»I'm tired of people complaining about no wmd's«
|
|||
|
In order for that analagy to work, they would have to find some pot. And also I would have to have been doing some horrible shit to animals (my own people) and i would have had to take over my siblings bedroom and tell them that they can't sleep there anymore (invasion of kuwait) and I would have had to tell my parents that if i ever got them, i'd kill them. Why don't you go make friends with saddam and see how much he likes you? posted by liberal slayer |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, Iraqi'm tired of people complaining about no wmd's |
|
|||
 and also give money to the families of bombers money...wait no analogy there posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 America trained the bombers. No Analogy there. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am an American (who happens to live under the governance of not one but two Bush brothers) and I could care less whether they find WMD's in Iraq. The point is there is no reason except for oil (which will become less and less necessary as we transition into a hydrogen economy) for us to have invaded that country. I would be much more worried about a WMD nation like North Korea with a huge military and a more strategic location in relation to our economic interests (again thinking ahead: China, Japan, Korea, even India). I don't care if every soldier in the United States military had to die because of it, but if there was a country that threatened the United States like the Nazis or Soviets did (both potentially with WMD's), I would say invade if at all possible. But Iraq under Saddam was not a threat to us, WMD's or no. Iraq is a chimera that W has conjured up in his mind to distract us from job loss, no health care for the poor, rising prison populations, HIV, etc. Did anybody here know that Winston Churchill founded the nation of Iraq?  And that Churchill is W's all-time fav among bloodthirsty warlords? And that the atom bomb (WMD) that destroyed Nagasaki was named after that fat shithead Churchill? But even Churchill the adventurist would not have supported this war. I'll go on record as saying that the Iraq war is the stupidest, most ill-conceived, most futile war ever fought in the modern era, regardless of WMD's. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 holy_of_holies: The point is there is no reason except for oil oil is not a major factor, iraq doesn't supply a large percent of usa's import of oil. how about...hussein? bin laden? what are your thoughts. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 sangu: oil is not a major factor, iraq doesn't supply a large percent of usa's import of oil. No not in that sense. But why did'nt america attack Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia gives them huge amounts of money and oil for free. Oil was a major factor but not in the sense of "lets attack iraq to get oil" sangu: how about...hussein? bin laden? what are your thoughts. Start a thread. 
posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
maybe. i don't know, this theme has never been directly a topic, but always discussed or brought up somehow in any iraq-related thread. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
1, 2
Goto page Previous
1, 2
 Register Log in |
The time now is 10 January 2009, 00:07 php B.B. |