Gas Prices affected by Iraq war

[DownTheHatch]

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/autos/content.jsp?file=autos/high_cost_gas1.jsp'

Read this article all the way through and tell me what you think about it. Either this guy is off his rocker or we're going to be having some serious problems in the future.

[IceD out N CALI]

that guy might be off his rocker, but 2bucks a gallon seems possible

[BlackFL2k2Si]

Hmmm...well he does bring up some valid points. I've heard/read from other sources that if we do in fact go to war w/Iraq, then gas prices would end up going up 4x-5x as much, which I think is a slight exhaggeration. But with Iraq having control over much of the oil/gas production, gas prices are most likely going to go up. I don't think its the end of the world and that we will see SUV's rotting on the side of the road or something (as much as I would love to see it, I think their faces would be like :o), but I do think that the people of America will finally realize how much gas they actually guzzle and the use of them will reduce. However, something like this makes me love having a Honda :D

[DjMacAtack]

i thought we got most of our oil from Kuwait... u know.. that country we tried to get iraq out of to get cheaper oil during the last bush administration...

[blueiedgod]

ep is rated at 30 mpg on highway, i have yet to see that. with such a short final drive we would have drive at 55-60 mph and shift at 2000 rpm to achieve the 30 mpg. regular civic is rated at 38 mpg on highway. at $3/gall it would cost us about $35 to fill up EP. OUCH!!! i remeber when i had a suburban, it would take about $70 worth of gas at fill up, and i would do that every wheek, while driving about 200 miles a week. that really hurt! from what i was told and what we learnt in history, fuel crisis crippled economy. not only people lost jobs, but because allot of stuff is transported by trucks, the cost of goods went up. i bet you UPS rates will skyrocket, say good bye to free shipping from many websites. in europe there are a few companies that do LPG conversions for cars, maybe we can get that here as well, Si would be perfect as it has great power reserve, so the 10% drop (LPG has less potential energy) in power won't be as noticable as with other econo boxes. we can also convert to natural gas.
EP really needs a 6th gear for cruising. it really hurts to see engine at 4000 rpm at 75-80 mph. at least it is quiet at 4000 rpm. a 6th gear would drop the rpms to 3500.
well, at least, the rest of the country is catching up in gas prices what we have been paying here in NY, CT area for a few months. $1.65-regular, almost $2.00 for premium. I was shocked to see gas prices of $0.85 for regular in TN last year, maybe when the hicks pay $1.80 for regular they will drop their 1970 rusted out pick up trucks, that pollute more just standing there than the civic does in 200 miles.
take care
Dave

[civicpimp]

We actually get most of our oil from Venezuela. We only get about 17% from the middle east. Gas prices should go up but not by 50%

[iR-VTEC2]

gas is $2.23 here (premium) : /

[SiR Medic]

Wah...wah...wah.


gas is $2.23 here (premium) : /

Today I filled up my tank (premium), and it cost me $33.00!

I paid 89.9 cents per litre! That works out to about $3.60/gallon!:mad:

I personally wish Ol' Dubya would "sh*t or get off the pot"! Either invade Iraq already... and get the damn thing over with. Or shut the hell up and help ease these tensions. His daily sabre rattling is starting to get on everybody's nerves and it is doing nothing to keep the price of oil down.


But wait... Doesn't Dubya OWN a bunch of oil fields or something like that... That would mean that if the price of oil goes UP... He makes money!:o

Sorry for the rant...:angel:

"That's just my opinion... I could be wrong."
-Dennis Miller

[i-WERKS]

And this is where the Hybrid Civic comes in.

[HokieSi]

If you have ever had a geology or econ class you will see that gas will not inflate that much over war!
Here are the reasons:
1. There are PLENTY of reserves, OPEC will just start producing more oil rather than raise prices in order to maintain stability.
2. A price increase in gas of that magnitude would throw the world economy into a recession which would in turn hurt the oil companies.

Recently, (last few weeks) gas prices rose significantly all because of SPECULATION. There was actually no need to raise prices at all, so the ones that made out were the market traders. At this same time OPEC was thinking about reducing the current production rate because there is actually a SURPLUS of oil, which would cause prices to drop even more than they were before the speculation started!

Just read/analyze this http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/opec.html#opectab

[cbecker333]

Originally posted by HokieSi
Recently, (last few weeks) gas prices rose significantly all because of SPECULATION. There was actually no need to raise prices at all, so the ones that made out were the market traders. At this same time OPEC was thinking about reducing the current production rate because there is actually a SURPLUS of oil, which would cause prices to drop even more than they were before the speculation started!

You are so right! Everybody listen to him! Speculation is responsible for gas price increases about 95% of the time.

[slamedrides]

it is all about people wanting to make the cheese. the gas companies are tring to drain ever little penny they can for gas and they took this as an opertunity to do so... I am gunna by a mt. bike :o

[BarracksSi]

I'm glad that "speculation" got mentioned --

I also remember some years ago when the slightest news story about the possible unavailability of oil was reflected in a magical increase in the cost of gas at the pump.

The main thing I learned in economics class was that any marketplace is full of sheep, cattle, and lemmings. Oil companies are particularly ready to jump on an opportunity to raise prices. Nobody can tell me that they aren't in the business to make as much money as possible.

Maybe, just maybe, there will be fewer SUVs, Bentleys, and other gasoholic vehicles on the road this time around. Maybe not, though -- consumers are sheep, too.

[kpxplaya415]

im in deja vu because i remember seeing this same exact discussion somewhere...

anyways from what i remember someone said that we barely get oil from the middle east and we havent even come close to exhausting our own supplies and the many in alaska.

[BarracksSi]

Can you say, "Price Fixing"?

I knew you could. ;)

[Tenacious G]

speculation, no speculation ...
reserves, no reserves ...
estimates that prices will hit $2/gallon this summer ...

who cares. americans have been spoiled by such low gas prices, everyone thinks its a crime when prices go up. eurpoeans have been paying in excess of $3 U.S./gallon for a while now. that's why it's refreshing to have a company like Honda that produces LEV and ULEV vehicles that all get decent gas mileage (pilot excluded).

I'm just glad all those oversized SUV owners are taking it from behind with the way prices are. I'll gladly pay a little more when I fill up to know it costs me half as much per tank while going twice as far as those damn Expedition and H2 owners.

[IceD out N CALI]

unfortunately our society relies heavily on oil

[CgSi]

I've seen gas for $2.30 a gallon up here and thats for 87 octane !!

[Brettnyt]

Yeah, payed 2.39 up here in WA just yesterday... 161 gallons of it too... talk about a spendy fill up!

[IceD out N CALI]

dayum you guys pay more than me, I payed 2.02 the other day which was a raping but 2.39? whew!

[HondaMan]

Originally posted by cbecker333

You are so right! Everybody listen to him! Speculation is responsible for gas price increases about 95% of the time.

I agree. However, we are spoiled with low gas prices compared to most of the world or at least Europe. I use to work with some British contractors and they would give us crap when we would complain about the gas prices in Washington state. I'm glad I'm back in Georgia with the cheapest gas in the USA...I paid $1.45 for 87 octane to fill up my SUV tonight. ;)

[Brettnyt]

Pretty crazy, most places you can get gas around here for 2.00 now (lowest, lucky if you find this price...) But this was a special fill up. You shoulda seen how fast the dollars added up. Every 2 seconds another dollar was added to the mix... All that until near 600$.... Crazy!

PS... THAT WAS FOR REGULAR 87 OCTANE!

[natesi]

Gas companies are going to MILK THE WAR for all it's worth. They are already doing it. It's despicable.

The only good thing about gas prices going up, is it would finally get domestic car companies asses in gear about making more fuel efficient cars.

With Bush in office, protecting his own interests and oil cronies, there's no way in hell the government is going to make any progress in pushing auto companies to make more fuel efficient cars. If any significant changes are going to be made it will have to come from consumers, because it's "da dolla bill" that auto companies listen to, and pretty much nothing else. They pretty much just lobby their way out of emissions standards.

So, I'm thinking, IF gas prices got to over $3 per gallon, they obviously wouldn't be selling many SUVs... at least until they made some big progress towards making them much more fuel efficient, and that would suite me just fine. I think most people would agree this could be done, but there is virtually NO incentive or pressure to change. This is the world

[Accordexcpe95]

it's time to trade in my Si for a Insight :p :o

[HondaMan]

Natesi, I'm going to bite my tongue on the political comments since I don't agree. :eek:

[natesi]

That's cool; I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That wouldn't be a reasonable expectation.

Your truth is yours, and mine is mine. Needless to say, you're not me and I'm not you, so our experiences, knowledge, and opinions are different. And I'm totally cool with that.

The most important part (to me) is not someone's opinion, but that they can make an educated decision about how they feel.

Mainly, I just wanted to point out Bush's oil and energy ties (numerous), and the fact we supplied IRAQ with chemical and biological weapons in the 1980's, which Bush shamed IRAQ for using the other night. Many people are NOT aware of these things. As far as I know, those are not opinions--they are facts. People can interpret facts how they want and develop their own opinions. But I think they should know. That's all.

By the way, if I have my facts wrong, please DO correct me. I don't want to be spreading misinformation around.

Politics can get heated.... sorry. I think eventually the US will be split about this and it will become a big issue for many Americans if we go to war. I admit, it's not black and white for myself either--it's hard to say what is "right" and "wrong" some times.

[!@#$%]

gas here is 1.57/gal and i cry even now. geez i couldnt even imagine having gas at close to 2.40/gallon! agh......it sure would be nice to have one of those new honda FCX hydrogen cars right about now. :angel:

[HondaMan]

natesi,
I'm cool with your comments because they are correct more or less, BUT the War with Iraq will be over more than just oil. I understand we gave him some of his chemical/germ warfare stuff, but it was a very very small amount it was his choice to reproduce it in vast quantities and use it on his own people...not to mention what else he did & plans to do with it & the rest of weapons at his disposal.

Needless to say, I back Bush and our Troops 100% (it appears you do for the most part as well). I think I kept it clean

[ThickMick]

The whole "no war for oil" arguement really is just bumper sticker logic as far as I'm conserned. There are no fact's to back it up. As a matter of fact the main country with the most interest in oil involved with all this is arguablely France.

I would rather pay $2.00/gallon for gas than go through 9/11 again. Bush is doing what needs to be done in that part of the world. Nobody likes war and to say that America would go to war and put people at risk for oil is just stupid. Who's the real bad guy here?

Blame that bastard Saddam for your increase in oil not the US .

[hamproof]

Put it this way. If the whole middle east has no oil, would Bush get involved? Absolutely not! Look at North Korea. They have nuclear capabilities and could inflict more damage than Saddam. But Bush doesn't do anything coz' N.Korea is a barren land.

It is my opinion, Bush is siding with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East coz' he believes Saudi will at least continue to supply oil and be part of OPEC. Keep in mind, Iraq was once an ally of US.

Sure, there are a lot of reasons why Saddam should be ousted. But let's face reality. If the whole middle east is as barren as Egypt, would any of the oil companies and corporations in US give a rats ass? Will Bush give a damn?

[Silverstreak]

Well lets see, I live in Tampa, FL and around here its about 1.90 a gallon for premium. Which is pretty high for around here. I remember during desert storm, I never saw prices jump up to 3.00 a gallon. So I say that the most jump in gas prices that you will expect to see will be around 30 to 60 cents above normal prices. Due to the fact that the government would not let gas prices jump to high, because the politicians are the ones driving the big gas gusslers.

[ThickMick]

This will be the last political statemant I make and I apologize but I can't help myself.

*Pls hum "Marine Corps Hymne" while reading this* :) j/k

To say we are going to war because of our interest in raising oil prices or taking over Iraq's oil supply is personally offensive to me for two reasons.

1. It trivializes why our troops are going to fight over there in the first place. They are going there to fight to protect our way of life and to make it safer here in America. Their mission is honorable and just. Iraq if given the oppotunity under Saddam will seek to strike America in the future if is he is not taken care of.

2. 9/11/01 sucked. The City burned and people died and it sucked to watch that happen. That is reality. There is no proof to suggest we only give a shit about that region because of oil other than rhetoric. In fact there is everything to suggest that that palces last among our interest in securing a democratic. situation in Iraq.

The president shook the hands of victums of the 9/11 attack and I'm sure it affected him personally. Enough so that he would not let that happen again. Plus he said he fighting this war to protect America. Saddam is the only one that says we are fighting this war for oil.

[IceD out N CALI]

jus curious, what does saddam have to do with 9/11?

thought 9/11 was the taliban not iraq

[cbecker333]

Originally posted by ThickMick
Plus he said he fighting this war to protect America.

But at what cost to us? What about all the important european allies we are ignoring? We have a lot to learn from the european union...they have lived right next to each other and cooperated and prospered for years. The amount of culture that flows freely across borders in europe should be a lesson to all of us.

Also, If we want to fix things, I mean make them less violent, then we need to use less violence. IF WE DO THIS THING THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT WE ARE CREATING MILLIONS OF NEW MILITANTS. They might not all have the means to harm us now, but all it takes is time and pressure. Call me a wus, but we need to care, and show it to the middle east by sharing some of our wealth with the PEOPLE, not the governments, of the world.. instead our government converts our wealth to warheads.

[DownTheHatch]

Originally posted by ThickMick

2. 9/11/01 sucked. The City burned and people died and it sucked to watch that happen. That is reality. There is no proof to suggest we only give a shit about that region because of oil other than rhetoric. In fact there is everything to suggest that that palces last among our interest in securing a democratic. situation in Iraq.

[/B]

Very political.:confused:

[Tenacious G]

cbecker333: troo, troo

[hamproof]

Let the countries in the middle east solve their own conflict. If Iraq wants to invade Saudi Arabia, let them do it. It is a conflict in that region. US has no business to butt in. The only reason US is butting in is because of the so-called alliance with Saudi and Pakistan. But guess what? These countries will screw US over (like they have in the past) once Iraq is defeated. US just wants to stabilize the area (which is nobel) but it is also because of the oil (not so nobel).

Look at it this way. If our lifestyle did not revolve around so much energy consumption (home heating, plastics etc. - not just car fuel consumption), I maintain Bush will not give a rats ass and will allow UN to do its job.

Fact remains, we depend on oil and will remain to do so.

A side fact. Anyone knows what Ford and GM actually lobbied congress to not give money to Toyota/Honda for alternate fuel cell development despite these 2 companies having a big presence in US with their development center and factories? Guess what? Honda and Toyota went ahead and build their own hybrids and have them on the road way before Ford or GM did.

I hope gas prices go to $4/gallon like every else in the world. Actually it is more than that considering the same job in another country actually pays less than in good old US of A.

[cbecker333]

Originally posted by hamproof
Let the countries in the middle east solve their own conflict.

Right there in your first sentence you have highlighted the unfortunate mentality of only protecting our interests. That mentality is at the heart of the problem with inaction AND the problem with military action. We can set an example by using non-military incentives to help shape our world. We're doing the opposite, and it promotes dictatorships' and militants' bloody wars. We (USA) need to sit the fuck down, talk straight, offer solutions for the common good and be willing to fucking compromise, WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.

Damn, where is that lock? this is off the hook!

[natesi]

[quote]
Needless to say, I back Bush and our Troops 100% (it appears you do for the most part as well). I think I kept it clean

[ThickMick]

DTH, not for anything, but u start a thread like this and it's bound to get political. I love how u said how my comments were political and no one elses. Nice shot.

I love my car and I really enjoy being a member of ephatch.com. I realize I certainly don't represent the majority here so I'll just shut my big yap, but I will say this in my defense:

I am born and raised in Manhattan. I love this city and I loved those towers. I was on Vessey St. (right by the world finiancial center) that morning and saw that shit first hand. It was horrible and I'll never forget it. The City has changed a great deal since 9/11. There's cops with MP5's and M4's in the subways w/ German shepards some days and road blocks where they stop you and ask u a bunch of questions on others. Everybody's on edge when that stupid gov. alert goes to Orange and I have to spend a lot of time reassuring my wife nothing's going to happen.

It's lame and I really don't like it, so excuse me if I'm just a little more sensitive to the war on terror. I want to see those bastards pay. Iraq, Iran, Syria all part of the problem, no one denies they support terroist so they should be dealt with in my opinion.

I don't want to alienate myself from some of the memebers here because of my political views. I value all your opinions when it comes to the SI and have learned a great deal here.

[civicpimp]

While I respect everyones opinion here, I must say that i disagree with a few of you. For those of you saying you support the troops I have to say thank you. I have been in the middle east for over a 100 days now. This is my 4th trip over here in 5 years. I'm ready to end this game right now. All of us over here are ready. It's not that we are blood thirsty or we want their oil. You folks don't see the things that we see and hear. Iraq does pose a threat and we will take care of it for you so you can live your everyday lives and drive your EP's. I'm very dissapointed in the ammount of support some of the world is showing for a dictator that kills his own people and shows threats towards his neighboring countries.

There are many people in this world that hate the way we live and what we stand for. They want to bomb us and poison us or whatever. The war on terrorism extends to every country in the world that supports terrorism and harbors terrorists. Iraq is one of them!!!

I don't know how much longer I'll be able to view this sight because when we go to war there will be no more internet and limited e-mail. So you folks have fun with your cars. Hopefully I can return home in a few months and enjoy the car I bought but haven't even had the chance to break in yet.

[natesi]

Be safe man.... And thanks for serving this country; it's a hard, dirty job and no one likes war.

Hope you return soon,

-nate

[IceD out N CALI]

good luck out there. hopefully this can all be solved without putting you out in harms way

[chet]

I keep backspacing and rewriting because I am just not sure. I mean, none of us want to see people die in the name of anything. Civicpimp, and all the others that may not even be able to hook up with us here; I believe we all have a great respect for the job you have to do. I believe a strong military front to show superiority is essential in keeping Democracy alive. But a show is hopefully good enough, because we just don't want to see anyone die.
On the other hand, I don't believe that the political thinking that has set this in motion is very sound. I don't know if any of you saw The President's speech last week. He basically said the same thing 18 times without ever answering a question properly. "Yeah that's just politics" Yeah, that's my point!! Why can't we have President who speaks the truth and can look those reporters in the eyes and answer a question? IT's disturbing. What is he hiding?

Ijust cant figure out whether President Bush is the Puppeteer or the puppet

[George Knighton]

It looks like we intend to go into Iraq and administer it with the British no matter what happens.

I'm afraid that the machine we have started up will not be stopped until it's used.

Hussein has to go...no argument. But even our staunchest ally, the United Kingdom, is trying to slow us down.

The UK has introduced wording into a UN resolution that Bush specifically said he didn't want to be there, and the UK keeps trying to slow us down. At first they were slowing us down a season at a time, and now they are slowing us down a week and a day at a time.

Something is wrong.

Hussein has to go, but something's wrong for the British to be slowing us down this way.

Before the Gulf War, I caught this blurb in a government newsgroup:

"At 0630 Zulu, Royal Assent was signified to the formation of a unified Gulf Command for Commonwealth forces in the area."

Now, I'm catching blurbs like:
"At 1300 Zulu, Royal Assent was signified for the deployment of 2nd Parachute Regiment to forward positions in Kuwait."

I know a lot about the way the British constitution works...and something is wrong if the Queen is interfering to that extent.

Hussein has to go, but we are already too much viewed as the enemy of the Arab nations, and we need to be very careful to administer Iraq effectively and obviously to the benefit of the Iraqis.

And, let's face it people...we are never going to bring an end to Arab terrorism until we face up to our responsibility and make sure that there is a Palestinian homeland.

All this terrorism can be traced back to Palestinian rights and we need to move with all possible speed to make sure there is a Palestinian state that they can call home, even if it ends up being federated with Jordan for its own protection.

Hussein has to go...but we'd better be careful how we do it.

[hamproof]

all will be peaceful again? Who's going to be the king or president of Iraq then? I saw the interview Dan Rather did with Saddam recently. Even during the Gulf war, when all of us thought it was as clear as day that Saddam and Iraq were defeated, Saddam said NO! They (Iraq) were not defeated but they merely withdrew from Kuwait and re-strategize. Definitely not defeated. At least through the translator, Hussein sounded calm and his thoughts are well thought out. But then again, we are not sure if his people fed the questions to Dan Rather and he has to ask the pre-prepared question and Saddam already knows the answers.

Contrast this with Bush's responses to any question. All I hear is a whiny little kid who got his bike stolen or candy taken from him. I wish Clinton is still in office or Al Gore. At least these two are straight shooters and can form a sentence w/o retorting to childish remarks.

In any case, say US goes to war with Iraq and pummel the country with missiles but not the oil fields obviously. A side note, Dan Rather ask Saddam is he would destroy the oil fields in Iraq like he did in Saudi. His response was he'll never destroy Iraq anything. Definitely not the oil fields that give him wealth. In contrast, he did destroy the oil fields in Saudi and that hurted both the Saudi kings as well as the countries that depended on those oil, US included. So, please don't tell me that oil is not one of the item on the agenda of this war.

Now back to the original topic. Say US pummels Saudi. Unless a calculated mis-fire of the missle hits Saddam right where he sits on the throne, the US can't kill him. CIA does not carry out assasinations of foreign govt. officials anymore. So, what do you do? Exile him to another country? Or you force him yet again to disarm?? How is US going to do this when the people in his country, the majority of the people love him and hates the US? So in the end, after the war, if there's an all out war, he'll still be in power and 5 years from now, we'll be back to square one.

The war will accomplish nothing. There are more muslim that any other religion in this world. And frankly I don't believe Iraq or Korea will do anything. The era of Hilter is gone. With all the mass destruction powers of the nuclear arsenal we have, no one is going to really cross the line. Saddam is tip-toeing over the line taunting Bush and Bush can't take it. He opens his big mouth and now he can't shut it. Wawawawawawawa like a little baby. Please change the constitution and let Clinton be the president again. Let's have a re-count (damn Floridians) and make Al Gore the president.

[George Knighton]

Originally posted by hamproof
Who's going to be the king or president of Iraq then?

It sounds like there's a British/American plan to divide Iraq into three zones of occupation.

A Kurdish zone in the north, an "Iraq" in the middle, and a southern zone for the oppressed religious minority in that area.

As for what happens to Hussein...if he's captured, I am sure he will face "Crimes Against Humanity" charges.

His best bet for staying free is to completely give in to the latest British plan (where he goes before his people and admits in Arabic what he's done, and promises full compliance), or go into exile if he doesn't think his government will survice such an admission.

We have said before that we would help settle him in another, secure place. I don't think it's likely that his own people would suffer him much longer, anyway. As it is, you have Iraqi commanders negotiating in secret for the surrender of their units in order to avoid bloodshed.

[King Kang]

My two cents:

I support our troops for they job they have committed to do with bravery and honor. I hope that you will all come home safe.

I do not understand Pres. Bush's determination to attack Iraq. He (nor anyone else for that matter) has come forth with any convincing evidence linking Saddam or Iraq to the the 9/11 terror attack. Anyone using this as a reason to support the war has succumbed to the influence of intelligent political propaganda. Creating the "axis of evil" was one of the greatest mistakes anyone in the Bush family has ever made. With this action, he single handedly offended millions of people around the world.

In the 20th century, the US did not make a policy of starting wars. A pre-emtive strike is simply a fancy term for throwing the first stone. You should think about all the reasons why the terrorists attacked our nation and abused most grotesquely the freedoms that we had taken for granted. Was it jealousy? Was it our free society where women have rights? Was it because they are just plain evil? These are all convincing reasons when we as Americans try to rationalize why the terrorists did what they did.

However, when we asked the Arab world why 9/11 happened, they told us the reason. We stepped on their soil. This is not a literal statement meaning that our "dirty" ways defiled their earth when we fought the first gulf war. It is a metaphor deeper than that. We stepped on their soil.....and pushed them around. To them, this was the greatest offense and the greatest threat to their soverignty.

When we stepped in to help Kuwait, we were justified. An act of war had ben committed and we stepped in (after being asked) and fixed (at least in short term) the problem. What will happen now if we step on their soil to invade a soverign nation without being asked? Attacking Iraq will be a call to arms for all potential terrorists around the world.

Let the inspectors do their jobs......if we have to wait two years for them to get the job done, then we've avoided war for two more years. Where is the risk in that? The fact is that nobody can predict what another country will do.

Bush says that the risk of not attacking Iraq is greater. I disagree. All evidence points toward privateers in Saudi Arabia as responsible for the majority of the 9/11 funding. Saddam is a terrible person, but his evil is no difference from that of several other dictators around the world. Do some reading about N Korea......they HATE us. I had no idea to what extent until I did some research. They have propaganda posters EVERYWHERE depicting the US capital exploding under a hail of bombs with the caption, "Stop the Imperialists." Peace will eventually force Saddam to act civilized......btw he isn't immortal either. How much of a danger has Castro been? ...or Vietnam? What's Bush's rush? Re-election?

Stop the Imperialists.......these are important words. Countries around the glob hate us becase they view us as imperialists. What is an imperialist? Imperialist countries extend their wishes and control over other soverign nations. Attacking Iraq and setting up a democracy is an imperialist action. It will further serve to incite more anti-american sentiment everywhere.

Bush's statement that "democracy isn't America's gift to the world, rather God's gift to the world," is about as stupid and offensive as one could possibly be. Does he intend to make this a holy war?

I don't agree with our current admisistration at all. They have drowned our economy, further stretched the stratification of wealth in our nation, and turned the UN upsidedown. In conjuncture with the religious right, they are once agian uniting church and state. Has anyone in Florida seen the road-side billboards that say:

Thank God for George and Jeb
<smaller letters>
Jeb 2008


Final thought:

If the weapons inspectors can't find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, what makes you think our missiles will?

Peace