97 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

operation Iraqi Liberatain has the intials OIL, again i highlight this out 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's Operation Iraqi Freedom. Get it right again.

[chemical ali]

Obliteration Iraq finaliasation? how about that

[Daeda]

Isnt it ironic that Iraqi peopel have to wait in lines for hours if not days to get a jerrican of oil, en then to think the oil is there for the Iraqi's.. then why dont they get it!?

[Beowulf]

To sum up the thread, thisis why the US goes to war

1. Money
2. Oil
3. Some stupid muslim guys killed 3000-5000 americans so some 100000  muslims have to die in return.

No offense, but this is clearly bullshit. We spend more money on this stupid, pain in the ass 'war' than we gain, our gas prices go up and down like a French whore and it wasn't just Americans that died in the WTC bombing. Note the word WORLD; it was many ethnicites and races working there, not just Americans.

[Banshee]

I've made some cleanense here. Keep this on topic and any kind of insult I see here will have serious consequences.


Behave, children!

[spider-man_2099]

LMAO!
Do you know ANYTHING about bussiness? accounting? economics? your reply clearly states you don't, so I'll try explaining to you in "simple" terms.

A guy want to open a store, first he pays rent for the place, then starts buying some "fixed" things, like shelves some chairs, etc. Then he buys some goods, which will be his stock, (this means stuff that he will sell), then he goes to another guy, this other guy makes posters, he pays him to make some nice looking posters for his store.

Now the store opens, the guy actually spent alot of money, his probably in debt, and probably will still be for the next year, but after that, he probably will make more money each year than he paid to open the store.

As for the wtc bombing? what the hell did that come from? what does iraq has do with it? enlighten me please...

[Jorg40]

Sorry...

[MSpencer]

Economics and the fundamental basis of capitalism has what to do with the topic at hand?

[spider-man_2099]

To sum up the thread, thisis why the US goes to war

1. Money
2. Oil
3. Some stupid muslim guys killed 3000-5000 americans so some 100000  muslims have to die in return.

No offense, but this is clearly bullshit. We spend more money on this stupid, pain in the ass 'war' than we gain, our gas prices go up and down like a French whore and it wasn't just Americans that died in the WTC bombing. Note the word WORLD; it was many ethnicites and races working there, not just Americans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That

[MSpencer]

I still don't get your point, or lack thereof.

[chemical ali]

Back to topic, state of union adress suggests that Iran and Syria are next.....

[spider-man_2099]

I still don't get your point, or lack thereof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh I'm sorry, you need a functioning human brain for that.

[duke_Qa]

i created a renegade train which is completely off track!

personally, i don't see how USA would survive another war in the middle east in the near future. sure, they got a ton of soldiers down there right now, and many hawks are prolly thinking "its better to clean up good rather than going home and back again later".

but if USA is gonna attack again, i bet that they WILL need more manpower, and one of the major points in the presidential elections was that a draft was out of the question. now imagine the amount of people who would explode if bush tried on something like that after giving his word on it not happening...

and secondly, other countries around the world, which view on the USA is already sinking(not everybody hates you yet, it just seems that way with the media.) , another attack would be devestating for your public relations, and most likely allied support unless the reasons are extremely good.


ironically as it might seem, a new terrorist attack might just be what bush needs for another invasion. forgive me if this is a bit controversial, but think what would happen if some nutcases managed to kill another 3-5000 americans in a suicide action or even worse, one they survive and can taunt you from. blowing up a nuclear powerplant, explosives in subway-stations, whatever that kills alot of people.

reaction: the american people would demand that the people behind it should be killed. now bush says he can't do that without putting in even more big-brother rules and a draft to get more soldiers. the people would most likely say "yes yes, get on with it and kill those terrorist, i don't mind if you put some bugs in my house, and yes you can have my son, he should be out there killing the enemy."

one might think that Bush would smile the moment he hears the news...

[Detail]

I still don't get your point, or lack thereof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh I'm sorry, you need a functioning human brain for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

{Lightning Strikes}

spider-man_2099, For flaming, your posting powers have been removed for 3 days.


Forum Guidelines
It's not like there are 1000's of rules to remember.

[Calamity_Jones]

i knew something like that would happen (the banning)

i think bush would probably be too busy with trivial issues such as reading books to school children to care if his nation comes under attack again...

ok, to a degree i can understand the overly savage 'revenge' that america unleashed, considering that was the second serious attack on her land other than pearl harbour. nonetheless, I think the mindless destruction has incurred lots of hate.

George needs to think very carefully about his actions because he might lose his allies.

Edited by Calamity_Jones, 06 February 2005 - 09:30 PM.

[theliberator]

I doubt, that the USA want to occupy Iran, I think they would "only" launch an airtstrike against the nuclear facilities of Iran.

[Jorg40]

No, they wont. If they launch missiles on some nuclear facilitys,
then they will start WWIII.

Remember what happened on Cuba?

[MSpencer]

You don't know what you're talking about.
In the 90s, the Israelis hit Osirak, nothing came of that.
In the 60s, the Cuban Missile Crisis ended up with no bombs being dropped or missiles being launched.
We have the capability to strike nuclear facilities and level them quickly and without losing one aircraft. If we wanted to, we could simply blow up their nuclear facilities and be done with it. We do not need permission from the UN. Read the charter carefully.
As long as they pose a threat to national interests or security, they can be attacked by United States forces under limited action. We can't invade them but we can bomb them.

Edited by MSpencer, 12 February 2005 - 11:36 PM.