Quote:
Is it? The oil IS the main source of energy. If you control it you control the world and its growth. Because of that, the USA Administration is actively seeking the control of oil sources.
Nice theory, followed by a conclusion drawn from that theory. None of which adds up to actual fact. You'll need more than a theory to form an argument.
Quote:
Remember that Busch is from Texas.
So, by your logic, because Bush is from Texas, he profits from high oil prices? Again, nice conclusion based on nonsensical and convenient assumptions. Yes, you're right, our president is fleecing the entire U.S. population for personal profit. Yeah, that's the ticket! Your conspiracy theory would make a great made-for-TV movie, which our fanatical fact-allergic Hollywood is probably already working on...
Quote:
First of all, the US Administration has NO RIGHTS to impose its views on what is write and what is wrong on other nations.
Quote:
Who gave the US the right to decide what is and what is not an outlaw regim?
Ummm, the United Nations decided Iraq was an outlaw regime, or did I miss something?? The U.N. clearly agreed that Iraq was an outlaw regime, they just didn't want to deal with the fallout of really doing something about it, and as usual, there were too many hands in Saddam's cookie jar for the U.N. to be effective.
Quote:
The world decided against the war and the US went ahead against the will of the worl because it can.
The "world" decided against the war?? LOL!!!! Against the "will of the world"?? LOL!!!! Your "world" is a fantasy world, one that obviously does not include:
Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
And you know damn well that many other democratic countries were against the war for strictly financial reasons, not humanitarian or ethical.
Quote:
I think they stoped looking for WMD in Iraq. So basicaly Saddam was telling the truth when he said that he did not have any. Guess who's the liyer now.
If Saddam was telling the truth, then why didn't he abide by the U.N. orders and offer full disclosure? Why? And don't delude yourself, it wasn't just the U.S. intelligence that warned of WMD's. Why the hell do you think the U.N. was levying sanctions? Because intelligence from everywhere around the globe indicated it. A lie, by definition, is an INTENTIONAL mis-statement of fact.
We didn't invade Iraq simply because we "didn't like" the government. We truly believed that it was in the best interests of our security, and Saddam had a proven record of thwarting and defying international law. Proven, not just rhetorical theory as you prefer to lean on. All these "what if Australia invaded New Zealand" analogies are not valid at all. It's obvious where this is going, and I better back off. You can always argue that one country "has no right" to interfere in what's going on in other countries. But when people are dying, and terrorist threats are being made, and regimes are hiding and helping those terrorists, you can put all that theory into a bucket and light it with a match, because at that point it's all just utopian nonsense.
.jpg)
Your logic reminds me of the Iranians I knew in the 70's who swore that the US Hostages in Tehran were there because of a Reagan conspiracy
