|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 1, 2008 23:44:24 GMT -5
i think that was predictable. i also think mccain actually has a shot at winning now because of his choice of running mate. i don't care much for her politics, but when he put a cute, sexy alaskan gal on his ticket, his public stock shot through the roof. (we have a way of doing that.  ) obama can't hardly get on the news now cuz this pistol packin' mama is all the buzz. and we all know one thing for sure...sexy sells. Hey, who knows? Maybe this Alaskan politician is really Sweetpea in disguise? ;D Wouldn't surprise me at all.  no way...she's way cuter than me. and i still think you guys are naive if you don't think a profit motive is involved in the US getting into these global conflicts. there's a whole bunch of corporate money-makin machines out there that make a fortune when we mobilize our military forces and fund operations overseas. and they all have lobbyists. not to speak of all the other ways they can bring their influence to bear. you might wanna start by reading up on halliburton. very interesting corporate entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 2, 2008 3:51:58 GMT -5
I just hope that whoever wins the election in November will move to be a stabilizing power to the chaos, and not stir up more.  Well they're already doing a good job in Iraq as things are improving and there's talk of withdrawal. I heard part of Obama's speech at the DNC and he said that he'd put more troops to Afganistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But the thing is is that it's widely known that bin Laden is in Pakistan. Does that mean he'll invade Pakistan too? Obama needs to come on The O'Reilly Factor and clear some things up. He was like against the war, against drilling and now he says he'll go to Afganistan harder and maybe Pakistan? And he'd drill, but just a bit? Enough with the softball questions already. |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Sept 2, 2008 5:52:08 GMT -5
I just hope that whoever wins the election in November will move to be a stabilizing power to the chaos, and not stir up more. Well they're already doing a good job in Iraq as things are improving and there's talk of withdrawal. I heard part of Obama's speech at the DNC and he said that he'd put more troops to Afganistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But the thing is is that it's widely known that bin Laden is in Pakistan. Does that mean he'll invade Pakistan too? Obama needs to come on The O'Reilly Factor and clear some things up. He was like against the war, against drilling and now he says he'll go to Afganistan harder and maybe Pakistan? And he'd drill, but just a bit? Enough with the softball questions already. Improved? How did we improve Iraq? They don't want us there. Never did and still don't. Any of this sound familiar? After the fall of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) in 1521, Spain embarked on a period of exploration and conquest to consolidate its control of the rest of Mesoamerica. Millions of natives fell victim to western disease, for which they had no resistance. Spain and the Catholic church imposed their authority to create an economy that reflected many of the worst features of colonialism and religious authoritarianism (including the Inquisition). Spain and its European creditors derived tremendous wealth from their Indian work force, which worked on enormous agricultural estates and huge mining operations. Colonial society was broken into a tight caste system reminiscent of European feudalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 2, 2008 6:46:50 GMT -5
Overthrew Hussein's dictatorship. Vastly decresed violence over the last few months. Weaker al-Qaeda as it has been greatly damaged by the US troops. In talks to move out in 2011. I don't buy that. I saw the reception US troops get in Iraq by Iraqis and it's mostly friendly and cooperative. For some reason Michael Moore and the likes won't show that. No. Spell it out [your message or moral of this history lesson] if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 2, 2008 11:35:27 GMT -5
I will vote for McCain because I think it is less likely that he will increase taxes
|
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Sept 2, 2008 14:20:52 GMT -5
Overthrew Hussein's dictatorship. Vastly decresed violence over the last few months. Weaker al-Qaeda as it has been greatly damaged by the US troops. In talks to move out in 2011. What about all the other dictatorships in the world. Why didn't we barge in and get rid of them? There will always be terrorists. Really, why are we even there? You saw what some news place chose to broadcast. That is like saying all Americans are such and such by watching a few carefully staged news clips. I remember the carefully staged photos of native Americans in their western clothing in front of western schools "showing" how much they were enjoying their new ways they were forced to adapt to. No. Spell it out [your message or moral of this history lesson] if you wish. [/quote] I think the point is fairly obvious but I'll spell it out. Countries have been invading for financial gain for centuries. This ain't nothing new. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 2, 2008 21:12:35 GMT -5
What about all the other dictatorships in the world. Why didn't we barge in and get rid of them? There will always be terrorists. Really, why are we even there? hehe, alright. The dictarors in Africa are hurting only their country. There you're talking about countries that are hardly out of apathy. They're a danger only to themselfs. But these terrorists organisations in the middle east are a threat to the whole world because the hatred is acted out and, in some cases, carefully planned and excecuted to perfection. So if they get nukes, and get the know-how, it would be all gone. All reports at the time, in 2003 indicated that there were WMDs in Iraq. If Bush had a time machine he probably wouldn't have done it, but it is what it is. Sure, with the magic of editing I can make you look like an anorexic right winger. That doesn't prove your point, but only shows that you watched more anti-war segments than anything else.Hence my criticizm of media; they say that they "Only reflect public opinion" but take little responsibility for creating public opinion, which is what they do. That's a thin air proposition. I think what you're saying is: "War for profit ain't nothing new, and because I don't like this war, it has to be true." I just don't get it. If that were true and there was any proof at all Bush and co would be outta there and worse than Milosevic. Inderectly what you guys are saying is that Bush is so hartless that he'd kill other people just so he and his buddies could profit, and that would, you know, put him in the same league a Osama bin Laden, the only difference being that Osama does it for Jihad.. Not to mention, The New York Times and other anti-Bush outlets would run with the story as soon as the evidence hit the desk. Bush is the good guy here. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 2, 2008 22:31:08 GMT -5
That's a thin air proposition. I think what you're saying is: "War for profit ain't nothing new, and because I don't like this war, it has to be true." I just don't get it. If that were true and there was any proof at all Bush and co would be outta there and worse than Milosevic. Inderectly what you guys are saying is that Bush is so hartless that he'd kill other people just so he and his buddies could profit, and that would, you know, put him in the same league a Osama bin Laden, the only difference being that Osama does it for Jihad.. Not to mention, The New York Times and other anti-Bush outlets would run with the story as soon as the evidence hit the desk. Bush is the good guy here. OMG, i can't get over how naive you are! how much research have you done into his family's history? his financial/business involvements? or those of his vp? or those of his cabinet? his advisors? what do you know about the american military-industrial complex? the lobbying, bribing and cronyism that goes on constantly between the bush administration and the 'defense' contractors? do your research.  |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 3, 2008 6:55:03 GMT -5
That's a thin air proposition. I think what you're saying is: "War for profit ain't nothing new, and because I don't like this war, it has to be true." I just don't get it. If that were true and there was any proof at all Bush and co would be outta there and worse than Milosevic. Inderectly what you guys are saying is that Bush is so hartless that he'd kill other people just so he and his buddies could profit, and that would, you know, put him in the same league a Osama bin Laden, the only difference being that Osama does it for Jihad.. Not to mention, The New York Times and other anti-Bush outlets would run with the story as soon as the evidence hit the desk. Bush is the good guy here. OMG, i can't get over how naive you are! how much research have you done into his family's history? his financial/business involvements? or those of his vp? or those of his cabinet? his advisors? what do you know about the american military-industrial complex? the lobbying, bribing and cronyism that goes on constantly between the bush administration and the 'defense' contractors? do your research. Contractors are a part of any war nowdays. If I am naive for thinking that Bush is not at war for money then I am naive in your eyes, yes!  I don't think those websites that spin Bush's business involments into killing for money have any credibility, nor do they have any idea what's going on, other than their own anti-war agenda and the way they view the world in which America is the terrorist. Who's the terrorist again? Al -Queda, Taliban , Hamas, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 3, 2008 7:49:54 GMT -5
Naptaq what exactly was the connection between iraq and terrorism?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 3, 2008 8:53:17 GMT -5
Contractors are a part of any war nowdays. what kind of argument is that?  I don't think those websites that spin Bush's business involments into killing for money have any credibility, nor do they have any idea what's going on, other than their own anti-war agenda and the way they view the world in which America is the terrorist. what is it with you and websites? you're the one talking about websites all the time. don't forget, i actually LIVE in the US. i have a different perspective. i'm not hardly relying on websites alone to form my opinions. perhaps you are. all the numbers i've posted in this thread have come from US government websites. and to a thinking person, an analysis of the budget reveals alot about a government's priorities. you know, you're coming across as someone who wouldn't believe anything bad about bush even if the live evidence was right under his nose. i'm wondering how a citizen of another country ended up with such a blindly pro-american allegience. what's your story anyways? |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 3, 2008 15:42:00 GMT -5
Naptaq what exactly was the connection between iraq and terrorism? WMDs, that weren't there which is the failure of the intelligence. Still a lot of terrorist in that area -- better fight them there than to wait for them in New York, again. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 3, 2008 15:58:06 GMT -5
what is it with you and websites? you're the one talking about websites all the time. don't forget, i actually LIVE in the US. i have a different perspective. i'm not hardly relying on websites alone to form my opinions. perhaps you are. all the numbers i've posted in this thread have come from US government websites. and to a thinking person, an analysis of the budget reveals alot about a government's priorities. you know, you're coming across as someone who wouldn't believe anything bad about bush even if the live evidence was right under his nose. i'm wondering how a citizen of another country ended up with such a blindly pro-american allegience. what's your story anyways? Sure, war costs a lot more than diplomacy, and the cost has been great on the American people. hehe, now I'm blind. Ok. Anyone who disagrees on this issue is blind. And sorry, no story. back to the elections.. Have you seen the nasty attacks on Ms. Palin lately? Even P.Diddy went along with the dirt throwing. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 3, 2008 16:31:38 GMT -5
what terrorists? what area? is this all the explanation you need to justify invading a sovereign country?
can you answer this question: what was the connection between Iraq and terrorism before the war?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 3, 2008 17:34:35 GMT -5
what is it with you and websites? you're the one talking about websites all the time. don't forget, i actually LIVE in the US. i have a different perspective. i'm not hardly relying on websites alone to form my opinions. perhaps you are. all the numbers i've posted in this thread have come from US government websites. and to a thinking person, an analysis of the budget reveals alot about a government's priorities. you know, you're coming across as someone who wouldn't believe anything bad about bush even if the live evidence was right under his nose. i'm wondering how a citizen of another country ended up with such a blindly pro-american allegience. what's your story anyways? Sure, war costs a lot more than diplomacy, and the cost has been great on the American people. hehe, now I'm blind. Ok. Anyone who disagrees on this issue is blind. And sorry, no story. back to the elections.. Have you seen the nasty attacks on Ms. Palin lately? Even P.Diddy went along with the dirt throwing. seriously, what country do you live in? how much time have you spent in the US? what are your opinions based on besides the websites you read that you've mentioned? |
|
) obama can't hardly get on the news now cuz this pistol packin' mama is all the buzz. and we all know one thing for sure...sexy sells.
