Technically, he's agreeing with me. However, he doesn't have to prove my points. I already have, which is something you haven't quite done yet. Again, show us all these articles about how the Lebanese declared war on Israel and how they're showing us how wonderful and nice Israel is. Also, please show us where it describes the Israelis as anything but the "scum" and "terrorists" they are (actually, a quote from one of your friend Machavelli X's reps). Remember, that evil Zionist propaganda is all over the American news media (your words). Let's get to it. Five minutes of googling should do the trick, Shotokan. Merged Post: Oh, hell, that's a funny one. See, the only people really bringing oil/gas up are you and the rest of those who accuse the US of waging a war of agression to a. get resources, b. oppress the Iraqis, c. wage a war to avenge daddy's failure, or d. all of the above, and of course those who decide to take the bait and respond to it. See, we don't necessarily care about it quite enough to invade a country over it. We could wean ourselves off of the oil, but with that would come the bitching from all of the identical soccer moms in all of their identical SUVs with all the identical "Save The Whales" stickers plastered on the rear bumpers. See, we have tons up in Alaska. Only problem is we (and by "we," I mean the minority that complain and make an uproar about it every time we propose doing so) don't want to destroy a little nature reserve that happens to be larger than the state of Massachusetts. Using a combination of that large field and the fun-filled reserves of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we could be independant of Middle Eastern oil in a matter of a year. But hey, why do that when we can invade a country that was, at the height of Saddam's power, third in the oil-producing business (right behind Saudi Arabia and Kuwait)? Hell, by that logic, why didn't we just knock over Saudi Arabia? Invade a largely unpopulated nation with a ton of oil and we'd be at the top of the game until the oil runs out. Money would be flowing with the revenue we'd get from that. --- From your obvious jab at Bush, just remember that Bush can't exactly order you and your family killed on a whim . Biased, ignorant tool. I'd (-rep) you again, but to be honest I don't want my priveleges taken away for the sake of your whining.
As a side note, seeing as the topic has shifted from Iraq to Israel oppressing 95% of the world: Article is translated from Hebrew, so the English isn't always correct. See the UN Human Rights Council for more info on the resolution, or just watch the news headlines on CNN or BBC or another news source. And people wonder why there's a veto right needed. And coming from China (you know, the people who drive a needle through "unwanted" children's heads once they hit fresh air and so persecute people because of their religious beliefs that happen to believe that there is a higher being than the State), this resolution personally makes me laugh. I'm beginning to doubt the competence of an organization that can complain over Israelis using White Phosperous as smoke cover (because it happens to make thick, long-lasting white smoke in addition to burning while in contact with oxygen and sending sparks everywhere) but not raise a finger over an organization that can and does use Qassam rockets equipped with cluster munitions against civilians and largely populated cities with warheads supplied from (holy ----!) Syria, Iran, and even Russian ordinance sold to different Middle Eastern countries (or so say the serial numbers on captured shipments in Gaza and Southern Lebanon). I'm also beginning to doubt the competence of an organization that can condemn Israel for occupying and "Israelizing" territory captured in a war of agression waged against themselves (1967), but can allow members on this grand, authoritative, and completely unbiased council that include: - France, who, to this day, holds German lands "re-claimed" at the end of WW2 - China, who has annexed Tibet and a few other former nations - Turkey, who holds half of a Greek island called Cyprus - Syria, who has waged three wars of agression against the nation they're now condemning (and lost at each of them) - Lebanon, who also participated in those wars of agression - Iran, who is currently calling for the destruction of the state it's now condeming because of its heritage (oddly enough, set up by the UN), culture, and religion - Numerous central-and-northern African republics that don't exactly have the greatest record in protecting their citizens' rights Seems to me that it *may* be a tad bit biased. What do you think?
The sole reason of the Alliance of the U.S. and Israel is all the problems Israel caused after Wold War II. The Aftermath of World War II in Europe Displaced a lot of People, many of them Jews. They flocked to Jerusalem, it being their Holy Land, flocked there, and displaced a lot of Palestinians there. Then, the jews Believed that they should get their own Jewish Republic, and forced the Palestinians out. This Enraged the Muslim World. Pretty soon, all neighboring Countries to Israel, (A majority of, If Not all,) were Predominantly Muslim. They each attacked Israel. Israel calls for aid from the global community, and the U.S. Answers the call, Attempting to be the big strong peace Keeper.(f(0w0)f Rawr.) and backs Israel from it's neighbors. this further enrages he Muslim world, making the U.S. a target for backing a locally unpopular country, and giving it capabilities to take over its neighbors. (at one point in time during the 70's, they took the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt) Now, the U.S. returning to the Middle East and Unseating one of the More stronger Muslim countries has now made the U.S. a Bona-fied target.
if you want to get technical, the entire world is running out of oil also, the US is one fo the highest oil producers out there, and we've barely tapped into alaska(fvcking envrimoentalists...)
Why is that? Because they disagree with your obviously more mature and superiour thinking? Die, that's a strong word. I like to consider myself an independant. In fact, my voter's registration card (something I'm betting you're too young to get) says that I'm registered as one. Try again.
Honestly I was all for the war in Iraq when this first started. I was also a Christian, a republican *as much as one can without voting* and a firm believer that gay marriage was unmoral. I think that through this a lot of people have been able to look past their tags of "republican" and "democrat" to understand what's really going on has nothing to do with parties.. it has to do with certain crooked politicians who have ruined the lives of American families (e.g. Troops that have been killed, Wiretapping, Airline "security", social security, etc.) and also of certain individuals who have done nothing but serve their country (the Carl Rove CIA scandal, numerous scape coats throughout the military, civilians etc) . Also, through this I think that we can all learn to grow and mature as individuals and learn to think for ourselves outside of our little comfortable boxes of religion and party. If you don't read anything else.. read this: Just because somebody(or many persons) is in a particular party.. doesn't mean that their entire party is evil and crooked. For reference: I'm neither Republican or Democrat, My first chance to vote will be in the next election and I will look at all candidates with both criticism and hope. I'm also now an Atheist, I believe that there's nothing unholy or non-sacred about gay marriage. Fun Fact: According to the Daily Show, American has now occupied Iraq longer than it's involvement in WWII.
wise words dude... amount of air I have breathed hits record high number of traffic accidents hit new high number of times someone has posted something stupidly hits all time high. I for one consider myself an independent, though my political beliefs align more closely with that of the republican ideology. If a 3rd party candidate has a good platform I'll vote for them. If a republican has a bad one, I won't vote for them. I vote for whoever si the best man to do the job, regardless of their likelihood of winning. what I believe politically- government activities should be kept to a minimum the government should be run like a business, fast and efficient with little waste. There should be no deficit, cut costs somewhere if needed. Taxes are like expecting more out of your employees, it works for a time but if pushed too aggressively for too long you will acheive long term dissatisfaction The government should primarily regulate necessities which the private sector/individuals cannot do adequately- provide good dependable water and food, energy and transportation. Military - we need more men in it, less management, and less spent on superfluous equipment. Overall spending should be cut by a small amount, but the number of soldiers and other members should be increased moderately. most social issues- should be left to states economy- laissez faire practices within the nation with relatively high tarriffs on cheep imports. Most heavy industry should be concentrated along the easern coast - send the pollution to the bottom of the seas enviroment - I'll side with the democats in this one, we need to use it more(beleive it or not the republicans have voted to increase enviromental protection more than the democrats) though it should be done at a replenishable pace. Cut a tree, plant two.
lmao...wow. "If we wanted to steal gas...we'd throw a nuke and laugh" is so very much harder done than said. You do that, and then the U.S has serious problems with the rest of the world. So, what other way could it be done?.....hmmmm
I think its bushs's fault.. Honestly.. He sees how many americans are dieing.. but yet he refuses to stop sending them there.. When he knows more americans are going to die..
