Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a break!
It is a fact that if Liberals and tree huggers got out of the way .. We wouldn't need middle eastern oil .. period!
It will be interesting how long the libs and tree-huggers of the US and their friends in the EPA last with their anti-progressive schemes when gas gets so expensive the trucking industry collapses and people can't even afford to go shopping or get to their jobs. Massive oil shortages would be a financial disaster to this country and make the Great Recession look like good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battleneter
This struggle for control of Middle East resources has been raging for over 50 years, makes no difference what political side you are on!.
Why is Africa with 8000 dead children EVERY DAY less important that the Middle East? (excluding Nigeria which is currently a stable oil supplier).
Look I am not suggesting the US is specifically the "Bad guy" but its not really "the good guy" either. There is clearly a few Middle East nut jobs that would use oil proceeds to further there own ambitions, however the US also has its own agenda where lives are lost.
Make no mistake there is a world wide struggle going on for the control of resources!
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a time when the powers of the mid-east decide they've had it with the havoc and death the US has wreaked on that area of the world, cut off our oil supply and seek new patrons in China and Russia.
Clearly the people who are gassing children. This not obvious to you?
Clearly?
You need to run and report your eye witness account to the media!
You have convinced me with the great informational comeback post!
The first place you may want to report your eye witness account would be to the liberal web site ... NPR!
Quote:
Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?
(snip)
Jean Pascal Zanders, who worked for the European Union Institute for Security Studies from 2008 to 2013 and concentrated on the non-proliferation of chemical weapons says until the U.N. investigative team presents its report, "we need to keep our minds open that the events of last Wednesday could in whole or partially have alternative explanations."
"In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage," Zanders added. "For the West's credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation."
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 26 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,792,331 times
Reputation: 14201
[quote=Battleneter;31194641]Up to 5000 people died in that attack in 1988 just terrible no really!
Using the low reported figure in a attempt to not be sensational of 2500 children dieing every day in Africa .
I calculate at least 228,000,000+ children have died from starvation in Africa since 1988, the actual number is probably double that.
Sooooooo the US is heavily involved in the middle East to save lives?, imagine what all those resources could do in Africa!.
Why do i feel like I am missing something rather obvious
Do not think that I'm not sympathetic to the atrocities in the world but - we as a nation have sent more aid and money - both taxpayer and private to Africa to help the situation. Many times the aid and money are diverted by their gov't officials.
We certainly could open our own pipelines as we have plenty of fuel right here in the US - but the libs won't let us.
It's time that America stop holding everyone's hands and let these countries take responsibility for themselves. We give money to all these countries and it is never appreciated. There's an old adage that you can't buy friendship - and that is exactly what we have been doing for the past 50 yrs. Every time we provide money, arms, support ect.. it comes back to bite us in the arse because they turn on us.
We are still owed millions of dollars from countries that borrowed from us in WW II.
Believe me - I've studied the Middle East - it's best we pull back and let them handle their own situations.
No one cares about dead children. If anyone cared about dead children we would be in Rwanda. Israel wants to destabilize and weaken all of the countries around it, and this is just a good time for them to take advantage of that goal, so they are pushing the US to attack.
Oh, OK. It's Israel's fault. It's refreshing not hear that it is Bush's fault.
Biiiig difference here, well besides the usual anti-librul screed.
Bush lied to get us into Iraq.
Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq.
You guys can't seem to make up your confused little minds on whether to call Obama a warmonger or a wimp. It really must suck to be so confused and pissed off all the time. That comforting little bubble the RWNJs live in is getting kind of stinky, what with all the bull****.
Biiiig difference here, well besides the usual anti-librul screed.
Bush lied to get us into Iraq.
Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq.
You guys can't seem to make up your confused little minds on whether to call Obama a warmonger or a wimp. It really must suck to be so confused and pissed off all the time. That comforting little bubble the RWNJs live in is getting kind of stinky, what with all the bull****.
Biiiig difference here, well besides the usual anti-librul screed.
Bush lied to get us into Iraq.
Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq.
You guys can't seem to make up your confused little minds on whether to call Obama a warmonger or a wimp. It really must suck to be so confused and pissed off all the time. That comforting little bubble the RWNJs live in is getting kind of stinky, what with all the bull****.
Who is to say that Obama isn't lying to get us into Syria and on the path to Iran? It's not as if he has the backing of the international community or any actual proof from a credible source.
Who is to say that Obama won't put boots on the ground if necessary?
Is there only one outcome if the US uses military intervention? Would that outcome be something like: There you go Assad. "That should teach you not to use chemical weapons" and the fighting will return to using conventional weapons.
Do you actually know what the outcome will be? Do you think Obama actually knows what the outcome will be? Is it possible that there are a few scenarios regarding the outcome? Could it go all wrong and we may end up having to put boots on the ground?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's refreshing not hear that it is Bush's fault.
