First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Is the United States the real terrorist in the world?
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/26/10 , edited 9/26/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


tarakelly wrote:

Dam that was well said, And maybe you might understand my anger at DC not the President but House and Senate.


What was well said? Nuclear proliferation for the win? (that's the post immediately above yours)





That was about how I can mix up post what you said was right. And could mention the Nixon shock syndrome. When the Wedgwood exchange blow apart
1308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Watching everything
Offline
Posted 9/26/10 , edited 9/26/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:



Great. way to inspire them to keep their avaricious hands to themselves. thanks for coming out. I volunteer you for the frontlines if it comes to that.


I was just saying. If the US wanted to take over any country, there are close to zero countries that can do anything on their own against them. That's where the UN comes in. And as for volunteering, sure I already plan to.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/26/10
The U.N. the joke of the world. Were third world dictators can kill there own people and still get a seat. The U.N. is only effective If they have the backing of free countries. British the Canadians,Germans, the Americans and many others. China oppose dam near everything. To some up the UN it full of Dictatorship and miss handling of funds. Most those clowns are to busy stuffing cash into there pockets to give a dam about most thing. There a few thing that have taken place but not with out the good free countries support. Every one like to make us the bad guy and if the US was such a thing we could take down countries and take their resources by force.
Posted 9/26/10

zombehs wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:



Great. way to inspire them to keep their avaricious hands to themselves. thanks for coming out. I volunteer you for the frontlines if it comes to that.


I was just saying. If the US wanted to take over any country, there are close to zero countries that can do anything on their own against them. That's where the UN comes in. And as for volunteering, sure I already plan to.

tarakelly wrote:

The U.N. the joke of the world. Were third world dictators can kill there own people and still get a seat. The U.N. is only effective If they have the backing of free countries. British the Canadians,Germans, the Americans and many others. China oppose dam near everything. To some up the UN it full of Dictatorship and miss handling of funds. Most those clowns are to busy stuffing cash into there pockets to give a dam about most thing. There a few thing that have taken place but not with out the good free countries support. Every one like to make us the bad guy and if the US was such a thing we could take down countries and take their resources by force.
And what makes you think that's not what your current Obama administration is doing right now? If anything, they're doing the objectively moral actions, which ironically the Republican oppositions aren't supporting by a majority.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/26/10
Well I been pretty upset with are government for many years. One this majority rules stuff is for the birds. Two ever since the senators have been voted in office by popular vote it killed states right. Mass a mount of program started by the Federal Government is going to be funded by the states in the end. One i am a Libertarian/ independent voter both party's make me sick. With that said the Republican will back the president in the war far more then the democrats will. I do not think it's possible to set up a functioning government in Afghanistan the illiteracy rate is way to high.---------------------------------------------------------------------I never cared about the UN do to the corruption in it. ---------------------------As for Obama Nancy and Harry none speck the truth and many meeting are behind closed doors. Shutting out any opposition to what ever there plains are. Many bills are being shoved through a loop hole so open debate means nothing. The first two year of the bush administration republicans reneged on there conservative spending. The last six year democrat had control but small now it's a has total control of the House and Senate But this train wreck is far from over they added 4Trillion to the national debt in two years. Iraq we can pull out soon if not for Iran we would be pulling out or should be.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/27/10 , edited 9/27/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


neko-cat wrote:

i agree with every thing you said popcornpuffs
and i agree with daninami


papagolfwhiskey
if he was going to trade Oil in Euros
so what ??!!
it is his oil and he is free to do with it what ever he want ..

I never said the oil wasn't his nor that he wasn't free to sell it for whatever currency he desired... you missed my point.

Okay a little bit of History and Economics 101. Pay attention kiddies this stuff affects YOU.

Long ago, Money was precious metals stamped with various leaders heads and set in fixed sizes. It's value would fluctuate slightly depending on the reputation a particular government had for mixing in non-precious metals. But basically, a gold or silver coin had the value of that weight of gold or silver, This is why money changers and merchants had scales on hand in their offices and shops and why famous highwaymen could reputedly guess the value of the contents of a purse by hefting it in their hands.

When governments originally established paper currency, the money was 'backed' by precious metals. This meant that the paper money in your hand was supposedly redeemable for an amount of precious metal held by the government. IE the British couldn't print any more paper money (Pound Sterling) than they had Sterling Silver in their vaults. OR the Number of US dollars in circulation was limited by the amount of gold in Fort Knox. Many countries have since abandoned these standards in a fashion similar to the US. It is the US story that I'm going to concentrate on.

During the 1930's one of the steps that President Roosevelt took to bring his country out of the depression was to abandon the gold standard and instead print money backed by Treasury Bills or T-bills. T-bills are DEBT. if you buy a T-bill from the US treasury you are buying a promise from the US government to pay you back what you spent plus interest.

Okay: this is the REALLY important part. There can be no more US Dollars in circulation than there are T-bills issued. When a given T-bill comes due. The US government has to pay IN US DOLLARS the full amount of the T-bill PLUS INTEREST. However large or small the American Government's Taxes are, What they collect is less than ALL the US Dollars in circulation which in turn have become inflated (reduced in value) and it is with this pool, Much smaller than the whole, that they have to pay a debt equal to the whole plus interest. The only way to beat this game is to find other sources of hard value and return to a standard backed by that. OR to issue even more T-bills. But if you Issue enough T-bills to pay your debts TODAY. Your debt TOMORROW is that much bigger. Successive American Governments have been putting off "tomorrow" for nearly 80 years.

If you or I were to attempt to do this with the banks and our personal cheques it would be called Cheque Kiting and prosecuted as fraud.

If your Broker fell into the trap of doing this he'd post fantastic returns until one day he couldn't get enough suscribers at the bottom to fund all the people he appeared to make wealthy at the top and his empire would collapse under charges of him running another type of fraud called a 'ponzi scheme' (you may be familiar with this concept if you bother to listen to the news)

One of the things that keeps the US Dollar from doing the same is a Monopoly on Oil transactions. If you want to Buy or Sell Oil on the international market you have to do it in US Dollars. This keeps a large sum of printed money out of circulation in the general economy it also tenuously links the USD to a precious hard commodity (Oil). This plus faith is what keeps the US dollar afloat. If people were to lose faith in the dollar, or if someone like say.. China.. got really picky about taking on new US debts. OR if all that oil trade money came rushing back into the economy because people were trading oil in whatever currency they liked. The level of damage to the US economy would be on a scale people who are ignorant of History would not understand.

Germany in the 1930's is famous for people needing wheelbarrow full of paper money to buy a loaf of bread. Zimbabwe right now, beats Germany hands down for runaway inflation and economic meltdown. Zimbabwe is a distant second to post world war II Hungary. The Hungarian mint actually had to print at one point a bill which represented 10 to the 23rd power (a 1 with 23 zeroes behind it ) of their then equivalent of a dollar.

That is what Saddam Hussein was threatening to do to the US by loudly planning to trade Oil in Euros.
That is why, I believe, The US did indeed engage in terrorism. They made an example of Hussein for any oil trading nation that was thinking of also trading in anything other than US dollars. It's ugly. But everyone in the US (and probably Canada, as well as a not insignificant part of Europe) who is not starving and who still has their home might do well to thank George Bush for it. Or at least reconsider some of their assumptions about war and economics. Or, better yet, figure out a solution to the debt bomb that IS eventually going to drop on us all.


(edited for a grammar, emphasis and a bit of clarification/expansion)
(Further edit just because: Don't you love how everyone on EXTENDED DEBATE is a fricken' scholar and expert conversationalist when it's superficial one liners. but when you actually try to take questions seriously and put some thought into them all you can hear is crickets chirping?)


Almost, almost everything you said is completely right.
However you forgot to mention that the value of a currency is determined by the offer/ask of other partys.
For example, if Japan wants to buy alot of Microsoft stuff they will have to buy US Dollars with their Yens, what happens is that there is more need for US Dollars and that the people who can offer US Dollars now can ask a higher price for it.
In the same situation but for the Yen it is the other way around, more Yen's appear on the market, so the offer of Yens rises, meaning that they will be sold for less.
Why is this? Well it's easy, if you want to buy a thousand feathers, and one person sells them for 1 Dollar a piece, but a other person offers them for 90 cents a piece, you will go for the cheaper on right?
Now concuration starts to butt in, and they will lower their prices further and further, in other words feathers become cheaper and cheaper because alot of people are selling them.

now, it is true that the USD is expensive because oil is sold in this currency, however the US is a huge, no GIGANTIC exporting economy, medical equipment, software/hardware, games, food you name it, and the US exports it.
Export means you are selling your products in your currency, since alot of people buy the stuff you export the need for your currency will be high, hence what I told above this.

Yes oil keeps up the USD, but do not underestimate the US economy, for it is huge!

Ohh and thanking Bush?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND???

With what you said you implied that the wealth we have is worth the deaths fallen in Iraq?
You may never, ever justifie the deaths of others for economical purposes, ever.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/27/10 , edited 9/27/10

amersfoort wrote:

Almost, almost everything you said is completely right.
However you forgot to mention that the value of a currency is determined by the offer/ask of other partys.
For example, if Japan wants to buy alot of Microsoft stuff they will have to buy US Dollars with their Yens, what happens is that there is more need for US Dollars and that the people who can offer US Dollars now can ask a higher price for it.
In the same situation but for the Yen it is the other way around, more Yen's appear on the market, so the offer of Yens rises, meaning that they will be sold for less.
Why is this? Well it's easy, if you want to buy a thousand feathers, and one person sells them for 1 Dollar a piece, but a other person offers them for 90 cents a piece, you will go for the cheaper on right?
Now concuration starts to butt in, and they will lower their prices further and further, in other words feathers become cheaper and cheaper because alot of people are selling them.

now, it is true that the USD is expensive because oil is sold in this currency, however the US is a huge, no GIGANTIC exporting economy, medical equipment, software/hardware, games, food you name it, and the US exports it.
Export means you are selling your products in your currency, since alot of people buy the stuff you export the need for your currency will be high, hence what I told above this.

Yes oil keeps up the USD, but do not underestimate the US economy, for it is huge!

Ohh and thanking Bush?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND???

With what you said you implied that the wealth we have is worth the deaths fallen in Iraq?
You may never, ever justifie the deaths of others for economical purposes, ever.

(emphasis: mine)

Yes and if all the millions of USD that are tied up in the oil trade come flooding back into the general world economy The us would experience double digit inflation, and if hit by double digit inflation many US corporations went belly up they wouldn't be exporting so much. Also the US manufactures and adds value to far fewer concrete items than it used to a generation ago and THAT is less than it did two generations ago. the US maybe a big exporter but it is a far far far bigger importer. There are cargo vessels exporting goods to the US that return home empty and find this economical due to how few US goods the Chinese want. if that doesn't spell Mene Tekel Upharsin to you I don't know what would.

(bold) No I'm not out of my mind. He is no more a demon than any other world leader. While it may not be true for a Dutch person I'm certain it is true for just about every person in North America that we are not, RIGHT NOW, starving and homeless, because no one dares trade oil in anything other than USD.

I said it was ugly. I didn't say, or mean to imply it justifies, anything. But since I'm unwilling to bankrupt my self and donate every last asset I have to helping the homeless, the injured, and the bereaved in Iraq, I personally have to be very careful where I point my fingers and what I say when I do, lest I become a hypocrite.

(ps: If it's fair to ask when liberal became a dirty word, wouldn't it also be fair to ask why George W. Bush is automatically a demon? His crimes against his own citizens come no where near equaling those of say Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. If his actions in the interest of his nation leave blood on his hands how is he different than the statesmen who ran Belgium while it owned the Congo. Or a hero of World War II like Churchill, who was largely responsible for the Fiasco at Galipoli in World War I and a hawkish member of the government during the Boer war, during which, the British invented the concentration camp. I wonder, in what light will the hated George W. Bush be viewed in 50 to 100 years?)


6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/27/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Almost, almost everything you said is completely right.
However you forgot to mention that the value of a currency is determined by the offer/ask of other partys.
For example, if Japan wants to buy alot of Microsoft stuff they will have to buy US Dollars with their Yens, what happens is that there is more need for US Dollars and that the people who can offer US Dollars now can ask a higher price for it.
In the same situation but for the Yen it is the other way around, more Yen's appear on the market, so the offer of Yens rises, meaning that they will be sold for less.
Why is this? Well it's easy, if you want to buy a thousand feathers, and one person sells them for 1 Dollar a piece, but a other person offers them for 90 cents a piece, you will go for the cheaper on right?
Now concuration starts to butt in, and they will lower their prices further and further, in other words feathers become cheaper and cheaper because alot of people are selling them.

now, it is true that the USD is expensive because oil is sold in this currency, however the US is a huge, no GIGANTIC exporting economy, medical equipment, software/hardware, games, food you name it, and the US exports it.
Export means you are selling your products in your currency, since alot of people buy the stuff you export the need for your currency will be high, hence what I told above this.

Yes oil keeps up the USD, but do not underestimate the US economy, for it is huge!

Ohh and thanking Bush?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND???

With what you said you implied that the wealth we have is worth the deaths fallen in Iraq?
You may never, ever justifie the deaths of others for economical purposes, ever.

(emphasis: mine)

Yes and if all the millions of USD that are tied up in the oil trade come flooding back into the general world economy The us would experience double digit inflation, and if hit by double digit inflation many US corporations went belly up they wouldn't be exporting so much. Also the US manufactures and adds value to far fewer concrete items than it used to a generation ago and THAT is less than it did two generations ago. the US maybe a big exporter but it is a far far far bigger importer. There are cargo vessels exporting goods to the US that return home empty and find this economical due to how few US goods the Chinese want. if that doesn't spell Mene Tekel Upharsin to you I don't know what would.

(bold) No I'm not out of my mind. He is no more a demon than any other world leader. While it may not be true for a Dutch person I'm certain it is true for just about every person in North America that we are not, RIGHT NOW, starving and homeless, because no one dares trade oil in anything other than USD.

I said it was ugly. I didn't say, or mean to imply it justifies, anything. But since I'm unwilling to bankrupt my self and donate every last asset I have to helping the homeless, the injured, and the bereaved in Iraq, I personally have to be very careful where I point my fingers and what I say when I do, lest I become a hypocrite.

(ps: If it's fair to ask when liberal became a dirty word, wouldn't it also be fair to ask why George W. Bush is automatically a demon? His crimes against his own citizens come no where near equaling those of say Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. If his actions in the interest of his nation leave blood on his hands how is he different than the statesmen who ran Belgium while it owned the Congo. Or a hero of World War II like Churchill, who was largely responsible for the Fiasco at Galipoli in World War I and a hawkish member of the government during the Boer war, during which, the British invented the concentration camp. I wonder, in what light will the hated George W. Bush be viewed in 50 to 100 years?)




I do not hate him for the war itself, probably any president would have went to war after 9/11, however I do hate his way of going to war.
He declared it a crusade, he said that god told him to go to war, and things like that, under his 8 year reign alot off blood has been shed, something I cannot forgive.

In my eyes he has been a terrible president not only seen through a humane point of view but also trough a economical point of view (geez I wonder how much Afghan and Iraq must cost).

In the next 50-100 years he will be seen as a president who retailliated after 9/11, probably nothing more or less.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/27/10

amersfoort wrote:


I do not hate him for the war itself, probably any president would have went to war after 9/11, however I do hate his way of going to war.
He declared it a crusade, he said that god told him to go to war, and things like that, under his 8 year reign alot off blood has been shed, something I cannot forgive.

In my eyes he has been a terrible president not only seen through a humane point of view but also trough a economical point of view (geez I wonder how much Afghan and Iraq must cost).

In the next 50-100 years he will be seen as a president who retailliated after 9/11, probably nothing more or less.


Fair enough, though I don't personally recall him invoking God. I remember immediately post 9/11 him recalling Pear Harbour and thinking "OOOH the Taliban is TOAST"

I resent his attacking Iraq because it drained away the resources from Afghanistan that might have allowed a clear and definitive victory there. The place where blame for 9/11 CAN be reasonably attributed. However, there's no oil in Afghanistan and they don't trade anything that effects the US economy so instead we get spin about non-existant WMDs (although I'm sure there were some, The US would have proof if they just kept the receipts) or BS links to Al-Queda. And this generation's answer to Vietnam.



6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/27/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


I do not hate him for the war itself, probably any president would have went to war after 9/11, however I do hate his way of going to war.
He declared it a crusade, he said that god told him to go to war, and things like that, under his 8 year reign alot off blood has been shed, something I cannot forgive.

In my eyes he has been a terrible president not only seen through a humane point of view but also trough a economical point of view (geez I wonder how much Afghan and Iraq must cost).

In the next 50-100 years he will be seen as a president who retailliated after 9/11, probably nothing more or less.


Fair enough, though I don't personally recall him invoking God. I remember immediately post 9/11 him recalling Pear Harbour and thinking "OOOH the Taliban is TOAST"

I resent his attacking Iraq because it drained away the resources from Afghanistan that might have allowed a clear and definitive victory there. The place where blame for 9/11 CAN be reasonably attributed. However, there's no oil in Afghanistan and they don't trade anything that effects the US economy so instead we get spin about non-existant WMDs (although I'm sure there were some, The US would have proof if they just kept the receipts) or BS links to Al-Queda. And this generation's answer to Vietnam.





If the people of Afghanistan do not want you there, then you will have no victory.
Even with the entire force of the US, it would just turn out into a second vietnam, a unwinnable war.
The US and UN should have learned that a invasion is never a option any more, if you want to gain power over a country, use economical/political back ways.
I know Bush had no evil intentions, he wanted to destroy the terrorists and free Afghanistan from the clutches off the Taliban.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/27/10

amersfoort wrote:

If the people of Afghanistan do not want you there, then you will have no victory.
Even with the entire force of the US, it would just turn out into a second vietnam, a unwinnable war.
The US and UN should have learned that a invasion is never a option any more, if you want to gain power over a country, use economical/political back ways.
I know Bush had no evil intentions, he wanted to destroy the terrorists and free Afghanistan from the clutches off the Taliban.


The people don't want the west there NOW because after 10 years we haven't finished the job and we haven't left. The Taliban could have been properly crushed early on and democracy would have had a better chance to flourish. people would have been safer and the missions would be in the form of standing up an indigenous defense and law enforcement apparatus, and the building of infrastructure. Right now everytime something get's built, it get's destroyed or the paymaster get's kidnapped. The average person doesn't want the taliban there anymore than they want the various foreign armies, but the taliban knows where they live and has no qualms about, for example, cutting off the thumbs of people who dare to vote in an election. It also doesn't help that the regime the foreign forces are allied with and supporting is far from perfect and unwilling to alter its ways.



6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

If the people of Afghanistan do not want you there, then you will have no victory.
Even with the entire force of the US, it would just turn out into a second vietnam, a unwinnable war.
The US and UN should have learned that a invasion is never a option any more, if you want to gain power over a country, use economical/political back ways.
I know Bush had no evil intentions, he wanted to destroy the terrorists and free Afghanistan from the clutches off the Taliban.


The people don't want the west there NOW because after 10 years we haven't finished the job and we haven't left. The Taliban could have been properly crushed early on and democracy would have had a better chance to flourish. people would have been safer and the missions would be in the form of standing up an indigenous defense and law enforcement apparatus, and the building of infrastructure. Right now everytime something get's built, it get's destroyed or the paymaster get's kidnapped. The average person doesn't want the taliban there anymore than they want the various foreign armies, but the taliban knows where they live and has no qualms about, for example, cutting off the thumbs of people who dare to vote in an election. It also doesn't help that the regime the foreign forces are allied with and supporting is far from perfect and unwilling to alter its ways.





You are completely right, the Taliban could have been crushed in Afghanistan, however the Taliban is active in many other countries as well.
Afghanistan is surrounded by countries that have large groups of Taliban fighters in them, I doubt that the people of Afghan could stand their own against a brutal force such as the Taliban, that is ofcourse when the Western nations retreat their troops.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

amersfoort wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

If the people of Afghanistan do not want you there, then you will have no victory.
Even with the entire force of the US, it would just turn out into a second vietnam, a unwinnable war.
The US and UN should have learned that a invasion is never a option any more, if you want to gain power over a country, use economical/political back ways.
I know Bush had no evil intentions, he wanted to destroy the terrorists and free Afghanistan from the clutches off the Taliban.


The people don't want the west there NOW because after 10 years we haven't finished the job and we haven't left. The Taliban could have been properly crushed early on and democracy would have had a better chance to flourish. people would have been safer and the missions would be in the form of standing up an indigenous defense and law enforcement apparatus, and the building of infrastructure. Right now everytime something get's built, it get's destroyed or the paymaster get's kidnapped. The average person doesn't want the taliban there anymore than they want the various foreign armies, but the taliban knows where they live and has no qualms about, for example, cutting off the thumbs of people who dare to vote in an election. It also doesn't help that the regime the foreign forces are allied with and supporting is far from perfect and unwilling to alter its ways.





You are completely right, the Taliban could have been crushed in Afghanistan, however the Taliban is active in many other countries as well.
Afghanistan is surrounded by countries that have large groups of Taliban fighters in them, I doubt that the people of Afghan could stand their own against a brutal force such as the Taliban, that is ofcourse when the Western nations retreat their troops.


Certainly not now, had we actually managed to stand up a competent military&police. Had we placed a government that paid something more than lip service to democratic principals. Had a communication infrastructure and faith in the rule of law been in place. Then when we left the Taliban would have been the bitterly resisted invader.


65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/28/10
------ I was out rage with the attack on the World Trade Centers and Even put a sign on my truck starting Nuke them all It was aimed at Afghanistan. The Russian got there butts beat there, to save American lives. Amazing how many times peaceful Muslim tried to run me off the road. I only took the Sign down because having passenger. Putting My life in danger nothing new to me but to endanger others is a whole other thing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have tried to understand the whats and whys but this problem been world wide why should i even believe that Muslim word means any thing at all. The U.S. went to war for for oil, has any one shown proof that we have even taking oil by force? The one liners are for the feeble minded. we have made great strides in Iraq do I think in will become a theory and hate America yes I do. Kuwait and all the people showed little no gratitude toward all the countries that saved there butts.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I understand the problems in Afghanistan from before the war how they blow up other people religious Symbols. and now were finding out 90% of the people can not read. How do you even think we can set up a government there. but if we teach them then it will be called indoctrinating we can't win. So even if we pull it off we will be consider war mongers.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

tarakelly wrote:

------ I was out rage with the attack on the World Trade Centers and Even put a sign on my truck starting Nuke them all It was aimed at Afghanistan. The Russian got there butts beat there, to save American lives. Amazing how many times peaceful Muslim tried to run me off the road. I only took the Sign down because having passenger. Putting My life in danger nothing new to me but to endanger others is a whole other thing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have tried to understand the whats and whys but this problem been world wide why should i even believe that Muslim word means any thing at all. The U.S. went to war for for oil, has any one shown proof that we have even taking oil by force? The one liners are for the feeble minded. we have made great strides in Iraq do I think in will become a theory and hate America yes I do. Kuwait and all the people showed little no gratitude toward all the countries that saved there butts.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I understand the problems in Afghanistan from before the war how they blow up other people religious Symbols. and now were finding out 90% of the people can not read. How do you even think we can set up a government there. but if we teach them then it will be called indoctrinating we can't win. So even if we pull it off we will be consider war mongers.


The statement that "The US went to war for Oil" Is indeed ludicrous. I agree with you. I still believe however that they US went to war in Iraq and put the metaphorical boots to Saddam Hussien, not out of some noble impulse to be the world's knight in shining armour but becuase Saddam was threatening the US with financial armageddon with his plan to trade oil in Euros. The US not had to take Saddam out, they had to do it in a way that made every other oil producing nation think twice about the same threat.

That's an Opinion, I cannot prove it. But I think there's plenty of circumstantial evidence in my favour.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.