Obama wins iowa primary ... First black prez?

[Synchronomyst]

If anyone has a problem or wishes to have a nice clean debate and thinks they have the correct logic and high intellect to debate with a political genius and member of the WAB as myself

In all honesty, I took you seriously until I realized you were yet -another- egocentric, self-aggrandizing teenager. That last paragraph is nothing short of appalling with its haughtiness. When you speak of 'correct' logic, you abandon all subjectivity and it's quite clear that as clean as you claim you're willing to debate, it's utterly pointless because you're not here to discuss perspective. Rather, you are here for conceited 'intellectual' masturbation . You've even gone as far as to take the generic handle of 'NeoCon' and define yourself by your politics. That is solely your identity here, a voice for neoconservatism.

Honestly...why bother? Why not just shorten the process? State your opinion, back it up with facts, leave.

[Crixx_Creww]

unga bunga bunga unga unga bunga bunga bunga!!!

(what sync said~!!!) lawl

as before, id loveee to hold a political discussion with you and anyone else, i mean, this IS the politics forum on our board and the reason said forum was made.

But everyone else was right... you.. unfortunately have a political stance.. where as teh people on this here forum dont have a stance put wouldnt mind discussing politis.

Amercican politics doesnt matter much to us and i know Trinidadian politics doesnt matter AT ALL to you and your friend (kinds sad that you need to come out side of your country on a gaming forum to spew hate and rhetoric.. meh ) but anyways.

Even if your view is going to be of the neo conservative aka burn yu heathen muslims (lawl)
if you could manage to discuss politics without making it a PERSONAL ATTACK on anyone and any view, then you sir, are WELCOMED on this here forum... yeeee hawwwww

[New Era Outlaw]

All right, guys....knock it off.

Slinging mud at the new guy like rockets from a battleship from the starting gate would only serve to prove our old friend right when he said we lacked the mental capacity to engage in a proper debate. As much as I disliked Grim for being too arrogant with his beliefs, we must remember not to be the same way with our own.

With that said, welcome to here, Neocon.
Just remember one key thing:

if you could manage to discuss politics without making it a PERSONAL ATTACK on anyone and any view, then you sir, are WELCOMED on this here forum

...just keep that in mind, and all should be well. Oh. And it helps not be too full of yourself, either.
Carry on.

[TrinireturnofGamez]

Agreed , this could be a nice opportunity to promote dialogue between different cultures...

Nowhere in the GATT rules says forum members have to be Trini.. Though i'd prefer someone with an ounce of knowledge about us , our culture and beliefs .

Judging by their writing style both Grim and Neocon are fairly young and biased..

lets debate on this point '' Dems are intellectually lacking and illogical people''...

Obama voted against the war in iraq because there was little evidence that Iraq posed a threat to US security .
 
Bush disregarded evidence that Iraq stopped WMD  production , invaded Iraq with an insufficient number of troops to hold it properly ( 500 000 was recommended) because :
  He was following his 'gut'

  So tell me , who is more illogical in this case , the democrat or the republican?


 Take this message back to the WAB board :  Many citizens of other nations want a democrat , most of us want Obama .
 

[rb]

so heres the rundown

obama wins,antichrist appears, armageddon, ggpo

just great...they'll blame the black man for sure...

[NeoCon]

Well what a reaction for me to get, I'm glad in a way.

I know that the manner in which I entered was not the best, but it was for my own reasons. I don't expect you to get why anyone would attempt to make such an impression unless you know the purpose of it. It's a technique I use when joining any forum, there are a few others that do so as well. It's not truly meant to anger members but it helps me learn a few things off the mark from the replies I get and what people instantly assume about me and what certain things mean to them. I'm happy with what I've learned and I now know how to handle future debates with certain people here.

Also, I've decided to take a good look and read through Grim Reaper's posts and the debates he went through. It was heavily one sided and he paid the ultimate price on the forum for intellectual dominance in arguments. I see his profile has also been changed to your convenience, I guess that was the most you could have done for such humiliation after consistently losing to him. I've come across him before, had a debate on a heated issue against him when he was perhaps 14 or 15? Highly intellectual kid and from then on I pretty much stay clear of him, as many of you found out the hard way. We agree on many of the same things so don't expect my views to be much different than his, if not more stronger. However, my way of debating is different and I assure you that it will not be as offensive as his replies. I may fit into your way of debate much better as I don't go for the all out kill right away as Grimmy does, which many of you experienced and it kills the fun.

Now onto the real stuff.

I so far have seen low expectations of getting some good points but I could be wrong, you members will prove this right or wrong by your replies alone. I clicked this thread hoping to see what people think about Obama and why he'd even make a good president. Instead I'm greeted with the ethnic groups of Iowa and pretty much a set of people with opinions against Whites.

This is just one state.  Stop FOOLING yourselves people.  America will NOT elect a black president in our time.
When the white race becomes a minority in America in about 50 years, THEN maybe you'll see it.

Obama winning one primary means nothing in the larger scheme of things.  I just can't WAIT to see
what happens in the so-called 'red' states.

its actually an insult to think that he could possibly win the actual election

this is the same country that elected then RE ELECTED george w bush

THOSE kinds of people, would never vote for obama

lets not forget what happened in miami when the black people were trying to vote for a WHITE candidate...
they started arresting and beating them up like hot cakes to stop there vote

what yu think going an happen on election day??
it goin an have mysterious mass arrests in LA ,ny, miami, chicago,atlanta..

lol i mean
yu could see arkansas ,texas, ALABAMA voting obama in??ahhahaah neverrrrr

thats not true about 911 being fresh in their minds

the week before bush was re elected
america made the announcement that indeed there were no WMDs in iraq
so , the ENTIRE reason for starting a war with iraq was completely thrown out the window
and they STILL re elected him
thats hard core stupidity

and even though they wont like putting a woman in power
atleast shes a WHITE woman

if it was a black woman... THENNN wow

The democrats have the best chance to win this rounds, everyone ready for a change. What has America gotten with this Bush Regime? Attacked, War, Higher Oil Prices, More War, and now it looks like we heading into a recession, and it will be BAD. IF Obama does win, I can't see him lasting very long, there is racial tension in this country regardless of what people may think, a black president will not be favored amongst the red necks as Arcman meant by his "red America" comment. Look at what happened in 24, that man from the Allstate commercials didn't last two terms, he end up getting killed. There is a far way to go in America for that to ever happen, sad to say...

I'm afraid you're VERY wrong there mate.  A black US president will NEVER happen unless the racial balance of America is changed.
After what has taken place for the last 400 years, it is foolhardy to think ANY black man in this day and age will actually get elected.
Sadly, there are too many white Americans that cling to that 'old' way of thought, and by 'old' I mean racially biased...and IF by some
miracle he DOES get elected, he wont last a full term without some Aryan a$$hole with a high-powered rifle, or a van full of fertiliser
having a go at him.

America aint ready mate.

Keep on wishing.  I'll be right here when its all over to scream 'I TOLD YOU SO!!!'

America getting a black president is like trinis suddenly hating chicken...tomorrow.

True racism is still a force to be reckoned with in america , but most racists are republican ANYWAY and stick to the far right .

 We'll see what happens as results for the other primaries come in within the following months , this victory for obama is a huge boost .  

 As Lloyd Best said ' Nothing succeeds like success ' , Obama looks like a winner and has won the first primary , he'll begin to suck up support from other candidates who now look less viable .

Well all that leads to a question about who here is truly being racist. A large part of Obama's non White supporters only support him because he is Black and hardly know anything about how he chooses to deal with major issues and the consequences of those decisions. The double standard effect also plays a big part here, is a White truly a Redneck for showing great despise for Obama? Is a Black not being a racist for backing Obama only because he is Black? I'm simply raising the issues that go hand in hand with your own views, but you choose to ignore. I think you all could as well be just as racist as a Redneck by the way you choose to present points here. Perhaps it is the limit to your intelligence or you are being pro-Obama in a delusional state. Again, you people will prove it yourselves by your replies. I will still hold back anything more for now before I get into the true politics itself.

~~~

Well I was going to post this message until I got a reply from another member, so I will deal with him here as well.

Agreed , this could be a nice opportunity to promote dialogue between different cultures...

Nowhere in the GATT rules says forum members have to be Trini.. Though i'd prefer someone with an ounce of knowledge about us , our culture and beliefs .

Yes, it is a good way to promote dialogue. I've done some research about your nation and gathered a decent amount of information, so don't assume that I'm ignorant.

Judging by their writing style both Grim and Neocon are fairly young and biased..

If my writing style is judged to be young and biased, then what should one consider of other posts made by your fellow members on this topic? Being "young" really doesn't mean much, I'm 24, Grim is maybe 16-17? Points made by a "young" person such as Grim have humilated many intelligent people over the years using high intellect and logic. I've looked at his posts and watched how this "young" person outclassed those who argued them by a great distance, many members here also experienced it as well. Take your time and look through those posts from a neutral view, which may be hard if not impossible for you here to do and see the difference in quality his points are to others. Am I really being biased or is that what I am labeled because you don't approve of my points? When we get more into the debate and I start making real political points, then you will see my side.

Obama voted against the war in iraq because there was little evidence that Iraq posed a threat to US security .

Bush disregarded evidence that Iraq stopped WMD  production , invaded Iraq with an insufficient number of troops to hold it properly ( 500 000 was recommended) because :
  He was following his 'gut'

  So tell me , who is more illogical in this case , the democrat or the republican?

Yes Obama voted against the war, yet in a speech, he has threatened to invade Pakistan if they don't "cooperate". Well I don't believe invading Pakistan, a country with Nuclear weapons and a military force many times more powerful than Pre-2003 Iraq is such a good idea. He goes on and on about the Iraq war and Bush, yet he dares to say something that could cause a problem many times greater than what he claims is happening in Iraq right now. The Democrats under Clinton allowed Pakistan to acquire Nuclear power by not doing anything, now a another Democrat wants to invade and make all hell break loose there. He alone is a threat to US security.

If you really knew about Military strategy and tactics, then you would surely know that 500,000 troops to invade Iraq would be a foolish waste. Bush went with the intention of finding WMD's and overthrowing Saddam. He did not expect for terrorists to flood the country and start hell in it after getting rid of a man that did indeed use Biological weapons against his own people and Chemical weapons against the Iranians, both a form of WMD's. If you all see Bush for some evil leader, then how can you prefer Obama to be better by his intentions? The Democrat is surely the more illogical case as is your argument.

Take this message back to the WAB board :  Many citizens of other nations want a democrat , most of us want Obama .

Unfortunatley, I would never do that because I am a citizen of the US itself and I don't want an idiotic man like Obama to lead the country. You can go by yourself and deliver the message, or I can bring a few members of the WAB here. Both would probably not be too suitable for you so try not to get that involved with the elite WAB until you truly know what you are doing.

[JewishMonk]

I really didn't read all that but....
OBAMA FTW

[TrinireturnofGamez]

  You have to realize something :  all of us here are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to debating issues like this as very few , if not none of us here has a US education , follow up regularly on the US media etc.
 
  So any american can pull out points we'd never see coming .

 Another big disadvantage is this : We don't care about 'winning' arguments, most of us don't have time to waste googling  every claim you make to check  it's veracity , then making counter arguments .

 BTW..the thing that annoyed me most about grim was his insistence on hijacking threads and turning them into idealogical debates .. please don't do the same , make a thread for the debate by itself .


On to counter arguing for the sake of argument :

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

Obama advocates sending troops into Pakistan to hunt for Al Queda , not an all out war with pakistan .

 Large numbers of Al Queda and Taliban insurgents are hiding in the rural , mountainous areas of Pakistan and the area near Afghanistan's border :

“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

 

 the point is that THESE are the people who orchestrated 9/11 , not Iraqis , i still maintain that Iraq was invaded as an act of US imperialism to control oil resources .

 And note : the attack is conditional , only if intelligence  supports it.



 The 500,000 troops figure needed to effectively eliminate the insurgency , i didn't say this is what was required to take down the conventional iraqi army , and this figure doesn't come from me,  it comes from high ranking officials :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10777239/

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials acknowledged Monday that Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. official in Iraq during the first year of the war, told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in May 2004 that a far larger number of U.S. troops were needed to effectively fight the insurgency but his advice was rejected.............

. Bremer served as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority from May 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, until June 2004,

btw i'm 18 myself, and i'm not totally anti republican, i like Mcain and Ron Paul , but i'm really a libertarian at heart.

[NeoCon]

Advantage and disadvantage, don't bring that up after you started with it already. You should have known that before you decided to take charge in your previous post against me in the manor you did. I know what Obama means but what do you think is going to happen if Obama were to invade Pakistan in the pursuit of Al Qaeda? Again, people fail to see consequences of such an action. Have you any idea what hell that will turn into, Iraq will look like nothing. For the standards that people use for Bush, Obama would be many times worse if he were to throw the US into any such operation. Given the state of that nation and it's affairs, one can only hope that this wouldn't set off a catastrophic chain of events. I know all about the 500,000 troop thing but it was rejected for a reason. The amount of money it would take to supply such a massive amount would be enormous and how much of an impact could it have really had? Current troops levels are fairing well, it's all very difficult to even get that many to be approved for deployment, let alone half a million. It would have also been a serious gamble which wasn't in the favor of the US, the path that was taken would be for the best long term solution.

[New Era Outlaw]

I guess that was the most you could have done for such humiliation after consistently losing to him.

Oh GOD. I think I bought a one way, expenses-paid ticket on the S.S. LOLLERPALOOZAAA!!!!!!
All ABOOOARD!!! *honks horn*


Now, to digress a bit, just a little something about me.
I enjoy video games, right?
Aw, SHUCKS. Dang near everybody does here, this being the Gamer's Association of Trinidad and Tobago and all. As a member of GATT, I care about the challenge of the game and who I could royally own in it. My specialty happens to be Marvel vs. Capcom, something I'm particularly good at, so much so, that I arrange sweats on a regular basis. From there on in, once I head there, it's all a matter of beat or be beaten, survival of the fittest and the winner stands tall, hip-hip-hoorah.
We then come back on here, pat each other on the back, (or conversely, give each other talks for the next time) and then set up a next challenge. And that, my friends, is what we call the great Circle of Life for gamers. Day in, and day out.


Now, you're probably wondering what this has to do with this thread.
Why, all of a sudden, would I just spout some random tra-la-la about my gaming life in a thread about politics. In essence, I'm even breaking a rule by doing so, even. But, you know, there is a reason behind the madness and even a moral to this enlightening tale.

You see, you guys came on here challenging a bunch of Trinidadian based gamers to a political debate. Okay, no harm done, I mean....we talk about a lot of crap, right? From the 101 ways we want to see some TSTT executives spontaneously combust in a ball of flames to stories of bicycles, and the men who love them. It's all in good fun, am I rite?

But ah, here is where the flaw in logic lies: you came onto a Trinidadian Gaming Forum to discuss American Politics, and expected them to actually give you a challenge. Oh, no. Let me rephrase that. You came onto a Trinidadian Gaming Forum to discuss American Politics, and expected the users here to actually give a damn.

I'm sorry.
I know a good few of the fellas here.
To be perfectly honest, they don't really give a crap about what goes on, or how many Rush Limbaugh quotes does it take to reach the juicy centre of a Donkey- Flavored Tootsie Pop. They're just debating because they get the idea that certain people are just arrogant pinheads who need to be taken down a notch.

Not to say you are one, though, and hopefully that won't ever be the case.

Of course, I speak of a former user here who made that sad assumption, and sadly, because he decided to insult quite a few people through PMs (and even made a repeat account just to make an emergency call to the WAAAAAAAAAAAAH-mbulance), he was dealt with.

I mean, really.
Isn't coming on here to engage in one of these 'Internetz: Serious Business' debates like walking into an arcade to debate the War on Terror? Chances are, those guys would rather pop coins in machines to see whose a** they can kick with Paul Phoenix than which random Joe walks in to debate who's right and who's wrong in that struggle. Of course, nag them enough about it, and toss in the little narcissism in there, and at least one of them will be glad to take the ego-tripper down a notch. Or give him atomic wedgies. Whichever.

So, really?
LOL. LOL. LOL. And LOL some more.
Hell, I'm currently riding on some LOLlerskates on my way to the LOLlercopter where I'll fly to Euro LOLlerland to ride the International LOL Express.

If you really want to follow Grim's lead and make the sad assumption that us Trini gamers actually gave a crap about a topic that barely even concerns us aside from a few cheap s**ts and giggles, then go right ahead. I'll just be laughing at you and everybody else (just to be fair) who even takes topics like these seriously.

In the meanwhile, while I don't really give a crap about the nature of this thread, I'll still moderate it. It is, after all, my job. But here's what I do know, and it does apply to the nature of this forum in general.


And that is.....I bet I can THRASH YOUR TAILS.
That's right.
If you choose to engage in mental masturbation in a topic against people who don't even bother with it to begin with, then HAVE AT YOU! Challenge me in virtually any fighting game, and I'll pwn you guys good. Debate? SHCREW IT, AH'VE GOT YER DEBATE RAAAHHGHT HYARE. *raises gamepad*


And now, from everybody who ever was, is, and is still to come in GATT, I quote thee a passage from the Game, Triple H:

GET READY TO SUUUUUUUUCCCKKKKK IIIIITTTTT!!!!!

......okay, I'm done. Carry on.
*chews on a Kit Kat Bar while singing the theme song*

[Arcmanov]

AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

F@CK YO COUCH N1GG@!!!

[TaC_uP]

[rb]

intellectual patriotism in america should be like a religion or something. I'm sure some blind people would gladly join that church.

[New Era Outlaw]

AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

F@CK YO COUCH N1GG@!!!

*puts on glasses and lab coat*

You see, when given the proper equation, we can make the following assumptions:

'The Couch' = American Politics. Lawl.
'The (ahem) F**king' = What People Honestly think of 'Intellectual Debates' here
'he paid the ultimate price on the forum for intellectual dominance in arguments' = Bulls**t
The N- AHEM. Okay, let's not go there.

Given the values, we can therefore make the following formula:

Bulls**t = The F**king + The Couch, which is directly proportional to the square root of PIE, which represents a number equal to that of those who don't give a crap.

Your homework today, ladies and gentlemen, is, of course, to bring me pie. (I made myself hungry.)
Oh, and probably figure out why certain people get hazed on forums like these, to boot.


CLASS DISMISSED!
*bell rings*

[Crixx_Creww]

ok neo con, before i  take the time to finish reading through your posts and then the follow ups by neo and trini

I warned you emphatically about making personal assaults on people
and you could not resist, you off the bat started insulting our collective intelligence levels.

If you make ONE more personal attack. Your gone and gone for good.
If you cant carry on an arguament/discussion without resorting to insulting everyone here who you dont know AND have no idea how great their "intelligence" is, then you shouldnt be in this debate and you should maybe question your own intelligence.

Trini did make the point that not everyone here has lived or been educated in america to have any depth of knowledge of america and its politics, but a few of us do, me included and those people are gonna call you on BS when it shows up, always two sides to a story dont forget that.

[Spazosaurus]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lSiGnb5AfL8

[TrinireturnofGamez]

I believe Obama's suggested' invasion' is really just a short term attack against known targets in Pakistan's rural areas..
 
The Pakistani people will be outraged but no direct military action by the Pakistani army will be undertaken, the US has been providing  significant funding to the Pakistani military.. 2 billion dollars over a number of years . Pakistan needs US backing as a counterweight to India , so won't try to displease them .

Of course we won't know till its already done , i agree its a risky thing to do in reality but you forget the context once more : Obama is seen as soft against terrorism and 'anti war' , saying this makes him sound tough and attracts republican voters .



No reason to call the man an idiot.. He's written  two  best selling books , Bush is perhaps the only president in office never to have written any and has made countless mistakes in office,  and yet you overlook them like if they were nothing :

The main reason for the collapse of the US dollar is President
George W. Bush's attempt to fight expensive foreign wars while cutting
taxes at home. This involved deficit financing on a very large scale, and
inevitably the value of the dollar began to fall -- slowly at first, but
with increasing speed as it became clear that the White House did not care.
 "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," as Vice-President Dick
Cheney told then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20US%20Dollar.txt 

Gwynne Dyer is an internationally acclaimed British historian.. you might not have heard of him though.

Yes the US can't afford to place 500 000 troops in Iraq (you can barely afford the war as it is),  but thats what was needed to effectively rout the insurgents and bring stability to the country . The whole point of the surge is an attempt to supplement troops numbers in the short term so a proper offensive can be mounted.



 The Iraq war should not have been fought in the first place , Iraq is not a threat to anyone but itself... North Korea is a threat, the  terrorist networks in Pakistan are a threat . Iraq was invaded for one thing : OIL , So that american owned firms can make some more profits by setting up there.

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

A republican, an economist and the former head of the federal reserve ,  i'v never read his books myself but Alan Greenspan's reputation as a genius precedes him...   
   
 Bush himself said 'America is addicted to Oil' , you can't deny it . 


 One last thing, as you keep insulting our intelligence.. what did you get on your SAT score? Mines is 1920 total ,
What university do you/did you go to? What courses did you take?

[NeoCon]

Well since you seem interested in this I will go on with a quick run down, I'd like to see your full view of all this.


Obama's short term attack against Pakistan in rural areas would be pointless. Sure, you'll kill some terrorists but unless you carry out a long term operation meant to end it for good, it will be a waste. It is indeed a risky thing to do, so risky that it would be better not to invade. Though if it is so, then Obama must be a fool to say such a thing, of course only the people that understand what can truly come out of it will actually see it. Pakistan does not want the US inside their country and if it is done against their will, a heavy price will be paid. All that counterbalancing stuff with India isn't even needed and Pakistan knows it. With all the aid they get, the Indian Armed Forces remain many times more powerful. India has never started any of the wars they fought, Pakistan is alone responsible for what they brought upon themselves with India. For the US, India is far more important by a great distance and it will increase as time goes on.

Obama may try to attract Republican voters by talking tough, but how much can he really fool? Democrats are known for being cowards and when they try to deny it and push for something, they end up causing more trouble and leaving it for the next president to deal with. They also choose to do nothing when it's truly needed that later cause the issues to develop into far more worse problems.

So what if Obama has written books? The last thing Bush needs now is to make some book while he's dealing with so much stuff. Bush has taken on a lot of pressure while in office and has dealt with it correctly. Yes the dollar has began to fall, yes it is bad, but is it really a mistake? If the drop in currency is what the US has to pay to fight terror, then I can't argue it. You speak that North Korea is a threat, yet if Bush invaded them instead of Iraq, how many would be screaming that we did it for some agricutural produce or something? No matter what is done, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If one country is invaded, it is no longer a true threat and we should have been somewhere else. This is the same thing with Iraq, we are there and now everyone screams we should be somewhere else. And the big excuse for it is oil? Show proof? How much has the US benefited from the oil in Iraq? Will it cover the cost of the war to even begin with? If not it wasn't worth it and that idiotic theory is invalid. Even if you place a million troops there, the terrorists will not stop because the condition is such that they will see more targets to blow up rather than the army see more terrorists to kill. The only way to win is to maintain troop levels as they are now and prepare for a long term operation. However, if a fool like Obama becomes president, it will all be wasted and hence the reason why the Republicans are the key.

Now of course I don't deny facts, Bush said that America is addicted to oil and it's true. So what, we are not going to steal anyone's oil and it's pure stupidity to believe that we are trying to do it in Iraq unless we acquire enough to make up for all the lives and money lost fighting the war, which won't happen. The reason Bush said it was because the US must find alternative energy sources and move away from our dangerous addiction to oil.

I don't see what the importance of my education is to you but I will satisfy your curiousity nonetheless. I scored perfect scores on the PSAT, SAT and ACT pretty easily. I maintained a GPA of well over 4.6 for High School and graduated early for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where I studied Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). I've earned a Master's Degree in it and I'm thinking of going one level higher and pursuing the ScD.

[unisoc]

PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.


"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!


"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?




SOURCES:

[1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.

[2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.

[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.

a much longer article that offers proof of the benefits for the oil industry (american oil industry that is), can be found here: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

i know is not the topic but since u asked for proof there u go.

On topic now, according to the title of this thread the question isn't whether or not Obama would make a Good president, the question is, does he have a chance of being the next president of the United States? I would say: Who cares??!!! After the moron they just had they could put up a chicken dressed in a carnival costume and still would be way better.

[Crixx_Creww]

ok unisoc
yur new hi

where yu from?