U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2015, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Aztlan
2,686 posts, read 1,410,987 times
Reputation: 1282

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Again, what did saddam do to us to justify that war.
I will be glad to answer this but first I want an answer to your original assertion. You said that the War on Terror was "about oil"

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
. It was all about oil.

and that "Halliburton benefited" from it being about oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Halliburton received all the benefits
It appears that you are trying to re-direct the discussion away from that strand of the thread. I have to wonder why. So, I will give you a pro quid quo. You tell me how the War on Terror was about oil and how Halliburton benefited from it being about oil and then I will be happy to tell you all about Saddam and his piece of the puzzle. Deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2015, 10:57 PM
 
20,586 posts, read 8,768,755 times
Reputation: 7083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
really? so you knew there were no WMDs? and how did you know this? did you have access to top secret intelligence reports? were you in the CIA? or other intelligence agency? or did you just believe all the lies the democrats kept spewing because they wanted to be seen as anti war because their base was screaming about being in iraq?



really? saddma violated the cease fire agreement signed after the 1992 gulf war in every way possible, including shooting at allied aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. and remember that because there was no peace treaty, only a cease fire agreement, there still existed a state of war between iraq and the US until the US turned teh keys over to the country after pulling out during the obama administration.
And how exactly did it affect our country??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:01 PM
 
20,586 posts, read 8,768,755 times
Reputation: 7083
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy View Post
I will be glad to answer this but first I want an answer to your original assertion. You said that the War on Terror was "about oil"




and that "Halliburton benefited" from it being about oil. It appears that you are trying to direct the discussion away from that strand of the thread. I have to wonder why. So, I will give you a pro quid quo. You tell me how the War on Terror was about oil and how Halliburton benefited from it being about oil and then I will be happy to tell you all about Saddam and his piece of the puzzle. Deal?
Saddam was a sadistic leader but it wasn't our problem. We made it our problem though didn't we. And I already told you how much halliburton made from the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Washington State
18,235 posts, read 9,452,741 times
Reputation: 15532
I think Bush and the Democrats that voted to send troops to Iraq all bought a lie. I never thought we were justified to go into Iraq because they were not involved in 911 and even if we were justified (in some people's mind) due to the 'weapons of mass destruction,' then we should have pulled out long ago and left those idiots to fight themselves as they are now doing.

Politically, I knew there was no way a Republican would win the 2008 Presidential election unless Bush pulled us out a year before the election which of course did not happen. Fortunately, we compensated for the mistake by electing a Republican Congress to reign in the crazy spending of the Dems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:06 PM
 
935 posts, read 487,715 times
Reputation: 326
Id rather have godless Saddam than ISIS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Aztlan
2,686 posts, read 1,410,987 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
And I already told you how much halliburton made from the war.
You didn't prove that Halliburton made it because the War on Terror was about oil. You also have not proved that the War on Terror was about oil. I will wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:13 PM
 
20,586 posts, read 8,768,755 times
Reputation: 7083
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy View Post
You didn't prove that Halliburton made it because the War on Terror was about oil.
There was no war on terror with iraq. They did nothing to us. I could post many links here about it but you would probably just ignore them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,392 posts, read 20,039,792 times
Reputation: 8321
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Too late fellas. No one is buying this at this point.

Iraq was a failure, and it was started on false pretenses.

Bob Woodward can't buy enough lipstick to put on that pig. Nice try though I must admit.


First bus...right on time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 11:59 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,392 posts, read 20,039,792 times
Reputation: 8321
Quote:
Originally Posted by blind melon View Post
If Bush didnt lie than he is the most incompetent and.gullible president because I along with many others knew there were no WMDs.

So either a lair or a.bumbling idiot, take.your pick makes no difference to me



Yeah, Ted Kennedy too!

"And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Speech Against the Invasion of Iraq | In His Own Words | Edward M. Kennedy

Maybe the brain cancer was already making him delusional, but he seems convinced that WMDs did exits such that they could be transferred to terrorists organizations.

His contention was that there was no evidence that Hussein would transfer them to terrorists organizations.

That sure is a long way from "don`t exist", ain`t it?

Of course that was before the 2004 general election when Democrats had to invent some **** to throw at Bush.


The left`s arguments against the war prior to the invasion were that biological and chemical weapons could be used against US troops, presently secure WMDs could be lost in the chaos of war, biological and chemical weapons could be used against civilians and that Hussein might make a final stand with his WMDs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 12:05 AM
 
20,586 posts, read 8,768,755 times
Reputation: 7083
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Yeah, Ted Kennedy too!

"And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Speech Against the Invasion of Iraq | In His Own Words | Edward M. Kennedy

Maybe the brain cancer was already making him delusional, but he seems convinced that WMDs did exits such that they could be transferred to terrorists organizations.

His contention was that there was no evidence that Hussein would transfer them to terrorists organizations.

That sure is a long way from "don`t exist", ain`t it?

Of course that was before the 2004 general election when Democrats had to invent some **** to throw at Bush.


The left`s arguments against the war prior to the invasion were that biological and chemical weapons could be used against US troops, presently secure WMDs could be lost in the chaos of war, biological and chemical weapons could be used against civilians and that Hussein might make a final stand with his WMDs.
What does it matter what ted kennedy said. The war was george's call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top