RI Bills Fan Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 We all know that the real reason for the invasion was to take those WMD's away from Saddam before he could give them to his nasty Terrorist Buddies. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course when no WMD's were found, the reason for the invasion became Freeing the Iraqi People from the bloodthirsty, savage, and inhumane rule of Saddam and Sons. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course it's always been about fighting them nasty terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And bringing democracy to the poor oppressed people of Iraq is a good thing to do. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And keeping the country of Iraq united, instead of divided into three separate nations, is in their best interests, not ours. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And putting more troops on the ground to suppress the Sunni Rebellion, which many mistakenly believe to be a civil war, is the best possible course of action at this point in time. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... So why am in not surprised by this development?
RkFast Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 We all know that the real reason for the invasion was to take those WMD's away from Saddam before he could give them to his nasty Terrorist Buddies. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course when no WMD's were found, the reason for the invasion became Freeing the Iraqi People from the bloodthirsty, savage, and inhumane rule of Saddam and Sons. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And of course it's always been about fighting them nasty terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And bringing democracy to the poor oppressed people of Iraq is a good thing to do. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And keeping the country of Iraq united, instead of divided into three separate nations, is in their best interests, not ours. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... And putting more troops on the ground to suppress the Sunni Rebellion, which many mistakenly believe to be a civil war, is the best possible course of action at this point in time. Oil Rights had nothing to do with that... So why am in not surprised by this development? So the US looking to strenghten its postion in the world oil market....BAAAAAAAD. BUT....."New" industrial countries like China have an energy and pollution control policy that comes right out of 1955......NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BillsFanNC Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 And of course when no WMD's were found, the reason for the invasion became Freeing the Iraqi People from the bloodthirsty, savage, and inhumane rule of Saddam and Sons. Wrong. President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. Link
molson_golden2002 Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 So the US looking to strenghten its postion in the world oil market....BAAAAAAAD. BUT....."New" industrial countries like China have an energy and pollution control policy that comes right out of 1955......NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Bush launched a war just for oil you wouldn't see that as bad? Maybe if the taking of the oil was designed to flood the oil markets to weaken Iran and Russia there may be some merit in some way to it, but that's debateable. I don't think it was just about oil, but it was a factor. It's obvious Bush had personal and political motives for attacking Iraq. He wanted to play war president and be a liberator. What fun! The revenge for 9-11 factor was real big, IMO. Yes, Iraq was not responsible but the ignorant American public didn't know that. The Israeli lobby got what it wanted, I think. No way in hell they wanted a stable democracy with oil revenue and a population that hated Israel. No way. I think they wanted what they got, a failed state that will not be a threat to them.
PastaJoe Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 "And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Take away the words that the administration kept emphasizing and there never would have been support for the invasion, which is how they scared enough of the public into supporting their policy.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 9, 2007 Author Posted January 9, 2007 So the US looking to strenghten its postion in the world oil market....BAAAAAAAD. BUT....."New" industrial countries like China have an energy and pollution control policy that comes right out of 1955......NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ExxonMobil, BP, et al, are the USofA? Interesting Viewpoint! It explains a lot. And bringing China into the discussion proves what? That you're completely comfortable using obfuscation tactics to derail any meaningful debate?
BillsFanNC Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 "And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Take away the words that the administration kept emphasizing and there never would have been support for the invasion, which is how they scared enough of the public into supporting their policy. Spin it however you wish. The fact is that the reasons were clearly stated before and during the early days of the invasion and were not changed only after WMD's weren't found as liberals would like us to believe.
molson_golden2002 Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Spin it however you wish. The fact is that the reasons were clearly stated before and during the early days of the invasion and were not changed only after WMD's weren't found as liberals would like us to believe. Yup, clearly stated to the 80% of Americans who believed Saddam had done 9-11. Yup, real clear! Now where did Americans get an idea like that?
RkFast Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 ExxonMobil, BP, et al, are the USofA? Interesting Viewpoint! It explains a lot. Your typical "viewpoint" is the ususal "No blood for oil" bull sh--. So "", yourself. And bringing China into the discussion proves what? That you're completely comfortable using obfuscation tactics to derail any meaningful debate? It proves that I can poke holes in your other typical talking point "America bad!!!" can be put down in three seconds flat.
RkFast Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 If Bush launched a war just for oil you wouldn't see that as bad?Remember what happenned in 1989? Maybe if the taking of the oil was designed to flood the oil markets to weaken Iran and Russia there may be some merit in some way to it, but that's debateable. "Hey!!! The US is NOT ALLOWED to do things to strenghten its position in world markets!!!!" I don't think it was just about oil, but it was a factor.Ya mean trying to wrestle control of a HUGE percentage of the worlds crucial oil supply from a thuggish dictator had something to do with this???!!!???? Ya dont say! It's obvious Bush had personal and political motives for attacking Iraq. A war was started for POLITICAL REASONS????!!!????? Like....NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He wanted to play war president and be a liberator. What fun! The revenge for 9-11 factor was real big, IMO.Lemme guess..."Bush did 9/11." Am I close? Yes, Iraq was not responsible but the ignorant American public didn't know that. I havent seen ONE PERSON ALIVE say "Hussein did 9/11." Have you? The Israeli lobby got what it wanted, I think. No way in hell they wanted a stable democracy with oil revenue and a population that hated Israel. No way. I think they wanted what they got, a failed state that will not be a threat to them. Ah yes...when all else fails "BLAME THE JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" So lets recap.....Ya got "No Blood for Oil", "Bush did 9/11", "America Bad", and "The Jews did it." Why not just throw in a "Halliburton" and a "racism!!!" and youll have ALL your libitard bases covered!!!!!
RI Bills Fan Posted January 9, 2007 Author Posted January 9, 2007 Your typical "viewpoint" is the ususal "No blood for oil" bull sh--. So "", yourself.It proves that I can poke holes in your other typical talking point "America bad!!!" can be put down in three seconds flat. To Quote Dependent Smurf: Lemming! When you understand the difference between pointing out that certain actions may have been undertaken by certain elected officials with far less regard for our Great Nation's safety and security than we were initially led to believe, and blaming our Great Nation Itself for anything, at any time, and under any circumstances, please let those of us capable of independent thought know. Until then please confine your comments to the children's table (any statistics thread).
BillsFanNC Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Yup, clearly stated to the 80% of Americans who believed Saddam had done 9-11. Yup, real clear! Now where did Americans get an idea like that? Keep spinning.
Alaska Darin Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Yup, clearly stated to the 80% of Americans who believed Saddam had done 9-11. Yup, real clear! Now where did Americans get an idea like that? I thought the media wasn't that powerful?
RkFast Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 To Quote Dependent Smurf: Lemming! When you understand the difference between pointing out that certain actions may have been undertaken by certain elected officials with far less regard for our Great Nation's safety and security than we were initially led to believe, and blaming our Great Nation Itself for anything, at any time, and under any circumstances, please let those of us capable of independent thought know. Until then please confine your comments to the children's table (any statistics thread). Gee..now how can ANYONE DARE think that leftards like you are elitist? "Independent thought", my ass. My WHOLE point, that seems to have escaped you so far, is that this whole !@#$ing topic is about nothing more than regurgitation of leftard talking points and making ANY article or new item fit into neat categories for each of them.
molson_golden2002 Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I thought the media wasn't that powerful? We were talking about foreign affairs and the media's affect on Iraqis. I said it pailed compared to local sources, here is a nice story on that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16497895/site/newsweek/ In domestic politics, especially during the hysteria created by 9-11, the President's bully pulpit was not challanged by the media here which gave him wide powers to say whatever he wanted.
molson_golden2002 Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Remember what happenned in 1989?"Hey!!! The US is NOT ALLOWED to do things to strenghten its position in world markets!!!!" Ya mean trying to wrestle control of a HUGE percentage of the worlds crucial oil supply from a thuggish dictator had something to do with this???!!!???? Ya dont say! A war was started for POLITICAL REASONS????!!!????? Like....NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lemme guess..."Bush did 9/11." Am I close? I havent seen ONE PERSON ALIVE say "Hussein did 9/11." Have you? Ah yes...when all else fails "BLAME THE JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" So lets recap.....Ya got "No Blood for Oil", "Bush did 9/11", "America Bad", and "The Jews did it." Why not just throw in a "Halliburton" and a "racism!!!" and youll have ALL your libitard bases covered!!!!! Bush did 9-11? Only someone who thinks the guy is competent enough to run a 7-11 would think the guy could pull off 9-11, and I wouldn't hire Bush to run anything. And thanks for calling me anti-semite. Sort of proves a fact, that the Israelis have made it difficult to criticize their foreign policy without being screamed at for anti-semitism. Nice advantage to have, really. And I guess you missed your vice president linking Saddam to 9-11? You really never heard about that and his infamous declaration that it might have happened even if there is no evidence, "It can't be disproven" he said.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 10, 2007 Author Posted January 10, 2007 Gee..now how can ANYONE DARE think that leftards like you are elitist? "Independent thought", my ass. My WHOLE point, that seems to have escaped you so far, is that this whole !@#$ing topic is about nothing more than regurgitation of leftard talking points and making ANY article or new item fit into neat categories for each of them. Do you have any clue as to what I was talking about when I started this thread? Here are a few articles for you to read: Iraq Oil Rights Law Kurd Reaction The evil liberal media in this country isn't paying much (if any) attention to these developments, so you may not have heard about them. But the conservative think tanks in Washington are certainly paying close attention and have already gotten their spin machines into operation. Selling Iraqi Oil Rights to the Highest Bidder is NECESSARY to fight Terrorism: Iraq Oil Economy Oh, and by the way, according to them that will also greatly benefit the average Iraqi Family. Didn't Dick Cheney once say that the Liberation of Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi Oil Profits? Does that mean that when this goes through the winning bidder picks up the tab for the Iraq War? I thought not...
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Virtually every war fought in the last century was about oil. Do any of you people actually know anything, or are you just going to continue regurgitating the same crap that your political parties feed you?
Orton's Arm Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 If Bush launched a war just for oil you wouldn't see that as bad? Maybe if the taking of the oil was designed to flood the oil markets to weaken Iran and Russia there may be some merit in some way to it, but that's debateable. I don't think it was just about oil, but it was a factor. It's obvious Bush had personal and political motives for attacking Iraq. He wanted to play war president and be a liberator. What fun! The revenge for 9-11 factor was real big, IMO. Yes, Iraq was not responsible but the ignorant American public didn't know that. The Israeli lobby got what it wanted, I think. No way in hell they wanted a stable democracy with oil revenue and a population that hated Israel. No way. I think they wanted what they got, a failed state that will not be a threat to them. I'm about as far from being a liberal as you can get, but I can't simply dismiss this post out of hand. It's clear the Iraq war did nothing to advance the interests of the American nation as a whole. To some extent the war is probably due to Bush's incompetence leading him to mistakenly believe the war would advance American interests. But you also have to consider the role special interest groups may have played in urging him on. Any group which received material benefit from the war--be it the Israeli lobby or companies that received large Iraqi-related contracts--probably lobbied to have the war take place.
RI Bills Fan Posted January 10, 2007 Author Posted January 10, 2007 Virtually every war fought in the last century was about oil. Do any of you people actually know anything, or are you just going to continue regurgitating the same crap that your political parties feed you? WWI & WWII were about OIL? (England has some, mostly at sea, but I failed to notice where the vast reserves in western europe are) Korea was about OIL? (Kim Ill Suck must have misplaced those vast reserves) Vietnam was about OIL? (And all this time I thought it was about a game of Global Dominoes) Smurf Boy, your inane responses continue to amaze me but this one is the best yet. And to top it off you actually have the nerve to tell me to go look it up! Try proving that the junk you spew is correct for once. Common smurf, it'll be a novelty. Just think, it would be the first time you ever backed up any of your blatherings with a fact. But that would require thought and effort on your part, so I'll just assume you'll start hurling insults and innuendo instead. After all, that is what you do best.
Recommended Posts