Iraq and so on

[Friðbjörn]

guess we were banished from the nuclear weapons thread, understandably.

azem says don't insult countries with accusations with no evidence.

alright. I have no evidence about the intentions of the US government, so to speak.

it's all about logic, and putting things into perspective. some of you defending your government have admitted your politicians tend to be corrupted.

and this about people supposedly lying against the US...wow. the US lied and lied and lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, then the make up excuses afterwards. and you still defend it.

talk about Saddam and his evilness, which is true, but not the reason for the invasion.

your government realizes the oil in the world is rapidly running out, and the contractors are brought into Iraq to secure cheap oil for the US from the practially untapped sources in Iraq. what's the first thing the army secured? oil fields.

if your government was interested about peace and democracy they would've made different choices in invasions for the past 50 years.

people speaking against the US, what reason do they have to lie? I can't find one. people say envy or something, that doesn't count for many of us, I've found. I've no interest in living in a country with the social situations you have. nor with the reputation that makes it dangerous to travel around the world. nor do I have the conscience to pay tax to a government who uses it to kill people, which the private sector kills people by saving money.

it's kinda like religion, alright, if you wanna live in blind faith to some power because it's easy, fine so be it. live like sheep.

I'm not talking here out of some inherent spite to the US or the people (many of them anyway) but when people vote (or not, supreme court decision in 2001) for such a man, I don't really feel empathy.

I do, for those people who are actually aware enough to vote something other than dem or republican. for those who can't vote, or missed voting, cause they weren't properly informed, or had bad voting machines, or not redirected to voting places where there weren't endless lines of people.

I'm personally a person who likes peace. I can't see the peace in invading Iraq, ruining the infrastructure, and selecting somone sympathetic to the US cause as president. of course the other groups will be mad and start fighting when people invade your country and install someone. you'd do it if you were republican, and Canada would invade and select democrats to run the country.

all the secret prisons with the abu graihb abuse...how's that peace. gitmo, how's that peace?

I've had this debate. on forums, I've actually seen people defending gitmo and such places by saying "oh those guys in those countries have worse prisons themselves". how do you live with yourself? how do you sleep?

all the restrictions on civil rights, how's that helpful? someone said if you give up freedom for supposed security you will have neither.

it's not just about the US. I speak against China, Russia, Britain, the Janjaweed, Talibans, and so on.

but the biggest threat to international security is the US. whether it's directly because of your mass murders and imprisonments, or because of the anger of people over it, doesn't matter. it's blood on your hands.

you mass murder people in Iraq. someone gets mad somewhere, and decides to blow up some of the nukes you store in your homeland. and then you invaded Iraq, for the bogus reason that they had the stuff you guys have yourselves? how hypocritical can you be?

say someone blows the nukes you yourselves store, for no real reason except stupidity. boom, you're in trouble. you might say that your CIA would know about it and intercept, but if you believe in that you probably believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, in which case you have to admit that your intelligence service is ****. either an inside job, or ****** intelligence

pick your poison.

then clogz neg reps me and calls me stupid, because I don't follow the sheep mentality that you guys are being subjected to.

oh and given the previous ****, I expect personal attacks. so bring it on.

 

[GraDoN]

oh and given the previous ****, I expect personal attacks. so bring it on.

fine... my hair is WAAY more sexy than yours!

 

[FireHawk]

and this about people supposedly lying against the US...wow. the US lied and lied and lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, then the make up excuses afterwards. and you still defend it.

talk about Saddam and his evilness, which is true, but not the reason for the invasion.

your government realizes the oil in the world is rapidly running out, and the contractors are brought into Iraq to secure cheap oil for the US from the practially untapped sources in Iraq. what's the first thing the army secured? oil fields.

if your government was interested about peace and democracy they would've made different choices in invasions for the past 50 years.

The US (like any country) is only interested in peace in there own country, no where else. Its like this...a neighbor two doors down house catches on fire...yeah it sucks...but hey at least it didn't happen to you.

The U.S. does not need access to oil. Saudi Arabia sells oil cheaper to US than any country (because the made a commentment to proect the royal family. You make say "OMG US BULLIED TEH SUDIS!!!1" But that is not true 9/11 happened because of people wanting the US out of Saudi Arabia. (Read 9/11 Commision Report). The reason for that is cause many Muslim extremeists practice the Wanahaism (sp? and actual name may not be exatc right what I remeber it begins with a Wa lol). They want the world to return back to 600A.D. the time of Muhammad. They helped found Saudi Arabia and are now are mad the royal family is trying to modernize Arabia, and want to kill the royal family. Osama bin Laden has public said he would behead the whole family. In the battle in Afghainstan weapons from Iraq were found. Just like now Iranian weaponary, and explosives are being found in Iraq (I argue we are fighting a proxy war with Iran and not a war within Iraq against random insurgencies.

people speaking against the US, what reason do they have to lie? I can't find one. people say envy or something, that doesn't count for many of us, I've found. I've no interest in living in a country with the social situations you have. nor with the reputation that makes it dangerous to travel around the world. nor do I have the conscience to pay tax to a government who uses it to kill people, which the private sector kills people by saving money.

it's kinda like religion, alright, if you wanna live in blind faith to some power because it's easy, fine so be it. live like sheep.

...yeah taxes pay for military in all governments...or did I miss something here? (not sarcasm)

also I fill 100% safe traveling anywhere in the world because of where I am from (other reason are why I wouldn't travel some places [disease, crooked cops, etc.])

I'm not talking here out of some inherent spite to the US or the people (many of them anyway) but when people vote (or not, supreme court decision in 2001) for such a man, I don't really feel empathy.
I do, for those people who are actually aware enough to vote something other than dem or republican. for those who can't vote, or missed voting, cause they weren't properly informed, or had bad voting machines, or not redirected to voting places where there weren't endless lines of people.

I am not at trying to bash you but you are very ignorant of early in Bush's Presidency. Bush ran on Christian morals and that is what got him popularity. Bush had almost 90% approval rating before 9/11. You weren't here my friend. When 9/11 happened and Bush said we were going to Afghanistan the nation agreed and almost everybody was like **** yeah we are getting revenge. He also had a 75% approval rate when he announced going to Iraq and there were not many against it. So you can't say that voting in 2001 was a bad idea by any means.

I'm personally a person who likes peace. I can't see the peace in invading Iraq, ruining the infrastructure, and selecting somone sympathetic to the US cause as president. of course the other groups will be mad and start fighting when people invade your country and install someone. you'd do it if you were republican, and Canada would invade and select democrats to run the country.

all the secret prisons with the abu graihb abuse...how's that peace. gitmo, how's that peace?

I've had this debate. on forums, I've actually seen people defending gitmo and such places by saying "oh those guys in those countries have worse prisons themselves". how do you live with yourself? how do you sleep?

Iraq's president does not have a **** load of power it is also a seperation of powers and the government is said up to give the three regions of Iraq equal say (of course that is just the plan)

Abu Graihb was started by Saddam and it was a lot worse. I personally have never had of problem with torture of P.O.W.s if they can give information. If I was in charge of a country then I would let torture be done as long as one dosen't die and there is very good belief that the person has the info wanted. So what US considers torture I don't...

all the restrictions on civil rights, how's that helpful? someone said if you give up freedom for supposed security you will have neither.

Is this referring to US? If so I am fine with civil liberties now and have nothing to hide (except from movie companies ).

it's not just about the US. I speak against China, Russia, Britain, the Janjaweed, Talibans, and so on.

but the biggest threat to international security is the US. whether it's directly because of your mass murders and imprisonments, or because of the anger of people over it, doesn't matter. it's blood on your hands.

you mass murder people in Iraq. someone gets mad somewhere, and decides to blow up some of the nukes you store in your homeland. and then you invaded Iraq, for the bogus reason that they had the stuff you guys have yourselves? how hypocritical can you be?

say someone blows the nukes you yourselves store, for no real reason except stupidity. boom, you're in trouble. you might say that your CIA would know about it and intercept, but if you believe in that you probably believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, in which case you have to admit that your intelligence service is ****. either an inside job, or ****** intelligence
pick your poison.

Or you can say CIA knew about it but did not think it was a serious enough threat (as in possible hoax), and the ignorance that, that kinda stuff would never happen here ignorance happened and a blind I was turned. Once again I use to believe 9/11 was an inside job learn some history back from Middle East right after WWII you can see 9/11 was in the making with events after WWII and oil was being produced regularly from Saudi Arabia...Also read the 9/11 commission its laid out right there in cold hard facts...

 

[GraDoN]

all i can say is that there are some deep secrets in this world that most people will never hear....

 

[Friðbjörn]

The US (like any country) is only interested in peace in there own country, no where else. Its like this...a neighbor two doors down house catches on fire...yeah it sucks...but hey at least it didn't happen to you.

that's what I'm saying. all these statements about bringing democracy to the middle east are bullshit. the US didn't care about democracy when they overthrew governments during the cold war, and they still don't.

The U.S. does not need access to oil. Saudi Arabia sells oil cheaper to US than any country (because the made a commentment to proect the royal family. You make say "OMG US BULLIED TEH SUDIS!!!1" But that is not true 9/11 happened because of people wanting the US out of Saudi Arabia. (Read 9/11 Commision Report). The reason for that is cause many Muslim extremeists practice the Wanahaism (sp? and actual name may not be exatc right what I remeber it begins with a Wa lol). They want the world to return back to 600A.D. the time of Muhammad. They helped found Saudi Arabia and are now are mad the royal family is trying to modernize Arabia, and want to kill the royal family. Osama bin Laden has public said he would behead the whole family. In the battle in Afghainstan weapons from Iraq were found. Just like now Iranian weaponary, and explosives are being found in Iraq (I argue we are fighting a proxy war with Iran and not a war within Iraq against random insurgencies.

how on earth do you figure that? how do you not need access to oil? correct me if I misunderstand something but the american lifestyle like suburbia, the freedom of the car all that, is based on oil. and your government realizes that oil will run out soon. sure, the middle east is the only place on earth that has yet to peak in oil processing, but they realize that the earth is running out of oil. soon oil for the rest will rise and rise in pricing before it eventually runs out, but the US wil Iraqi and Saudi oil will continue to run for a while after that, that is to say if your military Keynesianist economy doesn't collapse on its own well before that.

...yeah taxes pay for military in all governments...or did I miss something here? (not sarcasm)
also I fill 100% safe traveling anywhere in the world because of where I am from (other reason are why I wouldn't travel some places [disease, crooked cops, etc.])

yeah...that's what I said. I said I wouldn't have the heart to pay tax to pay for the slaughter of people.

I am not at trying to bash you but you are very ignorant of early in Bush's Presidency. Bush ran on Christian morals and that is what got him popularity. Bush had almost 90% approval rating before 9/11. You weren't here my friend. When 9/11 happened and Bush said we were going to Afghanistan the nation agreed and almost everybody was like **** yeah we are getting revenge. He also had a 75% approval rate when he announced going to Iraq and there were not many against it. So you can't say that voting in 2001 was a bad idea by any means.

alright, I think I confused a few details with the 2004 election, that with the not redirecting people. but essentially this is a point I brought up, it's hard to feel sympathy when you vote for these people.

Iraq's president does not have a **** load of power it is also a seperation of powers and the government is said up to give the three regions of Iraq equal say (of course that is just the plan)
Abu Graihb was started by Saddam and it was a lot worse. I personally have never had of problem with torture of P.O.W.s if they can give information. If I was in charge of a country then I would let torture be done as long as one dosen't die and there is very good belief that the person has the info wanted. So what US considers torture I don't...

again, how do you sleep? there are certain human rights, basic human rights. you're invading and dictating other countries because they hurt people, then you go in and do the same thing yourselves. ethically the US foreign policy is stuck in the year 600...you condone torture? I'm honestly shocked here. I mean here I was thinking we shared at least some moral values.

not just that, these secret prisons have detained people that have nothing to do with anything criminal or dangerous. innocent people have spent years detained without human rights or law. and this is something you condone?

 

[FireHawk]

how on earth do you figure that? how do you not need access to oil? correct me if I misunderstand something but the american lifestyle like suburbia, the freedom of the car all that, is based on oil.

and your government realizes that oil will run out soon. sure, the middle east is the only place on earth that has yet to peak in oil processing, but they realize that the earth is running out of oil. soon oil for the rest will rise and rise in pricing before it eventually runs out, but the US wil Iraqi and Saudi oil will continue to run for a while after that, that is to say if your military Keynesianist economy doesn't collapse on its own well before that.

Actually you miss understood I was saying the Saudi government sells at such a low price there is no need to waste money to find oil anywhere else (especially since the main consumer is America to Saudi oil (the largest oilfields in the world) That plus the fact that the US has places (but can't drill because they sit under national parks). Also oil is NOT in low demand liquid oil is. I was selected to go to Global Warming Convention and this was spoken about. There is much oil (especially in Canada) that just need turns to liquid. There is much of this on the Earths surface it is just expensive and a pain in the *** to process.

yeah...that's what I said. I said I wouldn't have the heart to pay tax to pay for the slaughter of people.

Not Paying Tax = Illegal

Part of Taxes = War

War = Slaughter Of People

its the same with all countries

The United States (and many other big companies) have huge militaries. They are not thin cutting knifes but are long, broad swords.

I'm not saying that is a good thing either its just a fact.

again, how do you sleep? there are certain human rights, basic human rights. you're invading and dictating other countries because they hurt people, then you go in and do the same thing yourselves. ethically the US foreign policy is stuck in the year 600...you condone torture? I'm honestly shocked here. I mean here I was thinking we shared at least some moral values.

not just that, these secret prisons have detained people that have nothing to do with anything criminal or dangerous. innocent people have spent years detained without human rights or law. and this is something you condone?

Okay, let me clear this up.

We knew of these "secret" prisons we just did not know what was going on in them. I have never heard of any innocent people being detained by the U.S. government and being tortured. I would like to see some sort of reliable evidence.

I do think P.O.W.s that have knowledge may be tortured. I am not gonna lie, I heavily support aggressive, powerful, and very strategical militaries. I DO NOT condone to unnecessary torture. For example, civilians, I am 100X against that. I do think there are basic human rights, for example, I am very open and passionate about Pro-Life. I still think we have similar values still, I just think this torture thing is a big difference we have...

 

[HaziLPTonz]

we got banished from the nukes thread? for what reason....we werent really attacking any country...well not at least intentionally?

war is always going to be part of humanity isnt it....i mean, just looking over history, theres always been conflict, conflict stems ofrom differences and to be different is to be individual, you dont want to lose that, thats why people fight, of course there are social norms.

i condone what is done to POWs....of couse if those POWs are in fact guilty of whatever they were captured for, the information those POWs provide could really be helpful, but of course, it IS technically illegal, there was a treaty signed alongtime ago wasnt it? and i think thats wrong, and a bad oversight that the UN is again powerless

poeple forget,taes arent just used for wars though are they, theyre used for basic things like hospitals,infrastructure etc, war/military is but ONE portion(albiet slighly large portion) of the pie(mmm...=9)

the whole US-iraq-afghan thing is abit out of proportion for both sides, youve got ur hardnuts..."we'll fight to the end" and those who stupidly realisticly expect to be able to pull 200k troops,vehicles...guns...planes...boats out of the area within a week, the whole iraq thing WAS a good thing, it *** rid of saddam, if oil was the price for the over throwing a dictatorship, then i spose so be it,countries dont invade another on a whim or because "they want to", its not as easy, my only problem is of course the US dont tackle Iran,NKorea or even Zimbabwe....

dam i feel so behind,having reread everything u2 above me wrote

and lets try to keep it not to personal...we'll get this thread locked before any of the real fire fighting starts >=D

 

[Friðbjörn]

Actually you miss understood I was saying the Saudi government sells at such a low price there is no need to waste money to find oil anywhere else (especially since the main consumer is America to Saudi oil (the largest oilfields in the world) That plus the fact that the US has places (but can't drill because they sit under national parks). Also oil is NOT in low demand liquid oil is. I was selected to go to Global Warming Convention and this was spoken about. There is much oil (especially in Canada) that just need turns to liquid. There is much of this on the Earths surface it is just expensive and a pain in the *** to process.

yes there is, oil is running out pretty soon whether you get a lot right now from the Saudis

Not Paying Tax = Illegal

Part of Taxes = War

War = Slaughter Of People

its the same with all countries

The United States (and many other big companies) have huge militaries. They are not thin cutting knifes but are long, broad swords.

I'm not saying that is a good thing either its just a fact.

yeah, hence why I wouldn't live in a country that spends this on killing people. or I'd at least be vocal against it. I guess I'm not like you then, I will support no military effort unless defensive. and let's face it, this **** isn't defensive.

not all countries spend money on killing people.

Okay, let me clear this up.
We knew of these "secret" prisons we just did not know what was going on in them. I have never heard of any innocent people being detained by the U.S. government and being tortured. I would like to see some sort of reliable evidence.

I do think P.O.W.s that have knowledge may be tortured. I am not gonna lie, I heavily support aggressive, powerful, and very strategical militaries. I DO NOT condone to unnecessary torture. For example, civilians, I am 100X against that. I do think there are basic human rights, for example, I am very open and passionate about Pro-Life. I still think we have similar values still, I just think this torture thing is a big difference we have...

yeah evidence...how about those 2 guys that sat in gitmo for 3 years, 100%, just got swept off the streets in their own country, as told in the movie the road to guantanamo.

okay...how are the guys in gitmo and other places not civilians? the US attacks, and then some people form militias because of that (talibans among others were trained by the CIA hello for example), and then you slap them on the wrists and imprison them for being against the atrocities you commit. and then there's all the people who you lock up who haven't done ****. they're civilians.

 

[Clogz]

guess we were banished from the nuclear weapons thread, understandably.

azem says don't insult countries with accusations with no evidence.

alright. I have no evidence about the intentions of the US government, so to speak.

it's all about logic, and putting things into perspective. some of you defending your government have admitted your politicians tend to be corrupted.

and this about people supposedly lying against the US...wow. the US lied and lied and lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, then the make up excuses afterwards. and you still defend it.

talk about Saddam and his evilness, which is true, but not the reason for the invasion.

your government realizes the oil in the world is rapidly running out, and the contractors are brought into Iraq to secure cheap oil for the US from the practially untapped sources in Iraq. what's the first thing the army secured? oil fields.

if your government was interested about peace and democracy they would've made different choices in invasions for the past 50 years.

people speaking against the US, what reason do they have to lie? I can't find one. people say envy or something, that doesn't count for many of us, I've found. I've no interest in living in a country with the social situations you have. nor with the reputation that makes it dangerous to travel around the world. nor do I have the conscience to pay tax to a government who uses it to kill people, which the private sector kills people by saving money.

it's kinda like religion, alright, if you wanna live in blind faith to some power because it's easy, fine so be it. live like sheep.

I'm not talking here out of some inherent spite to the US or the people (many of them anyway) but when people vote (or not, supreme court decision in 2001) for such a man, I don't really feel empathy.

I do, for those people who are actually aware enough to vote something other than dem or republican. for those who can't vote, or missed voting, cause they weren't properly informed, or had bad voting machines, or not redirected to voting places where there weren't endless lines of people.

I'm personally a person who likes peace. I can't see the peace in invading Iraq, ruining the infrastructure, and selecting somone sympathetic to the US cause as president. of course the other groups will be mad and start fighting when people invade your country and install someone. you'd do it if you were republican, and Canada would invade and select democrats to run the country.

all the secret prisons with the abu graihb abuse...how's that peace. gitmo, how's that peace?

I've had this debate. on forums, I've actually seen people defending gitmo and such places by saying "oh those guys in those countries have worse prisons themselves". how do you live with yourself? how do you sleep?

all the restrictions on civil rights, how's that helpful? someone said if you give up freedom for supposed security you will have neither.

it's not just about the US. I speak against China, Russia, Britain, the Janjaweed, Talibans, and so on.

but the biggest threat to international security is the US. whether it's directly because of your mass murders and imprisonments, or because of the anger of people over it, doesn't matter. it's blood on your hands.

you mass murder people in Iraq. someone gets mad somewhere, and decides to blow up some of the nukes you store in your homeland. and then you invaded Iraq, for the bogus reason that they had the stuff you guys have yourselves? how hypocritical can you be?

say someone blows the nukes you yourselves store, for no real reason except stupidity. boom, you're in trouble. you might say that your CIA would know about it and intercept, but if you believe in that you probably believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, in which case you have to admit that your intelligence service is ****. either an inside job, or ****** intelligence

pick your poison.

then clogz neg reps me and calls me stupid, because I don't follow the sheep mentality that you guys are being subjected to.

oh and given the previous ****, I expect personal attacks. so bring it on.

Logic? What you call logic, I call bias opinion.

...

Ok, about this oil thing.

1.) America has an oil reserve, and we have untapped oil resources all over the country. If we really needed more oil, why would we spend trillions of dollars fighting a war for it when it is under our own feet? How is 'blood for oil' a logical process?k:

2.) After all the effort we went to with capturing the oil fields to feed our own massive SUVs, don't you find it quite befuddling that we don't import massive amounts of Iraqi oil to the US daily? :-|

3.) Why are we staying in Iraq, when we could have already taken the oil and ran . You claim we are there for the oil and nothing else. Explain why we haven't plundered the oil like Vikings and ran.

......

Live like sheep? :lol:

......

You are not talking out of inherant spite for the US? Just everyone who voted for Bush and everyone who supports the war on terror. I see.

Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened after Bush was elected? On what pre-9/11 grounds was Bush the wrong choice? Pray tell.

And also, you don't any empathy for those who support the war on terror? Could you say that to anyone who was at 9/11?

......

Um, we as citizens don't really have control over political policies, you know? You claim you are speaking against several countries, yet you don't. It is always USA, USA, USA. Frankly, you sound more concerned over there in Iceland then I do here.

What mass murders? Do you have pictures of the mass graves? News links? Anything?

Whats this about blowing up nukes in our 'homeland'? The only nuclear attacks in history were on Japan in WWII. Is this a typo or something?

My view on Iraq: The invasion of Iraq was for two purposes...

1.) To gain a foothold on the Middle East in the wake of growing terrorist activities, Isreali-Palestinian tensions, and concerns over Iran.

2.) It was a power play to demonstrate to other rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela how quickly and easily the US can lay waste to your country....not hold it, but lay waste to it. In two days, we were in Baghdad, rolling down Main Street. Powerful message to other dictators.

3.) Yes, yes, yes. It is not a pretty picture, I myself don't like it much, but I'm almost betting that even Hillary would not pull out if she was president.

........

Pick my poison? Gladly.

The CIA was dumb. Plenty of reports were filed by CIA, and the Pentegon, but most of the reports were buried because no one really thought it was serious...kind of like the kid who cried 'wolf!'

Only this time, the wolf really did show up - with four airplanes-turned-missiles, in fact.

........

And your reputation meter has an off button.

 

[Friðbjörn]

Logic? What you call logic, I call bias opinion.
...

Ok, about this oil thing.

1.) America has an oil reserve, and we have untapped oil resources all over the country. If we really needed more oil, why would we spend trillions of dollars fighting a war for it when it is under our own feet? How is 'blood for oil' a logical process?k:

2.) After all the effort we went to with capturing the oil fields to feed our own massive SUVs, don't you find it quite befuddling that we don't import massive amounts of Iraqi oil to the US daily? :-|

3.) Why are we staying in Iraq, when we could have already taken the oil and ran . You claim we are there for the oil and nothing else. Explain why we haven't plundered the oil like Vikings and ran.

......

Live like sheep? :lol:

......

You are not talking out of inherant spite for the US? Just everyone who voted for Bush and everyone who supports the war on terror. I see.

Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened after Bush was elected? On what pre-9/11 grounds was Bush the wrong choice? Pray tell.

And also, you don't any empathy for those who support the war on terror? Could you say that to anyone who was at 9/11?

......

Um, we as citizens don't really have control over political policies, you know? You claim you are speaking against several countries, yet you don't. It is always USA, USA, USA. Frankly, you sound more concerned over there in Iceland then I do here.

What mass murders? Do you have pictures of the mass graves? News links? Anything?

Whats this about blowing up nukes in our 'homeland'? The only nuclear attacks in history were on Japan in WWII. Is this a typo or something?

My view on Iraq: The invasion of Iraq was for two purposes...

1.) To gain a foothold on the Middle East in the wake of growing terrorist activities, Isreali-Palestinian tensions, and concerns over Iran.

2.) It was a power play to demonstrate to other rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela how quickly and easily the US can lay waste to your country....not hold it, but lay waste to it. In two days, we were in Baghdad, rolling down Main Street. Powerful message to other dictators.

3.) Yes, yes, yes. It is not a pretty picture, I myself don't like it much, but I'm almost betting that even Hillary would not pull out if she was president.

........

Pick my poison? Gladly.

The CIA was dumb. Plenty of reports were filed by CIA, and the Pentegon, but most of the reports were buried because no one really thought it was serious...kind of like the kid who cried 'wolf!'

Only this time, the wolf really did show up - with four airplanes-turned-missiles, in fact.

........

And your reputation meter has an off button.

fine, mind if I call your own opinion biased?

you don't get it...all the world is demanding and increasingly spending more and more oil. china and india are coming into the market more and more, it doesn't matter if you have oil reserves, your production has long peaked. and america isn't exactly saving its oil much. no one is.

oil is running out soon, whether you have some reserves, ties to the Saudis, and whatnot. the most cynical ones speculate we're already started in the process of finishing up all oil.

of course you're not going to leave iraq like that, there were more reasons for invading than just oil, sorry if I implied only that.

and also, they would have to be pretty stupid to do that, they have to cover their tracks to salvage what's left of their world opinion.

you can laugh all you want at the sheep comment, but as long as you keep blindedly buying into this stuff, you're just a member of the herd.

look alright maybe I tried to be nice or something but alright, maybe I have a spite. you would too, if you realized how horrible this so called foreign policy is. all I ever say to you guys is out of the opinion that I'm against unnecessary warfare, unnecessary death. killing is never justified. bush is supported by christians A LOT. I don't know if you guys are, but christian are his core. how does killing people so that a few companies can get good contracts rhyme with the christian ethic?

again I ask, how can you live with yourselves, supporting mindless mass murder.

Cheney and his guys actually wrote that it would need something like a new PH to start the american nation, and that happened.

the blows keep on coming. military is torturing, hiring more and more criminals, shooting more and more civilians, using illegal toxics, veteran suicide is up, at home companies are working with the gov to spy on you via phone and internet, yet you just nod each time the news tells about it, or not.

yes I can say that to families of 9/11 victims. they were killed for nothing, wrongfully, just like all the victims of the US foreign policy.

why do you think your government tries to make it look like less Iraqis have been killed? they're hiding something.

yeah, that is true, you don't have a say about the foreign policy. and that's the problem with your political system. the system should be like a free market, there should be competition. instead you only have two choices. that's called oligopoly in economics, and usually leads to the same situation as in a monopoly.

and I mean what does that say about your so called democracy, that the citizens have no say whatsoever.

always the USA? how do you know that? do you follow everything I do online? I've been critisizing China a lot lately, it's just not been on here. French and British weapons deals are bad seeds, I've been vocal about that too.

and when you say that you sound like it's a bad thing I take a stand and say something. what kind of a world would it be if everyone just let the big guys waltz all over them all the time? we'd have 1984.

the nukes I'm talking about are all those warheads that you have on standby in the US.

I know my rep button has that, I haven't had my rep on for the past two years...

it's not the rep I care about, I just don't like being called stupid for no intelligent reason.

 

[Clogz]

fine, mind if I call your own opinion biased?
you don't get it...all the world is demanding and increasingly spending more and more oil. china and india are coming into the market more and more, it doesn't matter if you have oil reserves, your production has long peaked. and america isn't exactly saving its oil much. no one is.

oil is running out soon, whether you have some reserves, ties to the Saudis, and whatnot. the most cynical ones speculate we're already started in the process of finishing up all oil.

of course you're not going to leave iraq like that, there were more reasons for invading than just oil, sorry if I implied only that.

and also, they would have to be pretty stupid to do that, they have to cover their tracks to salvage what's left of their world opinion.

you can laugh all you want at the sheep comment, but as long as you keep blindedly buying into this stuff, you're just a member of the herd.

look alright maybe I tried to be nice or something but alright, maybe I have a spite. you would too, if you realized how horrible this so called foreign policy is. all I ever say to you guys is out of the opinion that I'm against unnecessary warfare, unnecessary death. killing is never justified. bush is supported by christians A LOT. I don't know if you guys are, but christian are his core. how does killing people so that a few companies can get good contracts rhyme with the christian ethic?

again I ask, how can you live with yourselves, supporting mindless mass murder.

Cheney and his guys actually wrote that it would need something like a new PH to start the american nation, and that happened.

the blows keep on coming. military is torturing, hiring more and more criminals, shooting more and more civilians, using illegal toxics, veteran suicide is up, at home companies are working with the gov to spy on you via phone and internet, yet you just nod each time the news tells about it, or not.

yes I can say that to families of 9/11 victims. they were killed for nothing, wrongfully, just like all the victims of the US foreign policy.

why do you think your government tries to make it look like less Iraqis have been killed? they're hiding something.

yeah, that is true, you don't have a say about the foreign policy. and that's the problem with your political system. the system should be like a free market, there should be competition. instead you only have two choices. that's called oligopoly in economics, and usually leads to the same situation as in a monopoly.

and I mean what does that say about your so called democracy, that the citizens have no say whatsoever.

always the USA? how do you know that? do you follow everything I do online? I've been critisizing China a lot lately, it's just not been on here. French and British weapons deals are bad seeds, I've been vocal about that too.

and when you say that you sound like it's a bad thing I take a stand and say something. what kind of a world would it be if everyone just let the big guys waltz all over them all the time? we'd have 1984.

the nukes I'm talking about are all those warheads that you have on standby in the US.

I know my rep button has that, I haven't had my rep on for the past two years...

it's not the rep I care about, I just don't like being called stupid for no intelligent reason.

Only two things I disagree with 100%.

1.) Christians are not his 'core' - big corporations, very rich people, and an aristocratic influence on high society are his core. Around 70% of Americans dissapprove of him, but that doesn't matter when you got the highest 5%.

I should be clear and state that I do not like alot of Bush's national policy.

2.) The fourth paragraph makes claims to intentionally gunning civilians, and using toxic agents. Can we back this up? We have never used toxic agents in this war. As for gunning civies, some soldiers do commit this crime and they are usually tried and sentenced stiffly for it...regardless, this is not a 'policy' of the US.

 

[Friðbjörn]

Only two things I disagree with 100%.
1.) Christians are not his 'core' - big corporations, very rich people, and an aristocratic influence on high society are his core. Around 70% of Americans dissapprove of him, but that doesn't matter when you got the highest 5%.

I should be clear and state that I do not like alot of Bush's national policy.

2.) The fourth paragraph makes claims to intentionally gunning civilians, and using toxic agents. Can we back this up? We have never used toxic agents in this war. As for gunning civies, some soldiers do commit this crime and they are usually tried and sentenced stiffly for it...regardless, this is not a 'policy' of the US.

fair enough, well said.

I know, maybe I dropped the word "foreign policy" a little too often but my vocabulary in this language is limited...

I at least wasn't trying to connect civilian shootings with policy.

 

[FireHawk]

2.) The fourth paragraph makes claims to intentionally gunning civilians, and using toxic agents. Can we back this up? We have never used toxic agents in this war. As for gunning civies, some soldiers do commit this crime and they are usually tried and sentenced stiffly for it...regardless, this is not a 'policy' of the US.

I agree with Clogz, I do not think I have seen proof of that. I have talked to many from Iraq and they say if you see a civilian with a gun you are to open fire. Why? Gorilla Warfare. This situation is over there people are hiding within the civies opening fire on troops. I say **** that. This army is a long wide broad sword. People are gonna get in the way of cross fire when Iraqis are shooting soldiers and are hiding in a crowd. If your getting shot at you are opening fire back, and you don't realise it you just do it (that is what I have been told).