ok so hear me out, USA is oil based as we all know, they need the money that comes from oil to stop them from going completely bankrupt. So they decide to go to the middle east to take their oil. Now the Middle-eastern countries obviously dont like that, as it is their oil and now]t USA's so the Middle eastern leaders fight for what they own, (just as anyone would), so USA classes them as terrorists and uses the media to their advantage. So couldnt all of these wars going on be solely because the USA government needs money and decided to fight innocent people for it? They have had numerous Middle eastern leaders killed over conspiracies of WMD's and secret bin ladin plans, which in my opinion is all a load of shit, because you need to be able to control the masses, the people of america need to be fooled so that they think that the troops over sea's are there for all the right reasons, when they arent, it's all for the money. Thoughts? i dont mind arguments but please keep it in the rules as i'd like to discuss this topic.
I'm with blaze. People just suck. We have made some questionable and some terrible choices especially during the Bush administration but should we label an entire nation terrorists? No.
sorry, not the whole nation, and terrorists isnt the right word, are the leaders of the USA government leading its people on while secretly fuelling war for no other reason than money?
If they are fighting wars for money they are doing a terrible job at it. I think the wars have cost over a trillion dollars now (don't quote me on that amount) Hard to belive they are making profit enough to cover that expense. I do think there was an ulterior motive to invade afghanistan and iraq but its hard to say what that motive was.
Nobody's fighting for oil. USA is not terrorist, it's the nosy neighbor that had to be in everyone's business. We went to middle east to kill terrorists, we did and in the process leveled 2 countries. Now we are rebuilding them.
We only get about 13% of our crude imports from the middle east...mostly (about 8.5%) from Saudi Arabia-who we've never invaded. /thread????? humans don't suck at least on a general one on one basis...I pretty much love everyone
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
The US government isn't taking the oil, but they are greasing the skids for US oil companies to take it. Nothing has changed in 100 years, nor should we expect it to. After WWI (1914-1918) General Smedley Butler wrote an essay, "War is a Racket," (read it online THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE. ) One of his points was that all they did during the war was pave the way for US corporations. The "big picture" reason for the US starting all these wars is because it is an empire, and empires continuously expand until they run out of money -- which isn't far away. It's all about power, which is all any government really cares about despite all the flowery speeches. And the word "terrorist" has become as bastardized as "racist" or "homophobe," among a zillion others. By some modern definitions, the Founders of this country were "terrorists" because many of them were dressed like civilians, and they hid behind trees and picked off the uniformed British who were marching in lines like all militaries did back then. They were fighting "unfair," just like those damned Muslims. LMAO! WTF, you fight to WIN.
Who said they were giving the American people the money? They keep the profits of their risks, if they risk and lose, they get bailed out. Then they invade countries and keep all the profits after using tax dollars to fund their wars. Seems fair to me.
[quote name='"Fizzly"'] The US government isn't taking the oil, but they are greasing the skids for US oil companies to take it. Nothing has changed in 100 years, nor should we expect it to. After WWI (1914-1918) General Smedley Butler wrote an essay, "War is a Racket," (read it online THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE. ) One of his points was that all they did during the war was pave the way for US corporations. The "big picture" reason for the US starting all these wars is because it is an empire, and empires continuously expand until they run out of money -- which isn't far away. It's all about power, which is all any government really cares about despite all the flowery speeches. And the word "terrorist" has become as bastardized as "racist" or "homophobe," among a zillion others. By some modern definitions, the Founders of this country were "terrorists" because many of them were dressed like civilians, and they hid behind trees and picked off the uniformed British who were marching in lines like all militaries did back then. They were fighting "unfair," just like those damned Muslims. LMAO! WTF, you fight to WIN.[/quote] First off, the American rebels were fighting to form there own country. Insurgents are not. Empire? How are the US building an empire. Were gonna be out in 2014. If we wanted an empire wouldn't we stay? Certain people in the government should be considered war criminals for some things that happened but not all.
I was talking about HOW they fight (tactics) not WHY they fight. (Educate yourself here about 4th generation warfare: Fourth generation warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) And aside from that, both groups were (are) fighting to repel foreigners on their land, but that's another discussion. It isn't necessary to have literal boots on the ground to control a nation. Beyond that, supporters of the empire, like you, will NEVER accept any ideas to the contrary so I won't even waste my time, but here's a hint: open your eyes. Last I knew, the US has bases in something like 130 of the existing 190 nations on the globe.
[quote name='"Fizzly"'] I was talking about HOW they fight (tactics) not WHY they fight. (Educate yourself here about 4th generation warfare: Fourth generation warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) And aside from that, both groups were (are) fighting to repel foreigners on their land, but that's another discussion. It isn't necessary to have literal boots on the ground to control a nation. Beyond that, supporters of the empire, like you, will NEVER accept any ideas to the contrary so I won't even waste my time, but here's a hint: open your eyes. Last I knew, the US has bases in something like 130 of the existing 190 nations on the globe.[/quote] The rebels were not fighting off foreign invaders but rebelling. You could say the British were fighting off foreign invader because America help from France. I do not support being in the middle east I just disagreed with you saying empire but I understand where you are coming from. And also the US is closing a lot of military bases. Like we are closing the marine base on Okinawa. But I agree to many bases. I would rather have my boys at home than somewhere else.