Dang so it was oil afterall
-
Well good then. It was for a good reason after all.
Pardon Libby!
You're disgusting. http://icasualties.org/oif/[^] http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm[^] If it was your children that died there, you would speak otherwise.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
You're disgusting. http://icasualties.org/oif/[^] http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm[^] If it was your children that died there, you would speak otherwise.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
If a child of mine died there, I would prefer it be for a sensible reason like securing energy supplies than some silliness about turning Muslims into Jeffersonian democrats.
Pardon Libby!
-
The Australian defence minister today triggered a political storm when he suggested that protecting Iraq's huge oil reserves was a reason for the continuing deployment of foreign troops in the war-torn country. http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2119110,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront[^] And there was me getting swayed by some of the eloquent arguments put forward by the red-necked neo-cons around here, ho hum.
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela? They're much closer and far less prone to blowing themselves up.
-
You're disgusting. http://icasualties.org/oif/[^] http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm[^] If it was your children that died there, you would speak otherwise.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
You're disgusting
How many people would die if the lights suddenly went off?
-
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela? They're much closer and far less prone to blowing themselves up.
-
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela? They're much closer and far less prone to blowing themselves up.
-
You're disgusting. http://icasualties.org/oif/[^] http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm[^] If it was your children that died there, you would speak otherwise.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
No, from a State's point of view, he's right.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Then State's point of vue is a sick one. I would like to see how the U.S. would react if the Chinese decided to invade Saudi Arabia (or whatever oil-rich country) to secure its oil future.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
The Australian defence minister today triggered a political storm when he suggested that protecting Iraq's huge oil reserves was a reason for the continuing deployment of foreign troops in the war-torn country. http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2119110,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront[^] And there was me getting swayed by some of the eloquent arguments put forward by the red-necked neo-cons around here, ho hum.
-
Then State's point of vue is a sick one. I would like to see how the U.S. would react if the Chinese decided to invade Saudi Arabia (or whatever oil-rich country) to secure its oil future.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
Then State's point of vue is a sick one.
More exactly, a State has no morality.
Le Centriste wrote:
U.S. would react if the Chinese decided to invade Saudi Arabia (or whatever oil-rich country) to secure its oil future
hey would probably help guerilla movements to destabilize China's military occupation. Or strike nuclearly the Chinese if neocons are still in power.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Then State's point of vue is a sick one.
More exactly, a State has no morality.
Le Centriste wrote:
U.S. would react if the Chinese decided to invade Saudi Arabia (or whatever oil-rich country) to secure its oil future
hey would probably help guerilla movements to destabilize China's military occupation. Or strike nuclearly the Chinese if neocons are still in power.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
More exactly, a State has no morality.
This does not mean that we should accept it.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela? They're much closer and far less prone to blowing themselves up.
Red Stateler wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela?
Because the Bush administration believed it could gain control over Venezueka another way[^] the US has a bad experience with Jungles - they don't make good tankodromes.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Red Stateler wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela?
Because the Bush administration believed it could gain control over Venezueka another way[^] the US has a bad experience with Jungles - they don't make good tankodromes.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
If that's the case, why didn't we just invade Venezuela? They're much closer and far less prone to blowing themselves up.
Oh, come on now. To get the public's backing they had to have sufficient cause. The public would not allow a war for oil. That's unconstitutional. We can only defend ourselves. The constitution allows for the defense of the nation not the offense of another. So they got backing declaring Saddam's WMDs. Hence the defensive line. There was nothing we could do against Venezuela along those lines, but we would have if we could have.
This statement was never false.
-
Oh, come on now. To get the public's backing they had to have sufficient cause. The public would not allow a war for oil. That's unconstitutional. We can only defend ourselves. The constitution allows for the defense of the nation not the offense of another. So they got backing declaring Saddam's WMDs. Hence the defensive line. There was nothing we could do against Venezuela along those lines, but we would have if we could have.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The constitution allows for the defense of the nation not the offense of another
What? Where does it say that???
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
There was nothing we could do against Venezuela along those lines, but we would have if we could have.
Really? They're communists that have signed an anti-American treaty with a terrorist state, aligned themselves with communist Cuba and seized billions worth of US property within Venezuela.
-
The Australian defence minister today triggered a political storm when he suggested that protecting Iraq's huge oil reserves was a reason for the continuing deployment of foreign troops in the war-torn country. http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2119110,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront[^] And there was me getting swayed by some of the eloquent arguments put forward by the red-necked neo-cons around here, ho hum.