It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OIL

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
moonclamp, MT69 is quite right our newspapers are best known for the tabloids, its a sad fact that the majority of people who read a newspaper read the sun or the mirror(tabloids or even better gutter press),
Yeah I agree on that point but I think that to single out the UK for having tabloid dominated press as our only form of media is misleading, I agree the majority of people in the UK don't go beyond the Sun and the Mirror, but that also applies to virtually everywhere else in the world.




posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AegisFang
didn't get into ww2 until it was almost over? when did it start? 1939? and when did it end? 1944/45? when did the us get in? 1941? looks like we were in for more than the last bit of it right? and if we didn't help how come the europeans were'nt anywhere close to winning till we got in? you europeans just amaze me with your selective memories. just remeber if it weren't for the US you'd all be speaking german right now. and if you're jewish you'd be dead.

OK so I exaggerated a little, it was Dec 1941 but it was only when American interest was threatened by the bombing of Pearl Harbor that they entered the war.

Hitler was killed in April 1945 when Russian troops entered the capital, Europe was already won with conventional weaponsby the time that Hiroshima was bombed in August killing 180,000 people in one go, 3 days later they bombed Nagasaki killing 80,000.

The greatest help the US offered us in the earlier days was loans of military equipment and financial support, I may be wrong here (I'm sure you will correct me) but the first American and British co-invasion was in Sicily in 1943 before that most allied troops in Europe were made of Europeans and US involvement was in the South Pacific.

No country is ever innocent. The US is built on the graves of the Native Americans. Concentration camps were an English invention during the Boer War, Romans threw Christians to the lions, Germans slaughtered the Jews, Iraq has slaughtered the Kurds.

All I am trying to say is that there are 2 sides to every story and that it is only when you examine all the biased information you can start to make some sense of it.

Even Hitler invaded Poland because he claimed that Poland was moving in on Prussia and slaughtering the inhabitants, he offered to remove his troops but was told he must also return German Currency to the "Gold Standard" which he refused to do because his breaking away from that was what fixed the German economy.

Two sides to every story.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I must beg to differ with you here! I my humble opinion:

The U.S is NOT so imperious as to wantonly attack "poor innocent" Iraq because of her oil reserves. Please donít be so eager to think that this is about the U.S. bullying some ìtargetî nation out of greed for their oil.

Saddam Hussein is a threat to world security, if you disagree, why not move there and live under his murderous regime? Perhaps if you witnessed your wife tortured and murdered in a shopping area during broad day light or spoke to Kurds who were hit with Saddamís nerve gas bombs, you might change your mind.

The U.S. has been assisting in the building of Russiaís massive oil reserves infrastructure with ties for re-payment for future shipments. Russia has developed a taste for Western Capitalism and loves buying, clubbing and living the ìgood lifeî. They want more U.S. dollars and the U.S. wants their oil. Itís a simple matter of supply and demand, and equals a win / win situation.

Even though they are two-faced, the Saudiís still have the worldís largest oil reserves and are now realising that Saddam is rocking everyoneís boat with his hateful compulsion to acquire WMD. The recent Saudi willingness to remove him testifies to that fact.

Should the free world allow him to gain the ability to destroy Israel and the rest of the world? Should we allow him to have the means to decimate entire regions of people whom he hates?

Saddam is an unstable individual; heís a megalomaniac who ìblessesî some lucky Baghdad neighbourhood on his every birthday with the latest statue of whom else but, HIM. Have you seen the Baghdad museums, they are full of paintings and statues of whom else ñ Saddam.

Iím sorry, but that man is obsessed with his own dreams of grandeur and goals of destruction of the Western World. The sooner we all wake up and see that maniac for who and what he is, the better!

In the final analysis: time will tell as it always does. Iím willing to bet everything that I posses in this world that Saddam is actively involved in the development of WMD, is hiding his stockpile and would go out with a big bang if given the chance.

Any takers?

Deep



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepwaters
I must beg to differ with you here! .......


I actually agree with all of that except that I only believe that the US is getting involved for personal reasons and not anything else. The US only ever take action if it is in "the American Interest" to do so. Otherwise a lot of other world dictators would now be expecting the same treatment.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If 9/11 and its aftermath isn't a good enough reason for America to protect herself from terrorists and those nations that support them, what is?

I can not believe that any U.S, President would run the gauntlet of public and world opinion out of sheer desperation for Iraqi oil. Do you really believe that Mr. Bush would possibly sacrifice hundreds or thousands of innocent American servicemen to satiate Americaís greedy need for Iraqi oil? If that were the case, then Mr. Bush would be as bad as Saddam Hussein, a deranged hate-filled megalomaniac whose sole interest is personal ambition. I am not saying that the American President is a saint, but I seriously doubt that heís on a par with Saddam Hussein.

This all goes back to Americaís security and future freedoms. A strong nation is a free nation, and the freedom that every American citizen enjoys should never be diminished or taken for granted. Many countries criticize America and grumble about her power and wealth. America is the dominate world power and as such, prone to such criticisms. Having visited a few countries including South Africa, I can tell you that Iíd gladly live in America than anywhere else on Earth. Considering such things as government controlled medias, female genital mutilations, murder of innocent children, mass starvation, persecution and abuse of women, forced imprisonment or murder of dissidents, chemical gassing, robbing national financial reserves and so many further atrocities ñ Iíll take America any day of the week.

May I suggest that ìifî America is such a bad country, then the place to begin that change is within America. What would you do to bring about positive change? What are your strategies for constructive change and movement? Itís so easy to sit back and criticize the Nationís leadership, but what platform for change do you propose? I contend that national leadership is not an easy affair; itís fraught with critics and reluctant people who donít agree. I donít envy any U.S. Presidentís job, despite all the glory that goes with it. To be faced with national or international crises and have to make decisions that could potentially affect thousands or even millions of lives must be a tremendous burden. Perhaps if we sought to understand, appreciate and support our national leaders, we might gain a better understanding and appreciation of what their agendas are.

BTW: not having a go at you, just logically debating this issue.

Now as always, wishing you all the best,
Deep



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I could't even start to correct the US political system when the UK has it's own corruption, but I DO believe that Bush would send 1000's of innocents to the slaughter and I do believe he was elected unfairly and I do believe that he is unstable and greed motivated. I also believe that there is more to the events of 9/11 that meet the eye and I also believe that the US no longer is the free country proclaimed in the original constitution.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong and I hope that the coming months demonstrate that. If they do then I will be back here with my tail between my legs but I somehow doubt it.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 05:32 PM
link   
How many times are Europeans going to talk about the American election??? Know the FACTS before saying Bush's election was a fraud...but then again the majority of Brits get their "news" from the tabloids as cassini admitted.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
speaking of the brits. don't ya just love that Tony Blair? i mean who would of thought, a "militant liberal". kinda like a "compasionate conservative".



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   
When a liberal is finally shown the dirty evidence on Saddam, they want his head. Meanwhile the masses of uneducated liberals march through the streets calling for the heads of Bush and Blair instead of Saddam's head. Funny how that works...



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
When a liberal is finally shown the dirty evidence on Saddam, they want his head. Meanwhile the masses of uneducated liberals march through the streets calling for the heads of Bush and Blair instead of Saddam's head. Funny how that works...


All the liberals I know would be more than happy to see Sadam taken out back and shot.

What they don't like is the inevitable civilian casualties from a massive bombing campaign.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I gurantee the majority of people protesting against this WAR in the group called ANSWER are nothing but uneducated liberals.

Whenever something deals with the US military, they drag out Vietnam like everything is just like Vietnam. According to them, the military should just go away since the world is just so peaceful.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
How many times are Europeans going to talk about the American election??? Know the FACTS before saying Bush's election was a fraud...but then again the majority of Brits get their "news" from the tabloids as cassini admitted.
So what was the final count then?



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
I gurantee the majority of people protesting against this WAR in the group called ANSWER are nothing but uneducated liberals.



actually i believe the problem is most of them are too educated. if you spent 20yrs being indoctrinated by hippies in suits at your local university you'd be a peacenik too. it's just that people like us realize what we want to do with our lives and go to school and get jobs when we've learned what we need to know.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonclamp
So what was the final count then?


umm moving on with our lives, that was what 2 years ago?



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Uh, Bush won the Electoral College after Florida's final totals were upheld by the LAW, even with Gore trying to change the law after the fact.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AegisFang

umm moving on with our lives, that was what 2 years ago?
Yeah, how soon we forget



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 07:22 PM
link   
seems to me you lot need to chill out and remember the usa british isles austrailia and any other english speaking countries have been fighting on the same side for over a century.thats why these arguments start we got beefs with you and you got beefs with us.you say you contribute nothing to the ira but mcdonalds was its biggest donator.we say you came at the end of the war because to us the fighting didnt start until 1944.upuntil then we were living under a siege mentallity.pearl harbour didnt happen here and the bombing of london didnt happen there.the feelings americans are feeling right now are the same as the feelings we felt at the hight of the ira bombing campaign.we can all see the answer to this problem its just we not looking from the same direction.



posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 11:43 PM
link   
all war is messy and people die needlessly. so, for me a it's not a matter of choosing Saddam over my own country. it's choosing life. by not murdering we save ourselves from suffering from that same fate. to deny that there are other options besides waging urban warfare is insanity. (i won't even mention bombing cause if our government does that...i won't be able to call myself american without vomiting violently. seriously, blowing up kids in their homes, unthinkable.)

while the people of Iraq may welcome regime change, I don't think they want the US to have power over their destiny. i don't think they are looking forward to years of occupation and i DO think they will fight it. and in the end many people will die. it's tragic. but, Saddam isn't gonna let it be any other way if we let it come to war.

the inspectors are the solution. no matter how long it takes they should remain in Iraq just like they did in N.Korea--until recently but that's a whole nutha topic--let the inspectors stay and monitor.

and i'm no liberal by defination, i disagree with many many things liberals love (like spending).

...and one more thing we live in a country where it is your right to take to the streets if you have beef with policy and actions of your government...i don't like reading paragraph after paragraph of an american b*tching about people exercising their rights. you say we're free, then act like it, stop b*tching about our freedom to disagree.

and...all government is corrupt and all leaders rise to power under circumstances that are shady...bush is legit as any other leader who has taken the oath of the office for the president of the United States.

ummm...TC, the WWII thing had me bugged, you don't just drop nukes on innocent childern and say, "sorry you had to be burned alive, but our cause was just." that can never happen again.

[Edited on 20-1-2003 by Saphronia]



posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Sappy - No, you're disgusting. We won't be targeting innocent civilians, but moron Americans like you believe we are targeting them. Go back to your hole while we destroy evil, so that we won't hear your crazy babble. You and the other peaceniks are the greatest threat to my family since you don't give a damn if terrorists get WMDs from Saddam to use within the US. You make me puke...



posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Hi, Saphie! Where have you been, girlfriend?

I know, nuclear weapons sound horrible, don't they? Once again, thank you, Hollywood. Don't get me wrong, they are very powerful, but which one was more devastating to the citizen, thed two nukes or the incendiaries that were burning neighborhoods with equal effectiveness? The nukes were very impressive, though, and they caused the Emporor to realize that it was futile to carry on. With such weapons we would not need to invade the Island and face women and children with knives as well as soldiers with firearms.

The two bombs, in other words, saved many lives on both sides. Yes, it killed many women and children in a matter of seconds, but at the same time it saved countless other Japanese women and children.

As far as that never happening again, Sweetheart, do you really think anyone ever looks forward to such an occurance? Do you really think any general says "Oh, goodie! I get to vaporize civilians today!"? Our nation has to be protected so that people like you and me can have these types of discussions. If the cub goes, you can bet the Lion will go down fighting with her cub. If America and England aren't around to man the ramparts, who will stand against the those who wish to oppress and stifle us?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join