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.
Obviously the liberal, progressive, Democratic Party left are nothing but a bunch of political and ideologically driven, partisan hacks.
The network news was busy broadcasting the names of the dead soldiers, protesters holding rallies against the war, while Booosh was president. But then, once Obama was elected, there was a collective agreement by everyone that... "well, that's enough of that," and they all dropped what they were doing like a hot potato.
Try this motto:
"Nothing left on the Right, nothing right on the Left"
It's partially true. I saw a documentary critical of the war where they said their job was not to secure oil for America, but to release it to the world market. Perhaps the happy consumers misunderstood that.
Not because the WMDs or to bring democracy to Iraq. That was the excuse, and, unless you are retarded, you understood what was the real reason for the war.
Things came out wrong, and then theme became "We support our troops." Sure, how nice. They put them in danger, and then they send them moral support. Never did they say something truly patriotic like "Hey, here's my son!" Yes, blame Bush-Cheney, but they got public support even after the failure to find the WMDs. They were reelected. Some were genuinely fooled but they were a minority.
This war is and always has been about consumption and selfishness.
if that was the real case, then where is all the oil that iraq is producing now? why are we not getting all kinds of oil from iraq and pushing our gas prices down below $1 per gallon? its true that the first gulf war in 1992 was for oil, or rather the constant flow of oil to the free markets.
So the whole invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, using poison gas on his neighbors and his own people, Iran and the Kurdish people, all of that, plus his support for world-wide terrorism was nothing?
You guys have been whining about blood for oil for decades, while ignoring everything else. How about, there was a laundry list of reasons to go to war with Saddam, and oil was just one of them?
There was no good reason to go there. Look at the result now. It is way worse. We have already spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives for nothing.
True, but now China is fighting for oil in the South China seas.
Perhaps China does it because it saw America do it. It would be kind of expected. Once you ignore international law to get what you want, you can expect others to do the same.
Let's be honest: The Western consumer sought oil in Iraq
Completely wrong.
The purpose was to protect the Petro-Dollar, while also freeing up military assets by ending the No Fly-Zone, and building bases and infrastructure for the future war with Iran, in addition to giving the US a constant excuse to intervene at any time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise TibetanMonkey
This war is and always has been about consumption and selfishness.
Only to the extent that it supports the Petro-Dollar.
So the whole invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, using poison gas on his neighbors and his own people, Iran and the Kurdish people, all of that, plus his support for world-wide terrorism was nothing?
You guys have been whining about blood for oil for decades, while ignoring everything else. How about, there was a laundry list of reasons to go to war with Saddam, and oil was just one of them?
There were no reasons to go to war with Saddam Hussein in 2003. None whatsoever.
And "invading his neighbors?" Support for terrorism? Using gas on the Iranians in particular?
Uhhh...we supported him in the Iran-Iraq War. Kinda late to be outraged in 2003, don't 'cha think?
Pretty sad to cite him invading his neighbors, when we invaded Iraq ourselves for absolutely nothing. Why did we invade Vietnam? Why did we overthrow, help overthrow, or try to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Argentina, and Nicaragua?
That's not terrorism?
Ask any Chilean what September 11 means...only in 1973, not 2001.
You guys need to look at the actions of your own country.
Who voted for the war? Many of them are already gone:
> So how many people, who believed it was "all about oil", supported the war?
Say 75%? People like my infirm mother --94 at the time-- who was genuinely confused being the exception to the rule. I'm afraid she voted for the war. That's how they use the elderly to accomplish their very materialistic plans. They use the politics of fear to make the mentally confused to vote one way or another.
>
>
>
> No, that theory existed only in the anti-war camp.
The argument of "it's all about oil" was openly in the language of the protesters, but it was very much in the mind of the cheerleaders of the war. Of course, they could not be honest.
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.
