wrassecal
Active Member
Originally posted by wamp
ozadars
Also, I know the responses I will get for this next statment but, if i were not oil we were after, why were the oil fields the first to get our attention??
I know, you'll say "To prevent enviromental dammage, and to allow the Iraqi people to have their resource intact".... But we will see...
I didn't notice that the first thing that got our attention was the oil fields. I and those around me were really wondering what was going on when the first thing we paid attention to was a building in Bagdad. Wouldn't it be strange if we find out we got Saddam with the first strike of the war? I for one hope the US, UK and the Iraqis benefit from the saving of the oil wells. Why do people think it would be wrong for the Iraqi people who will now be able to benefit from their country's resourses use some of those resources to help their liberators offset the cost of liberating them?
On another note, my son in the Marines called me on the first day of the war. He said they had been to the bunkers in gas masks 6 times that day, but that he was safe. It was the best phone call I ever got
As far as the protesters in the US are concerned. They don't seem to have much sense do they? We had a few of them here on campus the other day but it got cold so they went into the student union for hot chocolate. Did anyone see the report about the one who fell off the Golden Gate Bridge and died? do you think that persons family is saying..."he died for what he believed in?" Do you think that person trained, swore an oath to country and right to protest, even that he/she thought that stopping traffic in San Fransisco with a Peace sign was protecting the country? What's peaceful about stopping traffic and getting yourself killed by getting too close to edge of a bridge? I can only hope that was reported in error.