I am not really after what would be said for arguments sake, more interested in your answer...is that your take, that the people who gave the orders for dropping the bombs are the ones responsible for the innocents killed and not the combatants hiding in schools? I am not trying to trap you...it is ok to answer the question in your own words.
nice article by the way
In my opinion, dropping a 10 ton bomb on a residential area knowing that women and children will be killed is no worse than planting a bomb on a school bus. Both actions will end with the same result - dead innocents.
you almost tricked me into thinking you answered the question...damn you are good
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am not really after what would be said for arguments sake, more interested in your answer...is that your take, that the people who gave the orders for dropping the bombs are the ones responsible for the innocents killed and not the combatants hiding in schools? I am not trying to trap you...it is ok to answer the question in your own words.
nice article by the way
In my opinion, dropping a 10 ton bomb on a residential area knowing that women and children will be killed is no worse than planting a bomb on a school bus. Both actions will end with the same result - dead innocents.
you almost tricked me into thinking you answered the question...damn you are good
he is saying the ones who drop the bombs are responsible ...
when bombs are droped EVERYBODY is responsible,if a country or a group causes the actions of another to drop bombs then they have knowingly put the women and children at risk,war is not a game,it's very real if people don't want their women and children hurt then maybe they should re-think their actions,there is no way you can push blame on one party.
when bombs are droped EVERYBODY is responsible,if a country or a group causes the actions of another to drop bombs then they have knowingly put the women and children at risk,war is not a game,it's very real if people don't want their women and children hurt then maybe they should re-think their actions,there is no way you can push blame on one party.
Godfather.
How did the Iraqi's 'cause' the U.S to drop bombs on their country and kill 1 million people? Because as far as can tell, not all wars are legitimate. Sometimes the leaders of a country make shit up and lie through their teeth in their pursuit of stealing another country's natural respurces, whilst also benefiting the arms industry. The only thing that 'causes' war in this instance is greed and ignorance.
The arms industry doesn't give a toss about innocence or guilt.
And here's to the businessmen of George W.
Who want to change the focus from Halliburton to Enron
And their profits, like blood money spill out on the White House lawn
And to keep a hold of power, they're using terror as it comes While the bombs that fall on children,
Don't know which side -
Don't care which side -
That they're on.
when bombs are droped EVERYBODY is responsible,if a country or a group causes the actions of another to drop bombs then they have knowingly put the women and children at risk,war is not a game,it's very real if people don't want their women and children hurt then maybe they should re-think their actions,there is no way you can push blame on one party.
Godfather.
How did the Iraqi's 'cause' the U.S to drop bombs on their country and kill 1 million people? Because as far as can tell, not all wars are legitimate. Sometimes the leaders of a country make shit up and lie through their teeth in their pursuit of stealing another country's natural respurces, whilst also benefiting the arms industry. The only thing that 'causes' war in this instance is greed and ignorance.
The arms industry doesn't give a toss about innocence or guilt.
And here's to the businessmen of George W.
Who want to change the focus from Halliburton to Enron
And their profits, like blood money spill out on the White House lawn
And to keep a hold of power, they're using terror as it comes While the bombs that fall on children,
Don't know which side -
Don't care which side -
That they're on.
I kinda thought it would leed to this, you know back in the 40's if some dirt bag highjacked a few of our air planes and flew them into our buildings killing all those people we would have wiped their fucking country off the map and the countrys of anybody involved..all of them men women and children.
then there's today.....with out any absalute knoldge or understanding of the dealing of forigen affairs people sit at home and call foul...back to the 40's..ever heard of a buzz bomb or then new technology called rockets ?
do you know who saved the English'e ass's during that time ?...it was a few other countrys US included that didn't have to help them or anybody else, maybe the US and it's alies just wanted the English resorces.
point is Burnzie not even you and your sharp mind and wit really know why this deal in Iraq started,infact the Iraqies loved getting that butcher out of there but after the job was done they wanted the US out and very quickly showed what they (their country) are really made of.
with out solid facts and first hand knolege you shouldn't be so quick to judge or call foul.
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
I think that taking control of a country in a region that holds vast quantities of a resource that fuels the world economy was more likely the motivation. I believe gaining / increasing power was the main source of motivation. They thought they could just waltz in (which they did) and that would be that (which it wasn't).
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
Money ?????? EVERYBODY on the train complanes about the money spent on war and you think it was money ?
....maybe but it would have been a loss.
"your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable.." well I'm an American,and America may not be perfect but it's what I have, any of you can complain about our policy's but some of you don't live here and all you know is what you see on the news or some anti American crap on the internet.
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Money ?????? EVERYBODY on the train complanes about the money spent on war and you think it was money ?
....maybe but it would have been a loss.
"your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable.." well I'm an American,and America may not be perfect but it's what I have, any of you can complain about our policy's but some of you don't live here and all you know is what you see on the news or some anti American crap on the internet.
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Godfather.
definitely $$$$$$$$$$ ... money for oil companies, money for defense contractors, money for "engineering" companies like haliburton ... you start a war in iraq - you all of a sudden just wrote a huge check to lockheed martin, the carlysle group ... big oil company now has access to oil reserves ... and the buildings you blew up? ... well, guess who gets paid to build it again ... it's about finding a reason to take YOUR tax dollars and to give it to these corporations ...
also, i spend a lot of time in the US ... my gf lives there and this isn't a non-american point of view ... many people in your country share it ...
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
i think money was a factor, i think removing saddam was a factor, i think the oil was a factor, but mostly i believe that the us wanted a foothold in that region to pursue our goals of empire and our desire to "americanize" the people of iraq. the theory was that saddam was so despised by a majority of the people that they would be the easiest country to "americanize". it was also our desire to get a foothold in the region so that we could have greater influence over the political climate there. this is all in the neocon philosophy. it had nothing to do with war on turr...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
to add to my post, regardless, the civilian deaths of iraqis is solely the fault of george w bush. he gave the orders, and he will rot in hell for it. does anyone wonder why he will not travel abroad anymore?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
to add to my post, regardless, the civilian deaths of iraqis is solely the fault of george w bush. he gave the orders, and he will rot in hell for it. does anyone wonder why he will not travel abroad anymore?
I figured it was because he didn't want to get to close to the edge of the earth...people fall off that you know
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
to add to my post, regardless, the civilian deaths of iraqis is solely the fault of george w bush. he gave the orders, and he will rot in hell for it. does anyone wonder why he will not travel abroad anymore?
I assume that he doesnt travel abroad because 'they don't speak American' over there'. :P
Money ?????? EVERYBODY on the train complanes about the money spent on war and you think it was money ?
....maybe but it would have been a loss.
"your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable.." well I'm an American,and America may not be perfect but it's what I have, any of you can complain about our policy's but some of you don't live here and all you know is what you see on the news or some anti American crap on the internet.
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Godfather.
definitely $$$$$$$$$$ ... money for oil companies, money for defense contractors, money for "engineering" companies like haliburton ... you start a war in iraq - you all of a sudden just wrote a huge check to lockheed martin, the carlysle group ... big oil company now has access to oil reserves ... and the buildings you blew up? ... well, guess who gets paid to build it again ... it's about finding a reason to take YOUR tax dollars and to give it to these corporations ...
also, i spend a lot of time in the US ... my gf lives there and this isn't a non-american point of view ... many people in your country share it ...
well I never said war is good.... and I agree that the money spent sucks, if I sound like a proud Americam...I am, it's like calling my sister a witch, I can but you can't
there is so much that is effected by war and I don't claim to know it all or even at all in some cases but to me in certin cases war is enivetible and called upon by attacks to our country, the fact that a war may be used as money machine or a testing ground for new weapondry is a shame but the fact remains that a war was called upon us, so as Byrnzie said "bash the leaders" the whole deal really sucks, if the US didn't react to a challenge as it does the we would not be the country we are,believe me history showes us that the strongest and smartest survive.
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
i think money was a factor, i think removing saddam was a factor, i think the oil was a factor, but mostly i believe that the us wanted a foothold in that region to pursue our goals of empire and our desire to "americanize" the people of iraq. the theory was that saddam was so despised by a majority of the people that they would be the easiest country to "americanize". it was also our desire to get a foothold in the region so that we could have greater influence over the political climate there. this is all in the neocon philosophy. it had nothing to do with war on turr...
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened, without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which it has always craved most, and of which Iraq was one of the world's richest countries - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq. Hence the rush to war.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
i think money was a factor, i think removing saddam was a factor, i think the oil was a factor, but mostly i believe that the us wanted a foothold in that region to pursue our goals of empire and our desire to "americanize" the people of iraq. the theory was that saddam was so despised by a majority of the people that they would be the easiest country to "americanize". it was also our desire to get a foothold in the region so that we could have greater influence over the political climate there. this is all in the neocon philosophy. it had nothing to do with war on turr...
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which the US has always craved most, and of which Iraq is the richest country - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
doesn't Saudi Arabia have the largest oil deposits and isn't Russia the largest oil producing nation?
It doesn't add up that we went there for the oil. I think creating an ally in the region was the purpose of the mission, oh that and possibly sending a message to the Iranian state...I don't know, either way it wasn't cool then to do it, and it isn't cool now to still be there regardless of the real "reason"...it is easy to speculate but there are any number of possibilities, I would speculate that the allegation of Saddam making an attempt on the Bush Sr was more than likely the real reason W wanted him...the rest was just gravy on the turkey as it were...I don't know if that is real of course...i mean, bush could have convinced himself that Iraq had the wmd's to the point where he wasn't necessarily lying on purpose to make his claims...just unwilling to believe the investigators for no other reason than he thought he knew best...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
i think money was a factor, i think removing saddam was a factor, i think the oil was a factor, but mostly i believe that the us wanted a foothold in that region to pursue our goals of empire and our desire to "americanize" the people of iraq. the theory was that saddam was so despised by a majority of the people that they would be the easiest country to "americanize". it was also our desire to get a foothold in the region so that we could have greater influence over the political climate there. this is all in the neocon philosophy. it had nothing to do with war on turr...
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened, without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which it has always craved most, and of which Iraq was one of the world's richest countries - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq. Hence the rush to war.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
that is definitely a good theory. and historically it might be more accurate than we know. i am not sure if saddam was on the brink or not, but he was definitely in a bad position with his own people angry at him and the us breathing down his neck and saying he was involved in 9/11. he vehemently denied it, and the media portrayed it as "Of course he is going to deny it, he is a liar and a despot"...the media failed in that regard. also it came out that saddam and al qaeda were not allies, but rather bitter enemies. i can completely buy into your professor's theory.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which the US has always craved most, and of which Iraq is the richest country - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
doesn't Saudi Arabia have the largest oil deposits and isn't Russia the largest oil producing nation?
It doesn't add up that we went there for the oil. .
Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world
Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by “reputable, international oil companies . . . This is a serious figure from credible sources.”
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which the US has always craved most, and of which Iraq is the richest country - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
doesn't Saudi Arabia have the largest oil deposits and isn't Russia the largest oil producing nation?
It doesn't add up that we went there for the oil. .
Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world
Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by “reputable, international oil companies . . . This is a serious figure from credible sources.”
hadn't seen that...I simply googled oil producing nations...I hadn't seen that article...
I wonder if they had this knowledge in 2003 when they invaded? serious question not smart ass...
I realize that the oil reserves are there, as it appears they are, but did we know about them in 2003?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Godfather.
You should see it as your responsibility as a citizen to find out.
As for not knowing the 'absolute truth' of what goes on in the corridors of power, can I remind you that you live in a country that regards itself as a democracy? There should be no secrets and lies when it comes to politicians dragging your country into a war. You owe it to your troops, who are prepared to sacrifice their lives, to tell them exactly what they're fighting for.
Or maybe you'd prefer to live in a totalitarian dictatorship where only a small handful of people decide who to wage war on, and who have absolutely no accountability, or responsibility, to the people they are elected to govern?
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Godfather.
You should see it as your responsibility as a citizen to find out.
As for not knowing the 'absolute truth' of what goes on in the corridors of power, can I remind you that you live in a country that regards itself as a democracy? There should be no secrets and lies when it comes to politicians dragging your country into a war. You owe it to your troops, who are prepared to sacrifice their lives, to tell them exactly what they're fighting for.
Or maybe you'd prefer to live in a totalitarian dictatorship where only a small handful of people decide who to wage war on, and who have absolutely no accountability, or responsibility, to the people they are elected to govern?
Remember: 'By the people, for the people.'
well said
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I take it back...that comment you made was dumb...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I wonder if they had this knowledge in 2003 when they invaded? serious question not smart ass...
I realize that the oil reserves are there, as it appears they are, but did we know about them in 2003?
"...top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq... Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I wonder if they had this knowledge in 2003 when they invaded? serious question not smart ass...
I realize that the oil reserves are there, as it appears they are, but did we know about them in 2003?
"...top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq... Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
that just proves how differently you and I look at the world
I take that sentence to mean that getting rid of saddam would stabilize the region...but I am probably in the minority there...
you should try my rose colored glasses on they fit great
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"...top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq... Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
that just proves how differently you and I look at the world
I take that sentence to mean that getting rid of saddam would stabilize the region...but I am probably in the minority there...
you should try my rose colored glasses on they fit great
Hahaha....
I think the key word is "prize"... that is, something you want to win for yourself. I interpret that as more meaningfully referring to control over oil supplies than just a warm fuzzy feeling at having contributed to stability in the Middle East.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Comments
you almost tricked me into thinking you answered the question...damn you are good
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
he is saying the ones who drop the bombs are responsible ...
Godfather.
How did the Iraqi's 'cause' the U.S to drop bombs on their country and kill 1 million people? Because as far as can tell, not all wars are legitimate. Sometimes the leaders of a country make shit up and lie through their teeth in their pursuit of stealing another country's natural respurces, whilst also benefiting the arms industry. The only thing that 'causes' war in this instance is greed and ignorance.
The arms industry doesn't give a toss about innocence or guilt.
And here's to the businessmen of George W.
Who want to change the focus from Halliburton to Enron
And their profits, like blood money spill out on the White House lawn
And to keep a hold of power, they're using terror as it comes
While the bombs that fall on children,
Don't know which side -
Don't care which side -
That they're on.
I kinda thought it would leed to this, you know back in the 40's if some dirt bag highjacked a few of our air planes and flew them into our buildings killing all those people we would have wiped their fucking country off the map and the countrys of anybody involved..all of them men women and children.
then there's today.....with out any absalute knoldge or understanding of the dealing of forigen affairs people sit at home and call foul...back to the 40's..ever heard of a buzz bomb or then new technology called rockets ?
do you know who saved the English'e ass's during that time ?...it was a few other countrys US included that didn't have to help them or anybody else, maybe the US and it's alies just wanted the English resorces.
point is Burnzie not even you and your sharp mind and wit really know why this deal in Iraq started,infact the Iraqies loved getting that butcher out of there but after the job was done they wanted the US out and very quickly showed what they (their country) are really made of.
with out solid facts and first hand knolege you shouldn't be so quick to judge or call foul.
Godfather.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable ...
Money ?????? EVERYBODY on the train complanes about the money spent on war and you think it was money ?
....maybe but it would have been a loss.
"your faith in an institution that has lied and lied to you is remarkable.." well I'm an American,and America may not be perfect but it's what I have, any of you can complain about our policy's but some of you don't live here and all you know is what you see on the news or some anti American crap on the internet.
I live here and would like to see some changes as well but that don't mean I would talk or complain about things I don't have complete knolege off, half truths or statments made in anger about my country don't really work for me.
Godfather.
definitely $$$$$$$$$$ ... money for oil companies, money for defense contractors, money for "engineering" companies like haliburton ... you start a war in iraq - you all of a sudden just wrote a huge check to lockheed martin, the carlysle group ... big oil company now has access to oil reserves ... and the buildings you blew up? ... well, guess who gets paid to build it again ... it's about finding a reason to take YOUR tax dollars and to give it to these corporations ...
also, i spend a lot of time in the US ... my gf lives there and this isn't a non-american point of view ... many people in your country share it ...
al queda?
pilots?
passengers?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I figured it was because he didn't want to get to close to the edge of the earth...people fall off that you know
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I assume that he doesnt travel abroad because 'they don't speak American' over there'. :P
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
well I never said war is good....
there is so much that is effected by war and I don't claim to know it all or even at all in some cases but to me in certin cases war is enivetible and called upon by attacks to our country, the fact that a war may be used as money machine or a testing ground for new weapondry is a shame but the fact remains that a war was called upon us, so as Byrnzie said "bash the leaders" the whole deal really sucks, if the US didn't react to a challenge as it does the we would not be the country we are,believe me history showes us that the strongest and smartest survive.
Godfather.
AWESOME !!
Godfather.
Here's a theory that my International Relations professor suggested, early in the war, that would support both the oil motive, and the regional foothold motive.
Saddam had lost an awful lot of power and prestige in Iraq, and there was good reason that he may have been overthrown within about 6 months. If that had happened, without US intervention, the US would have no access to the reserves of that resource which it has always craved most, and of which Iraq was one of the world's richest countries - oil. It was a matter of extreme urgency that if Saddam was on the brink, that it must be the US that toppled him, and not the people of Iraq. Hence the rush to war.
(in retrospect then, it's pretty tragic to consider that Iraq may well have become the first of the "Arab Spring" countries if left well enough alone).
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
doesn't Saudi Arabia have the largest oil deposits and isn't Russia the largest oil producing nation?
It doesn't add up that we went there for the oil. I think creating an ally in the region was the purpose of the mission, oh that and possibly sending a message to the Iranian state...I don't know, either way it wasn't cool then to do it, and it isn't cool now to still be there regardless of the real "reason"...it is easy to speculate but there are any number of possibilities, I would speculate that the allegation of Saddam making an attempt on the Bush Sr was more than likely the real reason W wanted him...the rest was just gravy on the turkey as it were...I don't know if that is real of course...i mean, bush could have convinced himself that Iraq had the wmd's to the point where he wasn't necessarily lying on purpose to make his claims...just unwilling to believe the investigators for no other reason than he thought he knew best...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
From The Times May 20, 2008 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 964957.ece
Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world
Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by “reputable, international oil companies . . . This is a serious figure from credible sources.”
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
hadn't seen that...I simply googled oil producing nations...I hadn't seen that article...
I wonder if they had this knowledge in 2003 when they invaded? serious question not smart ass...
I realize that the oil reserves are there, as it appears they are, but did we know about them in 2003?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You should see it as your responsibility as a citizen to find out.
As for not knowing the 'absolute truth' of what goes on in the corridors of power, can I remind you that you live in a country that regards itself as a democracy? There should be no secrets and lies when it comes to politicians dragging your country into a war. You owe it to your troops, who are prepared to sacrifice their lives, to tell them exactly what they're fighting for.
Or maybe you'd prefer to live in a totalitarian dictatorship where only a small handful of people decide who to wage war on, and who have absolutely no accountability, or responsibility, to the people they are elected to govern?
Remember: 'By the people, for the people.'
well said
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
mikepegg44 agreeing with me?! :shock:
Whatever next?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I take it back...that comment you made was dumb...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Byrnzie just posted this article from today's Guardian elsewhere, about newly declassified evidence from the Chilcot enquiry. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... se-for-war
A few lines at the end are relevant here:
"...top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq... Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
that just proves how differently you and I look at the world
I take that sentence to mean that getting rid of saddam would stabilize the region...but I am probably in the minority there...
you should try my rose colored glasses on they fit great
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Hahaha....
I think the key word is "prize"... that is, something you want to win for yourself. I interpret that as more meaningfully referring to control over oil supplies than just a warm fuzzy feeling at having contributed to stability in the Middle East.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2