ROFL
Go keep watching CNN dude :lol:
IgGy621985
If we gave everyone in Iraq...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
and one of the key things to do that is to do something appropriate with the oil.
proud722
Yeah.
Make US oil companies even richer.
It's the American way.
[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="dzaric"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
IgGy621985
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
And here come the conspiracy theorists...
I'm fully serious when I say anything Iraq related can stay in the Off Topic forum where it belongs.
There is no conspiracy theories about it. We invaded for the oil, no if ands or buts about it. Anyone with with half a brain knows that. Anyways, no, if we gave a copy of World Of Warcraft to everyone in Iraq, the war wouldnt end. What would they play it on? And how would they pay for it? Huh? Huh?!
We invaded Iraq for two major reasons:
- Bad intel from several major intelligence agencies that encompass the CIA, British intelligence, intelligence gathered by the Clinton administration and Egyptian intelligence among others.
- 17 UN resolutions that were ignored by Sadaam with fear of what was outlined in that bad intel we've recieved from all those sources.
The reasons why we're still are in Iraq are:
- We need that area of the world to be on our side and to become another viable spring board for anything that may happen in the Middle East.
- Leaving a country that is clearly incapable of keeping stable on it's own will result in millions of deaths (ala Vietnam) and a lovely opportunity for any warlord/terrorist to take over (See Hamas and the Gaza Strip).
Anything else is simply Anti-Bush talking points people use to feel like their voicing the "truth". It's okay to desent from the war and stating we had no business going to war with Iraq since it was, in fact, an optional war but this "Blood for Oil" deal is just simply silly.
ROFL
Go keep watching CNN dude :lol:
Keep drinking the Koolaid. How interesting is it that the modern Democrat party actually spouts off some of the same rhetoric as does most of the terrorist groups out there do? The truth is that the modern Democrat party in the US are just conspiracy lunatics and they are JUST as bad as the Republicans when they fear monger for votes. Funny thing is that there is some REAL legitimacy to the Republican argument while we have to just trust what the Democrats say because they are "so smart" and we can't live our lives without being taken care of by socialist Democrats like Hilary Clinton. All that the Dems are running on these days is that they are not George Bush so that automatically makes them qualified to run the country. I'm sorry, but if the American people knew what they were getting into voting for liberal dems like Clinton they would never cast that vote. I don't think that even Clinton's supporters really understand what she has planned. They just get behind her cause they know she is a devout Bush hater. Afterall isn't it the cool hip "in" thing to do to hate on Bush? I mean that IS what the left wing blogs and left leaning media tells you to do isn't it?
SW isn't a good place to discuss politics as the combined intellect of SW posters equals that of a pack of monkeys. Tho not sure if that's so different from most parliaments. And all big countries suck, Russia, China, USA etc. Small countries suck too but usually they stick to sucking inside their own borders.
Keep drinking the Koolaid. How interesting is it that the modern Democrat party actually spouts off some of the same rhetoric as does most of the terrorist groups out there do? The truth is that the modern Democrat party in the US are just conspiracy lunatics and they are JUST as bad as the Republicans when they fear monger for votes. Funny thing is that there is some REAL legitimacy to the Republican argument while we have to just trust what the Democrats say because they are "so smart" and we can't live our lives without being taken care of by socialist Democrats like Hilary Clinton. All that the Dems are running on these days is that they are not George Bush so that automatically makes them qualified to run the country. I'm sorry, but if the American people knew what they were getting into voting for liberal dems like Clinton they would never cast that vote. I don't think that even Clinton's supporters really understand what she has planned. They just get behind her cause they know she is a devout Bush hater. Afterall isn't it the cool hip "in" thing to do to hate on Bush? I mean that IS what the left wing blogs and left leaning media tells you to do isn't it?
MadExponent
I'm not going to keep drinking the Koolaid, 'cause I'm fortunate enough not to live in the US of A.
There's no difference between the socalled democrats and socalled republicans. There are only two goals for both of the sides: money and power. There's no difference between Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, whatever.
If there were "good guys" and "bad guys", the US of A never would been the most powerful country in the world. Both of the sides follow the same ideology: money and power. There's no difference.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]Keep drinking the Koolaid. How interesting is it that the modern Democrat party actually spouts off some of the same rhetoric as does most of the terrorist groups out there do? The truth is that the modern Democrat party in the US are just conspiracy lunatics and they are JUST as bad as the Republicans when they fear monger for votes. Funny thing is that there is some REAL legitimacy to the Republican argument while we have to just trust what the Democrats say because they are "so smart" and we can't live our lives without being taken care of by socialist Democrats like Hilary Clinton. All that the Dems are running on these days is that they are not George Bush so that automatically makes them qualified to run the country. I'm sorry, but if the American people knew what they were getting into voting for liberal dems like Clinton they would never cast that vote. I don't think that even Clinton's supporters really understand what she has planned. They just get behind her cause they know she is a devout Bush hater. Afterall isn't it the cool hip "in" thing to do to hate on Bush? I mean that IS what the left wing blogs and left leaning media tells you to do isn't it?
IgGy621985
I'm not going to keep drinking the Koolaid, 'cause I'm fortunate enough not to live in the US of A.
There's no difference between the socalled democrats and socalled republicans. There are only two goals for both of the sides: money and power. There's no difference between Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, whatever.
If there were "good guys" and "bad guys", the US of A never would been the most powerful country in the world. Both of the sides follow the same ideology: money and power. There's no difference.
You do realize that the US is responsible for an enormous percentage of global charity. We give more as a people and a nation than any other nation. If we stopped helping guess what would happen? We would then be called the "bad guys" as you put it. The point you are trying to make is kinda out there if you ask me cause tell me a single country that gives more than the US or helps more than the US. Don't worry I'll let you think for a while over this one. You have 10 years to think of an answer.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]Keep drinking the Koolaid. How interesting is it that the modern Democrat party actually spouts off some of the same rhetoric as does most of the terrorist groups out there do? The truth is that the modern Democrat party in the US are just conspiracy lunatics and they are JUST as bad as the Republicans when they fear monger for votes. Funny thing is that there is some REAL legitimacy to the Republican argument while we have to just trust what the Democrats say because they are "so smart" and we can't live our lives without being taken care of by socialist Democrats like Hilary Clinton. All that the Dems are running on these days is that they are not George Bush so that automatically makes them qualified to run the country. I'm sorry, but if the American people knew what they were getting into voting for liberal dems like Clinton they would never cast that vote. I don't think that even Clinton's supporters really understand what she has planned. They just get behind her cause they know she is a devout Bush hater. Afterall isn't it the cool hip "in" thing to do to hate on Bush? I mean that IS what the left wing blogs and left leaning media tells you to do isn't it?
IgGy621985
I'm not going to keep drinking the Koolaid, 'cause I'm fortunate enough not to live in the US of A.
There's no difference between the socalled democrats and socalled republicans. There are only two goals for both of the sides: money and power. There's no difference between Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, whatever.
If there were "good guys" and "bad guys", the US of A never would been the most powerful country in the world. Both of the sides follow the same ideology: money and power. There's no difference.
First of all there are liberal dems like me who understand that not everything republican is evil or wrong or that anybody thats not Bush is not automatically a good leader. Its just the very far left that have lost touch and can't except that they might be wrong.
And to the statement everyone is the same, Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan, etc.... no sorry, all have had different policies both foreign and domestic. America is so diverse with different ideals, from our politicians (some bad, some good) to the ordinary citizen. For people who don't live here they can't understand just how different our country is depending on where you live and how you were raised.
You do realize that the US is responsible for an enormous percentage of global charity. We give more as a people and a nation than any other nation. If we stopped helping guess what would happen? We would then be called the "bad guys" as you put it. The point you are trying to make is kinda out there if you ask me cause tell me a single country that gives more than the US or helps more than the US. Don't worry I'll let you think for a while over this one. You have 10 years to think of an answer.
MadExponent
actually the US doesnt give the most based on its GNP, so to say that the US is themost charitable is an argument, but you need to take into account that other nations sacrifice a larger percentage of their GNP.
and for whoever thinks the US entered Iraq for WMD, buddy keed on watching fox news.
[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
saolin323
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.[QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
the1stmoonfly
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.your right korea and vietnas didnt have oil, but they sure did have innocent people that we killed. its not always about oil. iraq was about oil. and re-election. going to war really helped george bush's approval ratings.
[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
dzaric
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
And here come the conspiracy theorists...
I'm fully serious when I say anything Iraq related can stay in the Off Topic forum where it belongs.
There is no conspiracy theories about it. We invaded for the oil, no if ands or buts about it. Anyone with with half a brain knows that. Anyways, no, if we gave a copy of World Of Warcraft to everyone in Iraq, the war wouldnt end. What would they play it on? And how would they pay for it? Huh? Huh?!
What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:[QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
p2rus
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.your right korea and vietnas didnt have oil, but they sure did have innocent people that we killed. its not always about oil. iraq was about oil. and re-election. going to war really helped george bush's approval ratings.
Wow, and that is where you fail. Bush's approval rating slowly plummeted after the Iraqi invasion and continues to do so. Educate yourself please.The point you are trying to make is kinda out there if you ask me cause tell me a single country that gives more than the US or helps more than the US. Don't worry I'll let you think for a while over this one. You have 10 years to think of an answer.
MadExponent
I was reading an article after the tsunami hit Indonesia, and the article said which countries sent charity money. USA was somewhere at the bottom.
Vote Ron Paul 2008.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]The point you are trying to make is kinda out there if you ask me cause tell me a single country that gives more than the US or helps more than the US. Don't worry I'll let you think for a while over this one. You have 10 years to think of an answer.
IgGy621985
I was reading an article after the tsunami hit Indonesia, and the article said which countries sent charity money. USA was somewhere at the bottom.
One particular incident doesn't change the facts. http://thenewsbuckit.com/2007/06/united-states-most-charitable-country.html Please read and educate yourself.What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
They would need sth to put in the disc...sth to see wtf they are doing while playing...sth to hear sound effects....well maybe a chair and a desk, and finally something to protect them from bad weather (ie. house).'
And do not forget...sth to plug in the PC.
[QUOTE="MadExponent"]The point you are trying to make is kinda out there if you ask me cause tell me a single country that gives more than the US or helps more than the US. Don't worry I'll let you think for a while over this one. You have 10 years to think of an answer.
IgGy621985
I was reading an article after the tsunami hit Indonesia, and the article said which countries sent charity money. USA was somewhere at the bottom.
Which is why we had the air- and sea-lift capacity of an entire carrier battle group in the region moving aid in, housing refugees on ships, and using the reactors of the ships to provide fresh drinking water to the people, among other things.
Anyway, on-topic I doubt giving everyone in Iraq WoW would fix everyting.
[QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:IgGy621985
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.Let us see your proof then. If you are brainwashed you can stay brainwashed and we will not care.Of course if you prove me wrong then I will accept my mistake happily, and thank you afterwards.
[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:wii4panta
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.Let us see your proof then. If you are brainwashed you can stay brainwashed and we will not care.Of course if you prove me wrong then I will accept my mistake happily, and thank you afterwards.
Why should I offer proof? I'm not the one making accusations. Get it? I see what we're doing in Iraq (my brother is a State Dept. contractor in Baghdad), and there is absolutely no evidence that our purpose there is oil. If you're making the accusations, then YOU offer the proof. It's not difficult to understand. If I go up to a random stranger and say, "You're a murderer". He'll say "Prove it". The equivalent to your response would be for me to say, "Prove that you're not" back to the stranger.[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.did you know that one of the first things that the US did when they went to iraq was to capture all the oil fields?
[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.Holy crap dude, your views on that war are just priceless.
Okay, then, what is your argument on the Iraqi war?
Liberate the Iraqi people and start the democracy in the country? :lol:
[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:p2rus
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.did you know that one of the first things that the US did when they went to iraq was to capture all the oil fields?
Did you know that during the First Gulf War Saddam Hussein blew up his oil fields, flooded the Persian Gulf and created one of the worst environmental disasters in history? Would you have given him the chance to do it again?
[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:p2rus
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.did you know that one of the first things that the US did when they went to iraq was to capture all the oil fields?
Link, please.[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:IgGy621985
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.Holy crap dude, your views on that war are just priceless.
Okay, then, what is your argument on the Iraqi war?
Liberate the Iraqi people and start the democracy in the country? :lol:
I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
Erkidu
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.your right korea and vietnas didnt have oil, but they sure did have innocent people that we killed. its not always about oil. iraq was about oil. and re-election. going to war really helped george bush's approval ratings.
Wow, and that is where you fail. Bush's approval rating slowly plummeted after the Iraqi invasion and continues to do so. Educate yourself please.http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
ok if you look at that graph, the lead up to the iraq war, with all the "he's got WMD's" and "nerve gas" and all that...his approval rating goes way up.
also, on a slightly unrelated note, notice how fox's data is always at the higher end of the data...hmm
[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
p2rus
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.your right korea and vietnas didnt have oil, but they sure did have innocent people that we killed. its not always about oil. iraq was about oil. and re-election. going to war really helped george bush's approval ratings.
Wow, and that is where you fail. Bush's approval rating slowly plummeted after the Iraqi invasion and continues to do so. Educate yourself please.http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
ok if you look at that graph, the lead up to the iraq war, with all the "he's got WMD's" and "nerve gas" and all that...his approval rating goes way up.
also, on a slightly unrelated note, notice how fox's data is always at the higher end of the data...hmm
You're missing the point entirely. If the US had been in Iraq for approval ratings - we would have pulled out the minute Bush's approval rating began to plummet.[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.did you know that one of the first things that the US did when they went to iraq was to capture all the oil fields?
Link, please.It's a long read.
I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?Erkidu
our supposed "good cause" was to stop saddam from using WMD on us. but wait, there were no WMD's. then it was opperation liberation. suddenly saddam was a bad guy. first thing we do is secure the oil fields in iraq. we execture saddam (hes not a nice guy, sure) and then we set up a puppet. yeah good job america. ulterior motives ftw.
[QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:IgGy621985
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.did you know that one of the first things that the US did when they went to iraq was to capture all the oil fields?
Link, please.It's a long read.
This article said nothing about "the United States capturing oil fields". In a nutshell, it said that OIL COMPANIES have already begun vying for some of the oil. The article also goes on to say that "ACCESS TO THE OIL WILL BE STRICTLY DEPENDENT ON THE POLICIES OF THE NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT". So, you've essentially proven MY point by posting this article.I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?Erkidu
Dude, COME ON. Don't tell me that you're so darn naive?
This, and every war that is being made in the world, not only by the USA is because of the - business. No country starts a war and invades other country because they're good samaritans.
[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
Erkidu
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
Lol, Korea and vietnam didnt have oil. I might even believe that a little if the middle east and beyond hadnt been full of trouble makers since the days of Ghengis Kahn, it's just the way that part of the planet seems to be. Perhaps the TC is onto something lol. Anyway, exactly how much oil has the US stolen since removing Sadams defences, coz as far as I know its zero.your right korea and vietnas didnt have oil, but they sure did have innocent people that we killed. its not always about oil. iraq was about oil. and re-election. going to war really helped george bush's approval ratings.
Wow, and that is where you fail. Bush's approval rating slowly plummeted after the Iraqi invasion and continues to do so. Educate yourself please.http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
ok if you look at that graph, the lead up to the iraq war, with all the "he's got WMD's" and "nerve gas" and all that...his approval rating goes way up.
also, on a slightly unrelated note, notice how fox's data is always at the higher end of the data...hmm
You're missing the point entirely. If the US had been in Iraq for approval ratings - we would have pulled out the minute Bush's approval rating began to plummet.noo...
its a fact that when a country enters a war, especially one in which the other country has WMD and is the "agressor," the approval rating in the country goes waay up. remember all the 'freedom fries' nonsence? it causes a hysteria. ok so then his rating goes, down, they execute saddam...suddenly theyre stuck. its called a quagmire. bush doesnt want to pull out because then his legacy is ruined. hes the president who led us into a vietnam except this time, he lied his way into it. that sounds real nice in the history books, dont it?
[QUOTE="dzaric"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
Redmoonxl2
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
And here come the conspiracy theorists...
I'm fully serious when I say anything Iraq related can stay in the Off Topic forum where it belongs.
There is no conspiracy theories about it. We invaded for the oil, no if ands or buts about it. Anyone with with half a brain knows that. Anyways, no, if we gave a copy of World Of Warcraft to everyone in Iraq, the war wouldnt end. What would they play it on? And how would they pay for it? Huh? Huh?!
We invaded Iraq for two major reasons:
- Bad intel from several major intelligence agencies that encompass the CIA, British intelligence, intelligence gathered by the Clinton administration and Egyptian intelligence among others.
- 17 UN resolutions that were ignored by Sadaam with fear of what was outlined in that bad intel we've recieved from all those sources.
The reasons why we're still are in Iraq are:
- We need that area of the world to be on our side and to become another viable spring board for anything that may happen in the Middle East.
- Leaving a country that is clearly incapable of keeping stable on it's own will result in millions of deaths (ala Vietnam) and a lovely opportunity for any warlord/terrorist to take over (See Hamas and the Gaza Strip).
Anything else is simply Anti-Bush talking points people use to feel like their voicing the "truth". It's okay to desent from the war and stating we had no business going to war with Iraq since it was, in fact, an optional war but this "Blood for Oil" deal is just simply silly.
this is 100% true. its like some people just dont know their history ( a few years ago ) lol and what went on during the clinton administration. I'm sick of hearing the anti bush ploys becuase it just makes democrats look retarded. Both hillary and obama going for democratic elect keep knocking Bush when he's not even an opponent....he cant run...like wtf its like all the ammunition democrats have to run on
1.) WMDS:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/07/02/iraq_chem.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/05/25/sarin_shell040525.html
2.) Saddam a bad guy (WARNING: graphic picture):
http://www.starman417.com/grave7.jpg
3.) Why secure the oil fields?
http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/030403/oil1.html
I don't know why you get all defensive when anyone mentions Iraqi oil. It's a fact that many Americans got stinking rich from the war in Iraq, who do you think got all the contracts to rebuild the country. If you think America went in there to save Iraqi people from Saddam then you're in serious denial. There are many countries under horrible dictatorship that America couldn't give a rats ass about.
Keep telling people that America are fighting for freedom or whatever, it's all BS at the end of the day. People like Bush are war mongers, and should be thrown in jail for war crimes like his father and many other western leaders of the last century.
NickN4ck
Uhh...they didn't. You're ignorance bothers me.
[QUOTE="Erkidu"] I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?p2rus
our supposed "good cause" was to stop saddam from using WMD on us. but wait, there were no WMD's. then it was opperation liberation. suddenly saddam was a bad guy. first thing we do is secure the oil fields in iraq. we execture saddam (hes not a nice guy, sure) and then we set up a puppet. yeah good job america. ulterior motives ftw.
Haha. How ignorant of you to think that the United States was the only country on Earth to think that Hussein had WMDs. Read carefully. Almost EVERY IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY on the planet agreed that he possessed some form of a WMD. I'm sorry. Did you just say "suddenly Saddam was a bad guy"? :| Are you kidding me? Hussein was the #1 world aggressor of the last 30 years. He murdered MILLIONS of Iraqi civilians (namely, the Kurds). You're dreaming if you think the world didn't already hate Hussein.[QUOTE="wii4panta"][QUOTE="Erkidu"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] What's hilarious to me is that you say "we invaded for oil" yet you can offer absolutely no proof. :) We call that "a lie". On another note, why are gas prices going up instead of down? Let me guess. Because Bush is putting all of it in his private gas station? :roll:Erkidu
Lemme guess. USA invaded Iraq 'cause you could save poor Iraqi people and kill that bad guy Saddam Hussein?
Small is the mind that thinks that a scenario like this is as simple as that. *sigh* There's no use in arguing with you. You base your entire opinion of the war off of assumptions - of which, you have no proof.Let us see your proof then. If you are brainwashed you can stay brainwashed and we will not care.Of course if you prove me wrong then I will accept my mistake happily, and thank you afterwards.
Why should I offer proof? I'm not the one making accusations. Get it? I see what we're doing in Iraq (my brother is a State Dept. contractor in Baghdad), and there is absolutely no evidence that our purpose there is oil. If you're making the accusations, then YOU offer the proof. It's not difficult to understand. If I go up to a random stranger and say, "You're a murderer". He'll say "Prove it". The equivalent to your response would be for me to say, "Prove that you're not" back to the stranger.No no, it is not the same. If 10 people walk to a randomn person and say "You are a murderer" Then one should think that there's something going on here. That's what is really going on.Eveyone except America claims that the war was for oil.
America says otherwise.
Something stinks if you know what I mean....
I don't support the war but yes, Saddam was evil. All you need do is look up Marsh Arabs on google and you will realize how little this man cares about the people under his leadership.Liberating the Middle East. That backfired in their face and good thing too.
All empires end, fact of history.
They came for WMDs, found none. Came to remove evil Saddam, he turned out to not be that evil after all. And they stayed under the guise of liberation, a people that didn't want it.
Reminds me very much the tactics used by the British Empire in South Asia and even Napoleons "Machiavellian" two-faced hypocrisy when he tried invading Palestine.
Hoobinator
Many Americans believe they're on a divine mission from God in the Middle East. Noble foreign policy, bring on the end of the world etc etc armageddon.
Bush' crusade.
... and yet they talk of extremists. :?
[QUOTE="Erkidu"] I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?IgGy621985
Dude, COME ON. Don't tell me that you're so darn naive?
This, and every war that is being made in the world, not only by the USA is because of the - business. No country starts a war and invades other country because they're good samaritans.
Perhaps. But I don't think that the business aspect of conflict is the SOLE reason for its existence. People definitely fight for what they believe.[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="NickN4ck"]I don't know why you get all defensive when anyone mentions Iraqi oil. It's a fact that many Americans got stinking rich from the war in Iraq, who do you think got all the contracts to rebuild the country. If you think America went in there to save Iraqi people from Saddam then you're in serious denial. There are many countries under horrible dictatorship that America couldn't give a rats ass about.
Keep telling people that America are fighting for freedom or whatever, it's all BS at the end of the day. People like Bush are war mongers, and should be thrown in jail for war crimes like his father and many other western leaders of the last century.
Veterngamer
:roll:
It's to be expected that certain companies get rich when a war breaks out. That's the nature of the war machine but to state that's the reason why we went to war is sheer paranoa mixed with self righteousness.
I'll be the first to state that we did not go to war with Iraq because we wanted to save the Iraqi people and I'll also agree with the fact that there are dictatorships Bush doesn't really care about. Our job is not to liberate everyone and it foolish for the Bush admisnistration to state so, which they often do. The fact is that we went to Iraq based on national secruity. Any news of illegal arms that can be passed on to enemies of the US to be used against Americans is a national secruity issue. The problem with the Iraq War is that the intel we've recieved from various intel services was false, thus leaving the US with a nice black eye. As a result, you have the administration bumbling around making excuses. I firmly believe that if Bush just admit to the fact that the Iraq War was based on an intel screw up of epic proportions, this really wouldn't be tinhat haven for people such as yourself.
you're almost right..... except instead of saying "intel services were false", you should be saying "intentionally falsified", do you really believe that Bush didn't know that the intel about WMD's wasn't already proven false.... pffff..... funny i knew it the day it was announced, of course I'd say this to people then and they'd say "Oh you're a conspiracy theorist... blah blah blah".... and then blam, some time later, "Oh we've found that the "intel" that Saddam had WMD's is actually false"
I feel somuch pity for people gullible to believe everything they see on the news and read in the newspaper.
PS. Another example of Bush knowingly spouting rubbish is the whole "Irans Nuclear Arms Program", he knew 3 months prior that the program had halted, yet put his lying face on TV saying things like "Anyone concerned with preventing WWIII needs to support us in our efforts"
Only this time he got caught, and what has happened???? Nothing, a couple weeks pass and everyone is just content with hearing jokes about it on Conan or the COlbert Report
Hmmm....odd. You go on to claim that the intelligence that was gathered on Iraq was "intentionally" false, yet say that the intelligence gathered on Iran is true......
Iran still needs to be closely watched. If Russia is going to give them all the uranium they need, then why keep enriching uranium?
[QUOTE="p2rus"][QUOTE="Erkidu"] I'm not saying that there are absolutely no political motivations for the US being in Iraq. All I'm saying is that surely liberals can come up with something better than "we're there for oil". There is no proof. Thus, it can't be stated as fact or even PRESENTED in a debate. Is it so hard for you to believe that we could be in Iraq for a good cause? Or have you been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is completely evil and can do no good?Erkidu
our supposed "good cause" was to stop saddam from using WMD on us. but wait, there were no WMD's. then it was opperation liberation. suddenly saddam was a bad guy. first thing we do is secure the oil fields in iraq. we execture saddam (hes not a nice guy, sure) and then we set up a puppet. yeah good job america. ulterior motives ftw.
Haha. How ignorant of you to think that the United States was the only country on Earth to think that Hussein had WMDs. Read carefully. Almost EVERY IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY on the planet agreed that he possessed some form of a WMD. I'm sorry. Did you just say "suddenly Saddam was a bad guy"? :| Are you kidding me? Hussein was the #1 world aggressor of the last 30 years. He murdered MILLIONS of Iraqi civilians (namely, the Kurds). You're dreaming if you think the world didn't already hate Hussein.no i mean that the united states helped him during the first gulf war. they gave his $, weapons. its all there. and sorry, i meant that the united states never was interested in killing saddam hussein before 9/11. but afterwards, hey. look, hes a bad guy lets get him.
Many Middle Easterners KNOW they're on a divine mission to purge the world of "infidels", such as yourself. You would think differently had you lost a family member in a terrorist attack.Many Americans believe they're on a divine mission from God in the Middle East. Noble foreign policy, bring on the end of the world etc etc armageddon.
Bush' crusade.
... and yet they talk of extremists. :?
Hoobinator
Many Americans believe they're on a divine mission from God in the Middle East. Noble foreign policy, bring on the end of the world etc etc armageddon.
Bush' crusade.
... and yet they talk of extremists. :?
Hoobinator
"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month."
Unbiased source FTW?
[QUOTE="saolin323"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"]a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
Redmoonxl2
No, the war would only end if US did not invade countries for their oil
And here come the conspiracy theorists...
I'm fully serious when I say anything Iraq related can stay in the Off Topic forum where it belongs.
You are one of those that STILL believe US invades other countires (= declares war for no real reason), to bring them ... peace ???
hahahahahahahahahaha, hope you people understand what is going on around you, before you become what destroyes the whole damn planet
a copy of World of Warcraft, the war would end.
i'm actually half serious.
discuss!
Koalakommander
Yes, a simple solution to the invasion of a country, give all the civilians a copy of WoW.
Ridiculous.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment