Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9

 

2007-06-17 17:05:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

Twist wrote:

@Turquoise: Still that doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't go around invading just ANY country at will. I seriously doubt that the US would have invaded WITHOUT the support/backing of the UN. Otherwise, what's to keep them from invading mexico to stop theflow of illegals, or invade columbia to win the war on drugs, or china to stop the "unfair competetive advantage of quasi subsidised workmanship", or france for opposing the majority of the US proposals in the UN security council. Or ANY other country that just happneed to get in the way.
Well, to be bluntly honest, the U.S. doesn't typically invade a country it doesn't like.  It usually finds a way to support an insurgency.

Look up the CIA's involvements in dealing with Mossadegh of Iran and various South American countries in the 80s.  We're usually cunning enough not to fight someone face-to-face.  We prefer sending arms to certain people who are aligned to our interests.
2007-06-17 17:14:35
Bull3t
stephen brule
+83|6745

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright let me put it this way, all im saying is since America's reason to invade Iraq was becuase of a evil dictator, why dont they invade Africa as well because they too have evil dictators who kill many thousands.
Please can someone answer this question for me? Is there something im missing?
Because the Africans did not take 2 twin fucking jets and slam them into 2 buildings.
2007-06-17 17:17:37
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6734|Éire

Turquoise wrote:

Twist wrote:

@Turquoise: Still that doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't go around invading just ANY country at will. I seriously doubt that the US would have invaded WITHOUT the support/backing of the UN. Otherwise, what's to keep them from invading mexico to stop theflow of illegals, or invade columbia to win the war on drugs, or china to stop the "unfair competetive advantage of quasi subsidised workmanship", or france for opposing the majority of the US proposals in the UN security council. Or ANY other country that just happneed to get in the way.
Well, to be bluntly honest, the U.S. doesn't typically invade a country it doesn't like.  It usually finds a way to support an insurgency.

Look up the CIA's involvements in dealing with Mossadegh of Iran and various South American countries in the 80s.  We're usually cunning enough not to fight someone face-to-face.  We prefer sending arms to certain people who are aligned to our interests.
This is true and to be brutally honest the rest of the world has always found it easier to accept this approach; it's only following the Bush administration's out and out, singleminded invasion of Iraq in the face of relatively little International support that the world has become so opposed to US foreign policy and the US in general. Before then the majority of people just thought 'out of sight, out of mind'.
2007-06-17 17:17:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

Bull3t wrote:

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright let me put it this way, all im saying is since America's reason to invade Iraq was becuase of a evil dictator, why dont they invade Africa as well because they too have evil dictators who kill many thousands.
Please can someone answer this question for me? Is there something im missing?
Because the Africans did not take 2 twin fucking jets and slam them into 2 buildings.
Neither did any Iraqis...  The hijackers were mostly Saudis, but none of them were Iraqi.  Saddam also had no connection to Osama.
2007-06-17 17:19:43
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6623
Well, its quite obvious that this post was created by a person, who is obviously very young, already jaded and disillusioned against America. Everybody seems to forget the good we have done and do on a daily basis around the world, even in Iraq. If anyone thinks oil and money were the main reasons for invasion is also disillusioned...America does NOT touch Iraqi oil and there are watchdogs making sure of that. Take a look at gas prices and its obvious that we don't benefit. There are actually many factors of why the prices are going up. Anyhow, this is just another "bad America" post like so many by someone who doesn't or hasn't lived here to truly know what Americans think. Look at the big picture someday and you will realize that we have done alot through our short history and we at least try to do the right things. Do we make mistakes...of course...what country hasn't.
2007-06-17 17:20:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Twist wrote:

@Turquoise: Still that doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't go around invading just ANY country at will. I seriously doubt that the US would have invaded WITHOUT the support/backing of the UN. Otherwise, what's to keep them from invading mexico to stop theflow of illegals, or invade columbia to win the war on drugs, or china to stop the "unfair competetive advantage of quasi subsidised workmanship", or france for opposing the majority of the US proposals in the UN security council. Or ANY other country that just happneed to get in the way.
Well, to be bluntly honest, the U.S. doesn't typically invade a country it doesn't like.  It usually finds a way to support an insurgency.

Look up the CIA's involvements in dealing with Mossadegh of Iran and various South American countries in the 80s.  We're usually cunning enough not to fight someone face-to-face.  We prefer sending arms to certain people who are aligned to our interests.
This is true and to be brutally honest the rest of the world has always found it easier to accept this approach; it's only following the Bush administration's out and out, singleminded invasion of Iraq in the face of relatively little International support that the world has become so opposed to US foreign policy and the US in general. Before then the majority of people just thought 'out of sight, out of mind'.
Very true, which is why I trust very few governments.  Although, I don't think the Canadian government has ever pulled this kind of shit.
2007-06-17 17:21:52
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6734|Éire

Bull3t wrote:

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright let me put it this way, all im saying is since America's reason to invade Iraq was becuase of a evil dictator, why dont they invade Africa as well because they too have evil dictators who kill many thousands.
Please can someone answer this question for me? Is there something im missing?
Because the Africans did not take 2 twin fucking jets and slam them into 2 buildings.
Are you serious? You do realise that Iraq had NO connections with Al Qaeda prior to the US invasion. It's only after the US ruined the structure of that country that Al Qaeda set up camp there. DO NOT try and use the tragedies of 9/11 to justify the Iraq debacle, it's a disgrace to the victims who lost their lives on that day as it attempts to wash their deaths in the blood of Iraqis who had nothing to do with it.
2007-06-17 17:22:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Well, its quite obvious that this post was created by a person, who is obviously very young, already jaded and disillusioned against America. Everybody seems to forget the good we have done and do on a daily basis around the world, even in Iraq. If anyone thinks oil and money were the main reasons for invasion is also disillusioned...America does NOT touch Iraqi oil and there are watchdogs making sure of that. Take a look at gas prices and its obvious that we don't benefit. There are actually many factors of why the prices are going up. Anyhow, this is just another "bad America" post like so many by someone who doesn't or hasn't lived here to truly know what Americans think. Look at the big picture someday and you will realize that we have done alot through our short history and we at least try to do the right things. Do we make mistakes...of course...what country hasn't.
The American government doesn't touch the oil, but American companies that have connections to the people in power do.

Remember, in a world of multi-national corporations, it's usually the private sector that motivates governments into war for economic reasons.
2007-06-17 17:27:16
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6623

Braddock wrote:

Bull3t wrote:

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright let me put it this way, all im saying is since America's reason to invade Iraq was becuase of a evil dictator, why dont they invade Africa as well because they too have evil dictators who kill many thousands.
Please can someone answer this question for me? Is there something im missing?
Because the Africans did not take 2 twin fucking jets and slam them into 2 buildings.
Are you serious? You do realise that Iraq had NO connections with Al Qaeda prior to the US invasion. It's only after the US ruined the structure of that country that Al Qaeda set up camp there. DO NOT try and use the tragedies of 9/11 to justify the Iraq debacle, it's a disgrace to the victims who lost their lives on that day as it attempts to wash their deaths in the blood of Iraqis who had nothing to do with it.
This is not exactly true...there are quite a few examples of what Saddam and its government were involved with in messing with America..plots, attempts, logistics, planning etc. There was a post just recently on here that showed many examples of this. I wish i could find it. The exact links, whether it was Al-queda or not is the question, but there is no question that Iraq was working with groups. I hope someone can find that post and the relevant examples and post it here.
2007-06-17 17:31:41
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6734|Éire

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Bull3t wrote:


Because the Africans did not take 2 twin fucking jets and slam them into 2 buildings.
Are you serious? You do realise that Iraq had NO connections with Al Qaeda prior to the US invasion. It's only after the US ruined the structure of that country that Al Qaeda set up camp there. DO NOT try and use the tragedies of 9/11 to justify the Iraq debacle, it's a disgrace to the victims who lost their lives on that day as it attempts to wash their deaths in the blood of Iraqis who had nothing to do with it.
This is not exactly true...there are quite a few examples of what Saddam and its government were involved with in messing with America..plots, attempts, logistics, planning etc. There was a post just recently on here that showed many examples of this. I wish i could find it. The exact links, whether it was Al-queda or not is the question, but there is no question that Iraq was working with groups. I hope someone can find that post and the relevant examples and post it here.
Okay, well find the links and I'll retract if I have to but Anything I've read or studied on the subject suggests Saddam's iron grip on the nation of Iraq kept out extremist groups like Al Qaeda and I've never seen anything suggesting Iraq or Saddam contributed in any way to 9/11.
2007-06-17 17:35:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7044|132 and Bush

Many people think OPEC controls oil prices, however, for at least three reasons:
  • OPEC certainly acts like it sets the price of oil. It holds meetings and issues press releases and sets "quotas" for its members.   
  • Oil prices often go on bumping up and down like OPEC never existed.   
  • It's obvious that the world's biggest oil producers can increase price by curtailing production.

Here's the catch: Any producer big enough to manipulate the market by slashing production can't benefit from the resulting higher price.

And any producer big enough to crash prices by increasing production will suffer from doing so.

If any country could control oil prices, it would be Saudi Arabia. This is why it can't.

    People assume that if OPEC didn't exist, all major producers would open the spigot and produce oil at the maximum possible rate, which makes no sense whatever.

Oil producers behave exactly like producers in any other industry. When inventories are low and prices are high, they produce more. When inventories are high and prices are low, they produce less.

Nobody needs OPEC to tell them to do that.
Source
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-17 17:52:33
JackerP
aka S.J.N.P.0717
+21|6721|Mo Val, Cali
Hardly any money has been used to rebuild Iraq from their oil. We have have payed for almost all of it  through tax dollars and none of it has gone to us unlike the promised plan for war. We definitely didn't invade for money or oil. A good plausible reason was lots of money for private contractors like someone said but definitely not money going to U.S. Never got why people said that, we've spent billions upon billions on it. But really we should've invaded North Korea IF we had to invade someone haha. Iraq had no connection to any terrorist organizations and no weapons of mass destruction. So why did we invade? Any reason is bullshit, there is no legitimate reason. The U.S., Iraq, and the world would've been better off if we didn't. Bush has way more connections to Osama than Saddam ever could've had. The Bush went into Iraq without the support of the U.N. and congress. If there was another president in office and 9/11 happened they most likely would've sent troops to Afghanistan but he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq (assuming he's not a complete fucking idiot like Bush.)
2007-06-17 18:05:36
sgtpompous
Member
+1|6602
Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people
2007-06-17 18:06:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7044|132 and Bush

The people who use the generic talking points of "blood for oil" are here to show us just how little they understand about whats going on in Iraq now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-17 18:11:43
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6623

Braddock wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Are you serious? You do realise that Iraq had NO connections with Al Qaeda prior to the US invasion. It's only after the US ruined the structure of that country that Al Qaeda set up camp there. DO NOT try and use the tragedies of 9/11 to justify the Iraq debacle, it's a disgrace to the victims who lost their lives on that day as it attempts to wash their deaths in the blood of Iraqis who had nothing to do with it.
This is not exactly true...there are quite a few examples of what Saddam and its government were involved with in messing with America..plots, attempts, logistics, planning etc. There was a post just recently on here that showed many examples of this. I wish i could find it. The exact links, whether it was Al-queda or not is the question, but there is no question that Iraq was working with groups. I hope someone can find that post and the relevant examples and post it here.
Okay, well find the links and I'll retract if I have to but Anything I've read or studied on the subject suggests Saddam's iron grip on the nation of Iraq kept out extremist groups like Al Qaeda and I've never seen anything suggesting Iraq or Saddam contributed in any way to 9/11.
He didnt let groups INTO his country but he did work with quite a few of them to cause havoc where he could to American interests. There were even assassination plots against Bush Sr. that were backed by elements of the Iraqi government including Saddam. There is a lot of info about this. He may not have allowed Al-queda and similar groups to train and live IN Iraq but he did interact with them. There were meetings (in and outside of Iraq) involving Iraqi elements and terrorists groups. This is well documented. Im not a guy who sits on the net searching for links, posts or whatever. I know what I know, i do read a lot from many different sources on both sides of the debate, but its pretty common knowledge that there was involvement in many things, outside of 911, by Iraqi elements all the way to the top. Now, I will agree that there wasnt a direct connection with Al-queada and Iraq concerning the 911 attacks, but there were plenty of reasons and actions that led to that war with Iraq. Was it a mistake....thats for the future to decide.
2007-06-17 18:21:37
BVC
Member
+325|7139
The west, and by that I mean any white-majority country which has had real wealth since before the cold war ended, is hated pretty much throughout the world.  The US/EU/whoever else could roll in with troops and aid to the most universally human cause ever and would still be hated for it simply because they're a western nation.
2007-06-17 18:27:25
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6734|Éire

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:


This is not exactly true...there are quite a few examples of what Saddam and its government were involved with in messing with America..plots, attempts, logistics, planning etc. There was a post just recently on here that showed many examples of this. I wish i could find it. The exact links, whether it was Al-queda or not is the question, but there is no question that Iraq was working with groups. I hope someone can find that post and the relevant examples and post it here.
Okay, well find the links and I'll retract if I have to but Anything I've read or studied on the subject suggests Saddam's iron grip on the nation of Iraq kept out extremist groups like Al Qaeda and I've never seen anything suggesting Iraq or Saddam contributed in any way to 9/11.
He didnt let groups INTO his country but he did work with quite a few of them to cause havoc where he could to American interests. There were even assassination plots against Bush Sr. that were backed by elements of the Iraqi government including Saddam. There is a lot of info about this. He may not have allowed Al-queda and similar groups to train and live IN Iraq but he did interact with them. There were meetings (in and outside of Iraq) involving Iraqi elements and terrorists groups. This is well documented. Im not a guy who sits on the net searching for links, posts or whatever. I know what I know, i do read a lot from many different sources on both sides of the debate, but its pretty common knowledge that there was involvement in many things, outside of 911, by Iraqi elements all the way to the top. Now, I will agree that there wasnt a direct connection with Al-queada and Iraq concerning the 911 attacks, but there were plenty of reasons and actions that led to that war with Iraq. Was it a mistake....thats for the future to decide.
My original argument on this aspect of the thread was that Iraq and Saddam had no connection to 9/11, I'm not going to defend Saddam Hussein on all accusations of collusion in anti-American activity but it annoys me when people come out with bold comments suggesting Iraq were to blame for 9/11 when they were not. I don't doubt that countries like Iraq and Iran actively plot against enemy nations, the US are big culprits of this themselves; it would be incredibly naive to think other nations were not.
2007-06-17 18:31:06
HeadShotAK47
Hand's shaken' / Heart's beatn' / Still Shootin'
+32|7170|Ft. Laudy, FL, USA
Invading Iraq for oil wasn't for the benifit of the American people, it was for the benefit of oil corporations who have Bush in their back pocket. Hello? Immigration Bill? Also for Big Business' benefit.
2007-06-17 18:36:29
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6734|Éire
I'd say it more likely has something to do with a greater plan regarding Iran and establishing some sort of foothold in the wider Middle East.
2007-06-17 18:36:56
geNius
..!.,
+144|6886|SoCal

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Well because Americans are good at this shit (good at killing people) and they do it all the time. This is what my post is about fool.

Edit: They are not good at killing, but good for finding reasons to invade. + they do it a lot.
ig·no·rance
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
https://srejects.com/genius/srejects.png
2007-06-17 18:39:26
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6922|Communist Republic of CA, USA

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright..so the only reason to why bush kill many and tore a country apart was becuase of money?
If this is the only reason, then most of you see why i dislike Amercia much.
Yes laddy, that was the ONLY reason.  Money and Oil.  Of Course it was.  Shit guys, he saw through us.
2007-06-17 18:40:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

Hardly any money has been used to rebuild Iraq from their oil. We have have payed for almost all of it  through tax dollars and none of it has gone to us unlike the promised plan for war. We definitely didn't invade for money or oil. A good plausible reason was lots of money for private contractors like someone said but definitely not money going to U.S. Never got why people said that, we've spent billions upon billions on it. But really we should've invaded North Korea IF we had to invade someone haha. Iraq had no connection to any terrorist organizations and no weapons of mass destruction. So why did we invade? Any reason is bullshit, there is no legitimate reason. The U.S., Iraq, and the world would've been better off if we didn't. Bush has way more connections to Osama than Saddam ever could've had. The Bush went into Iraq without the support of the U.N. and congress. If there was another president in office and 9/11 happened they most likely would've sent troops to Afghanistan but he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq (assuming he's not a complete fucking idiot like Bush.)
American companies have been getting money, including both oil companies and military contractors.  As taxpayers go, we haven't seen a dime, but the people who were most interested in seeing Bush in power are making a lot of money off of Iraq.
2007-06-17 18:41:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7044|132 and Bush

HeadShotAK47 wrote:

Invading Iraq for oil wasn't for the benifit of the American people, it was for the benefit of oil corporations who have Bush in their back pocket. Hello? Immigration Bill? Also for Big Business' benefit.
Oil companies make their money off refining, irregardless of supply. The majority of the Highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, a place with much more oil than Iraq. If we ever needed an excuse to take over a country for oil we would go after the big fish. Please tell me how big business is getting more oil out of a nation in crisis. Especially when said nation is incapable of passing the most basic legislation regarding how to handle their oil. Hello? Kurds?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-17 18:42:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

sgtpompous wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of pearl harbor? How is 9/11 not equivalent to and attack like that? You logic doesn't really make any sense to me. its like saying we invaded germany for the beer. or we bombed japan for the T.Vs.  Usually if you kick an animal that is incredibly strong, it will probably bite you, that's what happened in WWII and that's what we are doing now, the common misconception about this war is that we "invaded" iraq. We didn't. We are there to fight terrorism so that we dont have to fight it here the organizations just happen to be in iraq and the middle east, that is why people probably think we invaded iraq.  I dont know about you but i would rather have someone whose job it is to fight doing the fighting, and not have to have a repeat of 9/11. That is the logic behind why we "invade a country" not for oil, not for $. for the freedom and safety of the american people
And invading Iraq (a country that had nothing to to do with 9/11) made us safer somehow?

Invading Afghanistan was justified.  Invading Iraq was just stupid.
2007-06-17 18:44:37
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7087
blame it on the jews

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard