Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2v
I was walking down the street and got attacked by a black guy with a gun.
what makes you think that means he came from another country to get me?
We're roaming around their country and getting ATTACKED. is that clicking yet?
And our buildings were attacked by Al Queda, true, but Saddam Hussein was rumored to be working with them. When Al Queda ran from the mountains of Iraq into Afghanistan, our congress simply payed the Afghanistan leaders to go after our attackers, which they promptly did NOT do. Where is the disagreement here besides the origination? We're trying to rebuild their government, which is a war because most of them don't want that. Most of our people don't want that either, but the same CIA that convinced George Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat, is convincing him that Iraq will be overrun by its' neighbors to make their country more richer, if we do not establish Iraq as an independent.
|
^ not a single point out of that post made any sense whatsoever except for the last one about the CIA. seriously, i don't even know where to start
"I was walking down the street and got attacked by a black guy with a gun.
what makes you think that means he came from another country to get me?"
ummmmm... where did i say anything that this applies to as a point?
"
We're roaming around their country and getting ATTACKED. is that clicking yet?"
wow, you're slow. you're idea of what "roaming" and "attacking" are is so influenced by the society you live in. you're assuming that the US going into any other country un-warranted should be considered totally okay and have no kind of resistance due to the fact that our goal is "rebuilding their government"??? wtf, so if we just decide that rebuilding another country's government is a worthy cause to bomb THEN invade their country, then they HAVE to agree with that logic just because you do, or else any kind of resistance is immoral or considered an "attack"??????
thats such elitist bullshit.