Story Comments
Posted by: mesodude 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do people who want to destroy the planet care if or how many nukes Iran has? Do you think about that when you're shilling for Big Oil and bitching about how the environmentalists won't let you rape,drill and wage war on the planet for oil?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mes, what are you talking about? If Iraq was strictly a war for oil, why wouldn't we have taken Canada? They have more oil and far less radicals. This wasn't a war for oil. If you can drop your Bush hate for a few seconds, think big picture. 10 years, stable Iraq, stable Afghanistan, stable Pakistan, stable India. All democracies. How long will the tin-plated dictatorships and corrupt monarchies hold power over their people with freely elected democracies next door? This will bring positive change to that region. Women's rights, free speech, freedom of religion possibly.
On the environment, you're worried about CO2 with the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran? I think the bears can adjust to the ice caps melting easier than they can a nuclear winter.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This wasn't a war for oil. "
Really? What was it a war for, then? Because it's interesting that all the oil contracts are being forced to be put into the hands of American oil companies.
Ten years a stable Iraq and Afghanistan? As Democracies? US Style democracies? No offense but we've been in Iraq nearly ten years already and for the Iraqis it's mostly gone downhill.
Womens rights? Women had more rights under Saddam, even if he was a monsterous dictator, than under the US formed government. Free speech? Not so far, not even close. Even the American troops can't report what they want to back home. Freedom of Religion? They had more freedom of religion under Saddam.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We've been in Iraq for 10 years?" March 20th, 2003 to May 27th, 2008. That's about 5 years. That plus most of who we're facing isn't Iraqi but insurgents from Syria, Iran and AlQeada.
As to the stability, we're seeing it happen already. The locals have joined our forces in fighting the terrorists and insurgents. The Iraqi army is doing much of the fighting and winning. This isn't going to be a republic like the USA but it will be a nation that is run by the consent of the governed. On the rights of women and free speech, things are changing for the better. It takes time and will take more time. On Saddam and rights, there's no comparison. Rape was common right before execution. Rape and kidnapping was permitted when Ude did it. That isn't the case today.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The locals have joined our forces in fighting the terrorists and insurgents. The Iraqi army is doing much of the fighting and winning. "
Have you been there recently? Last time I was there the US was telling the American people that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had taken over most of the US Army's job when there were less than ten thousand, a tenth of which would desert every time they took on a difficult action.
" Rape was common right before execution. Rape and kidnapping was permitted when Ude did it. That isn't the case today"
It seems like it's permitted within the US troops. One in three women soldiers will be raped by a fellow soldier before they get out of the military. Women are terrified to go to the latrines at night for fear they'll be raped by their own 'brethren.'
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Dio - You never did get round to telling us what planet you came from ??? "
Check the facts. The facts bear out both my statements and none of BB64's assertions. Your smart-ass comments don't address anything other than your self-important assumptions.
Reply
-
-
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
--You have a breathtakingly simplistic view of the world, BB. I don't recall implying that Iraq was "strictly" for oil but to answer your question Canada is more widely respected than we are (many countries are, come to think of it) and what I think would happen is that we'd be attacked by several countries at once (including Russia and China), ensuring our own annihilation.
In any event, who says we need to "take" any oil from anyone? Oil is over $130 a gallon. What was it before we illegally waged war on Iraq? How much do speculators jack up prices every time their hero Bush peeps out of his burrow and gives us bad news about Iran? The bottom line is that it *is* a war for oil. It's just not a war for oil for the benefit of the American people.
Reply -
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"On the environment, you're worried about CO2 with the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran? I think the bears can adjust to the ice caps melting easier than they can a nuclear winter."
--That was essentially the question I posed to you, only in reverse. You're worried about Iran but you support those in power who fight tooth and nail to exploit our planet for a buck. Why, if you really care so much about national security, do you avoid implementing the 9/11 panel's recommendations and allow government regulatory agencies to self-destruct? The answer couldn't be more obvious: warmonger cons almost always stand to benefit financially when we're constantly invading or threatening to invade other countries. You're not concerned about security, you're concerned about keeping the con war engine chugging along so you can make as much money as you can dealing in death and destruction. You know I'm right. ;-(
Reply -
Neutral
pcknowledge1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64
BS. Iraq is in a complete chaos. It was much safer under Saddam.
The Iraq war, in 10 yrs, will lead to a stable India? More BS. India was doing business with Iraq, now the Indian government is forced to purchase oil at twice the market rate. India's economy took a big hit. Halliburton set up profitable offices there. The Iraq war will lead to a "stable Pakistan"? Pakistan is a muslim country, they are completly against the Iraq war. The Iraq war will bring about positive changes? Yeah right. Thousands of civilians dead (more then Saddam killed in his lifetime), a destroyed infrastructure which is not being rebuild. Insurgents who want our military out of their country. As for Iran, the country is ruled by the Mullahs, not Ahmedinejad. I don't believe for even a fraction of a second that they are willing to die. Ahmedinejad, though as crazy as Bush, is not willing to die either.
Iran wants nukes cause we have them. More importantly, because Israel has them.
Reply -
-
-
-
loading ...
Dionys
skeek
GWHayduke
ML2007
TheRealizer
bluetexasvalley
vidman04
tanglang
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.