The Real WMD: What Men Do.

[240 is Back]

It is all starting to become clear now.

hedge is absolutely right.  we did essentially invade sadaam on a loophole, and yes, there are 50+ other countries which match that exact criteria.  We chose the first 3 that fit our oil needs.

That being said, Stark was absolutely right last night, when he said that if we don't invade them, they will eventualyl invade us.  And it's true. 

Afghanistan had just signed with an Argentenian firm in July 2001 for their oil.  All 3 nations were dropping the dollar.  They would have made deals with RUS and CHINA, and in 20 or 25 years, they would be on our doorstep with China, using the same bullshit lines that we used to invade sadaam, on us.

I can't condemn it anymore.  It's fucked up, and defending the lies "liberate the people" or WMD is fucked up to.

We took them out because they were 6 months from realizing what they had, 6 years from becoming strong again, 12 years from being soaked into a superpower, and 20 years from being a threat.

We pre-empted them for their resources so another nation couldn't pre-empt them later.

The real WMD is what men do - take over or be taken over.  And while it cannot be denied that Bush will lie, let 9/11 happen, or send our kids to die while lying to our faces, I am beginning to think he is doing the right thing for longterm US interests.   I think perhaps i've come full circle on my political stance.

[luike101]

You have very valid points sir, the problem I have is the way we go about doing things.  I also think that if people would become more informed and involved then possibly we wouldnt have to be lied to AS MUCH, of course.

[BRUCE]

It is all starting to become clear now.

hedge is absolutely right.  we did essentially invade sadaam on a loophole, and yes, there are 50+ other countries which match that exact criteria.  We chose the first 3 that fit our oil needs.

That being said, Stark was absolutely right last night, when he said that if we don't invade them, they will eventualyl invade us.  And it's true. 

Afghanistan had just signed with an Argentenian firm in July 2001 for their oil.  All 3 nations were dropping the dollar.  They would have made deals with RUS and CHINA, and in 20 or 25 years, they would be on our doorstep with China, using the same bullshit lines that we used to invade sadaam, on us.

I can't condemn it anymore.  It's fucked up, and defending the lies "liberate the people" or WMD is fucked up to.

We took them out because they were 6 months from realizing what they had, 6 years from becoming strong again, 12 years from being soaked into a superpower, and 20 years from being a threat.

We pre-empted them for their resources so another nation couldn't pre-empt them later.

The real WMD is what men do - take over or be taken over.  And while it cannot be denied that Bush will lie, let 9/11 happen, or send our kids to die while lying to our faces, I am beginning to think he is doing the right thing for longterm US interests.   I think perhaps i've come full circle on my political stance.

Woah, one monster revelation at a time, Rob!

I agree with the line I have bolded, but not much else.  Again I'll say, if this was all about oil, it's the most expensive oil ever purchased.  Saddam was selling his, we didn't buy.  There's more oil in Iran.  Discuss.

[240 is Back]

You have very valid points sir, the problem I have is the way we go about doing things.  I also think that if people would become more informed and involved then possibly we wouldnt have to be lied to AS MUCH, of course.

Right.  If Bush had gotten on the mic on Jan 20,2001 and said "look folks, we just had the dot-com bust, and we're gonna have a big financial hit this fall unless we borrow from the govt.  A war is a good reason, and China's gonna be tapping our asses using Iraq/Iran/Afghan/Syrian lube in 20 years if we don't move soon, so whattya say?  Wanna bombs the bitches? 

Again I'll say, if this was all about oil, it's the most expensive oil ever purchased.  Saddam was selling his, we didn't buy.  There's more oil in Iran.  Discuss.

Would all this have been worth JUST saddam's oil?   yes.  Iraq is $3trillion in oil and we're only $400B in so far.

plus, we now own the valuable afghan oil pipeline pathway which connects the gulf to asia and the $2T in caspian oil.

plus we will soon pwn the $3T in oil under Iran.

Syria, you girls wanna dance next?


So yes, we might spend a trillion on our wars, but we're getting $8T+ in return, plus we're preventing a billion hardworking chinese from getting their fingers in that oil.  Which could make it worth a $16Trillion oil superpower swing.

[BRUCE]

Right.  If Bush had gotten on the mic on Jan 20,2001 and said "look folks, we just had the dot-com bust, and we're gonna have a big financial hit this fall unless we borrow from the govt.  A war is a good reason, and China's gonna be tapping our asses using Iraq/Iran/Afghan/Syrian lube in 20 years if we don't move soon, so whattya say?  Wanna bombs the bitches? 

Would all this have been worth JUST saddam's oil?   yes.  Iraq is $3trillion in oil and we're only $400B in so far.

plus, we now own the valuable afghan oil pipeline pathway which connects the gulf to asia and the $2T in caspian oil.

plus we will soon pwn the $3T in oil under Iran.

Syria, you girls wanna dance next?


So yes, we might spend a trillion on our wars, but we're getting $8T+ in return, plus we're preventing a billion hardworking chinese from getting their fingers in that oil.  Which could make it worth a $16Trillion oil superpower swing.

We're not taking anyones oil, even if you believe the premise of that to be possible.  What you have written simply isn't the case.

[240 is Back]

We're not taking anyones oil, even if you believe the premise of that to be possible.  What you have written simply isn't the case.

We are building a series of US military bases along the same path of the oil pipeline we're building.

[BRUCE]

We are building a series of US military bases along the same path of the oil pipeline we're building.

Uh huh, it's not just Iraqi lives we're protecting.

[240 is Back]

Uh huh, it's not just Iraqi lives we're protecting.

So why not put the bases in baghdad or other highly populated areas?  We're setting them up in the middle of nowhere, all along the pipeline.

[GroinkTropin]

It is all starting to become clear now.

hedge is absolutely right.  we did essentially invade sadaam on a loophole, and yes, there are 50+ other countries which match that exact criteria.  We chose the first 3 that fit our oil needs.

That being said, Stark was absolutely right last night, when he said that if we don't invade them, they will eventualyl invade us.  And it's true. 

Afghanistan had just signed with an Argentenian firm in July 2001 for their oil.  All 3 nations were dropping the dollar.  They would have made deals with RUS and CHINA, and in 20 or 25 years, they would be on our doorstep with China, using the same bullshit lines that we used to invade sadaam, on us.

I can't condemn it anymore.  It's fucked up, and defending the lies "liberate the people" or WMD is fucked up to.

We took them out because they were 6 months from realizing what they had, 6 years from becoming strong again, 12 years from being soaked into a superpower, and 20 years from being a threat.

We pre-empted them for their resources so another nation couldn't pre-empt them later.

The real WMD is what men do - take over or be taken over.  And while it cannot be denied that Bush will lie, let 9/11 happen, or send our kids to die while lying to our faces, I am beginning to think he is doing the right thing for longterm US interests.   I think perhaps i've come full circle on my political stance.

Damn, i've been saying this exact same thing for years now, it's self preservation! The government is protecting our way of life, plain and simple. If we don't get out there and take the oil, china and russia will eventually do it, to be sure. Russia has some time because they produce their own, which we could/should do, but the lefties are totally opposed to it.

[BRUCE]

So why not put the bases in baghdad or other highly populated areas?  We're setting them up in the middle of nowhere, all along the pipeline.

We're protecting the wealth of Iraqis, you'll agree this is important, and we're sending more troops to take care of those areas you've noted.

[240 is Back]

We're protecting the wealth of Iraqis, you'll agree this is important, and we're sending more troops to take care of those areas you've noted.

See, that is the line which gives people the moral

but as Hedge said (i believe), there are 50+ nations who need the help worse than iraqis.

I am gonna have to disagree with you on the oil - our own companies already busted for fraud in iraq, are managing everything.

[BRUCE]

See, that is the line which gives people the moral

but as Hedge said (i believe), there are 50+ nations who need the help worse than iraqis.

I am gonna have to disagree with you on the oil - our own companies already busted for fraud in iraq, are managing everything.

I'd love to have a list of those 50 nations.  Either way, does this depreciate the good that comes from liberating Iraq?

[headhuntersix]

U just bought ur ticket outa the gulag. I will make sure I stamp ur papers.

[ToxicAvenger]

We pre-empted them for their resources so another nation couldn't pre-empt them later.

next on the ajenda..genetic profiling...

eliminate the criminal ..before he/she is born...

...we could go a step further...


it all comes down to telescopic philanthropy on bushes part...ok ..however do we believe his heart ws in the right place?

does it have to be as long as the end result is our safety?


so that begs another question..were we in danger 20 yrs from now?


the best of scientists cant predict events 10 mins into the future ( CPT symmetry..butterfly effect..chaos theory ..google it)..20 yrs..??

damn ....either really really smart..

orrr..slave to selfish self interests..

a lotta people wanna believe bush should replace mother teresa..he saved a country dontcha know. 

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
and oh..back when we were in afghanistan..we looked ahead 20 yrs..empowered the taliban..yano..for the future good..and that gave us 911

[240 is Back]

We gave the taleban $40 million in July 2001 as a final offer for the pipeline.  They declined and signed with an oil co from argentina (for presumably much more $).

They were buried under a carpet of bombs less than 3 months later.

I guess we warned them clearly, offered them a shitty price (but when a guy with a gun makes you a crappy offer, you take it) and they declined.  Then we called their bluff and

911 was the heartwarming thing that cured some domestic woes (2.3T missing and enron along with the WTC asbestos).  The victims were collateral damage.    911 was also the reason we fed the world for our afghan move, one we told them in the spring was "coming right up!"

[ToxicAvenger]

The victims were collateral damage.

do the dead soldiers count as collateral?

[mightymouse72]

Right.  If Bush had gotten on the mic on Jan 20,2001 and said "look folks, we just had the dot-com bust, and we're gonna have a big financial hit this fall unless we borrow from the govt.  A war is a good reason, and China's gonna be tapping our asses using Iraq/Iran/Afghan/Syrian lube in 20 years if we don't move soon, so whattya say?  Wanna bombs the bitches? 

Would all this have been worth JUST saddam's oil?   yes.  Iraq is $3trillion in oil and we're only $400B in so far.

plus, we now own the valuable afghan oil pipeline pathway which connects the gulf to asia and the $2T in caspian oil.

plus we will soon pwn the $3T in oil under Iran.

Syria, you girls wanna dance next?


So yes, we might spend a trillion on our wars, but we're getting $8T+ in return, plus we're preventing a billion hardworking chinese from getting their fingers in that oil.  Which could make it worth a $16Trillion oil superpower swing.

man, you can crunch some serious numbers. 

for the sake of your debate, i'll believe everything you've stated.

i don't have a problem with any of it.  i'm still sleeping at night, i just pray for our troops.

as for your 9/11 theories, them dogs ain't huntin

[240 is Back]

man, you can crunch some serious numbers. 

for the sake of your debate, i'll believe everything you've stated.

i don't have a problem with any of it.  i'm still sleeping at night, i just pray for our troops.

as for your 9/11 theories, them dogs ain't huntin

Yeah, we can't change it, and we're benefitting from it, so what can ya do but sit back and watch the theater.

as far as 9/11, the current generation has a mental stigma that comes from living thru the event, which blinds clear vision.  If the exact same event happened in spain (buildings dissolved like that, a plane disappeared, and WTC7 fell like that without being hit by a plane), many americans would laugh at the absurdity of it.  But since it happened here, well, the mental block is there.  The next generation of Americans won't have the mental stigma of living thru it, so they will look at it objectively, and well...

Nothing will change anyway, so eh.

[Thunderfck1]

and oh..back when we were in afghanistan..we looked ahead 20 yrs..empowered the taliban..yano..for the future good..and that gave us 911

That also was the beginning of the end for the USSR so yeah it was a pretty good idea.

[ToxicAvenger]

That also was the beginning of the end for the USSR so yeah it was a pretty good idea.

musta been..we never went after osama..

[Camel Jockey]

Too much bullshit to preserve our way of life.

And stark was wrong, I don't think China would be trying take up all the world's assests with force, I mean you got team America world police to lay the smacketh down. But The US already started doing so with elaborate plans that most of the public don't even know about.

I guess my children will have a better way of life but at what expense?