Why Did America Attack Iraq?

Intrepid wrote:

Good question, JustWonders. I was wondering too.

Just a hunch, but I'd be willing to guess the poster also thinks the levees in New Orleans were also blown up deliberately Smile

There are more of the Kool Aid drinking loonies than I first thought, LOL.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
You dug yourself out just fine! I have no problem with anyone that has problems with America or things Americans do. We all have the right to voice our opinions. I just find it very offensive when someone does it in a manner that is very demeaning to others.

I think anyone can get their views across without demeaning or ridiculing anyone. I just don't think that is the right thing for anyone to do.
Momma Angel,

I have read through all the posts here. Who are you saying is demeaning? Finn D'Buzz? He certainly seems to be ridiculing the post from english major. I thought english major had some good posts and I did not see that there posts were demeaning, if that is who you meant? I am new here and maybe should say nothing yet. I just thought what Finn D'Buzz said at the end of his post was unnecessary and mean spirited.

Call me Finn.

Your newness should in no way inhibit your writing (as if it did).

Do you mean this:

Quote:

Imagine someone castigating the Canadian people because they have not, as a group, done something which an American feels they should. My bet is that it would really frost your ample ass. Now examine what you have written.

Check out Englishmajor's avatar. Ample, no?

0 Replies

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Good question, JustWonders. I was wondering too.

Just a hunch, but I'd be willing to guess the poster also thinks the levees in New Orleans were also blown up deliberately

There are more of the Kool Aid drinking loonies than I first thought, LOL.

Why isn't it enough that there are people running America who, for their own selfish interests, take advantage of a terrorist attack on this nation to justify an invasion in the Middle East? Why do these same bastards have to be truly evil bastards who staged the terrorist attack in the first place?

Why isn't it enough that there are powerful racists who have systematically placed poor black people in the most vulnerable of positions in America. Why do these same fiends have to be truly evil fiends who deliberately blew up the levees to flood the aforementioned poor black people?

What's the story here?

In for a penny; in for a pound?

Usually, these are the same people who entreat us to not be so judgmental about foreign tyrants.

There is a complex stew of self-loathing and sanctimonious smugness simmering on this stove.

0 Replies

Finn - seriously - I admire your ability to not get upset at some things.

I would take one point in issue though. "Ample" is frequently a eupehmism for "big" which is a euphemism for "fat". If that avatar has a fat rear end I need my computer checked Very Happy

Sorry for the drift, please resume normal hostile relations Razz

0 Replies

Glad you provided that succinct refresher, Anonymouse. Hadn't seen you around here in a while.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Good question, JustWonders. I was wondering too.

Just a hunch, but I'd be willing to guess the poster also thinks the levees in New Orleans were also blown up deliberately

There are more of the Kool Aid drinking loonies than I first thought, LOL.

Why isn't it enough that there are people running America who, for their own selfish interests, take advantage of a terrorist attack on this nation to justify an invasion in the Middle East? Why do these same bastards have to be truly evil bastards who staged the terrorist attack in the first place?

Why isn't it enough that there are powerful racists who have systematically placed poor black people in the most vulnerable of positions in America. Why do these same fiends have to be truly evil fiends who deliberately blew up the levees to flood the aforementioned poor black people?

What's the story here?

In for a penny; in for a pound?

Usually, these are the same people who entreat us to not be so judgmental about foreign tyrants.

There is a complex stew of self-loathing and sanctimonious smugness simmering on this stove.

Self loathing and sanctimonious smugness simmering on the stove! No! However, someone's avatar does not necessarily mean that is how they look, does it? Anyway, where is this thread going! Very Happy

0 Replies

Dunno but I'm going to find the "what does your avatar mean" thread..there must be one :wink:

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Momma Angel, I am disappointed in you, of all people! I have read many threads and gather you are Christian? Yet you can agree with what Finn Duh Buzz said and even laugh at his vulgar use of language concerning someone's avatar? Ohhhhhh.....bad. Shame on you!

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Momma Angel, I am disappointed in you, of all people! I have read many threads and gather you are Christian? Yet you can agree with what Finn Duh Buzz said and even laugh at his vulgar use of language concerning someone's avatar? Ohhhhhh.....bad. Shame on you!

pachelbel,

I was not agreeing with what Finn said. And what I was laughing at was his use of the word ample.

And yes, pachelbel, I am Christian. I am also human and I also have a sense of humor. I got a giggle out of one little word he used and unfortunately, I didn't make that very clear.

Being Christian doesn't mean being perfect. Disappointed in me? Why? Sweetie, never ever put someone above being able to make mistakes or disagree with you. You will find you will always be disappointed.

And Finn, I do not agree with most of what you say. I just did get a giggle out of your use of the word. Plain and simple.

0 Replies

Well, I guess I missed something here. I thought this thread was about why America attacked Iraq, not about someone's avatar? I suppose if Finn does not have a valid argument, then he resorts to name calling? Finn, could we get back on the subject? BTW I checked the avatar in question - no ampleness there!

0 Replies

good point pache

I'll give my answer as to why America attacked Iraq.

Oil.

The trial of Saddam Hussein is just starting. There's a delay on the feed to facilitate censorship. If we were allowed to hear him, I wonder what his answer would be to this question?

0 Replies

oil

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

good point pache

I'll give my answer as to why America attacked Iraq.

Oil.

The trial of Saddam Hussein is just starting. There's a delay on the feed to facilitate censorship. If we were allowed to hear him, I wonder what his answer would be to this question?

We heard Saddam on TV (BBC) today. His reason for not replying to the Judge's question was that "this court/trial is not legal". He may have a point, since the war was/is illegal! I believe Saddam is also a lawyer? What I heard/read somewhere. Then we watched CNN to compare reports on the same issue: all they did was show a few photos of Saddam, no speech, and show Iraqi refugees in the U.S. saying Saddam should be killed for war crimes. Quite different news reporting and possibly why the Americans are clueless about so many things......even though I agree that Saddam is guilty I think Americans deserve the right to hear what he has to say. But then, they have access to BBC as well.

0 Replies

This is an extract from Dr Colin Campbell's submission to the UK government.

"Geopolitical consequences

The uneven distribution of conventional oil in Nature is illustrated in Fig 4. Approximately half of what is left to produce lies in the swing countries of the middle east. It is evident that the United States, whose indigenous production has been in decline for thirty years, without hope of reprieve, has a desperate need to secure control of foreign oil. Indeed, access to such oil has long been officially classed as a vital national interest, justifying military intervention where necessary. Whereas in the past such a policy was designed to meet the threat of short politically inspired interruptions, now it faces the iron grip of depletion as the nations of the world vie with each other for critical supplies. Under the principle of globalism, resources anywhere are supposed to be accessible to the highest bidder, but as shortages appear, producing countries may find it expedient to conserve their resources for themselves, further exacerbating the compettion for imports by others in need. The United Kingdom itself is not immune. With flat demand, consumption will exceed production by around 2007, with the percentage of imports set to rise to 20% in 2010, 50% in 2020, and 95% in 2050."

0 Replies

Very interesting, indeed. Of course that is why there is a war in Iraq. I am trying to convince someone on another thread that 9/11 was planned well before in order to get Americans whipped up to such a patriotic fever that they'd want to go to war. Which they did. America is desperate for oil and will stop at nothing to get it.

The next war I see on the horizon, I think, will be for fresh water........

0 Replies

Agree with you, Steve. The other option is alternative fuel sources, but how can that be done with the oil companies standing in the way?

English major, what do you mean by a war for fresh water?

0 Replies

China wants more more more.

Interesting lead article in the Independent today about that.

China Crisis: threat to the global environment
Spectacular growth now biggest threat to environment
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 19 October 2005

Western politicians queue up to sing its praises. Economists regard it with awe and delight. Other countries are desperate to imitate it. Yet there is another side to China's exploding, double-digit-growth miracle economy - it is turning into one of the greatest environmental threats the earth has ever faced.
An ominous sign of the danger is given in a groundbreaking report from Greenpeace, published today, which maintains that China is now by far the world's biggest driver of rainforest destruction. The report documents the vast deforestation driven by the soaring demands of China's enormous timber trade - the world's largest - as the country's headlong economic development sucks in ever-more amounts of the earth's natural resources.

(more at)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article320565.ece

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

The other option is alternative fuel sources, but how can that be done with the oil companies standing in the way?

They are not exactly standing in the way. British Petroleum for instance now markets itself as "Beyond Petroleum". [Just ask yourself, if you were a stock holder in BP would you not be a little discouraged by that slogan?]

The world is facing an unparalleled cricis of peak oil. There are technical solutions long term (and it will involve conservation and developing other fuels), but peak oil is about to hit in the next 5-10 years, and conventional oil is just so easy that we have become addicted to using it. The difficult period will be over the next 20 years as nations have to learn to adjust to depleting oil. What the US is doing is making that transition as painless for themselves as possible by deployment of their military assets in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything becomes clear when set against the backdrop of peak oil.

0 Replies

McTag.Pachelbel, and English major:

That nothing was done about the world crisis of oil, especially after the last 20 years...methinks there are people gettin' money for us not to conserve and change our ways here in the USof A. Just a thought....BTW, love your posts.

0 Replies

and Steve (as 41oo) too! Too bad you are not a Scot...then I would really "loove ya".

0 Replies

Why Did America Attack Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know