Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2004, 08:12 PM   #11 (permalink)
Screamo Specialist
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts: 228
Default

what ever happened to Bush finding Osama i havent heard **** about that lately...Bush started another war before he finished the one with Osama
__________________
Whos better than Thrice...

NOONE
Pimp_racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2004, 08:17 PM   #12 (permalink)
Musical Dictator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 222
Default

I have 1 thing to say, everyone stop bitching and

whatever you do. . .

DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN CARREY
__________________
"It's better to try and fail, than to never try at all" - Edgil
Edgil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 04:14 PM   #13 (permalink)
Muck Fusic
 
IamAlejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,575
Default

Okay, you think an economy is going to boom because of 4 years. No, the effect of the economy is normally from the president 1-3 terms before him. And recently the economy has been on an upward trend. But why don't we look at the democratic canidates. Like Edwards, who wants to get NATO involved in Iraq. NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization) Iraq is no where near the north atlantic. So he is a complete retard for even mentioning that. Or what about that General, Dean I believe. He's great job in Kosovo in which he bombed hospitals, civilian convoys, and all other sorts. Newport News is very close by, I go there all the time. And we are STILL looking for Osama. But when no country in the middle east is willing to work with you it doesn't make it easy. And the electoral system has been around forever. No need to complain now. Maybe if Gore could have won his HOME STATE there would be no complaining?
__________________
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
IamAlejo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 04:48 PM   #14 (permalink)
Management
 
Rockafella Skank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgil
I have 1 thing to say, everyone stop bitching and

whatever you do. . .

DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN CARREY
Do you mean Kerry? (I really like Kerry.)
Rockafella Skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 09:02 PM   #15 (permalink)
Freeskier
 
jibber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople...
Posts: 1,536
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo
Hey, I see all you guys saying that you hate Bush. I'm just wondering why. And if you say one thing I'm gonna ask you why we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia which is the probably the most rich oil country in the world. So just wondering.
Now on to why the US would never attack Saudi Arabia. Saudi has been the US's biggest resource in the middle east, giving them access to HUGE ammounts of oil (the majority of oil consumed in the US comes from Saudi oil feilds). If one strategically placed attack on one of the oil fields took place, it would be enough to basically cripple the economy. Scenario: a single attack takes place on the Abqaiq extralight crude complex stableizing towers (towers filled with hydrogen sulfide used to refine the oil for it to be useable by consumers) and one of the most vital parts of the saudi oilt pipeline is gine, not to mention the effects the hydrogen sulfide has on the people living there. Abqaiq is only one of hundreds of vital oil fields, if only five of these fields were hit, Saudi would be out of the oil producing business for about 2 years, and seeing as how they are the main supplier of oil to the US (and much of the rest of the world), I doubt any preseident would want to go for that.
jibber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 09:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
Muck Fusic
 
IamAlejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,575
Default

You are kind of agreeing with me. If Bush only cared for oil he wouldn't care about the effects his actions may have on anything else. But he does, this war was not started for oil. It was started based on the beliefs of the American people. CONGRESS voted to go to war in Iraq, not Bush.
__________________
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
IamAlejo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 09:22 PM   #17 (permalink)
Freeskier
 
jibber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople...
Posts: 1,536
Default

I gotta disagree with you there. Bush's main argument for the war in Iraq was the threat he presented to the US, and the alledged "weapons of mass destruction." However, now the Bush administration has admitted that they have not found anything yet, and made a mistake. But they went on after that saying that they did find the materials to create them, and the resources to house them in the country. Bush says they have evidence of qualified scientists who can develop these weapons. well no s*** sherlock. The reason that Iraq has all these resources and all these specialists to develop the weapons is that the US supplied them to Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. The US had a problem with the fundamentalist regime in Iran at the time, so they figured that an easy and convenient way to get rid of it would be to give Saddam all the toys he wanted and let him go nuts. which worked, Iran was effectively screwed up to an extent that it could no longer pose a threat to the US. But now we've got another problem, Saddam has a bunch of weapons and resources, which he then used to attack Kuwait in the Gulf war. now it looked as if Iraq would go after Saudi Arabia, and the US could never have that (oil) so they got a mandate from the UN to only remove Saddam from KUWAIT, not unseat him from his own country. So when Saddam was forced back into Iraq, he went about screwing over his country, but never posing a specific threat to the US. Of course Bush cites alleged links to the Taliban, but there's never been even the slightest shred of evidence. were there any actual CONCRETE link to the Taliban, Bush would have presented it already, especially now, the Bush administration would want to put out ANYTHING that would somewhat validate thier reasons for going into Iraq in the first place, especially since its now obvious there were never any weapons of mass destruction. So basically, Bush went to war with a country for a number of loose, poorly constructed reasons with no concrete evidence to back them up.
jibber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 09:35 PM   #18 (permalink)
Management
 
Rockafella Skank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 609
Default

I agree with most of what you say, jibber. Well put. However, I think that the Bush administration knew from the beginning that there were no "weapons of mass destruction".
Rockafella Skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 09:46 PM   #19 (permalink)
Freeskier
 
jibber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople...
Posts: 1,536
Default

U'r right, they most likely knew there was nothing there. It does bring up the question of the real reason they went in there. You have to assume that at least part of it is for oil, maybe also to get a stronger link in the middle east. When you think about it is actually kind of scary, the US is kind of setting themselves up for a really disturbing pattern of attacks, especially with the whole "axis of evil" syria, north korea and the rest.....
jibber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 10:27 PM   #20 (permalink)
Management
 
Rockafella Skank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 609
Default

Yeah, I'm actually sort of worried about it myself. Yes, we did "free" a country, but there are a lot of countries out there that are doing as poorly as Iraq and you don't see us "freeing" them. What scares me is that we're looking like a power hungry land grabbing country.
Rockafella Skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.