Since this is September 11th's 6th year anniversary,

[Steve Savicki]

I'll ask, "Repubs, what has your president accomplished and done about this?"

[LoungeMachine]

This is where they'll cite there's been no attacks on our soil.

To which I would answer....

They dont need to.

We brought the targets to their own backyard.

They can kill Americans without the trouble of those pesky Visas now..

The real question should be, are there MORE terrorists now, or LESS than 6 years ago today...

[Steve Savicki]

More because we are concentrating too much externally than internally.

The Twin Towers weren't struck by a plane flown all the way from Iraq.

[scamper]

The question is if he could go back in time would he undo everything he's done since then?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
The question is if he could go back in time would he undo everything he's done since then?

In public, he'd say he'd do everything just the same...

In private, he knows how bad he fucked up.

He wanted this war before he was even installed.

He bragged about having the political capital, and the glory of being a "war president"

He was going to show daddy how a real man fights a war.

Ironic considering Poppy actually fought in a war, and had the common sense to NOT occupy Iraq.

We get the idiot son out to prove something...

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The real question should be, are there MORE terrorists now, or LESS than 6 years ago today...

No way of telling, is there?

When they send the census out in Iraq, do they have a box for the terrorists to check off?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
In public, he'd say he'd do everything just the same...

In private, he knows how bad he fucked up.

He wanted this war before he was even installed.

He bragged about having the political capital, and the glory of being a "war president"

He was going to show daddy how a real man fights a war.

Ironic considering Poppy actually fought in a war, and had the common sense to NOT occupy Iraq.

We get the idiot son out to prove something...

:rolleyes:

He was installed, eh? That explains everything!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
No way of telling, is there?

When they send the census out in Iraq, do they have a box for the terrorists to check off?

If you can't figure out on your own, without a census :rolleyes: that there are more terrorists today than in 2001, you're dumber than I thought.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
He was installed, eh? That explains everything!

Took you long enough.

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
If you can't figure out on your own, without a census :rolleyes: that there are more terrorists today than in 2001, you're dumber than I thought.

How many terrorists were there in 2001, Lounge?

I'd like sources too, please.

[Ellyllions]

Nah, there's not more terrorists. We just know more than we did then.

In my mind it's kind of like the Uniformed Crime reporting. When a State reports that a one particular crime instance dropped dramatically in one year, does that mean that there were actually less of that crime in that calendar year, or was it because some extingent circumstance changed the way that crime was reported or calculated?

I believe that we had no idea what the Middle East mentality truly was before 2001. Now, we do. Now we see how many factions and splinters there are. Almost like Gangs in the US, eh?

[Ellyllions]

Nah, there's not more terrorists. We just know more than we did then.

In my mind it's kind of like the Uniformed Crime reporting. When a State reports that a one particula crime instances dropped dramatically in one year, does that mean that there were actually less of that crime in that calendar year, or was it because some extingent circumstance changed the way that crime was reported or calculated.

I believe that we had no idea what the Middle East mentality truly was before 2001. Now, we do. Now we see how many factions and splinters there are. Almost like Gangs in the US, eh?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
How many terrorists were there in 2001, Lounge?

I'd like sources too, please.

Our own GAO says it's increased.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/gao/rce96076.htm

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
In public, he'd say he'd do everything just the same...

In private, he knows how bad he fucked up.

He wanted this war before he was even installed.

He bragged about having the political capital, and the glory of being a "war president"

He was going to show daddy how a real man fights a war.

Ironic considering Poppy actually fought in a war, and had the common sense to NOT occupy Iraq.

We get the idiot son out to prove something...

:rolleyes:


Brilliant. Bang on the money.

Chimpy was out to PROVE something to daddy. He is the fuck-up son who the father always thought was a joke (correctly).

Poppy never said so, mind you. But young Bushie had to prove to daddy he was no fuck up. Then, in trying so hard, he fucked up even bigger than daddy ever predicted.

Even Poppy is ashamed. He is on the record sating how occupying Iraq was a mistake. Essentially, he called Chimpy a fuck-up in public.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I believe that we had no idea what the Middle East mentality truly was before 2001. Now, we do. Now we see how many factions and splinters there are. Almost like Gangs in the US, eh?

We pay people to know that. gw just ignored them.

If you're saying the us populace knows more now, I would agree with that.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
We pay people to know that.
If you're saying the us populace knows more now, I would agree with that.

You're right on both fronts.

But on the gw ignored them? Well, I'm not "in the know" but I'm very certain that the people we were paying to know, weren't doing their job. They were too busy fighting jurisdiction wars.

Ya'll need to read a book called "Blink". If I get time, I'll type in the information that's in that book about the "preparations" for this war. Enlightened me.

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
N Now we see how many factions and splinters there are. Almost like Gangs in the US, eh?
Isn't there a Van Halen song "Everybody wants some?"

[Nickdfresh]

He callously used a national tragedy to advance his agenda for contractors and big oil?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He callously used a national tragedy to advance his agenda for contractors and big oil?

Is that a question or a statement?

[Ellyllions]

Actually Nick this war was in the "planning stages" before Bushy got the job. When I get a chance I'll get the info from my book...

But as it goes, we spent roughly several million dollars for a "war game". We gathered the best the country had to offer in intel folks and purveyors of the "enemy". Supposedly using all the latest tech. Then we hired an old General from the Vietnam war to play the part of the enemy. He had them beat in under 20 minutes.

What did they do?
They wiped the slate clean and made him play with different rules until the "A" team came out victorious. And that was the war plan they took to the Department of Defense.

[Warham]

Bush just took Clinton's 1998 Iraq policy and ran with it until it's final conclusion. It's not something he came out of thin air with.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WAR
Is that a question or a statement?

http://www.maturin.org/wanyden/alex1.gif

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Actually Nick this war was in the "planning stages" before Bushy got the job. When I get a chance I'll get the info from my book...

No dear. There's a difference from lobbyist hatched plots, and "plans."

PNAC were lobbyists, not planners...

It was the Bushleague crew that "planned" the war, with a bunch of dummy Neo Cons cuntributing...


But as it goes, we spent roughly several million dollars for a "war game". We gathered the best the country had to offer in intel folks and purveyors of the "enemy". Supposedly using all the latest tech. Then we hired an old General from the Vietnam war to play the part of the enemy. He had them beat in under 20 minutes.

What did they do?
They wiped the slate clean and made him play with different rules until the "A" team came out victorious. And that was the war plan they took to the Department of Defense.

There were many things ignored by these idiots, including Gen. Zinni (USMC -Ret.) who was in charge of Operation Desert Fox (Clinton's containment policy) who drew up numerous scenarios and plans that Bush and his gaggle of dopes in the Pentagon and White House never even bothered to look at...

[Warham]

We all admit that the pre-war planning was a disaster.

We can argue till the cows come home about the failures of the administration, but we are over there now and have to deal with it.

You have to be a forward thinker, and that's what some of these candidates running for president out to be thinking about.

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
When I get a chance I'll get the info from my book...
*curious as to what kind of book this is*

[PlexiBrown]

George Carlin for President.

[sadaist]

Anyone else here save magazines & newspapers from 9/11? I have the Time, Newsweek, US News & a few others. I thought my kids might be interested in it when they get older. I looked at them a couple years ago and damn, it really brings back that day. The pics of the people falling from the towers sends shivers up my spine. I see the suit the falling guy is wearing and I think of how that morning he was looking in the mirror finishing his toast & coffee thinking ok, I look good enough for work, this is a good tie for this coat & shirt, not realizing that the whole world would soon see his tie fluttering in the air as he plunges from 100 stories up. Did he kiss his wife goodbye? Or his kids? Did he have plans for the weekend?

I'm really getting sick of all the fucking hatred & killing.

[Nitro Express]

Someone is suppossed to start the nuclear war that will start on Dec. 21, 2007. Heck, we are just fullfilling our destiny in the Lord's grand plan.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/epy8bc-A-gw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/epy8bc-A-gw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by sadaist
Anyone else here save magazines & newspapers from 9/11? I have the Time, Newsweek, US News & a few others. I thought my kids might be interested in it when they get older. I looked at them a couple years ago and damn, it really brings back that day. The pics of the people falling from the towers sends shivers up my spine. I see the suit the falling guy is wearing and I think of how that morning he was looking in the mirror finishing his toast & coffee thinking ok, I look good enough for work, this is a good tie for this coat & shirt, not realizing that the whole world would soon see his tie fluttering in the air as he plunges from 100 stories up. Did he kiss his wife goodbye? Or his kids? Did he have plans for the weekend?

I'm really getting sick of all the fucking hatred & killing.

I stood on the observation deck of the World Trade Center not too long before it went down. Falling from it wold be terrifying as the seconds pass and the gound gets closer. Death would be quick unlike burning to death and you know they were jumping to avoid the heat and smoke.

I would be pissed that I didn't have my pistol with me so I could cap myself in the head. I've killed plenty of animals to know a bullet in the head brings instantaniouse death. I would rather pull a trigger than jump. It would be easier.

[Nitro Express]

War is making sure more of your enemies die in vain than the guys on your side. If this is the case, we are still winning.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Steve Savicki
I'll ask, "Repubs, what has your president accomplished and done about this?"

killed a lot of people

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
You're right on both fronts.

But on the gw ignored them? Well, I'm not "in the know" but I'm very certain that the people we were paying to know, weren't doing their job. They were too busy fighting jurisdiction wars.


It was my understanding that cheney would go down to langley and make sure the analysts came up with the conclusions he wanted regarding iraq's theat to the world. It's like asking your doctor to fund a tumor when there isn't one.

In terms of middle east cultural understanding, there was no dispute. We knew shias and kurds and sunnis hated each other and that shias were bitter from being disenfranchised during saddam's reign. That wasn't in dispute. Even I knew this. Read an article and you're all up to speed. It was ignored. Maybe gw didn't know it, but that's due to his intellectual laziness.

[Nitro Express]

What we are witnessing is the political takeover of North America and Mexico. It's happening right now and I'm afraid not enough citizens at the grass roots level are involved to make a difference. We seem to be more involved in trying to get rich overnight in real estate or following what are favorite sports teams are doing.

The Democrats take control of the Congress and have accomplished nothing. Instead of bringing soldiers home Bush now has 30,000 more than he did before the Democrat win.

Now permanent bases are being built in Iraq and we will be attacking Iran soon enough. They are using the remains of our military and country to stake a claim in the world's largest oil region.

The dollar will fall and the North American Union will happen, then it will be alligned with the European Community.

I'm sure there will be some areas that will refuse to fall into the pact and there will be pro democracy freedom fighters in small bands here and there.

All I can say is the world as we knew it is changing and it's changing quickly. Anyone that thinks it's going to stay the same is a fool.

[Nitro Express]

It's about oil period. It will be another 30 years before we replace oil and that's with an aggressive planned agenda. So oil is king still and who controls the world's oil controls the world. Period.

You can have the greatest weaponery in the world but unless you have fuel for the airplanes and vehicles, you are doing nothing. Sure our aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered but an aircraft carrier is worthless without oil based fuel for those thirsty airplanes.

One reason we invaded Iraq is Saddam was going to refuse to sell oil in dollars and sell in euros only. Also the dollar is a basket case and will no longer be the oil exchange currecny. A weak dollar just makes the oil that more expensive. So the US used it's last asset left to grab some wealth. It's large military.

[Warham]

It's not about oil, really, it's about the New World Order, and it has been since the Tower of Babel was built.

But you can read all about it in Revelations.

Personally, I'm not scared, because of what I believe, but if anyone out there sees the day when all the major countries in the EU, and North America are using the same currency, be afraid, be very afraid.

[LoungeMachine]

The "Benchmarks" that the fucking Iraqi "Government" is stalled on are all about the oil, and the US rights to it.....

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The "Benchmarks" that the fucking Iraqi "Government" is stalled on are all about the oil, and the US rights to it.....

:rolleyes:

So money isn't the root of all evil, oil is!

[Ellyllions]

Well, see, here's where it gets sticky...
The initial agreement (supposedly) was that we'd receive some of the oil revenues to pay us back for "liberating" the Iraqis. 'Member, ya'll...that was part of the deal. We spend an exhorbant amount of money on the contingent that we'd be repaid a portion with oil revenues.


So, Lounge is more than likely correct.

*disclaimer: before the hackles come out, I put the word liberating in quotes for a reason...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
So money isn't the root of all evil, oil is!

Big Oil and the BCE are the root of all evil....

That should get a response :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Well, see, here's where it gets sticky...
The initial agreement (supposedly) was that we'd receive some of the oil revenues to pay us back for "liberating" the Iraqis. 'Member


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Where the hell you'd get that???

When, and with whom did we supposedly make this "agreement" ???

One of Wolfoshitz's lackeys DID say however that the REBUILDING would cost US nothing, because the entire amount would be paid out of oil revenues.. :rolleyes:

Hun, you've been fed a line of bullshit with this one.


This sounds like something out of the Ahmed Chalabi fiasco......

[LoungeMachine]

What would war with Iraq cost?
Bush: Attack by Iraq 'would cripple' economy
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, January 2, 2003 Posted: 9:08 AM EST (1408 GMT)



Bush: "This economy cannot afford to stand an attack."



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is downplaying published reports of an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion price tag for a war with Iraq, saying it is "impossible" to estimate the cost at this time.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion -- the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

But Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said Daniels did not intend to imply in the Times interview that $50 billion to $60 billion was a hard White House estimate.

"He said it could -- could -- be $60 billion," Duffy said. "It is impossible to know what any military campaign would ultimately cost. The only cost estimate we know of in this arena is the Persian Gulf War, and that was a $60 billion event."

Duffy also was careful to caution that President Bush had not made a decision to use military force against Saddam's regime.

Bush stressed that point in comments to reporters on Tuesday. "I want to remind people that Saddam Hussein, the choice is his to make as to whether or not the Iraqi situation [is] resolved peacefully. ... I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq," he said.

Fielding questions about the tensions with Iraq and North Korea, Bush also said an attack by by Saddam Hussein or a terrorist ally "would cripple our economy." (Full story)

"This economy cannot afford to stand an attack," Bush said. "And I'm going to protect the American people. The economy's strong. It's resilient. Obviously, so long as somebody's looking for work, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient."

'No one knows how much it will cost'
In September, Daniels disputed an estimate by Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey -- who has since left the White House -- that war with Iraq could cost $200 billion.

Daniels said he believes Lindsey's estimate was "the upper end of a hypothetical," Duffy said.

Congressional Democrats this past fall estimated the cost of a military attack against Iraq around $93 billion.

But they noted that the figure did not include costs such as U.S. peacekeeping efforts, foreign assistance or loan forgiveness, or the economic impact should an oil crisis ensue.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, the outgoing Senate Budget Committee chairman, issued a statement Tuesday saying "the reality is no one knows how much it will cost us to wage war with Iraq."

"Mitch Daniels' $50 billion to $60 billion estimate is as viable as Larry Lindsey's $100 billion to $200 billion estimate in September. So much depends on the duration and type of combat forces as well as the presence, duration and size of a peacekeeping force," Conrad said.

Conrad also said that "despite this potential new expense, the Bush administration continues with its ill-fated economic policy of more tax cuts for the wealthy, bigger deficits for the American people and growing debt for our children and grandchildren."

The cost of the Persian Gulf war was shared by many countries in the U.S.-led coalition against Saddam. It is unclear how many nations would pick up some of the cost of another campaign.




LMMFAO...

DOWNPLAYING THE FACT IT MIGHT COST $60 BILLION

TRY $600 BILLION AND CLIMBING........

[Ellyllions]

AH, check this shit out...

went to ask.com and did a search so I could prove where I'd heard it...

Ask.com looks like this: screenshot

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/Mrschris/Untitled-1.jpg


And when you click the link you get this:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

But here's another link...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm

[LoungeMachine]

HERE'S ANOTHER DOOZEY

By Elisabeth Bumiller
www.nytimes.com


WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 ¡ª The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.


:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

FROM ELL'S LINK:

Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil
U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says

by Knut Royce

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war," according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq]."

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice Department has doubts," he said. He said department lawyers are unsure "whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in trust for the people of Iraq."

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.

Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal policy discussions."

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism," he said. "That is how they [Mideast nations] would perceive it."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an occupation could last 1 1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the world only to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is an open question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8 million barrels a day, with 80 percent of the revenues going for the United Nations Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption. The remaining 20 percent, worth about $3 billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling and much of it goes to support Saddam Hussein's military. In theory that is the money that could be used for reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more. By some estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore Iraq's oil industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in 1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow. And, of course, it is impossible to predict the price of oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference in November on the economic consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference participants deliberately avoided the question of whether Iraq should help pay occupation or other costs. "It's a very politically sensitive issue," he said. "... We're in a situation where we're going to be very sensitive to how our actions are perceived in the Arab world."

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq's oil could defer some of the occupation costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could increase [oil production] and how long it would take to reinvest in the infrastructure and reinvest in additional oil."

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S. Special Forces in the global war against terrorism, among other issues. Part of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source who helped prepare the report.

He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil." He said the briefing was delivered to the office of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense and one of the administration's strongest advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center's director of budget studies, said he could not remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it would only have been "a passing reference to something we did."

Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a spokesman, said, "We don't have any official comment on that."

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing."

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. "It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there," he said. "... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.




UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE THEY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER THIS.

BUT SEIZING OIL REVENUES AS THE "SPOILS OF WAR" IS FAR FROM HAVING AN "AGREEMENT"

THE ONLY REASON THEY SEEMED TO BACK OFF WAS IT WOULD PISS OFF THE MIDDLE EAST TOO MUCH

[Ellyllions]

The way it was phrased for us was that the rebuilding of Iraq wouldn't cost us anything. That Iraqi's reinstated oil production would pay for that...

[LoungeMachine]

Right, rebuilding...

Certainly not the "liberation".

But even that went out the window...

Bremer and the CPA outlawed private business and unions.

No one could hire and build except for American Companies.

And instead of hiring Iraqis, giving them a stake in rebuil;ding their own country, we paid high wages to Americans, and shitty wages for Foreigners we deemed worthy.

Gee, I wonder why they turned on us.

Especially considering 80% of what Halliburton has built, is falling apart, $9 Billion is missing, and they still only have electricity 2 hours a day...

Fucking CRIMINAL.

And the Repukes wonder why we're hated so much :rolleyes:

[Ellyllions]

I distinctly remember hearing George talking about this one of the State of the Union addresses, cause I checked it off my list in my head. The war had just started and in the address he made me believe that the money isn't an issue as we would be "reimbursed". And that the main focus of operations (at that time) would be to solidify the oil fields for full production.

Besides how it's all been slanted, I find it amazing how anyone (including myself) ever believed that anyone in the Middle East would honor their "word", if they ever even said any "words" at all.

I mean, honestly right now everyone and their momma has their eyes on those Iraqi oil fields. ESPECIALLY Iran.

I've got a dear friend who tells me all the time..."The dollar will never fall as low as some people will stoop for it."

[LoungeMachine]

Are we Americans any better at our word?

Do you recall us telling the Kurds to stand up to Saddam, and we'd back them?

Did we?

No, we let them get slaughtered.

Jesus Christ we armed both sides of the Iran / Iraq war.

We told Saddam we had no issue with him and his dispute with Kuwait over the disputed border, and that we wouldnt interfere.

WE LIE TO THE MIDDLE EAST ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I distinctly remember hearing George talking about this one of the State of the Union addresses,

I dont even know how to respond to that. :rolleyes:

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Are we Americans any better at our word?

Do you recall us telling the Kurds to stand up to Saddam, and we'd back them?

Did we?

No, we let them get slaughtered.

Jesus Christ we armed both sides of the Iran / Iraq war.

We told Saddam we had no issue with him and his dispute with Kuwait over the disputed border, and that we wouldnt interfere.

WE LIE TO THE MIDDLE EAST ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

I totally agree.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by WAR
It's not about oil, really, it's about the New World Order, and it has been since the Tower of Babel was built.

But you can read all about it in Revelations.

Personally, I'm not scared, because of what I believe, but if anyone out there sees the day when all the major countries in the EU, and North America are using the same currency, be afraid, be very afraid.

Sure. Some Christian groups believe as you do. It's interesting to note thought that's the goal of the North American Union and European Union is to put more of the world under one courrency and one govt. It's still about oil because the One World Govt. will need that to continue your power grab. WHO CONTROLS THE OIL CONTROLS THE MODERN WORLD!

Another interesting note is many members of the Global Elite do practice ancient pagan rituals going back to the Babalonians. The Bohemian Club's Cremation of Care is nothing more than a mock BAAL sacrifice infront of an giant owl god called Molloch.

It all sounds crazy but it's documented and filmed and people know about it. Some say it's part of the Illuminati.

That being said there are a lot of simularities of what's going on now and what the Books of Daniel and Revelations are about. Some have faith this is all a sign for the comming of Christ. Whether it is or not is all up to the individual.

[Nitro Express]

Together we stand or divided we fall. We are divided and we are falling. Our country is being royaly manipulated by outside forces. What has the new Democratic Congress done? NOTHING! We have 30,000 more troops in Iraq now than before the Democrats took power.

Why aren't the US Citizens rioting in the streets over health care, border security, Iraq? Part of it is they get arrested by thuggish police part of it is there aren't enough people involved at the grass roots level.

I'm about the only one in my own family that cares. The rest are concerned about what color to paint the living room or where to have the next family reunion. Our country falls apart and the citizens fiddle with get rich schemes, football games, and the imported shit the dollar buys.

I find it pathetic. Maybe we deserve what we are getting. The ones in control dazle us with some printed paper and we occupy our time buying lead paint contaminated shit at Wal-Mart.

[Nitro Express]

I'm sorry but to me now the average American is a fat cow sucking up poisoned wheat gluton from China at Walmart.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
WE LIE TO THE MIDDLE EAST ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

We don't lie to Israel. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
We don't lie to Israel. :D

No, just for them.

[FORD]

Originally posted by WAR
We don't lie to Israel. :D

I wouldn't be so sure of that.....

Chimpy's grandfather funded Hitler.

Chimpy's father took advice from James Baker, who said "Fuck the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway".

Chimpy once told his own mother that Jews would go to Hell.

If you were a Jew, Israeli or otherwise, would you really trust the BCE?? ;)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
That being said there are a lot of simularities of what's going on now and what the Books of Daniel and Revelations are about. Some have faith this is all a sign for the comming of Christ. Whether it is or not is all up to the individual.

Well, the Antichrist will situate himself right in the Middle East when he takes control. It makes sense.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Chimpy once told his own mother that Jews would go to Hell.

He didn't read far enough into his Bible if he believes that.

Hopefully he didn't use the word 'all' before Jews.

Why am I taking your word on this? When did he say that? :confused:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
Well, the Antichrist will situate himself right in the Middle East when he takes control. It makes sense.

So goes the fable......

[where's sesh when you need a drunken scot?]

[FORD]

Originally posted by WAR
Well, the Antichrist will situate himself right in the Middle East when he takes control. It makes sense.

And what better location than a huge "embassy" that's bigger than the Vatican?

Doesn't the book of Daniel imply that the Antichrist will rebuild Babylon?

And where was Babylon located??









GEORGE 6
WALKER 6
BUSHJR 6

[Warham]

George Bush isn't smart enough or charismatic enough to be the Antichrist. You know that as well, FORD.

The Antichrist will be someone that will work miracles and make even the most faithful swoon (even though the Church will have been gone at this point).

Bush hasn't worked ANY miracles in his life.

[FORD]

Originally posted by WAR
He didn't read far enough into his Bible if he believes that.

Hopefully he didn't use the word 'all' before Jews.

Why am I taking your word on this? When did he say that? :confused:

Seriously, he said it. Babs argued the point with him. They called Billy Graham to settle the argument. Graham told them that was up to God to judge who gets into Heaven, not him and not them.

[FORD]

Originally posted by WAR


Bush hasn't worked ANY miracles in his life.

He's been in the White House for 6 1/2 years despite never being elected. Doesn't that count?

[Warham]

Good grief.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by WAR
Bush hasn't worked ANY miracles in his life.

except getting elected

[ODShowtime]

oops sorry ford