1
   

Is Baghdad Essential?

 
 
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 03:20 am
The Bush and Blair Regimes are both now saying the war may last far longer than originally suggested, preparing the public for months or even years of war and profit for Presidential supporters, at a very real cost to U.S. and British taxpayers of billions of dollars.

Since the hidden agenda has never been the welfare of any Iraqi, BUT OIL, so long as the oil fields and the rest of Iraq can be captured by allied forces, without too many body bags, and the oil reserves looted by Bush and his friends, the invasion of Baghdad itself becomes far less of a priority and creates justification for not using the massive oil revenues for the rebuilding of Iraq or for the benefit of Iraqis not killed by bombs or disease.

All this nonsense about United Nations control of Iraq after the war ends is just that. Free U.N. aid will be welcome, but Bush and his backers will NEVER allow the revenues and profits out of their grasping hands.

Plus the added value of keeping the war in the headlines. Thus providing endless photo-opportunities for politicians and increased votes from those who think they are being patriotic.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 886 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2003 03:59 pm
In retrospect don't you think taking Baghdad was essential if only for the symbolism?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Baghdad Essential?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 05:17:02