I think a man with a helmet defending his country should...
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
I think a man with a helmet defending his country should...

I think a man with a helmet defending his country should...

I think a man with a helmet defending his country should make more money than a man with a helmet defending a football. Quote by unknown author. More homepage quotes

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1631 days ago)
Problem: since the US changed the name from the Department of War to the Department of Defense, there has not been any declaration of war by the US Congress. There has, however, been a significant amount of undeclared war waged by the US, none of which was "defending his country" but instead invading and occupying other countries. As a result, the fellow "with the helmet defending his country" has been the man the US referred to as "the enemy". There's really not much new under the sun; rich men start wars and poor men fight them. It's always been that way and likely always will.
ReplyVote up (432)down (335)
Original comment
Problem: since the US changed the name from the Department of War to the Department of Defense, there has not been any declaration of war by the US Congress. There has, however, been a significant amount of undeclared war waged by the US, none of which was "defending his country" but instead invading and occupying other countries. As a result, the fellow "with the helmet defending his country" has been the man the US referred to as "the enemy". There's really not much new under the sun; rich men start wars and poor men fight them. It's always been that way and likely always will.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AhSweetCapitalistDemocracy (1631 days ago)
Football is only payed so much because of advertising, merchandising and ticket sales. All that due to popularity. No point moaning about it, encourage people to vote with their wallets, stop buying into football and supporting the local cadet force (or similar).
ReplyVote up (315)down (283)
Original comment
Football is only payed so much because of advertising, merchandising and ticket sales. All that due to popularity. No point moaning about it, encourage people to vote with their wallets, stop buying into football and supporting the local cadet force (or similar).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Gene C (1326 days ago)
Latest comment:

Most people have missed the jest of the statement, should pro athletes make more money than the fighting man. Having been a soldier I say NO. I do not watch or support any college/pro sports teams, I think they are all over paid actors. Soldier go where they are told and do what they are told to do, what they are involved in is not a game, it is a life and death situtation. I also think that during a time when any countries military force are deployed in a conflict/war/police action government should suspend all sports activites or Tax them so highly that they stop themselves. As far as there being a just war most large countries have picked on smaller ones. I am not anti-Brit but someone from UK has no right to say anything about any other country, your country has done the same things the U.S. did in Iraq and Afganistan many times in history. To a soldier there are no just wars, just dead and wounded comrads, families separated and loved ones lost! There is my 2 cent/pence!

ReplyVote up (299)down (290)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Most people have missed the jest of the statement, should pro athletes make more money than the fighting man. Having been a soldier I say NO. I do not watch or support any college/pro sports teams, I think they are all over paid actors. Soldier go where they are told and do what they are told to do, what they are involved in is not a game, it is a life and death situtation. I also think that during a time when any countries military force are deployed in a conflict/war/police action government should suspend all sports activites or Tax them so highly that they stop themselves. As far as there being a just war most large countries have picked on smaller ones. I am not anti-Brit but someone from UK has no right to say anything about any other country, your country has done the same things the U.S. did in Iraq and Afganistan many times in history. To a soldier there are no just wars, just dead and wounded comrads, families separated and loved ones lost! There is my 2 cent/pence!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1630 days ago)
I have never seen a football be defended....only the goal line.
ReplyVote up (361)down (355)
Original comment
I have never seen a football be defended....only the goal line.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1626 days ago)
You were never an offensive lineman, then.
ReplyVote up (344)down (338)
Original comment
You were never an offensive lineman, then.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jim Mooman (1631 days ago)
What if he plays football and doesnt wear a helmet are you suggesting a bonus ?
ReplyVote up (255)down (252)
Original comment
What if he plays football and doesnt wear a helmet are you suggesting a bonus ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TheBob's politics professor (1628 days ago)
"There's no altruism in foreign policy"
ReplyVote up (291)down (294)
Original comment
"There's no altruism in foreign policy"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1627 days ago)
Professor Adams! Back from the dead! I'm certainly impressed with the power of modern technology.
ReplyVote up (295)down (305)
Original comment
Professor Adams! Back from the dead! I'm certainly impressed with the power of modern technology.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: nashy (1628 days ago)
what about letting the politians who send in the soldiers recieve the soldiers pay!!
ReplyVote up (275)down (280)
Original comment
what about letting the politians who send in the soldiers recieve the soldiers pay!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Juniper Juniper (1629 days ago)
Stop being willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for tickets or tv to watch them and they won't get paid that much.
ReplyVote up (271)down (278)
Original comment
Stop being willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for tickets or tv to watch them and they won't get paid that much.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Frank Wobble (1631 days ago)
Maybe we should have sponsored invasions ...
ReplyVote up (250)down (262)
Original comment
Maybe we should have sponsored invasions ...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (1631 days ago)
Logos on tanks? I like that idea. Make them prettier and less scary.
ReplyVote up (249)down (226)
Original comment
Logos on tanks? I like that idea. Make them prettier and less scary.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
bekonstant bekonstant (1624 days ago)
Sponsored invasions? It's called taxes and the national government debt.
ReplyVote up (234)down (275)
Original comment
Sponsored invasions? It's called taxes and the national government debt.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Your Nan (1630 days ago)
What are they defending exactly? Since when has invading countries all over the world and killing brown people been defensive?
ReplyVote up (305)down (333)
Original comment
What are they defending exactly? Since when has invading countries all over the world and killing brown people been defensive?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1630 days ago)
NATO’s purpose is to safeguard freedoms and security through political and military means. If there is imminent danger coming from a country that will destroy the freedom or lives of another country, many of the NATO countries will help fight against the invading country to maintain those freedoms. Germany was occupying Europe. Aren't you glad the United States of America sacrificed thousands of our soldiers to enter Europe and free them from Germany? That's what nice countries do for each other. Europe is now free because we helped. Regarding the war in Iraq, we thought Saddam had WMD's and those could be used against neighboring countries and we would not allow that. They did it once before against Kuwait so there was a high probability they were about to do it again -- at least that's what the intel told us. We do not arbitrarily attack other countries that we disagree with. If we did, we would have attacked North Korea and Iran by now. We wait until they do something stupid like create WMD's and then we use force to have those WMD's removed.
ReplyVote up (330)down (325)
Original comment
NATO’s purpose is to safeguard freedoms and security through political and military means. If there is imminent danger coming from a country that will destroy the freedom or lives of another country, many of the NATO countries will help fight against the invading country to maintain those freedoms. Germany was occupying Europe. Aren't you glad the United States of America sacrificed thousands of our soldiers to enter Europe and free them from Germany? That's what nice countries do for each other. Europe is now free because we helped. Regarding the war in Iraq, we thought Saddam had WMD's and those could be used against neighboring countries and we would not allow that. They did it once before against Kuwait so there was a high probability they were about to do it again -- at least that's what the intel told us. We do not arbitrarily attack other countries that we disagree with. If we did, we would have attacked North Korea and Iran by now. We wait until they do something stupid like create WMD's and then we use force to have those WMD's removed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
So if the USA does not "arbitrarily attack other countries that (they) disagree with", what was the Bay of Pigs all about? Or the Spanish-American war? Cambodia? Ah no, wait a minute, it's that word "arbitrarily". Of course these were all well-considered actions justified by realpolitik. And nobody really thought Saddam had WMDs, but a lot of people pretended to think that to justify the invasion. And in terms of being world policeman and ousting nasty dictators, I'm always struck by how often those nasty dictators are sitting on valuable resources (oil) while Robert Mugabe gets away with it because Zimbabwe has no oil. Quelle surprise!
ReplyVote up (342)down (370)
Original comment
So if the USA does not "arbitrarily attack other countries that (they) disagree with", what was the Bay of Pigs all about? Or the Spanish-American war? Cambodia? Ah no, wait a minute, it's that word "arbitrarily". Of course these were all well-considered actions justified by realpolitik. And nobody really thought Saddam had WMDs, but a lot of people pretended to think that to justify the invasion. And in terms of being world policeman and ousting nasty dictators, I'm always struck by how often those nasty dictators are sitting on valuable resources (oil) while Robert Mugabe gets away with it because Zimbabwe has no oil. Quelle surprise!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
Do you really need a history lesson about the Bay of Pigs? Cuba was overtaken by Castro and Cuba was one of our allies. We attempted to remove Castro from power by funding the Cuban citizens to fight back. Unfortunately this didn't work as planned and I believe part of the reason was because of the cold war with Russia and Castro making alliances with them. Regarding your oil comment, read my message to "texas tea" below so I don't have to repeat myself.
ReplyVote up (344)down (332)
Original comment
Do you really need a history lesson about the Bay of Pigs? Cuba was overtaken by Castro and Cuba was one of our allies. We attempted to remove Castro from power by funding the Cuban citizens to fight back. Unfortunately this didn't work as planned and I believe part of the reason was because of the cold war with Russia and Castro making alliances with them. Regarding your oil comment, read my message to "texas tea" below so I don't have to repeat myself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
As an American, you should approve of popular uprisings that overthrow oppressive governments as it parallels your country's own beginnings. And I think the Bay of Pigs incident didn't work not because of cold war alliances but because they were incompetent. And irrespective of how much Iraqi oil goes to the USA (or doesn't), my point still stands that dictators tend not to be overthrown by the west (I also include the UK in this criticism) if they are resource-poor: the rhetoric is about human rights but the reality is about economics.
ReplyVote up (318)down (370)
Original comment
As an American, you should approve of popular uprisings that overthrow oppressive governments as it parallels your country's own beginnings. And I think the Bay of Pigs incident didn't work not because of cold war alliances but because they were incompetent. And irrespective of how much Iraqi oil goes to the USA (or doesn't), my point still stands that dictators tend not to be overthrown by the west (I also include the UK in this criticism) if they are resource-poor: the rhetoric is about human rights but the reality is about economics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
What if the UK was overthrown by Kim Jong Un, what are your expectations for other countries? Would you want the USA to just sit around and do nothing?
ReplyVote up (335)down (322)
Original comment
What if the UK was overthrown by Kim Jong Un, what are your expectations for other countries? Would you want the USA to just sit around and do nothing?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
Most unlikely as Korea is on the other side of the world and in the UK we don't really give much credence to Hollywood story-lines like Red Dawn. Having said that, we are a part of NATO: we would help defend our fellow treaty members who were attacked and would expect the same from them as it's a mutual defence treaty. And as an American, proud of your revolutionary heritage, you should rejoice that the popular leader Castro overthrew Batista - the oppressive puppet installed by a foreign power.
ReplyVote up (310)down (327)
Original comment
Most unlikely as Korea is on the other side of the world and in the UK we don't really give much credence to Hollywood story-lines like Red Dawn. Having said that, we are a part of NATO: we would help defend our fellow treaty members who were attacked and would expect the same from them as it's a mutual defence treaty. And as an American, proud of your revolutionary heritage, you should rejoice that the popular leader Castro overthrew Batista - the oppressive puppet installed by a foreign power.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard Cranium (1628 days ago)
Errr.... I think you might have missed the part about "there were no WMD's" Yes?
ReplyVote up (322)down (359)
Original comment
Errr.... I think you might have missed the part about "there were no WMD's" Yes?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
No WMDs were found in Iraq so the intel was wrong. If you knew this ahead of time, why didn't you call the authorities and convince them to not attack because you knew for a fact that they didn't have WMDs? By the way, the intel was multi-national so it wasn't just a mistake of one country.
ReplyVote up (364)down (312)
Original comment
No WMDs were found in Iraq so the intel was wrong. If you knew this ahead of time, why didn't you call the authorities and convince them to not attack because you knew for a fact that they didn't have WMDs? By the way, the intel was multi-national so it wasn't just a mistake of one country.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
some clarification about the Iraq war: """"T he defector (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi) who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.""" LINK . ""The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”"" LINK
ReplyVote up (318)down (306)
Original comment
some clarification about the Iraq war: """"T he defector (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi) who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.""" LINK . ""The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”"" LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
no WMD and they know it. It was about the "oil interests" lobby groups needing an excuse to ensure the control of the oil rich region. They're trying to go to war with Iran now, not because of nuclear weapons, but because of oil. Nuclear weapons are just a convenient excuse, that is not used to invade Israel (which allready has WMD) because Israel has AIPAC (giant lobby group). Iran should consider investing in a lobby group.
ReplyVote up (321)down (316)
Original comment
no WMD and they know it. It was about the "oil interests" lobby groups needing an excuse to ensure the control of the oil rich region. They're trying to go to war with Iran now, not because of nuclear weapons, but because of oil. Nuclear weapons are just a convenient excuse, that is not used to invade Israel (which allready has WMD) because Israel has AIPAC (giant lobby group). Iran should consider investing in a lobby group.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
and i figured out that lobbying not being the same as corruption thing you were talking about, tell me if i'm right: Corruption consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in an ILLEGAL manner, therefore making corruption illegal. Lobbying consists in interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in a LEGAL manner, therefore making lobbying illegal. Basically, what differentiates corruption from lobbying is whether that interest group respected the SOP(standard operating procedure) for buying a politician. If the SOP was respected it's called lobbying. If the sop wasn't respected it's called Corruption.
ReplyVote up (372)down (333)
Original comment
and i figured out that lobbying not being the same as corruption thing you were talking about, tell me if i'm right: Corruption consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in an ILLEGAL manner, therefore making corruption illegal. Lobbying consists in interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in a LEGAL manner, therefore making lobbying illegal. Basically, what differentiates corruption from lobbying is whether that interest group respected the SOP(standard operating procedure) for buying a politician. If the SOP was respected it's called lobbying. If the sop wasn't respected it's called Corruption.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
So Cary, do you agree with me when i say that lobbying is the LEGAL buying of a politician whilst corruption is the ILLEGAL buying of a politician?
ReplyVote up (312)down (316)
Original comment
So Cary, do you agree with me when i say that lobbying is the LEGAL buying of a politician whilst corruption is the ILLEGAL buying of a politician?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
Lobbying is not buying politicians, legal or illegal. Politicians do not EVER receive money from lobbyists. Money that goes to lobbying is used to pay for people that provide a service trying to convince politicians to vote a particular way on a bill. They do not give the politicians any of that money and if they were caught, that would be corruption. There is nothing wrong with people talking to politicians in an attempt to sway their decision. If I felt strongly about an issue, it is my duty to write or call my representative and my senator to advise them of my concerns. Why can't lobbyists do the same?
ReplyVote up (334)down (313)
Original comment
Lobbying is not buying politicians, legal or illegal. Politicians do not EVER receive money from lobbyists. Money that goes to lobbying is used to pay for people that provide a service trying to convince politicians to vote a particular way on a bill. They do not give the politicians any of that money and if they were caught, that would be corruption. There is nothing wrong with people talking to politicians in an attempt to sway their decision. If I felt strongly about an issue, it is my duty to write or call my representative and my senator to advise them of my concerns. Why can't lobbyists do the same?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
Jack Abramoff doesn't agree with you. He told me i''m right and you're wrong LINK and LINK he thinks that what i said previously is correct: Corruption consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in an ILLEGAL manner, therefore making corruption illegal. Lobbying consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in a LEGAL manner, therefore making lobbying Legal. There's the correct/legal way to "buy" a politician and then there's the incorrect/illegal way to "buy" a politician. What Abramoff did is still being done by the rest of the lobbyists. The word "bribe" is replaced with the word "donation". So you're right lobbying and corruption are 2 different things. One is the Legal way to do it and the other is the illegal way to do it. This is a bonus "60 Minutes Expose: How The Lobbies Rule America" LINK . So what do you think about what Jack Abramoff has to say about Lobbying??
ReplyVote up (331)down (329)
Original comment
Jack Abramoff doesn't agree with you. He told me i''m right and you're wrong LINK and LINK he thinks that what i said previously is correct: Corruption consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in an ILLEGAL manner, therefore making corruption illegal. Lobbying consists in an interest group convincing an elected public official to do the things that the interest group wants, through financial and non financial incentives, in a LEGAL manner, therefore making lobbying Legal. There's the correct/legal way to "buy" a politician and then there's the incorrect/illegal way to "buy" a politician. What Abramoff did is still being done by the rest of the lobbyists. The word "bribe" is replaced with the word "donation". So you're right lobbying and corruption are 2 different things. One is the Legal way to do it and the other is the illegal way to do it. This is a bonus "60 Minutes Expose: How The Lobbies Rule America" LINK . So what do you think about what Jack Abramoff has to say about Lobbying??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in that we do not get any oil from Iraq and will not get any oil from them. It's going to China so there is no oil benefit for the USA. Try to get that out of your thick head. Regarding Iran, we have not attacked them yet and we do not plan on attacking. We are using political methods to convince them to stop their nuclear program. We have drawn a line and, if they cross it, that will be means for a regime change even by force. We would do the same for any of those countries like North Korea that is trying to create a nuclear weapon. So if we attack North Korea, would you also say that was about the oil? How much oil do you think they have?
ReplyVote up (316)down (310)
Original comment
How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in that we do not get any oil from Iraq and will not get any oil from them. It's going to China so there is no oil benefit for the USA. Try to get that out of your thick head. Regarding Iran, we have not attacked them yet and we do not plan on attacking. We are using political methods to convince them to stop their nuclear program. We have drawn a line and, if they cross it, that will be means for a regime change even by force. We would do the same for any of those countries like North Korea that is trying to create a nuclear weapon. So if we attack North Korea, would you also say that was about the oil? How much oil do you think they have?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
This is a good point. If the USA did not benefit from Iraqi oil, why did they bother invading (and leaving oil-poor dictators like Robert Mugabe alone)? This interesting article LINK puts forward the idea that it was to stop Saddam trading oil in euros not dollars. If OPEC starting trading in euros, the dollar would have lost its position as the major currency which would have knocked 20% - 40% off its value. This seems a credible reason for the "shock and awe" - but it's obviously not documented.
ReplyVote up (304)down (283)
Original comment
This is a good point. If the USA did not benefit from Iraqi oil, why did they bother invading (and leaving oil-poor dictators like Robert Mugabe alone)? This interesting article LINK puts forward the idea that it was to stop Saddam trading oil in euros not dollars. If OPEC starting trading in euros, the dollar would have lost its position as the major currency which would have knocked 20% - 40% off its value. This seems a credible reason for the "shock and awe" - but it's obviously not documented.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
well the american citizen might not have gained anything other than dead soldiers, but rest assured that the Corporations that made the Oil Interests are making a lot of money off of the war, whilst the tax payer is left with the bill and the dead soldiers. I'm pretty sure TheBob is right. I heard a similar story about the death of Gadafi, he wanted to implement a regional gold based currency and do the oil trade only in that currency.
ReplyVote up (325)down (293)
Original comment
well the american citizen might not have gained anything other than dead soldiers, but rest assured that the Corporations that made the Oil Interests are making a lot of money off of the war, whilst the tax payer is left with the bill and the dead soldiers. I'm pretty sure TheBob is right. I heard a similar story about the death of Gadafi, he wanted to implement a regional gold based currency and do the oil trade only in that currency.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
From what I have read, Saddam did not export any oil during his reign -- probably due to embargos but I'm not sure. So if he was trading any oil at all, it was a very small amount. Iraq is now producing 3 million barrels a day and that makes them #3 in oil supply so it's a big deal for their economy now but wasn't during Saddam.
ReplyVote up (329)down (309)
Original comment
From what I have read, Saddam did not export any oil during his reign -- probably due to embargos but I'm not sure. So if he was trading any oil at all, it was a very small amount. Iraq is now producing 3 million barrels a day and that makes them #3 in oil supply so it's a big deal for their economy now but wasn't during Saddam.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
Iraq did export oil, but not for money. It was for food. One of the most criminal deeds that the USA and UN did ever: LINK
ReplyVote up (299)down (314)
Original comment
Iraq did export oil, but not for money. It was for food. One of the most criminal deeds that the USA and UN did ever: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
So now you know the source of the bad intel. That doesn't make it any better. Besides, it's still my view that countries that have a dictator responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people needs to have that dictator removed from power. Regardless if the intel was used for the war or not, the end result is that the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone. It's not about the oil and never was about oil.
ReplyVote up (326)down (393)
Original comment
So now you know the source of the bad intel. That doesn't make it any better. Besides, it's still my view that countries that have a dictator responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people needs to have that dictator removed from power. Regardless if the intel was used for the war or not, the end result is that the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone. It's not about the oil and never was about oil.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
Yes. Let's remove Robert Mugabe
ReplyVote up (331)down (300)
Original comment
Yes. Let's remove Robert Mugabe
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
yes, i agree! why don't we do that?
ReplyVote up (335)down (333)
Original comment
yes, i agree! why don't we do that?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
I don't know why we don't do that. I wonder if we know anyone who does?
ReplyVote up (310)down (292)
Original comment
I don't know why we don't do that. I wonder if we know anyone who does?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
yes, it would be nice to hear from someone who knows why that hasn't been done. is there anyone out there who could tell us?
ReplyVote up (305)down (321)
Original comment
yes, it would be nice to hear from someone who knows why that hasn't been done. is there anyone out there who could tell us?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
ReplyVote up (294)down (283)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
I see what you did there. As for Robert Mugabe, I have no opinion because I have not done any research on the issue. I haven't even heard of him until now.
ReplyVote up (311)down (304)
Original comment
I see what you did there. As for Robert Mugabe, I have no opinion because I have not done any research on the issue. I haven't even heard of him until now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
President of Zimbabwe (used to be called Rhodesia). Famous for intimidating his opponents with violence and terror. Thousands of people have been killed under his regime. LINK and LINK My question is why the west "helps" Libya, Iraq, Syria to overthrow oppressive regimes - and not Zimbabwe. What do these Middle Eastern countries have in common that is not shared by the other? Is there any kind of pattern?
ReplyVote up (261)down (292)
Original comment
President of Zimbabwe (used to be called Rhodesia). Famous for intimidating his opponents with violence and terror. Thousands of people have been killed under his regime. LINK and LINK My question is why the west "helps" Libya, Iraq, Syria to overthrow oppressive regimes - and not Zimbabwe. What do these Middle Eastern countries have in common that is not shared by the other? Is there any kind of pattern?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
I said earlier that I'm not an expert in this area but from a quick reading it appears that Zimbabwe is a Semi presidential republic and has a president, prime minister, vice president, and deputy prime ministers. So it's not a dictatorship. You could say that China falls into a worse category because they are communists and have human rights issues. We do not attack China either. We are not attacking North Korea or Iraq. We usually wait until those countries do something that begins to hurt or has the potential to hurt other nations. The government in Zimbabwe uses elections to pick their president and it just so happens that Robert Mugabe's party has won every election since their independence from the UK. So how can we argue with the people of a country that wants him there? Disclaimer: Some of my comments may not be factual. I notified you ahead of time I am not an expert in this manner so I am only going by what I read in about 5 minutes while multi-tasking other projects.
ReplyVote up (292)down (275)
Original comment
I said earlier that I'm not an expert in this area but from a quick reading it appears that Zimbabwe is a Semi presidential republic and has a president, prime minister, vice president, and deputy prime ministers. So it's not a dictatorship. You could say that China falls into a worse category because they are communists and have human rights issues. We do not attack China either. We are not attacking North Korea or Iraq. We usually wait until those countries do something that begins to hurt or has the potential to hurt other nations. The government in Zimbabwe uses elections to pick their president and it just so happens that Robert Mugabe's party has won every election since their independence from the UK. So how can we argue with the people of a country that wants him there? Disclaimer: Some of my comments may not be factual. I notified you ahead of time I am not an expert in this manner so I am only going by what I read in about 5 minutes while multi-tasking other projects.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard Cranium (1628 days ago)
Idiot....... disclaimer or not, even for someone who is by his own admission not an expert, you still manage to be really f u c k ing stupid!!!
ReplyVote up (389)down (270)
Original comment
Idiot....... disclaimer or not, even for someone who is by his own admission not an expert, you still manage to be really f u c k ing stupid!!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1628 days ago)
This LINK from the Washington Post details "By election day, more than 80 opposition supporters were dead, hundreds were missing, thousands were injured and hundreds of thousands were homeless. Morgan Tsvangirai, the party's leader, dropped out of the contest and took refuge in the Dutch Embassy." So these weren't really fair elections showing the will of the people. I'd say the USA doesn't attack China as it's too big and also a trading partner or North Korea (already had your fingers burnt there), As my old politics professor said, "There's no altruism in foreign policy". Helping oppressed Zimbabweans gives the west nothing. Helping oppressed Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis gives oil (or access to oil). I'm off to the pub now: have a good weekend.
ReplyVote up (276)down (325)
Original comment
This LINK from the Washington Post details "By election day, more than 80 opposition supporters were dead, hundreds were missing, thousands were injured and hundreds of thousands were homeless. Morgan Tsvangirai, the party's leader, dropped out of the contest and took refuge in the Dutch Embassy." So these weren't really fair elections showing the will of the people. I'd say the USA doesn't attack China as it's too big and also a trading partner or North Korea (already had your fingers burnt there), As my old politics professor said, "There's no altruism in foreign policy". Helping oppressed Zimbabweans gives the west nothing. Helping oppressed Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis gives oil (or access to oil). I'm off to the pub now: have a good weekend.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1630 days ago)
we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong!
ReplyVote up (283)down (333)
Original comment
we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1629 days ago)
That's right. If killing one person can save thousands, doesn't it make sense to get rid of that one person?
ReplyVote up (311)down (325)
Original comment
That's right. If killing one person can save thousands, doesn't it make sense to get rid of that one person?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Texas tea (1628 days ago)
And don't forget the Oil..... it's interesting that 'freedoms' where there is no oil seem to take a back seat to those where there is oil...... just sayin'
ReplyVote up (286)down (335)
Original comment
And don't forget the Oil..... it's interesting that 'freedoms' where there is no oil seem to take a back seat to those where there is oil...... just sayin'
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1628 days ago)
Very funny. You sound just like guest123456789. Regarding Oil, none of the oil coming from Iraq will go to the US or Europe. Most of it will be going to China so can you tell me what oil benefits we are getting from this? The Iraqi citizens are benefiting because they now have a huge export opportunity to make their country rich. Under Saddam, those oil fields were not being used and were under disrepair.
ReplyVote up (315)down (277)
Original comment
Very funny. You sound just like guest123456789. Regarding Oil, none of the oil coming from Iraq will go to the US or Europe. Most of it will be going to China so can you tell me what oil benefits we are getting from this? The Iraqi citizens are benefiting because they now have a huge export opportunity to make their country rich. Under Saddam, those oil fields were not being used and were under disrepair.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Texas tea (1628 days ago)
Nope, not whoever you think.... Re Oil So they're ungrateful assholes..... what ya gonna do??
ReplyVote up (309)down (275)
Original comment
Nope, not whoever you think.... Re Oil So they're ungrateful assholes..... what ya gonna do??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Rifle inspection at Arlington National Cemetery (with close-up sounds)
Rifle inspection at Arlington National Cemetery (with close-up sounds)
Bacon arrives to boost moral
Bacon arrives to boost moral
Confusion Through Sand
Confusion Through Sand
NATO is not enough, EU needs an army
NATO is not enough, EU needs an army
Finnish field artillery bombardment
Finnish field artillery bombardment