Reply
Thu 26 Oct, 2006 05:59 am
IMHO all the rhetoric, press conferences, discussions, arguments over whether the GOP'd has been crippled...bla bla bla, clouds everyone to what I think is and has been the reality of our Iraq engagement and here it is "We will leave Iraq when our own, and our friends and supporters in the private business sector, have milked every profit possible out of Iraq and implemented policies and strategies to continue to milk profits from it for many years to come"
And at the well known end of the well known day, that's our real Iraq policy and it is a HUGE success.
And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The military said on Thursday five more American troops were killed in
Iraq, bringing the U.S. death toll for October to 96, as
President George W. Bush sought to deflect mounting election-year pressure over the war.
With less than two weeks before November 7 polls in which his Republican party risks losing control of Congress, Bush said on Wednesday American patience over Iraq had its limits but pledged not to put unbearable pressure on Iraqi leaders.
"We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their country. We're making it clear that American patience is not unlimited," Bush told a White House news conference.
Voter discontent driven by growing U.S. casualties and spiraling sectarian violence in Iraq have become top issues ahead of the elections, and have prompted calls among some Democrats and other critics to start withdrawing the 140,000 troops still in Iraq more than three years after the invasion.
Despite pressure to review his policy, Bush insisted the United States was committed to Iraq "until the job is done," but said he would adjust tactics to confront a changing enemy.
As the Iraq debate heats up, October has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the past 12 months. Some 107 troops were killed in January 2005. The deadliest month in the war was Nov 2004, when 137 troops died.
Richard Nixon
Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor. In my addresses to the Nation from this room of January 25 and May 8, [1972] I set forth the goals that we considered essential for peace with honor.
In the settlement that has now been agreed to, all the conditions that I laid down then have been met. A cease-fire, internationally supervised, will begin at 7 p.m., this Saturday, January 27, Washington time. Within 60 days from this Saturday, all Americans held prisoners of war throughout Indochina will be released. There will be the fullest possible accounting for all of those who are missing in action.
Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
With real congressional oversight we could see how real it possibly is.
US corporations getting huge no bid contracts, taking the money and not providing what they were supposed to. Whether it was a conspiracy or not, it seems to have been the reality in far too many cases.
Dys
Is "until the job is done" and same as "stay the course"?
BBB
Iraq is the same as N. Korea, China and other areas that are not Americanized "enough". They represent huge untapped markets for either selling consumer goods or to move in and capitalize on their natural resources.
An American friendly government in Iraq will not only facilitate the Americanization of Iraq, but will surely guarantee movement of American firms into the business of oil exploration and exploitation.
Some cost overruns.
More on cost overruns
Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
this is not a conspiracy...it is a fact of life.....an ongoing reality....I don't need to be a weatherman to see when it's raining....
Weathermen....now there's a conspiracy.
They work in conjunction with the travel and fuel industries....and have a direct affect on travel and gas prices. :wink:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
this is not a conspiracy...it is a fact of life.....an ongoing reality....I don't need to be a weatherman to see when it's raining....
In my opinion, the invasion was motivated by the fear of what Saddam Hussein might still be doing with WMD development programs and nothing else. I doubt you could provide a particle of proof that the invasion or occupation is significantly motivated by business considerations. In essence, this is just something you've asserted without a scrap of evidence that it's so. This is not a scientific or logical way of determining truth.
parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
With real congressional oversight we could see how real it possibly is.
US corporations getting huge no bid contracts, taking the money and not providing what they were supposed to. Whether it was a conspiracy or not, it seems to have been the reality in far too many cases.
Your theories are pretty safe as long as you speak only in generalities, and give no specific examples that can be examined.
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
this is not a conspiracy...it is a fact of life.....an ongoing reality....I don't need to be a weatherman to see when it's raining....
In my opinion, the invasion was motivated by the fear of what Saddam Hussein might still be doing with WMD development programs and nothing else. I doubt you could provide a particle of proof that the invasion or occupation is significantly motivated by business considerations. In essence, this is just something you've asserted without a scrap of evidence that it's so. This is not a scientific or logical way of determining truth.
and the beautiful thing about your paranoid delusion is that it requires not a shred of proof and although false is almost impossible to disprove....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
this is not a conspiracy...it is a fact of life.....an ongoing reality....I don't need to be a weatherman to see when it's raining....
In my opinion, the invasion was motivated by the fear of what Saddam Hussein might still be doing with WMD development programs and nothing else. I doubt you could provide a particle of proof that the invasion or occupation is significantly motivated by business considerations. In essence, this is just something you've asserted without a scrap of evidence that it's so. This is not a scientific or logical way of determining truth.
and the beautiful thing about your paranoid delusion is that it requires not a shred of proof and although false is almost impossible to disprove....
So...me being wrong somehow makes you right.....
naahhh..me being wrong or right has no bearing on you usually being wrong....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:naahhh..me being wrong or right has no bearing on you usually being wrong....
So, unable to defend your thesis, you once again revert to comments about the posters who challenge you.
Nothing about me changes the fact that you are simply stating unsubstantiated speculation. And anyway, indeed there is some evidence that my theory of the motivation of the war is correct. Bush repeatedly stated before, during, and after the invasion that the motivation was based on fear of Iraqi WMD or WMD development programs, and a lot of energy was devoted to looking for them. Now, what's your evidence that the motivation for the war was and continues to be business profits?
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:naahhh..me being wrong or right has no bearing on you usually being wrong....
So, unable to defend your thesis, you once again revert to comments about the posters who challenge you.
Nothing about me changes the fact that you are simply stating unsubstantiated speculation. And anyway, indeed there is some evidence that my theory of the motivation of the war is correct. Bush repeatedly stated before, during, and after the invasion that the motivation was based on fear of Iraqi WMD or WMD development programs, and a lot of energy was devoted to looking for them. Now, what's your evidence that the motivation for the war was and continues to be business profits?
because they are huge and all seem to go to cronies of the bush/cheney inner circle and large campaign contributors?
Brandon9000 wrote: This is not a scientific or logical way of determining truth.
What scientific or logical methods were employed in ascertaining the truth about Saddam's alleged WMD program....other than paranoid delusions?
What scientific or logical evidence was provided about the WMD program following the invasion other than the paranoid delusion that "they must have been moved to Syria"?
Brandon9000 wrote:parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the beautiful think about this conspiracy theory is that it requires not a shred of proof, and, although false, is almost impossible to disprove.
With real congressional oversight we could see how real it possibly is.
US corporations getting huge no bid contracts, taking the money and not providing what they were supposed to. Whether it was a conspiracy or not, it seems to have been the reality in far too many cases.
Your theories are pretty safe as long as you speak only in generalities, and give no specific examples that can be examined.
Lets start with the Police academy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006092702134
Then we can go here
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/iraq-n19.shtml
Or how about this from the CSMonitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html
Nah, nothing specific in any of those cases. Can't possibly be any problems with no bid contracts in Iraq. Lets all pretend everything is OK. Isn't life grand. George Bush is a GOD.
candidone1 wrote:Brandon9000 wrote: This is not a scientific or logical way of determining truth.
What scientific or logical methods were employed in ascertaining the truth about Saddam's alleged WMD program....other than paranoid delusions?
What scientific or logical evidence was provided about the WMD program following the invasion other than the paranoid delusion that "they must have been moved to Syria"?
Sorry, the subject was this: This crap about Bush being motivated in the war by profits for business has not one single, solitary fact to support it. Whether some other argument is right or wrong has no bearing. If there is some evidence to suppport that viewpoint you need only present a few scraps of it. When you hate someone, as you hate Bush, one can always make charges without proof. I could say that you kill widows and orphans for fun, but unless I present evidence, it's a worthless accusation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace