Jump to content


Photo

military suicides


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Opals25

Opals25

    Aiee!

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Secret place
  • Projects:Being a dick.

Posted 20 February 2004 - 12:56 AM

How many times do I have to explain this. Making this an oil war would be HARD. Everyday we went into this war the oil fields were bombed, wether by us or by Iraqis. The current cost to replace and repair these oil fields has sky rocketed into the billions of dollars, thus meaning that these oil fields wont earn you any money for YEARS no time in Bushs presidency or whoevers next will not be able to benefit from this oil. People just don't want to admit that this wasn't a war for money.

#22 MuDsHoVeLeR

MuDsHoVeLeR

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 350 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 01:16 AM

That is the most ignorant reason for the war I've ever heard. While it can be used as a justification (the oil, that is), it is most definately not a reason for the conflict. Iraq's profit from selling the oil is just as great as our (and the rest of the world's uses for it). There's absolutely no way Iraq would shut off all oil trade, for their economy would plummit and they'd be in worse shape than they have been in the past decade. Even if they prohibited the sale of oil to the US, we'd still get it from the rest of the Arab Nations, and other nations who DID purchase it from Iraq would resell it to us for little to nothing more than what they purchased it for.

#23 DrPietro

DrPietro

    Old timer from Origin

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH

Posted 20 February 2004 - 02:00 AM

True :unsure:

#24 Guest_Tupac_*

Guest_Tupac_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:20 AM

How many times do I have to explain this. Making this an oil war would be HARD. Everyday we went into this war the oil fields were bombed, wether by us or by Iraqis. The current cost to replace and repair these oil fields has sky rocketed into the billions of dollars, thus meaning that these oil fields wont earn you any money for YEARS no time in Bushs presidency or whoevers next will not be able to benefit from this oil. People just don't want to admit that this wasn't a war for money.

Idiot, Its a long term investment.

Read this :

A little thinking material


O, and civilian casualties unavoidable by war? What an idiotic statement.
DONT THROW CLUSTERBOMBS !!! That would make a big difference.

And Saddam killed civilians who opposed him. I dont see much difference with Bush :
He attacks countries that oppose him.

#25 Mongoose

Mongoose

    TFH rOCks

  • Hosted
  • 785 posts
  • Location:Australia
  •  OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:35 AM

what about when you walk into a house and just shoot them while they are begging
thats what happend.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#26 DrPietro

DrPietro

    Old timer from Origin

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:40 AM

Bush is so god damn gay, is swear to god he is, tupac is right it's a long term investment into iraqs untaped wealth, USA is greedy! and thats that! :unsure:

#27 tanka

tanka

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:04 AM

O, and civilian casualties unavoidable by war? What an idiotic statement.
DONT THROW CLUSTERBOMBS !!! That would make a big difference.  thinking material[/URL]

Find me a war/conflict where no civilians died.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#28 DrPietro

DrPietro

    Old timer from Origin

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:06 AM

OMFG Tanka did you not here what he said?, did you even read the articial he linked? -_-

#29 Mongoose

Mongoose

    TFH rOCks

  • Hosted
  • 785 posts
  • Location:Australia
  •  OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:27 AM

Find me a war/conflict where no civilians died.

dose that mean medevil day battels to.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#30 tanka

tanka

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:48 AM

OMFG Tanka did you not here what he said?, did you even read the articial he linked? -_-

The article had no relevance to civilian deaths. I wouldn't believe it anyway. Fox news is more reliable than that article, Which goes to show how reliable it must be.. :rolo:



dose that mean medevil day battels to.


Medieval battles would have probably being worse!
Posted Image
Posted Image

#31 Mongoose

Mongoose

    TFH rOCks

  • Hosted
  • 785 posts
  • Location:Australia
  •  OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189

Posted 20 February 2004 - 11:13 AM

not all. :unsure:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#32 Opals25

Opals25

    Aiee!

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Secret place
  • Projects:Being a dick.

Posted 20 February 2004 - 04:10 PM

Americas civil war is probably the closest I can think of to casultie free. Civillians anyways. :unsure:

There was only 1 if memory serves me right.

And lets see, you linked to a MESSAGE BOARD, everyone there could no apsolutley nothing, and if the way all the democrats are acting, there leaving Iraq as soon as possible and forgeting all of it, a real long term investemnt when its all just gonna disapear in a year. :rolo:

#33 MuDsHoVeLeR

MuDsHoVeLeR

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 350 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 04:12 AM

what about when you walk into a house and just shoot them while they are begging
thats what happend


It's a good thing you were there to verify that. No, really.

And that article, about 'Isn't that strange'... is ridiculous. As the son of an ExxonMobil employee, you learn some interesting facts that companies and the public tend to overlook. Now, I'll give you this... it's true that the oil in Alaska/Canada would last us about 75 years. It's also true that more than 90% (I believe, I can find you the graphs later) of the world's power comes from oil. Given that, less than .1% of the world's power comes from wind generators and solar power. Wood creates more power than both of those, I believe. Man I really need those charts to clarify for me. Anyway, those are some reasons that the war could be justified in the name of oil. The previous argument I posted, however, outlines why the war WASN'T fought for oil, however. Now, I can't tell you why it WAS fought, I don't think anyone can... but until you know what people of 'higher authority' know, I say you let them make the decisions.

#34 Mongoose

Mongoose

    TFH rOCks

  • Hosted
  • 785 posts
  • Location:Australia
  •  OMG I'M MEMBER NUMBER 189

Posted 21 February 2004 - 10:02 AM

I really think this war was about getting support in the middle east. Out of all the countries in that area, Iraq would have been the most anti-US around. If they get rid of anti-US attitudes, terrorism will fall.

thats just dumb starting a war so you can support other places.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#35 tanka

tanka

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:16 PM

What? :unsure:
Posted Image
Posted Image

#36 MuDsHoVeLeR

MuDsHoVeLeR

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 350 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 05:56 PM

No Mongoose. His point was that they started they war to gain support from Arab nations... not to give support to Arab nations...

#37 Paranoid

Paranoid

    title available

  • New Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 28 February 2004 - 03:47 AM

Do any of you even remember what this topic was originaly about?

#38 DrPietro

DrPietro

    Old timer from Origin

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Inside memory address ACF67BH

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:50 PM

Yes; it was about military personal killing themselfs and LT.DOWNSLAYER asking why. :lol:

#39 Paranoid

Paranoid

    title available

  • New Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 19 March 2004 - 05:32 PM

just testing you :)

#40 Guest_Seamus_*

Guest_Seamus_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2004 - 01:45 AM

You freaking imbeciles. The British did worlds worse to Ireland than America is doing to Iraq. Heres something to prove it: All intentional casualties in Iraq were precieved as threats by the sometimes overly jumpy soldiers. You'd be nervous too if you were fighting an enemy that does not follow the rules! On the other hand, Britain conquered Ireland about 800 years ago. Then, the killing started. This went on for centuries, with Catholics being dragged out of their houses and murdered every week. It pinnacled when Britain withheld food during the Great Hunger, starving millions of Irish to death. A generation or two later, in 1916, a select few Irish citizens said they had enough and rebelled in Dublin city. Instead of negotiating, instead of using the police action needed to destroy the understrengthed rising, they brought in troops FROM THE FRONTS IN THE WAR to MASSACRE, UNDER THE DIRECT ORDER OF GENERAL JOHN GRENFALL MAXWELL, ANY IRISH MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD SEEN. And all America did was send in troops to destroy the Iraqi military and Saddam Hussein. Go to http://users.bigpond.../kirwilli/1916/ to see more info, mine is not entirely accurate because I am very, very angry at the way you are portraying America, where I currently live. You are assholes. You think I am a coward, well then COME AND GET ME! And we'll see who is a match for who! Don't tell me to calm down either, I am defending America, and I am no even an American citizen. Only I am grateful for their sacrifice to make the world safer, huh? Britain, you never had the guts to do what the Americans have done: they stood up to the Soviets when you just sat there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users