Related Communities :  Snowboard |  Skateboard |  Mountain Bike |  Surf |  Softball |  Green |  More...

Skip Navigation
You are viewing this website with either CSS support turned off, or are not using a CSS compliant browser. This will significantly reduce your Colonies.com experience.

 Advertisement Advertise With Us

Central Community Forums

Search only in this forum

ıraq

Recieve Email Updates.
Verify your email to receive email notifications.
22 posts
daskuza

Posts : 5
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 03, 2007

ı am lıvıng turkey and my country is neighbour with ıraq so ı wonder "do u thınk about ıraq and ıraq war"

Broderick

Posts : 984
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 03, 2007

The whole thing was a shinanagins from the beginning. Bush made the choice to invade Iraq, but he did not have to do such a thing. I notice that he did not ask any other leaders to speak to Saddam, and see if they could negociate but just rushed into battle. Frankly, not only has the so-called "War on Terror" been a total scam and waste of money, but it is really a "War of Terror" against the Muslims in Iraq. Bush wants the oil, and the money that will come from the oil, to help pay off the huge debts the USA has wracked up in all their military campaigns and investments. Also, Iraq would be the perfect pigeonhole to keep an eye on Iran, clearly one of the biggest threats to Bush's "democracy". However different, both the leaders of Iran and the USA are mere puppets, controlled by heavy committies from the right wing. Bush perhaps has somewhat of his own agenda but is also playing the fool for higher powers that be. The same goes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is not really voicing his own radical opinions, but those who pull his strings. Therefore, neither carry much significance because they don't effectually "run the country". Their only use is to be a face, plastered on posters celebrating each their own holy wars. There is nothing, nothing that Bush would love more than to keep his troops in Iraq. He does not want the people of Iraq to be "free" he wants him to surrender power to him so that he can maintain control over their oil wells. Herein lies the rub. Bush wants oil. NOT the freedom of the Iraqis whom he brutally invaded but oil. He needs to keep "his" fluttery nation afloat and by doing so he needs oil. Only a few short weeks ago did the USA government finally admit to there being any global warming. Still, the true meaning will not dawn upon them until it is too late. After all, it is not really Bush's nation, but the nation of those who control him! The war in Iraq is just another sign of the long arms of the puppeteer, not the puppet itself. 
Let's go flying....
Neither of us will fall!


Freeryder89

Posts : 13
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

DROP A HUGE BOMB ON ALL IRAQ GIVE THEM A TASTE OF THERE OWN MEDICINE AND KILL ALL THE FUCKIN CAMEL JOCKIES(PACKIES)

Stewart_H

Posts : 1232
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

Your a prejudice ass hole.

daskuza

Posts : 5
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

ı thınk u are murderer because u dont forget all peole are equal.ıf ı were u ı go to ıraq and talkıng about poor people

Stewart_H

Posts : 1232
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

Whos a murderer?

daskuza

Posts : 5
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

sorry ı dont determe it ı saıd "freedryer"

Stewart_H

Posts : 1232
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

Man not gonna lie, i can't really understand what your trying to say.

Turdburgler

Posts : 49
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 04, 2007

Posted by Broderick
The whole thing was a shinanagins from the beginning. Bush made the choice to invade Iraq, but he did not have to do such a thing. I notice that he did not ask any other leaders to speak to Saddam, and see if they could negociate but just rushed into battle. Frankly, not only has the so-called "War on Terror" been a total scam and waste of money, but it is really a "War of Terror" against the Muslims in Iraq. Bush wants the oil, and the money that will come from the oil, to help pay off the huge debts the USA has wracked up in all their military campaigns and investments. Also, Iraq would be the perfect pigeonhole to keep an eye on Iran, clearly one of the biggest threats to Bush's "democracy". However different, both the leaders of Iran and the USA are mere puppets, controlled by heavy committies from the right wing. Bush perhaps has somewhat of his own agenda but is also playing the fool for higher powers that be. The same goes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is not really voicing his own radical opinions, but those who pull his strings. Therefore, neither carry much significance because they don't effectually "run the country". Their only use is to be a face, plastered on posters celebrating each their own holy wars. There is nothing, nothing that Bush would love more than to keep his troops in Iraq. He does not want the people of Iraq to be "free" he wants him to surrender power to him so that he can maintain control over their oil wells. Herein lies the rub. Bush wants oil. NOT the freedom of the Iraqis whom he brutally invaded but oil. He needs to keep "his" fluttery nation afloat and by doing so he needs oil. Only a few short weeks ago did the USA government finally admit to there being any global warming. Still, the true meaning will not dawn upon them until it is too late. After all, it is not really Bush's nation, but the nation of those who control him! The war in Iraq is just another sign of the long arms of the puppeteer, not the puppet itself. 
 
cmon now, how can you know all that?
 
Also if you will look strait above me you will notice that Stewart H has reached 1000 posts. Good work

[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:44 PM]
[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:45 PM]
Faith is Freedom


Freeryder89

Posts : 13
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 05, 2007

prejudice eh! i dont think you would be saying that if your brother,dad or uncle were in war in iraq and blown to a million fuckin pieces by one of them rag heads. yea sure i hate east indian or packies i dont give a fuck thoe back in the summer they got full health plans and $100000 from the government to start a new life in canada,i work 2 jobs and both of them i pay taxes and now do you think i like working for some mother fucking stinky ass packie so he can just sit on his ass and not work for anything

Stewart_H

Posts : 1232
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 05, 2007

Man obviously the fucking terrorists are bad.  But you can't call every Iraqi citizen a packie and a rag head because a lot of them just want to live in peace.  What if your dad, uncle or brother got shot by a white person in a gang somewhere?  Would you hate all white people and call them honkies and crackers?

Broderick

Posts : 984
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 05, 2007

Posted by Turdburgler
Posted by Broderick
The whole thing was a shinanagins from the beginning. Bush made the choice to invade Iraq, but he did not have to do such a thing. I notice that he did not ask any other leaders to speak to Saddam, and see if they could negociate but just rushed into battle. Frankly, not only has the so-called "War on Terror" been a total scam and waste of money, but it is really a "War of Terror" against the Muslims in Iraq. Bush wants the oil, and the money that will come from the oil, to help pay off the huge debts the USA has wracked up in all their military campaigns and investments. Also, Iraq would be the perfect pigeonhole to keep an eye on Iran, clearly one of the biggest threats to Bush's "democracy". However different, both the leaders of Iran and the USA are mere puppets, controlled by heavy committies from the right wing. Bush perhaps has somewhat of his own agenda but is also playing the fool for higher powers that be. The same goes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is not really voicing his own radical opinions, but those who pull his strings. Therefore, neither carry much significance because they don't effectually "run the country". Their only use is to be a face, plastered on posters celebrating each their own holy wars. There is nothing, nothing that Bush would love more than to keep his troops in Iraq. He does not want the people of Iraq to be "free" he wants him to surrender power to him so that he can maintain control over their oil wells. Herein lies the rub. Bush wants oil. NOT the freedom of the Iraqis whom he brutally invaded but oil. He needs to keep "his" fluttery nation afloat and by doing so he needs oil. Only a few short weeks ago did the USA government finally admit to there being any global warming. Still, the true meaning will not dawn upon them until it is too late. After all, it is not really Bush's nation, but the nation of those who control him! The war in Iraq is just another sign of the long arms of the puppeteer, not the puppet itself. 
 
cmon now, how can you know all that?
 
Also if you will look strait above me you will notice that Stewart H has reached 1000 posts. Good work

[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:44 PM]
[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:45 PM]

Because, if you actually listen to his speeches and hear the message, it comes in pretty loud and clear that that's what he really wants. He's not expecting the general populace to "get it" so he doesn't diguise it any better.  
Let's go flying....
Neither of us will fall!


paolosmythe
"Unemployed sulker"

Posts : 7120
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 17, 2007

freeryder's hate blinds him from the truth and makes him look a moron.
 
the war in irak is a mere business venture for the white american elite, who profit by sending out the sons and fathers of the working classes into harms way
 
there was no reason for the war in irak and as such, there was no reason for anyone, least of all 600 000 irakis to be killed.
 
brain dead scumbags would look to blame those who they are told are 'terrorists', because that is easier to live with instead of realising the blame for this entire mess could and should be aimed at the Whitehouse.
 
simple!
STICK OPPOSITION MOVEMENT
If you want to act 'serious',
then become a skier!


Slater.Reid

Posts : 150
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 26, 2007

Posted by Turdburgler
Posted by Broderick
The whole thing was a shinanagins from the beginning. Bush made the choice to invade Iraq, but he did not have to do such a thing. I notice that he did not ask any other leaders to speak to Saddam, and see if they could negociate but just rushed into battle. Frankly, not only has the so-called "War on Terror" been a total scam and waste of money, but it is really a "War of Terror" against the Muslims in Iraq. Bush wants the oil, and the money that will come from the oil, to help pay off the huge debts the USA has wracked up in all their military campaigns and investments. Also, Iraq would be the perfect pigeonhole to keep an eye on Iran, clearly one of the biggest threats to Bush's "democracy". However different, both the leaders of Iran and the USA are mere puppets, controlled by heavy committies from the right wing. Bush perhaps has somewhat of his own agenda but is also playing the fool for higher powers that be. The same goes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is not really voicing his own radical opinions, but those who pull his strings. Therefore, neither carry much significance because they don't effectually "run the country". Their only use is to be a face, plastered on posters celebrating each their own holy wars. There is nothing, nothing that Bush would love more than to keep his troops in Iraq. He does not want the people of Iraq to be "free" he wants him to surrender power to him so that he can maintain control over their oil wells. Herein lies the rub. Bush wants oil. NOT the freedom of the Iraqis whom he brutally invaded but oil. He needs to keep "his" fluttery nation afloat and by doing so he needs oil. Only a few short weeks ago did the USA government finally admit to there being any global warming. Still, the true meaning will not dawn upon them until it is too late. After all, it is not really Bush's nation, but the nation of those who control him! The war in Iraq is just another sign of the long arms of the puppeteer, not the puppet itself. 
 
cmon now, how can you know all that?
 
Also if you will look strait above me you will notice that Stewart H has reached 1000 posts. Good work

[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:44 PM]
[Edited by Turdburgler on 1/4/2007 at 11:45 PM]

yea dude cmon how can you know all that stuff

liam_17

Posts : 2
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 27, 2007

LOOK I AM IN THE BRITIHS ARMY I CAME FROM IRAQ LAST WEEK IT IS SUCH A HELL HOLE I WISH I WAS NOT THERE BUT I HAD TO BE I AM A SGT IN THE ARMY I AM DOING MY JOB MY MATE GOT KILLED SAVING MY LIFE

Lars_is_Crazy

Posts : 35
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 27, 2007

^dude, that majorly sucks. my condolences on the death of your buddy though 
im so gonna come and give you crazy cooties


liam_17

Posts : 2
OFFLINE

Posted on Jan 27, 2007

i got shoot in the arm my jeep got liftted of the floor i dont like killing people but it my job


doen

Posts : 45
ONLINE

Posted on Jan 28, 2007

You've really been there and you are a soldier yourself so what do you believe is bush's true goal in Iraq?

Nobax

Posts : 2
ONLINE

Posted on Apr 07, 2007

this is how i and my politicalparty thinks about the war in iraq
 

Senate: SP consults other political groups over parliamentary enquiry into Iraq

April 4th, 2007 • The SP's Senators will shortly consult Senators from other political groups on the possibility and desirability of holding a parliamentary enquiry into Dutch involvement in the war in Iraq. This was announced, during the debate on the agreement which formed the basis for the new coalition government, by Tiny Kox, who chairs the SP's group in the Senate. Premier Balkenende neither discounted nor encouraged the proposal.

Now that Parliament's main legislative chamber, the 'Tweede Kamer', has allowed its hands to be tied and will conduct no such enquiry, it would be a positive step if the Senate were for the first time in history to make use of its constitutional right to conduct independent parliamentary enquiries, Senator Kox contended. Whether an enquiry will actually take place, it's too early to say. The SP is seeking talks in the short term with other groups in order to examine whether or not they share its view or could be persuaded to do so.

Although Christian Democrat chair Jos Werner would rather no such enquiry took place, he promised to look seriously at the SP's proposal. The Labour (PvdA) group does not reject the proposed enquiry out of hand, but doesn't believe that a majority will be in favour, arguing that first must be held a comprehensive debate in the Senate on the future involvement of the Netherlands in military interventions. As PvdA chair Han Nooten sees it, this would also involve looking at the past: 'There could also be questions put which could be put on the agenda by means other than a parliamentary enquiry,’ he said. The Green Left group and the small centrist liberal party D66 are in favour of a parliamentary enquiry, while the right-wing liberals of the VVD are, as things stand, against. Shortly, however, the configuration of the Senate will change. The Netherlands' upper house – the 'First Chamber', to translate its name literally, though it is also popularly known as the Senate - is indirectly elected. Provincial councillors, themselves elected last month, will soon vote on its composition. The vote, however, is a formality, it being already known that the two right-wing parties - CDA and VVD – will no longer enjoy a majority, while the SP will see its membership triple, to twelve out of a total of seventy-five Senators in all.

Minister-President (Prime Minister) Balkenende recognised in his answer to questions put by the SP that the Senate has indeed an independent constitutional right to launch a parliamentary enquiry and promised that the government would respect any decision the upper house might take in relation to this. Just because the governing parties' representatives in the lower house are preventing it from holding such an enquiry, this should not stop the Senate from holding its own, the Premier stated, though he would rather it directed its energies towards the future than the past.


spyderballer8

Posts : 1
ONLINE

Posted on Apr 27, 2007

 

[Edited by spyderballer8 on 4/27/2007 at 10:01 PM]

anti-bling

Posts : 1027
ONLINE

Posted on May 18, 2007

Posted by Freeryder89
prejudice eh! i dont think you would be saying that if your brother,dad or uncle were in war in iraq and blown to a million fuckin pieces by one of them rag heads. yea sure i hate east indian or packies i dont give a fuck thoe back in the summer they got full health plans and $100000 from the government to start a new life in canada,i work 2 jobs and both of them i pay taxes and now do you think i like working for some mother fucking stinky ass packie so he can just sit on his ass and not work for anything
 
1)If one of my family memebers were blown up in Iraq, i would first be pissed at the government that put my family members in dander over there there for no good reason. They are in somebody else's country, there had better be a good reason for it.
 
2)if you are paying taxes to support other people that you don't feel we should, that is another complaint you should file with the government, if what you are saying is fully true.
Don't tell me that if you lived in a poor country, and a rich one like Canada gave you that kind of incentive that you would not do the same thing for you and your family.
 
3)Do yourself and whatever children you might spawn a favor and travel to another country for a bit. It might help you realize that people all over are more similar than they are different.
 
 
My dandy voice makes the most anti-choice grannies' panies moist!


22 posts

Problems, Comments, Suggestions

About |  Advertise |  Jobs |  Community Index |  Email |  FAQ |  Terms
Copyright ©2004 Colonies.com