|
musikpal (August 28, 2008 at 11:42 am)
"US attacked south vietnam"?????Which history book have u read? Is it the history book made by Iran school system, one that is full of make up stories?North Vietnam first attacked South Vietnam. That's why US went there for.....for Freedom of the S. Vietnamese,the God given right to freedom that every S. Vietnamese deserves to get(I guess this is way beyond anything u can understand).The immediate by product of this is free world(free nations=free world, hostile nations=hostile world)Freedom
jklasdfjdfksl (August 28, 2008 at 2:16 am)
US attacked south vietnam and installed a puppet regime and put the population into concentration camps before dumping chemicals and bombs all over the country. there was a resource interest in vietnam, but the overriding concern was making sure that the world knew that there were no alternatives to the US run global system that they would allow to exist. US was fighting to limit choice and freedom.
rockondon (August 18, 2008 at 7:05 am)
yeah if you rebuild a country you bombed andhire 100,000 outsourced companies and makecarlyle a no bid contract for building tanksto chase a cia opt named bin laden is big business
rockondon (August 18, 2008 at 7:03 am)
hmm now i know why 911 happened?condi works for chevron
deepsoljas (July 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm)
muslim people are so thick lol my own child would know better..like taking candy of a baby.
duburn1 (July 12, 2008 at 6:02 pm)
Currently, the push for oil companies to get into Iraq. The oil fields were destroyed, correct. That does not mean the U.S. was not there for oil, but it also shows the U.S. has other reasons. Don't fixate on just one aspect of the issue. The situation is more complicated then that.
duburn1 (July 12, 2008 at 5:57 pm)
A fact check would show that: yes, there were more reasons to go into Iraq then wmds and oil. It isn't just oil or spread Democracy etc. it is a combination of many factors. There is a piece of writing with authors such as Cheney, Fukayama, and William Kristol to name a few, they wrote the "Project for a New American Century" during the 1990's. One of the main ideas is that if Democracy can be put into Iraq it would spread to the rest of the Mid-East. Of course, that did not occur.
musikpal (July 5, 2008 at 8:31 pm)
Oh yes,and US warn China not to attack Taiwan because US wants probably chopstick from Taiwan. And when US went into S. Vietnam because it wanted rice from Vietnam and US helped S.Korea because it wanted Kimchi from S.Korea not because it wanted to stop South Vietnam and South Korea from being consumed by its northern communist neighbor.Give me a break.One word,the word you never experience in your country...FREEDOM.That's all US is fighting for.Even your thought is a product of lack of Freedom
jklasdfjdfksl (July 3, 2008 at 8:00 pm)
government officials now openly run back to the rhetoric "protecting US energy interests" in iraq. if you think the most sensible explanation (oil interest), that republicans and democracts now openly speak of as a main reason for the occupation, then explain to me the most motivating factors for invading iraq; US security, democracy promotion, bin laden ties, etc. have all panned out to be false by evidence.... to believe these lies would be to believe in a "conspiracy theory"
jklasdfjdfksl (July 3, 2008 at 7:57 pm)
energy industry influence over the bush administration is not a conspiracy theory, it is plain fact to anyone familiar with the makeup of the bush administration, or how washington works (money greases the weels in washington by the buisness community getting behind politicians they want to win, just because its dirty does not mean its paranoid) and is the most obvious and simplest conclusion. | 
