10-18-2006, 05:43 AM
ok much of your post except the "you're a dumbass and it's not about oil" seemed very.. dumbass-like:)
Wait... that means i agree i'm a dumbass and it's not for oil?! Ok i'm a dumbass but you can't deny the incentive of oil was one of the main reasons bush wanted war.
Bush and the Republic party weren't behind these "terrorist" attacks, i agree. But in all fairness, this "War for justice" or whatever the hell they're claiming it to be these days has probably claimed more Iraqi civilian lives than the americans that died in 9/11 - so why is it the american army's (and to a lesser extent, the british army) actions seen as terrorist actions? the result is the same, civilian lives behind lost for no reason. The difference is the media and the government (which controls the media) have painted a picture for you that the army is the good guys and Iraq/Iran/Wherever-Bush-Decides-To-Invade are the bad guys and like a sucker you've fallen right into their trap.
I don't claim that oil is the only cause, however you cannot deny the significant financial gain the american oil companies (which Bush is said to have some close ties with at least one of them) weren't an incentive. I also remember Bush stating the war wasn't over oil and they wouldn't occupy any of the oil sites.. then he obviously changed his mind and took over most of the Iraq oil - not seem a tad suspicious to you?
The only positive action that came from the war was the removal of that-guy (forget his name, rofl) from power in iraq like.. 3 years ago? And how many troops are still over in iraq? too many. You can choose to ignore the evidence and just go on in your own fairyland beliefs that the war is "just" and "right", but i don't think i could personally.
Wait... that means i agree i'm a dumbass and it's not for oil?! Ok i'm a dumbass but you can't deny the incentive of oil was one of the main reasons bush wanted war.
Bush and the Republic party weren't behind these "terrorist" attacks, i agree. But in all fairness, this "War for justice" or whatever the hell they're claiming it to be these days has probably claimed more Iraqi civilian lives than the americans that died in 9/11 - so why is it the american army's (and to a lesser extent, the british army) actions seen as terrorist actions? the result is the same, civilian lives behind lost for no reason. The difference is the media and the government (which controls the media) have painted a picture for you that the army is the good guys and Iraq/Iran/Wherever-Bush-Decides-To-Invade are the bad guys and like a sucker you've fallen right into their trap.
I don't claim that oil is the only cause, however you cannot deny the significant financial gain the american oil companies (which Bush is said to have some close ties with at least one of them) weren't an incentive. I also remember Bush stating the war wasn't over oil and they wouldn't occupy any of the oil sites.. then he obviously changed his mind and took over most of the Iraq oil - not seem a tad suspicious to you?
The only positive action that came from the war was the removal of that-guy (forget his name, rofl) from power in iraq like.. 3 years ago? And how many troops are still over in iraq? too many. You can choose to ignore the evidence and just go on in your own fairyland beliefs that the war is "just" and "right", but i don't think i could personally.