pro-troops, how come
Out of context: Reply #16
- Started
- Last post
- 93 Responses
- exador0
i did read it United States...
and if you've watched your president for the past year...he's repeatedly tried to connect Iraq to al quaida...
when in fact you're quite right...
this war has NOTHING to do with WMD at all..
1st the call was to disarm
or we'll disarm you.that wasn't quite good enough..
so next came the whispers of Regime change..
so it didn't really matter if they got rid of jack shit...so long as saddam was gone..then the coalition of the billing came in..
and rolled across the sand..
and are they looking for weapons of mass destruction?
are they stopping once saddam has been taken out of power?
nope..
the current generalisimo running things over their has said that this is more important than 'one man'..and his death or removal wouldnt stop the 'allies' from their 'mission'.....
yep...
you're damn right this is about oil..killing for oil..
you soldiers in peril for oil
civillian casualty's for oil.
"These agreements would put our economic state in disaster. I will be damned to let that happen."
wow...
these arrangements look pretty much exactly like what the US would do ...
so....
which lands us back at square one.
this is NOT a righteous war.
this is not about liberating anyone.this is not about WMD.
this is bush economics.
"if you've arrived at a deal where the americans are disadvantaged....
we'll kill you."
kaboom...
but only if you're brown skinned and sitting on oil..
bombing white folks that are christian wouldn't play so well on CNN...
United States.
it would seem to me that we agree on more than a few things..the one thing we don't seem to agree on is whether or not its a good policy to kill people for their natural resources, and over deals they made with other countries...
personaly..i've always sort of been against killing people..
but that's just me
;)