... if George W. Bush had really given a damn about human rights and bettering the world through nation building he would have invaded and rebuilt Somalia.

ok

around two decades with no functional government and poverty to the point that people turn to piracy. Would have cost far less to rehab a state like that, as nearly no one there wouldn't want to see something better.

didnt people shit a bird when troops were sent in to get that war lord/drug dealer (the blackhawk down incident)?

Originally posted by: FireBeerMidgets

didnt people shit a bird when troops were sent in to get that war lord/drug dealer (the blackhawk down incident)?

Supposedly its the reason why the Congo, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone were left to tear themselves apart. Africa- where africans go to die

I had a very wise political science professor tell me something once upon a time.... "Anytime America does something, it's for their own interest." Helping Somalia doesn't help America. But helping a country where America can maintain good oil prices really helps. The bonus of course is terrorists aren't welcomed in Islamic countries, and all those who stand with terrorists don't necessarily feel like going against a power house like the US.
Either way moose, there is no reason you should complain since you most likely use Iraqi oil to get to work everyday or to drive anywhere, and you don't fear being blown up by a crazy bomber on your way to work.


You should apply your question to the current president sir.

The State isn't interested in human rights. If it was, it would dissolve itself. The State's interested in preserving and expanding itself. "The business of America is business".

Originally posted by: Kadesh

I had a very wise political science professor tell me something once upon a time.... "Anytime America does something, it's for their own interest." Helping Somalia doesn't help America. But helping a country where America can maintain good oil prices really helps. The bonus of course is terrorists aren't welcomed in Islamic countries, and all those who stand with terrorists don't necessarily feel like going against a power house like the US.
Either way moose, there is no reason you should complain since you most likely use Iraqi oil to get to work everyday or to drive anywhere, and you don't fear being blown up by a crazy bomber on your way to work.


You should apply your question to the current president sir.

A. It took a political science professor to figure that shit out? I've been saying the same thing for fucking years!

B. I don't drive, and I usually take the subway or CNG busses when I don't walk or ride my bike. Even if I did drive, that would not mean you are right to say I shouldn't complain or have no reason to complain. That is a ludicrous argument.

C. It is a valid question for Obama. The valid response, however, is "are you fucking crazy? Bush got us into two wars and nearly destroyed our economy! We might be able to get to Somalia.... in about twenty fucking years!" Obama has not actually invaded any other countries or started wars of choice. Bush did. Iraq was not a realistic threat to the US (much as a few want to disagree) and was a waste of time, money, and above all else, lives.

Originally posted by: crunkmoose
C. It is a valid question for Obama. The valid response, however, is "are you fucking crazy? Bush got us into two wars and nearly destroyed our economy! We might be able to get to Somalia.... in about twenty fucking years!" Obama has not actually invaded any other countries or started wars of choice. Bush did. Iraq was not a realistic threat to the US (much as a few want to disagree) and was a waste of time, money, and above all else, lives.

You should check out some of Chomsky's analyses of the Obama administration. You might be surprised how little difference Bush and Obama have in practice.

Originally posted by: Kadesh

I had a very wise political science professor tell me something once upon a time.... "Anytime America does something, it's for their own interest." Helping Somalia doesn't help America. But helping a country where America can maintain good oil prices really helps. The bonus of course is terrorists aren't welcomed in Islamic countries, and all those who stand with terrorists don't necessarily feel like going against a power house like the US.
Either way moose, there is no reason you should complain since you most likely use Iraqi oil to get to work everyday or to drive anywhere, and you don't fear being blown up by a crazy bomber on your way to work.


You should apply your question to the current president sir.

oh gee, what a wonderfully christian outlook on things.

Originally posted by: B. Cha Cha

Originally posted by: crunkmoose
C. It is a valid question for Obama. The valid response, however, is "are you fucking crazy? Bush got us into two wars and nearly destroyed our economy! We might be able to get to Somalia.... in about twenty fucking years!" Obama has not actually invaded any other countries or started wars of choice. Bush did. Iraq was not a realistic threat to the US (much as a few want to disagree) and was a waste of time, money, and above all else, lives.

You should check out some of Chomsky's analyses of the Obama administration. You might be surprised how little difference Bush and Obama have in practice.

Not really. What I am saying is that Obama has not STARTED any wars, especially not wars of choice. I'm also not saying that Obama WOULD do a single damned thing about Somalia.

Did I just see you make the argument that INVASION and OCCUPATION of foreign nations by the armies of the banking elite equals "BETTERING THE WORLD" ?!!?

Well, Crunkmoose, that isn't just vaguely Orwellian...

DID ANY OF YOU READ "Not to Depress Anyone, But..." ??? ALL OF THIS IS EXPLAINED THERE. I am tired of repeating my thoughts exhaustively every time someone engages in doublethink.

Well dwarn needs to cumhusk right now

Originally posted by: Dwarn

Did I just see you make the argument that INVASION and OCCUPATION of foreign nations by the armies of the banking elite equals "BETTERING THE WORLD" ?!!?

Well, Crunkmoose, that isn't just vaguely Orwellian...

DID ANY OF YOU READ "Not to Depress Anyone, But..." ??? ALL OF THIS IS EXPLAINED THERE. I am tired of repeating my thoughts exhaustively every time someone engages in doublethink.

Maybe you could be a bit less condescending.

Iraq is not just about oil. It is about a lot of different things. Ideology, grudges, empire, oil, much easier to justify and lie about WMD with saddam etc.

Also worth noting that a lot of the people lying about WMDs probably believed they were there. They done it during the Cold War. Even when the CIA showed them that their "evidence" was based entirely on CIA black ops propaganda to smear the enemy - they continued to believe the black ops propaganda was real. Or they said they did.

Apparently, some of them are genuinely fucking nuts, or will pretend to be.

Originally posted by: Chubbs Peterson

I'm usually a lurker, but tonight I'm feeling frisky... so crunkmoose, hello. what do you feel about the fact that we get more of our foreign oil from venezuela than Iraq? If it is a "oil war", why don't we invade venezuela and take their oil? I'm sure this topic has been talked about before, so I apologize.... but.....

Venezuela is a catholic nation and does not trade life for life so easily. If they were beat, they would most definitely surrender, not suicide bomb (as that is against catholic religion.)

As sharps said.. its not just for oil. But even so, the idea that we would need to invade venezuela is mistaken. We only need a government friendly to the US... which is part of the reason you even know Hugo Chavez's name. Think about it... outside of perhaps Lula di Silva, can you name another South American leader? Can you name one who has been mentioned in US news in the last decade more than once?