[Ncturnal]

And even if it was just for oil, I don't want to hear you complaining when oil prices skyrocket if we leave.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the war is driving our currency in the ground and you want to talk about oil prices? Even if oil prices remained the same, the net effect will be a price increase due to the devaluing of the dollar, but if you haven't noticed, oil prices have already gone up, but I'm sure the war has nothing to do with that. At least the oil companies are showing record profits since the start of the war, otherwise it would be a total loss. :up: I'm more concerned with our reckless spending on this war and the needless death of 1.2 million people than I am oil prices. We've spent $1.2 TRILLION (and climbing) so far on this war and your best argument is gas prices? Where do you think this money for the war comes from? If you think this qualifies cheap oil, all I can ask is are you that bad at math? For example, we use over 20 million barrels of oil a day. The AP said today that oil will average $85 a barrel in 2008, which is $1.7 billion a day or $620.5 billion a year. So if we would have just bought the oil instead of spending it on the war, we'd have almost 2 full years at our current elevated prices or 6 years at pre-war oil prices. Justifying the death of 1.2 million people for cheap oil is repugnant but it doesn't surprise me coming from the Rudy camp.