Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Store
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Read about the latest Paranormalis developments!
New Paranormalis Merch Store
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
2004 Elections
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Unintentional" data-source="post: 9247" data-attributes="member: 22"><p><strong>2004 Elections</strong></p><p></p><p>Of course the chief underlying reason to invade Iraq was oil. You don't see us rushing into the Sudan do you? I'm just saying we had other reasons to justify it (i.e. failing to comply with cease fire and UN authorization). Have you read resolution 1441? Here is the paragraph of interests:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm</a></p><p></p><p>The moral of the story is if you have a lot of oil, don't invade your neighboring countries that will ask the USA for help and then agree to a cease fire and then don't abide by it. If Sadam never did that, we would not be in Iraq.</p><p></p><p>A secondary moral might be if you have a lot of oil, don't host terrorist organizations that will kill thousands of innocent people and have no qualms about shooting little kids in the back running away from you.</p><p></p><p>Speaking of Hitler, by your arguments, we should never had invaded France to get rid of Hitler. We were not attacked by France nor were we in danger of being attacked. However, if we let Hitler do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. Now compare that to Sadam. If we let Sadam do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. We actually had more justification to invading Iraq than we did France. Ironically the same two countries that opposed invading Iraq also opposed invading France, namely Germany and France. Does that mean the coalition that invaded Normady, France wasn't a real coalition because Germany and France weren't in it? Was it the coalition of the coerced? After all, France hadn't attacked us, Japan had. Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Man, here are still attacking countries that had nothing to with attacks on us.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Unintentional, post: 9247, member: 22"] [b]2004 Elections[/b] Of course the chief underlying reason to invade Iraq was oil. You don't see us rushing into the Sudan do you? I'm just saying we had other reasons to justify it (i.e. failing to comply with cease fire and UN authorization). Have you read resolution 1441? Here is the paragraph of interests: [url=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm]http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm[/url] The moral of the story is if you have a lot of oil, don't invade your neighboring countries that will ask the USA for help and then agree to a cease fire and then don't abide by it. If Sadam never did that, we would not be in Iraq. A secondary moral might be if you have a lot of oil, don't host terrorist organizations that will kill thousands of innocent people and have no qualms about shooting little kids in the back running away from you. Speaking of Hitler, by your arguments, we should never had invaded France to get rid of Hitler. We were not attacked by France nor were we in danger of being attacked. However, if we let Hitler do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. Now compare that to Sadam. If we let Sadam do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. We actually had more justification to invading Iraq than we did France. Ironically the same two countries that opposed invading Iraq also opposed invading France, namely Germany and France. Does that mean the coalition that invaded Normady, France wasn't a real coalition because Germany and France weren't in it? Was it the coalition of the coerced? After all, France hadn't attacked us, Japan had. Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Man, here are still attacking countries that had nothing to with attacks on us. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
2004 Elections
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top