Many people on the board want you to believe that the USA invaded Iraq purely to steal its oil. Do you believe this?

I am glad you started this Georgie

Im an American, if Bush wanted to invaded Iraq for oil i say good for him, more is better don't you think, jut because all the other country can't have it so they make a big fuss about this and that, all i can say is tough luck, anything good for my country is good for me and the rest i don't give a rat azz.

The French have some under the table business deal with Iraq for oil before the war, and suddenly it went down the drain, they lost some few $buck and start bla-bla-bla, sore looser.

As for German, i think it the economy was in a bad shape that why they didn't want to spend anything on the war, war cost money so they figure oh! what the heII lets go against the Iraq war cause we don't have money to spend, but they don't understand that, if the US have more oil that mean more driving, more car are purchase, and ofcourse we love to buy those BMW, especially the new 645 Ci Convertible, i have my eye on it already, as you can see its a win win situation.

For the rest of the country that went against the war, they have nothing to do with anything, they was want some publicity in some news program to attract tourist, you know promotion, kinda like free advertising.

And as for Thailand i gotta say they are loving and caring people, they are with us, they don't need oil they have their own palm oil and sugar cane, they even offer to lend us an airfield base in which we never ask for, nice of them, after the Apec Bush have a little comment on the food, he said how come they didn't put those red chilly in my Tom Yam Kung.

cheer

Im an American, if Bush wanted to invaded Iraq for oil i say good for him, more is better don't you think, jut because all the other country can't have it so they make a big fuss about this and that, all i can say is tough luck, anything good for my country is good for me and the rest i don't give a rat azz.

The French have some under the table business deal with Iraq for oil before the war, and suddenly it went down the drain, they lost some few $buck and start bla-bla-bla, sore looser.

As for German, i think it the economy was in a bad shape that why they didn't want to spend anything on the war, war cost money so they figure oh! what the heII lets go against the Iraq war cause we don't have money to spend, but they don't understand that, if the US have more oil that mean more driving, more car are purchase, and ofcourse we love to buy those BMW, especially the new 645 Ci Convertible, i have my eye on it already, as you can see its a win win situation.

For the rest of the country that went against the war, they have nothing to do with anything, they was want some publicity in some news program to attract tourist, you know promotion, kinda like free advertising.

And as for Thailand i gotta say they are loving and caring people, they are with us, they don't need oil they have their own palm oil and sugar cane, they even offer to lend us an airfield base in which we never ask for, nice of them, after the Apec Bush have a little comment on the food, he said how come they didn't put those red chilly in my Tom Yam Kung.

cheer

Are you sure that English is you native language ??

i learn this many moon ago, when people have nothing to say or don't know what to say them seem to pick on another person english, i seen many of you around, looser get it, when i need a teacher i'll ask for one, i didn't know this topic was related to english in anyway, get with the topic. only looser pick on other english.

This will go off fast anyway, so let me get my 2 baht worth in.

If you are American, how long did you wait for citizenship? Where was your country of origin? Why did you go to the USA?

Without resorting to puerile assaults on your barely comprehensible use of English, what you posted even if taken as broadly as I can, is nonsense. It means nothing.

Notice I am not insulting your use of English, rather the tenor of what you wrote. It is meaningless.

Have a nice day.

If you are American, how long did you wait for citizenship?

5 yrs

Where was your country of origin?

Viet-nam

Why did you go to the USA?

you figure that out

Without resorting to puerile assaults on your barely comprehensible use of English, what you posted even if taken as broadly as I can, is nonsense. It means nothing.

Did the US invade Iraq for oil?

yes they did, good for them, more is good isn't it, if any other country have the chance they would do the same thing.

nonsense you say, didn't the french have a deal with Iraq for oil (yes or no),

Germany economy suck azz at the moment isn't it, actually its suk for the last 2 year before the war

you think bush give a rat azz about the rest of the country, he say he was going alone, and that's what he did.

Thailand, didn't they offer the use of the base, and say they will lend a hand if need, i didn't remmember Bush admin asking for any support from Thailand

Tom Yam Kung was just a joke

Don't close this thread down too quickly! Perhaps it won't degenerate into extreme flaming.

Bush invaded Iraq for several reasons not the least of which Saddam tried to assinate his Daddy. His motivation also stems from a strong belief of right/wrong. Remember what he said early on: "Out West we have a saying - Dead or Alive".

If I had the choice of chosing a waffler like Clinton or someone who takes an unpopular stand like Bush I'd choose the latter...

Boon Mee

I supported Bush whacking Saddam. Part of that support was on the idea that WMD were being kept in Iraq. That appears now to be untrue. I am pretty sure that the Bush administration believed Iraq had them when they went to war.

But now the chief investigator has stepped down and said he doesn't think there are any places they could be hidden at this point. Public Broadcasting (PBS) recently had a fairly intelligent program on the WMD issue, the reasons they thought there were illegal materials there, Saddam's role in refusing to comply, and the political currents that affected the searches for WMD material, both before the war (UN) and after (USA). Worth taking a peek at if you are interested in the subject.

Frontline Report: WMD

Frontline is normally thought to be a rather liberal organisation, not particularly a spokespiece for the government, for those not familiar with PBS and Frontline.

Now the USA is in another election process. The Democrats are running the gamut (or gauntlet) of primaries, hopefully selecting an able opponent to Bush. Now, I happen to be a closet Democrat. But I keep getting forced into the Republican camp because of the dolts the party keeps running. I am not, however, a frothing Bush hater. So I would vote for Bush over some really dubious Democrat. I worry more about the people around Bush than I do Bush himself. Particularly Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. Those two worry me deeply. I'd really like to see someone else in each of their jobs.

So in bit, you may have someone else to throw brickbats at. Perhaps Kerry but it is early to tell, only one primary so far has been held. But those of you that are USA citizens and so concerned about Bush, now is the time for you to make an effort if you want someone else in the office.

And the rest of you can watch and keep your fingers crossed, for whatever candidate, based on your particular viewpoint. The war against terrorism will continue, regardless who they elect, but how it is carried out may change.

Jeepz

Jeepz, I like your comments although I do not agree on Bush, who IMHO at least has to disappear from the international stage.

To find a better one? Guess, it is the story of our life. From an outsider's view looking in, I am not sure about Howard Dean, Kerry? Yes, wait and see.

Fight against terrorism, I am fully with you, but would prefer to do it legally, with sanctions of the international body, which is the UN. Al Quaida and Bin Laden are in Afghanistan and that's where the job should have been finished without running off to Baghdad.

Clorox does make one very valid point. He supports whatever is good for America and to ###### with anyone who doesn't like that. Not necessarily "right", but perfectly understandable. His second point about the French and Germans opposing the war for less-than-virtuous reasons is also valid.

I don't think the US invaded Iraq purely for its oil, but do believe the oil played a part in their calculations, especially when it came to financing the rebuilding etc. If the objective was to secure oil supplies, it has failed miserably. Ever since it became clear a war was on, oil prices have been around $30 per barrel and are now in the $35 range.

America has succeeded in removing a vile regime and has severly chastened a number of other leaders in the Middle East. There is still a good chance the war will make the Middle East a better place by encouraging the spread of democracy. One of the biggest obstacles to that success is America's lack of experience in colonial administration, which is needed for short term national development. The poor quality of its military personnel at senior and lower levels doesn't help, either. Also, Donald Runsfeld is not the ideal choice of person to be calling the shots over there.

For my part, I hope GWB is re-elected. I believe he's done a fairly good job under trying circumstances. More to the point, I can't see any of his rivals doing better, including Al Gore.

Actually, I only disagree on one point:

For my part, I hope GWB is re-elected. I believe he's done a fairly good job under trying circumstances.

IMHO, he created lots and lots of problems which have not been necessary.

I cannot find any reason why at all he had to go to Baghdad and by and by his own people admit to it. The Iraq will find its own way and will not have a thank you to Bush.

If there is nobody, who can do the job, (which job? ) then don't do it. Let the Middle East solve their own problems, assist, but don't attack. Don't assist with any weapon- supply or military 'help'.

I myself am always surprised about the development of Vietnam since 1975. The first 10 years till '85 have been very difficult for them. Today, the country is booming or at least nicely developing. They are re-unified under a rule that is not necessarily democratic, as we see it in the West, but for the first time since 1949 it works and works without outside interference.

There is no harsh feeling against the US, quite the opposite, and the country opens up to foreigners and to their own people coming from overseas. Clinton became tremendously popular for dropping he embargo and Americans are welcome as guests with open arms.

Maybe a solution for other areas, don't have any nation involved as a colonial power. Let them find their own ways and help if politically and economically feasible. They will come around and solve their own problems.

I don't think the US invaded Iraq purely for its oil, but do believe the oil played a part in their calculations, especially when it came to financing the rebuilding etc. If the objective was to secure oil supplies, it has failed miserably. Ever since it became clear a war was on, oil prices have been around $30 per barrel and are now in the $35 range.

There is little short-term gain possible on securing the oil supply from Iraq, as the infrastructure need huge investment before it can increase its oil production. But look at it from a medium-long term perspective.

Controling oil supply with a "more friendly" Iraqi government or other form of authority, would help in "controling" OPEC decision, and ultimately will help the US economy to be less dependant on OPEC decision (Price of tomorrow's oil).

Do a search with Google with those keywords: Iraq and OPEC

- http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/...c.RpMw_DSL.html

And that is what is at stake here, and anywhere else, where you have Gaz/Oil or pipelines.

So, the battle is now how to put a friendly Government in Iraq, that please the Iraqi and the US ...

Why do we have to have threads like this on here,i joined to talk about Thailand not US politics.

Rule 4

4. Postings on this forum and forum branches must be related to Thailand. General political posts regarding political issues elsewhere in the World, except as they relate to Thailand, should be addressed to other forums, e g newsgroups

Posted on Sun 2004-01-25, 12:00:06 

Why do we have to have threads like this on here,i joined to talk about Thailand not US politics.

Rule 4

4. Postings on this forum and forum branches must be related to Thailand. General political posts regarding political issues elsewhere in the World, except as they relate to Thailand, should be addressed to other forums, e g newsgroups

I agree with this, come on Admins, close this crap You would delete it if it was about Thailand.

I agree to a certain point spellbound, but I am a believer that political discussions can and should be put in here even if it is not about Thailand. Besides if we do discuss Thailand, however small it may be we get either censored or it is deleted or both. If this being the case however small it may be what is the point to even make such attempt. Am I right or wrong??????

So since this is a small opportunity, I would like to put my two political cents worth in on this thread.

From the recent State of the Union by Pres Bushie, this one was the worst state of the Union Address I have witnessed in my entire life. This president really gave a huge ball face lie to all the American people. If you saw (which I hope) Senator Kennedy, he never once stood up to applause the president, and kept shaking his head in total disbelief, knowing the president was lying the entire time. In fact his face showed total disgust. The president is so obsessed with Iraq and terrorism, I think he has gone insane. This address by the way was focused on Iraq for a solid 30 minutes out of a 45 minute address. Then to top it off he tells the American people he needs 5 years to get the country out of debt!!!! When I heard this I just about threw up on my own carpet at home.

Listen when President Bush took over office, USA had a surplus (plus-plus) of over a trillion dollars. Thanks to Clinton. Now we are well over the billion mark in debt!!!!! Thanks to Bush. He does not know what he is doing. Even France and Germany saw the biggest lie to mankind and so did the United Nations,and they refused to sing with him. Right now to this very present day, USA has not and I mean has not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!!!!!!!!!

So you tell me.... I give Bush thumbs down super big time and not only that Bush is the most dangerous terrorist (in my opinion) to ever exist in this world. He is a threat to every nation and kingdom and uses military force to make a nation or kingdom to bend down to their knees like a dictator. This guy is so scary, I can safely bet every country in the world patiently awaits the next presidential elections to get this insane person out of office pronto. And besides, Pres Bush got the office by default because of the screwy way of elections meaning electorial votes rather than the peoples votes.

If his highness the King and President Bush were standing side by side, I will pick the King any day or night. At least this person is straight and honest to the best of his ability. Being an American, this should tell you something by itself. The same goes to some other leaders around the world.

That is my two cents worth.

Daveyoti

here here Daveyo!

<Bush is the most dangerous terrorist (in my opinion) to ever exist in this world. He is a threat to every nation >

Here we go again - comparing GWB to Hitler, Attilla the Hun and God knows who else.

Daveyo - I'll bet you're a product of some hard-core liberal education & you've never been in the military either - right???

Boon Mee

We don't compare Bush to anyone. You do because you don't have much to say.

We just say that this IDIOT is a threat to every nation on earth. He's a threat to earth itself (take a look at his position on environemental issues). He is an insult for anyone whose IQ is slighty above the room temperature (celcius!).

And you still worship him. It does say a lot about your free will.

(By the way, Boon Mee, you're the guy who sent me a post saying that the Rio Grande was between America and Europe)

Sorry I forgot : Bonjour!!

Chai Yo! Dave Yo. It's not gonna convince the Bushiephiles around here, but occasionally your stream-of-consciousness postings get startlingly near the mark. The longer this clown Bush stays in office, the longer the US is going to be vilified the world over as the biggest threat to mankind (supported by numerous polls, alongside Israel), rather than some of the other serious threats out there who need containing by rational policy-making and consistency, rather than narrow-minded special interests appeasing decisions we've seen the past two years.

Why do we have to have threads like this on here,i joined to talk about Thailand not US politics.

Strange enough, wherever I go in Thailand and in Asia for that, GWB (not US-politics as such) is a hot topic. The Bear Pit is quite private, believe only members have access.

So for me, living in Thailand, it is interesting to see opinions others from and such confirming mine.

Discussing only Chicken Flu, as bad as it seems to be, or Wats, beaches and chicks could become boring too soon.

I understand in the board are members from around the world, all either living in Thailand or some way or other related to Thailand. So why not looking over the borders and see what one might not see in one's own little nut shell.

Ah, nice to know somebody at least agrees to some point of my opinion. Thanks.

I recently read a report not long ago, about the topic of the hit here in USA, and according to this report, what happened was just only a piece of what they can do as of potential damage. In this report it was said all they have to do is hit just 4 major spots in this country and chaos can set in. To this day these 4 spots are vulnerable. Talk of security looking at all the wrong places.

They also said if it did happen USA can be knocked out for days. You know what, I don't know how true it is, or if this report was set up to be some kind of trap to lure them, so I wonder of its truthfulness especially it being printed out to the public or that such is true to warn the people of such danger and exposing such can bring action to plug up the loops correctly.

I would think under common sense usually things of such nature as weak points are kept under wraps to not reveal the danger etc or exploit it to the enemy of who ever it may be.

Anyway, yes I do agree Bush has undone the protection that Clinton did to protect the environment. Basically lets put it this way. The good things that Clinton did both financially and enviromental wise besides the political cohesion he had was all undone by Bush because of his hatred towards all good things. This man is like Satan himself.

Daveyoti

Here we go again - comparing GWB to Hitler, Attilla the Hun and God knows who else.

Let's let these boys "intelligence" speak for itself:

Bush is the most dangerous terrorist (in my opinion) to ever exist in this world. He is a threat to every nation

undone by Bush because of his hatred towards all good things. This man is like Satan himself.

I think he has gone insane.

I can safely bet every country in the world patiently awaits the next presidential elections to get this insane person out of office pronto.

Yeah, yeah, worse than Hitler.

Yeah, yeah, worse than Hitler.

Georgie-Porgie from Saulus to Paulus?

He is bad but not that bad

<a post saying that the Rio Grande was between America and Europe)>

Pepe

With the alias you got one could safely assume you're a chicano from south of de border - that's the Mexican border if you're still confused. Anyhow, don't wet your pants, dude, in anticipation of GWB NOT gettig re-elected. He may be facing a more electable challanger now that Dean has flipped out but get ready for four more years... heh, heh, heh (sorta pisses you off, don't it)?

My best regards,

Boon Mee

<a post saying that the Rio Grande was between America and Europe)>

Pepe

With the alias you got one could safely assume you're a chicano from south of de border - that's the Mexican border if you're still confused. Anyhow, don't wet your pants, dude, in anticipation of GWB NOT gettig re-elected. He may be facing a more electable challanger now that Dean has flipped out but get ready for four more years... heh, heh, heh (sorta pisses you off, don't it)?

My best regards,

Boon Mee

Funny post, Boon Mee. I'm not the "confused one". I Do know where are the Rio Grande and the Atlantic Ocean.

As far as I am concerned I hope that Bush will be re-elected, I hope he'll get enough time to bring America down to his knees (rira bien qui rira le dernier)

For your information, I'm French.

Bonsoir,

Pepe

pepe, more likely is France on its knees, in front of Uncle Sam, once again, begging us for help.

This time, while you are down there, how about doing what you are so famous for? How about some gratitude for saving your chicken-sh1t asses!

Question>>>> What school was it that taught you that the Rio Grande was between America and Europe????????

Rio Grande is the border between USA and Mexico!!!!!!!! Oh lord, bless and spare your soul. You need to freshen up on your Geography and World Atlas!!!! by going to school again. Tsk tsk.

Oh, by the way there is no comparison my friend to Hitler or Attlita the Hun. Bush is in a class all by itself. He is the Terrorist to the World>>>>>> and is simply following his fathers footsteps and doing the finishing touches that his father started but never completed. Bush himself is larger in any comparison to such as Hitler. At least Hitler contained his terror within his region, >>>>>>Bush is worldwide. As of the Oil, forget it. The Arabs will not let that happen ever and the same to some other countries nearby. If America does try, I hope I am not nearby when the fireworks really gets going.

Bush even got America so scared of themselves that the Police, Military and some wannabees included to think that they will make another strike here soon and now. These so called terrorists as labeled by Bush are quite frankly not that stupid to do anything now. They have time and patience on their side and will wait even for years if necessary to make their next move. Their history dictates such from past events the last 30 years.

I know I won't live that long to see the next event, and perhaps maybe I will but I doubt it. My guess (and this is just a guess and opinion) >>>the next one will be some nuclear strike in one or more cities in the future since it is well known that one can carry it in a suitcase today also known as the dirty bomb. One never knows what they will do, or carry out. It depends on what is in their minds and objectives in the days ahead.

It is sad that such can become a reality, but this world has lost its sense of reason of the real word called PEACE!!!!!! I do have sympathy to the future generations of what they will be facing as they grow up.

But for now, Bush has to go and leave office or the possible repercussions will indeed be felt by many. There is no way this world will tolerate Bush for another 4 years without something happening. The patience has grown thin from the other countries around the world towards this current regime.

Daveyoti

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his "victory" against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.

That was the dilemma ... U.S economy needs more and more oil ... Iraq would need to increase production ... but this would give more power to Saddam ...

Quick Solution:

- Tell our citizen and the World that Saddam can deploy WMD in less than 45 minutes

- Kill the guy who spoke too much to journalist ... uh, no ... make sure he commits suicide

- Let our citizen believe the Saddam was involved in 911 (last August/September, close to 70% in US believed Saddam linked to 911)

- Invade Iraq

And Today ...

Whose the bigger idiot?

Sadam for acting in a manner that makes it look like he has WMD, and bringing down his country?

or

Bush for believing the world community that Sadam had WMD, and refusing to allow a rogue nation to continually thumb it's nose and make a mockery of the UN?

or

Chirac for thinking he has WMD, voting as such, and then blocking the UN from having any sort of credibility because of his own business interests?

Tant pis mes amis francais, vous n' avez pas de respect.