ozpharlap Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi' date=' "Only a blind man would think all of that was just to catch one person." Right. The main reason was to make a bunch of people even richer than they already were Sanuk! [/quote'] That's even more blind. It astounds me how so many of you who are very smart like to make things, all things, 10x more complex than they are. I think the vast lot of you just dont like simple answers... to anything. I am with the Big C on this one, sometimes things are just simply explained, nothing more or nothing less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo_bill Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I know from inside the US government that Bin Laden died long ago and they kept him in e a deep freezer within the White House main kitchen to wait for a proper moment to release the news . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Just listening to the news now, they say that Bin laden has been dump at sea, so there can be no shrine of rememberance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 1) I think you may have too much faith in your country / government. 2) Do you really believe are not that ruthless that they would start a war just to make themselves richer? How about causing a financial crash to make themselves richer? Oh wait, that actually did happen. 3) And do you deny that lots of people made HUGE amounts of money of the war in Iraq? 1) I think you do not understand Occam's razor. And I think you do not put enough faith in human nature to expose for profit or fame or whatever, every misstep by the US and anyone. If Clinton can not keep a BJ in the oval office a secret, do you really think a massive operation involving literally thousands if not tens of thousands can go one for years with out the Times getting it out?. 2) Yes, they are not that ruthless. Case in point, how many people in the US congress in 2003 went from whatever money they had to over 100m richer due to the war. And if it were, would not Obama, who voted against it and was quite poor by Elected officials standards, have exposed it by now? He would have had everything to gain and nothing to loose. Do you also believe that every elected official through out time has been in on it? Because they all would have had to been. 3) No I do not deny this. Who would? Someone makes money in every war. But wars do not foster wealth other wise they would NEVER end. Peace fosters more wealth than anything under the sun. KS, what kills me is again, so many of you cant ever seem to NOT see a massive cover up.... in everything. Try this, name me the last 10 proven massive conspiracies by the US Government as a whole. (You get no points for those that the government itself admitted to before the media got the story.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi, So why did the US pump so much money into these wars? And why did they start the one in Iraq? Exposure of corruption in the Iraq war: http://www.alternet.org/world/41083/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4353491.stm http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/hanania-iraq-war-corruption-cases-go-beyond-simple-fraud-for-immediate-release-april-8-2008/ I appreciate this isn't the same as starting a war for profit, but it sure proofs that there a people making serious money out of these wars. And if these same people were able to 'influence' those making the decision to go to war or not (I have no idea if they could or not, but with the policy of lobbying, who knows) then it could give some credence to a war started for profit. "Peace fosters more wealth than anything under the sun." In the long term and for the population at large, I am sure you are correct, but while wars cost a lot of people a lot, there is almost always a small group that makes a LOT of money. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi, So why did the US pump so much money into these wars? And why did they start the one in Iraq? Exposure of corruption in the Iraq war: http://www.alternet.org/world/41083/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4353491.stm http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/hanania-iraq-war-corruption-cases-go-beyond-simple-fraud-for-immediate-release-april-8-2008/ I appreciate this isn't the same as starting a war for profit, but it sure proofs that there a people making serious money out of these wars. And if these same people were able to 'influence' those making the decision to go to war or not (I have no idea if they could or not, but with the policy of lobbying, who knows) then it could give some credence to a war started for profit. "Peace fosters more wealth than anything under the sun." In the long term and for the population at large, I am sure you are correct, but while wars cost a lot of people a lot, there is almost always a small group that makes a LOT of money. Sanuk! Did you miss where I agreed with some people making lots of money? My point is it is far fewer than you seem to think, a lot of them end up in jail, and it is not the ones that started the war! <--- That's the big rub Of course there is corruption. That is there war and peace. I am asking for the Bin Ladden was dead a long time ago, CIA killed Kennedy, big oil killing solar power sized thing you all seem to always see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi, Anyway, my comment was mostly tongue in cheek. I certainly don't think that what happened was that someone piped up and said "Let's invade another country so we can make a lot of money". However, I do believe that quite a few people were certainly not unhappy to see a war get started as they knew they would make a lot of money of the misery of others. And financial gain might well have influenced the decision of some people. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Sure the war was not ONLY about oil... but securing some future oil certainly swayed the decision makers. There are plenty of other injust countries who continue to massacre their people but just happen to have no natural resources worth anything... they don't seem to get "liberated" by the US/UN/NATO etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Oh absolutly. Like it or not, Oil is a vital interest to the US (And everyone else!!!!) You did not see us give a shit about Ruwanda, Balkins, Darfurr (sp?). But the war was not only about oil as you say. Mostly it was about.... (Drum roll) Rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Bloody hell......war is big business. That simple enough :content: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.