# $4 a gallon for gas coming to a pump near you



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... OlUzd30YOo

We often hear that the only reason we are in Iraq is for oil. I disagree, but find some irony in that assumption. What if we win in Iraq and they become a democracy? What if we were in it for the oil and we see $2 a gallon gas again. 
I want to win in Iraq for the security of this nation, but I'll bet there are a lot of hypocrites out there that would love $2 a gallon gas. What will $4 a gallon for gas do to our economy. What would $2 a gallon gas do for our economy. 
The most important question. If we pay for Iraq freedom with American lives and money should we expect preferential treatment in oil trade with Iraq. I think we should be repaid for the war completely. They money aspect can be repaid, the loss of life never can. We better se some sort of show of appreciation. We better see appreciation towards this nation and towards those who gave their lives. I would like to see a wall in Baghdad like the Viet Nam Wall in Washington. It should say "these Americans gave selflessly of themselves for the freedom of this nation". Unlike France they should never forget.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Oh, yeah but everone knows that at $4 per gallon it is actually a really good deal relative to the cost of inflation. Don't you agree???? I think that is a quote from Exxon executives. The best thing about high gas prices is that it finally makes us look at how dependent we are on one kind of fuel. When people get put under pressure they get creative and the higher the cost of fuel the more economical alternative energy ideas become so I don't necessarily like higher fuel but it does make people a little more creative so that is one benefit.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

$4/gallon for gas will crush my budget. I will probably keep the boat and use it sparingly, but the suburban will have to go down the road that is for sure.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Ahhh, just get a little "rice burner" for driving around town and to work. I have a little '91 POS Mit. Mirage that I drive everyday. Its not much to look at but it gets 32 mpg in town. That way my pickup stays in the garage and doesn't get miles put on it. :wink: I also save a pile of money so I can in turn spend it on guns. :beer:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

plainsman, whiile i agree with you and your post, there is no way in hell we will ever get even a simple "thank you" from the towels. they don't have a clue about the democratic ideals of government nor do they understand it or care. the sunnis and ****es have been fightling for hundreds of years and it will never end. unfortunately we are wasting our time, resources and our soldiers' lives in this unsustainable conflict. we could leave tomorrow or 10 years from now and the vacum and civil war will still be raging. this is just a "**** conflict", with no success to be gained. we need to leave and let them get on with killing each other. a human life means nothing to these heathens, they just get off on cutting each others heads off, even 12 year old kids are being trained to do this.
i would prefer to see us turn the "sand into glass", if you know what i mean.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I know what you mean. It is frustrating isn't it? At this point after spending all that money and lives, I would let them kill each other while I sucked their oil for payment. Take over the oil fields and to heck with the rest of the country. We have spent to much in lives and money to just let it go. I say extract payment from them by any means possible. A barrel of oil for every $50 and a million dollars worth of oil for every life. Send the payment of one million to the wives, children, or parents of those killed in action. If they don't value their freedom why should we. I don't see them taking any great stand on their own, and they have had sufficient time. 
I agree with a time table to pull out, it just should be highly classified and the media should not get a smell of information. The fools don't know how to handle it like they did in the past. If D Day were to happen today, the media would announce it to the world and be standing on the beach with the lights on like they did in Somalia. Anyone who turned on a light in that situation should have been tried for treason by a military court and executed.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Kurds appreciate it so do many Iraqis, quit getting your facts from TV.

And the war is not only for their benefit if it was just about them fighting one another we would never have went there.

Its about islamo facism and the undeniable need we have for a reliable source of oil. If we lose to either thing we will have long term big problems.

Remember 9-11?? Whether you believe Saddam had anything to do with it or not is immaterial, the event definitely pointed out the need to address the spread of islamo facism in the world. Establishing a democracy in the middle east where we previously had established a brutal dictatorship during the cold war with the soviets may turn out to be the right thing yet.

In a way its correcting a wrong we foisted upon them, when we established Saddam.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Bobm

You got it. Muslim radicals are no different than Nazis. Well the only difference is they decided to attack the worlds greatest most powerful country first ( The USA ). The Nazis attacked weak liberal countries like France. If the Muslims attacked the French they would have folded like a cheap suit and all the other countries would have come to there aid. But they decided to take on the big dog and they got bit.

Personally I feel that some countries where hoping that we would fall. But in reality if we fall the world economy would crash. Good thing we wont fall not now not ever.

Oh and I would rather pay $4 gas than $2 ethonal.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Muslims already own France,

The Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12. uke:

Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq. Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath.

As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America, the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already "lost." :******:

*Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.*

This isn't to say that the Administration hasn't made its share of major blunders in this war. But at least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. *That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.*

In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington.

_The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists._

So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived :eyeroll: . That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles.

As for Iran, Mr. Reid's strategy of defeat would guarantee that the radical mullahs of Tehran have more influence in Baghdad than the moderate Shiites of Najaf. It would also make the mullahs even more confident that they can build a bomb with impunity and no fear of any Western response.
The stakes in Iraq are about the future of the entire Middle East--and of our inevitable involvement in it.

*In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.*

This is the outcome toward which the "lost" Democrats and Harry Reid are heading, and for which they will be responsible if it occurs. :withstupid:

The alternative is to fight for a stable Iraqi government that can control the country and keep it together in a federal, democratic system. As long as such an outcome is within reach, it is our responsibility to achieve it.


----------

