0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The vast majority of Americans supported the war in its initial stages. Afghanistan had a support of at least 70-80% of the people. Iraq..wasn't so much. Though the number was roughly the same amount since usually approval drops because some people think a war takes about as long as a M.M.A. fight. The major drag on approval ratings has been the slow progress in both fronts. Iraq is getting to the point it can stand on its own since coalition forces are handing over Providences left and right to the iraqi security forces. Once Iraq is stable and won't likely topple over. I'm sure that half of the forces in Iraq will return home while the other half move back into Afghanistan to finish up there.Assuming we don't get into a third conflict with Russia or Iran.
M2991 wrote...
We all know there were none and even if there were the Americans would just respond to a nuclear attack easily and wipe their enemy out.Do you know why the world doesn't want anyone to have WMD's? You throw a nuke, bio, or chemical weapon at me. I throw two back at you. You throw three at me. I throw four at you. Your allies throw a few at me. My allies throw a few at them. Continue the circle jerk for a while and we are all dead. Nukes serve little to no purpose beyond "look how big my dick is".
Which is why you have so many and we handed ours over to the U.N.
0
M2991 wrote...
Which is why you have so many and we handed ours over to the U.N.Yeah, there is also another reason we keep them. It is a deterrent to other nations who may wish to do us harm. That and we understand that not every country is honest. They will tell the U.N. that they don't have nukes while they secretly make them.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
M2991 wrote...
Which is why you have so many and we handed ours over to the U.N.Yeah, there is also another reason we keep them. It is a deterrent to other nations who may wish to do us harm. That and we understand that not every country is honest. They will tell the U.N. that they don't have nukes while they secretly make them.
Not only that, we aren't a dictatorship country where just one man has the power to launch nukes. We also don't have past history of slaughtering our own people just because we have free thought, meaning we actually have a conscience to prevent us from wanting to use the WMD.
0
PersonDude wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
M2991 wrote...
Which is why you have so many and we handed ours over to the U.N.Yeah, there is also another reason we keep them. It is a deterrent to other nations who may wish to do us harm. That and we understand that not every country is honest. They will tell the U.N. that they don't have nukes while they secretly make them.
Not only that, we aren't a dictatorship country where just one man has the power to launch nukes. We also don't have past history of slaughtering our own people just because we have free thought, meaning we actually have a conscience to prevent us from wanting to use the WMD.
I didn't want to say that since coming from me it would look like I was being arrogant. Its a valid point though.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
PersonDude wrote...
Not only that, we aren't a dictatorship country where just one man has the power to launch nukes. We also don't have past history of slaughtering our own people just because we have free thought, meaning we actually have a conscience to prevent us from wanting to use the WMD.I didn't want to say that since coming from me it would look like I was being arrogant. Its a valid point though.
Why would it sound arrogant coming from you? >.>
0
PersonDude wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
PersonDude wrote...
Not only that, we aren't a dictatorship country where just one man has the power to launch nukes. We also don't have past history of slaughtering our own people just because we have free thought, meaning we actually have a conscience to prevent us from wanting to use the WMD.I didn't want to say that since coming from me it would look like I was being arrogant. Its a valid point though.
Why would it sound arrogant coming from you? >.>
Its just me. Anytime I bring up that point in a debate I am always accused of acting "morally superior" or arrogant. So in order to avoid it I just don't bring up that point. Last time I made that point I had to sit and listen to someone take a fifteen minute anti-American tirade.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Its just me. Anytime I bring up that point in a debate I am always accused of acting "morally superior" or arrogant. So in order to avoid it I just don't bring up that point. Last time I made that point I had to sit and listen to someone take a fifteen minute anti-American tirade.Ah, I see. I guess this saves you the time of countering the anti-American tirade.
0
We obviously aren't waging war for oil otherwise gas prices wouldn't be so damned high. I think we are waging war on the wrong people anyhow, we should be attacking oil companies for being so prudish
0
Kais86 wrote...
We obviously aren't waging war for oil otherwise gas prices wouldn't be so damned high. I think we are waging war on the wrong people anyhow, we should be attacking oil companies for being so prudishThey make 2 cents on every barrel! That is a razor thin profit margin. How is that being prudish? Also take into account that the world demand has supply lines maxed out. If you have ever noticed that every time something threatens the supply the prices spike. Also people are debating that if we have reached peak production which the general idea is that cheap oil is reaching its last days and all other oil that comes from the ground will require, deeper drilling, more refining, more etc. Instead of the velvet black gold we pull out of the ground now. The oil that we will live off of will be thicker and harder to work with.
An example would be
Modern oil supply= Milk chocolate
Future oil supply= Unsweetened chocolate "Bakers chocolate"
Don't get me wrong I dislike the high prices as well but, it kind of irks me when point a finger at the political scapegoat. Yes, they have record profits but, you also have to take into account that the price of a single oil rig is 10 million dollars for a modern one, a shallow offshore rig costs about 70 - 175 million, a drillship is 300-500 million. The companies could rent some instead of building or buying them but, at a cost of 250,000 to $500,000 a day. Eh, its cheaper to just buy in the long run.
They just work with large numbers like millions and billions its not surprising you get some of those huge profits. What the politicians and media never say are the costs of running such a huge business.
0
sorry to say this but i think it was mostly 4 the oil.
i honestly think that the biggest threat the US faces isn't terrorest but
but future economical problems caused by the depletion of the worlds oil.
the US is a superpower. it is the richest and most advanced place in the world. but every aspect of life there runs on oil, it is basically the life blood of the US.
The US invaded for the WMD?
even if there was WMD and if it was launched at the US , honestly wtf would that do, 1 or 2 States would be lost. NO, at most 3 to 4 cites would fall. Now compare that to the possibility that oil starts to run out, and the US dose not have oil to last it a year, what would happen then?
do you think that the UN or the UK is going to give the US oil?
Well, ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, There going to be like "oh do u remember that time that you dump all that tie in to the Boston Harbor, well ur not getting shit! hahahhahah (and not normal laughter but evil laugh)."
oil runs the world, and he who has the power to stop the flow of oil. has the power to stop the world.
i honestly think that the biggest threat the US faces isn't terrorest but
but future economical problems caused by the depletion of the worlds oil.
the US is a superpower. it is the richest and most advanced place in the world. but every aspect of life there runs on oil, it is basically the life blood of the US.
The US invaded for the WMD?
even if there was WMD and if it was launched at the US , honestly wtf would that do, 1 or 2 States would be lost. NO, at most 3 to 4 cites would fall. Now compare that to the possibility that oil starts to run out, and the US dose not have oil to last it a year, what would happen then?
do you think that the UN or the UK is going to give the US oil?
Well, ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, There going to be like "oh do u remember that time that you dump all that tie in to the Boston Harbor, well ur not getting shit! hahahhahah (and not normal laughter but evil laugh)."
oil runs the world, and he who has the power to stop the flow of oil. has the power to stop the world.
0
Mu wrote...
sorry to say this but i think it was mostly 4 the oil.i honestly think that the biggest threat the US faces isn't terrorest but
but future economical problems caused by the depletion of the worlds oil.
the US is a superpower. it is the richest and most advanced place in the world. but every aspect of life there runs on oil, it is basically the life blood of the US.
The US invaded for the WMD?
even if there was WMD and if it was launched at the US , honestly wtf would that do, 1 or 2 States would be lost. NO, at most 3 to 4 cites would fall. Now compare that to the possibility that oil starts to run out, and the US dose not have oil to last it a year, what would happen then?
do you think that the UN or the UK is going to give the US oil?
Well, ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, There going to be like "oh do u remember that time that you dump all that tie in to the Boston Harbor, well ur not getting shit! hahahhahah (and not normal laughter but evil laugh)."
oil runs the world, and he who has the power to stop the flow of oil. has the power to stop the world.
The united states military has the technology to make its own oil from oil shale. Using the shale to liquid refining the military could fuel itself. We are developing technologies to have renewable energy. One of the major plans to remove ourselves from dependence on foreign oil is the plan being pushed by T. Boone Pickens.
The facts point away from this notion that America started a war for oil.
0
Fiery penguin of doom
I do agree with u for the most part.
Yes the military has the technology to make its own oil.
But that alone can not supply the US with the oil it needs
And yes there are plans on developing technologies like renewable energy.
But it well take a lot of time before the technology is good enough to
replace oil on a large scale, u also need a lot of time and money to make
the switch.
This is way i think the us invaded. Oil has become a necessity, if u were to cut of the oil supply to the US now a lot of people would die. and a to prevent lot of people from dieing is a good enough reason to go to war.
Thank u 4 replying, i found u thoughts on the subject very interesting and
insightfully
p.s. please do not take my comments as anti-american.
but they sure as hell are anti-bush(that guys a F!@*ing hypocrite).
I do agree with u for the most part.
Yes the military has the technology to make its own oil.
But that alone can not supply the US with the oil it needs
And yes there are plans on developing technologies like renewable energy.
But it well take a lot of time before the technology is good enough to
replace oil on a large scale, u also need a lot of time and money to make
the switch.
This is way i think the us invaded. Oil has become a necessity, if u were to cut of the oil supply to the US now a lot of people would die. and a to prevent lot of people from dieing is a good enough reason to go to war.
Thank u 4 replying, i found u thoughts on the subject very interesting and
insightfully
p.s. please do not take my comments as anti-american.
but they sure as hell are anti-bush(that guys a F!@*ing hypocrite).
0
Mu wrote...
The US invaded for the WMD? even if there was WMD and if it was launched at the US , honestly wtf would that do, 1 or 2 States would be lost. NO, at most 3 to 4 cites would fall. Now compare that to the possibility that oil starts to run out, and the US dose not have oil to last it a year, what would happen then?
Woah, woah, woah. I think before any progress is made for everyone to argue their points, I think we need to get past one part here... It seems to me in that statement your okay with 3 to 4 cities being hit with WMD but your afraid of the oil shortage...
Lets look at this with numbers and logics:
There is a higher chance of the most populous city will be hit. New York and Washington DC (Not many people, but a strategic hit) are a given, but lets say they didn't use rocket propelled WMD and decided to hit Chicago and LA also.
Population of cities.
New York City: 19,750,000
Washington DC: 588,292
Chicago: 3,000,000
Los Angeles: 12,900,000
Total: 36,238,292
The total you see there are the lives that would be lost if the terrorist set them off without any warning. Your saying, that isn't a good reason to go to war for?
If the number of lives does not phase you, then lets look at what would happen to America without any central leadership. It would be far more devastating than oil shortage. I think people are underplaying the power of WMD here...
0
PersonDude wrote...
Woah, woah, woah. I think before any progress is made for everyone to argue their points, I think we need to get past one part here... It seems to me in that statement your okay with 3 to 4 cities being hit with WMD but your afraid of the oil shortage...
Lets look at this with numbers and logics:
There is a higher chance of the most populous city will be hit. New York and Washington DC (Not many people, but a strategic hit) are a given, but lets say they didn't use rocket propelled WMD and decided to hit Chicago and LA also.
Population of cities.
New York City: 19,750,000
Washington DC: 588,292
Chicago: 3,000,000
Los Angeles: 12,900,000
Total: 36,238,292
The total you see there are the lives that would be lost if the terrorist set them off without any warning. Your saying, that isn't a good reason to go to war for?
If the number of lives does not phase you, then lets look at what would happen to America without any central leadership. It would be far more devastating than oil shortage. I think people are underplaying the power of WMD here...
People in the war for oil crowd usually do. I have heard everything from War for oil all the way up to crusade and even world domination theories. If we were after oil then I'm pretty sure they would have picked a better target rather than ignite a second war front in a powder keg in a unstable area of the world.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
People in the war for oil crowd usually do. I have heard everything from War for oil all the way up to crusade and even world domination theories. If we were after oil then I'm pretty sure they would have picked a better target rather than ignite a second war front in a powder keg in a unstable area of the world.This isn't the best logic, but I don't really see it as a war for oil since the coalition forces are burning fuck loads of fuel everyday anyway. As for the other theories (Crusades and world domination) what a load of crap. I seriously doubt America is that religious for the cursade theory and for world domination theories, I never even take them seriously and I don't really think anyone did...
0
PersonDude wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
People in the war for oil crowd usually do. I have heard everything from War for oil all the way up to crusade and even world domination theories. If we were after oil then I'm pretty sure they would have picked a better target rather than ignite a second war front in a powder keg in a unstable area of the world.This isn't the best logic, but I don't really see it as a war for oil since the coalition forces are burning fuck loads of fuel everyday anyway. As for the other theories (Crusades and world domination) what a load of crap. I seriously doubt America is that religious for the cursade theory and for world domination theories, I never even take them seriously and I don't really think anyone did...
People think the Freemasons are trying to take over the world and establish a new world order. People will believe anything.
Now to defend the war for oil theory.
1. America uses a quarter of the worlds oil. (correct me if I am wrong)
2. America is debatable the lone superpower in the world and out economy runs on cheap oil.
3. We invaded Iraq out of no where really (its been a while so I can't remember any provocation for sure). Kind of like, "He's got WMD's lets kick his ass".
4. Iraq has large oil reserves that have been barely tapped during the Saddam regime. (see No. 2)
5. The Bush family has ties to oil companies so a bit of a stretch and you can think that the family started the war so their oil buddies could profit.
People tend to think that if you are rich then you are obviously evil and will send young men and women to die so you can get richer. (Honestly, this just makes me sick to my stomach that people are so disconnected to reality). I'll give them credit, there are some sketchy details about the war but, there are more sketchy details about their war for oil theory.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
People think the Freemasons are trying to take over the world and establish a new world order. People will believe anything.Now to defend the war for oil theory.
1. America uses a quarter of the worlds oil. (correct me if I am wrong)
2. America is debatable the lone superpower in the world and out economy runs on cheap oil.
3. We invaded Iraq out of no where really (its been a while so I can't remember any provocation for sure). Kind of like, "He's got WMD's lets kick his ass".
4. Iraq has large oil reserves that have been barely tapped during the Saddam regime. (see No. 2)
5. The Bush family has ties to oil companies so a bit of a stretch and you can think that the family started the war so their oil buddies could profit.
People tend to think that if you are rich then you are obviously evil and will send young men and women to die so you can get richer. (Honestly, this just makes me sick to my stomach that people are so disconnected to reality). I'll give them credit, there are some sketchy details about the war but, there are more sketchy details about their war for oil theory.
It's funny but in reality, that's a bit sad... The chances of a world domination happening is like me getting a harem of lolis that look like Horo.
The war for oil theorist do have couple of good points as you have said, but seriously (this may sound biased and probably is) seeing it at the point of view of going to war for WMD sounds a lot more probable. I know people like pointing fingers, but there has to be a point when people realize that it's just gone a little too far and paranoia isn't the answer to everything...
0
PersonDude wrote...
It's funny but in reality, that's a bit sad... The chances of a world domination happening is like me getting a harem of lolis that look like Horo.The war for oil theorist do have couple of good points as you have said, but seriously (this may sound biased and probably is) seeing it at the point of view of going to war for WMD sounds a lot more probable. I know people like pointing fingers, but there has to be a point when people realize that it's just gone a little too far and paranoia isn't the answer to everything...
The sad truth is that people won't realize that. Though I wouldn't say it is paranoia, more like hatred. Politicians have created a system or a mindset within people that pits us against one another instead of actually accomplishing anything.
-Class envy (Those that have, don't deserve it)
-A you can't do it alone mentality (hand out programs and other "assistance" because its just too hard to succeed)
using fear of subect A all the way to subject Z.( immigration, terrorists, taking away benefits, raising taxes,etc)
-The kind of ruling where everyone points fingers and passes the buck.
I could go on for days about the problems plaguing this country but, my fingers would wear away until I had bloody nubs and I still wouldn't be finished.
The easiest way to say it is; The average American doesn't have access to all the information. They get a sound bite here and there while getting a little bit of information from various places. Most people just don't have the time to sit and get in depth information on a subject. Most people are so tied up in their own little world or just plain ignorant.
I believe this is testament to how stupid the average idiot can be.
Spoiler:
0
I don't really question the motivations. I mean there was obviously some reason, that is justifiable on some level, but in the end its all about human nature. Greed, fear, flashing our nuts to show who's the big man, killing for the sake of killing, acting like we know what's best for everyone else, whenever I hear someone talking about why the US did anything in the Middle East, one of those things is generally the subtext that sums everything up.
If you put 2 starving people in an empty room with a knife and a cookie, chances are that by the time that cookie is gone, one of the people will be dead and the knife will have had something to do with it. There's always the possibility that they'll share it, maybe even use the knife to cut the cookie in half, but humans are irrational, violent beasts. Sharing might be caring, but if you're starving and you want the cookie, you're gonna do whatever you have to do to get that fucking cookie.
If you put 2 starving people in an empty room with a knife and a cookie, chances are that by the time that cookie is gone, one of the people will be dead and the knife will have had something to do with it. There's always the possibility that they'll share it, maybe even use the knife to cut the cookie in half, but humans are irrational, violent beasts. Sharing might be caring, but if you're starving and you want the cookie, you're gonna do whatever you have to do to get that fucking cookie.
0
The Jesus wrote...
I don't really question the motivations. I mean there was obviously some reason, that is justifiable on some level, but in the end its all about human nature. Greed, fear, flashing our nuts to show who's the big man, killing for the sake of killing, acting like we know what's best for everyone else, whenever I hear someone talking about why the US did anything in the Middle East, one of those things is generally the subtext that sums everything up.If you put 2 starving people in an empty room with a knife and a cookie, chances are that by the time that cookie is gone, one of the people will be dead and the knife will have had something to do with it. There's always the possibility that they'll share it, maybe even use the knife to cut the cookie in half, but humans are irrational, violent beasts. Sharing might be caring, but if you're starving and you want the cookie, you're gonna do whatever you have to do to get that fucking cookie.
Must be a really fucking good cookie. Though its the truth we will kill one another over anything. All it takes is the right person and the right "thing". Something as important as food or water all the way down to some leather jacket or someones shoes someone will kill someone for it.