GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 Well think about this...1.) How much did the two world trade centers cost?2.) How much did it cost to clean up all the debris? ( i think it was in billions)3.) How much money did insurance companies lose?4.) It is costing America billions as each day passes to reconstruct Iraq5.) It is costing America billions to keep USA forces in IraqSo who is to say that USA doesnt deserve any cash?(feel free to add any costs i may have overlooked) ???
Wolf Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 You and Emprworm have been busy today, really putting in an effort, huh?
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Author Posted March 17, 2004 You and Emprworm have been busy today, really putting in an effort, huh?when empworm visits the board its always a fun time.
Timenn Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 Eh, what good is money, if no one lets you buy their oil?
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Author Posted March 17, 2004 Eh, what good is money, if no one lets you buy their oil?thats what Houston is for. :)
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 17, 2004 Author Posted March 17, 2004 Eh, what good is money, if no one lets you buy their oil?and Iraq as well
Timenn Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 and Iraq as wellExactly what I meant.People aren't saying really that the US went to Iraq for money, but they say they went to Iraq for the oil
Egeides Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 America IS paying billions. The rulers and their corporate allies aren't. And there may be other advantages than oil, such as a strategic asset or contracts.Gunwound: Sure it cost alot, but I don't think it's to Iraqis/else to pay the bill.
Timenn Posted March 17, 2004 Posted March 17, 2004 lol! all those morons who think this is all about oil. what a bunch of idiots.America is paying out the #$#$# to fund this war. we are NOT making money. not by a long shot.and we dont even control the oil. (gas prices now at an all time high in the US, controlled by international OPEC, costing our economy millions every day)lol.try again socialist bush-haters.1) Watch your language.2) To whom are you actually referring? And no "they", but names...3) Did I say that it was ONLY about oil?4) aaaah, you wouldn't even listen...
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 18, 2004 Author Posted March 18, 2004 Exactly what I meant.People aren't saying really that the US went to Iraq for money, but they say they went to Iraq for the oilOIL = CASH ;)
Warskum Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 Its true that US has a lots of bils to pay, but that doesnt justifies the fact that he invaded Iraqi for oil. Bush doesnt gives shit about iraqi people, who ever thinks Bush is actaully feeling sorry for those people or something like that he is blind. Bush invaded iraq for oil=money. I think he has already payed his bills with the money gained. But what Bush did was wrong, first its stealing.Example: you have a company and a nice house, then i invade your house and take it over or a while, in the mean time i take YOUR companies profit, i think that can be called stealing.But there is more, Bush invaded iraq for money, inspectors were send and they didnt find weapons, but Bush still attacked, you claim he knew for sure that saddam had weapons cuz he sold it to them, thats true, but were are the weapons now?? I think Bush knew that the inspectors were right(if he has any barins in his head he could figure that saddam would sell/hide it and he wouldnt find it), but he still attacked, cuz he wanted the oil. I do not respect someone who is willing to kill innocent people for money, money is just a piece of paper and bush is able of giving orders to kill people for peices of paper. Osama and Saddam have killed lots and lots of people to, but they did it for there people(both have lots of money and dont really need more)IMO its a BETTER reason then killing people for money(i sayd better, not a good reason, what they did cannot be justified, it was horrible). If you ask me Bush aimt any better then saddam and osama, the only differents is that whatever he does, he can find some excuse to justify it.(empworm if you call me a idiot again i must start flaming to ;))
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 18, 2004 Author Posted March 18, 2004 Osama and Saddam have killed lots and lots of people to, but they did it for there peopleYou think Osama and Saddam did what they did for the love of their people and for the loyalty of their country?Thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard in this whole debate .Osama and Saddam only love themselves...they dont give a shit about their country or their people... they are extremists who want cash and power too... Dont try to glorify them it only makes you look foolish.
emprworm Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 Osama and Saddam have killed lots and lots of people to, but they did it for there people bwaahaha! Oh thats a good one! A knee slapper. Is this what young kids learn in school?ROFL :D :D
emprworm Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 what makes it even funnier is that he says "BUT but they did it for their<sic> people"Let me pretend to be one his classmates.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 18, 2004 Author Posted March 18, 2004 what makes it even funnier is that he says "BUT but they did it for their<sic> people"Let me pretend to be one his classmates.
Warskum Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 saddam was rich and i believe he did it for his people, he didnt need money, its true that he is evil, but i think somehow he does care for his people. My wrong about osama, he did it for religion, wich is still a better reason then for pieces of papers.i dont learn this on school, actually we learn that US is always right and that bush is good and stuff like that, most believe it, i dont.Osama did it for Islam, not really *his* people but his followers.You are the epitome of a bush-haterAnd you are an example of someone who has stuck his head way to geep into bushes ass to see the truth(stop saying "you are a bush hater so...", thats not a argument, if you do i will do it to) Bush doesnt cares about iraqi people, he doesnt cares about those innocent little children that died, cuz he has his money, he doesnt needs anything more. saddam and osama kiled innocent people to, but that doesnt gives Bush the right to do so to, he has lowered himself to their level and is nothing better then them, if you ask me we should invade US beause Bush with weapons is way to dangerous for the world.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 18, 2004 Author Posted March 18, 2004 saddam was rich and i believe he did it for his people, he didnt need money, its true that he is evil, but i think somehow he does care for his people. My wrong about osama, he did it for religion, wich is still a better reason then for pieces of papers.1.) Saddam got rich by STEALING
Warskum Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 well i switch, monday its osama's turn tuesday saddam etc, ;)I dont support them so i dont have my head in their asses, I dont try to justify what they did, because it cannot be justified, it was horrible and i hope both get shot fot there actions, BUT Bush aint any better. You say Saddam stole, thats true, but does that give Bush the right to steal to? Bush lowers himself to their level and thus is as bad as they are.If i kill people does that give you the right to do so to? if you kill people to are you then any better then me?point 3 can be true, i dont know much bout osama except that he did it for the Islam. But once again, the fact that osama does it for money doesnt means Bush can do that to, if he does, then he is as bad as osama.
GUNWOUNDS Posted March 18, 2004 Author Posted March 18, 2004 well i switch, monday its osama's turn tuesday saddam etc, ;)I dont support them so i dont have my head in their asses, I dont try to justify what they did, because it cannot be justified, it was horrible and i hope both get shot fot there actions, BUT Bush aint any better. You say Saddam stole, thats true, but does that give Bush the right to steal to? Bush lowers himself to their level and thus is as bad as they are.If i kill people does that give you the right to do so to? if you kill people to are you then any better then me?point 3 can be true, i dont know much bout osama except that he did it for the Islam. But once again, the fact that osama does it for money doesnt means Bush can do that to, if he does, then he is as bad as osama.the Difference is that
VigilVirus Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 No one is capable of doing only bad. Such comment is incredibly flawed and should be left behind in elementary school. It's time to lose the "Mommy, mommy, that man is bad, I hate him" attitude. Learn to see the shades of grey as well as the underlying causes and effects they create. I agree, Bush isn't all bad. There's a lot of good about him. Saddam isn't all bad. Osama isn't all bad.Hitler and Stalin weren't all bad.
Edric O Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 The American TAXPAYERS are paying billions. American corporations and their puppets in the American government are reaping the benefits.Hey, who needs evil socialist things like free health care for all Americans, when that money is much better spent killing people?
Acriku Posted March 18, 2004 Posted March 18, 2004 The American TAXPAYERS are paying billions. American corporations and their puppets in the American government are reaping the benefits.Hey, who needs evil socialist things like free health care for all Americans, when that money is much better spent killing people?Technically, they aren't paying for it now. Probably leaving the problem up to our children :-X
Recommended Posts