PDA

View Full Version : Yeah, we're helping out in Iraq...oops?



Phoenix
2nd June 04, 03:54 PM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/dontloot.html

Stold3
2nd June 04, 03:56 PM
rofl. That's real?

Phoenix
2nd June 04, 03:59 PM
Apparently, it's supposed to be a clip from a documentary.

Deluxe247
2nd June 04, 04:33 PM
Dont let the actions of a few bad soldiers disuade you from the good that the rest of the army is doing.

lost future
2nd June 04, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
Dont let the actions of a few bad soldiers disuade you from the good that the rest of the army is doing.

Unfortunately most people think that way. They see a few bad examples and think the entire American army is doing this. Sad but true.

Stold3
2nd June 04, 04:47 PM
I don't get it. They're just allowed to walk around and hand out punishment as they see fit?

You stole wood so we're going to run over your car with a tank then laugh about it.

Ignorant
3rd June 04, 01:56 AM
Most people who like the war, also like bush...Im tired of my tax dollars going to defending unseen threats that are bullshit. Nevermind that Haliburton is profiting from this war...where do you think the fuel comes from to power the military? Two kinds of people like bush...bull riding fans, and toby keith. Everytime you see some moron on fox news with the IQ of a toaster oven talking about the war it always seems to have something to do with 9/11.....


Guess what buddy......

http://www.textfiles.com/art/afinger.txt

...Theres no evidence of a 9/11 iraq link in the first place that doesnt consist of horse grundies.....This is just more proof that the american people will follow any idiot blindly without thinking for themselves....your expected to have unwavering pride and patriotism in the military otherwise your called un-american.....nevermind my tax dollars go to this war in the first place idiot....im paying for it so i can bitch and moan as much as i want.

kikkoman893
3rd June 04, 02:53 AM
(who is toby kieth?)

The Wastrel
3rd June 04, 03:11 AM
We're bringing freedom to Iraq. Don't you see that incidents like these are just isolated? I guarantee you that these Iraqis understand that they are. They aren't corrupted by the excessive coverage of this sort of thing by the Western media.

Ignorant
3rd June 04, 04:13 AM
nope....sorry, my bullshit detector just went off. if our government is so concerned about freedom why arent we in africa? or any other country? ill tell you why...its because it doesnt have anything to gain by helping out a poor nation. At least in iraq we benefit by fleecing out the rebuilding to companies. (chuckles lightly to self) i find it amusing that anyone would believe our government gives a rats ass about the iraqi people....$ is the bottom line here.

Stold3
3rd June 04, 04:16 AM
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Whatever the FUCK that's supposed to mean.

SLJ
3rd June 04, 04:17 AM
Thanks Sherlock.

Deadpan Scientist
3rd June 04, 04:18 AM
Ignorant, what makes you think that if you help one country you have to help them all?

Ignorant
3rd June 04, 04:38 AM
whos saying we have to help them all? all im saying is im sick and tired of people saying that we are doing this to "help the iraqi people" when the bottom line is money.....i would have allot more respect for the bush administration if they would just come clean and say...."we are going to blow your shit up and then fleece it out so that we benefit in the end"

Lady Vic
3rd June 04, 06:52 AM
First you talk about Halliburton supplying the oil, then you imply the war was about money (by which you mean oil).

If this were really about oil, the US wouldn't need to get involved in the oil market. It's true Iraq has a lot of oil, but the Iraqi infrastructure lacks the means to exploit it, and likely won't be to a state where they can do so fully, for several years. Nobody's long range plan has the US there that long.

These are the same people who would have whined if we had gone into Afghanistan on Sept. 10th. It would be "Osama's not a threat to us." Apparently we're supposed to sit around and wait for someone to attack us before we're justified in doing something. Saddam's regime was hostile to the US, and the only reason he didn't do something yet was because he lacked the means to do so and maintain plausible deniability.

DANINJA
3rd June 04, 07:56 AM
can someone please explain the link between sept !!th and iraq?

also do you ppl think that iraqi invasion has reduced or increased the threat of terrorism towards the US?

Lady Vic
3rd June 04, 08:09 AM
Why do you need one?

You don't see the point in taking out a malevolent dictator that would do something to hurt as soon as he was able to?

MUT
3rd June 04, 08:38 AM
Ignorant you seem like a guy who opposes the war not because of the war itself but becuase you are biased against Mr.Bush.

Saddam was a psycho who murdered his own people.He deserved to be kicked out.

By going on the offensive the Coalition is slowing down the terroists....if the terroists got their hands on a nuke do you really think they would hesitate to obliterate innocent people?

Stop them before they become more powerful.Stop them now.

As for this looting and torture....like people have said a few men does not equal the whole american army.

And a random iraqi getting pissed is torture.It is true.But nothing near as bad as them blowing up innocents,chopping off Nick Bergs head or taking those Japanese hostages.

And this *torture* is understandable.....some soldiers have seen their best friends shot to pieces...they have a right to be angry.(not that I'm supporting torture but its understandable.)

WingChun Lawyer
3rd June 04, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
We're bringing freedom to Iraq. Don't you see that incidents like these are just isolated? I guarantee you that these Iraqis understand that they are. They aren't corrupted by the excessive coverage of this sort of thing by the Western media.

Wastrel, I used to believe that these incidents were isolated, but frankly I am not so sure anymore. I couldnīt listen to what they said, but these soldiers let themselves be taped while doing justice with their own hands; from that, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this sort of thing is pretty much normal there.

If that sort of behaviour is acceptable, as implied by the fact that the soldiers let themselves be taped while going at it, we just have to wonder what goes beyong closed doors, even discounting Abu Ghraib.

Quite frankly, I am not quite sure what kind of regime will be in Iraq when the USA gets out of there, if it ever will, mind. "Freedom" is too strong a word to use when you talk about a government created by foreign forces, I believe.

As for the iraqis being corrupted by the western media...well, donīt forget that western media mainly does its best to show that the iraqis approve the changes.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/005438.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm

I donīt trust those surveys. Of course, it is also hard to believe news such as these.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0502-01.htm

Honestly, I believe we are all in the dark regarding iraqisī opinion on the occupation.

Osiris
3rd June 04, 10:29 AM
Think about it. If you get mugged, do you sit around and wait for it to happen again? Fuck naw. Next time you see some crrepy guy head to your side of the street you shoot his ass in the face. Its only common sense.

WingChun Lawyer
3rd June 04, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
Think about it. If you get mugged, do you sit around and wait for it to happen again? Fuck naw. Next time you see some crrepy guy head to your side of the street you shoot his ass in the face. Its only common sense.

What this has to do with what US soldiers are doing in iraq to civilians? What this has to do with iraqis opinion on the occupation? Were you being ironic, or what?

Sorry, didnīt get your point.

Bard of DorAr
3rd June 04, 10:42 AM
Wing, it had to do with the whole "Wait to be attacked before being justified"

People are stupid that way, as Vic and Osiris pointed out.

If you retaliate to great atrocity with deaths by the hundreds or thousands it's hot blooded and justified.

If you take pre-emptive action to stop something from happening to begin with and it costs less lives, you're cold blooded and ruthless.

WingChun Lawyer
3rd June 04, 10:59 AM
Bard, quite frankly, I read somewhere that, since the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda never had so many recruits. And Saddam didnīt have WMD. And there was no proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. And I would like to know where the iraqi oil it going to at this very moment.

Call me a tinfoil hat paranoid if you like, but I do believe that attacking Saddam had little if anything to do with US security. Hell, if that were the issue, Saudi Arabia should have been attacked instead.

Osiris
3rd June 04, 11:08 AM
Sarcasm dumbasses.

Matt Bernius
3rd June 04, 11:10 AM
Look, standing just on the "He was a terrible dictator and killed his poeple" arguement just doesn't hold any weight. How many time (even during the current administration) have we turned a blind eye to rampant acts of state sponsored genocide going on in places like Africa (Chad as a current example). Across the world there a numerous countries where scores of disidents are being butchered with Machetes, run into other countries, or killed by forced starvation. So, no, saying that our reason for going in was to liberate the people doesn't cut it.

- Matt

fragbot
3rd June 04, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by DANINJA
can someone please explain the link between sept !!th and iraq?


I don't think there's one of any substance. This was people from the original Bush administration who realized they left something important undone.

For that matter, it's also an object lesson (AKA someone was needed for an example. . .pick Saddam) for two groups of people--other dictators in the region and the Arabic version of Joe Sixpack who thinks terrorism doesn't matter since it primarily targets infidels.

As a side benefit, it's apparently been an attraction to the people in the region who lean towards terrorism. While it makes for bad press, this is a terrific development for the long *and* short-term. After all, there's a certain percentage of people who want to die for the cause. I'd posit it's better to deal with them somewhere else and *as early* as possible. Thus, while Thomas Paine ridiculed the man who wanted "peace in my time" as selfish, 21st century mobility means we can work for peace in our children's time and do it somewhere else on an accelerated time-table.



also do you ppl think that iraqi invasion has reduced or increased the threat of terrorism towards the US?

Reduced, see my previous paragraph for why. Now, having had this discussion before, I'm guessing you're really asking: "are our actions creating* more terrorists?"

Overall, I don't buy the "we're creating more terrorists" line of thinking. For various reasons:

1) considering we took over a country the size of California and they had a relatively large military, we haven't killed that many people (something like 11000 -- assuming** there's not a full-fledged civil war coming soon, Saddam and Sons woulda caught up relatively quickly).

2) 60% of the population is moving from marginalization to being a critical political force in the country (NB: you could make a case for 75% but I think this overstates the case since the Kurds were already essentially autonomous)

3) Lastly, if any population is more adaptable to occupation, it's going to be one that's been ruled for 25 years by someone whose political inspiration was Josef Stalin.

Oh, and the "explosion in the Arab street" everyone was worried about? Where'd that go?

*Ralph Peters (a former columnist for the Army War College's "Ramparts" magazine) has written several articles where he "taxonomizes" terrorists. Since his grouping focuses on motivation, it would be a helpful addition to this discussion. Unfortunately, after that enormous preamble, I don't remember the title of the book that reprints selected articles.

**a good assumption, IMO. So far, people have tried to stir one up but it doesn't look like it's going to work.

patfromlogan
3rd June 04, 11:16 AM
Hey Lady Vic, please hit this link and then get back to this and let me know what you think about it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1991.htm


It is very clear that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Saddam. Do I need to document this?? I will if needed, but ferchrists sake, read a little on your own.

It seems a few members of bullshido are in la la land. Freedom has nothing to do with this. Money, oil, dominance, hegemony, and power have everything to do with this. Please excuse my poor writing.

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.
KARIMOV IS OUR FRIEND! (and, *gasp with astonishment* guess what pipeline is going in!!)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/karimov-bush-ap.jpg
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/rumsfeld-in-uzbekistan_files/51.jpg

I have been reading up on Wolfowitz and cabal.
The educated conceited morons who are running our nation are largely influenced by Leo Strauss. His "philosophy" boils down to justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:R3v7UwBG-ogJ:www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-1542.jsp+straussian&hl=en

Perhaps if Wolfy had been influenced by some liberal softy, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
Here's a short bio of the fuck head who personifies the smug elite who are running our nation.

"Paul Wolfowitz became dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, on 1 January 1994. From 1989 to 1993, Dr Wolfowitz was the undersecretary of defense for policy—the principal civilian official responsible for strategy, plans, and policy under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. From 1986 to 1989, he was the US ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia. Before assuming that post, he was assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs (1982–86). Dr Wolfowitz served previously in the federal government in various capacities. His positions included director of policy planning for the Department of State (1981–82), deputy assistant secretary of defense (regional programs) (1977–80), and a variety of positions in the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the period 1973–77, including special assistant to the director for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Immediately prior to joining the State Department in 1981, Dr Wolfowitz was visiting associate professor and director of security studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Earlier, he held the position of assistant professor of political science at Yale University (1970–73). In 1993 he was the George F. Kennan Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College. Dr Wolfowitz received his AB in mathematics and chemistry from Cornell University and his MA and PhD from the University of Chicago in political science and economics."

fragbot
3rd June 04, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
Bard, quite frankly, I read somewhere that, since the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda never had so many recruits.

I suspect you're referring to the International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates (ya can't see they're actual study unless you want to pony up $56. . .so I haven't read it, the quote below is from someone who *did*).

"The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."

WingChun Lawyer
3rd June 04, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by fragbot
I suspect you're referring to the International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates (ya can't see they're actual study unless you want to pony up $56. . .so I haven't read it, the quote below is from someone who *did*).

"The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."

Yes, I saw that 18,000 figure in the newspaper, but I didnīt remember the entity responsible for that number.

And fragbot...quite frankly, if there was any real interest in stopping terrorism, the first thing Bush would do would be to stop supporting Israel unconditionally and try to help rebuild palestine. This would work wonders to the USA public image in the arab world.

fragbot
3rd June 04, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
And fragbot...quite frankly, if there was any real interest in stopping terrorism, the first thing Bush would do would be to stop supporting Israel unconditionally and try to help rebuild palestine. This would work wonders to the USA public image in the arab world.

I'm not sure what you mean by rebuilding Palestine and unconditionally supporting Israel.

I can only assume a significant number of Palestinians don't want Palestine. Why? Well, they've had numerous opportunities to have one (starting as early as 1947). Or as Netanyahu used to say, "they've never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Now, the savvier amongst us might deride their opportunities as mere political window-dressing*, I think that's unreasonable.

I'm pretty sure Sharon wants the entire West Bank and knows full well that he only needs to continue developing it. After 30-40 years, it'll just be part of Israel. It's devious and dastardly and, were I in his position, I'd do the same thing. What else would you do if your primary neighbors hated you and refused to acknowledge your existence?

I think it's hyperbolic to complain about our unconditional support of Israel. While I'd agree we're partial to them, I think there are numerous reasons for this. Asking that we not be partial, well, be careful what you ask for, there'd be *nothing* more destabilizing for the region than an Israel w/o our strong support. Rightfully, their paranoia would ratchet upwards by a factor of ten.

Finally, do this mind-experiment, if Israel ceased to be an issue tomorrow, would this affect the threat from Al Qaeda much?

*I once had someone complain about the Oslo accords, "what if someone wanted to give you a house without a bathroom and kitchen?" My incredulous answer, "I'd hire a plumber and carpenter" seemed to irritate them. Neh, when you're in Rome. . .

WingChun Lawyer
3rd June 04, 12:24 PM
fragbot, I meant it. The main reason the arab world hates the USA is Israel. And dismissing the entire palestinian question with a casual "they had their opportunities and they missed them" doesnīt help any.

The point is, the palestinians were never able to negotiate a treaty, were they? They just had the option of taking or leaving what they were offered. The USA could work as the perfect mediator in that issue, specially because, as the worldīs remaining superpower, what the USA decides is final.

"I think it's hyperbolic to complain about our unconditional support of Israel. While I'd agree we're partial to them, I think there are numerous reasons for this."

Yes, yes there are. Some of them political, others economical, still others military. But the problem still stands, and the USA is the only country in the world with the power to end the conflicts there.

You asked about Al Qaeda and Israel. Remember that many of those people who are recruited by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups could only be approached because they hate the West, specially the USA, and - you will hate me for saying this - this is a very similar process to that which allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq: play on their fears, play on their hate, play on their paranoia, and there you go.

A terrorist group canīt work for long without popular support, fragbot. And the USA will only have popular support in the Middle East after the Israeli/Palestinian question is solved.

fragbot
3rd June 04, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
fragbot, I meant it. The main reason the arab world hates the USA is Israel. And dismissing the entire palestinian question with a casual "they had their opportunities and they missed them" doesnīt help any.



The point is, the palestinians were never able to negotiate a treaty, were they? They just had the option of taking or leaving what they were offered. The USA could work as the perfect mediator in that issue, specially because, as the worldīs remaining superpower, what the USA decides is final.


They aren't really in a position to negotiate. Through circumstances of their own and others making, they do depend on the kindness of strangers.

Not to mention, as a practical matter, who's going to negotiate? It's abundantly clear that Yasser Arafat ain't the guy. Furthermore, it's also clear that leaders of Hizbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad ain't the guys either. Negotiating with the Palestinians would be like Mayor Riordan negotiating compromises on LA's drug trade with the Crips.



Yes, yes there are. Some of them political, others economical, still others military. But the problem still stands, and the USA is the only country in the world with the power to end the conflicts there.


Here's where you and I will fundamentally disagree, there is *no acceptable solution* to ending the conflict there. NB: this is different than Iraq where time, patience, and cruzeiros are all that's required.

Maybe I'm too cynical about the topic, but the only available solutions involve the annihilation of Israel or the relocation of the Palestinians. Since neither of these are reasonable, it's merely a matter of containing the problem as much as possible. In other words, I plan on having this same discussion 50 years from now. . .on a much faster computer.



You asked about Al Qaeda and Israel. Remember that many of those people who are recruited by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups could only be approached because they hate the West, specially the USA, and - you will hate me for saying this - this is a very similar process to that which allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq: play on their fears, play on their hate, play on their paranoia, and there you go.


Again, you and I will fundamentally differ. I don't think Israel's a primary motivator for those in Al Qaeda (assumption: Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to remain focused on Israel and continue to have little to do with Al Qaeda). It's Britney's Boobs not Bibi's borscht that upset the religious extremist. It's Aliyah taking Ali's place at Allah's Burger Hut that's upsetting issue not "corporatism's race to the bottom."


A terrorist group canīt work for long without popular support, fragbot. And the USA will only have popular support in the Middle East after the Israeli/Palestinian question is solved.

I disagree that terrorist groups can't work without popular support. They don't need popular support. They need money, a small number of irrational/"influencable" individuals and a lawless safe-haven. Money is a trivial issue if you're willing to break the law (AKA terrorist groups as mini-mafias) and unstable people are a dime a dozen no matter what society you're in. Likewise, lawless safe-havens aren't hard to find either.

Ignorant
3rd June 04, 02:04 PM
Lady Vic, In a way this war is about oil.....not in the way that the thumb sucking liberals thought though. Its not about taking the oil from iraq that lays under the ground (not yet).Right underneath iraq lays the largest oil storage in the world by the way...Yes we get 80% of our oil from alaska, but you cant ignore this interesting fact. I think the main reason this war is carrying on is because of an even lesser facter......so that haliburton can benefit. We already know haliburton got in trouble for charging too much for their oil during war time......to me its pretty cut and dry. I mean its "obvious" to me that when the president uses his own oil company to provide the neccessities of war (fuel)...and then after the bombing, gives the rebuilding process to companies that will help him in the long run....that this war is about $, and not benevolence.

Ok now as for this comment someone made. "But Ignorant, the iraqi people are so much better off without saddam".
I think your right, i think they are probably better off. But that doesnt justify the war.....i mean seriously, think about it.
Lets say i killed some dude on the street because i thought he was a planning an attack on my family, and after i kill him i find out that there really was no plan to attack my family....But i justify it by saying, oh well...he was a bad guy anyways......thats bullshit, thats the same thing vigilantes do and they get put away by our OWN government just like murderers, and we are going to use their same justification.

P.S. Governments are just big, nicely dressed street gangs. No differant.

Freddy
3rd June 04, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
.... The main reason the arab world hates the USA is Israel. ....

I wound add an number of reasons. There has been Western intervention in that region since the creation of the various Arab states (The British, The French, The Germans etc.) Then of course there has been modern interference in that region like the support of the Shah of Iran, (fomerly) Saddam, etc.

Deluxe247
3rd June 04, 05:22 PM
For fucks sake, you idiots who say this war is about money are seriously retarded.
Oil? Well obviously oil can be a reason, but I guess we should let a GLOBAL ECONOMIC resourse go down the tube right? RIGHT? Imagine if you will, we let these people do whatever they wish and we "stay out of it". What happens when the worlds oil supply gets cut off? Fuck america, the WORLD will suffer. As for doing this simply for money, yeah im sure with over a trillion dollar deficit we just love to throw out 119 BILLION to a war that will give us money. Wait, that sounded retarded. Maybe because it is! Grow up people, the reasons for this war can be argued forever, but money and oil are NOT legitament. Why is it so hard to believe that we want to combat terror? Sure we fucked up on the WMD issue, but fuck you if you think we would be better off with sadam in power.

Deluxe247
3rd June 04, 05:23 PM
Note : I say fuck you in a "your my brother and only I can tell you off" kind of way.

Ignorant
3rd June 04, 05:36 PM
im legitimately laughing my ass off.

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/windows/medium.php

Traditional Tom
3rd June 04, 06:36 PM
Maybe you guys are reading too much into this? Maybe its a simple reason! (as I dont see george being a very complicated person)
George obviously put america in a turdload of debt, simply because osama tried to have his dad killed, it makes perfect sense!
Is it his fault that he looks like a monkey?
Is it REALLY his fault?
probably

TT

Deadpan Scientist
3rd June 04, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Ignorant
nope....sorry, my bullshit detector just went off. if our government is so concerned about freedom why arent we in africa? or any other country?

tool.

deus ex machina
3rd June 04, 06:56 PM
All I have to say is...

that clip was fucking awesome. LMAO.

deus ex machina
3rd June 04, 06:57 PM
VROOM VROOM BITCH!

Stold3
3rd June 04, 07:01 PM
Funny. US SF have held control of the oil fields how long before the war started? But naw, the US doesn't care about oil at all.

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 07:18 PM
is someone need s to be told that palestinians have never had any reasonable offer, or that the whole of them shouldnt suffer because of Arafat and his budds what can you say to them?
if they believe old zionist lies about palestinians leaving voluntarily in 47 (that israli now admits were false)?

they are determined.

if someone thinks its reasonable that the worlds biggest supporter of terror world wide is fighting against terror what can you say?
or what about taking out the dictator saddam, the usa's old buddy.
or because the weakest countrie in the middle east is a threat to who?

its easier to be weak and believe the tv, the president's speeches, and all the fairy tale patriotic bullshit than to face up to what 90% of humanity knows. it's like a religion.
liberating Iraq!? no evidence needed.

good luck.

ps. thaks freddy for your small injection of sanity. anybody know how kuwait was formed? usa and britain had some meddling hands in these places for awhile.

patfromlogan
3rd June 04, 07:57 PM
Our oil lies over the ocean,
It's under the Iraqis
We'll gladly go to war,
To keep driving our SUVs

Bullshit, bullshit, it all sounds like bullshit to me to me
Bullshit, bullshit, it all sounds like bullshit to me

Freddy
4th June 04, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
... but fuck you if you think we would be better off with sadam in power.

I dont see any one here supporting Saddam.
Its funny how Britain and the U.S. goverment have been embracing Khadafy lately.

Stold3
4th June 04, 09:58 AM
There was supposed to be a documentary on saddam by some french guy, "The Softer Side of Saddam Hussein."

I saw clips from it. Showed him swimming, petting animals and playing with children.

garbanzo
4th June 04, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
For fucks sake, you idiots who say this war is about money are seriously retarded.
Oil? Well obviously oil can be a reason, but I guess we should let a GLOBAL ECONOMIC resourse go down the tube right? RIGHT? Imagine if you will, we let these people do whatever they wish and we "stay out of it". What happens when the worlds oil supply gets cut off? Fuck america, the WORLD will suffer. As for doing this simply for money, yeah im sure with over a trillion dollar deficit we just love to throw out 119 BILLION to a war that will give us money. Wait, that sounded retarded. Maybe because it is! Grow up people, the reasons for this war can be argued forever, but money and oil are NOT legitament. Why is it so hard to believe that we want to combat terror? Sure we fucked up on the WMD issue, but fuck you if you think we would be better off with sadam in power.


Break out the KY jelly and fuck me then.

The reason swe were told we were going to war were:

1) Hussein had WMD.
2) Hussein had the will to use them againt the U.S.

As d-day approached the rationale changed to liberating the Iraq people.

A year later with nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers dead, several thousand Iraqi civilians dead, a deadline approaching to handover power to a non-existent government and no WMD's discovered we are told we are better off without Hussein in power.

It is a rationalization after the fact, and highly debatable.

I would say that Al Quada has been transformed from a terrorist organization into a global ideology, and therefore a much bigger threat, as a direct result of our invasion.

I would way that, contrary to the neoconservative fantasies that our presence in the region will result in a spread of pro-Amirican deomacray, terrorism is spreading, for example in Saudi Arabia.

I would say that the U.S. is probably less popular, and therefore has fewer allies and more enemies than at any time in recent history as a direct result of the invasion.

I would say that America is now more likely than before to incur another terrorist attack as direct result of the invasion.

WingChun Lawyer
4th June 04, 10:51 AM
Garbanzo is TH3 CORR3CT.

(I hate to spell words like that, but I believe his post warrants it)

kp59583
4th June 04, 12:03 PM
Then I would say the western countries should start playing cowboys and Arabs.:D Being that I'm very sarcastic. The fact of the matter is a homicital manic needed to be put away and we did.

Freddy
4th June 04, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Stold3
There was supposed to be a documentary on saddam by some french guy, "The Softer Side of Saddam Hussein."

I saw clips from it. Showed him swimming, petting animals and playing with children.
Oh Boy! We have to keep him far away from animals and children then. But since he's locked up it shouldnt be too much of a problem.

JohnnyBoy
4th June 04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
For fucks sake, you idiots who say this war is about money are seriously retarded.
Oil? Well obviously oil can be a reason, but I guess we should let a GLOBAL ECONOMIC resourse go down the tube right? RIGHT?

SEMPER FI MOTHERFUCKER!! KILL KILL KILL!!

patfromlogan
4th June 04, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Deluxe247
For fucks sake, you idiots who say this war is about money are seriously retarded.


Yeah right, what an asshole thing to say. Who the hell are you, Rush the Junky Limbaugh? Remember, he was high as a kite when he said all that stupid shit and made up lies.


Originally posted by Deluxe247
Oil? Well obviously oil can be a reason, but I guess we should let a GLOBAL ECONOMIC resourse go down the tube right?

What possible logic is there in this Deluxe247? Why would it "go down the drain?" Don't you think that the Iraqis might just want to SELL THE FUCKING OIL THEMSELVES??

garbanzo
7th June 04, 08:56 AM
Here's a pop quiz.

The supply of oil is:

A) finite
B) infinite

patfromlogan
7th June 04, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Here's a pop quiz.

The supply of oil is:

A) finite
B) infinite

The flat earth view mean that markets and resources are infinite. Bucky Fuller was the first famous guy to spread the 'spaceship earth' idea - that all is finite. Carter was the first president to have this understanding. It is a basic understanding that defines how one looks at the world. Flat earth thinkers are a bit out of date, but still prevail.