Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You actually avoided a direct answer....wonder why?
Really? Previous administrations have most definitely gone to war to ensure the right pockets were lined. As for Bush's Folly, I doubt it was the premium motivation - but they still made sure the right pockets were lined.
I apologize, I find it impossible to put it any plainer.
Really? Previous administrations have most definitely gone to war to ensure the right pockets were lined. As for Bush's Folly, I doubt it was the premium motivation - but they still made sure the right pockets were lined.
I apologize, I find it impossible to put it any plainer.
And all the Democrats that voted for it were only interested in making someone rich?
Yes....delusional was the right term!
I think the LAST thing Bush wanted when taking office was to be a wartime president.
Silly old me - I thought that by referring to "the nation" that you meant the US. Clearly you meant Canada.
I don't think simetime meant that the US as a nation would make money on the war. That doesn't mean that there aren't people making money hand over fist on the Iraq war. War has always been a great way to move public money into private pockets.
Have you ever heard of the Banana Wars, for instance? Little dirty wars fought to make sure that US interests in the Caribbean fruit plantations didn't get threatened by silly natives who felt that fruit grown in their country should somehow belong to them.
That's Marine General Smedley Butler, btw.
You cannot argue with blind patriotism and that is the reason why we ended up in Iraq in the first place. Many of the politicians that had reservations about voting against the war feared that they would be labeled as "unpatriotic" and held their collective noses when they voted for it. Of course there were others that seen it as an opportunity to make money. the bush family has a history of profiteering from war and it would not suprise me if this was not any different, Cheney sure as hell did.
I think the LAST thing Bush wanted when taking office was to be a wartime president.
Kinda hard to know what he wanted, not being a mind reader.
But his actions (and those of his cabinet/administration) as regards Iraq were not exactly hesitant as regards Iraq. Of course, he surrounded himself with people out of the PNAC thinktank (I use the first half of that term in its broadest possible definition) and they had an Iraq invasion as their #1 priority since, oh, 1997 or so. They were itching to use 9/11 as an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein. So perhaps he was led by the nose by less scrupulous advisers?
And all the Democrats that voted for it were only interested in making someone rich?
I think I have exhausted the ways of making it clear that I don't consider it a sole motivation. Of course, as you know, the resolution only authorized military force as a last resort, but - y'know, the "smoking cloud could be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities", as Condoleeza Rice so succinctly put it.
Kinda hard to know what he wanted, not being a mind reader.
But his actions (and those of his cabinet/administration) as regards Iraq were not exactly hesitant as regards Iraq. Of course, he surrounded himself with people out of the PNAC thinktank (I use the first half of that term in its broadest possible definition) and they had an Iraq invasion as their #1 priority since, oh, 1997 or so. They were itching to use 9/11 as an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein. So perhaps he was led by the nose by less scrupulous advisers?
oh please
there are THOUSANDS of plans for DECADES to invade EVERY country
funny you mention PNAC....try again.....that was GLOBALIST SOLIALIST BRZEZINSKI..advisor to carter and clinton, who wrote that BEFORE PNAC
Really? Previous administrations have most definitely gone to war to ensure the right pockets were lined. As for Bush's Folly, I doubt it was the premium motivation - but they still made sure the right pockets were lined.
I apologize, I find it impossible to put it any plainer.
And your proof of that is what exactly? Where is the evidence?
OMG....now I KNOW I'm surrounded by the delusional!
I'm outta here hoping insanity isn't contagious.
Posted with TapaTalk
How can facts be an act dellusion?
Fact: Prescott Bush was involved in Nazi Germany eventhough it was illegal to do so
Fact: It was already proven that the CIA knew about the concept of a plane flying into a building over 20 years prior to 911
Fact: the "Axis of Evil" consisted of the three countries that were not controlled by the IMF
Fact: The royal family of Saud, the Bin Ladens and the Bushes have been very close and have various businesses together
Fact: Saddam had nothing to do with 911 eventhough Bush implied that he did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
