should we go to war?

[meteora22]

:chaz: personally i think we should those people deserve it

[nashadasha]

yeah that's what you say now until one day you're sitting in class and you hear that one of your closest friends has been shipped off to fight. you don't know whether or not they might come back and even graduate. maybe then you'll think twice about having a war. once it starts affecting the people you care about.

[Todd]

hell no.


Bombing the #### out of Iraq will not bring world peace. It increases the terror risk here. Bush is doing it for one reason: oil

[Pinkin Lark]

Originally posted by Todd@Mar 20 2003, 09:05 PM
hell no.


Bombing the #### out of Iraq will not bring world peace. It increases the terror risk here. Bush is doing it for one reason: oil
yea totally agreed, once iraq is done with terrorists will get even more pissed off and attack the U.S. again

[Nikki]

Originally posted by meteora22@Mar 21 2003, 03:54 AM
:chaz: personally i think we should those people deserve it
sorry mate...but that is just foul play.

Just because there is one person that is somewhat twisted...doesn't make everyone else the same. It's not their fault that their country is being controlled by a dictator.

Anyway...I don't think we should go to war, for many reasons.

What's the point? We don't have the evidence we need yet.

Many people will be killed...on both sides (In fact I'm listening to the news right now and it turns out that 8 british soldiers have just been killed in a helicopter crash)

and the third reason is just that...well I'm not dying until I've done what I want to do...even if it means a bloody neuclear warhead hanging over my head for my whole life...

(sorry about the language but I think it's easy to tell that I'm quite annoyed ;) )

Another thing that's annoying me too right now...is the things many people are saying about France. Ok so Jaques is a big-nosed tosser...but he is doing what he thinks is right...if that means not going to war, so be it. America may of helped them out in WWII, but that doesn't mean France has to jump into this war and possibly do something they'll regret, they'll help out when the time is right...

[PuNk]

If Bush really wanted to protect us, it would be ok. Since he just wants oil.. its not.

[Birger]

No. Never. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

No war!

[Realm Creations]

No,No,No,No,No

[WarfieldShow]

saddam is a threat to his own people and to US. it's about time we went to war with this guy. i have a friend over there and i still support the war. i cannot stand these peace protestors who ironically cause more of a disturbance than peace. they fight, block traffic, march, and are just really annoying. of course, both sides suffer in war, and you know what? people fighting over there are there all because of themselves. NOBODY ASKED THEM TO SIGN UP FOR THE MILITARY!! they signed the paper, they trained for months, they knew the risk of going to war, so don't talk sh!t about having friends going over because i support my friend. if not, why bother having a military in the first place.

[Hybrid Soldier]

they're both evil to me. those idiots will ruin us if this war keeps us.

[Alex]

I 100% support this war. I dont want to go into reasons and I think people who dont want the war are a little nieave.

[*LiNkIn WiTcHy*]

what the ####!!!!!!
of course not!!!!!!!
there are no good reasons to go to war, like others said bush only wants oil, and he thinks he's going to get that by going to war..

[Derek The Infamous]

Originally posted by Alex@Mar 21 2003, 07:00 PM
I 100% support this war. I dont want to go into reasons and I think people who dont want the war are a little nieave.
I agree 100% on war now.

I used to be very anti-war, you can ask all my friends i HATED it.

But after I learned about how saddam leaves his people to starve when he has 48 mansions of his own and kills millions of innocent people everyday, I think this b*stard deserves to be sent straight to hell. By not wanting war, you guys are supporting the mistreatment of many iraqi citizens.

And for the last damn time. This is NOT about Oil. This is about Saddam Hussein not getting rid of his weapons when the UN asked him too and being a total pri*k.

So we are going without UN approval. Not the first time we've done it.

Saddam needs to be dead, and his regime brought down NOW. Not later, NOW. If you pay attention Bin Laden seems to be connected more to Iraq then most think, this is also a step in disposing of Bin Laden as well.

Plus to all you anti Bush people,Bush is not an a**hole alright? He is ATTACKING terrorism by force. He wants a brighter tommorrow for the kids of the future and today.

[Mark]

you're not going to completely agree with me on this, but here goes.

Invading a country, no matter how powerful you are, is completely wrong. If a leader is starving his people and killing them that way, why should the US army go in there and kill more innocent civilians? It's almost like a contradiction of what the US government is against, which is Terrorism. How could invading a country and eventually killing thousands of civilians over their leader and his 2 sons not be called Terrorism? I know the US is a victim of Terrorism, but that doesn't mean that what the Army and Government is doing is not Terrorism.

Sure, he's a threat to international security, but he was disarming no matter how slow he was going. What's the sense of getting rid of all your weapons when you know there will be a war no matter what?

Also, the US Army may be going in there for one thing, which is to change the Iraqi regime, but there is a second thing which is masked by the overthrow. I believe they want oil.

[meteora22]

:chaz: i dont mind what you guys say either way, i just put the poll up to see what everyones opinion is

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Todd@Mar 20 2003, 10:05 PM
hell no.


Bombing the #### out of Iraq will not bring world peace. It increases the terror risk here. Bush is doing it for one reason: oil
Dude why the hell would Bush be doing it for the sake of oil? Remember this country to the north of the USA called Canada, yah there is alot of oil there that the USA gets. More than enough that he wouldn't ahve to worry about going into Iraq to get some.

Bush is totally doing the right thing. I mean what is he supposed to do when another country poses a threat to him. Sit back like they did when they knew Bin Laden was causeing trouble and let more terrorist attacks occur in the states? No he has to take him out and so that possibly some peace can be found in the world. Plus terrorists are pretty stupid by themselves it takes leaders to get them organized and convinced that terrorist action is the right thing, so if there is no Saddam or Osama left anymore they become pretty stupid and weak and taht is all Bush is doing.

[jawknee returns]

Originally posted by R Diddy+Mar 21 2003, 09:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (R Diddy @ Mar 21 2003, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Mar 20 2003, 10:05 PM
hell no.


Bombing the #### out of Iraq will not bring world peace. It increases the terror risk here. Bush is doing it for one reason: oil
Dude why the hell would Bush be doing it for the sake of oil? Remember this country to the north of the USA called Canada, yah there is alot of oil there that the USA gets. More than enough that he wouldn&#39;t ahve to worry about going into Iraq to get some.

Bush is totally doing the right thing. I mean what is he supposed to do when another country poses a threat to him. Sit back like they did when they knew Bin Laden was causeing trouble and let more terrorist attacks occur in the states? No he has to take him out and so that possibly some peace can be found in the world. Plus terrorists are pretty stupid by themselves it takes leaders to get them organized and convinced that terrorist action is the right thing, so if there is no Saddam or Osama left anymore they become pretty stupid and weak and taht is all Bush is doing. [/b][/quote]
you&#39;re wrong with your oil facts. the majority of our oil comes from the middle east and if we lose that, trust me, we&#39;re screwed...maybe not immediately, but eventually. this is one hell of a touchy subject and i too started out as somewhat anti-war, and now i&#39;m for it.

[Ryan]

Thats the thing your right they do get alot of Oil in the middle east. But if they ever lost that oil supply they could easily get it from Canada, but nobody ever thinks of this, because they wouls like to use the oil thing as a justufication for Bush going to war. I wouuld know all about Canada&#39;s oile and what they do with it cause I workl on the oil rigs up here in Canada and know quite a bit about the business.

[jawknee returns]

trust me, canada will still not be enough.

[Mark]

Originally posted by jawknee returns@Mar 21 2003, 05:57 PM
trust me, canada will still not be enough.
you&#39;re wrong there, Canada has alot of oil.

[Will]

On the subject of oil...

The United States right now has a surplus of its own oil supply but we don&#39;t use it. Why? Because in the future when all the oil from the Middle East is depleted every country is going to want to buy from the United States. Oil being bought from the U.S. means more money.

On the subject of the war...

I agree with it 100%. While I may not care about it too much, I think the U.S. is doing the right thing by removing Saddam Hussein from "office" in Iraq. He&#39;s constantly hurting his own people by testing his own weapons on them. What kind of leader does that? Given the chance I&#39;m sure if Saddam was allowed to live in the U.S. he wouldn&#39;t hesitate to. Most people outside of the U.S. think it&#39;s such a bad country but they&#39;d never be able to adapt to other countries&#39; ways of living. It&#39;s as simple as that.

@ LPFAN05

The U.S. is not invading Iraq. An invasion is going in and taking over a country to add it to your empire, much like the Romans did. Much like the Japanese did. And much like Germany did. The U.S. does not want Iraq, we want the guy who&#39;s "in charge" of it gone so the Middle East, at least a part of it, can be at peace.

I think I&#39;m done.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Akuma@Mar 21 2003, 04:27 PM
The U.S. is not invading Iraq. An invasion is going in and taking over a country to add it to your empire, much like the Romans did. Much like the Japanese did. And much like Germany did. The U.S. does not want Iraq, we want the guy who&#39;s "in charge" of it gone so the Middle East, at least a part of it, can be at peace.

I think I&#39;m done.
well we have to take it for ourselves. We wont leave Iraq as an anarchy and a leader will need to be there, and seeing as how the only 2 countries involved are the US and Britain, Iraq&#39;s future leader will probably be from one of those 2 countries allowing us to do what we want with it. Basically, it will add to our empire

[Odaton]

Originally posted by LinkiedTheory+Mar 21 2003, 07:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LinkiedTheory @ Mar 21 2003, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Alex@Mar 21 2003, 07:00 PM
I 100% support this war. I dont want to go into reasons and I think people who dont want the war are a little nieave.
I agree 100% on war now.

I used to be very anti-war, you can ask all my friends i HATED it.

But after I learned about how saddam leaves his people to starve when he has 48 mansions of his own and kills millions of innocent people everyday, I think this b*stard deserves to be sent straight to hell. By not wanting war, you guys are supporting the mistreatment of many iraqi citizens.

And for the last damn time. This is NOT about Oil. This is about Saddam Hussein not getting rid of his weapons when the UN asked him too and being a total pri*k.

So we are going without UN approval. Not the first time we&#39;ve done it.

Saddam needs to be dead, and his regime brought down NOW. Not later, NOW. If you pay attention Bin Laden seems to be connected more to Iraq then most think, this is also a step in disposing of Bin Laden as well.

Plus to all you anti Bush people,Bush is not an a**hole alright? He is ATTACKING terrorism by force. He wants a brighter tommorrow for the kids of the future and today. [/b][/quote]
I cannot agree with that, Linkied Theory...

First of all, President Bush IS after oil&#33; My proof? If he wanted to take out Saddam all he&#39;d have to do is assassinate him like the Chilean president back in the 70&#39;s. And why did he say to the Iraqi&#39;s in his address on Monday night:&#39;Don&#39;t destroy your oil wells...&#39;????

You cannot say he is doing this in the name of terrorism or he would be focusing on capturing bin Laden. Also, Saddam Hussein has no proven connection with the Al-Queda network.

Although Saddam Hussein is a killer and a dictator, the process of disarmament should have been peaceful and gradual to ensure the stability in the region. The weapons inspectors were making Saddam destroy his Al-Samoud missles and he destroyed about 35/100 he had and then Bush stopped the ultimatum. Why hasn&#39;t Bush let this come to pass? Because then he won&#39;t be able to control Iraq and its vast oil fields...And since they are going against the UN it is really an illegal war.

Okay, this also isn&#39;t a war&#33; This is a freakin&#39; invasion&#33; Iraq doesn&#39;t stand a chance, and they don&#39;t have near the military might as in the Gulf War...

And this is scaring the rest of the world more than most Americans believe. Since the US has openly defied the UN when there was a peaceful option that didn&#39;t satisfy their personal agenda they can and will do it again. This is really scary that one country with the official backing of a couple of other nations can go against the world&#39;s largest peace organization comprising of most of the world??? The world is scared now that the US is becoming so self-centred that it will attack someone if it can get something out of it.

Bush doesn&#39;t give a #### about your kids of the future. If he did he would be looking into solar power, nuclear fusion, wind power, and other alternative energy sources that doesn&#39;t pollute our world. What he wants is some more cash and lot&#39;s power, as is the adage of all businessmen, they work for short term gains and not for the future. And using force is ALWAYS the LAST option, and there was a peaceful solution to this....


And do you think this will stop? No&#33; They will eventually control lots of the Middle East and all the oil with it&#33;

These are my thoughts&#33;

PEACE is the way to go&#33;

[Mark]

the thing is, the US has no business in there.

for one, they have absolutely no proof Saddam Hussein has been making arms of mass destruction, and if they have they (the US government) haven&#39;t made it public.

basically, the US thinks that just because they&#39;re so powerful, they can go into any country run by someone they don&#39;t like and say: leave or we will destroy you. i think it&#39;s unjust and unnecessary.

the countries of the world don&#39;t need babysitters, disobeying the UN is not a good idea, there&#39;s no need for vigilantes. if the UN thinks it&#39;s a good idea to start helping Iraq and if the Iraqi people cry out and say "we need help" then by all means go in there and try to resolve the issue peacefully. no need to bomb the hell out of Iraq because there&#39;s 1 crazy person in the country.

we can argue the technicality of the words i say, but you get the message i&#39;m trying to put across. don&#39;t strip it down and shoot it down over techinicalities.

[Odaton]

Originally posted by LPFAN05@Mar 21 2003, 10:59 PM
the thing is, the US has no business in there.

for one, they have absolutely no proof Saddam Hussein has been making arms of mass destruction, and if they have they (the US government) haven&#39;t made it public.

basically, the US thinks that just because they&#39;re so powerful, they can go into any country run by someone they don&#39;t like and say: leave or we will destroy you. i think it&#39;s unjust and unnecessary.

the countries of the world don&#39;t need babysitters, disobeying the UN is not a good idea, there&#39;s no need for vigilantes. if the UN thinks it&#39;s a good idea to start helping Iraq and if the Iraqi people cry out and say "we need help" then by all means go in there and try to resolve the issue peacefully. no need to bomb the hell out of Iraq because there&#39;s 1 crazy person in the country.

we can argue the technicality of the words i say, but you get the message i&#39;m trying to put across. don&#39;t strip it down and shoot it down over techinicalities.
i agree 100%&#33;

[Will]

Originally posted by Todd+Mar 21 2003, 05:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Mar 21 2003, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Akuma@Mar 21 2003, 04:27 PM
The U.S. is not invading Iraq. An invasion is going in and taking over a country to add it to your empire, much like the Romans did. Much like the Japanese did. And much like Germany did. The U.S. does not want Iraq, we want the guy who&#39;s "in charge" of it gone so the Middle East, at least a part of it, can be at peace.

I think I&#39;m done.
well we have to take it for ourselves. We wont leave Iraq as an anarchy and a leader will need to be there, and seeing as how the only 2 countries involved are the US and Britain, Iraq&#39;s future leader will probably be from one of those 2 countries allowing us to do what we want with it. Basically, it will add to our empire [/b][/quote]
No, someone from one of those two countries won&#39;t go in and become the new leader of the country. We&#39;ll put one of our own men in there for a while until a responsible person who actually lives in Iraq and is an Iraqi takes his place. I think we did that with South Vietnam during the Vietnam War... We put one of our own men in charge for a while and then a South Vietnamese man took over the country like we wanted. Even though it didn&#39;t work out. Heh.

[Will]

Originally posted by LPFAN05@Mar 21 2003, 05:59 PM
basically, the US thinks that just because they&#39;re so powerful, they can go into any country run by someone they don&#39;t like and say: leave or we will destroy you. i think it&#39;s unjust and unnecessary.
If that&#39;s the case then why doesn&#39;t the U.S. jump all over other countries? It&#39;s because Saddam Hussein is killing his own people and we&#39;re trying to stop that. If the U.S. thought the way you&#39;re saying then we&#39;d be in every single country on the map&#39;s affairs, and that&#39;s just not true.

[Todd]

its not our problem to deal with if Saddam is mistreating his people. We aren&#39;t the babysitters of the world. We have our own problems here to deal with and its not worth the lives of our own men and women to be babysitters

[Mark]

Originally posted by Akuma+Mar 21 2003, 07:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Akuma @ Mar 21 2003, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--LPFAN05@Mar 21 2003, 05:59 PM
basically, the US thinks that just because they&#39;re so powerful, they can go into any country run by someone they don&#39;t like and say: leave or we will destroy you. i think it&#39;s unjust and unnecessary.
If that&#39;s the case then why doesn&#39;t the U.S. jump all over other countries? It&#39;s because Saddam Hussein is killing his own people and we&#39;re trying to stop that. If the U.S. thought the way you&#39;re saying then we&#39;d be in every single country on the map&#39;s affairs, and that&#39;s just not true. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think the US government should be bombing Iraq by endangering the lives of it&#39;s soldiers (and allies soldiers) and the lives of innocent people because Saddam kills his own people. We&#39;re only killing the people he would be killing, we&#39;re almost doing his job while he&#39;s hiding away.

Bush thinks Iraq is a huge enemy to the United States, his dad did too. But why invade Iraq because of something that&#39;s happening in Iraq? Why don&#39;t they start bombing Iraq when they start becoming a threat to the United States? George Bush and his government (and earlier governments) always seem to have their nose in every single problem, maybe these are the things that lead to 9/11, because the US government was too busy figuring out other people&#39;s problems then to try and save themselves from attacks.

[Ryan]

I don&#39;t know what you people are thinking, its not an invasion, he is allowed to do it jsut like he did to Afghanistan. Plus it has nothing to do with oil as most of the oil from the midle east comes from Kuwait. He is taking a jackass out of power. But yeah Bush should just sit back and wait until Saddam wanted to start WW3 with freakin nuclear weapons then we would see who was complaining. Wait until the US takes over Iraq and finds a bunch of biological and nuclear weapons then we will see what you are all saying.

[ProWar]

Actually, doesn&#39;t most of our oil come from saudi arabia?
this is straight from my textbook:

saudia arabia has the largest reserves, nearly 260 billion barrels or about 35,000 barrels per person...
outside the middle east, oil reserves...are concentrated in a few countries. countries with the most oil include, russia...venezuela...mexico...and libya and nigeria...these five countries and the middle east account for nearly 90% of the world&#39;s known oil reserve.

i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?

[Mark]

Originally posted by R Diddy@Mar 21 2003, 11:48 PM
I don&#39;t know what you people are thinking, its not an invasion, he is allowed to do it jsut like he did to Afghanistan. Plus it has nothing to do with oil as most of the oil from the midle east comes from Kuwait. He is taking a jackass out of power. But yeah Bush should just sit back and wait until Saddam wanted to start WW3 with freakin nuclear weapons then we would see who was complaining. Wait until the US takes over Iraq and finds a bunch of biological and nuclear weapons then we will see what you are all saying.
they went into Afghanistan because their government and terrorist groups were a threat to the US, they had proof then.

but they have no proof that Iraq is a threat to the US, as of yet.

[Mark]

Originally posted by ProWar@Mar 22 2003, 04:04 AM
i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?
i&#39;m sorry, why won&#39;t you stop coming back?

canada has alot of oil, the US doesn&#39;t get much of it though.

[Ryan]

Yah but if the US ever ran out of oile they could easily turn to Canada to find it.

To whoever said that the US could easily have assinated Saddam. Where the hell did that come from, I think if they had the chance to assinate Saddam they would have but you see it is him and his followers that they want out. Even if they get rid of Saddam the next guy in is just are crazy as he is. Plus if it is easy just to assinate Saddam why didn&#39;t they just go and assinate Osama cause it is pretty damn hard to.

Its pretty hard to show proof of the missles they have because they are hiding them all over iraq, and the UN is too freakin stupid to do a entire investiation. Why do you think at first saddam wouldn&#39;t even let them in cause they needed more time to hide their missles. Plus why did they all of a sudden have to start disarming these missles that they found that shoulsd have been destroyed after the gulf war. Saddam is an extremely smart person and he knows how to decieve people, just like Hitler did.

Like i aid just wait a bit longer for the americans and british to get in there and we&#39;ll see what they all find that Saddam ahs been hiding.

[jack be nimble]

Originally posted by LPFAN05+Mar 22 2003, 02:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LPFAN05 @ Mar 22 2003, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ProWar@Mar 22 2003, 04:04 AM
i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?
i&#39;m sorry, why won&#39;t you stop coming back?

canada has alot of oil, the US doesn&#39;t get much of it though. [/b][/quote]
the point is, canada doesn&#39;t have enough oil for the us and themselves. just admit i&#39;m right. and i&#39;ll never stop coming back, by the way.

[Todd]

you&#39;re not right. you&#39;re a worthless #######

[Mark]

Originally posted by jack be nimble+Mar 22 2003, 08:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jack be nimble @ Mar 22 2003, 08:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -LPFAN05@Mar 22 2003, 02:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--ProWar@Mar 22 2003, 04:04 AM
i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?
i&#39;m sorry, why won&#39;t you stop coming back?

canada has alot of oil, the US doesn&#39;t get much of it though.
the point is, canada doesn&#39;t have enough oil for the us and themselves. just admit i&#39;m right. and i&#39;ll never stop coming back, by the way. [/b][/quote]
you stupid life-less loser, nobody likes you, you&#39;re annoying. and you&#39;re proving your immaturity by joining up numerous times.

before you start yakking about Canada&#39;s policies and affairs, you should know the facts. Canada has alot of oil, yet we don&#39;t usemost of it ourselves, we export it and we get alot of it from the middle eastern countries like the USA. And actually, I&#39;m pretty positive we could help sustain the USA&#39;s and Canada&#39;s needs for oil. Canada is the US&#39;s 3rd biggest supplier of oil, if you didn&#39;t know.

[PuNk]

Originally posted by LPFAN05+Mar 23 2003, 12:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LPFAN05 @ Mar 23 2003, 12:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -jack be nimble@Mar 22 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by -LPFAN05@Mar 22 2003, 02:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--ProWar@Mar 22 2003, 04:04 AM
i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?
i&#39;m sorry, why won&#39;t you stop coming back?

canada has alot of oil, the US doesn&#39;t get much of it though.
the point is, canada doesn&#39;t have enough oil for the us and themselves. just admit i&#39;m right. and i&#39;ll never stop coming back, by the way.
you stupid life-less loser, nobody likes you, you&#39;re annoying. and you&#39;re proving your immaturity by joining up numerous times.

before you start yakking about Canada&#39;s policies and affairs, you should know the facts. Canada has alot of oil, yet we don&#39;t usemost of it ourselves, we export it and we get alot of it from the middle eastern countries like the USA. And actually, I&#39;m pretty positive we could help sustain the USA&#39;s and Canada&#39;s needs for oil. Canada is the US&#39;s 3rd biggest supplier of oil, if you didn&#39;t know. [/b][/quote]
Is he Bonethug? :huh:

[Mark]

Originally posted by PuNk+Mar 22 2003, 11:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PuNk @ Mar 22 2003, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -LPFAN05@Mar 23 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by -jack be nimble@Mar 22 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by -LPFAN05@Mar 22 2003, 02:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--ProWar@Mar 22 2003, 04:04 AM
i&#39;m sorry, where&#39;s canada in here?
i&#39;m sorry, why won&#39;t you stop coming back?

canada has alot of oil, the US doesn&#39;t get much of it though.
the point is, canada doesn&#39;t have enough oil for the us and themselves. just admit i&#39;m right. and i&#39;ll never stop coming back, by the way.
you stupid life-less loser, nobody likes you, you&#39;re annoying. and you&#39;re proving your immaturity by joining up numerous times.

before you start yakking about Canada&#39;s policies and affairs, you should know the facts. Canada has alot of oil, yet we don&#39;t usemost of it ourselves, we export it and we get alot of it from the middle eastern countries like the USA. And actually, I&#39;m pretty positive we could help sustain the USA&#39;s and Canada&#39;s needs for oil. Canada is the US&#39;s 3rd biggest supplier of oil, if you didn&#39;t know.
Is he Bonethug? :huh: [/b][/quote]
nope, he&#39;s Bonethug V2.0, aka "Jawknee"

[Derek The Infamous]

Tone down the flaming guys.

Im gonna keep this topic open tho, for the purpose of discussing the war.

BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE. NO MORE TROUBLE.

[From The Inside]

A comment on the oil: If Canada supposedly has had the 3rd largest amount of oil, then why were there problems with oil I believe in the 1970s?? My parents tell me that gas stations had LONG lines and even had to close on Sundays because oil was in short supply. If Canada so-called had this 3rd largest amount, why didn&#39;t we ask them for it? Makes you wonder.

[Phantom Duck]

Originally posted by From The Inside@Apr 13 2003, 08:08 AM
A comment on the oil: If Canada supposedly has had the 3rd largest amount of oil, then why were there problems with oil I believe in the 1970s?? My parents tell me that gas stations had LONG lines and even had to close on Sundays because oil was in short supply. If Canada so-called had this 3rd largest amount, why didn&#39;t we ask them for it? Makes you wonder.
Beacause "oil" is just one of the waaay too many reasons.
And the war is over (the iraqis let us down, they gave up lke... u know what), why did u bring this topic up? It asks "should we go to war"
:mellow:

[From The Inside]

Why&#39;d you respond then? Got you there. Anywho, you may think the war is over, but surrounding countries are still in jeopardy. P.S. I&#39;m gald the other 7 POWs were found. ^_^