Face it - the U.S. has substantial economic interests in both Iraq and Haiti. You're brain-dead if you don't concede that business motives played a role in helping out/invading both nations.
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
PS, since when did it become trendy to hate Starbucks?
I don't think our president's name was mentioned in ANY posts in this thread except yours. I mentioned President Clinton in a less than flattering light, and apparently this is an anti-Bush thread?Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Originally posted by: Shelly21
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
I'm a liberal, and I enjoy my $4 latte w/ Vanilla syrup.
Die Metrosexual Yuppie Scum ( Long Haired White Trash Redneck drinks his homebrewed "Balls to the Wall" Coffee as he types this)Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Originally posted by: jumpr
I don't think our president's name was mentioned in ANY posts in this thread except yours. I mentioned President Clinton in a less than flattering light, and apparently this is an anti-Bush thread?Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
PS, since when did it become trendy to hate Starbucks?
ever sence they existed and charged 5$ fr BAD coffee,
I went there once and said " id like a large black coffee" that?s pretty simple, the uppity b!tch behind the counter looked at me like and said "we don?t have black coffee" and proceeded to rattle off a bunch of stupid flavors, I wanted plain coffee, I finally got one that was as close to that as possible and said ill take a large one of them, then she said " we don?t have large" we have whatever their stupid sizes are, and I came back with " whatever the biggest of your sizes is, is a large by default, large indicates biggest in a set of 3" that kind of pissed her off
took me 12 minutes to get a stupid large black coffee, which should have taken all of 20 seconds
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: jumpr
I don't think our president's name was mentioned in ANY posts in this thread except yours. I mentioned President Clinton in a less than flattering light, and apparently this is an anti-Bush thread?Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Oh ok, so what does all your anti iraq banter indicate then? Go to politics and news and preach there please, we created it to keep you out of here.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: jumpr
I don't think our president's name was mentioned in ANY posts in this thread except yours. I mentioned President Clinton in a less than flattering light, and apparently this is an anti-Bush thread?Originally posted by: Acanthus
Somehow a starbucks thread turns into bush hate...
Die immature liberal hippie scum. (drinks his $4 coffee as he types this)
Oh ok, so what does all your anti iraq banter indicate then? Go to politics and news and preach there please, we created it to keep you out of here.
Who's we Kemosabe?
Originally posted by: jumpr
Is it about WMDs? 'Cause I sure haven't seen the Bush administration trumpeting the WMD cause that they entered Iraq under in March 2003! Where are those WMDs that we could see from the satellite images, according to SOS Powell? We've been there for over a year, built roads, schools and bridges, but why haven't we unearthed any WMDs?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Also - was the Haitian coup-de-etat performed by the U.S. in February REALLY about improving the lives of Haitian people? Or was it simply a ploy to make the country safe for sweatshops?
http://rwor.org/a/1239/haiti.htm
Riiiight, and the war in Iraq is all about oil. :roll:
I have resigned myself to the realization that the U.S. often does one thing and says another. However, what it says often results in improved conditions for those in foreign lands, which is a good thing.
How recent are you talkling about? 10 years ago? IMO if you are going to war the reasons you give better be 100% spot on no matter what others sources indicate and if it's not then you are in the wrong! It's like sentencing someone to death. If the reasons why he was put to death turn out not to be accurate no matter what eveybody else says you still fscked up and should be held accountable. No woulda,shoulda, coulda BS is acceptableOriginally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Is it about WMDs? 'Cause I sure haven't seen the Bush administration trumpeting the WMD cause that they entered Iraq under in March 2003! Where are those WMDs that we could see from the satellite images, according to SOS Powell? We've been there for over a year, built roads, schools and bridges, but why haven't we unearthed any WMDs?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Also - was the Haitian coup-de-etat performed by the U.S. in February REALLY about improving the lives of Haitian people? Or was it simply a ploy to make the country safe for sweatshops?
http://rwor.org/a/1239/haiti.htm
Riiiight, and the war in Iraq is all about oil. :roll:
I have resigned myself to the realization that the U.S. often does one thing and says another. However, what it says often results in improved conditions for those in foreign lands, which is a good thing.
The left is a hoot on this issue. Every single intelligence agency in the world, even those from countries that opposed the war, had come to the exact same conclusions our intelligence agencies had come to. Even the last admin and opposition party thought he had them, and was developing more.
And now, when they are not found (moved or destroyed), Bush is to blame? How convienent to completely ignore recent history and the facts. If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it, right?
Meanwhile, we are finding out why the UN member nations (and leadership) that opposed the war were against it. It was nothing so noble as morality. No, it was because they were not only selling arms to Iraq, but were taking massive kickbacks from the oil-for-food programs.
Face it, you've been duped by corrupt people wrapping themselves in the guise of peace activists.
Originally posted by: jumpr
Face it - the U.S. has substantial economic interests in both Iraq and Haiti. You're brain-dead if you don't concede that business motives played a role in helping out/invading both nations.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How recent are you talkling about? 10 years ago? IMO if you are going to war the reasons you give better be 100% spot on no matter what others sources indicate and if it's not then you are in the wrong! It's like sentencing someone to death. If the reasons why he was put to death turn out not to be accurate no matter what eveybody else says you still fscked up and should be held accountable. No woulda,shoulda, coulda BS is acceptableOriginally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Is it about WMDs? 'Cause I sure haven't seen the Bush administration trumpeting the WMD cause that they entered Iraq under in March 2003! Where are those WMDs that we could see from the satellite images, according to SOS Powell? We've been there for over a year, built roads, schools and bridges, but why haven't we unearthed any WMDs?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Also - was the Haitian coup-de-etat performed by the U.S. in February REALLY about improving the lives of Haitian people? Or was it simply a ploy to make the country safe for sweatshops?
http://rwor.org/a/1239/haiti.htm
Riiiight, and the war in Iraq is all about oil. :roll:
I have resigned myself to the realization that the U.S. often does one thing and says another. However, what it says often results in improved conditions for those in foreign lands, which is a good thing.
The left is a hoot on this issue. Every single intelligence agency in the world, even those from countries that opposed the war, had come to the exact same conclusions our intelligence agencies had come to. Even the last admin and opposition party thought he had them, and was developing more.
And now, when they are not found (moved or destroyed), Bush is to blame? How convienent to completely ignore recent history and the facts. If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it, right?
Meanwhile, we are finding out why the UN member nations (and leadership) that opposed the war were against it. It was nothing so noble as morality. No, it was because they were not only selling arms to Iraq, but were taking massive kickbacks from the oil-for-food programs.
Face it, you've been duped by corrupt people wrapping themselves in the guise of peace activists.
Not finding them doesn't mean they aren't or weren't there. They are probably sitting in some used car lot in Syria....Originally posted by: jumpr
Sh!t, this is too poltical for OT, but here goes:
We went into Iraq for the SOLE reason that Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator, had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us or against other friendly nations. We didn't find any of them. Do the conclusions of other intelligence agencies matter at all? Thousands of innocent civillians have died in Iraq at ourv (the United States') hands since occupation, and close to 1000 U.S. soldiers have died serving their country. They entered Iraq under the impression that we were ridding the world of WMDs. But now, those WMDs are not there.
Where are they? And why are you suddenly claiming that the opinions of other intelligence agencies actually matter? When the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq, it was us, us, us. We know where the weapons are, let US go and get them. And now that we can't find them, you're saying "Well, other countries thought they were there too! Why not blame them also?"
I'm sorry, but when dealing with war, it's not a question of "Well, we thought we knew where the weapons were." It's "We KNOW where they are," or "We fvcked up majorly and didn't really have the intel...we just twisted facts."
Based on the same sources that first said Hussien had major stockpiles in Iraq? Do we invade Syria next and then some other country until we actually find them? Maybe they had Iraq confused with Lybia!Originally posted by: Mwilding
Not finding them doesn't mean they aren't or weren't there. They are probably sitting in some used car lot in Syria....Originally posted by: jumpr
Sh!t, this is too poltical for OT, but here goes:
We went into Iraq for the SOLE reason that Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator, had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us or against other friendly nations. We didn't find any of them. Do the conclusions of other intelligence agencies matter at all? Thousands of innocent civillians have died in Iraq at ourv (the United States') hands since occupation, and close to 1000 U.S. soldiers have died serving their country. They entered Iraq under the impression that we were ridding the world of WMDs. But now, those WMDs are not there.
Where are they? And why are you suddenly claiming that the opinions of other intelligence agencies actually matter? When the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq, it was us, us, us. We know where the weapons are, let US go and get them. And now that we can't find them, you're saying "Well, other countries thought they were there too! Why not blame them also?"
I'm sorry, but when dealing with war, it's not a question of "Well, we thought we knew where the weapons were." It's "We KNOW where they are," or "We fvcked up majorly and didn't really have the intel...we just twisted facts."
It's been well over a year since Colin Powell showed us satellite photos of trailers and made the claim that we knew where the weapons were.Originally posted by: Mwilding
Not finding them doesn't mean they aren't or weren't there. They are probably sitting in some used car lot in Syria....Originally posted by: jumpr
Sh!t, this is too poltical for OT, but here goes:
We went into Iraq for the SOLE reason that Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator, had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us or against other friendly nations. We didn't find any of them. Do the conclusions of other intelligence agencies matter at all? Thousands of innocent civillians have died in Iraq at ourv (the United States') hands since occupation, and close to 1000 U.S. soldiers have died serving their country. They entered Iraq under the impression that we were ridding the world of WMDs. But now, those WMDs are not there.
Where are they? And why are you suddenly claiming that the opinions of other intelligence agencies actually matter? When the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq, it was us, us, us. We know where the weapons are, let US go and get them. And now that we can't find them, you're saying "Well, other countries thought they were there too! Why not blame them also?"
I'm sorry, but when dealing with war, it's not a question of "Well, we thought we knew where the weapons were." It's "We KNOW where they are," or "We fvcked up majorly and didn't really have the intel...we just twisted facts."
Non aggresive? How about adequately containedOriginally posted by: jumpr
It's been well over a year since Colin Powell showed us satellite photos of trailers and made the claim that we knew where the weapons were.
If the U.S. could tout its superior intelligence then, why can't we do it now and find the damn weapons? The greatest country in the world can't even find the items that led it to invade a non-agressive country.
How about corrupt and in violation of human rights conventions, but not a threat to world peace? 'Cause if they were a true threat to world peace, wouldn't we have found those dangerous weapons by now?Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Non aggresive? How about adequately containedOriginally posted by: jumpr
It's been well over a year since Colin Powell showed us satellite photos of trailers and made the claim that we knew where the weapons were.
If the U.S. could tout its superior intelligence then, why can't we do it now and find the damn weapons? The greatest country in the world can't even find the items that led it to invade a non-agressive country.
We wasn't a threat to World Peace because he was contained. If it weren't for the sanctions and the No Fly Zones along with the threat of Military retaliation from us he would have kept up his aggresive waysOriginally posted by: jumpr
How about corrupt and in violation of human rights conventions, but not a threat to world peace? 'Cause if they were a true threat to world peace, wouldn't we have found those dangerous weapons by now?Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Non aggresive? How about adequately containedOriginally posted by: jumpr
It's been well over a year since Colin Powell showed us satellite photos of trailers and made the claim that we knew where the weapons were.
If the U.S. could tout its superior intelligence then, why can't we do it now and find the damn weapons? The greatest country in the world can't even find the items that led it to invade a non-agressive country.
Originally posted by: jumpr
Sh!t, this is too poltical for OT, but here goes:
We went into Iraq for the SOLE reason that Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator, had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us or against other friendly nations. We didn't find any of them. Do the conclusions of other intelligence agencies matter at all? Thousands of innocent civillians have died in Iraq at ourv (the United States') hands since occupation, and close to 1000 U.S. soldiers have died serving their country. They entered Iraq under the impression that we were ridding the world of WMDs. But now, those WMDs are not there.
Where are they? And why are you suddenly claiming that the opinions of other intelligence agencies actually matter? When the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq, it was us, us, us. We know where the weapons are, let US go and get them. And now that we can't find them, you're saying "Well, other countries thought they were there too! Why not blame them also?"
I'm sorry, but when dealing with war, it's not a question of "Well, we thought we knew where the weapons were." It's "We KNOW where they are," or "We fvcked up majorly and didn't really have the intel...we just twisted facts."