Topic: Inaugration Address

[TheScout]

We went there because they have oil, and we want it.  Simple as that.

[snapback]146744[/snapback]

That's just another example of a Democrat biased view of Bush's administration. You all just cant admit for one second that Bush actually had a purpose in going to Iraq, it always has to be something. If he didn't own an oil company Democrats wouldnt be saying that, they'd find some other excuse.
I may be completely off there. If I am, show me some reliable evidence that Bush went to Iraq for oil.

[snapback]146756[/snapback]

Exactly.

Just how to do you tell a left wing extremist they are wrong?

[TheScout]

We went there because they have oil, and we want it.  Simple as that.

[snapback]146744[/snapback]

That's just another example of a Democrat biased view of Bush's administration. You all just cant admit for one second that Bush actually had a purpose in going to Iraq, it always has to be something. If he didn't own an oil company Democrats wouldnt be saying that, they'd find some other excuse.
I may be completely off there. If I am, show me some reliable evidence that Bush went to Iraq for oil.

[snapback]146756[/snapback]

Iraq has 11% of the oil on earth.  After 9/11, the goverment had solidified enough support (or fear) within the country to accomplish near anything for "safety".  The government could easily make the country think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  So, 2+2=4.  War = Oil.

[snapback]146770[/snapback]

That's what i've been trying to tell you, but you didn't believe me to now...

[cmonkey]

Im just gonna end my comments here (well, maybe XD) with this:
I predict that in the next 4 years something good will happen in Iraq that will make you all realize that Bush made the right decision in invading Iraq. His ways of going about it will always be questioned, but the end result will, hopefully, be great.

[snapback]146730[/snapback]

Yep, oh joy.  It'll be a regular Vietnam.  30+ years later, and it's a Communist dictatorship.

Many of you are too trusting in the government.  We didn't go into Iraq because they had WMD.  We knew they didn't (our reconniasence and intelligence isn't that horrid), though it would be foolish to admit it.  We didn't go in because they had a dictator.  There are dozens of countries, especially in Africa and East Asia that have much, much worse governments.  Governments that allow genocides of hundreds of thousands of women and children.  We went there because they have oil, and we want it.  Simple as that.

[snapback]146744[/snapback]

Then how to you explain our occupation of Baghdad and the northern citys instead of just building a fort around all the oil in the south?

Why are we sacrificing American lives for something we really don't care about?  :dry:

[snapback]146754[/snapback]

Common sense.  We can't invade half of a country and expect the other half to leave it at that.  Obviously Saddam would have had a reason to constantly attack the other half of Iraq.  If you're taking over a country, you have to plan to take over all of it.

[snapback]146763[/snapback]

Let me restate,

Why do we still have troops in the northern citys?

Why don't we just draw a line, build a while... and declare the southern part of Iraq the 51st state since all we care about is oil!  ::Dolphin Noise::, lets go annex Saudi Arabia!

[snapback]146768[/snapback]

In case you didn't know, the oil pipelines go through the entire country, north to south.  In addition, without subdueing the country, you can't set up shop.  There is no reason to declare it the 51st state.  I realize you're being facetious,  but the rest of the world (they exist you know) would never allow true colonization of another country.  Instead, we have corperate colonization.  We repair the country, we get to buy the oil.  The difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia is that we're getting oil from Saudi Arabia already.  We weren't getting it from Iraq.

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

Iraq has 11% of the oil on earth.  After 9/11, the goverment had solidified enough support (or fear) within the country to accomplish near anything for "safety".  The government could easily make the country think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  So, 2+2=4.  War = Oil.

[snapback]146770[/snapback]

I'll admit, WMDs could have been used as a coverup to keep Americans in support of the war, but I really do think the Government saw them as a big issue. That's the mistake they made - not telling us the major reason they were invading Iraq. That said, that's still not a reliable source of information showing that we invaded Iraq for oil. We invaded it because we wanted to make it a free country.

[cmonkey]

Iraq has 11% of the oil on earth.  After 9/11, the goverment had solidified enough support (or fear) within the country to accomplish near anything for "safety".  The government could easily make the country think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  So, 2+2=4.  War = Oil.

[snapback]146770[/snapback]

I'll admit, WMDs could have been used as a coverup to keep Americans in support of the war, but I really do think the Government saw them as a big issue. That's the mistake they made - not telling us the major reason they were invading Iraq. That said, that's still not a reliable source of information showing that we invaded Iraq for oil. We invaded it because we wanted to make it a free country.

[snapback]146774[/snapback]

No, I don't believe that is true, mainly because we know of dozens of countries in much worse shape than Iraq.  Most of the African continent is in worse shape.  Besides, you can spend $100 billion taking over a country, or you can spend it educating people about the dangers of AIDS.  One takes lives, one saves them.

[TheScout]

Im just gonna end my comments here (well, maybe XD) with this:
I predict that in the next 4 years something good will happen in Iraq that will make you all realize that Bush made the right decision in invading Iraq. His ways of going about it will always be questioned, but the end result will, hopefully, be great.

[snapback]146730[/snapback]

Yep, oh joy.  It'll be a regular Vietnam.  30+ years later, and it's a Communist dictatorship.

Many of you are too trusting in the government.  We didn't go into Iraq because they had WMD.  We knew they didn't (our reconniasence and intelligence isn't that horrid), though it would be foolish to admit it.  We didn't go in because they had a dictator.  There are dozens of countries, especially in Africa and East Asia that have much, much worse governments.  Governments that allow genocides of hundreds of thousands of women and children.  We went there because they have oil, and we want it.  Simple as that.

[snapback]146744[/snapback]

Then how to you explain our occupation of Baghdad and the northern citys instead of just building a fort around all the oil in the south?

Why are we sacrificing American lives for something we really don't care about?  :dry:

[snapback]146754[/snapback]

Common sense.  We can't invade half of a country and expect the other half to leave it at that.  Obviously Saddam would have had a reason to constantly attack the other half of Iraq.  If you're taking over a country, you have to plan to take over all of it.

[snapback]146763[/snapback]

Let me restate,

Why do we still have troops in the northern citys?

Why don't we just draw a line, build a while... and declare the southern part of Iraq the 51st state since all we care about is oil!  ::Dolphin Noise::, lets go annex Saudi Arabia!

[snapback]146768[/snapback]

In case you didn't know, the oil pipelines go through the entire country, north to south.  In addition, without subdueing the country, you can't set up shop.  There is no reason to declare it the 51st state.  I realize you're being facetious, but try to open up that cement skull of yours and learn a little.  The rest of the world (they exist you know) would never allow true colonization of another country.  Instead, we have corperate colonization.  We repair the country, we get to buy the oil.  The difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia is that we're getting oil from Saudi Arabia already.  We weren't getting it from Iraq.

[snapback]146773[/snapback]

Since you apparently know something about cement, I will ask the question this way.

If Bush were a major stockholder in a cement company and he invaded Iraq, would you accuse him of going to get sand to make cement?

[cmonkey]

Dont confuse your analogies.  We have plenty of sand of our own, but not enough oil.

Also, I don't believe Bush started a war to improve his own financial situation.  That would be ludicrous.  He started it to improve America's financial situation.  I realize that this war will eventually make our country stronger and richer, but it will be at the expense of a large part of the rest of the world.

[TheScout]

Iraq has 11% of the oil on earth.  After 9/11, the goverment had solidified enough support (or fear) within the country to accomplish near anything for "safety".  The government could easily make the country think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  So, 2+2=4.  War = Oil.

[snapback]146770[/snapback]

I'll admit, WMDs could have been used as a coverup to keep Americans in support of the war, but I really do think the Government saw them as a big issue. That's the mistake they made - not telling us the major reason they were invading Iraq. That said, that's still not a reliable source of information showing that we invaded Iraq for oil. We invaded it because we wanted to make it a free country.

[snapback]146774[/snapback]

No, I don't believe that is true, mainly because we know of dozens of countries in much worse shape than Iraq.  Most of the African continent is in worse shape.  Besides, you can spend $100 billion taking over a country, or you can spend it educating people about the dangers of AIDS.  One takes lives, one saves them.

[snapback]146775[/snapback]

Have you ever thought he didn't want to open up another can of worms?

Bush may have wanted to get the middle east on the road to peace before getting more rebels in Africa po'ed at us.  Israel exists, we can't just leave the middle east to help Africa, and maybe he didn't want us to be using that many resources abroad...

But if he did, you would be mad at him because of something going on at home!

[TheScout]

Dont confuse your analogies.  We have plenty of sand of our own, but not enough oil.

Also, I don't believe Bush started a war to improve his own financial situation.  That would be ludicrous.  He started it to improve America's financial situation.  I realize that this war will eventually make our country stronger and richer, but it will be at the expense of a large part of the rest of the world.

[snapback]146777[/snapback]

I don't see this war as an expense on the rest of the world.

Also, isn't it the presidents job to help make OUR country safer and stronger?

[cmonkey]

Iraq has 11% of the oil on earth.  After 9/11, the goverment had solidified enough support (or fear) within the country to accomplish near anything for "safety".  The government could easily make the country think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  So, 2+2=4.  War = Oil.

[snapback]146770[/snapback]

I'll admit, WMDs could have been used as a coverup to keep Americans in support of the war, but I really do think the Government saw them as a big issue. That's the mistake they made - not telling us the major reason they were invading Iraq. That said, that's still not a reliable source of information showing that we invaded Iraq for oil. We invaded it because we wanted to make it a free country.

[snapback]146774[/snapback]

No, I don't believe that is true, mainly because we know of dozens of countries in much worse shape than Iraq.  Most of the African continent is in worse shape.  Besides, you can spend $100 billion taking over a country, or you can spend it educating people about the dangers of AIDS.  One takes lives, one saves them.

[snapback]146775[/snapback]

Have you ever thought he didn't want to open up another can of worms?

Bush may have wanted to get the middle east on the road to peace before getting more rebels in Africa po'ed at us.  Israel exists, we can't just leave the middle east to help Africa, and maybe he didn't want us to be using that many resources abroad...

But if he did, you would be mad at him because of something going on at home!

[snapback]146778[/snapback]

Africa has been a much larger problem than the Middle East in the 21st century.  In fact, the two main problems in the Middle East were the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Saudi Arabia harboring terrorists.  Invading Iraq did not help either situation.

I would not be mad at him for spending $100 billion on foreign aid.  We are by far the richest nation on earth.  We can afford to help those less fortunate.+

While it is the President's job to make our country safer, foremost, then stronger, being the President of the world's only superpower also gives him the responsibility of doing what is best for the world.  Invading Iraq was not best for the world, and it has actually made our country less safe.

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

How old are you? Sorry, I generally use "kid" as a pet name for anyone. I've even used it on middle age adults I think.

Edit: I know for sure I've used it on my friend who has the exact same birthday as me.

I'll stop though, lol.

[snapback]146749[/snapback]

Im only a few months older than you, I just thought you were referring to me as a "kid" like I was one of the 10-13 year olds that go here. It's all cleared up now, though XD

[Elizabeth Rose]

Ok, I thought you had to be around my age somewhere. The grammar is too good!