America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,301 comments
  • 1,536,316 views
danoff
Honsetly, given your examples… I think that’s all in your head.

I don't believe so.

I think Iraq was chosen for it’s terrorism deterring potential alone. If Iraq chooses to sell oil to us, I’m sure we’ll buy it – but we supply roughly half of our own oil and the Saudis supply another major portion of it. The country that really had a stake in Iraqi oil was France… and look how they responded to this war.

Excellent point (at least the part about France and their lack of contribution to the war).

I really assumed you understood the free market better. Competition forces news organizations to play it safe or go out of business.

Maybe. Or maybe news organizations are censored so that only certain types of dialog or information is permitted. Anything is possible. Don't just turn a blind eye to the possibilities.

NBC has been very anti-war since before we invaded.

Show me.

This makes no sense at all. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Countries have no reason to go to war with us if we’ll give them reconstruction contracts afterward regardless.

That does not make any sense to me. Why would we sacrifice so many lives, so much money, only to give in, and give out reconstruction contracts afterwards? If that was the case, we should have given the contracts out eariler.

There doesn’t have to be economic gain – we have lots of other ways to gain.

Including?

I believe it was Bush who made the decision to go in – and I’m saying that his motivation for going in did not include oil (at least I have seen no evidence to suggest that).

OK, that's cool. I'll even go so far as to say that believe what you believe! But just because you have not seen "evidence" does not mean that it is not true.

Perhaps others in “high places” agreed with his decision because of oil, but that really doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. It changes everything.

This is where you fail to understand the free market yet again. If one news organization misinterpreted the translation, another would be right there to discredit them and get a larger viewership by pointing out the correct translation.

Not if we weren't suppose to know what it means. :sly:

Interesting claim, since you can’t prove it. I’m only basing my reasoning on what I hear from the terrorists, which is that our society has almost everything to do with it.

What aspect of our society is so revolting that it would cause terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings and kill 3,000 people? I simply cannot believe that our society is so evil that it would drive people to murder. Even if jealousy was a factor, then say so. Don't try to make it sound like its our society that was bad.

What I would consider to be a good definition of society is this:

A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

What traditions, institutions, collective activities and/or interests are so horrible that terrorists feel compelled to fly planes into buildings?

Not by your own definition.

:confused:

The ends do not justify the means. The means are justified by the beginnings. Example:

You don’t like Tom, you’d like to see bad things happen to him (for whatever reason).

Tom hits you. You tell your teacher and Tom gets in trouble.

The ends (which you wanted) happened. But the means were not justified by the ends. Your wanting bad things to happen did not justify you telling the teacher on him. His hitting you justified your telling the teacher on him. The beginnings justified the means to an end. Of course if you liked Tom and didn’t want to get him in trouble, you might not have told on him. In which case the means were justified but you didn’t desire the end.

This makes sense.

Perhaps we didn’t do more in Saudi Arabia because we aren’t justified.

Or, perhaps, because they have 20% of our oil. That may seem insignificant to you, but believe me, if we were to lose that much oil either suddenly or gradually, there would be devastating effects on our economy. Even still, I not suggesting that we should invade Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from that country. I was only trying to ask why we didn't do more in that country.

He agrees with you. I’ve talked with him about this subject before.

That's interesting. I thought I was alone. :scared:

I explained why Iraq would help with terrorism. Korea would not. That’s why we don’t do anything in Korea. We’re probably justified in doing plenty to Korea but we don’t because at the moment there isn’t much additional gain (security) in it. Plus, we think we can get help (which didn’t seem to be forthcoming with Iraq).

True. However, your explanation of Iraq/terrorism was not backed up with facts.

Your economic argument breaks down when you look at the amount of money we’ve spent on Iraq. Iraq did have something we wanted, an opportunity to bring democracy to the middle east.

Bringing democracy to Iraq/Middle East is just another form of neo-imperialism. What business is it of the United States to tell which country should have what form of government? Who are we to tell anyone what kind of government they should run?
 
PublicSecrecy
Hmm...that's exactly Bush's tactic- not a security factor. Bush uses this Terrorist alert BS to keep the country in fear of another terrorist attack, and thus gains more support from their fear, since they know he invaded Iraq for seemingly little reason, the (those that are somehwat close minded anyway) American citizens have trust in him that he will do something about it if it happens again, and it also makes it look as though they have intelligence as to when the next one is happening.

Excellent point.

But remember, the first terrorist strike occured in the morning, during no event, for no reason. So why would the superbowl be a target? Why increase terrorist security levels? They're obviously smarter than that, they aren't going to strike at any major event with metal detectors and cops everywhere, it's just stupid. Which is exactly why theres no reason to do it. They're more likely to attack somewhere of incredible importance but of little attention. IE WTC, or the Pentagon. For someone as retarded as Bush, he sure can manage to gain support if you think about it. It's like getting someone to let their guard down- everyone dismisses Bush as an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, but in the process, since not many take him seriously, and can manage to do things and get uncany support. I don't know how he does it. If someone who were a genius however, everybody would be on to them, and they would constantly be under the scrutiny of the public eye. Anyway, my point was just to question your thoughts about Bushes intentions, just something to get you thinking. Good points though, Marketman. (MrktMkr1986 is getting to be a pain in the butt to type)

I know... I don't mind being called Marketman. It has a ring to it. :) You too bring up some interesting and valid points. 👍
 
[off topic rant] I know it sounds funny, and paranoid, and stupid, but if you think about it, all that conspiracy crap could be true. Example: Even the FDA, and all the drugs, they don't want anyone to know about the fact that there actually is a cure for herpes, tuberculosis, polymyalgia, osteoperosis, etc. If we have to keep taking drugs, they keep making money, and we only have results that are half as good as they could be (cures, recoveries etc.) . They're (when I say "they" it usually means an indiscriminate company, honcho, corporate head, etc. of the given subject) even pushing to make Vitamins sold as drugs, but in the rules of the FDA, they can only be sold as a drug if it has solid, documented proof and evidence of what the vitamin does, the side affects, and the full extent as to which it affects someone. And because vtiamins are clearly benneficial, the profits that the drug companies would reap from it would be in enormous amounts. Of course that will never happen because selling cereal would then mean selling a drug, to anyone, which is illegal, and lets not mention the fact that vitamins are found in just about every fruit and vegetable you can think of. It would be like finding acetaminophen in everything you ate, it would all have to be revoked or sold over counters and not off shelves. Of course this is just an example. [/end off topic rant]
 
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I just like to ask questions. Whatever "evidence" that may arise as a result of me trying to find the answers could in some cases be considered conspiracy theory, but there is always the chance that there is some truth to them as well.
 
danoff
You just think they’re good because you agree with them.

Yes........ I agreed with some of the things MrktMkr said, so I thought I'll let him know. I didnt mean any disrespect to you or your opinion.
 

Tim Russert

Or maybe news organizations are censored so that only certain types of dialog or information is permitted.

What evidence do you have the news organizations are censored "so that only certain types of dialog or information is permitted"? I would think that in a free society, information like that would get out (by other corporate news organizations hoping to make a profit).

That does not make any sense to me. Why would we sacrifice so many lives, so much money, only to give in, and give out reconstruction contracts afterwards? If that was the case, we should have given the contracts out eariler.

??? I think we're missing each other here.

Including?

Um... security??


But just because you have not seen "evidence" does not mean that it is not true.

That means I have no reason to believe it's true.

Yes it does. It changes everything.

How? I see no reason why it matters. If the decision maker made the decision for a reason... that's the reason. If other people want the decision to be made for other reasons, that's fine... but it isn't the reason the decision was made.


Not if we weren't suppose to know what it means

Sounds like the X-Files to me. Who is it that is doing this censorship? Why aren't they being reported by people who want to buck the system? That would be an awfully tight and invisible grip for someone to have on such a chaotic system as the American press (let alone the fact that other countries could report the facts).

What traditions, institutions, collective activities and/or interests are so horrible that terrorists feel compelled to fly planes into buildings?

Their religion tells them it's ok to slaughter us if we don't believe in their god.

Or, perhaps, because they have 20% of our oil. That may seem insignificant to you, but believe me, if we were to lose that much oil either suddenly or gradually, there would be devastating effects on our economy. Even still, I not suggesting that we should invade Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from that country. I was only trying to ask why we didn't do more in that country.

I could use some background here. How long were they in Saudi Arabia? Did they get money there? Did the government have something to do with it? Does the government routinely defy UN sanctions or harbor terrorists?

These are important questions. Just because they originated in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that we should do anything in that country. There were Al Qaeda members that were born in the US? Does that make us responsible?


True. However, your explanation of Iraq/terrorism was not backed up with facts.

What would you like me to provide evidence for?


What business is it of the United States to tell which country should have what form of government? Who are we to tell anyone what kind of government they should run?

It became legitimate for us to tell them that when they violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war - when they violated 10 years of UN resolutions - or how about when they invaded Kuwait?
 
danoff
Tim Russert

OK. I did some reading. You're right. He is anti-war. I also came across this link as well. Read the first 2 paragraphs -- I just want to know what your thoughts are on the subject.

What evidence do you have the news organizations are censored "so that only certain types of dialog or information is permitted"? I would think that in a free society, information like that would get out (by other corporate news organizations hoping to make a profit).

Right here...

Um... security??

Without any financial incentive -- OK.


That means I have no reason to believe it's true.

Agreed. But just because you have no reason to believe that its true does not make it false!

How? I see no reason why it matters. If the decision maker made the decision for a reason... that's the reason. If other people want the decision to be made for other reasons, that's fine... but it isn't the reason the decision was made.

That's possible... but that does not mean that its true. The only thing Bush could have said to galvanize the American public into supporting him to go to war is this:

"Hey we're going into Iraq because we want to free the Iraqi people and stamp out terrorism!"

Anything even slightly different from that agenda, and the entire US population would have said "NO". I think he's telling the people what we want to hear and not what we need to hear, which is the truth.

Sounds like the X-Files to me. Who is it that is doing this censorship? Why aren't they being reported by people who want to buck the system? That would be an awfully tight and invisible grip for someone to have on such a chaotic system as the American press (let alone the fact that other countries could report the facts).

Please see link above entitled "right here..."

Their religion tells them it's ok to slaughter us if we don't believe in their god.

I feel very sorry for you. How could you hold such a narrow-minded viewpoint? At first I was trying to make peace with you -- you know, agree to disagree. Maybe share a few points here, there -- have a little discussion -- but you've ruined it, my friend. You destroyed it.

Tell me, where in the Qu'ran does it say Muslims must slaughter people just because they don't believe in Allah? Have you ever picked up a copy of the Qu'ran? Do you personally know any Muslims at all? Are you aware that Allah and God are the exact same thing?

By making that statement, you just proved to me that you are severely biased. I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable having discussions with people who are intolerant to other peoples races/religions. If you really hold that kind of a belief towards Muslims, I shudder to think what kind of attitude you may hold against me (a Black kid).

If you edit that part of your post, I'll edit mine...

I could use some background here. How long were they in Saudi Arabia? Did they get money there? Did the government have something to do with it? Does the government routinely defy UN sanctions or harbor terrorists?

Your precious mainstream media doesn't provide that kind of information. But I would assume that they lived in Saudi Arabia for the better part of their lives. If you can find something that I couldn't find I'll edit this part. Did the government have something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Absolutely not. Does the Saudi government routinely defy UN sanctions? No, not to my knowledge. Do they harbor terrorists? Yes. Remember, they are one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

These are important questions.

Of course they are! And I'm glad you finally agree with me on something! It is our responsibility as citizens of the United States to question our government, their motives, other countries governments and their motives as well. It's not just our tax dollars that are at stake here. It's our lives.

Just because they originated in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that we should do anything in that country. There were Al Qaeda members that were born in the US? Does that make us responsible?

I agree.


What would you like me to provide evidence for?

Not right now... I'm still upset about the last comment you made...


It became legitimate for us to tell them that when they violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war - when they violated 10 years of UN resolutions - or how about when they invaded Kuwait?

Did you know that Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq? Probably not because your precious corporate-owned media doesn't want you to know that. How do you know that Saddam wasn't trying to take back what was rightfully his country's land? Don't get me wrong... I am NOT justifying his actions. But if it's OK for the US to go around making 51st states (neo-imperialism), why is it so wrong for Iraq to try to take back Kuwait? One word -- oil. Believe it or not, we actually used to friends with Iraq. What ended up happening in the early 1970s was weird. Iraq "nationalized" their oil supplys effectively cutting out the US and other countries from using their pipelines etc. And some 30 years later, we storm back in, under the guise of a freeing a nation of course, to take back what is (in the eyes of our government) rightfully ours.
 
MrktMkr1986
By making that statement, you just proved to me that you are severely biased. I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable having discussions with people who are intolerant to other peoples races/religions. If you really hold that kind of a belief towards Muslims, I shudder to think what kind of attitude you may hold against me (a Black kid).

If you edit that part of your post, I'll edit mine...

Out of respect for MrktMkr's consideration, I'll say this without leaving too much detail in this post/thread:

I don't like confronting anybody in forums, but I'm asking you to stop this behavior, before you end up offending other users. What you said about "their religion" is completely untrue. The terrorists are using the religion, not the other way around.
 
danoff
Their religion tells them it's ok to slaughter us if we don't believe in their god.


You are aware that through the years and months that the terrorists have been captured (many have not gone willfully)and trained, they have been brainwashed into thinking that if they kill Americans or sacrifice themselves for their religion, that they're promised 18 virgin wives to be their slaves? Hell I'd do it too if I were some 17 year old who's family was killed, was highly religious, and already didn't think too highly of America.


MARKETMAN!
Did the government have something to do with the 9/11 attacks?
Edited.
Gay movie thing.
But I'm keeping the song.

Are you mother****ers ready
For the new ****?
Stand up and admit,
Tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new ****.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new ****,
Stand up and admit.
 
PublicSecrecy
The pentagon did not in fact have an airplance fly into it. there was NO airplane wreckage, and if it did in fact explode into flames much the same as the WTC attacks, then the pentagon would have had coniderably more damage. A bomb went off. There was a perfectly circular hole going through a section of the Pentagon, which would be impossible had an airplane of any kind crashed into it. Not to mention...how does an airplane fly 30 feet above ground, at 500mph, and crash into it square on and not leave any marks on the ground or knock anything over? Simple. It was a rocket. I saw the video.

:lol: Oh dear Public, you know there is whole thread about this in the Rumble Strip. It was locked because silly people kept posting silly accusations. Since you missed it, here is a link to some aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon. I think Famine also posted a map showing how the street lights had been clipped by the aircraft wings, indicating the path of the aircraft...when will this theory go away :crazy:
 
OK. I did some reading. You're right. He is anti-war. I also came across this link as well. Read the first 2 paragraphs -- I just want to know what your thoughts are on the subject.

I didn’t see the interview. I stopped watching russert when I realized he was so biased (that’s the way the free market works and why corporate owned news organizations can’t get away with bias forever).

Right here...

Post a credible link that makes a professional, well founded argument. This one was terrible.

Without any financial incentive -- OK.

Innocent Americans saved from terrorism is enough incentive. Why must everything be about money?

Agreed. But just because you have no reason to believe that its true does not make it false!

Agreed.

The only thing Bush could have said to galvanize the American public into supporting him to go to war is this:

That doesn’t make it false. Perhaps it’s the only reason Bush would have gone in….

Tell me, where in the Qu'ran does it say Muslims must slaughter people just because they don't believe in Allah? Have you ever picked up a copy of the Qu'ran? Do you personally know any Muslims at all? Are you aware that Allah and God are the exact same thing?

I’ve never read the bible, why would I read the Qu’ran?

I’m just basing these statements on what the terrorists are saying.

I shudder to think what kind of attitude you may hold against me (a Black kid).

Are you calling me racist? What the hell?

Your precious mainstream media doesn't provide that kind of information. But I would assume that they lived in Saudi Arabia for the better part of their lives.
You made the claim, but you blame the American media when you can’t find a source anywhere in the world that will give you more information to back your claim up.

Did you know that Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq?

Do I care? No. I know that America used to be controlled by a bunch of native tribes. I know that Rome used to be Huge, and that if you go back far enough we all used to be part of the same land mass… doesn’t matter. Kuwait was our ally as a sovereign nation. Saddam knew the gamble by going in. You think we defended Kuwait for oil (there can never be a noble cause for the US), but you forget that oil was the only reason Saddam went in – I guess he didn’t have enough to sell to France.

I don't like confronting anybody in forums, but I'm asking you to stop this behavior, before you end up offending other users. What you said about "their religion" is completely untrue. The terrorists are using the religion, not the other way around.

Thank you.

You are aware that through the years and months that the terrorists have been captured (many have not gone willfully)and trained, they have been brainwashed into thinking that if they kill Americans or sacrifice themselves for their religion, that they're promised 18 virgin wives to be their slaves?

Yes, I am aware of that. It is what motivated my statements.
 
What about the cordite? And the fact that all forms of video was confiscated within minutes of the attack? I'm not saying its a giant conspiracy or any of that crap, but I just find it REALLY odd to see that the videos of the 2 airliners hitting WTC are shown everywhere but the video of the ones hitting the pentagon are all taken by the FBI. Not the CIA, or NSA, the FBI.

[Edit] Yah I saw the site and the old post. Still doesn't explain the smell of cordite and why all the videotapes were taken, though.

As for the religion...As Tacet Blue posts after this, I find that much of the stuff from that bible (sections, pages?*) is quite apaling. I mean, who would write about peace and forgiveness and then go on to contradict that theory by telling you to kill whoever doesn't believe in their god? It's ridiculous.
 
MrktMkr1986
Tell me, where in the Qu'ran does it say Muslims must slaughter people just because they don't believe in Allah? Have you ever picked up a copy of the Qu'ran? Do you personally know any Muslims at all? Are you aware that Allah and God are the exact same thing?

First off I'd like to say that the Islamic religion teaches peace and forgiveness just like Christianity. The vast majority of Muslims want to live a life of peace, just look at all those who voted in Iraq despite the threat of beheading...but....

There are passages in the Qu'ran that are used to indoctrinate young influential Muslim men.
Taken out of context, these passages are quite horrific, but this is the kind of stuff that is used to fuel the hate inside suicide bombers, it is told as the direct word of God and very powerful in dehumanising your enemy.

Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6

Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura iv, 76

Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42

Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura iv, 74

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura ii, 223

When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4

The last one speaks of beheading, and unfortunately, we know this to be practised.
Once again I will say that it is not the Islamic religion that is inherently violent, it is how it is used by terrorists to motivate and recruit disillusioned young men that makes many, including danoff, to make such remarks about "killing the infidel"
 
PublicSecrecy
What about the cordite? And the fact that all forms of video was confiscated within minutes of the attack? I'm not saying its a giant conspiracy or any of that crap, but I just find it REALLY odd to see that the videos of the 2 airliners hitting WTC are shown everywhere but the video of the ones hitting the pentagon are all taken by the FBI. Not the CIA, or NSA, the FBI.

Read that thread I linked to here is not the place...look here it is

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48294

Cordite is used in bullets. Missiles and rockets have solid fuel motors, so I think that might be know as a "Red Herring" ;)
If you've ever fired a cap gun...that's cordite burning. If the guy did smell cordite ( and btw it is a witness that says that NOT a Pentagon official ) then wouldn't that prove it wasn't a missile ;)
 
*hears the theory that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon for the nth time*

Head ----> Table.

Head ----> Table.

Head ----> Table.

Head ----> Table.

Head ----> Table.

(and so on)
 
Tacet_Blue
:lol: Oh dear Public, you know there is whole thread about this in the Rumble Strip. It was locked because silly people kept posting silly accusations. Since you missed it, here is a link to some aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon. I think Famine also posted a map showing how the street lights had been clipped by the aircraft wings, indicating the path of the aircraft...when will this theory go away :crazy:

No I don't know, as I didn't become a member until 2/3 years after that.

[edit] cap guns use sulfur don't they?
 
Famine
*hears the theory that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon for the nth time*


Head ----> Table.

(and so on)

I know...:lol: I did show him the pics of parts of the plane, and I believe you spent quite some time coming up with a map of the path etc...waste of time :lol:

Public, that thread started in Sept 2004...according to you its now 2007 :odd:

PublicSecrecy
[edit] cap guns use sulfur don't they?
err no...Sulphur smells of rotten eggs, and it's not known for its explosive properties ;)
 
Kuwait was part of Iraq in the same way Texas was once part of Mexico. If Mexico stormed into the US to take Texas back would they be right ? Iraq was an artificial creation of Kurdistan , Assyria and Mesopotamia . Market dude your facts are twisted. Sounds like the same logic Noam Chomski and his types use. by your logic modern Europe would have to have its land redistributed to prevent Germany from attacking Poland to take back the land that Russia gave to Poland after WW2.
 
ledhed
Kuwait was part of Iraq in the same way Texas was once part of Mexico.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Maybe it did not come out as clear as what you said, but that is what I meant to say.

If Mexico stormed into the US to take Texas back would they be right ?

Of course not. That's not what I was trying to say.

Iraq was an artificial creation of Kurdistan , Assyria and Mesopotamia . Market dude your facts are twisted. Sounds like the same logic Noam Chomski and his types use. by your logic modern Europe would have to have its land redistributed to prevent Germany from attacking Poland to take back the land that Russia gave to Poland after WW2.

How are my facts twisted? I wasn't trying to give the history of Iraq (by the way, thank you for teaching me something new :) ), I was only trying to say that Iraq and Kuwait were once the same country.

danoff's the one talking about how the US is justified in making Iraq a 51st state. I was only trying to find out from him whether or not he feels Iraq's decision to take back Kuwait is in any way similar to our taking over (err... initiating a regime change in) Iraq.

Also, I clearly remember saying:

MrktMkr1986
How do you know that Saddam wasn't trying to take back what was rightfully his country's land? Don't get me wrong... I am NOT justifying his actions. But if it's OK for the US to go around making 51st states (neo-imperialism), why is it so wrong for Iraq to try to take back Kuwait?

At first I asked a question which was not answered. In my opinion, Saddam was wrong for trying to take over Kuwait -- whether or not he did it for the oil, or because he believed Kuwait to be part of his homeland -- he was wrong.

Then I went on to say that I did not justify Saddam's actions.

Then I asked another question. By danoff's own admission, we should make Iraq a 51st state. I know that does not necessarily mean that he thinks that's the reason why we are there -- but he mentioned it, so I brought it back up again. Then I went on to express my opinion as to:

A. Why Iraq was trying to take over Kuwait.
B. Why most of the countries around the world -- including the US -- wanted Saddam out of Kuwait.
 
danoff
I think Iraq was chosen for it’s terrorism deterring potential alone. If Iraq chooses to sell oil to us, I’m sure we’ll buy it – but we supply roughly half of our own oil and the Saudis supply another major portion of it. The country that really had a stake in Iraqi oil was France… and look how they responded to this war.

You've mentioned this a number of times, that the US provides about half of its own oil itself, blah blah blah. Then why, might I ask, did President Bush talk about the major importance of making the US less dependent on other countries for oil in his State Of The Union address tonight? Getting half of your oil from foreign sources in a country as massive as America is a big deal. Don't pass it off as minor, and don't try to tell anyone in here that oil was not one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq both times.
 
You watched the SOTU too? Anyway, I'm still pretty sure there are 46 states (Randomized trivia thread I think), making Iraq the 47th if you were to officially declared it a state that is.
 
No I didn't watch it, I heard about it on the radio. And besides, I can think of many mind-enhancing activities I'd rather do than watch Bush speak, like painting something and watching it dry.
 
Anderton Prime
You've mentioned this a number of times, that the US provides about half of its own oil itself, blah blah blah. Then why, might I ask, did President Bush talk about the major importance of making the US less dependent on other countries for oil in his State Of The Union address tonight? Getting half of your oil from foreign sources in a country as massive as America is a big deal. Don't pass it off as minor, and don't try to tell anyone in here that oil was not one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq both times.

Excellent point.
 
Ih you use historical precident then Iraq should be a territory of the US . To the Victor go's the spoils. BUT since the US is not an " imperialist" country , Iraq was invaded and occupied the offending regime was removed and the US will leave the Iraqi's to govern themselves much UNLIKE an "imperialist" neo or otherwise. About the oil...OF COURSE IT WAS ABOUT OIL. Who would give a flying corn studded crap about the whole region ..IF IT WAS NOT FOR OIL ? Get a grip protecting the free flow of a stratigic resource is what country's do to SURVIVE , by treaty or by war if necessary. At least in the real world anyway.
Unless of course you would like to go back to candles , steam power and whale oil...oops ...no whales...coal oil maybe ?
 
ledhed
Ih you use historical precident then Iraq should be a territory of the US . To the Victor go's the spoils. BUT since the US is not an " imperialist" country , Iraq was invaded and occupied the offending regime was removed and the US will leave the Iraqi's to govern themselves much UNLIKE an "imperialist" neo or otherwise. About the oil...OF COURSE IT WAS ABOUT OIL. Who would give a flying corn studded crap about the whole region ..IF IT WAS NOT FOR OIL ? Get a grip protecting the free flow of a stratigic resource is what country's do to SURVIVE , by treaty or by war if necessary. At least in the real world anyway.
Unless of course you would like to go back to candles , steam power and whale oil...oops ...no whales...coal oil maybe ?

I don't think that was by choice, since for the majority of the US' existence as a country the globe has been pretty much spoken for by everyone else. Instead of being imperialist, the US decided to police the world and use it to her advantage. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think not being imperialist is something to be proud of in America's case...
 
Back