BF2S Forums Would an invasion of Zimbabwe be justifiable?

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I thought it was all about oil. Which one has more oil?

Iraq is about oil.  Invading Iran is just about Zionism.  It's mostly the Zionists that are interested in invading Iran.

That is an extremely simple minded approach. If anything Iraq was about keeping Bush in office. At the time Republicans were seen as the stronger party on national defense. It's all about political posturing. The same reasons Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That is an extremely simple minded approach. If anything Iraq was about keeping Bush in office. At the time Republicans were seen as the stronger party on national defense. It's all about political posturing. The same reasons Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

Sure, posturing is part of the problem.  AIPAC is a big part too.

I think you know how I feel about Israeli charity..lol.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I think you know how I feel about Israeli charity..lol.

True...  It's just that, as PureFodder mentioned, the military industrial complex and the Zionists share the same interests in the Middle East.  They're the ones pushing things (along with Big Oil).

Zimbabwe is so far removed from all this that we don't generally give a shit.

I bet the military industrial complex wouldn't mind another conflict. The Zimbabwe situation is disturbing but it is not something that can be permanently fixed externally. I'd prefer we followed our Constitution here and worried about things that are a direct threat to the United States. To which I only see unsecured borders as a present threat.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I bet the military industrial complex wouldn't mind another conflict. The Zimbabwe situation is disturbing but it is not something that can be permanently fixed externally. I'd prefer we followed our Constitution here and worried about things that are a direct threat to the United States. To which I only see unsecured borders as a present threat.

Well yeah, but that also means leaving Iraq.

Yes it does.

Kmarion wrote:

I don't want to break your heart butttt... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2124049

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eh...  I like Obama, but this almost makes me want to vote for Nader.

You don't think it would be wise for a would be Commander in Chief to be briefed on the current situation before pledging his commitment to a huge decision like that? I think it's wise no matter what your current position is.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You don't think it would be wise for a would be Commander in Chief to be briefed on the current situation before pledging his commitment to a huge decision like that? I think it's wise no matter what your current position is.

True, but who made the decision to put in these bases?  Bush?

Congress.. they write the checks.

CameronPoe wrote:

jord wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

he just has a die-if-they-vote-for-someone-else fanbase.

That he does.

He probably did rig this one, or if he didn't then he sure did a good job of messing up a legitimate victory.

When I say probably I mean I'd bet my family on it.

He didn't rig it - the posted totals for all election centres clearly add up to a Tsvangirai victory of 50.3%. The corruption has come in the form of him demanding a run-off, which should only occur if one runner has less than 50%.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Interestingly there are now reports suggesting that Mugabe is powerless, and kept in place by the military as a useful figurehead.

Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:

no oil, no jews, etc., in general, no economical interests.
UN will let them rot, as usual.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Interestingly there are now reports suggesting that Mugabe is powerless, and kept in place by the military as a useful figurehead.