The Capitulation Caucus

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Extracting oil isn’t black magic. Any half-decent country can get it done.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

It is extremely difficult and costly to extract oil. Drilling is incredibly expensive, and it’s a total crapshoot as to where you should drill.

You can do geological and gravitational surveys, and you can even set off some underground explosives and listen to their echoes, and most of the time you still only have an educated guess as to whether there’s oil in the ground or not.

Is there oil? How deep is it? How much is there? How much can we extract? How long will it take? Is it worth gambling hundreds of millions of dollars to see if there’s oil down there?

Truth is, Oil Corps don’t get answers to these questions. They have to go out on a limb in order to find the oil.

Compared to nearly every industry, “Big Oil” is almost literally a giant poker game. It’s a huge gamble.

Even if you know there’s oil below you, it’s still difficult to extract it. Even the “Big Oil” corps currently do not have the technology to extract more than a small fraction of what is down there.

You can do some more research on your own lixy, but to imply that all it takes is a shovel and a dowsing rod is patently false.

lixy wrote:
Look at the profits your oil companies make out of it. It’s INSANE. They’re always in the top 5 of the Fortune 500 and their revenues double each year.

Look at oil companies books. Their profits are more than reasonable for the costs they pour in and the risks they assume.

ExxonMobile profited $39 billion in FY 2006. That sounds like a lot until you see that they poured in $310 billion in costs.

That’s $310,233,000,000.

The profit margin on that is merely 13%. That means that ExxonMobile is profiting 13 cents for every dollar they spend, and that’s not much.

And no, their revenues do not double every year.

lixy wrote:

The only people who benefit from the meager compensations the country gets for the explotation contracts are the ruling elite. Those are always some kind of absolute monarchy or dictatorship.

Sounds like a problem with the Middle-Eastern countries moreso than a problem with the oil corps.

Maybe you guys should fix that, eh?[/quote]

Excellent post!

Savages often regard capitalism, industry, production, and so on, as some sort of trickery or magic. They think somehow they are being exploited, if the capitalist hands them a shovel and a job, never realizing everything that goes into the process.

How many people realize the tremendous amount of hard work and thought that went into putting that loaf of bread on their table where it is? To savages, its MAGIC! Anyone can do it!

For about a lousy $3, I can drive 20 miles. Think about walking that, Lixy, and then come and complain about the oil companies.

22

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_capitulation_caucus.html

April 06, 2007
The Capitulation Caucus
By Rich Lowry

Lowry? Why not put something by O’Reilly or Hannity next time. Better yet, link to Coulter’s website. Oh…wait, HH did that already.

I read the piece out of curiosity and it’s complete garbage. He assumes the war in Iraq has any chances of being “won”. Get over it, as long as there’ll be one Iraqis standing, they’ll continue to fight your presence on their soil.

Rosie O’Donnell has a national forum with which to present her hatred of America. Why does Ann Coulter NOT have a similar setup? Ask yourself sometime.

We will win in Iraq. The people there KNOW what will happen if we were to leave. Our goal there is to establish a functional republic based upon intelligence, not the Koran and its mystical barbarism.

Iraqis are learning to leave their religion at home and not try to impose it on others. When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done.

[/quote]

So, your pro separation of church and state now HH?

Regardless, if you haven’t noticed, they fucking HATE us over there. The anniversary of the war saw thousands of protectors to our presence there.

How can the war be won when most of the people don’t really give two shits about democracy?

Oh and as for your question about Rosie and Ann… Ann ain’t rich. And since you like rich people running the world, you should understand why she has more power and voice (not that I like that).

23

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Wrong. Dead wrong. [/quote]

We’re talking about the Middle-East here. Arguably the easiest oil to extract in the world. Your argument would stand for the case of Venezuelan oil or off-shore wells, but for Saudi Arabia or Iraq, it’s not.

[quote]Look at oil companies books. Their profits are more than reasonable for the costs they pour in and the risks they assume.

ExxonMobile profited $39 billion in FY 2006. That sounds like a lot until you see that they poured in $310 billion in costs. [/quote]

How much of those 300 billions were new investments and how much of it was to repurchase its own shares in a scheme to drive up stock prices?

[quote]Sounds like a problem with the Middle-Eastern countries moreso than a problem with the oil corps.

Maybe you guys should fix that, eh? [/quote]

Oh, like it’s any secret that oil corps are represented in Washington to make sure the status quo remains in those countries.

If the populace gets any say in the matter, they’d want their resources nationalized or at least, an increase in the money they get for the giving out the contracts.

24

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To savages, its MAGIC! Anyone can do it! [/quote]

That didn’t make sense, now did it? To describe something as “magic” is usually to show that only a few initiated people have access to that knowledge.

I vowed that my next car will be electric or will not be at all. Meanwhile, my bike and the train take me wherever I need to be.

Also, since when walking became such a bad thing? If more Americans walked instead of sitting on their asses, maybe you wouldn’t be have so many fat slobs.

25

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Extracting oil isn’t black magic. Any half-decent country can get it done.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

It is extremely difficult and costly to extract oil. Drilling is incredibly expensive, and it’s a total crapshoot as to where you should drill.

You can do geological and gravitational surveys, and you can even set off some underground explosives and listen to their echoes, and most of the time you still only have an educated guess as to whether there’s oil in the ground or not.

Is there oil? How deep is it? How much is there? How much can we extract? How long will it take? Is it worth gambling hundreds of millions of dollars to see if there’s oil down there?

Truth is, Oil Corps don’t get answers to these questions. They have to go out on a limb in order to find the oil.

Compared to nearly every industry, “Big Oil” is almost literally a giant poker game. It’s a huge gamble.

Even if you know there’s oil below you, it’s still difficult to extract it. Even the “Big Oil” corps currently do not have the technology to extract more than a small fraction of what is down there.

You can do some more research on your own lixy, but to imply that all it takes is a shovel and a dowsing rod is patently false.

lixy wrote:
Look at the profits your oil companies make out of it. It’s INSANE. They’re always in the top 5 of the Fortune 500 and their revenues double each year.

Look at oil companies books. Their profits are more than reasonable for the costs they pour in and the risks they assume.

ExxonMobile profited $39 billion in FY 2006. That sounds like a lot until you see that they poured in $310 billion in costs.

That’s $310,233,000,000.

The profit margin on that is merely 13%. That means that ExxonMobile is profiting 13 cents for every dollar they spend, and that’s not much.

And no, their revenues do not double every year.

[b]EDIT: Actually, that 13% could be considered more of a return on investment. Sorry, my mistake.

EM’s operating revenue for FY 2006 was $365B. $39B / $365B = 10.69%, which is even lower than 13%.

So lixy, that means that 89 cents of every dollar that flows in to EM is consumed to cover their expenses. Only 11 cents of every dollar of revenue goes for profit. Even more reasonable, no?

/EDIT[/b]

lixy wrote:

The only people who benefit from the meager compensations the country gets for the explotation contracts are the ruling elite. Those are always some kind of absolute monarchy or dictatorship.

Sounds like a problem with the Middle-Eastern countries moreso than a problem with the oil corps.

Maybe you guys should fix that, eh?[/quote]

Good post.

26

[quote]lixy wrote:
…I vowed that my next car will be electric or will not be at all. Meanwhile, my bike and the train take me wherever I need to be.

Also, since when walking became such a bad thing? If more Americans walked instead of sitting on their asses, maybe you wouldn’t be have so many fat slobs.[/quote]

Did you walk from North Africa to Sweden?

27

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Did you walk from North Africa to Sweden?
[/quote]

Did you forget? I’m just lying about being in Sweden. Rather, I’m in the Afghan hills smoking enough opium to instantaneously get me wherever I want.

28

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I look forward to you pointing out these straw men and falsehoods

Okay, to begin with… you said

There are however, many others that see no other option for the U.S. besides complete surrender to our enemies.

“complete surrender”???

Name one person who advocates “complete surrender”. You said there are “many” of them.

So name one, jackass. Name one person who advocates “surrender”.[/quote]

[i][b]sur.ren.der(s-rndr)

VERB[/b]:
sur.ren.dered , sur.ren.der.ing , sur.ren.ders
VERB:

-To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
-To give up in favor of another.
-To give up or give back (something that has been granted): surrender a contractual right.
-To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.
-To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to an emotion: surrendered himself to grief.
Law To restore (an estate, for example), especially to give up (a lease) before expiration of the term.
VERB:

-To give oneself up, as to an enemy.[/i]

Well gee bradly, how 'bout these:

Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html

Pelosi Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/ap/politics/mainD8E74G2O0.shtml

Murtha: Military Supports Call for Iraq Withdrawalhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5035043

Reid Backs Iraq War-Funds Cutoff

Edwards Wants Immediate Iraq Withdrawal
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/05/ap/politics/mainD8JAGRUO0.shtml

Dean repeats call for withdrawal of troops from Iraq
http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5073808&nav=2aKD

To retreat from Iraq in the face of a determined enemy, prior to completing the mission, is surrender. The object of a fighting force is not simply to kill the enemy. Killing, maiming, and wounding the enemy is what is done in an effort to break their will to continue fighting. Get it? The majority of the elected democrats are showing that they do not have the will to continue fighting a deternimed enemy.

By retreating from Iraq, we would be in essence, surrendering that region to the control of Iran and Syria. You know this. Which by the way has been their objective all along.

Actually, I believe I do. I have however, for you benefit, posted a definition of surrender. Please study it.

I think you should go search your soul in a quite place and ask yourself this; do I know what the fuck I’m talking about?

Seriously bradley, this hasn’t been your best work.

29

Thoughts?

The War You’re Not Reading About

By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad – an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation “stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day.” Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people.

Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq.

In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a “few dead-enders” or being in its “last throes.”

I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war.

I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples:

  • Sunni sheikhs in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni tribal leaders. The newly proposed de-Baathification legislation grew out of that meeting. Police recruitment in Ramadi has increased dramatically over the past four months.

  • More than 50 joint U.S.-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad. Regular patrols establish connections with the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in a significant increase in security and actionable intelligence.

  • Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.

  • Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus’s plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve.

I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group’s conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed. This is not a moment for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high.

30

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To savages, its MAGIC! Anyone can do it!

That didn’t make sense, now did it? To describe something as “magic” is usually to show that only a few initiated people have access to that knowledge.

For about a lousy $3, I can drive 20 miles. Think about walking that, Lixy, and then come and complain about the oil companies.

I vowed that my next car will be electric or will not be at all. Meanwhile, my bike and the train take me wherever I need to be.

Also, since when walking became such a bad thing? If more Americans walked instead of sitting on their asses, maybe you wouldn’t be have so many fat slobs.[/quote]

Is this now the anti-industrial revolution?

Have you walked or biked 20 miles lately, Lixy? If so, either the weather in Sweden is very mild or you like mountain biking there in the Afghan.

True, goat herders are in better shape, since they walk a lot. Good for them. I’ll take my gas hog 4 wheel drive over stepping in goat shit any day.

31

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. [/quote]

What he’s not telling you is that he had a hunderd soldiers and four Blackwater helicopters around him all the time.

32

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

What he’s not telling you is that he had a hunderd soldiers and four Blackwater helicopters around him all the time.[/quote]

He’s a U.S. senator, I’m sure that he had a modicum of personal security. Besides, he even says so in the article, that while it’s not roses and sunshine as of yet, it’s much improved.

That’s the point he was trying to make, that the improvement is significant. Your post is illustrating your true colors. That you don’t really want the U.S. to be successful in Iraq.

What did you think of the other points that the article made?

33

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

What he’s not telling you is that he had a hunderd soldiers and four Blackwater helicopters around him all the time.[/quote]

Also, do you think that senator McCain would go to Detroit, LA, NY city, or even Sweden for that matter, without a significant security detail?

I realize that this is a long comparison, however my point is that he is a high profile U.S. senator. Put him in a region of the world that’s indigenous to terrorism, and that’s going to produce a large security detail.

Use your head boy.

34

[quote]hedo wrote:

Mods…you need an example. You can’t find a better one then lixy…just read his posts.
[/quote]

However you disagree with his political positions he has never attacked anyone and is more civil than many of the “vets” on this site. This place if full of hypocrites.

Why are people so put-off by words? Actions are more important.

To address the OP:

What is the end goal of war in Iraq, besides “winning”? What does winning mean? The US hasn’t won a war since WWII so how does the “loss” of this war impact it? It doesn’t.

35

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Yea, cuz the internet is a pristine bastion of the truth, always. No glass and mirrirs on the internet, mmm mmm, no sir.

[/quote]
No…the internet is only good for references to hardcore weightlifting and porn.

Give us a break. You imply the internet is no good for information yet post a link that you must “feel” is good. So which is it? Is your link “truth” or just another virtual blackhole of useless rhetoric?

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:

Mods…you need an example. You can’t find a better one then lixy…just read his posts.

However you disagree with his political positions he has never attacked anyone and is more civil than many of the “vets” on this site. This place if full of hypocrites.

Why are people so put-off by words? Actions are more important.

To address the OP:

What is the end goal of war in Iraq, besides “winning”? What does winning mean? The US hasn’t won a war since WWII so how does the “loss” of this war impact it? It doesn’t. [/quote]

Bullshit. Have you even read anything he has written. You need to learn the difference between action and reaction.
Simply because he agrees with your generally negative view of everything hardly makes lixy a responsible poster.

It’s the internet. Actions??? What are you calling for?

I’m not put off by him or you. I just find it amusing to point out true troll behavior. The site has been swamped with it lately. I don’t think they realize what some people use it for…certainly not training advice and guidance.

37

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Yea, cuz the internet is a pristine bastion of the truth, always. No glass and mirrirs on the internet, mmm mmm, no sir.

No…the internet is only good for references to hardcore weightlifting and porn.

Give us a break. You imply the internet is no good for information yet post a link that you must “feel” is good. So which is it? Is your link “truth” or just another virtual blackhole of useless rhetoric?[/quote]

lifticvs,

My point was exactly that. My point was that while the internet is a revolutionary tool for research, and is capable of disseminating information like no other time in history, it is also capable of lies and deceit.

Wreckless was implying that the internet is the go to tool for cutting through the bullshit. We both know how laughable that position is.

The internet is what it is. We all post links to various sites and have to evaluate the source for what they are. Being that the article was written by a US senator that had just returned from Baghdad, I was willing to invest some level of credibility to it.

Methinks you have misunderstood me. You are forgiven :-]

38

[quote]hedo wrote:
I’m not put off by him or you. I just find it amusing to point out true troll behavior. The site has been swamped with it lately. I don’t think they realize what some people use it for…certainly not training advice and guidance.

[/quote]
What is “true troll” behavior? This forum has nothing to do with lifting. There are forums to address that if you wish.

If he is a troll then anyone who posts anything even slightly controversial is a troll…?

Is the point of political discussion to post stuff people will agree with or to open questions for discussion? If I agree with everyone why bother having a boring discussion about it?

My point with judging action is precisely what you are implying. This is the internet and I have seen more attacks on people’s perceived politics as if there were some moral authority in these matters. Actions are the only relevant way to judge someone, not how they think or write.

I disagree with many on just about everything but I am sure even though many of the forum visitors may be douchebags the way they approach me about my opinions on this site does not make them douchebags in real life.

39

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To address the OP:

What is the end goal of war in Iraq, besides “winning”? What does winning mean?[/quote]

I believe I’ve addressed this earlier in the thread.

Let me get this straight. Since the US hasn’t been overwhelmingly successful in their military actions post WWII,you think we’ve set a precedent for military mediocrity that you think is acceptable to allow in current and future actions alike?

I hope that I’ve misunderstood you. To actually put faith in such a credence is sad really. I’d rather put my faith in the pursuit of excellence and the belief that the US should not give up or capitulate simply because the road to success has been difficult previously. We should not give up when there is still a chance for success, and it’s becoming apparent that the surge in Baghdad is producing results.

Thoughts?

40

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’m not put off by him or you. I just find it amusing to point out true troll behavior. The site has been swamped with it lately. I don’t think they realize what some people use it for…certainly not training advice and guidance.

What is “true troll” behavior? This forum has nothing to do with lifting. There are forums to address that if you wish.

If he is a troll then anyone who posts anything even slightly controversial is a troll…?

Is the point of political discussion to post stuff people will agree with or to open questions for discussion? If I agree with everyone why bother having a boring discussion about it?

My point with judging action is precisely what you are implying. This is the internet and I have seen more attacks on people’s perceived politics as if there were some moral authority in these matters. Actions are the only relevant way to judge someone, not how they think or write.

I disagree with many on just about everything but I am sure even though many of the forum visitors may be douchebags the way they approach me about my opinions on this site does not make them douchebags in real life.[/quote]

Well I agree with your last point.

Since it’s an internet forum I can only make a judegement on what people write, same as everyone else.

A troll posts for a reaction nothing more. The site is a US bodybuilding site. I would expect that most posters have at least a casual interest in the subject. Someone who posts only negative comments about the US on a US bodybuilding site, in the politics section of the site, and is absent from all of the other forums, is a troll.

It’s very common. It’s an effort that is
encouraged on certain Arab websites. It jams up a lot of otherwise good sites. Most place simply delete the posters but Biotest has been pretty tolerant of lixy.