I just am so sick of people who think the war in Iraq is for oil. I recently went to a thread in the GameSpot Off-Topic forum, and it was about how an American soldier was taken hostage. He said "All just so we get more oil for cheaper..." I couldn't reply to it, since the thread was locked, but I'd already thought up my response.

I am just sick of those people, because they're the very idiots who are ruining this world. The world isn't simple anymore, people. It's complicated as hell.

The war isn't for oil; it's to keep Iraq from attacking the actual United States. This way, soldiers who volunteer to give their lives in combat to save our country are dying, and not innocent people walking down the street or driving to Subway.

If we didn't combat them there, all of Iraq's terrorist population would be free to attack us, even with "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This would be horrible and could end up with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of innocent Americans dead. Instead, soldiers who joined the Army knowing they may give their lives are out there, fighting to keep them at bay while the country improves security, defense, and its plans for the future.

Bush is doing this to protect us, whether Joe Sixpack can see it or not. The thing I find ironic is, he's doing it to protect the average American, yet the average American sees it as getting oil and hates Bush for it. Irony at its purest?

I just get so sick of the morons in this country saying "Blah, blah, blah, Bush is letting soldiers get slaughtered for oil, blah, blah, blah, I'm voting for Kerry, blah, blah, blah". Those people shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they're totally stupid and don't think what the actual reason for war is. Soldiers are giving their lives to keep Iraq at bay, and you think it's for oil? God, watch CNN for two minutes, people! Watch Fox News! That's NOT the case! Go find Moron McStupid, who told you this, and pop him one in the face for being retarded!

/rant

[And if there's a forum for this, please just move it there or something. I just didn't see a politics forum, which I thought there used to be.]

All right, who broke the message board?

This is... odd.

To be fair, it's quite easy to see why someone disagrees with the War on Iraq considering the reasons for doing so kept changing throughout the campaign, or at least the emphasis of news coverage did. It's went from the 'War on Terrorism' to 'Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction and must be stopped' to 'Saddam is evil and must be taken out of power.'

What's this about saying the world isn't simple any more? Surely the idea that the war on Iraq was to protect people is simpler than the idea that the war on Iraq was for oil?

And about people who believe otherwise to your beliefs shouldn't be allowed to vote? Shut up. Seriously. As you said the world isn't simple any more, there's a boatload of propoganda from both sides of the war on Iraq so it's quite hard to go through the crap and know what you can believe now, and you're awfully biased.

*makes not to include this in further arguments about why conservative America want a authoritarian dictatorship*

With what?



Well, before we appeared, Iraq didn't have much of a terrorist population...and in case you hadn't noticed, they're also lacking in WMDs. And/or anything that could get over here.



I get just so sick of morons going "blah blah blah, Bush is a good Christian, blah blah blah, he's returning to country to its Christian origins, blah blah vote for him not an EEEEEEVIL liberal, blah nonChristians/homosexuals are evil blah." I don't say they shouldn't be able to vote, though.

I think the war in Iraq should be stopped/shouldn't have been started in the first place because we've killed over 5,000 civilians so far, no WMDs as of yet, and incidents like Abu Ghraib.

oh yeah and 'cause I forgot...



Oh yeah, because Fox News(dunno about CNN...) isn't biased at all. :rolleyes:

This post has been edited by Mia on Jun 28 2004, 04:50 PM

Rocks! Great big nasty rocks!

I heard Saddam Hussein was planning to throw one at the Pentagon.

He must have had really cruddy agents for them to report to him that the pentagon was a glass house :P

Lol, well that was a good laugh.
But, just out of plain curiosity, how the hell did my "What Are You Pissed Off At?" Thread turn into this? :huh: :blink:

This post has been edited by Viewtiful_Joe on Jun 28 2004, 03:30 PM

Haha! I've heard of thread hijackings, but I've never seen anything like this.

As for the war on Iraq, I don't keep up with this kind of stuff and don't really care for now.

I heard Saddam sent an agent to the White House, and he rang the doorbell, but then he went and hid in the bushes!

I'm sick of hearing slanted news. It's either "Yes, we hate bush and the war", or "Yes, we want Bush to father our children and the war is awesome".

I'm pissed that a person can no longer find a neutral newscast.



BTW, I am conservative on most issues, but I can't stand people who shout out their opinions as facts.

What the hell?

I originally posted this thread, didn't I? Why is my post on the 7th page?

For some reason, your post took over the 'What are you pissed off at?' thread. The other day when clicking on your topic with the same name (which had 0 posts, but strangely over 1000 views) brought you to the first page of the 'What are you pissed off at?' thread. Hence Jskie's 'Who broke the boards' comment, his post sort of fixed it, or at least did something.

But that's beside the point.

MattPearce tried to combine it with this thread for some reason. Things went slightly wrong...

I'm fed up with people trying to claim that the War was to stop terrorism. Although, that arguement is more feasable that arguing that the war was to protect America, especially considering Iraq didn't even attack America. So many stupid people think that the 9/11 events were the fault of Saddam Hussain, but forget that it was indeed Afghanistan and Al'Queda.

I see no reason why Bush would invade Iraq unless it was for oil.

Yeah, Fox is such a great news source, they're always completely accurate and unbiased. I'll just get right on that. </sarcasm>

If Bush really wanted to protect the US from threats, then he would have taken out North Korea, Cuba, India, Pakistan and probably China before Iraq. After all, it's known that Inda, Pakistan, North Korea and China actually HAVE nuclear weapons, unlike Iraq. Besides which, if it is the "large terrorist population" in Iraq that is truly a threat to the United States, then what good is taking out the government? That only gives the terrorists the advantage by throwing the country into a state of disarray.

Good point^

I was all for it in the beginning, but nw I'm not so sure......

there is no real reason is there?

But still, they did find that one warehouse that had chemical weapons stuff in it.....

Did they actually release what the contents of the warehouse was? I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a warehouse full of things used in the chemical industry and they decided that it must be for chemical weapons use.

And you've yet to provide evidence to suggest the US has gotten said oil. But please, continue... If only baseless conclusions were all the world needed.

So, if they didn't invade for oil, they invaded for...? Perhaps Bush Junior was just being a nice son for daddy, and finishing off what Bush Snr started, then?