News What Were the Real Motives Behind the Iraq Invasion?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah...truth IS an incredible thing, isn't it? You should try it more often!

Yeah, righ. Truth. Heh. If I see any from you, I'll let you know.

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum?

Wrong, Zero. Tog covered most of this, but I'll reiterate. There has never been any evidence that there is a God. But the entire world has seen the evidence that there WERE WMD in Iraq at one time. Zero, I recommend you read http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/M32UNResolution1441.htm . I know you'll make me quote it, but it is quite clear that its intent was for Iraq to prove that they did NOT have any WMD.

How do you prove yopu destroyed something?

Several ways: documentation, openness, and cooperation for starters. But more to the point, it doesn't MATTER how. The UN resolution said they MUST, so they must.

And I KNOW we went over this a good dozen times during and before the war. I can't fault you too much for misunderstanding 1441, especially if you haven't read it, since it is consistently misrepresented by democratic politicians and the media.

TN, you just wrote one of the most informative responses
I've ever seen in this forum. I do not see why you should
answer such pathetic and directly insulting responses (that are
the only thing the guy's left with after your informative
and precise statements). Just let it go, so he could go bark
at somebody else.

Not to speak for him, but *I* respond to Zero for the benefit of the others in the forum (besides the obvious entertainment value). Us supporting T_N is enough for the causal viewers of this forum to give him some credibility. And I think most intelligent people see right through Zero - with a little help from posts like T_N's. The contrast between the level of their posts is clear

 

[schwarzchildradius]

..Not to speak for him, but *I* respond to Zero for the benefit of the others in the forum (besides the obvious entertainment value). Us supporting T_N is enough for the causal viewers of this forum to give him some credibility..

Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

Don't mind them...they are emulating their political heroes by ignoring truth at every turn.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

On the contrary, I find Zero to be the most entertaining part of this forum.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
On the contrary, I find Zero to be the most entertaining part of this forum.

It is sort of sad that you find truth to be amusing and entertaining. I think it is sad that your obvious intellect is so used to processing lies.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Drag and Russ,
Thank you. It is a pity that when truth is brought out and laid down on the table before them...liberals often still ignore it and continue to live in their own world.


Tog

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve
Drag and Russ,
Thank you. It is a pity that when truth is brought out and laid down on the table before them...liberals often still ignore it and continue to live in their own world.


Tog

First off, you don't even know what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean. Secondly, you wouldn't know political truth if it hit you in the face. Go ahead, keep spouting the talking points from the Republicans, and pretend they are true.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
First off, you don't even know what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean. Secondly, you wouldn't know political truth if it hit you in the face. Go ahead, keep spouting the talking points from the Republicans, and pretend they are true.

Well, at least he didn't answer with another totally
unrelated and directly insulting methaphor from the
religion forum. It seems that such extreme measures are
only employed when the level and credibility of
the posted info is really high like the previous time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Let's get this back on topic. Bush's administration portrayed Iraq as a clear and present danger to America, which had explicit involvement in 9-11, and had a vibrant, active WMD program that could have struck America within the weeks before the invasion.


Is any of that true?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
Well, at least he didn't answer with another totally
unrelated and directly insulting methaphor from the
religion forum. It seems that such extreme measures are
only employed when the level and credibility of
the posted info is really high like the previous time.

Let's get this back on topic.

He agrees!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Bush's administration portrayed Iraq as a clear and present danger to America, which had explicit involvement in 9-11, and had a vibrant, active WMD program that could have struck America within the weeks before the invasion.

That's what I remember happening. It was even alluded to in the "victory" speech. Something like "on 9-11 they declared war on us, and war is just what they recieved!" Just mindless war-mongering. One thing I'd like to know that's never covered in the news is, what are the details on Saddam's death camps? Truth is just obliterated in this whole situation. But the govmnt contractors are on schedule to re-engineer the infrastructure of Iraq.

Obviously the govmnt lied about Iraq's capabilities and compliance with UN resolutions. So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has triumphed over despotism.

Is the tyrant really dead?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's what I remember happening. It was even alluded to in the "victory" speech. Something like "on 9-11 they declared war on us, and war is just what they recieved!" Just mindless war-mongering. One thing I'd like to know that's never covered in the news is, what are the details on Saddam's death camps? Truth is just obliterated in this whole situation. But the govmnt contractors are on schedule to re-engineer the infrastructure of Iraq.

Obviously the govmnt lied about Iraq's capabilities and compliance with UN resolutions. So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has triumphed over despotism.

Is the tyrant really dead?

We'll never get answers so long as idiots insist that asking the questions is somehow unpatriotic.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has
triumphed over despotism.

+ The Iraqi people are free and have a chance to
establish a free democratic society (heopefully they
will, at least). The US has gained influence. The US
is going to benefit economicly (so that you'll still
be able to keep braging about high life-style and way
of life ). The threat and support of terrorist
organizations that Saddam provided across the middle
east is over. Good final results. Case closed.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve


No one is saying asking questions is unpatriotic...I don't even see anyone questioning your patriotism. Just people asking you to open your eyes and look at the entire situation. And you can ask the questions all day long...but be prepared for the answer and don't immediately assume that the answer you get is a lie...if you ask a question it should be so that you get an answer and you can objectively examine from there.

Tog

I was referring to the idiot media, who should be pursuing truth instead of accepting the lies that Bush hands out. Again, WHERE IS THE TRUTH? The truth is, WMD were never a concern. Oil was a concern, and imperial goals in the area, but I honestly believe that either Bush lied, or teh intel was cooked for political reasons. Either way, top heads should roll over the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Shadow]

That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?

The recount was in favotr or President Bush by a large margin. And at the time the Associated Press was still under President Clintons administration so you can not even say that President Bush arranged it. No, I get it off trustworthy websites, ABC, Fox, NBC, and PBS. Two of which are claerly democrat runned. Why where do you get your news? www.democrats.com?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow

That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?

The recount was in favotr or President Bush by a large margin. And at the time the Associated Press was still under President Clintons administration so you can not even say that President Bush arranged it. No, I get it off trustworthy websites, ABC, Fox, NBC, and PBS. Two of which are claerly democrat runned. Why where do you get your news? www.democrats.com?

LOL! Actually, when the recount was stopped, Gore was a mere 66 votes behind and gaining. There was no large margin, even with all the ways that Bush cheated.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

The issue of recounts is ultimately irrelevant, because the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, i.e., you could have another vote 1 day later with same people voting the same way and the president would be Gore. Ultimately its the Supreme court who has to decide a case like that, and they chose to certify the Harris (cringe) results. As sleazy as it is, McCain is on record saying it was constitutional. If anyone would like to check that, that'd be good.

The US has gained influence. The US is going to benefit economicly

I gravely doubt that. Unless by US you mean the crooks at the top of Worldcom/Bechtel and their ilk. Let's face it - Iraqi democracy is not only a lie, it's a fantasy. It's a way for crooked companies to launder money. We were successful at displaying power and toppling a severely weakened government, the last secular one in the region. Now if we can break OPEC, which will surely fall if Iraq is exporting oil at lower prices, there's a good chance that oil companies will make a hell of a lot of dough. Obviously, they are already more powerful than our own government, do you think they'll be fair to Iraqis?! Not!

 

[Tog_Neve]

I gravely doubt that. Unless by US you mean the crooks at the top of Worldcom/Bechtel and their ilk. Let's face it - Iraqi democracy is not only a lie, it's a fantasy. It's a way for crooked companies to launder money.

So let me ask why do you think it is a fantasy? We toppled governments in Germany, Japan, and Russia and look where Germany and Japan are now. Russia is starting to rebound now and is able to show its face again. It is not a fantasy and it can become a reality. However the people have to be willing to accept it. And most will. Most are like us here in the states...as long as we are safe and our family is safe and we can provide for our family then the government type does not matter. As long as we feel taken care of. that is true here in the US as well as overseas...security.

We were successful at displaying power and toppling a severely weakened government, the last secular one in the region.

Weak as in militarily? or politically within the country? Yeah his military had been shot to heck and back 10 years ago...but he still held an iron grip on the people. And as far as secular...again not sure in what way are you referring...true it was not a theocracy, nor a monarchy. However Saddam was a Sunni and Sunni was the dominant (by force not by numbers) religion.

Now if we can break OPEC, which will surely fall if Iraq is exporting oil at lower prices, there's a good chance that oil companies will make a hell of a lot of dough. Obviously, they are already more powerful than our own government, do you think they'll be fair to Iraqis?! Not!

Ummmmm Iraq is still part of OPEC...just because Saddam is not there does not mean they are not part of OPEC... So there will be no exportations in attempts to undermine the Opec shipments. And let me ask you this where were all these companies when Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait? If it was about the oil then why did we stop the oil fires, and try so hard to prevent the soldiers from setting the rigs on fire...if they were on fire then it could have only meant more money for us.

See all of this kind of reasoning has no basis for anything but pure conspiracy theory thinking and has no footing in facts.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

So let me ask why do you think it is a fantasy?

I meant more fantasy of Americans to believe that democracy is going to be the government of Iraq. It's definitely going to be capitalist, but that's not democracy, its just a free market.

Weak as in militarily? or politically within the country?

Saddam's military was definitely weakened by sanctions. He wasn't weak politically, within his own country, because of the nastiness of his totalitarianism. Saddam's Baath party is a socialist party, but of course being the crafty guy he was, he could exploit Islam.

Ummmmm Iraq is still part of OPEC...just because Saddam is not there does not mean they are not part of OPEC..

Iraq was a founding member of OPEC. But the US has control now, why would we go to all the trouble of siezing the oil fields without breaking OPEC? Remember the gas crisis of the '70's? Caused by oil embargo from OPEC countries.

And let me ask you this where were all these companies when Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait?

How should I know? what do you mean anyway, OPEC is a pact between countries, not companies.

See all of this kind of reasoning has no basis for anything but pure conspiracy theory thinking and has no footing in facts.

No, the conspiracy theory is the fiction that we went to Iraq to spread Democracy there. I'm just pointing out obvious deceptions. You can believe them f you like.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Schwarzschild

I meant more fantasy of Americans to believe that democracy is going to be the government of Iraq. It's definitely going to be capitalist, but that's not democracy, its just a free market.

I would agree that it is entirely likely that democracy will be short lived. It would be nice if a stable form of democracy stays in place.

Saddam's military was definitely weakened by sanctions. He wasn't weak politically, within his own country, because of the nastiness of his totalitarianism. Saddam's Baath party is a socialist party, but of course being the crafty guy he was, he could exploit Islam.

Agreed.

Iraq was a founding member of OPEC. But the US has control now, why would we go to all the trouble of siezing the oil fields without breaking OPEC? Remember the gas crisis of the '70's? Caused by oil embargo from OPEC countries.

The US is not in a seizing/dictating what associations the new Iraqi Gment is to maintain. All we are doing is working to put a new gment in place. They will still be part of OPEC.

How should I know? what do you mean anyway, OPEC is a pact between countries, not companies.

You were the one to mention that there would be a lot of dough to be had by the oil companies.

No, the conspiracy theory is the fiction that we went to Iraq to spread Democracy there. I'm just pointing out obvious deceptions. You can believe them f you like.

Lets see the concept of a conspiracy theory is that there would be something going on behind the public eye...a conspiracy of alternative motives...The vocal aspects of post Iraq is to install a democratic gment...that is what is out in the public...how could it be a conspiracy theory if it is the public aspect?
All that aside there just is not enough solid evidence to support the idea that the US went into Iraq to get rich off of oil. But yet there is plenty of it to go against that idea.

Tog

 

[Adam]

not enough solid evidence to support the idea that the US went into Iraq to get rich off of oil.

What about Dick Cheney's old company, his old friends, being given the contract for the oil fields without even having to bid for it? Maybe it's not 100% proof, but it's a lot more than the USA had against Iraq.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
What about Dick Cheney's old company, his old friends, being given the contract for the oil fields without even having to bid for it? Maybe it's not 100% proof, but it's a lot more than the USA had against Iraq.

Proof of what? Haliburton had already been used in Iraq to repair and update equipment. What other companies were capable of doing the work? I believe the choices were 1 Canadian company, 1 french company or the U.S. company..it's U.S. Tax money paying for repairs..which company do you think should be used? seems a no brainer to me...

 

[Tog_Neve]

Schwarz -

There's no solid evidence to the contrary.
Well let's look at the facts - Worldcom was fined hundreds of millions for their giant fraud, and was hand-selected as the contractor to get the phones in Baghdad up and running, with a milti-hundred-million dollar contract. The tax-PAYERS laundered the benefits of Worldcom's fraud. Iraq war is just the accomplice to big businesses which are running the show.

And Worldcom is the largest provider of telephone backbones in the country if not the world. They are the most capable of getting into Iraq and rebuilding the phone system dependably. THeir fraud is by the upper management and does not reflect the product or quality of service the company itself can provide. Their fine was their punishment and now they can continue on providing the services they have rendered for years.

Haliburton was also mentioned later as well. They had gone in and put out the fires from the first war. So they knew the setup and area. They are one of the few companies in the US that can handle oil rig fires.

And you bet that there are American companies getting in on the reconstruction of Iraq. It happens after any major conflict. Was WWII a war for companies so they could get in there and rebuild Germany and Japan? We did not rebuild those countries out of the goodness of our heart. Even after WWI Germany was repaying the Allies for the cost of the war...part of the problems that plagued Germany and instigated WWII. And Kuwait had worked out a deal to repay the coalition after Iraq invaded as well.

Just because there is profit to be had by companies after a conflict does not mean the war was initiated for the profits. And you have a long way to go to try and prove that it does.

Tog

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
What about Dick Cheney's old company, his old friends, being given the contract for the oil fields without even having to bid for it? Maybe it's not 100% proof, but it's a lot more than the USA had against Iraq.

Again, you seem to be making the assumption that the US will get the oil revenue. That is *NOT* what the Haliburton contract is for.

Once again: The oil belongs to Iraq and the US has made no move to sieze it.

 

[Nicool003]

LOL! Actually, when the recount was stopped, Gore was a mere 66 votes behind and gaining. There was no large margin, even with all the ways that Bush cheated.

In shadows defense, you haven't given any proof at all (as fake as your "proof" tends to be) that Bush did cheat, and the point still stands that gore WAS behind him and that Bush won, funny how you changed your answer from being that Gore did win to he was only 66 votes behind.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and I think we can trace Republican Party 'Lying on principle' to Whitewater...that was a beaut of a non-issue that still gets brought up today. They lie every single time that the truth is inconvenient.


Here's a fun and funny link about the Florida recount...but find a factual error in it and I'll send you $1.http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10254

 

[Nicool003]

LOL...just LOL.

LOL! and that's the best he can do folks

Here's a fun and funny link about the Florida recount...but find a factual error in it and I'll send you $1

I don't trust Democrats with my mailing address. And before I go to the link tell me it isn't a "GO DEMOCRAT" website

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
LOL! and that's the best he can do folks






I don't trust Democrats with my mailing address. And before I go to the link tell me it isn't a "GO DEMOCRAT" website

Well, since you would consider any non-right-wing-lies site to be 'Democrat', don't even bother. The truth would hurt, if you weren't so good at avoiding it.

 

[Nicool003]

Well, since you would consider any non-right-wing-lies site to be 'Democrat', don't even bother. The truth would hurt, if you weren't so good at avoiding it.

Please. you of all people saying this? Anything that isn't all left wing propaganda are "lies"

 

[Shadow]

Stop bickering. Sadly, it seems that is what politics is reduced to these days. All people want is power. Well, at least that is how it is on here, I imagine in an actualy debate with republicans vs democrats it would be even worse. There really isn't a point in getting into arguments is there?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Stop bickering. Sadly, it seems that is what politics is reduced to these days. All people want is power. Well, at least that is how it is on here, I imagine in an actualy debate with republicans vs democrats it would be even worse. There really isn't a point in getting into arguments is there?

Good point...I think we're done here...