bush BLOWS it might be long for some of you but if you read the point will get across

[Patrick]

Lets start with president Bush. Can you guess who the primary financial contributor was to his 2000 campaign? ENRON. Yes that’s correct. Enron donated over 550,000 towards Bush's presidential election campaign.

Next lets look at our vice-president. Dick Cheney was the CEO of a company called Halliburton. Now, when I mention this most people have never heard of it. Again that takes me back to where people are getting their information. Halliburton is a very large company. Can you guess what their primary market is? OIL. Yes, Halliburton is the largest oil company in the world. Once the republicans won the election (arguably) in 2000, Cheney was forced to resign as CEO. Do you think he still has stock?

Now taking an even closer look at this Halliburton company, you'll see even more ties. Funny, the company that just won a $90 million dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq is Kellog Brown & Root. Even more funny is Kellog Brown & Root is a Halliburton subsidiary! The Defense Department has given exclusive rights to KBR on several lucrative contracts, including one to repair Iraq's oil fields.

If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion dollars. The contracts will be paid for from Iraqi oil revenues, controlled by America and Britain and audited by an international firm of accountants.

I also have a question: Why is Philip Carroll, the former head of Shell Oil in the United States, running Iraq's oil industry? Does that not seem funny? Have you begun to see a pattern yet?

Now when it comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction, I agree with you when you implied that Saddam should not have them. But I must ask you, where are Saddam's W.M.D.? And in response to you comment about people basing their comments on fact and not rage, can you tell me anything about Hussein using weapons of mass destruction on the people of Iraq? Can you site a date? A place? A death toll?. Or was this something you heard?... Oh and just a reminder, the weapons that Saddam HAD were purchased from us during the Regan administration.....

In respect to the arms race I want to state that I am very much opposed to Bush's push to further the development of the United States' nuclear ability. A nuclear weapon today can be 400 times that of the one at Hiroshima. If nations start firing them back and forth.... sorry, but your children don't have a future. Also, spending so much money on weapons of mass destruction seems almost foolish when our educational system and infrastructure (for example) need so much help.

I want to touch on your comment about not needing UN approval...

The move made by the United States was ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND STUPID! The move was illegal because it violated the U.N. Charter and at the same time violated Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes treaties "the supreme law of the land." This war was unjust because there was no "casus belli", and because not all means to peacefully resolve the conflict--which, remember, was about weapons of mass destruction--had been exhausted. Breaking international law was not a very smart move. This was probably the best way to have more people hate us. And what pisses me off about it is all this has been done in OUR name. We are the ones living in fear of terrorist attacks...

Another comment I hear often is people thinking we have no part in being terrorized, that we have done absolutely nothing do deserve any terrorist threat what-so-ever... Now, don't get me wrong, I do not support acts of terror in any way. But I do believe there are many things we could do to make ourselves less a target. Killing between 2,197 and 2,670 civilians in Iraq and acting like imperialists can't help. Think what 3,000 missiles hitting Chicago would be like. Another example, namely Saudi Arabia... How can we preach human rights, then have an ally with close relations like Saudi Arabia? *cough* "economical" *cough*

If the United States wants to make its citizens safer around the world, it absolutely must put pressure on Ariel Sharon to give back the occupied territories to the Palestinians and settle, once and for all that conflict, which is the source of so much resentment and pain.

I think if we addressed the "root causes of terrorism" and cleaned up our foreign policy, that it would be a huge step in the right direction...

The last thing I have to comment about your letter is George W. Bush. You seem to think he's a good guy... I take a close look at the man and his track record and I become fearful... fearful that he is our leader.

If you look at how Texas was run you might think the same way. Texas came in dead last in virtually every social service area, yet first in executions. Bush put one hundred and fifty two people to death while Governor- more than any Governor in the history of the United States. At 2.3 million dollars an execution, the killing sure didn’t help Texas. Texas has some of the poorest funded programs to help the mentally ill (who account for a good number of the prison population). And Bush's response to this dead last ranking was to insist that the legislature pass a $5 billion tax cut! Does this sound at all familiar?

Now, he's our leader... acting in our name... KILLING in our name.

He claimed that war in Iraq was "our last resort," when, in fact, he refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to continue their work. He claimed without evidence that Saddam was somehow "an ally of Al Qaeda" and that this war against Iraq somehow avenges the nefarious attacks of September 11. Three times in his speech, Bush explicitly cited that date. September 11th is Bush's trump card. And even though it's getting worn out because Bush pulls it out at every opportunity, it seems to work for him: He has managed to hoodwink the American people into believing September 11 justifies any military action!

NATIONALISM.... that is his biggest tool. He tries to make dissent seem "unpatriotic". For example: "You're either with us, or with the terrorists"

The bottom line: With Bush as president I do not feel safe. I remain convinced that this was an illegal and an unjust war.

[hot damn!]

you DO realize there's a political forum, correct?

[Patrick]

ya but its so easy to get it on genrel cause people accutully look at it

[NOFXdesendents5]

Wow, you are, the most hypocritical person if ever seen. Get a fucking clue before you go onto these forums.

[trogdor]

Yeah.. its getting a bit old! I have to read something like this on just about every forum I go to

[trogdor]

you tell me anything about Hussein using weapons of mass destruction on the people of Iraq? Can you site a date? A place? A death toll?. Or was this something you heard?...

www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm (http://)

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by trogdor
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm (http://)

I think his point was related to Hussain not using or developing any WMD's after the gulf war... like Bush has constantly claimed he has.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Wow, you are, the most hypocritical person if ever seen. Get a fucking clue before you go onto these forums.


Anything that you don't agree with is hypocritical... why is that?

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Anything that you don't agree with is hypocritical... why is that?

I don't think I have said hypocritical more than 4 times the whole time I have used the forum, mostly cause if I spell it wrong, then I look ignorant. But the kid says that America should not be helping Iraq to get back on it's feet by establishing another Oil For Food program, but then says that we should just not give them any money at all in this thread. Unless her recommendation is to just not help that country and leave it more fucked up, then that would be hypocracy. And I think I spelled it wrong on the last part...

[EmoMoose86]

Lets look at what was written and revisit some of the parts that need help.

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
Yes, Halliburton is the largest oil company in the world.

No actually... you are wrong.
The largest oil company in the world is Exxon-Mobil. Leading behind is BP (british company), Shell (dutch company) Lukoil (spelling?) (a Russian company), Chevron Texaco... just to name a few.
Halliburton is an oil CONTRACTOR. They BUILD things- they do not SELL oil.
Infact! If you look for Halliburton on google... you get the result:

Halliburton: Provides products and services to the petroleum and energy industries.


Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
Now taking an even closer look at this Halliburton company, you'll see even more ties. Funny, the company that just won a $90 million dollar contract to rebuild much of Iraq is Kellog Brown & Root. Even more funny is Kellog Brown & Root is a Halliburton subsidiary! The Defense Department has given exclusive rights to KBR on several lucrative contracts, including one to repair Iraq's oil fields.

So? What is the problem with this? Hell, if I wanted to help Iraq pump oil to help rebuild it (not mostly from the invasion- but rather from its dictator who has made the country go into shambles) I would DEFINANLTY want help from an oil contractor company. What? Do you want Levi's Jeans to help pump oil for you? Or perhaps you want Sony or Honda to do it. Think about it reaaaal hard.
Here's something else you failed to mention. KBR is a CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Do you know what they do? They build things.

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion dollars. The contracts will be paid for from Iraqi oil revenues, controlled by America and Britain and audited by an international firm of accountants.

Also- whats wrong with this? Rebuild an oil producing country with its own oil?! Thats a crazy idea... using its natural resources to help make the country... better? What?!
Face it, its a great idea. Now.. the whole "Controlled by America and Britain" makes it sound like we are directly stealing Iraq's oil. Right now they are protecting them, and rebuilding them...Here's a harsh fact- we arent stealing oil. When oil tankers run from Iraq to refineries in the USA.. sure we're stealing it. But we arent. You said it yourself. You said they are to help rebuild Iraq. And so they will. And after they do Oil companies will come into the country- like nearly all Arab countries in that region has... Iraq will establish a state run oil company... employing thousands of Iraqis (helping Iraq's economy) And the company will contract the oil feilds, pump the oil, and sell it to the oil companies of the world.
Whats the harm?


Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
I also have a question: Why is Philip Carroll, the former head of Shell Oil in the United States, running Iraq's oil industry? Does that not seem funny? Have you begun to see a pattern yet?

So... You could run Iraq's oil industry better than an experienced former head of a multi national oil company? This is another 'think about it' statement. Lets say there's an accident... people are hurt on the freeway- there's been a crash. a pile up, many people are hurt. Who do you call to help the people hurt? A Lawyer? A Milk man? Honda? No... You call in the Doctors.

If there's an accident with people injured.. you call in a doctor.

Oil fields, oil industry needs to be rebuilt in a country.. you call in former owners of oil companies.

-----

WMD question- we'll see where they are. They maybe still there? If they arent there- Bush has explaining to do.

-----

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
The move made by the United States was ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND STUPID! The move was illegal because it violated the U.N. Charter.......

Illegal... no - Unjust... your views - Stupid... again your views.
But it WAS NOT illegal.
If you say that going to war without UN approval is illegal... then you gotta read up. Kosovo?! Kosovo!? NATO (ha with france) WITHOUT UN approval went into a war.
Was this Illegal too?!
Peaceful means - that had been practiced for MANY years. We've adopted a new way of viewing things... "Hit them before they get a chance to hit us" This is all still up in the air since we have not found WMD. But the moment we ever do- it IS justified. If we don't... then this is a real argument. But I ask you, when are all peaceful ways to end a conflict (WMD thing) extinguished? 20 years? 100 years? What was another way of making Iraq fully comply with the UN? More UN inspectors to be led on a wild goose chase? more time, more money?
I can tell you one thing, One thing that Terrorists fear is a great power, a powerful nation looking for them. We have them on the run, and as long as we got that, they won't hurt us with the force they did on 9/11. After living in Kuwait for 3 years of my life I have found out that one thing Arabs fear is a greater power. If the Arabs didn't fear us... they could shut down all the oil production... they could do a hell of a lot to us to bring us to our knees! But they are afraid of us. I feel 10x better now that we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. We proved we can take care of a job that we had to do... we aren't going to sit on our hands and say "its okay." Terrorists like fear. They breed on it, they will strike when we fear them. Evil Thrives when Good people do Nothing.

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
can you tell me anything about Hussein using weapons of mass destruction on the people of Iraq? Can you site a date? A place? A death toll?.

Uh... Kurds.. like tens of thousands of people? 1980's...

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
Or was this something you heard?... Oh and just a reminder, the weapons that Saddam HAD were purchased from us during the Regan administration.....

Ding ding, yes we did give Iraq Weapons. But they make up only a small amount of what Russia and China gave to them.


Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
But I do believe there are many things we could do to make ourselves less a target. Killing between 2,197 and 2,670 civilians in Iraq and acting like imperialists can't help. Think what 3,000 missiles hitting Chicago would be like. Another example, namely Saudi Arabia... How can we preach human rights, then have an ally with close relations like Saudi Arabia? *cough* "economical" *cough*

Define Imperialism please. We aren't Imperialistic. Yes, we killed civilians, but we didn't do it because we wanted to, we did it on accident. However... one regime who did it on purpose has been destroyed thanks to this war. Argue that. Argue that if it wasn't for this war, perhaps 5x more than that number of around 2,400 would be killed by Saddam? Maybe 10x? Its sick just thinking about it.
Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia? Name all the human rights violations they have done in the past .. 20 years.

Texas thing, i live in Texas. I don't really like Texas but its not a piss poor state I can tell you. Death Penalty, they were murderers, this is also another issue i suppose? Tax cuts, irrelivant to the death penalty issue- Tax cuts do a great deal good, like putting money in your pockets. The economy has done nothing but strangthened since the cuts. Questions?


Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
He claimed that war in Iraq was "our last resort," when, in fact, he refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to continue their work. He claimed without evidence that Saddam was somehow "an ally of Al Qaeda" and that this war against Iraq somehow avenges the nefarious attacks of September 11. Three times in his speech, Bush explicitly cited that date. September 11th is Bush's trump card. And even though it's getting worn out because Bush pulls it out at every opportunity, it seems to work for him: He has managed to hoodwink the American people into believing September 11 justifies any military action!

Never... ever in a speech have I heard Bush say the words "avenge" If you find a speech with that in it, avenging the deaths of 9/11. Sure. I have heard the words "justice" which makes more sense. 9/11 changed life in America... I'm not sure if you've noticed. We compare a lot of things to pre and post 9/11 in the fact that politics have changed since then, economy has ruptured, many things happened. 9/11 was a terrorist act against America like none other and he mentions 9/11 when talking about that. He doesnt' want it to happen again. As no one does.

His quote : "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" was in the wake of 9/11. It was talking about funding terrorists. You just used the quote in the wrong context. Look for that speech and read the words that come before and after it and i am sure you'll see what i mean.

Alright, I'm tired... hadda spit all this out. Oil thing esspecially was really really really really really misinformative. Things about bush, hey, its your opinoun.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
Lets look at what was written and revisit some of the parts that need help.



No actually... you are wrong.
The largest oil company in the world is Exxon-Mobil. Leading behind is BP (british company), Shell (dutch company) Lukoil (spelling?) (a Russian company), Chevron Texaco... just to name a few.
Halliburton is an oil CONTRACTOR. They BUILD things- they do not SELL oil.
Infact! If you look for Halliburton on google... you get the result:

Halliburton: Provides products and services to the petroleum and energy industries.




So? What is the problem with this? Hell, if I wanted to help Iraq pump oil to help rebuild it (not mostly from the invasion- but rather from its dictator who has made the country go into shambles) I would DEFINANLTY want help from an oil contractor company. What? Do you want Levi's Jeans to help pump oil for you? Or perhaps you want Sony or Honda to do it. Think about it reaaaal hard.
Here's something else you failed to mention. KBR is a CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Do you know what they do? They build things.



Also- whats wrong with this? Rebuild an oil producing country with its own oil?! Thats a crazy idea... using its natural resources to help make the country... better? What?!
Face it, its a great idea. Now.. the whole "Controlled by America and Britain" makes it sound like we are directly stealing Iraq's oil. Right now they are protecting them, and rebuilding them...Here's a harsh fact- we arent stealing oil. When oil tankers run from Iraq to refineries in the USA.. sure we're stealing it. But we arent. You said it yourself. You said they are to help rebuild Iraq. And so they will. And after they do Oil companies will come into the country- like nearly all Arab countries in that region has... Iraq will establish a state run oil company... employing thousands of Iraqis (helping Iraq's economy) And the company will contract the oil feilds, pump the oil, and sell it to the oil companies of the world.
Whats the harm?




So... You could run Iraq's oil industry better than an experienced former head of a multi national oil company? This is another 'think about it' statement. Lets say there's an accident... people are hurt on the freeway- there's been a crash. a pile up, many people are hurt. Who do you call to help the people hurt? A Lawyer? A Milk man? Honda? No... You call in the Doctors.

If there's an accident with people injured.. you call in a doctor.

Oil fields, oil industry needs to be rebuilt in a country.. you call in former owners of oil companies.

-----

WMD question- we'll see where they are. They maybe still there? If they arent there- Bush has explaining to do.

-----



Illegal... no - Unjust... your views - Stupid... again your views.
But it WAS NOT illegal.
If you say that going to war without UN approval is illegal... then you gotta read up. Kosovo?! Kosovo!? NATO (ha with france) WITHOUT UN approval went into a war.
Was this Illegal too?!
Peaceful means - that had been practiced for MANY years. We've adopted a new way of viewing things... "Hit them before they get a chance to hit us" This is all still up in the air since we have not found WMD. But the moment we ever do- it IS justified. If we don't... then this is a real argument. But I ask you, when are all peaceful ways to end a conflict (WMD thing) extinguished? 20 years? 100 years? What was another way of making Iraq fully comply with the UN? More UN inspectors to be led on a wild goose chase? more time, more money?
I can tell you one thing, One thing that Terrorists fear is a great power, a powerful nation looking for them. We have them on the run, and as long as we got that, they won't hurt us with the force they did on 9/11. After living in Kuwait for 3 years of my life I have found out that one thing Arabs fear is a greater power. If the Arabs didn't fear us... they could shut down all the oil production... they could do a hell of a lot to us to bring us to our knees! But they are afraid of us. I feel 10x better now that we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. We proved we can take care of a job that we had to do... we aren't going to sit on our hands and say "its okay." Terrorists like fear. They breed on it, they will strike when we fear them. Evil Thrives when Good people do Nothing.



Uh... Kurds.. like tens of thousands of people? 1980's...



Ding ding, yes we did give Iraq Weapons. But they make up only a small amount of what Russia and China gave to them.




Define Imperialism please. We aren't Imperialistic. Yes, we killed civilians, but we didn't do it because we wanted to, we did it on accident. However... one regime who did it on purpose has been destroyed thanks to this war. Argue that. Argue that if it wasn't for this war, perhaps 5x more than that number of around 2,400 would be killed by Saddam? Maybe 10x? Its sick just thinking about it.
Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia? Name all the human rights violations they have done in the past .. 20 years.

Texas thing, i live in Texas. I don't really like Texas but its not a piss poor state I can tell you. Death Penalty, they were murderers, this is also another issue i suppose? Tax cuts, irrelivant to the death penalty issue- Tax cuts do a great deal good, like putting money in your pockets. The economy has done nothing but strangthened since the cuts. Questions?




Never... ever in a speech have I heard Bush say the words "avenge" If you find a speech with that in it, avenging the deaths of 9/11. Sure. I have heard the words "justice" which makes more sense. 9/11 changed life in America... I'm not sure if you've noticed. We compare a lot of things to pre and post 9/11 in the fact that politics have changed since then, economy has ruptured, many things happened. 9/11 was a terrorist act against America like none other and he mentions 9/11 when talking about that. He doesnt' want it to happen again. As no one does.

His quote : "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" was in the wake of 9/11. It was talking about funding terrorists. You just used the quote in the wrong context. Look for that speech and read the words that come before and after it and i am sure you'll see what i mean.

Alright, I'm tired... hadda spit all this out. Oil thing esspecially was really really really really really misinformative. Things about bush, hey, its your opinoun.


Good job. The point he was trying to make, just went flying past your head....

Your stupidity continues to amaze me... maybe that's why I can't stand to post on here for more than a couple days a month.

Bush is more or less giving his buddies sole acess to the rebuilding of Iraq... making them instant billionares. That is a horrible thing in itself, however what he is doing is putting AMERICAN COMPANIES in a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... THAT IS MOTHERFUCKING IMPERIALISM. Unless of course you consider what we did in Panama, Venezuela, and Hati everyday business practices.

And by the way, is your daddy drewling over how much money he is going to make off of Iraq yet?? What company does he work for again? Because if it is any major oil company in the Unites States, you can gaurenfukingtee that they will be tapping Iraq dry by the end of the year.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha


I want to touch on your comment about not needing UN approval...

The move made by the United States was ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND STUPID! The move was illegal because it violated the U.N. Charter and at the same time violated Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes treaties "the supreme law of the land." This war was unjust because there was no "casus belli", and because not all means to peacefully resolve the conflict--which, remember, was about weapons of mass destruction--had been exhausted. Breaking international law was not a very smart move. This was probably the best way to have more people hate us. And what pisses me off about it is all this has been done in OUR name. We are the ones living in fear of terrorist attacks...


so the cease fire treaty signed by Iraq suddenly doesn't constitute the "supreme law of the land" you speak of? and as for making more people hate us approx. 45 countries supported military action against saddam, including half of the UN security council. the only reason it was not made a full resolution is because France said they would veto it...so that one country, France, does not speak for the entire world.

Another comment I hear often is people thinking we have no part in being terrorized, that we have done absolutely nothing do deserve any terrorist threat what-so-ever... Now, don't get me wrong, I do not support acts of terror in any way. But I do believe there are many things we could do to make ourselves less a target. Killing between 2,197 and 2,670 civilians in Iraq and acting like imperialists can't help.

we never did anything to deserve the attacks of september 11th, and there is no way you can justify those actions and say that america was at fault. osama bin laden was responsible, it was his fault, and his alone. if he doesn't like american foreign policy, he does not have the right to fly airplanes into buildings. and as for acting like imperialists, we are not. Just because france says we are, doesn't make it true, and they are extremely hypocritical because they still hold foreign possesions in south america and africa.



If the United States wants to make its citizens safer around the world, it absolutely must put pressure on Ariel Sharon to give back the occupied territories to the Palestinians and settle, once and for all that conflict, which is the source of so much resentment and pain.

Israel has started pursuing the peace, they are withdrawing despite the continuing terrorist attacks against them. if there is to be peace in the middle east, the palestinians need to stop blowing up busses and discos.



He claimed that war in Iraq was "our last resort," when, in fact, he refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to continue their work. He claimed without evidence that Saddam was somehow "an ally of Al Qaeda" and that this war against Iraq somehow avenges the nefarious attacks of September 11. Three times in his speech, Bush explicitly cited that date. September 11th is Bush's trump card. And even though it's getting worn out because Bush pulls it out at every opportunity, it seems to work for him: He has managed to hoodwink the American people into believing September 11 justifies any military action!

allowing the UN inpectors back into Iraq would only serve to appease Saddam Hussein, the UN had 12 years and 17 resolutions that they did nothing to inforce. The inspectors did not get cooperation from Iraq and were not allowed to do their job, and sending them back in would only have meant more of the same. And while Saddam conitnued to play hide and seek, the UN wouldn't have bothered to make him comply. and again, it was saddams fault, he had plenty of time to comply, and he did not, it did not take the ukraine or south africa 12 years to comply with the UN disarmarment, and neither one of them put up any kind of struggle to do what they were asked. as for al-qaeda, Bush claimed that an Iraq that was able to continue their WMD programs was a threat to the world because they could easily sell those weapons to al-qaeda or another terrorist group. and despite what you've heard about osama and saddam being enemies, both hate the US and if you think that their petty disagreements would stop them from hurting america, you are mistaken. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
.

That is a horrible thing in itself, however what he is doing is putting AMERICAN COMPANIES in a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... THAT IS MOTHERFUCKING IMPERIALISM.


what about all the countries that have buissness in america? does that make them imperialistic? england, france, germany, russia, israel, japan, s. korea, australia, etc. etc.....

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by yeat182
what about all the countries that have buissness in america? does that make them imperialistic? england, france, germany, russia, israel, japan, s. korea, australia, etc. etc.....

The United States openly let in those companies.... and they don't use child labor or ruin the US economy, or pollute horribly, or create a stratified economic system, or etc. etc. etc.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
The United States openly let in those companies.... and they don't use child labor or ruin the US economy, or pollute horribly, or create a stratified economic system, or etc. etc. etc.

right on

[lollirot]

Oookay, there is no fucking way you wrote that yourself.

[Patrick]

you do not get the mother fucking point the company halliburton
cause dick mother fucking chaney was the ceo dumfuck so he still has stock so wen the stock goes up he makes money do u get it now this is not for americas good it is for amaricas buget asshole

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
you do not get the mother fucking point the company halliburton
cause dick mother fucking chaney was the ceo dumfuck so he still has stock so wen the stock goes up he makes money do u get it now this is not for americas good it is for amaricas buget asshole

lots of people own stock in that company...not just cheney.

[Patrick]

chaney owns more then 40 percent of the stock though buddy

[evil zach]

I'd like to apologize on behafe of the entireleft wing for mrs.skibahaha

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by evil zach
I'd like to apologize on behafe of the entireleft wing for mrs.skibahaha


hahaha

[charly horse]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Good job. The point he was trying to make, just went flying past your head....

Your stupidity continues to amaze me... maybe that's why I can't stand to post on here for more than a couple days a month.

Bush is more or less giving his buddies sole acess to the rebuilding of Iraq... making them instant billionares. That is a horrible thing in itself, however what he is doing is putting AMERICAN COMPANIES in a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... THAT IS MOTHERFUCKING IMPERIALISM. Unless of course you consider what we did in Panama, Venezuela, and Hati everyday business practices.

And by the way, is your daddy drewling over how much money he is going to make off of Iraq yet?? What company does he work for again? Because if it is any major oil company in the Unites States, you can gaurenfukingtee that they will be tapping Iraq dry by the end of the year.

i just want to say something to this, why is it a problem if bush puts his buddies in these postitions as long as theyre qualified for the job or at least doing a good job at it? i mean if they were doing a bad job rebuilding the country then i can see why you would be angry because bush would be putting in people who were not qualified for this sort of job just because they were his friend. But as long as theyre doing a good job i find it perfectly alright.
Another thing, why is it so wrong for people to become billionares? I mean if they deserve the money and work hard for it they should recive it.


the kid who posted this' point was stupid just as you are. He's preaching something that is irrelevent . . so what if these major companies connected to his administration are getting the work, im sure theyre qualified for the job and are doing a good job rebuilding iraq....and just how you said, theyre making billions of dollars so they must be doing a good job.

[Charlito Cafe]

The point is that they are a bunch of asshole pirates, raiding countries and taking the plunder, making shitloads of money off of a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

If their motivation was a preemptive strike to disarm a threat and liberate a country, bully for them. But I tend to question one's motive when the Iraqi citizens didn't need to be liberated, and their liberation is going to put them in a far worse situation, and their are no WMDs to justify the preemption. The only ones standing to gain are Long John Bush and his crew of raiding politicians, abusing their authority for personal gain.

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Good job. The point he was trying to make, just went flying past your head....

Your stupidity continues to amaze me... maybe that's why I can't stand to post on here for more than a couple days a month.

Bush is more or less giving his buddies sole acess to the rebuilding of Iraq... making them instant billionares. That is a horrible thing in itself, however what he is doing is putting AMERICAN COMPANIES in a FOREIGN COUNTRY.... THAT IS MOTHERFUCKING IMPERIALISM. Unless of course you consider what we did in Panama, Venezuela, and Hati everyday business practices.

And by the way, is your daddy drewling over how much money he is going to make off of Iraq yet?? What company does he work for again? Because if it is any major oil company in the Unites States, you can gaurenfukingtee that they will be tapping Iraq dry by the end of the year.

haha i love that at the end- "iraq dry" you really dont know what you're talking about do you!

Well, okay, I don't see how putting American Companies in to rebuild Iraq is a bad thing since we actually went in and took out the regime and is establishing new government. I've heard you doubt that we'll rebuild Iraq fully... well this is the only way AMERICANS will REBUILD Iraq. Yea?

I want the definition of Imperialism... I highly doubt that the definition is 'putting American companies to work in foreign countries'

My dad works for BP. Not an American Company mind you. You have NO idea how the oil business runs... so please... PLEASE ... PLEASE stop trying to sound like you do. You could... research it... or something but PLEASE stop thinking you are king of knowledge in every political area! I admit i am not, but i know a thing or two about this.
Here's whats going to happen: They are first going to use Iraq's natural resource of oil to rebuild its country. THEN eventually like every arab country in the area- the nation's government will establish a STATE RUN oil company, further more strangthening its economy. When this Iraqi run company pumps the oil, it will sell it to a number of oil companies. This will be refined and brought to gas pumps AROUND THE WORLD. Can you describe to me how this is wrong, unjust, evil?

You ALWAYS talk about my dad when i dont even MENTION HIM. Please... please shut up dude. Its weak and pathedic!

[Ronin]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
haha i love that at the end- "iraq dry" you really dont know what you're talking about do you!

Well, okay, I don't see how putting American Companies in to rebuild Iraq is a bad thing since we actually went in and took out the regime and is establishing new government. I've heard you doubt that we'll rebuild Iraq fully... well this is the only way AMERICANS will REBUILD Iraq. Yea?

I want the definition of Imperialism... I highly doubt that the definition is 'putting American companies to work in foreign countries'

My dad works for BP. Not an American Company mind you. You have NO idea how the oil business runs... so please... PLEASE ... PLEASE stop trying to sound like you do. You could... research it... or something but PLEASE stop thinking you are king of knowledge in every political area! I admit i am not, but i know a thing or two about this.
Here's whats going to happen: They are first going to use Iraq'
s natural resource of oil to rebuild its country. THEN eventually like every arab country in the area- the nation's government will establish a STATE RUN oil company, further more strangthening its economy. When this Iraqi run company pumps the oil, it will sell it to a number of oil companies. This will be refined and brought to gas pumps AROUND THE WORLD. Can you describe to me how this is wrong, unjust, evil?

You ALWAYS talk about my dad when i dont even MENTION HIM. Please... please shut up dude. Its weak and pathedic!

- America won't fully rebuild Iraq. To FULLY rebuild the country would put too much strain on the American economy, and the citizens won't want that. They'll rebuild it in the same way the "rebuilt" Afghanistan, set up a government, wish them well, and get the fuck out of dodge (for all intents and purposes, i know there are still Americans in Afghanistan)

- We defined imperialism in another thread, but I forget which one. Some of us believe that what the US is doing, though not imperialism in the traditional sense of the word, is still a spreading of US influence throughout the world for a net gain. Some argued that it wasn't imperialism, some argued that it was, we're not going to resolve that between ourselves.

- I'm sure your dad's a good man, but you have to admit that you're hearing a slanted perspective if you're getting all of your information from him (if you are). Obviously he has a vested interest in the well being of his industry (as he should).

- I'm sure the US won't dominate the Iraqi oil fields, that would just be blatant and stupid. But when you look at the bottom line, will American companies profit from all of this? The answer is yes. And I don't think it's just a fringe benefit that they happily stumbled upon, but that's my opinion

[EmoMoose86]

Originally posted by Ronin
- America won't fully rebuild Iraq. To FULLY rebuild the country would put too much strain on the American economy, and the citizens won't want that. They'll rebuild it in the same way the "rebuilt" Afghanistan, set up a government, wish them well, and get the fuck out of dodge (for all intents and purposes, i know there are still Americans in Afghanistan)

- We defined imperialism in another thread, but I forget which one. Some of us believe that what the US is doing, though not imperialism in the traditional sense of the word, is still a spreading of US influence throughout the world for a net gain. Some argued that it wasn't imperialism, some argued that it was, we're not going to resolve that between ourselves.

- I'm sure your dad's a good man, but you have to admit that you're hearing a slanted perspective if you're getting all of your information from him (if you are). Obviously he has a vested interest in the well being of his industry (as he should).

- I'm sure the US won't dominate the Iraqi oil fields, that would just be blatant and stupid. But when you look at the bottom line, will American companies profit from all of this? The answer is yes. And I don't think it's just a fringe benefit that they happily stumbled upon, but that's my opinion

See, you're cool! I like your arguements because they are nice.

If you define Imperialism as spreading American Influence, then we do it unintentionally all the time. Its quite shocking to see Subway on the side of the highway in Abu Dhabi haha.

My dad, I don't get information from him, he doesn't tell me these things... I've seen it. I lived in Kuwait, I know how the oil industry in the country works because I saw it with my very own eyes. We talked about it at my school in Kuwait and such. Its like if we somehow got on the subject of lets say... California. I have never lived or been in California for more than a couple days. I know very little about California. Neph, however, has lived there most... or all his life (dont quite remember). He knows a thing or two about California because he lives there, he knows about it. I know a thing or two about the oil industry, only because i've seen it, and i'm in an oil company family. 1/3 of my life I have lived abroad as an expact. My life has been shaped by a job in an oil company. Sure my views are different because of it... I get irritated when people think oil companies are like... evil or blood thirsty or something- its just my perspectives.
American companies- sure American companies will profit, but other international ones will eventually profit on oil and such, eventually. Its what companies do, American or International. *shrugs* Its how it goes. :D

[Matthew]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
*shrugs* Its how it goes. :D

wow.... the sheer complacency that you exhibited as you conceded each one of his arguments is enough to totally invalidate any statement you could make.

You basically admitted you were heavily biased, that the US was imperialist, and was likely to have been acting for personal gain. and then you said you were ok with that. doesnt that strike you as a bit wrong?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Matthew
wow.... the sheer complacency that you exhibited as you conceded each one of his arguments is enough to totally invalidate any statement you could make.

You basically admitted you were heavily biased, that the US was imperialist, and was likely to have been acting for personal gain. and then you said you were ok with that. doesnt that strike you as a bit wrong?

that isn't what he said at all, he was simply responding to a coherrent arguement with a curteous explanation for his beliefs.

[BrandNewDream]

Originally posted by Matthew
wow.... the sheer complacency that you exhibited as you conceded each one of his arguments is enough to totally invalidate any statement you could make.

You basically admitted you were heavily biased, that the US was imperialist, and was likely to have been acting for personal gain. and then you said you were ok with that. doesnt that strike you as a bit wrong?

He's seen the oil industry at work first hand. If he were a citizen in Kuwait and had seen how it worked, would he be biased? NO, he would just have information that almost anyone could recieve. And him getting iritated when people bad mouth the oil industry is just how he feels. He said American companies would profit, yes, but he didn't say that was the ONLY reason they were doing so. Besides...the companies themselves, regardless of who they have ties to, are out to do a job. They look to make money. They are not a non-profit organization. And he said that the United States was imperialist unintentionally. But, using the example he gave, Subway is a company...it has nothing to do with the country's descisions or motives. It's the same as seeing McDonald's restaurants all over the world. These are companies seeking to expand and increase profit. He never spoke of bias, intentional and knowing imperialism, or personal gain in relation to the United States government.

The idiocy you exhibited while trying to attribute words to him which he never uttered made me laugh extensively.

When you write sentances like that, it's obvious that you're trying too hard.

[EmoMoose86]

thank you, brandnew and yeat.

i couldnt have said it better myself.

Matthew: I never said i was heavily biased... everyone's views are shapped by their experiences.
I said if you define Imperialism as spreading influences - like America does... they do it without realizing it. The western world spreads, its companies cross the nation's bounderies, A&W Root Drink (had to be changed to root drink apposed to 'root beer' because of the Islamic law, no booze) establishes a small restraunt in Kuwait, etc etc etc... is this all a secret government plan to take over the world thru companies and industries? I don't think so. I define Imperialism as Great Britan at one point in time owning 1/3 of the world's land. But you can see it how you'd like.

[Patrick]

Ok for all of you
imperialism
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
imperialism
ok we go in to iraq they dont want us to correct?
then after the war we take there oil correct?
so by looking at the defenition of imperialism we are doing wrong. NOW WHAT BITCH

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
Ok for all of you
imperialism
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
imperialism
ok we go in to iraq they dont want us to correct?
then after the war we take there oil correct?
so by looking at the defenition of imperialism we are doing wrong. NOW WHAT BITCH

the problem with your arguement there is that the Iraqi's wanted us to go in...

and also, we aren't taking their oil, the Iraqi's own it, and they will sell it and they will profit from it...

that's "what" bitch...

[Patrick]

hey bitch,
the people wanted us to, but did the government want us to? i will let u ansewer thhat ass hole

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
hey bitch,
the people wanted us to, but did the government want us to? i will let u ansewer thhat ass hole

but did the people want that government or vote it in to power..............

[Patrick]

it did not matter because the people did not have a choice of who was in power did they? so by them not having a choice on that there is no way in hell they are going to have a choice on if we are gong to attack them and you know what? 50% of the poupulation did not want us to go into iraq you know that correct?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
it did not matter because the people did not have a choice of who was in power did they? so by them not having a choice on that there is no way in hell they are going to have a choice on if we are gong to attack them and you know what? 50% of the poupulation did not want us to go into iraq you know that correct?

i'd like to see where you got the 50% figure and who took the poll..............and i didn't really understand what you were tring to say above..............

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
it did not matter because the people did not have a choice of who was in power did they? so by them not having a choice on that there is no way in hell they are going to have a choice on if we are gong to attack them and you know what? 50% of the poupulation did not want us to go into iraq you know that correct?

first of all, the people will now have a choice in their government, a government is "of the people, by the people and for the people" so if the people wanted us there, that is all that matters.

secondly, 65% of the people polled 2 weeks ago wanted a continued US presence...that leave 35% that did not...not 50%

[trogdor]

I have no idea where that 50% was from so I'll assume it's not very accurate. I'm sure our approval ratings have dropped a lot since the invasion, so it's safe to say that a good majority of them initially supported US occupation. I don't think many people would disagree when I say Saddam deserved to be removed!

[Ronin]

Originally posted by EmoMoose86
See, you're cool! I like your arguements because they are nice.

If you define Imperialism as spreading American Influence, then we do it unintentionally all the time. Its quite shocking to see Subway on the side of the highway in Abu Dhabi haha.

My dad, I don't get information from him, he doesn't tell me these things... I've seen it. I lived in Kuwait, I know how the oil industry in the country works because I saw it with my very own eyes. We talked about it at my school in Kuwait and such. Its like if we somehow got on the subject of lets say... California. I have never lived or been in California for more than a couple days. I know very little about California. Neph, however, has lived there most... or all his life (dont quite remember). He knows a thing or two about California because he lives there, he knows about it. I know a thing or two about the oil industry, only because i've seen it, and i'm in an oil company family. 1/3 of my life I have lived abroad as an expact. My life has been shaped by a job in an oil company. Sure my views are different because of it... I get irritated when people think oil companies are like... evil or blood thirsty or something- its just my perspectives.
American companies- sure American companies will profit, but other international ones will eventually profit on oil and such, eventually. Its what companies do, American or International. *shrugs* Its how it goes. :D

First of all...yes, yes I am cool. Thank you for pointing that out :D

The spread of American influence is partially unintentional. Other countries with less freedom see what you (we) have in North America, and they're influenced.

But the spread of influence through the spread of businesses isn't unintentional. You don't unintentionally set up a McDonalds in Bangkok ("oops! i dropped 10 million big macs on china!"). I don't think there's a sinister guy dressed in black orchestrating the spread of evil american power, but I think there's a will to increase US influence throughout the world, and some of us think that's imperialism when it reaches the level that it has of late.

But you're right, I don't know the first thing about the oil business, and having been around it first hand, you hold the cards on that. I'm sure a well managed oil industry will be good for the Iraqi people, but I see it also as the US profiting from a bloody, unneccessary war (and yes, other countries will profit as well)

[Patrick]

alright for all u dum fellows i ment 50 percent of the iraqi poupulation DER

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
alright for all u dum fellows i ment 50 percent of the iraqi poupulation DER

just cause you think that doesn't make it so...........do you have any sources to back you "statement" up with?

[Patrick]

not that i can think of but do u think all of the innocent iraqi's are saying oh please bush come bomb us please i know u want our oil because we all know saddam dosnt have ne weapons but please bomb us

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
do u think all of the innocent iraqi's are saying oh please bush come bomb us please i know u want our oil because we all know saddam dosnt have ne weapons but please bomb us

but do think all the innocent iraq's are saying. please saddum rape us, kill us, torture us? do you think there saying. please saddum sell "our" oil to build yourself palaces and yatchs (?), while we benefit nothing from it? do you think there saying. please world ignore our suffering, its not your concern?....................

[trogdor]

Heh. WEll said justinstacy! Mrs. skibahaha, do you know anything about how Saddam hussein took power in Iraq, or how he stayed in power for almost 30 years? And no it's not because the people loved him dearly. It might do some good if you read stuff on it.

[yeat182]

obvioulsy she doesn't know as much as she thinks she does...

[Patrick]

i think i no enough and saddam may have done that i would rather stay clear of saddam then get bombed by some forienge SP country, lets put this in our perspective, would u want bush to take 1 eighth of the poupulation or get chicago get the fucked bomebed out of it

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
i think i no enough and saddam may have done that i would rather stay clear of saddam then get bombed by some forienge SP country, lets put this in our perspective, would u want bush to take 1 eighth of the poupulation or get chicago get the fucked bomebed out of it

Seriously, your motives are all wrong. The reasons not to go are that Saddam is not an immediete threat with the WMDs, the human rights violations Saddam is commiting is inconsequential compared to the human rights violations that will be commited by the Islamic fundamentalist republic that will most likely take over Iraq becuase of our meddling, and it will give cause to a brand new generation of terrorists to hate the US.

And as far as that question goes, Chicago is not the capital of the U.S. dumbshit, D.C is. And personally, D.C. getting the fuck bombed out of it is preferable to Bush turning into a facist.

If you're going to argue agaisnt war, at least make intelligent arguments. The argument that the Iraqi people don't want is there is clearly untrue, as you've been pwned several times on it, but there are several other reasons not to go into war besides that. Please mrs.skibahaha, stop embarrasing the left.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
i think i no enough and saddam may have done that i would rather stay clear of saddam then get bombed by some forienge SP country, lets put this in our perspective, would u want bush to take 1 eighth of the poupulation or get chicago get the fucked bomebed out of it

you can't even string together a coherrent sentence

[trogdor]

an eigth? Have we killed an EIGTH of the people of Iraq? That sounds a little too much.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by trogdor
an eigth? Have we killed an EIGTH of the people of Iraq? That sounds a little too much.

yeah, there is no way that is correct

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
i think i no enough and saddam may have done that i would rather stay clear of saddam then get bombed by some forienge SP country, lets put this in our perspective, would u want bush to take 1 eighth of the poupulation or get chicago get the fucked bomebed out of it I don't know where you're coming up with this number

Iraqis killed: 6,058-7,711 (IraqBodyCount.net)
Iraqis population: 24,683,313 (CIA.gov)

That comes out to about 0.0002%, or about one five thousandth. Not quite the dramatic numbers you came up with.

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I don't know where you're coming up with this number

Iraqis killed: 6,058-7,711 (IraqBodyCount.net)
Iraqis population: 24,683,313 (CIA.gov)

That comes out to about 0.0002%, or about one five thousandth. Not quite the dramatic numbers you came up with.

It's because mrs.skibahaha is a moron and embarrasment to liberals everywhere.

[Matthew]

i think mrs skibahahaha is saying that we killed what would be equivalent to one eight of the population of chicago. i dont know if thats true, and quite frankly im too lazy to go find out. it would make argumentation on the liberal side so much easier if she would jsut stop posting

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
It's because mrs.skibahaha is a moron and embarrasment to everyone.

i think thats better ^ :D

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Matthew
i think mrs skibahahaha is saying that we killed what would be equivalent to one eight of the population of chicago. i dont know if thats true, and quite frankly im too lazy to go find out. it would make argumentation on the liberal side so much easier if she would jsut stop posting

chicagos population 2 896 016
iraq's that died (i dont know if this was civil death or military death or military dressed like civilians death or civilians killed by iraqi military) 6,058-7,711
---------------------------------------------
.26626%

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i think thats better ^ :D
HAHAHAHA