Science Abuse Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 we did not do that all, we have had significant help in the rebuilding proccess. our biggest contribution to date has been road blocks and craters. that is the "partisan list of facts about iraq", you have to post the other side of the argument...just the facts, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 because they hate jews/israel and as thier ally we are in the way of them taking israel out.I'll take, what is the Israel/Palestine conflict for $1000 Alex. The Islamic Radicals are P I S S E D that the U.S. backs Israel. The Palestinians believe they have every right to the land that the Israeli's are occupying. Of course Palestine will suicide bomb like 15 Israeli's, and then Israel will blow the shit out of the Palestinians. Also, the terrorists or "extremists" are waging "Jihad" against American Influences that are happening in their "Holy Land" Things such as McDonalds, Music, all that stuff pisses them off, and they think is impure. They figure the way to stop it is to attack the root of the problem, the U.S. The Misconception is that ALL Islamic's are waging "Jihad" against the U.S. because we are not Islamic, which just is not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 yup the USofAs intentions are %100 noble. We are here to spread freedom and democracy to all. Cmon, you arent that naive'. Mr BlackStang, stop being manipulated. Iraq had little to do with terrorism. How many iraqi terrorists were on those planes? How many Iraqis were involved in the first WTC bombing? Did you forget that Iraq was a secular state under Saddam, or that Saddam disassociated himself with the radicle element? Yup, now that the USofA stepped in and opened up its borders, you better believe its a breeding grounds for future terrorist strikes and it will be even more so when Bush or Kerry says: "oh well, fuck it" in 5 years next election season. Iraq was not the answer to the terror problem. Focusing on it has taken time, money, and effort from the real problematic leaders in the Arab community. One of them happens to be budy bud with the Bush family. Besides: Winston churchill warned that hiltler needed to be thrown out of power years head of time, and everyone thought he was nuts, untill he had half of europe. Godwins Law. You lose. [ 21. April 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: iwishiwascool ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Joel, first off, Iraq is not the "KKK on crack". They are a poor country, and have little to do with any terrorist activities. The majority of the terrorists we are trying to deal with are coming from Saudi Arabia, which is why we have bombed them. Oh, wait, we haven't touched Saudi. Why is that? The reason we are being targeted is our occupation of Arabic countries. Why are we occupying Arab countries? Educate yourself. This website will show you that there were plans laid in place to attack Iraq YEARS ago, it had nothing to do with terrorism. It will also show you why we are still occupying Saudi. There is no point. If we pull all troops from the area, the attacks will stop. +1 on Godwin's law... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGRE Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 muslum extremist = KKK on crack, not iraq, you'd think a genuis would have gotten that one we pull out and they will still attack us on our own shores. if you don't believe that i'm sorry we are just going to have to dissagree. had to look this up. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html Internet geek rules = graemlins/gay.gif Redneck says graemlins/finger.gif to inter-dweeb law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drblake Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 If Iraq did in fact have their first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August what the heck has happened since then? Why is gas so high? I guess the W is getting his way on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGRE Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 check your facts, iraq was only exporting 1.5 million barrels a day when saddam was cranking them out. that isn't even half a billion barrels in 7 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drblake Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Check the very first post, I'm not the first one to state that. I'm just saying that if it is true that Iraq exported 2 billion barrels in August then why are gas prices so high? They weren't this high before the war or conflict or whatever you want to call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 because there has been little or no oil exportation for lack of infrastructure. (CNN source from 2 days ago, id link if i wasnt lazy) Im a dork: guilty as charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drblake Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 I would do a little research myself if I didn't have too much to do already so I guess I'll just let the experts dual this one out. I don't know enough about it to argue with anyone. The only thing I would be arguing would be my opinion and everyone has one of those so what's the use arguing about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 one other thing to consider is that america gets no oil form iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraGlue Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Mensan: If we pull all troops from the area, the attacks will stop.There's a plan. Let's file that one under "American Mideast Policy" by Osama Bin Laden. Let's be honest here -- the reason that we prop up governments in the Middle East is so that the nutcases don't take over. If the nutcases take over (OBL is more popular in Saudi than their own king), the west is screwed. Do you want a 19th century economy? Letting our dear old friend Mr. Bin Laden run Saudi oil would be a great way to kick that economic plan off. graemlins/thumb.gif Now, in the process of securing the economic well-being of the west, if we can make some people's lives better, and maybe even instill some of that democratic government stuff, what's the harm? It's not like the Iraqis picked Saddam -- he murdered the guy who murdered the king who was put in charge by the British who took over the area from the Turks. Follow along here. This isn't exactly legitimate government 101. As far as the Saudis, well, they suck. They're the ones who spawned the jackass that we've been hunting all over Afghanistan for, and who keep giving him protection money. Unfortunately, we're stuck in a lousy marraige with them. They need US $$$ to fund the corrupt lifestyles of the amazingly huge royal family (20,000+ members), and we need their oil. They're reliable enough to keep around, so we do. Of course, that kind old Saddam Hussein had NO intentions whatsoever to take any part of the Saudi oil fields ever ever ever. I mean, that would be illegal, right? Sort of like invading Kuwait. He'd never do that. So we get stuck with a few thousand troops out in the middle of the desert in Saudi for the last 15 years, keeping one eye on Saddam, the other on the Islamic nutballs who got all worked up about them being there, who's main job it is to make sure that nothing happens to the royal scumbags who won the big happy petroleum lottery. OBL and his boys get soooo worked up about this that they pull the 9/11 thing. So now what? You can't get the boys out of Saudi and leave the asshole with the mustache sitting around, and you kind of had to have troops hanging around just in case the Iranians start feeling froggy. That's what Iraq used to be for -- keeping Iran in check. We sort of blew that plan back in 1991. Thus, the new plan. Get rid of Saddam, put a NEW government in Iraq to keep Iran in check, eliminate the main threat to Saudi, and maybe, hopefully, get the guys who were sitting in the Saudi desert out so that whatever remains of Al Qaida will have a tougher time rounding up cash and nutballs. It's called realpolitik. Some of you guys are young and idealistic, and that's great for an internet message board. More power to your idealism, but it's not how you run a country unless you want to live an Amish lifestyle. If you think that anyone other than Ralph Nader is going to do otherwise, you're nuts. Bill Clinton wanted to invade Iraq, but got caught messing around with a fat chick. John Kerry was all for it until he realized that he could become President if he pretended to be against it. Howard Dean turned out to be just plain nuts. Any way you slice it, no one WANTS the US to go messing around in these places, but sometimes you have to. Would you guys be happier if a President you liked was doing the invading or occupying or whatever? Because it would be going on either way. It's not just a Don Rumsfeld secret plot -- we're stuck there because the region is unstable. Mexico has oil, but you don't see us invading them or leaving standing armies around. The north sea has some too, but we don't go bombing Great Britain. Malaysia is another one, along with Brunei, but we're cool with them too. Same with the Russians. All square. I mean, I would LOVE to see an isolationist US foreign policy. This stuff is expensive, and our taxes would be a whole lot lower if we weren't sending carrier battle groups around the planet. But I also am not interested in owning a horse and buggy. First, I am allergic to horses. They also stink, plus buggies don't have heat, A/C or cruise control. Horses take up a lot of room and I have no clue where to buy hay. Home Depot? I don't know. So, let's knock some heads together, kill a few assholes, put in some democracies, clean water, build some schools and go the hell home. The rest of this shit is Browns versus Steelers. You guys are just rooting for teams. Bush bitched about Clinton's "nation building", then went out and did the same thing. Kerry will cry about Iraq, but won't bring one soldier home before a stable government is in place if he becomes President, and Republicans will attack him for not bringing them home sooner. It's football. You can be a player or you can be a fan, but the game is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGRE Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Tire Killer: If you think that anyone other than Ralph Nader is going to do otherwise, you're nuts. Bill Clinton wanted to invade Iraq, but got caught messing around with a fat chick. John Kerry was all for it until he realized that he could become President if he pretended to be against it. Howard Dean turned out to be just plain nuts. Any way you slice it, no one WANTS the US to go messing around in these places, but sometimes you have to. Would you guys be happier if a President you liked was doing the invading or occupying or whatever? . . . you forgot http://www.victorystore.com/gifts/democrat/kucinich-button.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkendubber Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 way to go mark, as usuall you made all the points necessary for the whole topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.