tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post114226583599110885..comments2023-09-22T15:44:10.411-04:00Comments on CUUMBAYA: The Real cause for war in IraqJoel Monkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-48143207922370500102009-01-20T21:10:00.000-05:002009-01-20T21:10:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.wow power levelinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17740059839891957088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-53125636231578673712008-03-13T11:00:00.000-04:002008-03-13T11:00:00.000-04:00I still think it's for oil. Bush's father used to ...I still think it's for oil. Bush's father used to sell arms to the irak or iran. We all can see it was true since there is some in Irak and Iran and all and we can see also they were made in U.S.A. the thing is he Bush would sell those and get oil from it and so that is the lower price that they mean. Yes I agree a war with the country as being ur enemy would put the cost lower or not helping them with arms would have prolly left the cost of oil higher. but the fact is he sold arms to the to help in ht ewar. And what really then made all of those country return after the U.S.A is the fact that Bush also sold arms the the oposite camp. They found out that the cause of the war was them in a way(not saying it was all them theres some religion things too in it) but they saw they were selling arms in both camp to keep it up and that is why they wanted revendge. maybe their religion thingy said they would defeat a big eagle or something else and bla bla bla the thing is they looked up for that war and they got it. They played with fire until it burned them... and the attack was the fire burning them. Also they say it's them that attacked. That I know it wasn't only Iran or Irak or afganistan like they say. It was actually a couple of PpL of diffrent plces that regrouped themselves to attack. if it had been all of them and if it was organised well hey on which beach did their both land. Or why didn't they use some of their own plains to come laugh a nuclear weapon over us? 1 if the whole contry was with the war well why not send nuclear weapon if they have some like the U.S.A try to make us believe so much? or they don't have it or like I said it was just a bunch of extremist that attacked not the whole country. And honestly why would they attack the U.S.A if they wanted they could ruin the USA in no time by not selling oil. they are fucking rich over their in no time they could prolly build up a huge army and well attack. Why they don't do it well cuse they can do moonies with the U.S.A. and by destroying it well they would get in war with the rest of the world... so in the end they didn,t wanna go in war. the PpL that were tired of the US and their domination and their tactics to rule over others well by that attack they wanted to let them know it. <BR/>Also as you know Hussein and ausama. they used to be great buddies with Bush. They exchanged oil together. and BOOm all of a sudent they would just wanna put the person who made them rich in war with them? that's kinda stupid don't you think? So in the end honestly try seeing over what the politician tell you. the ausama benladen familly used to live in the U.S.A they got them out when the whole thing happend. The U.S.A instead of thinking like We are the best fuck the rest well they should first think of getting the Ppl hostilities down. The PpL are not all jealous like they think, well they are cuse they think they would prolly do a petter job than them as being first power. and I think that's a good reason to be jealous of...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-1142280313216698382006-03-13T15:05:00.000-05:002006-03-13T15:05:00.000-05:00I hadn't forgotten the neocon argument; I had mere...I hadn't forgotten the neocon argument; I had merely considered it another one of the conspiracy class of argument. Maybe Bush himself was blinded by his beliefs, but he couldn't have faked the evidence- whatever the beliefs, either there was enough evidence (albeit wrong) to convince Blair, Rice, Powell, The Joint Chiefs, a majority of Congress, etc., or there wasn't. Not even the Rusians or the French said the evidence was wrong, only that war wasn't the right answer. Which returns us to the same conclussion; explanation 1 is the right answer.<BR/><BR/>Your second point, about exit strategies, is excellent, and deserves a wider audience than it's getting.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.com