to fund our war efforts while China supplies arms to General Kayani in Pakistan.

Meanwhile new policy is being set by our future Obama Administration to lay stipulations on our "aid" money to Pakistan. Basically Pakistan will continue to see American aid money in exchange for the ability to start having an American military presence in their country effectively buying our welcome. Kayani recognizes our disengenuine gesture with our money and has made numerous statements attesting to the fact.

We have deemed Pakastan's anti-radical Islamic extremism efforts as "not good enough" so it is time for us to put troops in yet another Middle Eastern country. Ironic how most would view Obama as the peaceful choice of the two.

Make no mistake, we will see the ultimate failing of America within our lifetime's... especially if Obama screws the pooch so badly that Palin gets a crack at the GOP ticket in 2012 as what is being currently projected. :thumbdown: