Ahmadinejad In ROTC Out

[quicksilverdon]

Originally Posted by SR-PT4

The war in Iraq is about oil? Really now, you don't say. Is anyone really all that shocked about this? Saddam has been after control of middle east oil for years and would do anything he could to gain that control, including the attempted take over of Iran and Kuwait. The entire free western world's collective economies depend on the flow of oil from the middle east, like it or not.

1) Yes, and we aided him in his war with Iran.
2) Yes, and he was kicked out of Kuwait.
At the time of our invasion, Iraq was no longer an active threat - the Gulf war had consumed most of their tanks and planes.
We were sold a war based on lies - that's my point.
Democracy - bullcrap.
"mushroom cloud over an American City" - bullcrap.
we didn't even care that Saddam gassed the Kurds, because when he did it, there was hardly a peep from us.
So, if the entire free world depends on the flow of oil - which it does - why was only British Petroleum - I mean England - behind us going into Iraq? BEcause We want the control (and the profits) - we want to exclude China who is aggressively seeking oil.
The really, really sad part is that the war wouldn't be the mess it is if the Chicken Hawks would respect experience and not have backed Rumsfeld & Bremer. Their greed is exceeded only by their incompetence.

[satellite66]

Don once again you have let your blinding hatred and disinformation spew into your post.
Clearly you don't want to hear anything but your own set in cement view.

This topic was about the president of Iran and how he should not be allowed to speak and you twist it into one of your rants about Bush. Seek help only a professional can give you what you need.

[SR-PT4]

Certainly Don is entitled to his thoughts and opinions on the war, as well as his desire to express those opinions. What kills me though is that so often the "Bush lied" line is used in reference to WMD when, in fact, the whole freakin' world believed Saddam had them and there is no denying that he used them not all that long ago. There is also a ton of evidence, as published in the final findings about WMDs in Iraq, that his obvious long term goal was to once again secure them, in quantity, and develop more domestically and ultimately put them to use. There simply is no denying that. I do not believe for a second that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, he was just as misinformed as Clinton et al regarding their existance. Congress would not have been so quick to approve the war - almost unanimously - had they not believed what they had been told for years.

What bothers me is that Bush did not just come out and say what the real objective was - to get rid of Saddam once and for all before he managed to obtain WMDs that would have allowed him to succeed in his goals. I don't have a problem with the war in Iraq being a preemptive move to oust not only a dictator, but one with designs on disrupting the global economy. Not a problem at all. His motives were clear and well documented. But to simply call it a war for oil is to be very shortsighted indeed.

[satellite66]

If you check the chickenhawks and liars thread it shows that it was commonly believed that Saddam had WMD.

[SR-PT4]

Originally Posted by satellite66

If you check the chickenhawks and liars thread it shows that it was commonly believed that Saddam had WMD.

I agree, and there is a mountain of evidence from around the world that everybody thought he still had them. But even so, even if he did still have them, he would have ultimately used them to control the flow of oil out of the Middle East. So even with WMDs it comes down to a preemptive strike and a war for oil. Like I said, I don't have a problem with either.

[quicksilverdon]

Originally Posted by satellite66

If you check the chickenhawks and liars thread it shows that it was commonly believed that Saddam had WMD.

You mean this isn't the chickenhawks and liars thread?
It's widely believed by 5-year olds that there's a Santa Claus, too....
You guys crack me up. Everything is Clinton's fault, yet when it's pointed out that Bush screwed up big time by claiming there were WMDS, you trot out that Clinton thought so, too. Which is it? Clinton is an authority, or he's the devil and anything he said was not be be believed.
The facts are that any evidence that didn't support the claim of WMDs was suppressed. Yeah, I thought he had gas, maybe even Bio, but I didn't believe nukes, and THAT was the lie that was peddled.
Regardless - there was no IMMINENT threat. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than on 9/11 - FOR WHAT?

This is in Newsweek, also - Hunt has done an oil deal in Iraq...
Bush ‘Knew Nothing’ on Hunt-Iraq Oil Deal

One of the few times when Bush says he knew nothing, I don't believe him.

[satellite66]

Don your saying all those folks are liars and chickenhawks too?

[SR-PT4]

Originally Posted by quicksilverdon

You guys crack me up. Everything is Clinton's fault, yet when it's pointed out that Bush screwed up big time by claiming there were WMDS, you trot out that Clinton thought so, too. Which is it? Clinton is an authority, or he's the devil and anything he said was not be be believed.

I never said anything was Clinton's fault. Neither Clinton nor Bush were doing the actual intelligence gathering, it was the FBI and CIA but both were too damn stubborn and/or stupid to fully share info. Neither Clinton nor Bush (or any President before them) did anything about that. It's the whole damn system that's breaking down, not just whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. The dems just have a version of buyers remorse after they all agreed to the war in the first place. Now they're playing it to their advantage because, of course, the public is fickle and tires of hearing stories of soldiers dying. And if you're honest about it all, you know full well that had Gore been in office and we went to war, the reps would be doing the exact same thing right now.

Everybody has a personal agenda (listen to H. Clinton and Obama being totally non committal on troop withdrawal if they win the election, after months of screaming that Bush needs to get our troops out ASAP). Everybody points fingers at everyone else to divert scrutiny away from them. Look at New Orleans/Katrina. Sure, the Bush admin screwed up, and big time, but the dems would have us believe that GW himself should have written a plan for evacuating the city and that the dems in control of state and local gov't had no culpability. Give me a freakin' break!!! The dems will forgive their own, regardless of the indiscretion (Ray Nagin screwed up about as big as a person can in his capacity yet he gets re-elected and Marion Barry....well, what can I say??) but vilify a republican at every turn. The reps aren't any better in this regard. Both sides spend more damn time digging for dirt to make their rivals look bad than they do trying to fix the real problems in this great land.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the polarization that continues to worsen in this country. Nobody sees shades of gray any more, it's all black & white and the world just doesn't work that way. Unless and until that gets sorted out, we're not going to fix a hell of a lot that's really wrong.

[quicksilverdon]

Originally Posted by SR-PT4

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the polarization that continues to worsen in this country. Nobody sees shades of gray any more, it's all black & white and the world just doesn't work that way. Unless and until that gets sorted out, we're not going to fix a hell of a lot that's really wrong.

Completely agree with you. When I was talking about laying all blame on Clinton, I was referring to Satellite 66.
I think party politics are ruining this country. Both parties suck, to varying degrees. For the first time ever, I voted all democrat in the '06 elections, not because I thought the democrats were any better, but it was the only way to stop the corruption and incompetence of the republicans. Now that there's a democratic majority, have things changed? Not really.
I joined Unity08 - which is trying to have real bi-partisanship. The problem is that both parties unite to preserve the status quo - after Perot, they made it harder for any 3rd party to get started.
If the republicans say something is black, the democrats will say it is white - the reality is that it's probably gray.
I do think the republicans under Rove, Bush & Cheney made politics EVERYTHING. I read that appointees to positions in Iraq were questioned on such things as Roe V Wade - like that would have anything to do with their ability to do a good job, but doing a good job was put secondary to rewarding party - not US - loyalty. 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University - such geniuses as Monica Goodling - brought in under Bush.
Satellite 66 seems to think because I detest the incompetence and corruption of this administration, I have to love Clinton and be a democrat. Wrong on both counts, but I have to say, at least Clinton was intelligent and competent.
I don't like any of the leading candidates - the only candidates I like are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich - and I don't agree with everything either of them says, but I do know that Hillary or Giuliani winning will mean more of the same bickering we've been subject to.

[satellite66]

Don, what I believe is that you can't see that you lean left because you want people to believe your in the middle. I have seen your posts and virtually all come to the same conclusion Bush sucks and Clinton was good.
Just looks at this thread. It was about how Columbia was wrong to ask an enemy of the US to speak. Yet you jumped in defended them and added a Bush bash. You claim the dems are no good but you seem to side with them almost on every issue.
Clinton came up because you claim Bush made up the threat. My post showed that long before Bush took office Clinton who you said is intelligent and competent said the same thing. You did not respond to that instead you went on another Bush bash.