The "War" in Iraq

[THE LAP]

anyone seen the movie loose change second edition?

i suggest you all dl it from limewire or something.

its kinda booring but at the same time very interesting.

i never thought western governemnts where actualy corrupt, but after watching this movie im 90% sure the U.S government had something to do with allowing or even ploting september 11.

 

[Shredderbeam]

anyone seen the movie loose change second edition?

i suggest you all dl it from limewire or something.

its kinda booring but at the same time very interesting.

i never thought western governemnts where actualy corrupt, but after watching this movie im 90% sure the U.S government had something to do with allowing or even ploting september 11.

If you're going to argue that 9/11 was a conspiracy and such, don't use Loose Change. It's the worst 9/11 movie out there.

Shredder, it seems that you've been able to counter everyone's views, impressive.

Thank you, I try my best.

 

[zokomo.mills]

America claims to invade IRAQ to fight terrorism.. I believe the main motive is to capture their oil supplies, and become more powerful.


~~Zokomo

 

[justafan]

Zomoko if America was there to capture oil and become more powerful, why would we go in with other countries? Wouldn't it make more sense to take out Iraq by ourselves and claim that since we did all of the work that we should get to keep Iraq. Besides that alone I don't think anyone in our government wants Iraq, it may have oil but that's not a good enough reason to want that depressingly hot barren wastland the Iraqis call home. Sorry if I sound offensive but that's the way I see it in every single picture.

 

[Gnomey]

Bush and Cheney are intrinsically involved with those big oil companies, and, during Bush's 2000 campaign, he received a lot of money from the oil lobbyists.



Well, I'm assuming they weighed the pros and cons. The advantage in invading Saudi Arabia would be that much more oil, but there would be a massive amount of extra cons. Then, I'm sure they considered Iraq, some little country that apparently, nobody cares about.



They could, but that would make them look bad politically, apparently, for if Bush refused to withdraw, then Congress would be seen as the one who was to blame.

Bush wouldn't refuse to have them to withdraw, because it would be him sentencing them to death, not Congress. Congress would be giving him ample time and funds to leave.

Who doesn't get donations from lobbyists? Its believable that because Bush took donations from Med Companies he vetoed SCHIP. Thats probably not true (or maybe its a small bit of it) because SCHIP was a rediculous idea, but nevertheless it can be reasonably connected. Engaging in a war (especially when hes not going to be going for re-election) is a bit far of a stretch.

If Iraq really starts pumping out the il (and the amount the US gets is bigger than the present 8%) then the arguement that we went in for the oil would make a bit more sense, especially if the government makes back the trillions they wasted on the war. Until Feb 08, we probably won't hear from OPEC on what Iraq is sending out, so we have to look at the current 2003-2006 numbers and take note there is no big jump.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Bush wouldn't refuse to have them to withdraw, because it would be him sentencing them to death, not Congress. Congress would be giving him ample time and funds to leave.

True, but he'd certainly portray them as evil for forcing his hand.

Who doesn't get donations from lobbyists? Its believable that because Bush took donations from Med Companies he vetoed SCHIP. Thats probably not true (or maybe its a small bit of it) because SCHIP was a rediculous idea, but nevertheless it can be reasonably connected. Engaging in a war (especially when hes not going to be going for re-election) is a bit far of a stretch.

Well, he engaged in the war in 2003. It also might not be just him, but rather the G.O.P.

If Iraq really starts pumping out the il (and the amount the US gets is bigger than the present 8%) then the arguement that we went in for the oil would make a bit more sense, especially if the government makes back the trillions they wasted on the war. Until Feb 08, we probably won't hear from OPEC on what Iraq is sending out, so we have to look at the current 2003-2006 numbers and take note there is no big jump.

There is no big jump, true, but just a switching of the control of the oil.

 

[haxx]

From a English perspective i just see it as a oil run. 450 billion, and we complain about famine..... My views of America see it as very corrupt in many way's come to england :] Blair may have supported the war but he seemed to be going with the flow and was good Prime minster anyway.

 

[The_Flames]

I reckon we're just there for oil and such tbh

 

[Gnomey]

True, but he'd certainly portray them as evil for forcing his hand.



Well, he engaged in the war in 2003. It also might not be just him, but rather the G.O.P.



There is no big jump, true, but just a switching of the control of the oil.

If what he's doing is so unlawful, so many people hate the war, the war is so wrong, and the Democrats won the seats promising to get us out, I think they'd be okay, and if not, everyone already dislikes them for doing nothing.

In the same way he doesn't owe his lobbyists because he's not going for re-election, the same goes to the GOP. And since when can a political party push the President of the United States into a war? Watergate, fine. 4 year and running war? I think not.

A switch in the control... I assume that means the amount the US gets from Iraq? Please once again refer to those OPEC site. As I recall, not any kind of notable change in us getting the oil they make. 06 gave us 8% of the oil they produce?

And the biggest point I've been making so far is, do the people that say "they're in it for the oil" say it because John Stewart or one of the nuts on MSNBC said so, or because they've actually looked into it like yourself? Statements like "I reckon we're just there for oil and such tbh" makes me think its not the latter. You have a good, well founded concept, but until I actually see a big shift in oil distribution, prices, US debt, and oil production I think its not what we're there for. If people have done the same research, then I'll accept what they say a bit better than those who are MSNBC BS spounges. I still think that we're not there for the oil, and again, if there's a notable shift in our national debt, oil prices, oil distribution, or oil production, then my stance is wrong. Until then, all that I've heard so far is predicitions of the future. I could be wrong and have read something you wrote wrong or not at all, part of having 15 minutes to reply to a knowledgeable person. Then again, refuting the other is the point of the thread, and not those baseless one liners.

 

[the_wippit]

This wouldn't be the firs time we got ourselves into war...
"Remember the Maine!"
^^Yeah, we blew up our own ship to get into the spanish american war.


Well, I'm only 13, so maybe I have bias views, based on what those around me think....

we didnt blow up the maine??? and i dont think that we planned 911 either although we have been in Iraq way to wrong i think we needed to drive out suddam hussain

 

[Tyranic]

Everyone thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy, and I used to be open to the idea.
But I saw a show where they told you the conspiracy theory and an experts oppinion.
Now, after seeing that, I find the conspiracy rediculous.
3 days ago from today osama just released a tape that admited that he planned and and helped carry out 9/11.

 

[Gnomey]

Everyone thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy, and I used to be open to the idea.
But I saw a show where they told you the conspiracy theory and an experts oppinion.
Now, after seeing that, I find the conspiracy rediculous.
3 days ago from today osama just released a tape that admited that he planned and and helped carry out 9/11.

There is a thread solely about if 9/11 was a conspiracy (I haven't seen it leave the first page) where you should post about that. Otherwise, we'll get off track in here once Shredder swoops in and owns you about it. Not trying to be a suck-up, but I haven't seen anyone present a realistic case against his arguements in there, so... ya. War in Iraq stuff.

And flipflop... We got ourselves into war for the first time once we got into WWI? Maybe you should learn the slightest bit about history (including how we got ourselves into war to get Britain to leave, and at least 4 others after that off the top of my head.)

 

[Sold]

They only invaded Iraq becuse of their oil. So they made more then they spent, I guess. I was on a website that showed how much money they spent in the war.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html That webstie shows you how much they have spent.

 

[b0n3d]

Considering that most of you haven't been in the military or having been OVER THERE.... and probably never seen war with your own eyes other than watching it on TV, I would say that this topic is fucking retarded and degrading to our country. Has any of you ever thought about what would have happend if we didn't go to war? I bet most of you forgot that we were fighting someone else cough* Osama cough* first, then Saddam came in. If any of you only knew half the reality of things than you wouldn't be speaking your minds on something you dont know. And the reason that any of you feel free to speak your minds on the topic negatively is because you are only safe to say it behind your computer screen.


For those of you that have something to say against me, go right ahead. But I want you to know that my reply would be....

"Get a life, if you have nothing good to say about our country, then fuck you!"

=]

Oh my bad, I forgot to say this...


If you had good things to say and agreed that war was the right choice, then thank you. Its unfair to fight a war when people at home dont approve. To me, ironic as it is, without war there could not be peace. Think about that.

 

[Young Geez]

9/11 was planned by bush. The war is for oil, and this is part of bush plot "New World Order". I can't confirm that he is part of it but the most sites i seen they say he is.

 

[Elvir]

America is starting to collapse once you know it everyone will be in Canada..all they are doing is raising the death number by just getting oil which wont solve nothing but money now you tell me is money more important or a human being.

 

[1337_Byte]

Shredder makes a very good point, you don't need a army to wage war on terrorism. Iraq was all for oil.

 

[TheRedeemer]

America is starting to collapse once you know it everyone will be in Canada..all they are doing is raising the death number by just getting oil which wont solve nothing but money now you tell me is money more important or a human being.

I say go ahead, usa should take the oil, why leave the oil to a bunch of faggot terrorists who would probly burn it all up and waste a lot of the worlds oil. USA is powerless w/out oil.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I say go ahead, usa should take the oil, why leave the oil to a bunch of faggot terrorists who would probly burn it all up and waste a lot of the worlds oil. USA is powerless w/out oil.

"Lol guys, we need oil, so let's take it from other countries, because America is #1!"

Get out.

 

[Shawn_]

I say go ahead, usa should take the oil, why leave the oil to a bunch of faggot terrorists who would probly burn it all up and waste a lot of the worlds oil. USA is powerless w/out oil.

Please leave SFA and never return. Actually, please leave the internet.

Oh, P.S. Never vote.