That's Not Important

If the Iraq War is one of the most pressing issues that people are concerned about, then is John McCain really running for Office or is he trying just trying to make a complete ass of himself as some kind of hellacious joke.  90% of this country has been sick and tired of this Bullshit war built on lies and manipulation and he, just like Bush, wants to embrace it more than ever.   What kind of logic is this?  Bringing the troops home is not a concern but reducing their death toll is the most important thing?  Do not the two go hand in hand?   I'm sure only Klompus can explain this one. 

Obama better start hammering this guy into the ground soon because the shit he's handing out is a campaign manager's dream.  No doubt the big money war companies that got their wish list fulfilled from Bush are going to be throwing a lot of that profit behind Old Nutsackhead.  I wonder how the troops feel McCain especially after he voted down the bill that would allow them to receive education benefits as part of their veterans benefits package.

Comments

[Art Vandelay]

You got something going on above your picture there. Not really sure. Just a red X to me but I could be firewalled.

I'm sure only Klompus can explain this one.

Actually, I think you have the monopoly on contradictions this week.

[Jack Klompus]

"Bringing the troops home is not a concern but reducing their death toll is the most important thing? Do not the two go hand in hand? I'm sure only Klompus can explain this one."

Do we have US troops overseas in countries other than Iraq? What are the death tolls like in those ones?

[Mr. Kruger]

Do we have US troops overseas in countries other than Iraq? What are the death tolls like in those ones?

What's the purpose of having troops in Iraq? Is it the same purpose as having them in Germany, S Korea and Japan? Are the Germans and Japanese strapping on suicide belts? If he's saying he wants permanent military bases in Iraq like in Germany and Japan and S.K. then he should say it. It's obvious the Iraqis do not.

[Jack Klompus]

"What's the purpose of having troops in Iraq?"

To support and transition the Iraqi troops aka try to keep all hell from breaking loose before the Iraqi army is ready to deal with it.

"Is it the same purpose as having them in Germany, S Korea and Japan?"

Currently, no. Eventually it could be. But nobody can say for sure. Even if Matt Lauer asks.

"If he's saying he wants permanent military bases in Iraq like in Germany and Japan and S.K. then he should say it."

First of all, why would he necessarily want that? Secondly, why would he bother saying so if he did?

[Mr. Kruger]

First of all, why would he necessarily want that?

We have had permanent bases in those countries (the ones he mentioned in the video) for the last 60 years. You were asking me to compare death tolls, remember?
AND
Because the longer these no-bid companies stay in Iraq the longer they can filch off the big tit. Because he endears himself to Halliburton, Blackwater, Bectel for political support. Because the longer we're there the better the chances that the oil companies can grab drilling rights. Because he's too stupid to understand that US military presence gives the terrorists legitimacy. Because he doesn't have the skills to follow through on a diplomatic/political solution to this mess.

Secondly, why would he bother saying so if he did?

Oh I don't know... maybe because he's running for President and some people might be interested in what he's thinking.

[soupnazi]

man i love the "everything is black or white" crowd--regardless of how you feel about us getting into iraq, only an idiot would look at that shithole and think we can just pull out the troops and they will stop dying!! what happens when the fucking iranians move in FULL FORCE a week after were gone? do you really think we will stand by and watch feret-face add iraq assets to HIS bankroll? No, chances are we will SEND THE TROOPS BACK! or, off to afghanistan instead!!and if this fucked-up, made-up, exagerated war was about oil, WHY DONT WE HAVE ANY?? of course the lying scum politicians profit from war--THEY PROFIT FROM EVERYTHING!! dumbacraps and repubes alike!! THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!

[Assman]

and if this fucked-up, made-up, exagerated war was about oil, WHY DONT WE HAVE ANY??

I hate to be the cynic here, but the conspiracy theory states that the war isn't about stealing oil - it's about making sure they never re-open those oil fields in Iraq. Right now, the debate is about who will end up taking control of them when the US leaves, but the result is just a decreased worldwide supply of oil, an increase in price and record oil company profits. Less obvious than stealing, but the money is the same.

Just so you don't think this is partisan diatribe, let me follow up by saying I think we should be opening up the domestic oil reserves and not taxing the oil companies profits. Let the increased supply and free market lower that price.

To support and transition the Iraqi troops aka try to keep all hell from breaking loose before the Iraqi army is ready to deal with it.

And, again... this is just going to make me sound like a partisan cynic. I apologize in advance.

This discounts a few things. The hell that breaks loose over there is largely due to resistance to occupation. An "insurgent" is just someone who resists an invading force.

Right now, there's an Iraqi army, a few renegade militia cells, property owners with guns, police and outside nations with bigger guns. When we leave, they'll all figure out whatever the fuck they're going to do with their country, one way or another. It may not be what we want them to do, but how they manage their nation is their business.

If we leave today, there will be disarray and instability. If we leave in 7 years, there will be disarray and instability. That's the nature of a nation in reclaimed infancy. I'm of the opinion that forcing them to figure it out on their own isn't such a bad thing.

After all, there's only so long someone can live on the government tit, right?

only an idiot would look at that shithole and think we can just pull out the troops and they will stop dying!!

If the thinking that removing people from a war zone will prevent them from dying constitutes idiocy then I'm an idiot.

As Vandelay and Klompus would say, "On a more serious note" or "But seriously"....

I never suggested that all the troops should be pulled out at once. The war has made us so vulnerable that that would be extremely reckless- I absolutely agree. But to say that it is not important to think about HOW to get them out is erroneous to the point of being absurd. To leave a standing force in theater indefinitely with no motive other than to avoid said consequences and with no said plan to end the occupation- well, how the fuck could that not raise some eyebrows. I immediately think the motives for not pursuing an aggressive political tact are absolutely ulterior in nature (see comments above).

[Mr. Kruger]

me of course

[Mr. Kruger]

Right now, the debate is about who will end up taking control of them when the US leaves, but the result is just a decreased worldwide supply of oil, an increase in price and record oil company profits.

Good points Assman. If you listen to the think tanks and lobbyists they will tell you that the oil companies don't set the price. That they only get paid for what they drill. The oil companies say the price is set by the traders working the oil markets. The government tells us the price fluctuates according to how many barrels OPEC produces or wants to release. At the same time they tell us it's our fault because there aren't enough refineries online- "damn environmentalists". And the scientists say were simply running dangerously low on a finite natural resource.

There is no doubt in my mind, that with all these excuses and no answers someone is fucking the consumer over in way we have not seen before. And if I were to put money on the presidential candidate that would correct this situation it would NOT be John McCain. He is totally beholden to special interests.

[Art Vandelay]

The oil argument never made sense if only for the fact it's infinitely cheaper to buy oil than it is to cease it. I hear there's a big old bubble up in ANWR if we don't mind making a few caribou search for some new real estate.

[SL22]

There is oil in a lot of places in the US, even in the contiguous states. But as Vandelay said, there's really no incentive for anyone to go and get it.

[Jack Klompus]

"Because he endears himself to Halliburton, Blackwater, Bectel for political support."

No, he endears himself to the military. And the military happens to do quite a bit of business with those 3. But is that really a connection?

"Because the longer we're there the better the chances that the oil companies can grab drilling rights."

How do you figure McCain benefits from that? He's pro-alternative energy and critical of oil company profits. Do you think oil companies are big contributors to his campaign?

"Because he's too stupid to understand that US military presence gives the terrorists legitimacy."

Luckily he's smart enough to understand the legitimacy it gives terrorists by retreating.

But to say that it is not important to think about HOW to get them out is erroneous to the point of being absurd.

What's absurd is that you took the quote so far out of context. He was asked if there was now a better estimate of a withdrawal timetable. He wasn't saying "troops coming home" isn't important, or that thinking about it wasn't important. Just that a better estimate was not important right now -- certainly not more important than the safety of those currently deployed. Why? Because he knows they won't be withdrawn in January of 2009, regardless of who's president. He has already stated he predicts most troops will be out by 2013 (though not guaranteed) and the small amount that remained would not be involved in major combat.

"To leave a standing force in theater indefinitely with no motive other than to avoid said consequences and with no said plan to end the occupation- well, how the fuck could that not raise some eyebrows."

Quiz:
When asked if he would pledge that, should he become president, would there be US troops in Iraq by 2013 -- who gave the following answer: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there."?

[Jack Klompus]

"He is totally beholden to special interests."

Singling out again? I guess you don't consider labor unions or the NEA "special interests?" How about law firms?

Nonetheless, here are the respective candidates' PAC contributions. One seems to have a lot more invested in him than the other.

McCain
Obama

[Jack Klompus]

"The government tells us the price fluctuates according to how many barrels OPEC produces or wants to release."

More importantly, what global demand is in relation to supply.

"At the same time they tell us it's our fault because there aren't enough refineries online- "damn environmentalists".

It's much more than that. It also has to do with exploration. We have plenty in our midst, but our own laws greatly limit where American companies can drill. Though as we speak, China, Canada, and Cuba are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Even further, we have longstanding opposition to using alternative energy. Nuclear power, liquid coal. Plus legislation that aims to place higher taxes and safety restrictions on energy producers. Less supply + less source diversification + higher costs for producers = bad for consumer prices. And which lobby do you think drives all that obstruction?

[Mr. Kruger]

We have plenty in our midst, but our own laws greatly limit where American companies can drill. Though as we speak, China, Canada, and Cuba are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Crap. I happen know a Captain for Exxon whose in the Gulf right now hauling a rig.

Even further, we have longstanding opposition to using alternative energy. Nuclear power, liquid coal.

Right because they're not alternatives but the same old rehash from the same companies like the farm industries (big corporate kind) that spew C02, flood the fresh waters with nitrates and phosphates, create the most toxic waste possible, and dry up rivers wetlands and reservoirs with ridiculous amounts of water usage.

Less supply + less source diversification + higher costs for producers = bad for consumer prices.

Is this why for the last 6 years the oil companies have been making tens of billions of dollars in net profits while people in the NE lose their houses because they can't keep up with heating costs?

And which lobby do you think drives all that obstruction?

uh....the ACLU?

The oil argument never made sense if only for the fact it's infinitely cheaper to buy oil than it is to cease it. I hear there's a big old bubble up in ANWR if we don't mind making a few caribou search for some new real estate.

Damn, that makes total sense. I wouldn't want to cease oil or do something to that big old bubble in ANWR.

Do you think oil companies are big contributors to his campaign?

Scroll to Exxon.

He wasn't saying "troops coming home" isn't important, or that thinking about it wasn't important. Just that a better estimate was not important right now -- certainly not more important than the safety of those currently deployed.

No shit. He was saying actually doing anything to get them back home is not a priority. Your splitting hairs and parsing language- it's clear he wants an open-ended war.

He has already stated he predicts most troops will be out by 2013

Campaign back-pedaling.

Luckily he's smart enough to understand the legitimacy it gives terrorists by retreating.

Explain, in terms of what's happening on the ground in Iraq now.

@Vandelay:

It's "sieze", retard.

[Jack Klompus]

"Crap. I happen know a Captain for Exxon whose in the Gulf right now hauling a rig."

Yes, I am aware not ALL of the Gulf of Mexico is off limits. But ask Cappy if there's drilling happening on the eastern side of the gulf. How about 50 miles SW of the Keys? Then ask him if any of those companies are American. Then ask why not.

"Right because they're not alternatives but the same old rehash from the same companies like the farm industries (big corporate kind) that spew C02, flood the fresh waters with nitrates and phosphates, create the most toxic waste possible, and dry up rivers wetlands and reservoirs with ridiculous amounts of water usage."

Technology has advanced so that both those sources are much cleaner and safer than in the past. And far cleaner and safer than what we are stuck with now. It'd be nice if we could all take our grapenuts and live off the wind and sun but that's not reality.

"Is this why for the last 6 years the oil companies have been making tens of billions of dollars in net profits while people in the NE lose their houses because they can't keep up with heating costs?"

Why is it so bad that oil comanies make a profit? What are they in business for? Isn't it good for our economy to have strong, competitive companies? Who do you think provides jobs? Do you want everyone to be employed by the government? Secondly, their profit margins are nothing compared to pharamceutical or software companies. Why don't people bitch about those? Oil companies are making $.10 in profits per gallon. What do you think our government is making per gallon in taxes?

"Scroll to Exxon.

Comparative to other industries it's a paltry amount. It's certainly not significant enough to shift policy. And, all candidates receive contributions from oil & gas companies. Barack inlcuded. Actually, Barack may get more from Exxon than McCain does. Still it's peanuts compared to what Ob gets from law firms and pharmaceutical companies.

"No shit. He was saying actually doing anything to get them back home is not a priority. Your splitting hairs and parsing language- it's clear he wants an open-ended war."

I'm parsing language? Any reasonable person who reads/listens to the interview in full context would recognize your interpretation to be idiotic.

"Campaign back-pedaling."

Laughable. That's another fine example of cherry picking quotes in attempt to build your own strawman.

"Explain, in terms of what's happening on the ground in Iraq now.

Violence is down, casualties are down. Al qaeda appears to have a diminished presence. The surge seems to be working. Unless you're a liberal. Then it's just the opposite.

[Art Vandelay]

That was me who called myself a retard. Nobody would really do that anonymously.

Technology has advanced so that both those sources are much cleaner and safer than in the past.

Nuclear power has a lot of problems including high relative costs; adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. Bottom line- the costs outweigh the benefits.

And liquid coal releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline, making a hybrid filled with liquid coal as dirty as a Hummer H3 running on regular gas.

Ethanol: we're seeing the effects of that in food prices and obviously fuel prices as corn is subsidized (for production and transportation) and removed from the food markets to the refineries.

take our grapenuts and live off the wind and sun

retarded statement.

Why is it so bad that oil comanies make a profit?

Was there ever a time when they weren't making a profit? Every time a company incurs added cost they say they need to pass that on to the consumer. But for years now this industry (oil) has incurred nothing but billions of dollars in tax payer corporate welfare subsidies making never-seen before historic profits and the consumer has been charged with record-setting price increases. It's a fucking hose-job.

Do you want everyone to be employed by the government?

retarded stmt #2.

Secondly, their profit margins are nothing compared to pharamceutical or software companies.

For me not so much the pharms do I complain because I'm in relatively good health and see a doctor about once every ten years. That leaves Microsoft and I hate that company with an overwhelming passion. I have yet to go off on them on the A of G but I probably will at same point. I can feel my blood boiling already.

Why don't people bitch about those? Oil companies are making $.10 in profits per gallon. What do you think our government is making per gallon in taxes?

"Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, reported at the start of this month a record 2007 profit of $40.6 billion, earnings that trounced any other company. Royal Dutch Shell reported the largest earnings of any company in Britain, at about $31 billion."

How many highways (or highway maintenance) and bridges has Exxon built? I don't like paying taxes. I'm an advocate for lowering taxes. But my car is useless unless there are roads I can drive it on.

Who do you think provides jobs?/Unless you're a liberal.

retarded stmts #3 and #4. #4 is especially meaningless.

Violence is down, casualties are down. Al qaeda appears to have a diminished presence. The surge seems to be working. Unless you're a liberal. Then it's just the opposite.

Al Quaeda is down because we let their recruits keep their guns and patrol their own neighborhoods. Is it the surge or the fact that the country is splitting into factions and getting ready for the big one. Does matter at all if we are their or not. If the Sunni and Shiite are going to go at it do you really think they give a fuck about the Americans. The Shiite alone can't even keep their shit together as was shown in Basra where the fundamentalists started taking over and that was in the supposed "peaceful" part of the country. Bush opened the door for Al Qaeda in Iraq only the Iraqis can get rid of them. It's time for them settle their scores without us refereeing. I'm sick of the middle east period and the war profiteering at my expense.

[Mr. Kruger]

yes

[Jack Klompus]

"yes"

no

"Nuclear power has a lot of problems including high relative costs; adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. Bottom line- the costs outweigh the benefits."

To clarify, the cost to build a NEW reactor is unattractive -- right now. But it doesn't have to be. However, the cost of generating electricity from existing ones beats coal and gas handily. In both environmental and economic tests.

"And liquid coal releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline, making a hybrid filled with liquid coal as dirty as a Hummer H3 running on regular gas."

With sequestration, its a different story. And I'm quite sure liquid coal wouldn't even make it to the drawing board without sequestration agreed upon. Still, it's not as if liquid coal is being pimped to take over gasoline. It's just being sought as another alternative to gas. Each option isn't all-or-nothing. The more viable diversity in the market, the lower the price of everything. And I'm aware this involves cutting off moutain tops, a practice I believe you're slightly lukewarm about.

"Ethanol: we're seeing the effects of that in food prices and obviously fuel prices as corn is subsidized (for production and transportation) and removed from the food markets to the refineries."

I didn't mention ethanol for that very reason.

"Was there ever a time when they weren't making a profit?"

I don't know. Should there have been such a time? Again, what's the goal of every business?

"Every time a company incurs added cost they say they need to pass that on to the consumer. But for years now this industry (oil) has incurred nothing but billions of dollars in tax payer corporate welfare subsidies making never-seen before historic profits and the consumer has been charged with record-setting price increases. It's a fucking hose-job."

Supply and demand. The consumer ultimately determines the prices. Unfortunately, there are still enough people willing to pay. It's a self-correcting market. Personally, I think there's a silver lining to these high prices. if anything, it's speeding up the rate at which we seek alternatives and also think more about conservation (if at least for a little while). Many businesses are more rapidly embracing the idea of telecommuting (for office-type jobs).

"Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, reported at the start of this month a record 2007 profit of $40.6 billion, earnings that trounced any other company. Royal Dutch Shell reported the largest earnings of any company in Britain, at about $31 billion."

To be clear, Exxon is the largest non state-owned oil company. But of all oil companies globally, it is ranked 14th. All of America's oil companies are tiny compared to the rest of the world. But more importantly, why should they be singled out for gross profits? While roughly $.10 of profit for every dollar spent is pretty good, it's nothing compared to the banks and phramaceutical companies, among others. Larger companies tend to have large gross profits. But not necessarily profit margins. I don't see the fairness in singling them out. They've already been investigated for gouging and nothing was found. It's just easy for political fodder.

"How many highways (or highway maintenance) and bridges has Exxon built? I don't like paying taxes. I'm an advocate for lowering taxes. But my car is useless unless there are roads I can drive it on."

Spare me. Do you honestly believe all that tax revenue from the gas tax goes towards roads and bridges?

[Mr. Kruger]

Supply and demand. The consumer ultimately determines the prices.

Ultimately, the supplier can determine the prices through artificial controls.

Per Assman (see above): I hate to be the cynic here, but the conspiracy theory states that the war isn't about stealing oil - it's about making sure they never re-open those oil fields in Iraq. Right now, the debate is about who will end up taking control of them when the US leaves, but the result is just a decreased worldwide supply of oil, an increase in price and record oil company profits. Less obvious than stealing, but the money is the same.

Do you honestly believe all that tax revenue from the gas tax goes towards roads and bridges?

It's where the bulk of it goes. It's the fundamental purpose for levying it.

[Jack Klompus]

"Ultimately, the supplier can determine the prices through artificial controls."

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, by "artificial controls," but it's certainly possible. I know there has been speculation that one of the problems is...speculation. Also known as the concept of "paper barrels." That means an obscene enough amount of trading on oil futures without the necessary visibility of trade activity. Seems like it would be easy enough to flush out, but who knows if they actually do anything about it. If it's up to a government panel, we'll be completely on solar power by the time the investigation is concluded.

"Per Assman (see above): I hate to be the cynic here, but the conspiracy theory states that the war isn't about stealing oil - it's about making sure they never re-open those oil fields in Iraq. Right now, the debate is about who will end up taking control of them when the US leaves, but the result is just a decreased worldwide supply of oil, an increase in price and record oil company profits. Less obvious than stealing, but the money is the same."

Well, I disagree with you and Assman on that. First reason, there's a multitude of conspiracy theories about the war being for oil, most of which aren't nearly as reasoned as this one. Secondly, Iraq will ultimately control their oil supply. The question is, which firms will they allow to take part in production sharing? Obviously there's some competition going on over this which gives life to further conspiracy theories. Nontheless, it won't result in a decreased worldwide supply. The main driver in this is countries like India and China, both of whose demand continues to skyrocket. Compounding that is our own country's squabbles over the issue/non-issue of refining capacity.

"It's the fundamental purpose for levying it."

Yes, all taxes have a fundamental purpose, but seldom ever do just what they're set forth to do. I'm not saying getting rid of it us a solution. I just find it hypocritical that our government is pissing about what the oil companies are making per gallon and how they are spending their profits. Meanwhile, they don't have to account for every cent of the tax dollars they are milking from the consumer per gallon (which is 8 cents more the oil companies). They just say, "it's for roads and bridges" move the shells, tell us to guess which one has the red ball and we stop asking. I think it's bullshit.

[Mr. Kruger]

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, by "artificial controls," but it's certainly possible.

By that I meant manipulating the supply in order to increase demand instead of trying to meet demand.

With sequestration, its a different story.

Right, but the coal companies don't even have a viable plan for that yet. It's a red herring at this point.

The question is, which firms will they allow to take part in production sharing?

If the Shiite retain control it will be Iran. Sunnis: the Arabs in the form of the Emerites and/or Syria. Bottom line- the US is the wedge that wants to retain control of who gets what and how much. Power-brokers do it Better.

They just say, "it's for roads and bridges" move the shells, tell us to guess which one has the red ball and we stop asking. I think it's bullshit.

That's why they hire pretty, young Georgetown girls so that we can call, email, and bug the shit out of with ten million constituent complaints a day until they get the fucking message.

[Jack Klompus]

"We have plenty in our midst, but our own laws greatly limit where American companies can drill. Though as we speak, China, Canada, and Cuba are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico."

Okay, apparently China is not. Thanks for nothing, CNN.