By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Wikileaks + US diplomacy = biggest "diplomatic" storm ever incoming !

Kasz216 on 09 December 2010
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.



Around the Network
trestres on 09 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.


Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?

Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Kasz216 on 09 December 2010
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.


Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?

Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?

There were a ton of reasons... including WMDs.  Which were in Iraq.

According to... and your going to enjoy this... Wikileaks.  Including that Yellowcake uranium that everybody thought never existed.

Other reasons inclue, George Bush's delusional belief that it was the US duty to bring democracy to the world, His dislike of Iraq, everyone being pissed off and irrational at the time,it becomes a conduit of violence away from homeland targets as they focus fighting the US army on their "home turf".  Also being able to one up his old man and "finish the job he didn't".

There are a TON of reasons.


As for who controls the oil in Iraq.  That would be the Iraqi government, who lately have shown a lot more in common with Iran then the US.

They've awarded bids to all different nations countries,  From BP to Dutch Royal Shell, to Chinese companies.

In fact, China holds the biggest stake in Iraqi oil.  So what, we invaded Iraq for China to pay off some of our chinese debt?

http://www.theworld.org/2010/08/31/iraqs-oil-boom/



trestres on 09 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.


Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?

Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?

There were a ton of reasons... including WMDs.  Which were in Iraq.

According to... and your going to enjoy this... Wikileaks.  Including that Yellowcake uranium that everybody thought never existed.

Other reasons inclue, George Bush's delusional belief that it was the US duty to bring democracy to the world, His dislike of Iraq, everyone being pissed off and irrational at the time,it becomes a conduit of violence away from homeland targets as they focus fighting the US army on their "home turf".  Also being able to one up his old man and "finish the job he didn't".

There are a TON of reasons.


As for who controls the oil in Iraq.  That would be the Iraqi government, who lately have shown a lot more in common with Iran then the US



Don't blame a single man for the war in Iraq. It's the USA that attacked Iraq and no, it wasn't for WMD, it was purely for the oil, the reconstruction of Iraq, the weapons business and strategic positioning in the area. Having bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good way to intimidate Iran isn't it?

Name some more of those TONS of reasons, but this time make sure they are good enough reasons to start a war and  kill innocent civilians.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Kasz216 on 09 December 2010
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.


Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?

Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?

There were a ton of reasons... including WMDs.  Which were in Iraq.

According to... and your going to enjoy this... Wikileaks.  Including that Yellowcake uranium that everybody thought never existed.

Other reasons inclue, George Bush's delusional belief that it was the US duty to bring democracy to the world, His dislike of Iraq, everyone being pissed off and irrational at the time,it becomes a conduit of violence away from homeland targets as they focus fighting the US army on their "home turf".  Also being able to one up his old man and "finish the job he didn't".

There are a TON of reasons.


As for who controls the oil in Iraq.  That would be the Iraqi government, who lately have shown a lot more in common with Iran then the US

Don't blame a single man for the war in Iraq. It's the USA that attacked Iraq and no, it wasn't for WMD, it was purely for the oil, the reconstruction of Iraq, the weapons business and strategic positioning in the area. Having bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good way to intimidate Iran isn't it?

Name some more of those TONS of reasons, but this time make sure they are good enough reasons to start a war and  kill innocent civilians.

Before we get on with that then, your admitting you were wrong about Iraq being about oil?

I mean, i get that's why you are completely trying to change the topic at hand... that you realize your wrong now.  But lets start with that.

Personally, i've NEVER thought the war in Iraq was a good Idea.  You can fine that being my consistant stance... BEFORE the war, which is something most people can't say now.

I'm just saying anyone who thinks the Iraqi war was about Oil is ignorant... because we don't even control the majority of Iraq's oil contracts, China actually holds the biggest piece of the pie.

 

Though yes, as it turns out Bush WASN'T lieing about Saddam trying to buy Yellowcake from Nigeria like everyone though he was... go figure.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/wikileaks-confirms-other-ignored-reports-about-iraq-wmds

 

If were were going to do anything, it should of been Clinton style bombings.



Around the Network
trestres on 09 December 2010

@Kasz216: Read this http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp and get your own conclusions. You can ignore facts for so long. But you being a US citizen doesn't concede you the right to defend the undefendable.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam wars were all avoidable and unnecessary, yet you are justifying them. There's no justification coming from the US that's valid, you can't argue with that. And with this I'm off, since you seem very closse-minded about anything that opposes USA's current and historical foreign policies.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

trestres on 09 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".


The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.


Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?

Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?

There were a ton of reasons... including WMDs.  Which were in Iraq.

According to... and your going to enjoy this... Wikileaks.  Including that Yellowcake uranium that everybody thought never existed.

Other reasons inclue, George Bush's delusional belief that it was the US duty to bring democracy to the world, His dislike of Iraq, everyone being pissed off and irrational at the time,it becomes a conduit of violence away from homeland targets as they focus fighting the US army on their "home turf".  Also being able to one up his old man and "finish the job he didn't".

There are a TON of reasons.


As for who controls the oil in Iraq.  That would be the Iraqi government, who lately have shown a lot more in common with Iran then the US

Don't blame a single man for the war in Iraq. It's the USA that attacked Iraq and no, it wasn't for WMD, it was purely for the oil, the reconstruction of Iraq, the weapons business and strategic positioning in the area. Having bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good way to intimidate Iran isn't it?

Name some more of those TONS of reasons, but this time make sure they are good enough reasons to start a war and  kill innocent civilians.

Before we get on with that then, your admitting you were wrong about Iraq being about oil?

I mean, i get that's why you are completely trying to change the topic at hand... that you realize your wrong now.  But lets start with that.

Personally, i've NEVER thought the war in Iraq was a good Idea.  You can fine that being my consistant stance... BEFORE the war, which is something most people can't say now.

I'm just saying anyone who thinks the Iraqi war was about Oil is ignorant... because we don't even control the majority of Iraq's oil contracts, China actually holds the biggest piece of the pie.

 

Though yes, as it turns out Bush WASN'T lieing about Saddam trying to buy Yellowcake from Nigeria like everyone though he was... go figure.

I probably was wrong about the oil thing partially, USA still hold a share of it.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Kasz216 on 09 December 2010

Yes, the US still holds a share of the oil... a very small share compaired to the costs of the war.

There are much cheaper ways to give oil companies political reacharounds if that's the goal.



Badassbab on 11 December 2010
Kasz216 said:

Also, as for the  losers...

In every case America and Sweden look like losers... because they either look like successful vindicitive dicks... or really incompetant vindicitive dicks.


But others would argue the losers are Wikileaks and Assange, since he is the one who is being hunted, demonised and Wikileaks being attacked by way of withdrawing services and malicious hacks etc. To some including the US administration they are winning in their quest to destroy Wikileaks and it's founders. So you've just given us your opinion, not hard facts.






Badassbab on 11 December 2010
Kasz216 said:

Yeah... except you know... Iran is building Nuclear weapons.

And 2007 was back was you know... back when everyone hated Bush and was sick of wars.

 

As for when we found out they had state of the art nuclear power plants?  Like 3-4 weeks ago.


We don't actually have hard facts Iran is building nuclear weapons.

About SOTA nuclear power plants, you sure your not confusing Iran with North Korea? Link?