labrys 0 #176 January 2, 2007 QuoteMy point is that he served two tours and was honorably discharged. Now the Army is saying none of that matters. Get you ass back RIGHT NOW! He was honorably discharged from active duty, not released from the terms of his enlistment, which include the possibility that you be recalled to active duty as the governemt sees fit. I've been there. It sucks, but oh well. Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #177 January 2, 2007 My point is that he served two tours and was honorably discharged. Now the Army is saying none of that matters. Get you ass back RIGHT NOW! Quote When he was discharged he was released from active service, he was still fully obligated to finish his time in the inactive ready reserve, and he was fully aware of this. So basically he's bitching about having to do what he signed up for. It sucks but it's called living up to your committment, which apparently is something a lot of people take lightly nowadays, you only have to live up to the terms of a contract you sign if you agree with them Try talking to my buddy from Ft. Bragg just wrapping up his fifth tour, he's been trying to have enough time at home for years now to have a daughter but can't seem to stay home long enough to get the job done. Or my teammates stepping out for round four in a another two months, we have kids that have just showed up to the team, haven't gotten a single chance to train with the team and are rolling out with us leaving a wife and kid behind in a new city. Again, it sucks given that guys personal situation, but he has to be a man of his word, it's sad when society openly accepts people not living up to their contractual agreements, and further some people even call them brave.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #178 January 2, 2007 QuoteOk - but you're still not showing how buying a bottle of booze or making a bet is a contract, where a child buying a pack of gum isn't. Cause a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract unless it is considered to be for a necessity (that list is different from state to state). read here: http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.html Small highlight: Other contracts come into being because of conduct between parties that give rise to a contract, like contracts resulting from the purchase of goods and services. You make a contract with a store every time you purchase an item. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #179 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteOk - but you're still not showing how buying a bottle of booze or making a bet is a contract, where a child buying a pack of gum isn't. Cause a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract unless it is considered to be for a necessity (that list is different from state to state). read here: http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.html Small highlight: Other contracts come into being because of conduct between parties that give rise to a contract, like contracts resulting from the purchase of goods and services. You make a contract with a store every time you purchase an item. Then you're contradicting yourself - booze and gambling aren't necessities, and an underage child being sent to the grocery store for bread/milk would be entering into a binding contract with the grocery.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #180 January 2, 2007 QuoteThen you're contradicting yourself - booze and gambling aren't necessities, and an underage child being sent to the grocery store for bread/milk would be entering into a binding contract with the grocery. No, I am not: * The original statement was that 18 year olds can enter into legally binding contracts. * I said they can enter into most but not all contracts, since they cannot purchase booze. Purchasing booze is a form of entering into a legally binding contract. * You then said that a child trying to buy gum would be entering into a contract as well. * I replied that technically that is not a legally binding contract. (Note that gum would not be considered a necessity, though changing it to bread/milk in a subsequent post was a nice try) * Hence, 18 year olds cannot enter into all contracts. Minors can enter into some contracts. Lastly, it is now clear that your original statement that 18 year olds are to be considered adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts is utterly false. Now, you can now start to verbally run around in circles, but at least you have learned something today. An hour ago you didn't realize that when you buy something in a store you are actually entering into a contract.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #181 January 2, 2007 Your later post said that buying necessities constitutes a verbal contract between the store and the customer. You have yet to prove that booze is a necessity. As for changing things... FIRST you said that buying something from the store is a verbal contract...then changed it when I mentioned the kid and gum. Now you're saying that I'M running us around in circles in the discussion??Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #182 January 2, 2007 Quote* The original statement was that 18 year olds can enter into legally binding contracts. So then we all agree that in the US, an 18 year old can legally sign a military enlistment contract and be bound to fulfill that contract? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #183 January 2, 2007 QuoteYour later post said that buying necessities constitutes a verbal contract between the store and the customer. Yes, for minors and those over 18. QuoteYou have yet to prove that booze is a necessity It isn't. Nor is it pertinent to whether or not buying something in a store is the equivalent of entering into a contract. Since much of this appears much too difficult for you, all you really have to remember is that 18 year olds cannot enter into all legal contracts and that those under 18 can enter into some legal contracts. Maybe we need to start with reading comprehension and basic logic before we go to more difficult things like buying something in a store and basic contracts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #184 January 2, 2007 QuoteSo then we all agree that in the US, an 18 year old can legally sign a military enlistment contract and be bound to fulfill that contract? Most of them yes. Nobody here seems to be arguing about the legality of the US Armed Forces doing this though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #185 January 2, 2007 QuoteNobody here seems to be arguing about the legality of the US Armed Forces doing this though. Other than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites usedtajump 1 #186 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteThose people were told that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them against the US. That doesn't appear to have been a particularly honest part of the sales pitch. OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later. Regardless of the reason(s) we are there, if you take into account that we've been militarily bumbling around in Iraq, in one form or another, since 1991 with nothing to show for it, its small wonder that people have "Irag Fatigue". As far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam?The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #187 January 2, 2007 QuoteOther than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started? Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #188 January 2, 2007 QuoteAs far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam? I have no problem at all with anyone who decides to refuse to go with full knowledge that they're breaking their contract and are willing to face the consequences. It's just no good to whine about it being "unfair"Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites usedtajump 1 #189 January 2, 2007 I agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I just don't blame him for feeling that way. However, he should just shut up and do what he's going to do.The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #190 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThose people were told that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them against the US. That doesn't appear to have been a particularly honest part of the sales pitch. OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later. Regardless of the reason(s) we are there, if you take into account that we've been militarily bumbling around in Iraq, in one form or another, since 1991 with nothing to show for it, its small wonder that people have "Irag Fatigue". As far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam?Don't forget all that black goldI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #191 January 2, 2007 QuoteI agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I have 2 friends, both USNA grads, both just a few years shy of the 20 year mark, both having served in OEF and OIF theaters in combat billets several times, who resigned their commisions (after being stop-lossed for a while) because they didn't think they could serve and keep themselves morally balanced any longer. I havea lot of respect for them. They more than fulfilled their obligations and they sacrifced their retirements on principal.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #192 January 2, 2007 Quote> If the American public got the same info the troops have, instead >of the lets go back to the vietnam days mentality I believe the view >would be much different. As another poster notes above, our soldiers have a similar opinion. So you may have to revise your belief.Quote One more time you spin. Yes, some of them do. You found one and posted it as it was from the majority. Clearly, it is not >Instend we get the same old tired, one sided drum beat from >a outdated media . . . We got that for years. No one questioned the WMD information; everyone just reported on the horrible threat we were facing. The media did a lousy job of uncovering the news, because they didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic.The only people that claimed they were being called unpatriotic are those that say they were being called that. An effort to lable themselves to shut up the oposition. Once again nice try but pure bs. Oh, and everybody including those you favored said there were WMD so that agrument is crap too Finally the winds are shifting. Are they reporting the unvarnished truth now? Nope, they never have. They are instead reporting what people want to see, because that's what sells airtime. But at least we're not getting the gung-ho "the war will be awesome" crap any more. You are correct in saying that we are not getting the story. all we are getting is an agenda driven hype line meant to bring those back to power they support. But in thier defense. The R's have hyjacked the conservative movement for now. Conservatism works every time is it has been tryed. It will work agian should the right leader come about."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #193 January 2, 2007 QuoteConservatism works every time is it has been tryed.. "fiscal Conservatism" only - and you won't find any party today that stands for it that has a chance of getting any kind of power - it's a pure contradiction it's the social liberalism vs conservatism that's driving our two major parties, and frankly, we shouldn't even be meddling one way or the other in that crap ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #194 January 3, 2007 you have a different deffintion of it than I do then...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #195 January 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteOther than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started? Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing 18 *IS* legally adult - at least in the USA - whether they can enter into imaginary contracts with liquor stores or not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #196 January 3, 2007 QuoteDon't forget all that black gold Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps - I haven't seen prices this low since the 80's... *rolling eyes*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #197 January 3, 2007 well, legally capable to enter into a contract with the military. Adult is debatable, since you would think an adult could decide for himself if he can have a beer. But, now we are down to a semantics discussion. PS. your imaginary comment makes it clear that you are either incapable of reading or learning, or incapable of admitting you didn't know something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #198 January 3, 2007 >Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps . . . Uh, we failed miserably at "liberating Iraq from tyranny" - hence no increase in available oil. Terrorists keep blowing oil pumping equipment up. Administration officials have come out and said directly that oil was a factor in the decision to invade, so it's not really possible to argue that it was not a factor. Our failure at securing the country is a separate issue. Which is ironic, in a way. The "no blood for oil" protesters have seen the converse of their wish come true. Today we have blood for no oil. "If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions..." -GWB "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" - Chalabi "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels of production to world supply . . . successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Larry Lindsey, WH advisor "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil." - Paul Wolfowitz "It's fair to say that our land component commander and his planning staff have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect these fields as rapidly as possible." - Pentagon official "But contrary to optimistic expectations, Iraq's oil production has slipped further and further since the U.S.-led invasion, to an average of 2 million barrels a day. It has never regained even the reduced production levels that prevailed in the 1990s, when Iraq was under tough U.N. sanctions. . . . The rickety Iraqi oil system has been damaged repeatedly by insurgent sabotage and attacks on maintenance crews. Corruption, theft of oil, and widespread mismanagement compound the problems, analysts say." - AP, 8/06 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #199 January 3, 2007 Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? The demand for fuel will remain the same and the companies involved will continue to rake in the money. The users may well continue to complain about the price but will still use as much fuel as ever. The companies will just be counting the $s. No reason to suspect otherwise. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #200 January 3, 2007 >Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that >that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? Additional supply or reduced demand will generally lower prices. That's why oil prices have dropped recently - warmer winter means lower demand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
SkyDekker 1,141 #178 January 2, 2007 QuoteOk - but you're still not showing how buying a bottle of booze or making a bet is a contract, where a child buying a pack of gum isn't. Cause a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract unless it is considered to be for a necessity (that list is different from state to state). read here: http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.html Small highlight: Other contracts come into being because of conduct between parties that give rise to a contract, like contracts resulting from the purchase of goods and services. You make a contract with a store every time you purchase an item. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #179 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteOk - but you're still not showing how buying a bottle of booze or making a bet is a contract, where a child buying a pack of gum isn't. Cause a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract unless it is considered to be for a necessity (that list is different from state to state). read here: http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.html Small highlight: Other contracts come into being because of conduct between parties that give rise to a contract, like contracts resulting from the purchase of goods and services. You make a contract with a store every time you purchase an item. Then you're contradicting yourself - booze and gambling aren't necessities, and an underage child being sent to the grocery store for bread/milk would be entering into a binding contract with the grocery.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #180 January 2, 2007 QuoteThen you're contradicting yourself - booze and gambling aren't necessities, and an underage child being sent to the grocery store for bread/milk would be entering into a binding contract with the grocery. No, I am not: * The original statement was that 18 year olds can enter into legally binding contracts. * I said they can enter into most but not all contracts, since they cannot purchase booze. Purchasing booze is a form of entering into a legally binding contract. * You then said that a child trying to buy gum would be entering into a contract as well. * I replied that technically that is not a legally binding contract. (Note that gum would not be considered a necessity, though changing it to bread/milk in a subsequent post was a nice try) * Hence, 18 year olds cannot enter into all contracts. Minors can enter into some contracts. Lastly, it is now clear that your original statement that 18 year olds are to be considered adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts is utterly false. Now, you can now start to verbally run around in circles, but at least you have learned something today. An hour ago you didn't realize that when you buy something in a store you are actually entering into a contract.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #181 January 2, 2007 Your later post said that buying necessities constitutes a verbal contract between the store and the customer. You have yet to prove that booze is a necessity. As for changing things... FIRST you said that buying something from the store is a verbal contract...then changed it when I mentioned the kid and gum. Now you're saying that I'M running us around in circles in the discussion??Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #182 January 2, 2007 Quote* The original statement was that 18 year olds can enter into legally binding contracts. So then we all agree that in the US, an 18 year old can legally sign a military enlistment contract and be bound to fulfill that contract? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #183 January 2, 2007 QuoteYour later post said that buying necessities constitutes a verbal contract between the store and the customer. Yes, for minors and those over 18. QuoteYou have yet to prove that booze is a necessity It isn't. Nor is it pertinent to whether or not buying something in a store is the equivalent of entering into a contract. Since much of this appears much too difficult for you, all you really have to remember is that 18 year olds cannot enter into all legal contracts and that those under 18 can enter into some legal contracts. Maybe we need to start with reading comprehension and basic logic before we go to more difficult things like buying something in a store and basic contracts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #184 January 2, 2007 QuoteSo then we all agree that in the US, an 18 year old can legally sign a military enlistment contract and be bound to fulfill that contract? Most of them yes. Nobody here seems to be arguing about the legality of the US Armed Forces doing this though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #185 January 2, 2007 QuoteNobody here seems to be arguing about the legality of the US Armed Forces doing this though. Other than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usedtajump 1 #186 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteThose people were told that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them against the US. That doesn't appear to have been a particularly honest part of the sales pitch. OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later. Regardless of the reason(s) we are there, if you take into account that we've been militarily bumbling around in Iraq, in one form or another, since 1991 with nothing to show for it, its small wonder that people have "Irag Fatigue". As far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam?The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #187 January 2, 2007 QuoteOther than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started? Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #188 January 2, 2007 QuoteAs far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam? I have no problem at all with anyone who decides to refuse to go with full knowledge that they're breaking their contract and are willing to face the consequences. It's just no good to whine about it being "unfair"Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites usedtajump 1 #189 January 2, 2007 I agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I just don't blame him for feeling that way. However, he should just shut up and do what he's going to do.The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #190 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThose people were told that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them against the US. That doesn't appear to have been a particularly honest part of the sales pitch. OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later. Regardless of the reason(s) we are there, if you take into account that we've been militarily bumbling around in Iraq, in one form or another, since 1991 with nothing to show for it, its small wonder that people have "Irag Fatigue". As far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam?Don't forget all that black goldI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #191 January 2, 2007 QuoteI agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I have 2 friends, both USNA grads, both just a few years shy of the 20 year mark, both having served in OEF and OIF theaters in combat billets several times, who resigned their commisions (after being stop-lossed for a while) because they didn't think they could serve and keep themselves morally balanced any longer. I havea lot of respect for them. They more than fulfilled their obligations and they sacrifced their retirements on principal.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #192 January 2, 2007 Quote> If the American public got the same info the troops have, instead >of the lets go back to the vietnam days mentality I believe the view >would be much different. As another poster notes above, our soldiers have a similar opinion. So you may have to revise your belief.Quote One more time you spin. Yes, some of them do. You found one and posted it as it was from the majority. Clearly, it is not >Instend we get the same old tired, one sided drum beat from >a outdated media . . . We got that for years. No one questioned the WMD information; everyone just reported on the horrible threat we were facing. The media did a lousy job of uncovering the news, because they didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic.The only people that claimed they were being called unpatriotic are those that say they were being called that. An effort to lable themselves to shut up the oposition. Once again nice try but pure bs. Oh, and everybody including those you favored said there were WMD so that agrument is crap too Finally the winds are shifting. Are they reporting the unvarnished truth now? Nope, they never have. They are instead reporting what people want to see, because that's what sells airtime. But at least we're not getting the gung-ho "the war will be awesome" crap any more. You are correct in saying that we are not getting the story. all we are getting is an agenda driven hype line meant to bring those back to power they support. But in thier defense. The R's have hyjacked the conservative movement for now. Conservatism works every time is it has been tryed. It will work agian should the right leader come about."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #193 January 2, 2007 QuoteConservatism works every time is it has been tryed.. "fiscal Conservatism" only - and you won't find any party today that stands for it that has a chance of getting any kind of power - it's a pure contradiction it's the social liberalism vs conservatism that's driving our two major parties, and frankly, we shouldn't even be meddling one way or the other in that crap ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #194 January 3, 2007 you have a different deffintion of it than I do then...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #195 January 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteOther than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started? Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing 18 *IS* legally adult - at least in the USA - whether they can enter into imaginary contracts with liquor stores or not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #196 January 3, 2007 QuoteDon't forget all that black gold Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps - I haven't seen prices this low since the 80's... *rolling eyes*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #197 January 3, 2007 well, legally capable to enter into a contract with the military. Adult is debatable, since you would think an adult could decide for himself if he can have a beer. But, now we are down to a semantics discussion. PS. your imaginary comment makes it clear that you are either incapable of reading or learning, or incapable of admitting you didn't know something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #198 January 3, 2007 >Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps . . . Uh, we failed miserably at "liberating Iraq from tyranny" - hence no increase in available oil. Terrorists keep blowing oil pumping equipment up. Administration officials have come out and said directly that oil was a factor in the decision to invade, so it's not really possible to argue that it was not a factor. Our failure at securing the country is a separate issue. Which is ironic, in a way. The "no blood for oil" protesters have seen the converse of their wish come true. Today we have blood for no oil. "If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions..." -GWB "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" - Chalabi "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels of production to world supply . . . successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Larry Lindsey, WH advisor "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil." - Paul Wolfowitz "It's fair to say that our land component commander and his planning staff have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect these fields as rapidly as possible." - Pentagon official "But contrary to optimistic expectations, Iraq's oil production has slipped further and further since the U.S.-led invasion, to an average of 2 million barrels a day. It has never regained even the reduced production levels that prevailed in the 1990s, when Iraq was under tough U.N. sanctions. . . . The rickety Iraqi oil system has been damaged repeatedly by insurgent sabotage and attacks on maintenance crews. Corruption, theft of oil, and widespread mismanagement compound the problems, analysts say." - AP, 8/06 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #199 January 3, 2007 Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? The demand for fuel will remain the same and the companies involved will continue to rake in the money. The users may well continue to complain about the price but will still use as much fuel as ever. The companies will just be counting the $s. No reason to suspect otherwise. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #200 January 3, 2007 >Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that >that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? Additional supply or reduced demand will generally lower prices. That's why oil prices have dropped recently - warmer winter means lower demand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
labrys 0 #188 January 2, 2007 QuoteAs far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam? I have no problem at all with anyone who decides to refuse to go with full knowledge that they're breaking their contract and are willing to face the consequences. It's just no good to whine about it being "unfair"Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usedtajump 1 #189 January 2, 2007 I agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I just don't blame him for feeling that way. However, he should just shut up and do what he's going to do.The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #190 January 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThose people were told that Iraq had WMDs and intended to use them against the US. That doesn't appear to have been a particularly honest part of the sales pitch. OK, but without proof to the contrary we didn't KNOW until after the invasion. Not to turn this into a debate about WMD's but the fact is that people supported it, now they bitch about it. The shine has worn off the new toy. To compare to WWII we didn't know the extent of the Genocide until we were in Germany. Sometimes mths later. Regardless of the reason(s) we are there, if you take into account that we've been militarily bumbling around in Iraq, in one form or another, since 1991 with nothing to show for it, its small wonder that people have "Irag Fatigue". As far as this guy's situation goes, I felt the same way when discharged in 1969. If a recall notice had arrived in my mailbox inviting me back to Viet Nam I wouldn't have gone, consequences be damned! I was not about to go back over there and serve another tour in what was just simply Viet Nam's civil war, similar to the Iraq mess today. Why should he sacrifice his life for something that really has nothing to do with U.S. except for a private feud between the Bush family and Saddam?Don't forget all that black goldI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #191 January 2, 2007 QuoteI agree labrys, if he wants to refuse to go back its his own ass and he must accept the result. I have 2 friends, both USNA grads, both just a few years shy of the 20 year mark, both having served in OEF and OIF theaters in combat billets several times, who resigned their commisions (after being stop-lossed for a while) because they didn't think they could serve and keep themselves morally balanced any longer. I havea lot of respect for them. They more than fulfilled their obligations and they sacrifced their retirements on principal.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #192 January 2, 2007 Quote> If the American public got the same info the troops have, instead >of the lets go back to the vietnam days mentality I believe the view >would be much different. As another poster notes above, our soldiers have a similar opinion. So you may have to revise your belief.Quote One more time you spin. Yes, some of them do. You found one and posted it as it was from the majority. Clearly, it is not >Instend we get the same old tired, one sided drum beat from >a outdated media . . . We got that for years. No one questioned the WMD information; everyone just reported on the horrible threat we were facing. The media did a lousy job of uncovering the news, because they didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic.The only people that claimed they were being called unpatriotic are those that say they were being called that. An effort to lable themselves to shut up the oposition. Once again nice try but pure bs. Oh, and everybody including those you favored said there were WMD so that agrument is crap too Finally the winds are shifting. Are they reporting the unvarnished truth now? Nope, they never have. They are instead reporting what people want to see, because that's what sells airtime. But at least we're not getting the gung-ho "the war will be awesome" crap any more. You are correct in saying that we are not getting the story. all we are getting is an agenda driven hype line meant to bring those back to power they support. But in thier defense. The R's have hyjacked the conservative movement for now. Conservatism works every time is it has been tryed. It will work agian should the right leader come about."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #193 January 2, 2007 QuoteConservatism works every time is it has been tryed.. "fiscal Conservatism" only - and you won't find any party today that stands for it that has a chance of getting any kind of power - it's a pure contradiction it's the social liberalism vs conservatism that's driving our two major parties, and frankly, we shouldn't even be meddling one way or the other in that crap ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #194 January 3, 2007 you have a different deffintion of it than I do then...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #195 January 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteOther than that this little spat you guys have been having about booze and gum started out with a discussion about whether or not 18 year olds were old enough to understand what a legally binding contract really means, right? Or did you forget how it started? Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing 18 *IS* legally adult - at least in the USA - whether they can enter into imaginary contracts with liquor stores or not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #196 January 3, 2007 QuoteDon't forget all that black gold Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps - I haven't seen prices this low since the 80's... *rolling eyes*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #197 January 3, 2007 well, legally capable to enter into a contract with the military. Adult is debatable, since you would think an adult could decide for himself if he can have a beer. But, now we are down to a semantics discussion. PS. your imaginary comment makes it clear that you are either incapable of reading or learning, or incapable of admitting you didn't know something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #198 January 3, 2007 >Yeah, all that oil we're getting from there now is making such a difference at the gas pumps . . . Uh, we failed miserably at "liberating Iraq from tyranny" - hence no increase in available oil. Terrorists keep blowing oil pumping equipment up. Administration officials have come out and said directly that oil was a factor in the decision to invade, so it's not really possible to argue that it was not a factor. Our failure at securing the country is a separate issue. Which is ironic, in a way. The "no blood for oil" protesters have seen the converse of their wish come true. Today we have blood for no oil. "If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions..." -GWB "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil" - Chalabi "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels of production to world supply . . . successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Larry Lindsey, WH advisor "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil." - Paul Wolfowitz "It's fair to say that our land component commander and his planning staff have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect these fields as rapidly as possible." - Pentagon official "But contrary to optimistic expectations, Iraq's oil production has slipped further and further since the U.S.-led invasion, to an average of 2 million barrels a day. It has never regained even the reduced production levels that prevailed in the 1990s, when Iraq was under tough U.N. sanctions. . . . The rickety Iraqi oil system has been damaged repeatedly by insurgent sabotage and attacks on maintenance crews. Corruption, theft of oil, and widespread mismanagement compound the problems, analysts say." - AP, 8/06 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #199 January 3, 2007 Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? The demand for fuel will remain the same and the companies involved will continue to rake in the money. The users may well continue to complain about the price but will still use as much fuel as ever. The companies will just be counting the $s. No reason to suspect otherwise. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #200 January 3, 2007 >Even if the US does control the Iraqi oil, it does not mean that >that will translate to cheaper prices at the pumps - why should it? Additional supply or reduced demand will generally lower prices. That's why oil prices have dropped recently - warmer winter means lower demand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
