Reply
Sun 20 Nov, 2005 04:34 am
It just occurred to me, since we had already accomplished our mission in Iraq by getting rid of saddam, and the President can't come up with a good reason for us to still be there, and considering that our presence there is only making matters worse. Could it be that our armed forces are only there to provide security for Halliburton? If we pulled out armed forces out, Halliburton wouldn't be able to stay there. Think about the massive amount money that they would loose if they had to leave?
So then, now we have Bush dedicating our military to the dispose of a major corporation. That has to be illegal, if not it should be.
If you do your research, you will find that Halliburton's defense contracts are much less profitable than their other business and that their defense business doubled under Clinton, not Bush. Your point could be valid, but were you here accusing Clinton of simply protecting Halliburton in Bosnia?
As I recall in a paper an Iraqi woman said they have done what they came to do but now they are still here for THEIR own reasons.
"An Iraqi woman?" That evidence is at least as good as "an American woman" saying the aliens caused the hurricanes in order to take over the world. Keep asking people for opinions until you get the one that fits the story you want to write, or the story you recall that was some paper, somewhere, sometime.
I think that if she had said she wanted the troops to stay you would find her a very credible source.
AliceInWonderland wrote:If you do your research
Thanks for doing my research for me... And we aren't talking about Clinton. For once can a conservative argue without bringing up clinton? Anyway, Bosnia was a different war and better executed. We didn't stick around for years after for no apparent reason. In the case of Iraq, what is a good reason for us to still be there? You won't be able to give me one good reason that can't be disputed, so there is no good reason.
Quote: That evidence is at least as good as "an American woman" saying the aliens caused the hurricanes in order to take over the world.
Actually, I heard it was Vladimir Putin and his evil weather machine.
I would have thought that the chief strategic reason why the US is still in Iraq is 'it's still got oil' and, more importantly 'there's every chance of it becoming an anti-us theocracy along the lines of Iran'.
redux - the US feared the domino effect from communism in SE Asia - now it fears something similar from Islam in the middle east.
I should also add the political fall out from a 'retreat' from Iraq without any objectives achieved (short of ousting Hussein) would be such face loser the GWB can't consider. Not because of his presidency is at risk (just three years to go) but his historical legacy, as he sees it, would be 'ashes in his mouth'.
hingehead wrote:I would have thought that the chief strategic reason why the US is still in Iraq is 'it's still got oil' and, more importantly 'there's every chance of it becoming an anti-us theocracy along the lines of Iran'.
redux - the US feared the domino effect from communism in SE Asia - now it fears something similar from Islam in the middle east.
We haven't seen any money from the oil yet. I thought it was about Oil too when the war first started. Bit if it was about oil, that mission is failing. And you're rite about it becoming another Iran. We may have been better off with Saddam still in power.
With Saddam gone there two evil choices - Sunni Taliban-like theocracy or Shiite Iran-like theocracy. GWB = George Watta Bummer.
America is a giant corporation with it's own military
roverroad wrote:
...In the case of Iraq, what is a good reason for us to still be there? You won't be able to give me one good reason that can't be disputed, so there is no good reason.
Obviously, anything can be disputed. The good reason for being there is to prevent Islamic extremists, against whom we are fighting a battle worldwide, from seizing Iraq by force, and to combat people who are so evil that they intentionally bomb civilians as the primary, intended target.
Brandon9000 wrote:to prevent Islamic extremists, against whom we are fighting a battle worldwide, from seizing Iraq by force, and to combat people who are so evil that they intentionally bomb civilians as the primary, intended target.
But Iraq had none of that before we went to war with them. So we have to stay there to prevent something that our presence is generating? How does that work?
roverroad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:to prevent Islamic extremists, against whom we are fighting a battle worldwide, from seizing Iraq by force, and to combat people who are so evil that they intentionally bomb civilians as the primary, intended target.
But Iraq had none of that before we went to war with them. So we have to stay there to prevent something that our presence is generating? How does that work?
All these right wing dudes seem to remember clintons blowjob like it happened yesterday but they can't seem to remember that Bush and his gang invited the taliban to texas and showed a real good time, American style. But thats back when they were still doing business trying to get that pipeline through Afganistan. Lunch with the enemy. On our own soil. Imagine that.
Only you don't have to imagine it because it's documented. Bush and the enemy have a long friendly history.
Amigo wrote:All these right wing dudes seem to remember clintons blowjob like it happened yesterday but they can't seem to remember that Bush and his gang invited the taliban to texas and showed a real good time, American style. But thats back when they were still doing business trying to get that pipeline through Afganistan. Lunch with the enemy. On our own soil. Imagine that.
Only you don't have to imagine it because it's documented. Bush and the enemy have a long friendly history.
Oh of course, they crumble and default to the Clinton argument because they sure can't argue on the basis of truth. We probably hadn't heard about any oil profits coming out of Iraq because it's probably a private deal to benefit the pocket books of Bush and his good ole boy buddies.
We all know Bush fabricates intelligence reports and that he's in bed with the saudis. That said, it was stupid for the Republicans to be thinking about this:
GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
Hmmmm....the "Churchill" syndrome, eh? Thatcher was over the moon when the Argies invaded the Falklands. It wasn't long to an election, and she almost jumped for joy when the fleet left for war, knowing that it would get all of us fluttering those little flags again.
Like Howard appealed to Orstralian worst side with the 'children overboard' manipulation and won an election.