2
   

Huh? Iraq Invaded Cause Saddam Killed 140 Villagers?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
What? Duped about what? You guys must be reading a different post.

Condi says that 9/11 was caused by al queada and that the US responded by first attacking al Quaeda and the Taliban, and instead of just stopping there, we declared a war on terror and Muslim extremism.

What does this have to do with the reasons we attacked Iraq?

Excellent question. We've been trying to make the connection between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq for over two years now.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:05 am
I'm amazed some people still haven't got it. We are entering the age of peak oil. Everything the US does in the middle east has to be put against the backdrop of oil. Weapons of mass destruction and suppressing terrorism are just convenient justifications for geopolitical action, the real driving force of which is oil.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:45 am
I am still awaiting the first Iraqi tanker full of that free iraqi oil...
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:28 am
White House sets up group to market war in Iraq in 2002: article

Quote:
www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-17 01:19:43

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- The White House set up, without announcement, a group to market a war in Iraq in August 2002, seven months before the March 2003 invasion, according to an article published by the New York Times on Sunday.

Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, and only one newspaper article or two have mentioned it in passing reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, said the article in the newspaper's opinion page.

The group had eight members, including Karl Rove, the top political adviser to President George W. Bush, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and then presidential security adviser Condoleezza Rice and others, and itsmission was to market a war in Iraq.

On July 23, 2002, a week or two before the WHIG first convened in earnest, a British official said that the Bush administration was ensuring that "the intelligence and facts" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "were being fixed around the policy" of going to war, said the article, written by columnist Frank Rick.

On Sept. 6, 2002, a few weeks after the WHIG first convened, Card alluded to the group's existence that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," the article noted.

The official introduction of that product began two day later, the article said. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, 2002, Rice warned that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam Hussein as "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."

Cheney cited as evidence a front-paged article, later debunked,about supposedly nefarious aluminium tubes in that morning's New York Times, the article said.
source


Humm, advertising techniques to market a war hey.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 10:27 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am still awaiting the first Iraqi tanker full of that free iraqi oil...


who said anything about free oil? If your comment was serious it illustrates my point about not getting it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 10:47 am
Steve, Isn't it interesting how these ignorant B's project things they don't understand into "free oil?" Almost like talking to some kid that has never learned to excercise maturity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 10:59 am
Does every comment you make have to resort to petty bickering C.I.? Cycloptichorn would think you were not so Buddhist based on your performance here...

Steve, I know you trust terrorists more than your own government, but I don't. You would rather see the Oil in the ground be in the hands of Saddam and his ilk, but they have proven time and again that they cannot handle the responsibility of it.

You say that "Weapons of mass destruction and suppressing terrorism are just convenient justifications for geopolitical action, the real driving force of which is oil." and I say that is complete BS. So we differ on our opinions, doesn't mean neither one of don't "get it". It means we have differing opinions.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 11:55 am
McGentrix wrote:


Steve, I know you trust terrorists more than your own government, but I don't. You would rather see the Oil in the ground be in the hands of Saddam and his ilk, but they have proven time and again that they cannot handle the responsibility of it.



This is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 12:10 pm
What you say proves otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 03:45 pm
I said it was nonsense because it makes no sense, to me at least.

Lets start from basics, what percentage of America's daily oil requirement is imported?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 03:51 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What? Duped about what? You guys must be reading a different post.

Condi says that 9/11 was caused by al queada and that the US responded by first attacking al Quaeda and the Taliban, and instead of just stopping there, we declared a war on terror and Muslim extremism.

What does this have to do with the reasons we attacked Iraq?

Excellent question. We've been trying to make the connection between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq for over two years now.

Not really. Who has? A few people, I suppose. Most of us have not been trying to do anything of the kind. We have two problems, the Islamic extremist terrorist movement, and the spread of weapons technology. Why do they have to be related?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:12 pm
Your masters' war is a f**k up and so is he. Only the extreme right wing mouth breathers still support this idiot and his policies. That's the bitter truth for you guys.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:23 pm
They keep supporting this idiot that got us into this mess, while the majority of Americans now understand we had no business attacking Iraq in the first place. Their support of this idiot of a president is more freightening than what has happened, because they don't understand foreign policy or the reaction by the rest of the world.

This administration deminished the UN before our preemptive attack, because they didn't get what they wanted. It's a different story now, but the supporters of Bushco can't see the incompetence in everything they've accomplished; a quagmire without any end in sight that will continue to cost the men and women in uniform and $5 billion every month.

To add insult to injury, this administration continues to cut veteran's benefits.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:09 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Not really. Who has? A few people, I suppose. Most of us have not been trying to do anything of the kind.

You need to tell the members of the Bush administration -- they obviously didn't get the memo.

Brandon9000 wrote:
We have two problems, the Islamic extremist terrorist movement, and the spread of weapons technology. Why do they have to be related?

Because Iraq is the centralfront in the war on terror.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 12:22 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Your masters' war is a f**k up and so is he. Only the extreme right wing mouth breathers still support this idiot and his policies. That's the bitter truth for you guys.

Stated without an argument as usual. It's kind of funny that the people "in the right" are so afraid of supporting anything they believe or opposing with actual argument what they don't believe. If I argued like you do, I would just say, "Everyone knows you're wrong," as though that settled something.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 12:24 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Not really. Who has? A few people, I suppose. Most of us have not been trying to do anything of the kind.

You need to tell the members of the Bush administration -- they obviously didn't get the memo.

Brandon9000 wrote:
We have two problems, the Islamic extremist terrorist movement, and the spread of weapons technology. Why do they have to be related?

Because Iraq is the centralfront in the war on terror.

Well now it actually might be, since the terrorists seem to see Iraq as something of a last stand.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 01:11 pm
Terrorists reside in places all over the world. That's the reason why we've had bombings in MOrocco, Spain, England, Philippines, and Bali.

Your view of terrorism is myopic at best, ignorant at worst.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2005 08:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Well now it actually might be, since the terrorists seem to see Iraq as something of a last stand.

But, of course, making Iraq the central front in the war on terror was not one of the reasons we invaded.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2005 09:14 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Well now it actually might be, since the terrorists seem to see Iraq as something of a last stand.

But, of course, making Iraq the central front in the war on terror was not one of the reasons we invaded.

No, the reason oft stated by the president was to absolutely resolve for good the issue of WMD in Iraq, which we did.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2005 09:24 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, the reason oft stated by the president was to absolutely resolve for good the issue of WMD in Iraq, which we did.

Which leaves us still wondering what the connection was between terrorism and the invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:03:34