PDA

View Full Version : Changing Principles according to our interests...


RiosTheGenius
12-09-2007, 11:18 AM
So in 2001 GW Bush claims that Osama binLaden is the head behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to have a decent excuse to place troops in afghanistan, then once there we have to come up with another excuse to get Iraq involved in this as Iraq is the real interest. There's many reasons for any empire to be interested in Iraq, not only oil. besides having huge reserves of oil (even more than Saudi Arabia as proven), Iraq has two very important rivers the Tigris and Eufrates with high reserves of water which became an issue in the 1980s when it became evident that drinkable water was becoming a problem, Iraq also has borders with Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Siria, as well as axcess to water through the Gulf... so basically, whoever controls Iraq has the key to the middle east. so don't sell me the story about helping those people to gain their democracy... Hussein has done terrible things and nobody ever did anything about it without intending to take over Iraq.
The Soviets even try to attack Afghanistan in the past and Bush father financed the actions of Osama Bin Laden against that.... CNN never told us that right. but if the soviets took over Afghanistan first, then the US would be behind, so lets send Osama a few million american tax dollars to keep the soviets away.
Then, Hussain gets ****ed and takes over Kuwait in 1990 .... only months after the US took over Panama, as Illegally. But, Bush considered this against human rights so goes over anything the UN had to say and attacks Iraq, confident that the weapons had already been quite successfully in Panama leaving thousands of citizens of that country without homes and missing family members, as well as a good grip on the canal.
who are these people kidding man.... it's unreal... or like Margaret Tatcher starting a nothing war against Argentina over the Falkland/Malvinas islands... dude there's nothing there!!!!... the only reason why she started a war was because she was losing popularity and needed to do something to be respected for, therefore, lets start a war so a few people die but we win and we don't make it look like a big deal.
people running countries are really sick people and we're sick for accomodating that.

ollinger
12-09-2007, 11:23 AM
So why do you call yourself TheGenius??

RiosTheGenius
12-09-2007, 11:24 AM
So why do you call yourself TheGenius??
yeah, thanks for your input.

10sfreak
12-09-2007, 01:24 PM
or like Margaret Tatcher starting a nothing war against Argentina over the Falkland/Malvinas islands... dude there's nothing there!!!!... the only reason why she started a war was because she was losing popularity and needed to do something to be respected for, therefore, lets start a war so a few people die but we win and we don't make it look like a big deal. - Rios
Well, the first part of your post is just too ridiculous to answer, and it's been hashed and re-hashed a thousand times on these boards, so I won't even comment on it.
But, the Falklands War is now Thatcher's fault?!?! Huh?! As I clearly recall, it was the Argentines who invaded the Falklands with no provocation, but somehow the war is Britain's fault? I guess the Persian Gulf War in '91 was GHWB's fault too, right?
Just a guess here, but you're from Argentina, right?

chess9
12-09-2007, 01:30 PM
Few people actually believe we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq. There are about half a dozen other more likely reasons. Regardless, we are a long way from having control of the country, and it being a reliable ally. We have a marriage of convenience now, but when the USA moves out of Iraq, we won't be missed by the Iraqis.

IMHO, we could leave Iraq and Afghanistan and save the lives of many Americans, and a ton of money. We aren't the world's ambulance service.

-Robert

Phil
12-09-2007, 02:17 PM
So in 2001 GW Bush claims that Osama binLaden is the head behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to have a decent excuse to place troops in afghanistan, then once there we have to come up with another excuse to get Iraq involved in this as Iraq is the real interest. There's many reasons for any empire to be interested in Iraq, not only oil. besides having huge reserves of oil (even more than Saudi Arabia as proven), Iraq has two very important rivers the Tigris and Eufrates with high reserves of water which became an issue in the 1980s when it became evident that drinkable water was becoming a problem, Iraq also has borders with Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Siria, as well as axcess to water through the Gulf... so basically, whoever controls Iraq has the key to the middle east. so don't sell me the story about helping those people to gain their democracy... Hussein has done terrible things and nobody ever did anything about it without intending to take over Iraq.
The Soviets even try to attack Afghanistan in the past and Bush father financed the actions of Osama Bin Laden against that.... CNN never told us that right. but if the soviets took over Afghanistan first, then the US would be behind, so lets send Osama a few million american tax dollars to keep the soviets away.
Then, Hussain gets ****ed and takes over Kuwait in 1990 .... only months after the US took over Panama, as Illegally. But, Bush considered this against human rights so goes over anything the UN had to say and attacks Iraq, confident that the weapons had already been quite successfully in Panama leaving thousands of citizens of that country without homes and missing family members, as well as a good grip on the canal.
who are these people kidding man.... it's unreal... or like Margaret Tatcher starting a nothing war against Argentina over the Falkland/Malvinas islands... dude there's nothing there!!!!... the only reason why she started a war was because she was losing popularity and needed to do something to be respected for, therefore, lets start a war so a few people die but we win and we don't make it look like a big deal.
people running countries are really sick people and we're sick for accomodating that.
While you make one or two good points, most of this drivel is obscured by incorrect information. I won't go into it point-by-point because there are too many errors here and not worth my time.

But, did you ever wonder why Argentina invaded the Falklands in the first place? That island was peaceful and going about its business. The reason was the unpopularity of the Argentine junta and massive unrest among the Argentines (amidst a government campaign which killed/"disappeared" over 30,000 Argentines). So Gen. Galtieri invaded the Falklands to divert attention from his failing regime. Thatcher was having popularity problems of her own and a British attack on the Argentine occupying force, as you mentioned, was just the ticket. But...what should Britain have done? Just sit there and allow an island that was essentially British become overwhelmed?

You should think these things through before posting.

RiosTheGenius
12-10-2007, 12:21 AM
Well, the first part of your post is just too ridiculous to answer, and it's been hashed and re-hashed a thousand times on these boards, so I won't even comment on it.
But, the Falklands War is now Thatcher's fault?!?! Huh?! As I clearly recall, it was the Argentines who invaded the Falklands with no provocation, but somehow the war is Britain's fault? I guess the Persian Gulf War in '91 was GHWB's fault too, right?
Just a guess here, but you're from Argentina, right?
I am not from Argentina at all... It sounds like you just go by whatever the TV tells you or your local newspaper tells you. That war was about nothing but Thatcher's popularity and the argentine's reasons for taking over were much less barbarian than any other overthrow.

RiosTheGenius
12-10-2007, 12:27 AM
While you make one or two good points, most of this drivel is obscured by incorrect information. I won't go into it point-by-point because there are too many errors here and not worth my time.

But, did you ever wonder why Argentina invaded the Falklands in the first place? That island was peaceful and going about its business. The reason was the unpopularity of the Argentine junta and massive unrest among the Argentines (amidst a government campaign which killed/"disappeared" over 30,000 Argentines). So Gen. Galtieri invaded the Falklands to divert attention from his failing regime. Thatcher was having popularity problems of her own and a British attack on the Argentine occupying force, as you mentioned, was just the ticket. But...what should Britain have done? Just sit there and allow an island that was essentially British become overwhelmed?

You should think these things through before posting.
well, doesn't everyone just go to places and take over illegally these days??... at least they never lied about what they were up to unlike the stupid fcuks in Iraq who have even convince their own citizens that they're fighting for democracy.