Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 but US did put TOO MUCH effort on it and that "effort" is too expensive So, what's the price of life nowadays. It's not $1.40 a gallon, I'll tell you that now. lets just call it "recession" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah, so... yeah, money's tight, so, yeah we can let some more people die. After all, as long as we get our pay cheques, that's fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah, so... yeah, money's tight, so, yeah we can let some more people die. After all, as long as we get our pay cheques, that's fine the war is supposed to be over, and the aftermath is "recession" suicide bombings in Iraq are mostly because of the American presence there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah, so... yeah, money's tight, so, yeah we can let some more people die. After all, as long as we get our pay cheques, that's fine the war is supposed to be over, and the aftermath is "recession" suicide bombings in Iraq are mostly because of the American presence there ONCE AGAIN.... Money more important than lives? If we hadn't gone to war and spent that money we'd be financially fine, but people would be dead. And maybe suicide bombings are because of the American presence, but it saves them doing it on my fucking doorstep, they can stick to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah, so... yeah, money's tight, so, yeah we can let some more people die. After all, as long as we get our pay cheques, that's fine the war is supposed to be over, and the aftermath is "recession" suicide bombings in Iraq are mostly because of the American presence there ONCE AGAIN.... Money more important than lives? If we hadn't gone to war and spent that money we'd be financially fine, but people would be dead. And maybe suicide bombings are because of the American presence, but it saves them doing it on my fucking doorstep, they can stick to their own. of course life is more important than money. But if Bush made this war a WELL-PLANNED one and he used his brain... this would not happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 So the President's advisory board not good enough for you? Some of the most intelligent military minds on earth? I see... This war was never going to end 'well'. No war ends 'well'. 'War' is a negative word, it denotes killings, deaths, collateral. In an ideal world yes, our troops would go in, neutralize the threat and leave. But no, it's because the threat continues that they have to stay longer. Also, you now think bush should have planned his war better. But earlier you said... he should've increased US security and not done anything? Well, well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 So the President's advisory board not good enough for you? Some of the most intelligent military minds on earth?I see... This war was never going to end 'well'. No war ends 'well'. 'War' is a negative word, it denotes killings, deaths, collateral. In an ideal world yes, our troops would go in, neutralize the threat and leave. But no, it's because the threat continues that they have to stay longer. Also, you now think bush should have planned his war better. But earlier you said... he should've increased US security and not done anything? Well, well. most intelligent? oh yeah, I'm going to look on Iraq's situation... and yes, he can increase US security while not waging a war... I know it is very possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 So the President's advisory board not good enough for you? Some of the most intelligent military minds on earth?I see... This war was never going to end 'well'. No war ends 'well'. 'War' is a negative word, it denotes killings, deaths, collateral. In an ideal world yes, our troops would go in, neutralize the threat and leave. But no, it's because the threat continues that they have to stay longer. Also, you now think bush should have planned his war better. But earlier you said... he should've increased US security and not done anything? Well, well. most intelligent? oh yeah, I'm going to look on Iraq's situation... and yes, he can increase US security while not waging a war... I know it is very possible Things happen in war that stop other things happening. Factors adjust whether or not things happen as they should. Bold: You misunderstand me, i was pointing out that you contradicted yourself. Anyway, it's 4am, so, i'mma get some sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansui Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 ah ok... its off topic now have a nice sleep anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishoM Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah yes, America went in there to save the people. Really? You guys do realize their are governments in other countries killing their people, yes? Iraq is just special, Iraq has oil, oil which America wants/needs. Now am I saying something shouldn't of been done, no, not at all. However America isn't the police, I say the UN should have gone in and gotten things up, restored peace, and then left (while helping to rebuild, oh and yeah, not staying in there for years, similar to what Russia did in Georgia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris82 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Iraq is just special, Iraq has oil, oil which America wants/needs. We didn't go in there for oil! If we had, gas prices wouldn't have more than tripled before the recession! We genuinely thought there were dangerous weapons there. Besides, even if Iraq didn't supply us with oil, we still get it from other OPEC nations...Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas. Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Now am I saying something shouldn't of been done, no, not at all. However America isn't the police, I say the UN should have gone in and gotten things up, restored peace, and then left (while helping to rebuild, oh and yeah, not staying in there for years, similar to what Russia did in Georgia). The UN wouldn't dare mess with America though. If it did it could find itself kicked out of the USA and having to find some other place for it's headquarters (I'm just speculating what might happen if the UN interfered in American wars). That's one of the only problems with the UN being founded in America, being situated in America, having main involvement in America. They can't do shit to stop it. They can try and stop countries like the UK, France but I doubt they'd listen, we're also in it for the oil and terrorism too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishoM Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Iraq is just special, Iraq has oil, oil which America wants/needs. We didn't go in there for oil! If we had, gas prices wouldn't have more than tripled before the recession! We genuinely thought there were dangerous weapons there. Besides, even if Iraq didn't supply us with oil, we still get it from other OPEC nations...Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc... You see you've got it a bit wrong. Supplies were bad, so they went up, right? Well, I'm quite sure it's a fact that supplies were just fine, yet the companies opted to keep the prices up in the $3s, why? Simply because Americans would pay. Then eventually they had to lower it. I constantly hear this, will have to find a link. I remember when I attended this thing for journalism here in Michigan, at Michigan State University, the speaker was a professor. He claimed that they only dropped the prices due to the overall bad economy, in that once it got better, the prices would surely rise back, as everyone would pay it. Makes a lot of sense from a business point, if they'll pay that when there are short supplies, well, they'll continue to pay it when there's a lot of it too! But you see, if you're stealing the oil, it's much cheaper than say, PAYING the nations for it. And if they aren't stealing the oil there, then they must be getting one hell of a deal on it. @Thomas: Well you have to realize Russia, England, China, and a few others have A LOT of power in the UN as well. All of them have veto power in the Security Council, i.e. if one of them don't like something, it won't go through. But you could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris82 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Makes a lot of sense from a business point, if they'll pay that when there are short supplies, well, they'll continue to pay it when there's a lot of it too! But you see, if you're stealing the oil, it's much cheaper than say, PAYING the nations for it. And if they aren't stealing the oil there, then they must be getting one hell of a deal on it. There is no doubt that gas companies raised prices without needing too, but I highly doubt we went into Iraq just for the oil. After all, most oil that goes to the U.S. comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Iraq does contribute the 4th most oil to us but we certainly don't need to steal it from them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishoM Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Yeah but I highly doubt we'd invade Iraq just because they "might" have weapons. Why? Simply because many countries "might" have weapons, most of which are probably much more dangerous than Iraq. However I've also heard numerous times that certain people in the Bush administration also have their own private oil companies, would benefit them much to just steal it instead of pay for it, now wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris82 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Possibly..I do agree with you that there is obvious corruption in the oil industry. But I also do believe that Hussein was considered enough of a threat to security that it was necessary to take him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters! Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Iraq is just special, Iraq has oil, oil which America wants/needs. We didn't go in there for oil! If we had, gas prices wouldn't have more than tripled before the recession! We genuinely thought there were dangerous weapons there. Besides, even if Iraq didn't supply us with oil, we still get it from other OPEC nations...Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc... The Millitary have people to check things like that. You cant go to war over a hunch. However, I will give you that everyone in Iraq wanted Husain Killed anyway Edited January 2, 2009 by Butters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Even though the war may have been over reasons that did not prove true (the weapons), atleast it got Hussain out of Iraq. Which was always a good thing. I think the biggest mistake the goverments made was not planning on what to do after they got him out. Thats why our troops are still there. It is a bit strange to think that they invaded Iraq because of the weapons, when I'm sure its proven that Iran have nuclear weapons (don't hold me down on this, but I am pretty sure its been proven.) Or that Hussain was a terrible dictator (which we all know was true), as why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe yet to get rid of Mugabe. I don't know why we went actually went to war in Iraq, but I think the best that can be done is to help Iraq become a safe place. Sadly I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 well, we Filipinos do believe in karma even though we are Christians, even before Christianity arrived in the Philippines, some other Asian religions already influenced our beliefs. Karma and reincarnation aren't the same thing. I don't think God exists. I used to but everything is turning very anti-religious especially what I think America is doing, going into the Middle East and killing Muslims because they say they are terrorists. No, I don't think God exists, if there was some God then he/she/it would stop all this shit. I believe more in Ancient Greek gods and godesses than this big man who created Earth, the universe etc. How much do you care when you see a bunch of ants having a war ? We didn't create ants. They are not our creations. Why should we care if they wage war? you see, even we have emotions but we don't think on what are we doing we could be like ants Things ants don't have: Morals Value Systems Governments Religion Terrorism Democracy Willpower Nukes If ants did have these, then we could probably relate to them. But we don't. When a leader decides for / against going to war, whether you like it or not, it's as much about his approval rating as it is about National Security. Can you PROVE they don't have those things? They very well have willpower. And you know what ACTUALLY makes us different? They are way better at working together and being a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveplayer Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Watch the movie Antz. It proves that ants use mining tools to build their tunnels, wage war against termites and congregate in bars and complain about their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macorules94 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 ya know whats funny i go to a catholic private school.... and we have a class called Religious Education and in that, They say God created the earth, ....BUT in Science, they say the big bang created the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters! Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 I go to a public school - It's the same here to lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustADummy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 we're still here, thres still no fucking god and im still a fucking laggynoob(this is proof that there is no god).... what the fuck man im disappointed ...Wait...what proves that there is no God? Homer simpson on that episode of the simpsons where he gets a crayon out of his brain rofl. Wat? That's old as fuck Also, I, myself don't believe in God for some reason. Just don't see where's the "God". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM™ Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 ya know whats funnyi go to a catholic private school.... and we have a class called Religious Education and in that, They say God created the earth, ....BUT in Science, they say the big bang created the earth Yes, both have different beliefs. People who believe in religion will believe god made the earth (That will vary I assume). But people who don't believe in it will go to Evolution, or to the big bang reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gycu Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The ants thing was just an example, and of course ants may be better in some ways than humans. Now here's a simple question Does darkness really exist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now