TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A new target for Weapons Inspections
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But economic gain was such that without the assault Iraq would go bankrupt. And Kuwait didn't want a peaceful solution there. If they'd raised the oil prices, Saddam wouldn't invade.

Right so Iraq can invade another country for oil and its ok, but when the USA tries to do it the whole world goes in flames, right?

(at least everyone that is an apologist for Iraq, seems to think oil is the only reason the US is doing their plans for Iraq)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Stop Blabbering BS. BUSH IS THE LEGITAMATE PRESIDENT OF THE USA! There are a set of laws that must be followed. The SUPREME COURT of the USA sided in GWB favor. If the highest court of the land can't interpert the laws of the constitution and laws the congressmen of the United States of America made, then you are right, Bush is illegitimate. Just like every other single law, constitutional or regardless ever made invented or what not in the USA. Just like the speeding limit, taxes... they're all illegal usuing your logic! Come on John, I expected more from you then this. That's just one point that therefore leads your assumptions incorrectly. The second to 2 and 3. The USA honors the NON-PROLIFERATION PACT which it signed, and has let external monitors witness its compliance with it. Futher it has honoured hundreds of other international and multi-national treaties, which I am sure I can list a bunch of them for you if you really really like. Why, what international treaties did it violate exactly that you or they were reffering to?

republicans...

quote:

Right so Iraq can invade another country for oil and its ok, but when the USA tries to do it the whole world goes in flames, right?

Because for Iraq, it was another country sabotaging their economy and bringing Iraq close to being bankrupt.

For the US it's diverting public attention from failing economy to external affairs, while boosting military industry, while in the process destroying disobedient government in oil rich areas.

First case was a question of a country's independent survival, the second is solving internal problems by attacking another country.

Besides, if it weren't for oil, do you think US would care so much about middle east?
Why isn't it involved in Africa, where there are many more wars, more suffering, more radical regimes, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Because for Iraq, it was another country sabotaging their economy and bringing Iraq close to being bankrupt. For the US it's diverting public attention from failing economy to external affairs, while boosting military industry, while in the process destroying disobedient government in oil rich areas. First case was a question of a country's independent survival, the second is solving internal problems by attacking another country. Besides, if it weren't for oil, do you think US would care so much about middle east? Why isn't it involved in Africa, where there are many more wars, more suffering, more radical regimes, etc...

Ok how is Kuwait sabotaging Iraq's economy??? The reason why Iraq was so heavily in debt was because they needed to finance their war against Iran. Are you saying that because I have student loans and banks are trying to collect on me that I can go in with guns and rob the bank to pay off my student loans? Gimme a break, Iraq is at fault for the mess they got themselves into. I wasn't aware that military force is a ok when countries are financially unstable. And do you really think that bush sits around concocting wars to distract the american people from an economic depression??? A) I can't believe you think that Bush and his advisors conclude that the best and only way to improve the economy is to go to war with another country. B) I'm insulted by your perception of American people as being dumb enough to fall for that kind of crap. And C) If we're that self centered about going to war during times of economic crises why would we fight the first Iraqi war, interfere in Bosnia, and get into a mess in Somalia at a time when our economy is booming?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Come on John, I expected more from you then this.

hehe.

JohnSmith, you just dont stop heh??

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer republicans...

imo, if liberals had valid statements, they would be called conservative



democrats.....socialists?

>JM<

quote:

Ok how is Kuwait sabotaging Iraq's economy??? The reason why Iraq was so heavily in debt was because they needed to finance their war against Iran. Are you saying that because I have student loans and banks are trying to collect on me that I can go in with guns and rob the bank to pay off my student loans? Gimme a break, Iraq is at fault for the mess they got themselves into. I wasn't aware that military force is a ok when countries are financially unstable. And do you really think that bush sits around concocting wars to distract the american people from an economic depression??? A) I can't believe you think that Bush and his advisors conclude that the best and only way to improve the economy is to go to war with another country. B) I'm insulted by your perception of American people as being dumb enough to fall for that kind of crap. And C) If we're that self centered about going to war during times of economic crises why would we fight the first Iraqi war, interfere in Bosnia, and get into a mess in Somalia at a time when our economy is booming?

Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi economy because after Iraq-Iran war, it radically dropped its oil prices with a sole reason to make Iraq completely bankrupt. I agree with the part that it's Iraqs fault that they got into what they got, though. But Kuwait was trying to capitalize on that.
a) It is because it boosts military industry which otherwise suffers.
b) If you don't think americans are dumb enough, know then that only 13% of them between ages 18 and 24 know where Iraq is, and that is a National Geographic survey, not an anti-american one. The news reports in US are somewhat biased, and not very thorough.
c) That was Clinton, not Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi economy because after Iraq-Iran war, it radically dropped its oil prices with a sole reason to make Iraq completely bankrupt. I agree with the part that it's Iraqs fault that they got into what they got, though. But Kuwait was trying to capitalize on that. a) It is because it boosts military industry which otherwise suffers. b) If you don't think americans are dumb enough, know then that only 13% of them between ages 18 and 24 know where Iraq is, and that is a National Geographic survey, not an anti-american one. The news reports in US are somewhat biased, and not very thorough. c) That was Clinton, not Bush.

A) Yes it does boost military industry but where do you think the US gets the budget to support that? It comes out of taxpayer dollars and results in a huge budget deficiet. To think that we would in some way benefit from mass military expenditures is false. The reason why we economically benefited from wars such as WW2 was due to the ridiculous amount of loans we gave to our allies to support their war effort. Don't you think it would be far more productive to give grants or loans to service industries in the US which would provide a product or return that would benefit the American people rather than wasting money on a bomb that doesn't show any benefit after being dropped?
B) If your read my other reply ... yes that age bracket is dumb. But the US isn't a country of 18-24 year olds. If it was I would be getting laid and drunk every 20 minutes. Generally, the way society works and darwinism in general results in the fact that INTELLIGENT people are in positions of power. Therefore you can count on the fact that people here aren't going to be twiddling our thumbs in oblivous stupidity to inept attempts of manipulation by our government.
C) You are correct ... it is bush not clinton in power now. But then again the issues that are affecting bush and not clinton are at stake. How can you be sure Clinton would not react in similar manner? The no fly zones and bombings of IRAQI SAM sites went on during clinton's term of office. What are you trying to say and how can you prove that what Bush is doing Clinton wouldnt do?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.