PocketMatrix

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html

Anyone hear about this? I couldn't find the full text of the letter in question. Were we smoking something special when we decided to go to war? How do you all feel about the war now that we have about a 1,000 dead and several times more wounded (missing arms, legs, burnt bodies, etc)?

How do you feel about trading the lives of American soldiers for oil?

Ooh, nice bait there Brig.

I thought you were more intelligent than to go for the whole NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!! argument. And, if the worldwide economy isn't worth 1000 lives I don't know what is. Does anyone have any idea what a crash in the oil markets would cause, whether it be from countries cutting us off, or anything? You thought the depression was bad? It'd be nothing.

Wait wait wait here sponge. The biggest argument against the fact that we went into Iraq for oil (please notice, Warmi, I am not saying that we did go in for oil) is that we barely get any oil from Iraq. If that’s the truth who gives a shit whether Sadam Hussein had cut off his oil or not.

Agreed, though the damn hippies preach no blood for oil. Yet, if there is no blood for oil, we'd be knocked into a massive global depression as soon as a Middle Eastern country attack each other/decide not to export.

Basically, if they say no blood for oil in Iraq, they're wrong, because we don't get much oil from Iraq, and even if we did, it'd still be a worthwhile cause. They're wrong in their magical fantasy world, and in the real world.

It's probably a bit hard to follow that, but basically, no matter what the truth is, the hippies are wrong.

"Were we smoking something special when we decided to go to war? How do you all feel about the war now that we have about a 1,000 dead and several times more wounded (missing arms, legs, burnt bodies, etc)?"

US has never fought purely defensive war and thus one could say the very same thing about WW2 or frankly any other war.
Just replace 1000 dead with 300 000 dead and you are all set.