West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on April 11, 2004, 03:45:12 PM
-
Everyone of you bitches who said "We're invading Iraq for oil", come in here, and apologize to George Bush for your bullshit. Oil Prices in America are higher than they've ever been, and much of it is because of the war. Who's man enough to be first, and admit they're a fucking liar?
-
"SnoopGoog" you said it here
"Kerry, at least won't be an oil oriented president who fights 2 wars in 3 years."
in this thread.
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=48936;start=msg554728#msg554728
Apologize.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite, you said it here
"You want to talk about mass graves? The mass muder of 52,000 people in less than a year for oil. What do you call the Bush's gravesite in Iraq? It holds 52,000. That's not a mass grave? Bush should stand trial."
In this message
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=50303;start=msg567961#msg567961
Apologize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech, you replied
Good point...his dad too.
In the same thread.
Apologize
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite recently coughed up
American troops dying all for free oil and Isreal.
and
We are in Iraq primarily for oil and as a favor to Isreal.
In this thread
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=50583;start=msg569016#msg569016
apologize
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite earlier defended Saddam Hussein and said Bush was in it for the oil in this message
1. You say Sadaam Hussein kiled 100,000 people. Those people were trying to overthrow him, so he suppressed that movement. Bush has killed 10's of thousands of people in Afganistan and Iraq over oil. Atleast Hussien was defending his government.
In this thread
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=47472;start=msg536201#msg536201
apologize
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etc. Etc. Etc. Hundreds more, I could list them all, but frankly most of you aren't worth it.
-
lol
-
Why didn't you ask us to explain why first?
If you ever studied economics it's not always about how much resources you have. It's about how much resources you are willing to produce and supply. In a capatalistic system, businesses want to keep the supply down so the costs can remain high for longer periods of time. 1 billion people around the world have problems getting food, but yet farms have their crops burned to keep the supply low and the prices high. Same thing with oil. OPEC has announced that they will be cutting production (supply) by 25% and taht makes oil a little less plentiful. Supply and demand. They are thinking like businessmen. They want to keep the production low and the prices high.
Second reason, Iraq is a quagmire right now. America got herself in a mess. Oil production and delivery is not easy right now. US will have to wait for Iraq to really pay off. Iraq was a long-term investment.
Last of all, American's keep shooting themselves in the foot buying all these SUV's for the summer. That's why Iraq still isn't even enough for Bush. If he had it his way, he'll be in Iran and Syria during his next term.
-
^^HAHAHAHAHAHA^^
Stick to islam...
-
You've got to remember Trauma, that these people CAN'T be wrong...
Even when you put it right infront of their faces, they still deny it.
-
They're just bitches, without enough balls to admit they're wrong. They're too much of a coward to even admit they're FULL OF SHIT!
LOL
You STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!!!
You yell it's about Oil, then the prices of Oil skyrocket in America, your conspiracy theory falls to shit, and then you just move on and act like nothing's wrong.
YOU WILL FOREVER BE DUMBASSES BECAUSE OF YOUR LACK OF INTEGRITY, YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKERS!
-
Do you get picked on in school a lot? I'm guessing people don't usually pay much attention to you judging by your social skills.
-
Are u that stupid to think that once America invades Iraq, oil prices will fall drastically, do you really think thats what happens? And, I always said this war for israel, youre quite moot on that subject.
-
Infinite mentioned a good point too, long term strategy is the key here. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq involves to a certain degree american interests in resources
(not just oil,central asian gas is a key)
-
*takes the time to actually read Trauma's post*
"Tech, you replied
Good point...his dad too.
In the same thread.
Apologize"
You dumb goof, I didnt even say that. That quote is from H-Unit, check your own link you dunce. War for Israel. End of story.
-
Everyone of you bitches who said "We're invading Iraq for oil", come in here, and apologize to George Bush for your bullshit. Oil Prices in America are higher than they've ever been, and much of it is because of the war.
this is one of the most simplistic and childish oversimplifications i've ever read.
do some research.
for the record, i personally never said it was about oil. and it certainly wasn't about freeing the iraqi people. it was about controlling saddam's regime. however...
crude oil prices hav only risen recently, so why have gas prices steadily been rising at the pumps??? take a look at the numbers:
http://www.ipaa.org/info/industrystats/OilPrices.asp
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table13.pdf
in december of 2002 crude oil was at 31.79 cents per barrel.
up until april the price per barrel has been averaging around $31
there was a spike in march of 2003 because of the war, and there is a spike recently because opec cut production (or threatened to cut production). still gasoline prices have steadily risen over this past year. this is because the current gas prices are artificially inflated and it's actually the big oil companies that are keeping the profits for themselves.
You yell it's about Oil, then the prices of Oil skyrocket in America, your conspiracy theory falls to shit
can you grasp the concept that if crude oil prices are remaining constant, and gas prices at the pump are rising, bush's buddies at the oil companies are making a killing???
what, did you think that these guys were modern day robbin hood's and they would take evil saddam's oil and give gas to the american public for free???
here's halliburton's [you know, dick cheney's boys that almost went bankrupt in 2002] stock prices over the year:
(http://homepage.mac.com/nibs/.Pictures/halliburton.gif)
exxon mobil
(http://homepage.mac.com/nibs/.Pictures/exxon.gif)
bp amoco
(http://homepage.mac.com/nibs/.Pictures/bp.gif)
notice the upward trends...
information is coming from http://money.cnn.com :
http://money.cnn.com/news/companies/research/research.html?pg=sn&sid=2303&osymb=HAL&time=1yr&uf=0&x=13&y=14
these guys are making a killing and you are acting as if they aren't??? LOL!!!
who's in control of iraqi oil right now??? the u.s. via the puppet govt in iraq.
protected by:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf
the single greatest thing saddam hussein ever did in iraq was take state control of iraqi oil which literally made that nation rich overnight.
the u.s. puppet government in iraq (paul bremmer) has already announced that iraqi oil would be privatized; and u.s. oil companies are immune to any lawsuits incurred during this privitazation process. these guys are literally making a killing off iraqi oil and as you unknowingly pointed out, the american public is actually suffering as a result. gas prices are still rising.
these guys are completely shameless in their corruption.
look at some of the analysis on that order:
http://www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml
bush and his cronies are literally fucking everyone in this situation. the iraqi people, and the american public as well.
You STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!!!
<snip>
YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKERS!
LOL!!!
the bullshit you are spewing in this thread is either born in ignorance or intended to decieve. there's definitely one person in this thread that's either stupid, or lying...
-
Lollll! U know why oil prices are rising? Because the population thinks that oil prices have to go up during war. Actually, most of the oil doesnt even come from Iraq, so the oil companies just colluded to increase the price per gallon because people think it's justified AT THIS TIME. People think just cuz there's a way, prices have to go up. However, there IS oil in Iraq that bush is after, and the region is a very good strategic point for the United States. So sorry, what do i have to aplogize for? You're stupid, u belive everything Bush does is good. Are u his fuckin nephew or something? Are all people from Charlotte as narrow minded as Trauma and Kayze eyez?
-
Mark my words: Oil was the major reason and if not it was to increase control in the Middle East.Quite likely a combination of both.
And I'm certainly not apologising to Bush as he's a dumbfuck and I don't trust him at all. Besides,his eyes are too close to each other.Bad trait.
-
yea like already said opec controls the price of oil, although if i'm not much mistaken iraq isn't a member of opec just like russia (one of the largest oil producers) isn't. there has been talk of iraq over producing to bring down the price of oil but i don't think that will happen until stability is baught to the region
-
i need to correct some information:
iraqi oil is not currently being privatized under paul bremmer. the top 200 industries in iraq are being privatized but not oil. this privatization allows for foreign ownership and control of companies providing goods and services in these industries, and the proceeds from these industries is not required to be funneled back into iraq. so, while it isn't oil, it is everything else.
and, it may very soon be oil as well. the u.s. state department, under bush, reccommended that iraqi oil infact be privatized:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-04.htm
the original article is for sale from the l.a. times (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/292227561.html?did=292227561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Feb+21,+2003&author=Warren+Vieth&desc=The+World%3b+QUEST+FOR+SECURITY%3b+Privatization+of+Oil+Suggested+for+Iraq%3b+Exiles+advising+the+State+Department+say+the+country+would+benefit+but+that+any+such+change+should+be+initiated+by+Iraqis,+not+the+U.S.)
so, paul bremmer has suggested a short term solution of privatizing everything but iraqi oil, and the state department has suggested a long term solution of privatizing iraqi oil after the new iraqi govt has taken power:
But the group of about a dozen exiled petroleum professionals, advising the State Department on how to rebuild Iraq after any ouster of President Saddam Hussein, feels strongly that privatization should wait until an interim U.S. military administration has finished its work and a sovereign government has taken its place, according to participants.
why the wait? because it would look bad:
"It would be Iraqis, Iraqi technocrats, who would be doing that," said one advisory group member. "I really don't think the United States should dictate Iraq's oil policy.... The U.S. would look very bad if it tried to exploit the situation in that regard."
but why then would the state department have any faith that privation would happen under the new iraqi govt???
The potential benefits of privatization were presented to the working group during a closed session by one of its members, Fadhil Chalabi, a former OPEC deputy secretary and Iraqi Petroleum Ministry official who now heads the Center for Global Energy Studies in London.
"Iraq has a lot of oil to develop, and the public sector cannot do it alone," Chalabi said in an interview. "A new structure could provide more money, better technology, better efficiency, better management, and worldwide market outlets."
bush's guy chalabi is in favor of privatizing iraqi oil. and this is the guy they wanted to turn the country over to. chalabi is talking about selling out the country of it's most prized resource. that is bush's guy.
bush's executive order 13303 protects any u.s. companies with oil interests in iraq from any legal culpability or lawsuits regarding those oil resources.
all proceeds from iraqi oil and natural gas are currently being placed into the development fund for iraq; and this fund is under complete control of the u.s. it's been reported that in excess of 5 billion may have been looted from the fund already. this fund is designed to assist foreign (eg. u.s.) companies that want to come in and privatize iraqi industries. u.s. companies also get a tax break for expanding into iraq.
these guys are making a killing.
-
Trauma just got destroyed.
You can rant and rave, but when you're confronted with facts you fold pretty quick, brotha.
-
all proceeds from iraqi oil and natural gas are currently being placed into the development fund for iraq; and this fund is under complete control of the u.s. it's been reported that in excess of 5 billion may have been looted from the fund already.
that is just speculation, however it does make me concerned what america is doing with the money, the bush administration should provide complete transparency as to what is happening to the money.
-
i love it when trauma post all over train of thought, but strays away from some threads that he knows he WILL LOSE
-
llllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllll
trauma got destroyed
-
lol mr. traumaTIZED u also have 2 realize that these guys dont give a flying fuck about me or you. they're just fattening their own pockets. we're gonna buy gas no matter what. we need it 2 get around. they know we'll buy it. so they keep prices up, and mr cheney and halliburton makes the bank.
-
OPEC is punishing the US by decreasing production for this pointless invasion.
Don't forget about China/India increasing demands.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3560227&thesection=business&thesubsection=latest (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3560227&thesection=business&thesubsection=latest)
-
AGAIN: You said we invaded Iraq for the oil.
So far, we have taken none, and Gas prices are through the roof.
There is no rationalization. YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG. You're lying, conspiracy theorist motherfuckers who can't tell black from white, right from wrong, truth from deceit. Time will bear this out.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/ (http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/)
-
http://www.eastwestdevelopment.net/news/2003/05/27/print/econbranch01.shtml (http://www.eastwestdevelopment.net/news/2003/05/27/print/econbranch01.shtml)
Funny how this guy is US appointed, and all of a sudden Russia and China lose contracts...I wonder who those are going to go to?
-
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/04/04/stories/2003040400241000.htm (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/04/04/stories/2003040400241000.htm)
-
http://www.rense.com/general43/USdoublesvalueofcontracts.htm (http://www.rense.com/general43/USdoublesvalueofcontracts.htm)
-
YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG.
Couldn't have said it better to you. 'tell it like it is'..positive points for the honest,selfknowing Trauma.
:-* Good boy
-
Also, something else that has effected the oil prices is the falling of the dollar in regard to all other currency's, due to our debt. The Euro and the Yen is what everyone is starting to purchase.
-
I Just Wasn't Made For These Times:
AGAIN: You said we invaded Iraq for the oil.
So far, we have taken none
actually, revenues from oil sales all go into the iraqi development fund. part of that money has been allocated to offset the costs of foreign (aka u.s. & co.) companies wishing to expand into iraq. it's all a part of that privatization plan. so while the american public is not benefitting, american companies like halliburton are already cashing in on proceeds from iraqi oil. and speaking of halliburton, do you remember their "no bid" contracts in iraq?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/05/07/sprj.nitop.haliburton/
halliburton is making a killing.
and Gas prices are through the roof.
so what you are saying is that you still don't understand basic economic principles???
we knew that already. you already made that obvious.
anyway:
here's an interesting twist. halliburton has hired mercenaries to provide for security in iraq. this is good for the u.s. because those casualties don't count as u.s./"coalition" casualties. what's interesting is that because halliburton has oil interests in iraq, and as a result they are protected under executive order 13303, halliburton cannot be held legally culpable for anything that their mercenary security forces do in iraq. other than the mercenaries themselves, there is noone to hold accountable for the actions of halliburton's mercenaries aka security forces in iraq.
halliburton's role in iraq has risen to such prominence that bin laden is calling out halliburton out now:
Halliburton Named
It denounces the invasion of Iraq as a money-making exercise and singles out Halliburton Co., formerly headed by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. The company is a contractor in the reconstruction of Iraq.
``This war is making billions of dollars for big companies like Halliburton,'' the voice says.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=awUDgX6VD8o0&refer=top_world_news
-
LOL! There's a source we can trust! Osama Bin Laden! ::)
You ever considered that Haliburton was the best company to complete the job?
"There has been a series of allegations and innuendos recently to the effect that government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan are being awarded in an atmosphere redolent with the "stench of political favoritism and cronyism," to use the description in a report put out by the Center for Public Integrity on campaign contributions by companies doing work in those two countries.
One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd.
The premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice. Most contract award decisions are made by career civil servants, with no involvement by political appointees or elected officials. In some agencies, the "source selection official" (final decision-maker) on large contracts may be a political appointee, but such decisions are preceded by such a torrent of evaluation and other backup material prepared by career civil servants that it would be difficult to change a decision from the one indicated by the career employees' evaluation.
Having served as a senior procurement policymaker in the Clinton administration, I found these charges (for which no direct evidence has been provided) implausible. To assure myself I wasn't being naive, I asked two colleagues, each with 25 years-plus experience as career civil servants in contracting (and both now out of government), whether they ever ran into situations where a political appointee tried to get work awarded to a political supporter or crony. "Never did any senior official put pressure on me to give a contract to a particular firm," answered one. The other said: "This did happen to me once in the early '70s. The net effect, as could be expected, was that this 'friend' lost any chance of winning fair and square. In other words, the system recoiled and prevented this firm from even being considered." Certainly government sometimes makes poor contracting decisions, but they're generally because of sloppiness or other human failings, not political interference.
Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits -- and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. Look at the annual reports of information technology companies with extensive government and nongovernment business, such as EDS Corp. or Computer Sciences Corp. You will see that margins for their government customers are regularly below those for commercial ones. As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.
It is legitimate to ask why these contractors gave money to political campaigns if not to influence contract awards. First, of course, companies have interests in numerous political battles whose outcomes are determined by elected officials, battles involving tax, trade and regulatory and economic policy -- and having nothing to do with contract awards. Even if General Electric (the largest contributor on the Center for Public Integrity's list) had no government contracts -- and in fact, government work is only a small fraction of GE's business -- it would have ample reason to influence congressional or presidential decisions.
Second, though campaign contributions have no effect on decisions about who gets a contract, decisions about whether to appropriate money to one project as opposed to another are made by elected officials and influenced by political appointees, and these can affect the prospects of companies that already hold contracts or are well-positioned to win them, in areas that the appropriations fund. So contractors working for the U.S. Education Department's direct-loan program for college students indeed lobby against the program's being eliminated, and contractors working on the Joint Strike Fighter lobby to seek more funds for that plane.
The whiff of scandal manufactured around contracting for Iraq obviously has been part of the political battle against the administration's policies there (by the way, I count myself as rather unsympathetic to these policies). But this political campaign has created extensive collateral damage. It undermines public trust in public institutions, for reasons that have no basis in fact. It insults the career civil servants who run our procurement system.
Perhaps most tragically, it could cause mismanagement of the procurement system. Over the past decade we have tried to make procurement more oriented toward delivering mission results for agencies and taxpayers, rather than focusing on compliance with detailed bureaucratic process requirements. The charges of Iraq cronyism encourage the system to revert to wasting time, energy and people on redundant, unnecessary rules to document the nonexistence of a nonproblem.
If Iraqi contracting fails, it will be because of poorly structured contracts or lack of good contract management -- not because of cronyism in the awarding process. By taking the attention of the procurement system away from necessary attention to the structuring and management of contracts, the current exercise in barking up the wrong tree threatens the wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars the critics state they seek to promote."
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/kelman_cronyism_iraq_wp_11003.htm
-
Krayze-Eyez Killah:
LOL! There's a source we can trust! Osama Bin Laden! ::)
the guy's a terrorist. the guy's a murderer. however, osama bin laden has always explained why he hates america...etc.
he's upset how the us [tricked the saudi's] and stationed troops in saudi arabia in order to attack iraq in gulf war 1, and has maintained their bases in saudi arabia when they claimed they would not not. he doesn't like "infidels desecrating the holy land".
whether you agree with that reasoning or not, it's pretty clear that if the u.s. had not stationed troops in saudi arabia (and not always support israel's every action) there would have never been a 9/11.
now, they're singling out halliburton and the corruption in the bush administration. it's foolish to act as if america's hands are clean and the terrorists beef with the u.s. is irrational. we're talking about people who feel america have wronged them and are striking back. surely it's worthwhile to take a look at the situation and see if the u.s. government has done dirt and if their grievances have any legitimacy.
You ever considered that Haliburton was the best company to complete the job?
halliburton only became significant during the first bush administration, back when dick cheney was secretary of defense, when they were awarded some contracts with the army corps of engineers. the relationship between halliburton and u.s. military contracts was forged while dick cheney was secretary of defense under bush regime 1.
after bush lost his reelection and cheney entered the private sector, cheney became the ceo of halliburton (in 1995).
halliburton was largely irrelevant before this. they had small military contracts before this, but nothing compared to the expansion they experienced with thier relationship with dick cheney. so when you ask the question, "was halliburton the best company for the job?" you need to take into account that the corruption isn't just beginning in 2003, the corruption goes back over a decade. cheney built up halliburton, later made in excess of 50 million off of halliburton (during the period when he was ceo), and the profits continue to roll in.
Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits -- and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform.
funny you should mention that. halliburton tried to take the government to the cleaners and lost one of their contracts as a result:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3359601.stm
apparently they were overcharging for gasoline, but it isn't clear where that money went. it isn't clear who was profitting in their overpayment for the gasoline.
this isn't the first time apparently:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=2471
Independent agencies are still skeptical. For example a February 1997 study by the GAO showed that an operation that was estimated at $191.6 million when presented to Congress in 1996 had ballooned to $461 and a half million a year later. Examples of overspending included flying in plywood from the United States at a cost of $85.98 per sheet (the cost in the United states was $14.06) and billing the Army to pay its employees income taxes in Hungary.
A subsequent GAO report, issued in September 2000, noted that army commanders in the Balkans were unable to keep track of contracts as they were typically rotated out after six months, erasing institutional memory. For example the GAO pointed out that many of the Kellogg, Brown & Root contract employees were idle most of the time despite the fact that offices were being cleaned four times a day. The GAO also faulted Kellogg, Brown & Root in its over-zealous purchase of power generators at great expense and employing far more firefighters than necessary.
In February this year Kellogg, Brown & Root paid out $2 million to settle a lawsuit with the Justice Department, which alleged that the company defrauded the government during the closure of the Fort Ord military base in Monterey, California in the mid-1990s.
The allegations in the case first surfaced several years ago when Dammen Gant Campbell, a former contracts manager for Kellogg, Brown & Root, turned whistle-blower and charged that between 1994 and 1998 the company fraudulently inflated project costs by misrepresenting the quantities, quality and types of materials required for 224 projects. Campbell said that the company submitted a detailed "contractors pricing proposal" from an Army manual containing fixed prices for some 30,000 line items.
let me summarize that with one quote:
"Whether you characterize it as fraud or sharp business practices, the bottom line is the same, the government was not getting what it paid for, " explained Michael Hirst, who litigated the case for United States Attorney's office in Sacramento. "We alleged that they exploited the contracting process and increased their profits at the government's expense," Hirst added.
they have been taking the government to the cleaners.
keep in mind that kellogg, brown & root is a halliburton subsidiary.
As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.
it's much more than just iraq. they have contracts in afghanistan as well, and elsewhere. mostly negotiated by dick cheney. also, they're only recently bringing iraqi oil back online. the capacity is currently nowhere near where it should be. the true benefits from the contracts halliburton holds in iraq will be bore out over the next several years, this is not a situation where they can immediately turn a profit by flipping switch. the value in these contracts is not in the immediate returns but in the long term yeilds. and this is what has been reflected in the stock prices.
from that same article:
Last year Kellogg, Brown & Root took in $13 billion in revenues, according to its latest annual report. Currently Kellogg, Brown & Root estimates it has $740 million in existing United States government contracts, approximately 37% of their global business, most of which are in addition to the LOGCAP deal.
But this political campaign has created extensive collateral damage. It undermines public trust in public institutions, for reasons that have no basis in fact. It insults the career civil servants who run our procurement system.
the public should not trust halliburton. the public should be skeptical of the military ties that cheney has developed with haliburton. why should the public trust a company that has been accused of defrauding the govt (during the period when cheney was ceo no less) and settled out of court in order to retain their ability to secure additional govt contracts?
surely this is a system and relationship that needs to be invesigated thoroughly and viewed with great scrutiny.
-
Everyone of you bitches who said "We're invading Iraq for oil", come in here, and apologize to George Bush for your bullshit. Oil Prices in America are higher than they've ever been, and much of it is because of the war. Who's man enough to be first, and admit they're a fucking liar?
im new so just out of curiosty what do u think america went to war for? i mean by ur justification that they didnt go for oil theres no fuckin way they went concerning weapons of mass destruction. so what do u reckon they went to war for?