|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 5:57:15 AM | In the latest CBS poll, 64% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war,
64% say the war was not worth it, and 59% say the troops should leave
asap.
So with the upcoming sham constitution in Iraq, where do people stand on the Occupation, the latest headlines. I believe the US casualties are within 50 soldiers reaching 2000, and thats not to mention the thousands more, injured and ruined mentally, and of course over a period of a decade the millions of Iraqis that have suffered thanks to US Imperialism.
I think after a decade of economic sanctions, the first gulf war, and now this incredible move by a confident right people are seeing more and more that its time to get out now.
Condasleezbag Rice said it best a day or two after 9/11 "How can we capitalize on these opportunities..." in a security counsel meeting.
What does everyone else think?
 | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 7:07:17 AM | I hate to say this... because I believe the war is morally wrong and that's why we're lying about it; BUT, I think the survival of western civilization depends on it because the middle east could ruin us by boycotting oil. The US imports 60% of it's oil and europe imports a lot bigger percentage than that, so the only deterrence to a boycott is US military occupation.
We at home should do our part and get off the oil dependancy somehow. Otherwise we're engaged in a war that cannot end until there's no more oil to fight over.
This could be the end of western civilization... at least as we know it. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 8:08:12 AM | In the latest CBS poll, 64% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war,
64% say the war was not worth it, and 59% say the troops should leave
asap.
Provided the poll results you provide are objective and truly represent public opinion (which few public polls actually do), I would have to say that it really doesn’t reflect "war support" as much as the Commander and Chief's handling of Iraq in general...
So with the upcoming sham constitution in Iraq, where do people stand on the Occupation, the latest headlines. I believe the US casualties are within 50 soldiers reaching 2000, and thats not to mention the thousands more, injured and ruined mentally, and of course over a period of a decade the millions of Iraqis that have suffered thanks to US Imperialism.
Hmmmm? Define "ruined mentally" for me...As a veteran I find this statement insulting...Numbers for Killed/Wounded in action are easily documented, the numbers for the "mental casualties" are not...Being a soldier, my circle of friends and coworkers is almost exclusively made up of veterans of this and other conflicts, all of which are certainly productive members of society.... Does the military have any "nutcases"? Absolutely, but that number is probably equitable to the civilian populace and not necessarily a byproduct of exposure to the combat zone...
Now for the "down low" nitty-gritty of your question...
Do I agree with the reasons for going to war? - (Stabilizing a world "hot spot" and providing an added measure of safety and security for future generations)...Absolutely...
Do I agree with the Administrations handling of the War with Iraq? - Yes I do...(the war with Iraq ended in May of 2003, what we have now is a war against "insurgents"...The actual "war on terror/terrorists" is now in full swing)...
Should we immediately "pull out" of Iraq after the lives lost/ money invested? - No way... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:18:24 AM | I think the survival of western civilization depends on it because the middle east could ruin us by boycotting oil.
First off Dan, I question whether OPEC could in fact, do as you suggest, without causing irreperable harm to their own economies, and to OPEC in the process.
There is an obvious problem in the dynamics of Oil, the same imbalance on the retail end, between producers and consumers, can be applied on the macro side, to oil producing and consuming nations. All power rests with producers, and is leveraged onto consumers, whether they be individuals or nations
I think that points however, to a solution that does not involve war.
Form consumer unions, on both fronts.
At the local level, create legislation that allows the energy sector to profit, but not unreasonably so, and on the macro side, create a diplomatic alliance of consuming nations that grants cooperative agreements for longterm security to their energy needs. If all consuming nations acted on cooperative agreements instead of on competitive precepts, they could then become the countervailing force for any shenanigans on the supply side.
I think the bigger problem in the energy issue, is pitting the investment class against all of the rest of us. That is the true factor that accounts for the ever escalating prices of energy.
The Global Oil Market OPEC Will Likely Hold Sway for Years to Come
.... In the late '80s and '90s, OPEC's share of the world oil market fell by about half. It's been creeping up again in recent years, but new and potential discoveries in the Caspian region, Russia, West Africa and other areas could bring it down again.
Still, OPEC will likely hold on to the market power it enjoys for a long time to come. That fact makes a worst-case scenario even more chilling. Says George Pery of the Brookings Institute: "If radical (Islamic) groups get control or coerce governments in the oil-producing nations to reduce their oil supply to the world, we have a different situation."
Such events aren't all that likely, Perry admits. After all, for many of these countries, oil is the only reason for their wealth, and selling oil is the only way to keep their economies afloat. But it is enough to give pause, and it does point up the dangers of so much market power being concentrated in so few hands in such an unstable area, experts say, much of which is anti-Western.
On the criterea of decreasing 'radical (islamic) groups control of oil', I would say the Iraq War will prove to become a stupendous error, and miscalculation.
Lastly
This could be the end of western civilization... at least as we know it.
I don't think that need be a zero sum game, merely that it would change the landscape of who profits and how, and overall, it is an ineviability, and probably a beneficial thing to change 'western civilisation as we know it. '
darjeeling | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 5 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:30:21 AM | I am against this war for the following reasons
The original reasons for going to war have been proven to be very likely false
The second reason, that Iraq supported terrorists, has been shown to be true, but other countries supported them a lot more and were not invaded
The loss of lives is hard to take, even if they have been minimised by excellent paramedics
In Nam we expected to lose a lot of wounded men
In Iraq they expect to lose less than 10% of those injured
This will result in horrifying injury counts once the figures are released
There will be a lot of badly mutilated survivors
I personally think it is incorrect to say the War has finished and this is now a seperate thing
I also do not think that planning for the mess that is there now, was sufficient
That the contigency planning was flawed from the outset
But in saying this, I also believe we cannot just pull out
That would be worse than invading in the first place
I also would firmly uphold the soldiers fighting over there
It is just their non-military leadership I disagree with
...
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 2:00:30 PM | The initial reasoning for launching the assault on the Iraqi people has definitely been put out to pasture. Nevertheless, what's done is done now and the only thing to do is continue and see it through. While there are some definite negatives to this action, if we look at it from a wider perspective this is exactly the kind of shake up the world goes through from time to time and it tends to lead to a better world. Consider Europe before and after world war two for example. We are fortunate in a way to be able to live through and see things from a first hand perspective but the whole story won't come out for years and probably decades for that matter. As I've said before, in forty years I doubt anybody will be able to say that this action didn't directly contribute to a better world regardless of the motives behind it's initiation.
So to answer the question in one word, yes, I support the war. I don't buy either side's argument (the left's or the right's version of the reasons for the war) but for as much pain and suffering as this has and will continue to cause, a new world is being created whether we realize it or not and it's my opinion that this new world will be far brighter than the old. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 2:26:56 PM | The main reason I don't support it: It has done more to promote terrorism than prevent it. Saddam wasn't a threat to us and we shouldn't have messed with Iraq. There are other countries that are in more need of our help than Iraq, and have bigger problems than Iraq.
It may be a brighter world when they are finished, but at what cost? We have lost thousands of lives, both US and Iraq. I don't see how anyone could equate the Iraq war with fighting global terrorism. Terrorism is inevitable. When there is a will, there is a way. Terrorism is no different. The insurgents will not be defeated. There are more now than there were when the war started, and there will be even more.
Plus, we still haven't got the guy that attacked us...I guarantee he's not in Iraq either.
These are just my opinions. I have been against the war since it started, and will continue to be against it. I do support the troops, but I don't support the cause. If they ever have a draft my ass is off to Canada!
 | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 3:17:27 PM | I'm firmly against this so called war, lets review why, Iraq had now WMD's, had no official conection to Al-Qaeda, and posed absolutely no threat to us or Israel. A lil fact on the Side: Bin Laden hated Saddam because he considered him a secular muslim and wanted us to take him out cause he was unable to do so himself. We helped our enemy!!!
That would be like America Helping Japan take out the Philipines after the bombed Peal Harbor!!
on the flip side the 19 hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden ( remember him people? ) is also a Saudi, Alqaeda gets it's money from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia refuses to the day to provide us with passenger lists for flights from there to America, They are partly respocible for the high oil prices here at home, and the refuse to detain Terror suspects and deport them to the U.S for questioning!
So why hasnt on bullet been fired at Saudi Arabia then you may ask????
Cause Bush and em are getting PAID by the Saudi royal family!! And as long as they and
Bin Laden keep those monthly payments going to Bush's account they'll never be touched. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 3:58:10 PM | | I think the invasion of Iraq was very stupid and ill-advised...and lied about for the reason that it's immoral to invade another nation to control it's resources. It's really a ridiculous position for the US to have put itself in; but the question now is: How can we lessen our dependance on foreign oil so we can get out? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 4:03:32 PM | | Hmmm...one thing that should be pointed out is that, well, actually Iraq was definitely a threat to Isreal. Saddam would have wiped out that nation if he'd had the means to do so, and it's pretty tough to argue otherwise in light of their historical relations. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 4:17:09 PM | "Actual threat to Israel", I doubt it, maybe before the first Gulf war but he didnt have nothing left to use on Israel, even if he had WMD which he didnt, how would he deliver it? with a backpack?? He sure didnt have an airforce anymore. if anything I think Iraq is more of a threat now with not only the insurgents but the terrorist we made by bombing their families!
time will tell cause its not over yet. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 4:28:39 PM | I don't believe Iraq was a threat to Israel for several reasons:
1) The US had bombed his air force to smithereens and for the most part was enforcing the "no fly zone".
2) The Israelis home made tanks are not Abrams tanks, but still totally superior to anything Iraq has or had.
3) Scott Ritter had a list of bioweapons shipped to Iraq during the 80's from the US, Japan and Germany and KNEW that almost every last one had been destroyed. He said the US was the only one trying to act as if they weren't convinced; possibly because they were already planning the invasion of Iraq and wanted to keep this as a reason to invade. Bush's treasury secretary O'Neill confirmed Bush's administration was planning the invasion as soon as he took office.
4) Even Saudi Arabia said they no longer felt threatened by Iraq and asked us to move our military OUT back in 1998... and this is probably the reason we invaded Iraq: for the purpose of keeping our military near our oil supplies in the middle east to keep any jihadists from taking over AND TO deter any oil boycotts, which are a huge threat to the US national security. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 6:17:52 PM | I agree to disagree gotapulse...It actually happened, I agree with Dan on a point...lol... ...Israel does have a technologically superior military...This is a direct result of being totally surrounded by enemies for close to 60 years...They also are a nuclear power, and don’t think for a minute they would hesitate to use that type of weaponry if it came down to a last stand or masada if you prefer...All the more reason to bring stability to a volatile region...
Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially admit or deny having a nuclear arsanal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is suspected to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979 (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they may possess up to 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them above the median in the declared list. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:12:47 PM | The security of Israel may not have been under serious threat from Saddam but I believe it was VERY high on the list of their unspoken rationales.
Remember we did not go into Iraq, merely to have a regime change solely in Iraq but to reshape the totality of the mideast landscape. The same folks who pushed the invasion and drafted our war policy were ramping up the rhetoric to make it a SERIES of regime change. Iran, Syria, even Egypt and Saudi Arabia were all eventual targets of the neocons.
Any examination of the folks behind the policy that led us into Iraq shows they have overarching ambitions to remove ALL threat to Israel. The neoconservative cabal I believe, were (and are) traitorous in this regard, their allegiance to Israel's security interests trumps their responsibility to not misuse the American military, or place our soldiers at risk without just cause, and I believe it is treason.
I in fact think that the invasion of Iraq was launched largely as a proxy war for Israel's longterm security interests.
So no, I don't believe that to be a good enough reason to risk American lives, or to fund a war on the American dole for the sake of Israel.
darjeeling
| |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:15:49 PM | Oh, I'm not trying to make Israel out to be some sort of saintly nation here. What I'm saying (and it appears to be the consensus as well) is that no, Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel AT THE TIME (I'd underline that if I could instead of caps but...) However, as I said before, look at it from an historical perspective. If Saddam had had the capability to attack Israel wouldn't he have ? Of course he would have if he thought it wouldn't have resulted in the destruction of his own country. Israeli nukes are about the only thing that keeps the nation from being attacked right now (even if they won't admit to actually having nuclear capability) and in the past for that matter as well.
Anyway, if the argument is honest that there was credible evidence Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction that would put them on an even plane with Israel. That most definitely would have made them a threat. As the only stable and US-friendly democracy in the region Israel is invaluable to US foreign policy and interests. It is the one toe-hold they can always use to access and check middle-eastern aggression on American interests.
Now, of course this all hinges on whether or not you believe Iraq had WMD's in the first place. Still debatable to me since nobody who would actually have been in a position to say has commented one way or the other except for the expected denials. Oh, don't worry, I'm not saying I think that Iraq had WMD's right up to the invasion. I have no doubt they didn't. However, it's not like Saddam didn't have time to do whatever he had to do to destroy them and erase any knowledge of their existence during the lead up to the war. I still believe that it's entirely possible that Saddam could very well have had WMD's right up until he felt there was a good chance he'd be invaded by the US (a battle he knew he could never win) Anyway, that's still just hypothetical on my part anyway. The point is that Iraq has never been anything BUT a threat to Israel whether capable of acting in any way or not. Where did Saddam launch his SCUDS at during the first Gulf War ? Israel. Why ? Who knows exactly. Probably just figured it was all part of the Israeli world conspiracy.
Anyway, I'm not saying that this is the same thing as justification for the war. I was never a firm believer in the WMD's excuse myself anyway although at one time I certainly thought it to be a credible possibility. Just always had a gut feeling that none would be found if there was an invasion. Turns out that my gut was right if not my best guess.
So, in a nutshell, no Israel wasn't immediately threated by Iraq at the time. Rest assured though that that was only an academic point. Given enough time it certainly would have been again as it was in the past. Regime change , as Bush liked to harp on about was more important to Israel than simply disarming Iraq. No regime change meant more of the same. From Israel's standpoint, this would not do.
That doesn't make this Israel's fault for having their wish come true on this matter (and you can rest assured that if it was up to Israel, Jordan would probably be next on the list of countries to attack) but certainly they , if anybody, had ample reason to feel threated by whoever was in Baghdad as long as it was ruled by a Baathist or a theocrat. For them it was only a matter of time. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:25:01 PM | That doesn't make this Israel's fault for having their wish come true on this matter
If they have infiltrated all sectors of American governance by subterfuge it most certainly does make it Israel's fault.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:45:41 PM | lmao....that's akin to saying you consider it actually possible that there is some worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
Come on, we both know that between the US and Israel, if anybody is going to have the influence on who does what, it's going to be the US influencing Israel's actions and not the other way around. If you are seriously suggesting that Israeli 'agents' of some type or another have managed to worm their way into the White House and act as some unseen voice in American foreign policy I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Sure, IF that was the case you'd be right. Now ask yourself what the odds of that are. Come on...you can't honestly tell me you believe such nonsense...do you ? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/14/2005 10:31:56 PM | If they have infiltrated all sectors of American governance by subterfuge it most certainly does make it Israel's fault.
darjeeling
Common D, I read most of the threads in this area of the forums, and you are one of the most informative and "level headed" regulars, IMO....Dont tell me you have turned "conspiracy nut"... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 12:06:46 AM |
lmao....that's akin to saying you consider it actually possible that there is some worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
I consider the concept of a 'Greater Israel' one that anexes the land of its neighbors to stretch beyond its present borders to be such an ideology that I suppose it could be likened to a 'conspiracy'.
Come on, we both know that between the US and Israel, if anybody is going to have the influence on who does what, it's going to be the US influencing Israel's actions and not the other way around.
I think that would be the entirely rational conclusion judging by the criterea of relative size and power between the two 'allied countries', yet it is most startlingly the inverse case, Israel controls the American congress, while we attempt to exerpt pressure that is routinely disregarded by Israel.
America has very little influence on Israel's domestic internal politics, while they have an entirely undue influence on ours.
As an example I will list George HW Bush as an example, when he pressured Israel to ramp down the settlement building, he was defeated in his bid for a second term. There were of course other factors but this was definitely one.
If you are seriously suggesting that Israeli 'agents' of some type or another have managed to worm their way into the White House and act as some unseen voice in American foreign policy I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I will give you three names, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Abe Shulsky, as examples of individuals working within the nexus of the war thrust within the Pentagon. If these folks are not actively being paid by the Mossad they might as well have been, as at every opportunity to do so they have placed Israel's interests above American interests.
I don't make the claim without thought, this is from an essay by Pat Buchanan
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged.
*snip*
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
*snip*
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
*snip*
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
I would highly suggest reading the whole article it details the names and makes the connections.
Sure, IF that was the case you'd be right. Now ask yourself what the odds of that are.
I would say the odds relative to the influence exerpted are far too high for it to be merely accidental.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 12:34:59 AM | darjeeling (and anyone else): If you haven't seen the BBC 3-part TV series "Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs," I saw it yesterday on PBS and highly recommend it. It's amazing just how infantile and ridiculous both the Israelis and Palestinians have been in this long 'God-given' territorial battle, and almost all the key parties in this struggle have laid their thinking and behavior open for the investigators/interviewers in this series (including US brokers and commentary from a few other Middle East leaders. I found it very revealing and educational.
This is also the series where the now-infamous "I'm driven with a mission from God" quotes were attributed to Bush...and there was a disclaimer shown on the screen (a denial from McClellan) when the Palestinian officials gave their accounts of the Bush comments.
It's three hours that I can't imagine failing to fascinate anyone who seriously follows world news/politics.
~ Panda | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 12:56:20 AM | | I'm sorry Darjeeling but your assertions I find to be ludicrous. Certainly I'm not surprised to see Israel playing an active and key role in this war but to even expect one to entertain the notion that it's really Israel that is pulling the strings and the US is Israel's puppet is just plane kookey. Normally you are quite reasonable but it would seem to me that you are somehow predisposed to believing this nonsense for reasons that I can only guess at. This is right up there with the world wide Jewish conspiracy theories that prompted their near extermination a little over sixty years ago. The irony of all this is that it tends to come from the left which is supposedly all about humane and rational thought and behaviour. This stuff is no different than the kind of thing you'd expect to hear at a Klan rally. No, I'm not accusing you of being a racist or anti-Semite but truly wondering why you'd be so eager to accept what is so plainly and clearly a nutty idea about how Israel is actually in charge of the White House. After all, when everything is said and done, that's precisely what you are stating no matter what language you couche it in. You actually expect people to believe that a few Mossad agents are twisting the US's arm as far as Iraq is concerned ? That's just nuts. Really...I'm quite surprised you'd fall for this. I mean, if you can base your theory on what you cited there, well, then I can think of alot of things you definitely don't believe yet which have far more substantial evidence (such as the idea that Iraq had (in the recent past) weapons of mass destruction) A few Israeli's in key positions is something to consider indeed but the idea that they managed to use the US as a very powerful pawn to do their bidding...sorry, that's just batty. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 1:02:31 AM | | Had we nuked Kabul in the fall of '01, we may not have had to go to Baghdad. Even the stubborn Japanese military leaders surrendered after Nagasaki. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 1:19:30 AM |
Common D, I read most of the threads in this area of the forums, and you are one of the most informative and "level headed" regulars, IMO....Dont tell me you have turned "conspiracy nut"...
First off, thanks for the compliment midnight, I appreciate you saying so, so cheers back at cha.
Before I address your second point, do you happen to remember the dire warning of Iraqi nukes, being bandied about, prior to the invasion, in numerous public policy stements by the Prez, Condoleza,****Cheney and other administration hawks?
That Saddam was seeking uranium from an African Nation as part of his developing nuclear program?
The whole contention led Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim, and in turn led to the Plame affair?
It seems that this genesis of the contention was centered around a document turned up by an Italian intelligence service, and said document turned out to be forged ?
I had always wondered who would have a vested interest in forging such a document, who benefits by the claim that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapon development?
MOSAIC OF LIES Tracing the pattern of WMD lies back to the source
by Justin Raimondo
Who lied us into war?
*snip*
The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq.[/in]
Robert Dreyfuss, writing in The Nation, cites a former U.S. ambassador with strong ties to the CIA who says there is another layer to the onion
"According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's – and which has not previously been reported – prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad – which prides itself on extreme professionalism – had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official."
*snip*
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070903.html
I strongly reccomend reading the Buchanan piece in the earlier post. You might also check the 'Sport of God' thread for the connections between the neoconservatives, Zionism and possible Israeli operatives here.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1966769.aspx
So you tell me, is it being a 'conspiracy nut' when one notices that there seems to be an emerging pattern contained in these things and others like the arrest of pentagon spy Larry Franklin passing classified intelligence to Israel via JINSA ?
I don't know if I am a 'conspiracy nut' but the more research I do, when peeling back the layers of the onion, it seems to me that the Iraq War was waged for the primary benefit of a nation other than our own.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 1:51:49 AM | | I'm totally against the war! I think the war is all about oil, especially considering the Bush ties to big oil companies and big business, and think about this too, when Clinton was president we were not at war in iraq, but when Daddy Bush was in office we had the original persian gulf war. Now Bush jr. is president (although he lost both elections) and we are back at war with Iraq. I think thats more than coincidence. And if the war is because Bush is doing what God is telling him, God must be a Republitarded Warmonger. I do subscribe to the theory that alot of wars are caused by religion, or peoples intolerance of others religion. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 2:23:09 AM | Did someone just go see Fahrenheit 9/11 seems they did half this stuff posted came right from that terrorist supporters mouth I think they need to start checking back packs here.
That war is justified, Saddams up for trial and all the American hating lib's are coming out showing their support for Saddam, I hope they Fry Saddam in front of all his followers. I can just picture it Liberals take to the streets all decked out in their hippie outfits thinking their cool with their long hippie hair screaming Save Saddam and burning our flag while the conservative boys in blue take out their Billy clubs and mase and teach em a lesson on being patriotic. Its going to be glorious. I hope its all on TV so I can mute it and put on some heavy metal and watch in peace. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 54
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
