NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes Bush will end the world but he'll do it thru fullscale regional war in the mideast not China--but Im not saying China wont make a move at some point
Nah, no ending of the world in my lifetime - I've got shit to do.

Obviously it hasn't been all over the news if I'm asking you about it. I watch the news all the time and receive breaking news in my email box. Nothing of the sort of thing that you have stated has crossed the lines that I follow. It also NOT in the local papers. That should tell you something.

Please tell me where you heard it and where is it linked too.
its apparent you get all your "news" from the subverted media
its a story that first came from the British media

I was waiting for someone else to--thanks :)

The burden of proof is on you buddy. It is up to you to prove your case. So far you haven't. So I can so far say that this is an open and shut case and you have been found to be uncredible.

THis could change if you prove what you are saying is factual.

its apparent you get all your "news" from the subverted media
its a story that first came from the British media

British Media? Now that makes me laugh.

Now stop trying to circumvent the issue and prove what you are saying. You have not done so yet.

As for me getting my news from subverted media, I also read the online Washington post and the online NYT and it hasn't been there either. So much for your theory that I get my news from the so called "Subverted" media.

I don't consider the Pittsburgh Post Gazette a right wing rag. Even the Trib isn't a right wing rag either.

As for Air America! Sorry there is only so much bs from the left I can take in one day.

I hope you listen to other sources outside of the left wing radio station that you listen too.
I will not go near neocon "news" sources cause they lie for the PNAC agenda

I will not go near neocon "news" sources cause they lie for the PNAC agenda

Did you not see that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is N-O-T a right wing rag line?

Your sounding so much like someone else that used to post on here till he got deted.

Start posting facts please.

Nah, no ending of the world in my lifetime - I've got shit to do.
Im afraid youll have to finish it in the next life

Im afraid youll have to finish it in the next life
Don't be so pessimistic - let's hope that Bush gets assassinated or something. *creeps away silently*

Did you not see that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is N-O-T a right wing rag line?

Your sounding so much like someone else that used to post on here till he got deted.

Start posting facts please.
its the memo that was just released that proves Bush knew there were no WMDs since 2002 and that he planned on invading Iraq no matter what-the same memo almost caused Tony Blair to lose his election

Don't be so pessimistic - let's hope that Bush gets assassinated or something. *creeps away silently*
only the good die young

its the memo that was just released that proves Bush knew there were no WMDs since 2002 and that he planned on invading Iraq no matter what-the same memo almost caused Tony Blair to lose his election

For the last, and I do mean last time, LINK IT!!!!!

Now people, the sky is really starting to talk here so I"m leaving now. I'll be back tomorrow to continue this.

Adios Muchachos

Don't be so pessimistic - let's hope that Bush gets assassinated or something. *creeps away silently*
This sort of thing will get you banned and will get you a visit from the secret service. Let's not do it again.

I will not go near neocon "news" sources cause they lie for the PNAC agenda
To be fair, I don't think all major or even lesser known media outlets "lie" to promote the PNAC's agenda, but they do, especially FOX news, distort and take facts out of context to shape the PNAC agenda. Nearly every media source in the U.S. is looking through a conservative tinted lense, and that is why many conservatives really like FOX news and believe in a "liberal media," which couldn't be further from the truth. Did you notice how the media roasted Clinton for getting a blow job, but they treat Bush with kid-gloves? Liberal media my ass.

That is the problem with arrogant conservatives blinded by patriotism and Christianity.

its the memo that was just released that proves Bush knew there were no WMDs since 2002 and that he planned on invading Iraq no matter what-the same memo almost caused Tony Blair to lose his election

If it was 'just released' then it would have no impact on the Tony Blair election.


It is in my humble opinion that BonePosse is either a right-wing troll arguing all the most fallable left-wing sources to prove that lefties are wrong, or that s/he doesn't understand what the word "proof" means.

It is exceptionally surprising that, given so many offers to post the "proof" you claim to have, you have yet to do it. This only supports that you are making it up!


If you are trying to help the left's cause, STOP TALKING! Please! You are doing more to ruin the credibility.

I'll assume these two are what he is talking about. The US media has been rather quiet over these memos, which have been rather bombshellish in Britian

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

To be fair, I don't think all major or even lesser known media outlets "lie" to promote the PNAC's agenda, but they do, especially FOX news, distort and take facts out of context to shape the PNAC agenda. Nearly every media source in the U.S. is looking through a conservative tinted lense, and that is why many conservatives really like FOX news and believe in a "liberal media," which couldn't be further from the truth. Did you notice how the media roasted Clinton for getting a blow job, but they treat Bush with kid-gloves? Liberal media my ass.

That is the problem with arrogant conservatives blinded by patriotism and Christianity.
and thats why I hate neocon rightwingers--theyre dishonest hypocrites

I'll assume these two are what he is talking about. The US media has been rather quiet over these memos, which have been rather bombshellish in Britian

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Well, now we have the link! And not from BP!

I must admit, the memo is quite damning. Any thoughts?

If it was 'just released' then it would have no impact on the Tony Blair election.


It is in my humble opinion that BonePosse is either a right-wing troll arguing all the most fallable left-wing sources to prove that lefties are wrong, or that s/he doesn't understand what the word "proof" means.

It is exceptionally surprising that, given so many offers to post the "proof" you claim to have, you have yet to do it. This only supports that you are making it up!


If you are trying to help the left's cause, STOP TALKING! Please! You are doing more to ruin the credibility.
and yet the links proving what I said get posted...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

...sigh.... :eek:

its stupid liberals like this who didnt want to send our troops to europe to fight in WW2, b/c it didnt "affect us". they also wanted the jews to deal with the problem of the holocaust by themselves. you are obviously too clouded with liberal media garbage, and you think the world is full of flowers and peace and love, and think.. "hey, if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone".. then when something like sept 11 happens their like "i cant believe they did this to us, god i hate them, anyway, lets go back to being pussies in our little corner and let them deal with their problems"


you cant reason with these kind of people, its just better to let their generation die out slowly, until a more sensical and aware generation is grown. either that or pack them into fenced off areas with pot and guitars, and flowers and scented candles.. theylll amuse themselves to death.





Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to we have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in w to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving w provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

What a fucking liberal troll. He should've been hanged for his treasonous words...

*cough*

Get a clue, you mindless will-less automaton of the Bushime.

9/11 was an historic day, a triumphant victory for the oppressed peoples of the world. It was the first time an Imperial Power had been attacked on its own soil, with similar methods of chaos and destruction that it itself employs (see: Panamanian slaughter of 30k innocents by U.S. forces in an effort to arrest a SINGLE C.I.A. double agent; see: annual u.s. intelligence agency budget allocation to international terrorism; see: U.S. funded -- and founded -- Afghanistan Jihad movement freedom fighter allocation program, known as AlQaeda ("The Base", referring to its job of allocating U.S. funds and weapons to Taliban and Jihadist forces); etc. the list goes on, but it's too depressing for me as a U.S. citizen to continue :eek: ).

NOTE: I do not condone terrorist actions in any way: not those of the United States and other Imperial powers nor those of wronged ex-colonies such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.

and yet the links proving what I said get posted...

Well, I wish you would have posted that much earlier! It would have ended a lot of controversy! :p

Well, I wish you would have posted that much earlier! It would have ended a lot of controversy! :p
I suck at doin searches :(

What a fucking liberal troll. He should've been hanged for his treasonous words...

*cough*

Get a clue, you mindless will-less automaton of the Bushime.

9/11 was an historic day, a triumphant victory for the oppressed peoples of the world. It was the first time an Imperial Power had been attacked on its own soil, with similar methods of chaos and destruction that it itself employs (see: Panamanian slaughter of 30k innocents by U.S. forces in an effort to arrest a SINGLE C.I.A. double agent; see: annual u.s. intelligence agency budget allocation to international terrorism; see: U.S. funded -- and founded -- Afghanistan Jihad movement freedom fighter allocation program, known as AlQaeda ("The Base", referring to its job of allocating U.S. funds and weapons to Taliban and Jihadist forces); etc. the list goes on, but it's too depressing for me as a U.S. citizen to continue :eek: ).

NOTE: I do not condone terrorist actions in any way: not those of the United States and other Imperial powers nor those of wronged ex-colonies such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.
Nice job, taking things out of context. BOTH of you. God. I'm ASHAMED.

First off... the REPUBLICANS were in power during WWII. They were just libertarian-esque in that they were insular. Not liberal bastards. Read up on history.

Also: George Washington was quite conservative in everything but Foreign Affairs. Though, I admire your quote-searching-ability.

Also: George Washington was quite conservative in everything but Foreign Affairs. Though, I admire your quote-searching-ability.

I'm aware of that. Hence the reference/quote, and the sarcasm that followed. And it wasn't much of a search, since I quote his farewell address so often (on a wide variety of topics). A great resource. :p
People are always generalizing, and trying to classify friend/foe republican/democrat conservative/liberal. Like the situation in the Middle East, how 'women have no rights' and such, and what an evil religion Islam is. Nevermind the fact that islam gave women political power, the power to marry/divorce at will, and the right to own land...1200 years before the United States did... And hey, it's so much easier counting in roman numerals! Stupid arabs! And a final rant: who needs advanced mathematics, engineering, and scientific advancement in general...Europe (whitie) was doing quite alright before those damned arabs dragged its butt out of the Dark Ages and freely gave it these concepts, in an effort to spread Christianity worldwide (that's right, Christianity, not Islam).

Nice job, taking things out of context. BOTH of you. God. I'm ASHAMED.

First off... the REPUBLICANS were in power during WWII. They were just libertarian-esque in that they were insular. Not liberal bastards. Read up on history.

Also: George Washington was quite conservative in everything but Foreign Affairs. Though, I admire your quote-searching-ability.

wtf are you talking about? FDR wasn't a republican last time I checked (you know, the guy that was President before, during and almost after WWII). But your repeated use of CAPITALIZED words make me think you're trying to be sarcastic but your whining and/or ignorance is legitimate enough.

and thats why I hate neocon rightwingers--theyre dishonest hypocrites

As oppose to the left wingers? They say they are for something then they turn their back on it. Talk about hypocracy.

I'll assume these two are what he is talking about. The US media has been rather quiet over these memos, which have been rather bombshellish in Britian

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

And a good reason why its hasn't caught our attention. You know why? Because it deals with BRITAIN

Notice how on one it says Prime Minister? Notice on the other it says Secret Downing Street memo? What does this have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing. Besides the fact, how do we know that it wasn't written by someone who was against the Iraq war and wanted to see Blair gone? Hs that crossed anyone's mind?

Says the US government and other nations actively involved in Iraq (justification perhaps)

To those of you who justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that you have brought Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi's all I can say is shame on you.
Spending $180 Billion US taxpayer dollars to "deliver" "democracy" to Iraqis is surely a mighty fine gesture. :rolleyes:

Democracy is about the freedom to choose, show me where the Iraqis chose Western style Democracy in a free and fair manner. Being told by the US what to do does not constitute freedom.
I do believe that most Iraqis held their noses while voting in the election, knowing full well that it was the first step in getting the Americans out of Iraq. I don't think Bush will like the new government as it grows into a government that will reflect the ideals of an Islamic State?

Further, if you are going to use this weak excuse for invading a nation, why has the US and Britain not invaded China, Zimbabwe and Lybia to name just a few undemocratic nations.
There is nothing of any long term value in Zimbabwe and Lybia, for US interests and invading China would be suicidal.

Its time a large number of people came to realise what some of us saw from the beginning. Its all about the economies of the US and Britain. or in one word OIL
You get to advance to GO and collect $200. Operation Iraqi Liberation would be the correct name of this operation.

I was most disappointed when both Bush and Blair were returned to office. Ones a snake and the other a bafoon, but both lied to their voters and have gotten away with it.
Yes it is sad indeed!! :(

You get to advance to GO and collect $200. Operation Iraqi Liberation would be the correct name of this operation.

Its Operation IRAQI FREEDOM CanuckHeaven! GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!

And if this was for oil, then why the hell aren't we seeing it? If it was for oil, our gas prices would be down instead of UP!!!!!

And a good reason why its hasn't caught our attention. You know why? Because it deals with BRITAIN

Notice how on one it says Prime Minister? Notice on the other it says Secret Downing Street memo? What does this have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing. Besides the fact, how do we know that it wasn't written by someone who was against the Iraq war and wanted to see Blair gone? Hs that crossed anyone's mind?

It's obvious that you didn't even bother to read it. If you did, you would realise that the US Policy is mentioned throughout the memo.

As to who it is written by and for:

"SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. "

That's the letter header.

It's obvious that you didn't even bother to read it. If you did, you would realise that the US Policy is mentioned throughout the memo.

As to who it is written by and for:

"SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. "

That's the letter header.

Its a BRITISH MEMO! NOT an american one. If its an american one, I would pay more attention to it but since it ain't. I don't care.

Its a BRITISH MEMO! NOT an american one. If its an american one, I would pay more attention to it but since it ain't. I don't care.

You said "What does this have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing" regarding the memo. That was incorrect. I corrected you. Now you rebut with a different argument (the I don't care argument).

What a surprise.


Besides, not caring about foreign relations? Well, then I suggest you tell your fellow congressmen that we need to pull out of Iraq ASAP.

I'll assume these two are what he is talking about. The US media has been rather quiet over these memos, which have been rather bombshellish in Britian

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Yes, I do believe that the conclusion offered below mirrors my exact thoughts on the matter of a further Security Council Resolution to invade Iraq:

27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal
course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise
the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a
resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should
establish that the Council has conduced that Iraq h&s failed to take the
final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has
already been tabled.

By failing to obtain the go ahead from the Security Council, the Coalition forces have subjected themselves to intense scrutiny from around the world. Hence the severe backlash of public opinion regarding the "illegal" (IMHO) invasion of Iraq.

I respect the conclusion of the UK Attorney General and find it unfortunate that his government did not heed his advice.

CH,

Can you show me where this is illegal considering the amount of violations of UN resolutions and cease-fires have occured?

Can you show me where we can't do what we are doing now?

You said "What does this have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing" regarding the memo. That was incorrect. I corrected you. Now you rebut with a different argument (the I don't care argument).

What a surprise.


Besides, not caring about foreign relations? Well, then I suggest you tell your fellow congressmen that we need to pull out of Iraq ASAP.

Didn't say that at all! I think this was the correct course of action and that we should stay till the job is done.

Its Operation IRAQI FREEDOM CanuckHeaven! GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!
I do have it right and someday you will understand?

And if this was for oil, then why the hell aren't we seeing it? If it was for oil, our gas prices would be down instead of UP!!!!!
You continue to look at the small picture instead of the larger one? As I have said to you before (many times in fact), is that this is NOT about short term oil prices, but it is about securing an abundant supply of oil for the future.

I do have it right and someday you will understand?

NO you don't have it right. You never had it right and one day, you'll understand.

You continue to look at the small picture instead of the larger one? As I have said to you before (many times in fact), is that this is NOT about short term oil prices, but it is about securing an abundant supply of oil for the future.

No! I look at the larger picture. I always have looked at the larger picture. That is why I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. You apparently continue to let your prejudices get in the way of your cognitive abilities.

This was NEVER ABOUT OIL! The only time anything involved oil was the 1st Gulf War. That was your oil war CanuckHeaven. The 2nd Gulf War was NEVER about oil and its about time you understand that.

No! I look at the larger picture. I always have looked at the larger picture. That is why I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. You apparently continue to let your prejudices get in the way of your cognitive abilities.

This was NEVER ABOUT OIL! The only time anything involved oil was the 1st Gulf War. That was your oil war CanuckHeaven. The 2nd Gulf War was NEVER about oil and its about time you understand that.

So what is it about? It's definately not about terrorism, that's what they want you to believe, but that's not what it's about. I think you should look at the larger picture and realize that this is about implementing fascist, neoconservative scheme to spread "democrazy" that is known as the PNAC agenda.
BTW, the first thing American troops were ordered to protect was not the hundreds of artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization in the fertile crescent, it wasn't the delicate Iraqi infrastructure, but the oil wells. Not about oil? Bullshit. You have a failed businessman straigt from the oil industry waging a war in a country with a crap load of oil and no terrorists/WMDs/threats to America, hmmm.

So what is it about? It's definately not about terrorism, that's what they want you to believe, but that's not what it's about. I think you should look at the larger picture and realize that this is about implementing fascist, neoconservative scheme to spread "democrazy" that is known as the PNAC agenda.
BTW, the first thing American troops were ordered to protect was not the hundreds of artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization in the fertile crescent, it wasn't the delicate Iraqi infrastructure, but the oil wells. Not about oil? Bullshit. You have a failed businessman straigt from the oil industry waging a war in a country with a crap load of oil and no terrorists/WMDs/threats to America, hmmm.

How about liberating an oppressed people from a tyrant that has decided to buck international law? Did you know that Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions? Did you know that he violated a UN Ceas-fire? Did you know that hundreds of thousands have been massacred during his reign of terror? Yes it is about terrorism, it is about freedom, and it is about upholding international law.

As for defending the oil wells. Did you know that they were rigged with explosive devices? Care to tell me the environmental consequences if Saddam blew them up? I can tell you what they would be like and you wouldn't like it one bit. Also, in regards to oil, it is Iraq's ticket back to economic stability. What have the terrorists been hitting? Oil pipelines. Why? Because its loss revenue for Iraq. That was why we went after them first.

Its Operation IRAQI FREEDOM CanuckHeaven! GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!

And if this was for oil, then why the hell aren't we seeing it? If it was for oil, our gas prices would be down instead of UP!!!!!
Bush makes more money with higher gas/oil prices and neocon robber barons dont give a rats ass about freedom or liberation of ANY people ANYWHERE in the world.

NO you don't have it right. You never had it right and one day, you'll understand.



No! I look at the larger picture. I always have looked at the larger picture. That is why I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. You apparently continue to let your prejudices get in the way of your cognitive abilities.

This was NEVER ABOUT OIL! The only time anything involved oil was the 1st Gulf War. That was your oil war CanuckHeaven. The 2nd Gulf War was NEVER about oil and its about time you understand that.
its ALL about the oil and has ZERO to do with liberation or democracy which is a total lie. Bush made sure that crook Ahmed Chalabi was made into oil minister so that Iraq never nationalises their oil wells

How about liberating an oppressed people from a tyrant that has decided to buck international law? Did you know that Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions? Did you know that he violated a UN Ceas-fire? Did you know that hundreds of thousands have been massacred during his reign of terror? Yes it is about terrorism, it is about freedom, and it is about upholding international law.

As for defending the oil wells. Did you know that they were rigged with explosive devices? Care to tell me the environmental consequences if Saddam blew them up? I can tell you what they would be like and you wouldn't like it one bit. Also, in regards to oil, it is Iraq's ticket back to economic stability. What have the terrorists been hitting? Oil pipelines. Why? Because its loss revenue for Iraq. That was why we went after them first.
Bush doesnt give a shit about UN resolutions or democracy --its all about the Oilwells--the same reason why Bush is trying to overthrow venezualas democracy--for the OIL OIL OIL read my lips OIL

Bush makes more money with higher gas/oil prices and neocon robber barons dont give a rats ass about freedom or liberation of ANY people ANYWHERE in the world.

Actually, he does. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be pushing to lower gas prices now would he? Get new material.

Bush doesnt give a shit about UN resolutions or democracy --its all about the Oilwells--the same reason why Bush is trying to overthrow venezualas democracy--for the OIL OIL OIL read my lips OIL

Bull.

I remember clearly that Bush went to the UN and got 1441. I remember when he went into Iraq, he quoted UN Resolutions as well as upholding the UN Ceas-fire Agreement. This was never about oil.

How about liberating an oppressed people from a tyrant that has decided to buck international law? Did you know that Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions? Did you know that he violated a UN Ceas-fire? Did you know that hundreds of thousands have been massacred during his reign of terror? Yes it is about terrorism, it is about freedom, and it is about upholding international law.

As for defending the oil wells. Did you know that they were rigged with explosive devices? Care to tell me the environmental consequences if Saddam blew them up? I can tell you what they would be like and you wouldn't like it one bit. Also, in regards to oil, it is Iraq's ticket back to economic stability. What have the terrorists been hitting? Oil pipelines. Why? Because its loss revenue for Iraq. That was why we went after them first.

Did you know that American troops executed thousands of women and children during the Vietnam war? Did you know that the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit? Why the fuck are we in Iraq? That's what I'm asking you. I'm not asking you to question my knowledge of history, which your points fail to recognize the true motives of the bush admin. So by keeping the peace and "upholding international law" and spreading democracy, we invade sovereign nations in search of invisible WMDs then say we went in because the Iraqis wanted to be liberated, then when they fought us, we said we were "spreading democracy"? You're missing the entire point of the war in Iraq, it's not about liberating the Iraqi people, it's not even about oil, it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats because we have a God-given fucking right to do so, because we're fucking America. Why don't we stop fucking with the rest of the world and concentrate on making America an economically stable nation.

Our best minds at MIT and Harvard are middle of the pack in schools in India and Japan. Our education system is a failure and NCLBA is only going to worsen it. If Americans are too lazy and/or stupid to get a good job, our own economy is going to fall apart. There are much bigger problems than getting a guy who used to be bad, and for all we know, cooperated with the UN by getting rid of any WMDs he had if any. By invading Iraq, we gave a legitimate reason for terrorists to attack us. If we are indeed fighting a war on terror, which I highly doubt, but that's my opinion, we can't fight it by killing people. Sure it may be good that we get some top guy, but he'll be replaced. Can't people see that? We are never going to win the "war on terror" if we keep fighting it the way we are. Never. Conservative Americans are so wrapped up in the flag to see why Islamic extremists use terrorism. And that is because we are so fucking arrogant, we think we have a God-given right to force democracy down other countries' throats in the name of Freedom.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, that the mad destruction was wrought under the name of totalitaritarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -- Gandhi

Did you know that American troops executed thousands of women and children during the Vietnam war? Did you know that the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit? Why the fuck are we in Iraq? That's what I'm asking you. I'm not asking you to question my knowledge of history, which your points fail to recognize the true motives of the bush admin. So by keeping the peace and "upholding international law" and spreading democracy, we invade sovereign nations in search of invisible WMDs then say we went in because the Iraqis wanted to be liberated, then when they fought us, we said we were "spreading democracy"? You're missing the entire point of the war in Iraq, it's not about liberating the Iraqi people, it's not even about oil, it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats because we have a God-given fucking right to do so, because we're fucking America. Why don't we stop fucking with the rest of the world and concentrate on making America an economically stable nation.

Our best minds at MIT and Harvard are middle of the pack in schools in India and Japan. Our education system is a failure and NCLBA is only going to worsen it. If Americans are too lazy and/or stupid to get a good job, our own economy is going to fall apart. There are much bigger problems than getting a guy who used to be bad, and for all we know, cooperated with the UN by getting rid of any WMDs he had if any. By invading Iraq, we gave a legitimate reason for terrorists to attack us. If we are indeed fighting a war on terror, which I highly doubt, but that's my opinion, we can't fight it by killing people. Sure it may be good that we get some top guy, but he'll be replaced. Can't people see that? We are never going to win the "war on terror" if we keep fighting it the way we are. Never. Conservative Americans are so wrapped up in the flag to see why Islamic extremists use terrorism. And that is because we are so fucking arrogant, we think we have a God-given right to force democracy down other countries' throats in the name of Freedom.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, that the mad destruction was wrought under the name of totalitaritarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -- Gandhi
An excellent post. Perhaps a bit heavy on the salsa but to the point.

Although I do believe that you are on the threshold of Corneliu playing his famous "father knows best" trump card.

BTW, I like your Gandhi tag at the end. :)

Somehow "I told you so" just doesn't quite say it.

Except you see Americans that still blame France, Germany and other countries for not wanting to join the war on Iraq. Well now you see why. There was no reason for it in the first place and now you got yourselves into a real quagmire.

"Saddam, oddly enough, was complying with all UN resolutions."

I defer to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

and that's only a sample....

Reference-
www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

and don't reply with " but what about Guantanamo Bay".
BIG DIFFERENCE
Did saddam or the Iraqi military ever punish anyone for it's multitude of human rights abuses? and then there is the sheer volume of Saddam's abuses....Staggering

This Is why I despise the UN.
they make all sorts of fancy declarations and resolutions, which is all well and good, but when it comes to actually enforcing them.....

"the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit?"

Ok, show me where you get that from.

"it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats"

um, It seems to me most Iraqis wanted democracy.
how many of them are insurgents and how many are not?

If you show me statistics where more than half of Iraqis say "I don't want democracy" then I will starting listening.

Please try to use some facts once and a while.

in order for Bush to have lied, he would have to have KNOWN that there were not WMDs.

being wrong about something is not the same as lying... and the key lies (pun intended.. hehe) with whether or not the person has knowledge of that which he speaks.

The UN inspectors found nothing, and when they didn't, the US forged evidence to present to the UN, 'proving' that Iraq had WMDs. When the UN still didn't agree with them, the UN didn't matter anymore. The UN inspectors weren't allowed to finish their inspection, because the US invaded Iraq.

5)iraq didnt have to invade anyone, by attacking preemptively, we prevented a future attack... he violated the UN for 12+ years,

How does whether or not he violated the UN matter, when the US government themselves don't care about it?

hes made a fool of the entire world, and Bush gave him an ultimatum to show proof that he has no weapons....

So because the USA couldn't prove that they had them, Saddam had to prove that they didn't? Well, he was already trying to do that, by letting the inspectors inspect.

And claiming this war was to liberate and democratize Iraq is ridiculous, when both the USA and the UK clearly supported Saddam in the 1980s, even with gaining chemical weapons.

"And claiming this war was to liberate and democratize Iraq is ridiculous"

What I care about is that the war liberated Iraq. I don't care if the people who started it were doing it for some other reason. some people focus so much negativity on bush, that they don't care if what he does accomplishes something good or not. Results are more important than intentions.

If we can take the facts, I'm appalled we still need to discuss the going to war issue because in the end, it WAS all lies. You just have to see what is and isn't in Iraq and the possibilities of a war.

WMDs. They really where there, ten years ago. Neither the coalition and the weapons inspectors found anything that even looked like a WMD. All they found was a chemically tipped ammo stash burried deep in the desert, forgotten. And one or two missiles that had more range than they should have had, and where quickly scheduled for termination after being found. Hans Blix, in one interview, suggested that the US was so obsessed with the WMD issue they almost old him to lie about Saddam's arsenal. Bush insisted a thousand times Saddam had WMDs, he made it sound like as plain and simple as "Lego is from Denmark". He said the four best intelligence agencies in the world provided him evidence. Yet he fails to show any proof, and the UN inspectors can only give proof to the contrary. Tony Blair was helpful enough to provide outdated reconaisance pictures. But otherwise, there is no proof. After the war is over and we find no WMDs, Bush acts like his nose bleeds when asked for the location of these supposed WMDs. Suddenly he wants us to believe at was all about disposing of a vile dictator all the time. But alas, only Stalin could twist thruth so superbly. The WMD issue is forgotten by the White House, and all they will say on the issue is "wrong intelligence". And I can't imagine how a whole nation accepts that answer! First we where led to believe that the CIA, MI6, the Russian and Israeli intelligence, the most notorious and effective agencies in the world, had solid evidence. Now, all his sources where working with what they knew. If it really was a guess, as Bush dismisses the issue, that would have been a COUNTER-ARGUEMENT for going to war.

Saddam and Al-Quaida. Do we need to waste any words on this? Yes, there had been some dialogue between the two, but ultimately they are more likely to fight each other than fight alongside each other. At best Saddam might have turned a blind eye to recruitment for 'Jihad' and it's practices, which happens in other countries to.

Freedom and Democracy. This is a flawed arguement, and should have been used instead of the WMDs lies instead. If the US wants to bring freedom, why don't they overthrow the Saud dynasty? It's not that hard, and it can be easily proven this country is violating human rights. Instead, Bush allies with them. There is currently genocide in Darfur, but I haven't heard the US rattle any sabers about that. They leave North Korea alone even though it is openly bragging about having what Saddam didn't have, and they even get away with it. We can even make a huge lists in the injustices the US ignored in the past, or selfish interventions where they actually put a dictator in charge. What is so important that right now, when the WMD arguement is defeated, we MUST free Iraq? I mean sure we all want to be free. But think realistically. If Bush did this out of principals, he's obligated to also free the rest of the world, yet there are better places to start than Iraq. Mind you, even now this arguement's purpose is being defeated because of the voilence. If there is something more important than freedom, it's safety, and Bush exchanged one right for another. Lastly, democracy can't be given. Never expect it to work itself out. Russia got it after Gorbachov, and they elected Putin, who is a capitalist version of Stalin. Half of the ex-Sovjet states are still struggling with corruption. Democracy comes and goes in south America. Italy has a new fascist government. Democracy is actually very fragile. It must be grown. It is a social progress. And even though it has become popular in the Middle East all of a sudden, it's a 50-50 chance that these democratic governments last.

Oil. Iraq in located one one of the biggest oil reserves the word has ever seen. Bush has interests in the oil industry himself. He has many friends who support him who happen to be oil barons. The United States depends on oil for its infrastructure more than all other western countries. (sarcasm) Is there ANY reason why we should believe this whole war had NOTHING to do with oil, even in the slightest? (sarcasm over) People who support this war dismiss this arguement out of hand too easily saying 'prices have gone up'. So? Maybe that was the point. Your country keeps using oil as much as ever even with increased prices, and the oilmen make more profits. You see, the supply might have been lowered, but that doesn't count for US oil. Anyone who owns an oil well in Dallas will see his revenue rise without losing any output. Also, think in the long term. With the oil derricks and pipelines so effectively secured, and the US government doing its best to bring Iraq's oil back into the world market, and guiding the new government with the apointment of oil ministers and granting contracts, there will be more oil available once tensions have weakened, which is the US's priority now, for some reason. And the US is trying to heal the scars of war, and although they might look good doing so, it's the barons at the top who will have a real reason to celebrate if this works out. Of course, we can assume the oilmen thought in the short term as much as the US government does in international issues and thought the Iraqi's where going to give them their oil without anyone raising a finger. I know that sound naive and stupid but so far, Bush did a pretty good job at getting that mentality across to people who don't like him and his wars.

Other business. War doesn't have to be expensive. Hitler brought prosperity to Germany while preparing for war. Roosenveldt copied this tactic very well by encouraging the arms industry to expand operations during war time, turning the US in the biggest supplier of weaponry (possibly only topped by a fully functional Sovjet Union). The spoils are why wars are fought, not out of evil or good intent. And a creative genius can make a buck from fighting. Saying that war is expensive only seems to count for the governments who buy all weapons. The US has many armories, packing plants, weapon companies, vehicle factories, naval yards and body armor designers that see their profits rise enormously during war. Some greedy pigs at the lead of such companies are so devoid of morals that they would encourage the government only further to wage war. In fact, I heard Cheney used to work for a major transport firm that had its interests in war material. Even though they might not have true proof to show to wage wars, they will cheer on the government when it considers a war. And they certainly have a way to make friends in high places, going all the way up to the president himself. These companies might have existed long before Iraq was an issue but they will always do whatever it takes to make money. Good contacts and relationships with a person in power is their way assuring their company will flourish.

So the Oil and Weapons companies benefit from this war. Who else? Neocons will see their political influence strengthened. This is what Bush has been doing all the time. Powel was the only sane person in the sad bunch surrounding Bush, and he got replaced by Rice, a full fledged Neocon in blood and flesh. Cheney and Rumsfeld are warhawks, the latter was even defended by the president through thick and thin while he would let go of the moderate Powel without a word. Personally I say it's high time the consequences of this Neocon government should have happened, and it angers me the European government are still listening to the Uinted States.

Conservatives. They want morals, family values, and see Bush as the man to do it. His position on issues like AIDS, gays, teen sex, abortion, gun laws, death penalty and euthanasia fit in perfectly with his. And while that matters nothing to me, they seek to use presidential power to dictate these issues through a central government (the exact anti to Republics). No interests in Iraq you say? Well isn't it ironic that a man who preaches all those issues at home in letting people kill each other on another part of the globe? (sarcasm) Truly Bush is a man of morals and family values.

Finally, daddy. It's been said that Bush might have a personal vendetta against Saddam because he was not ousted after the Gulf war. Mind you, Bush Sr. had a good reason to pull out, he'd never be able to maintain his position. Bush made the mistake daddy avoided, and clearly he hasn't figured it out yet. I don't know if George has scolded his son for it, but I can imagine that junior at the very least felt proud that he did what his daddy couldn't. Which prompts that question: what sort of bizarre kind of politics play in the Bush family? I can explain what happened and ask the question a countless time, but why on earth did Bush Jr do something his father wisely avoided, yet doesn't raise the ire of his father who apparently knew the dangers? Is George senior someone who'd rather see his son lose face rather than himself? We might as well drop the issue but the fact remains: Bush wanted to get Saddam right from the start.

So far, only the bad reasons to go to war have some proof to back it up. I haven't seen any good reasons to do it. The good reasons that where there aren't going to be much help now, for freedom and democracy are now kept alive through force of arms, sacrificing rights that even Saddam was able to handle better.

"Saddam, oddly enough, was complying with all UN resolutions."

I defer to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

and that's only a sample....

Reference-
www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

and don't reply with " but what about Guantanamo Bay".
BIG DIFFERENCE
Did saddam or the Iraqi military ever punish anyone for it's multitude of human rights abuses? and then there is the sheer volume of Saddam's abuses....Staggering

This Is why I despise the UN.
they make all sorts of fancy declarations and resolutions, which is all well and good, but when it comes to actually enforcing them.....

"the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit?"

Ok, show me where you get that from

"it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats"

um, It seems to me most Iraqis wanted democracy.
how many of them are insurgents and how many are not?

If you show me statistics where more than half of Iraqis say "I don't want democracy" then I will starting listening.

Please try to use some facts once and a while.

"And claiming this war was to liberate and democratize Iraq is ridiculous"

What I care about is that the war liberated Iraq. I don't care if the people who started it were doing it for some other reason. some people focus so much negativity on bush, that they don't care if what he does accomplishes something good or not. Results are more important than intentions.

All good posts. Thank you Kholar. You do have a good grasp on the situation at hand. Keep up the good work.

Did you know that American troops executed thousands of women and children during the Vietnam war?

And many of them were punished. And yes I did

Did you know that the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit?

Proof please?
Why the fuck are we in Iraq? That's what I'm asking you. I'm not asking you to question my knowledge of history, which your points fail to recognize the true motives of the bush admin. So by keeping the peace and "upholding international law" and spreading democracy, we invade sovereign nations in search of invisible WMDs then say we went in because the Iraqis wanted to be liberated, then when they fought us, we said we were "spreading democracy"? You're missing the entire point of the war in Iraq, it's not about liberating the Iraqi people, it's not even about oil, it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats because we have a God-given fucking right to do so, because we're fucking America. Why don't we stop fucking with the rest of the world and concentrate on making America an economically stable nation.

Why are we in Iraq? We are in Iraq thanks to Saddam violating 17 UN resolutions along with a UN approved Cease-Fire. We are in Iraq because we got tired of dealing diplomatically with this tyrannical regime. We are in Iraq because in the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War (at the time of invasion) Saddam never tempered down his rhetoric and declared the US to be the enemy of Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? These are good enough reasons for me.

Our best minds at MIT and Harvard are middle of the pack in schools in India and Japan. Our education system is a failure and NCLBA is only going to worsen it. If Americans are too lazy and/or stupid to get a good job, our own economy is going to fall apart.

Can't blame Bush for the failure of the AMerican Educational School Systems. They have been failing under BOTH republican and democratic leaderships. Just that the Teachers Unions don't want to see changes made because then they will be held responsible for this failure. The people of this country have to do their part to force changes. I, myself, was homeschooled because of the lack of an education I was getting in Public School (I was smarter than most of my classmates as well as a few teachers! That's embarrassing)

There are much bigger problems than getting a guy who used to be bad, and for all we know, cooperated with the UN by getting rid of any WMDs he had if any. By invading Iraq, we gave a legitimate reason for terrorists to attack us.

Now this is where your LACK of history is showing. THey have been after us for decades. Beirute ring a bell? Kobor towers ring a bell? The Embassy bombings in Africa ring a bell? These took place BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. Not to mention the 1st World Trade Center Bombing. You apparently don't remember this but I remember some of them and my parents sure as hell remember all of them. They don't need a legitament reason to attack us considering they have been attacking us for decades. Nice try but try again.

If we are indeed fighting a war on terror, which I highly doubt, but that's my opinion, we can't fight it by killing people. Sure it may be good that we get some top guy, but he'll be replaced. Can't people see that? We are never going to win the "war on terror" if we keep fighting it the way we are. Never. Conservative Americans are so wrapped up in the flag to see why Islamic extremists use terrorism. And that is because we are so fucking arrogant, we think we have a God-given right to force democracy down other countries' throats in the name of Freedom.

Yes I can see that but you also have to remember that we are also taking down the cream of the crop with each arrest. The replacements maybe capable of doing the jobs but not as well as the person we arrested. Can't people also see that? However, they are starting to diversify because of all of the arrests that have been made to the leadership. How do you think we captured Saddam Hussein? We'll also get Bin Laden sooner or later.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, that the mad destruction was wrought under the name of totalitaritarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -- Gandhi

Nice quote from Gandhi. Now if you get the terrorists to listen about Gandhi, the world will be much better off since it was the Terrorists, and not the US, that started this mess.

What I care about is that the war liberated Iraq. I don't care if the people who started it were doing it for some other reason. some people focus so much negativity on bush, that they don't care if what he does accomplishes something good or not. Results are more important than intentions.

That is the one good thing about the war, that Saddam got caught. But war was not required. Because of the war, thousands of innocents have been murdered, more constantly terrorised by both sides. And the situation isn't likely to change for many months, or even years. Iraq isn't liberated. It might be in progress of liberation, but there is still a war being fought.


Why are we in Iraq? We are in Iraq thanks to Saddam violating 17 UN resolutions along with a UN approved Cease-Fire. We are in Iraq because we got tired of dealing diplomatically with this tyrannical regime. We are in Iraq because in the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War (at the time of invasion) Saddam never tempered down his rhetoric and declared the US to be the enemy of Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? These are good enough reasons for me.

Israel has been violating the UN almost ever since it was (re-)created in 1948. What's your stance towards them? Their most important ally, and the reason they are of the 4-5 greatest nuclear powers.

And as I mentioned, the war wasn't authorized by the UN. You can't use UN resolutions, or violations of them, as reasoning only when they suit you, and disregard them when they don't.

Nice quote from Gandhi. Now if you get the terrorists to listen about Gandhi, the world will be much better off since it was the Terrorists, and not the US, that started this mess.

That is certainly not a fact. The USA's foreign policies have through the last century angered many people all across the world, particularly in Arabia. Terrorism doesn't create itself.

Israel has been violating the UN almost ever since it was (re-)created in 1948. What's your stance towards them? Their most important ally, and the reason they are of the 4-5 greatest nuclear powers.

What has the UN done regarding Israel? Nothing except pass more UN Resolutions, or at least try too. How many resolutions were passed on the Palestinian Authority? None. Israel is just defending themselves against the terrorists that want to kill them and I can't help but support them. Not my fault that the cowards decide to hide among civilians. That is why people don't like Israel. If nations don't like what Israel is doing then do something about it. Oh wait, they can't because it'll never be authorized by the UN because the US has a veto power. That is the problem right there. Anyway, I do support Israel. My not like some of what they are doing but I do support them.

And as I mentioned, the war wasn't authorized by the UN. You can't use UN resolutions, or violations of them, as reasoning only when they suit you, and disregard them when they don't.

War was technically authorized by the UN when they approved the Cease-Fire. It was violated thus we could've gone in at our leisure to attack Iraq again. I'm surprised we waited 12 years. War was authorized by past UN Resolutions too including 1441 which stated "serious Consequences" if Saddam didn't comply. He didn't so we went in. So yes, we are doing the UN bidding wether the world likes it or not. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

That is certainly not a fact. The USA's foreign policies have through the last century angered many people all across the world, particularly in Arabia. Terrorism doesn't create itself.

It is most certainly a fact. If one side wants peace and the other war, its always the war side that is going to win. If we ignore the terrorists, they will continously attack us because they know that we will not respond. This occured under Clinton's and other administrations watches. We did nothing and the situation got out of hand. Now we are striking back as we should've done after the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.

Actually, he does. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be pushing to lower gas prices now would he? Get new material.
hes only pushing for lower prices now after years of not doing anything cause his poll numbers are totally tanked not cause he cares about the consumer

Bull.

I remember clearly that Bush went to the UN and got 1441. I remember when he went into Iraq, he quoted UN Resolutions as well as upholding the UN Ceas-fire Agreement. This was never about oil.
I remember Bush not allowing UN weapons inspectors to finish their jobs cause he didnt want confirmation that there were no WMDs or ability to build any in the near future in Iraq

"the people leading this war in Iraq are making at least $2 billion in profit?"

Ok, show me where you get that from.
theres also a couple of BILLION dollars that have gone totally unaccounted for in Iraq too-- its all about the oil and the greed of the Bush family crime syndicate and other old cold warrior war profiteers who have been ripping off the world and wreaking international havoc for decades now

"it's about forcing democracy down other countries' throats"

um, It seems to me most Iraqis wanted democracy.
how many of them are insurgents and how many are not?

If you show me statistics where more than half of Iraqis say "I don't want democracy" then I will starting listening.

Please try to use some facts once and a while.
they may want democracy and they also may have hated Saddam but I also think they want Bush and his looting cronies out of their country as well

"And claiming this war was to liberate and democratize Iraq is ridiculous"

What I care about is that the war liberated Iraq. I don't care if the people who started it were doing it for some other reason. some people focus so much negativity on bush, that they don't care if what he does accomplishes something good or not. Results are more important than intentions.
the situation in Iraq is far from over

Nice quote from Gandhi. Now if you get the terrorists to listen about Gandhi, the world will be much better off since it was the Terrorists, and not the US, that started this mess.
not true--Bush family sleazy oil politics and cold warrior war profiteers and their evil foreign policies and alliances with dictators all over the world and the depraved Saudi royal family started this--the terrorism came much later as a reaction to all the treachery

Wtf you smoking?

They started the war in afghanistan.
We started the war in Iraq.

Bush has taught the world one thing.
Get nukes, then bluff.

Never

Bluff, then get nukes.

I'm still waiting on that huge load of oil and gasoline we were supposed to be stealing from there. Gas prices out here in rural Texas are outrageous. $3.00 a gallon a week or so ago.

I'll cut to the chase. I supported the invasion, and I still support the occupation until the new Iraqi government can get on it's feet. Things are shaping up, most Iraqis are generally happy that we're there (I know this from my dad and uncle, who are both working in Iraq right now and who my family visited in Rome in January), and the insurgents WERE calming down before they started getting reinforcements. There are plenty of things that could be done better, but things haven't gone down the ####ter just yet I say.

Wtf you smoking?

They started the war in afghanistan.
We started the war in Iraq.

Bush has taught the world one thing.
Get nukes, then bluff.

Never

Bluff, then get nukes.
the wet brained moron some Americans call their "President" is destablizing the world making one diplomatic blunder after another. Its like we're on the Titanic and the Captain of the ship is a retarded brat

they may want democracy and they also may have hated Saddam but I also think they want Bush and his looting cronies out of their country as well


wow, next time you open your mouth to spew crap, think twice.


where has there been any examples of looting?.. what is this made up fallacy that you want to speak of?. Yes the majority wantend democracy, yes saddam was torturing and killing innocent people every day. Why do you insist that america is bad for targetting people who only want to destroy the unity of Iraq so they can have power? Where is this garbage mentality. Sorry if i seem a bit extreme, but you really make no sense if you support the attackers who despite waht you think, arent "fighting to defend their nation from an invader", they are fighting so they can keep democracy and capitalism away from the uninformed people, so they themselves can have all of the fucking power and all of the fucking money.

I'm still waiting on that huge load of oil and gasoline we were supposed to be stealing from there. Gas prices out here in rural Texas are outrageous. $3.00 a gallon a week or so ago.

I'll cut to the chase. I supported the invasion, and I still support the occupation until the new Iraqi government can get on it's feet. Things are shaping up, most Iraqis are generally happy that we're there (I know this from my dad and uncle, who are both working in Iraq right now and who my family visited in Rome in January), and the insurgents WERE calming down before they started getting reinforcements. There are plenty of things that could be done better, but things haven't gone down the ####ter just yet I say.
I guess you can say there have been some successes despite the fact that everything that couldve been done wrong was done and policy is being determined by total jackasses who know nothing about the reality of the situation on the ground--but if Iraq does plunge into fullscale civil war (which was predicted as a possibility before the invasion) then all could be lost

wow, next time you open your mouth to spew crap, think twice.


where has there been any examples of looting?.. what is this made up fallacy that you want to speak of?. Yes the majority wantend democracy, yes saddam was torturing and killing innocent people every day. Why do you insist that america is bad for targetting people who only want to destroy the unity of Iraq so they can have power? Where is this garbage mentality. Sorry if i seem a bit extreme, but you really make no sense if you support the attackers who despite waht you think, arent "fighting to defend their nation from an invader", they are fighting so they can keep democracy and capitalism away from the uninformed people, so they themselves can have all of the fucking power and all of the fucking money.
Im talking about the billions of dollars that have gone unaccounted for the no bid contracts to war profiteers like Dick Cheneys Halliburton and Bush trying to make sure that America controls the oilwells for its interests and not iraqs..if foreign looters came to liberate America from the dictator Bush youd become an insurgent too

wow, next time you open your mouth to spew crap, think twice.


where has there been any examples of looting?.. what is this made up fallacy that you want to speak of?.[sic] Yes the majority wantend[sic] democracy, yes saddam[sic] was torturing and killing innocent people every day. Why do you insist that america[sic] is bad for targetting[sic] people who only want to destroy the unity of Iraq so they can have power? Where is this garbage mentality. Sorry if i [sic] seem a bit extreme, but you really make no sense if you support the attackers who despite waht [sic] you think, arent[sic] "fighting to defend their nation from an invader", they are fighting so they can keep democracy and capitalism away from the uninformed people, so they themselves can have all of the fucking power and all of the fucking money.

Are you talking about America? Because that is exactly what Bush and his pals over at the PNAC are trying to do on us. I don't know where you get the torturing and killing innocent people every day from, true he did murder innocent people, but then again, it was American troops who slaughtered thousands of innocent women and children and elders in Vietnam, it was the CIA that helped Saddam rise to power in the first place. I also have no idea where you fabricated the idea that the insurgents are trying to "keep democracy and capitalism away from the uninformed people" when they are fighting as martyrs in the name of Allah, despite what the Republican News Network (FOX News) might want you to believe.

Im talking about the billions of dollars that have gone unaccounted for the no bid contracts to war profiteers like Dick Cheneys Halliburton...

You shut your mouth, my dad and two of my uncles work for Halliburton. You know what they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places? HUMANITARIAN AID, unless you want to figure out some other term for building schools and trucking in food and medical supplies...

...and Bush trying to make sure that America controls the oilwells for its interests and not iraqs..if foreign looters came to liberate America from the dictator Bush youd become an insurgent too

A: WE HAVE NO FUCKING OIL. WE PROVED THAT TO YOU PEOPLE OVER A YEAR AGO. DROP IT ALL DAMN READY.

B: Prez isn't a dictator, we could've easily voted him out. We didn't. If you hate him so damn much, wear a blindfold, zip your mouth and live in a cave for the next four years until Bush's second term ends.

C: Insurgent my ass, I'd be going warlord on everything south of the Mason-Dixon.

Dick Cheney is DA man, so stuff it you poof.

Civil war? Good. Let the country clean itself up and kill all the fundis...

the wet brained moron some Americans call their "President" is destablizing the world making one diplomatic blunder after another. Its like we're on the Titanic and the Captain of the ship is a retarded brat

Screw diplomacy... diplomacy never works... it just delays the inevitable at best...

I say break out of the MX's and nuke 'em from orbit! :sniper:

You shut your mouth, my dad and two of my uncles work for Halliburton. You know what they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places? HUMANITARIAN AID, unless you want to figure out some other term for building schools and trucking in food and medical supplies...
I'm sorry your family has to work for Halliburton, but do you know what else they're doing in Iraq/Afghanistan? Stealing our money by overpricing their expenses. The only thing you accomplished by claiming your dad and two of your uncles work for Halliburton is verify my thought as to why you support this "war." (If you're indeed telling the truth) You and your family are making huge profits off of this war, exactly the reason my "friend" supports the war because his dad works for Raytheon. Ah, the spoils of war.


A: WE HAVE NO FUCKING OIL. WE PROVED THAT TO YOU PEOPLE OVER A YEAR AGO. DROP IT ALL DAMN READY.
When was the lack of oil ever proven, and if we really do have no oil, then why don't we stop using it and find some other clean, renewable energy source instead of bitching about it and invading countries?

B: Prez isn't a dictator, we could've easily voted him out. We didn't. If you hate him so damn much, wear a blindfold, zip your mouth and live in a cave for the next four years until Bush's second term ends.
So we sit quiet, and let fucking crazos like you ruin our country? I don't think so.

Bush isn't a dictator in the traditional sense, but he wants to be:
"It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance. We are beginning to see some success in opening up federal coffers for faith-based programs." --GWB (Jan. 15, 2004)

I"f this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." --GWB (Dec. 18, 2000 - shortly after his contentious victory in the Supreme Court that resulted in his becoming president)

C: Insurgent my ass, I'd be going warlord on everything south of the Mason-Dixon.
What the fuck?

Just a point that this is not like the old days then the two armies faced eatcheter on a battlefield and fighted to the last man. Ecpecially sens terrorist need to much smarter for surviving ecpecially then the fight the most powerfull country in the world. So there will the terrorist go if they looses in Iraq?