 mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| Same Old Same Old Good to see the Kook left fringe of the Country is alive and well. I don't know what's funnier, the outright paranoia or we must make all the B@$(*&s pay for daring to look our way. Give me a break. If the stuff you were all talking about was done in WW2. Lets just say you would be in the next camp trading sake recipes with the neighboring camp. |
|
| Once again, there's a difference between defending yourself against the proper aggressor (Japan) and blaming the wrong entity, and refusing to admit fault (Iraq). Once again, we've still never held those countries actually involved in 9/11 accountable, if we're blaming the country for the actions of a few of its citizens. At that right we should be attacking:
Yemen
Omen
Saudi Arabia
and a few other countries, none of which are Iraq. SO theres your difference. |
|
| reply to mech1164
None of the hijackers in 9/11 are from IRAQ...
So where's the rational to attack IRAQ??
Missing are the large uranium (Yellow cake) that was bought from nigeria, Missing are the Lakes of chemical's weapons, of high imaginary destruction.
NOPE the IRAQ war is/and WAS to get control of the OIL FIELDS... to the benefit of the Shell/Texaco, etc. TAX FREE.
The only loser's are the IRAQ people, SADDAM (Even if he is not perfect), The AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, as you are paying for the WAR in $$$, Bodies, and Respect from other nations.
When you Learn that you as a nation are a Bully, that's all you are...
No respect for international law, even if it's the law you made, the responsible people are the VOTER, you got the government that you paid for. |
|
 old_dawg"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD | said by filizaragoza:NOPE the IRAQ war is/and WAS to get control of the OIL FIELDS... to the benefit of the Shell/Texaco, etc. TAX FREE. A FREE year's supply of Reynolds wrap for this one to make a closet full of tin foil hats! 
Great Caesar's ghost !, control of the oil fields?, if only to put out the fires set by Saddam's troops that created a massive eco disaster of the first order!. Yup, the US Marines commandeered the world's fleet of oil tankers and all of Iraq's oil is being pumped into sooper sekrit
bunkers on George Bush's Crawford ranch.
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | i am ready |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to old_dawg
Well gee, I guess then Bush Sr. didn't venture into Kuwait SOLELY to save it and its burning oil fields from Saddam. O gee golly my, he actually did. Better yet, he wasn't concerned the least bit about Saddam at this point either. Obviously, he couldn't have been a big threat then. His main priority was keeping Kuwait safe so we had our fine oil flowing to us. Bush Jr. seems to be no different. We've heard 100 different lies for Iraq, and not one of them pans out. They were involved in 9/11 (wrong). We're there for humanitarian (um so we topple their leader and cause anarchy in the process?).... The list goes on. Therefore, I'll give you some tinfoil, but the only thing you'll need it for is protect your head from reality entering it. |
|
| Would you have preferred that the US let Kuwait be eaten up by Saddam Hussein? |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to old_dawg
said by old_dawg:said by filizaragoza:NOPE the IRAQ war is/and WAS to get control of the OIL FIELDS... to the benefit of the Shell/Texaco, etc. TAX FREE. A FREE year's supply of Reynolds wrap for this one to make a closet full of tin foil hats! Personally, I'd rather vote for the oil fields. At least that makes sense. To have the administration faux reasons to create a war for nothing is f***ing odd at best, and f***ing embarassing at worst.
Conspiracy theory, maybe. But then it at least would give us a tangible (but maybe not approvable) reason to be there. |
|
| reply to DufiefData
No. However, don't try to sugar coat "Bullsh*t" and claim its a pot of roses. If you are going about something, at least say what your intentions are from the start. We all know Bush's intentions at this point. Yet, he's still dancing around his reasons and trying to sell us on them otherwise. |
|
mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:said by old_dawg:said by filizaragoza:NOPE the IRAQ war is/and WAS to get control of the OIL FIELDS... to the benefit of the Shell/Texaco, etc. TAX FREE. A FREE year's supply of Reynolds wrap for this one to make a closet full of tin foil hats! Personally, I'd rather vote for the oil fields. At least that makes sense. To have the administration faux reasons to create a war for nothing is f***ing odd at best, and f***ing embarassing at worst. Conspiracy theory, maybe. But then it at least would give us a tangible (but maybe not approvable) reason to be there. And that is the sad part about it. Faulty intel about them combine that with fact that he had tried earlier to kill 41 and failed. Also that he tried to make himself look tougher all backfired. Was it a mess Yes could it have been avoided possibly. Does it matter NO. We are there Syria and Iran are flooding Iraq with weapons and Terrorists to bog us down and get us out. If we leave now the massacre in Vietnam will look like a drive by compared to what will happen in Iraq. |
|
| Once again, whose fault is it we allowed the situation to balloon up to current proportions? Drum roll... well I don't need to give you that answer but I will. It's pretty simple. Bush and the Republicans ran the war for 6 years and got us in quagmire. His stupidity and stay the course mentality have only exacerbated the situation. Couple this with the fact he refuses to talk to other neighboring countries, and you now have our current dilemma. So there lies the million dollar question, we've made a huge mess, how the hell do we fix it? If that answer could be found, it'd be worth a fortune. |
|
