Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
For how long? And for how much money? And for how many lost lives?
In my jurisdiction there's a pretty sophisticated legal doctrine concerning the interpretation of attempted crime. Attempts are damn difficult to prove, it's easier to prove a completed offence than an inchoate one, the evidence required for the the latter is very difficult to get, but that seeming paradox is actually a damn good idea when you think about it.
If I indulge in a set of actions which result in a crime (say, murder, we'll keep it simple) then I deserve to be sanctioned. And they're usually quite straightforward in terms of proof (murder - here I go, big generalisation - is best defended on the question of intent unless it's obvious that a more effective defence lies elsewhere). But my actions (getting back on track) are obvious. They're unambiguous. And that brings me to my point (eventually).
In the law of attempts here (we borrowed from English law) there are two tests a court applies. The first is the one I just referred to, the ambiguity test. A jury is given the evidence and it's asked (and directed by the judge) to interpret the actions of the defendant. "Is there any other possible reason that the defendant did "nominate actions"? If you believe there is then you are duty-bound to acquit. If you believe there is no other reason then it is within your discretion to convict the defendant". Or words to that effect. I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but that's usually how it goes.
The second test is the so-called "proximity test" and it's used in conjunction with the ambiguity test. This one goes along the lines of, did the defendant get so far along the way to the crime that if the defendant wasn't interrupted they would have gone on to commit the crime? If you link that one with the ambiguity test and all the cards come up then you can be sure you've got a solid attempt case.
As I said, it's easier to prove the completed offence, but no matter, that's not what I'm on about.
Any objective reading of the actions of the US military in the invasion and immediate occupation following the successful invasion would show that oil was the objective. The actions of US forces were clear. Invade, overthrow Saddam and the Baathists and control the oil. There was no ambiguity about action, only in the words of the Bush Administration which even today can't sustain it's weak alibis. It was about oil. It's still about oil.
Here in my "jurisdiction" we don't have a drop of Iraqi oil. Seems there's a major lack of evidence to support your theory. Theories without evidence don't convict.
Fact is, there were plenty of reasons given for removing Saddam from power, all of which you ignore in favor of your own supposition.
To a reasonably objective person it's proof, to the partisan Bushista nothing will ever amount to proof.
You're going to tell me that you know the answer? Or some Democrat does? Or are you going to say you actually believe any politician who says he/she is going to pull the plug?
Better plan on voting for Ron Paul then because he's the only one I think would actually try and do it.
I don't have the answers. I don't pretend to. But based on what I've read and based on people who I DO think have better answers than we've been given, I say divide the country into three. Split the oil. And stay only as long as we have to to broker the political/economic settlement.
After that, they're on their own.
As for Ron Paul, no thanks. And it is one of my great disappointments that none of the dems are saying... that's it, we're out, game over. But I figure they aren't going to give you guys the chance to call them terrorist-lovers before the general election.
My problem with Ron Paul? Aside from the obvious issues, he wouldn't fight even for things that are worth fighting for.
Just as to the partisan Bush-haters, no proof required to make bullshit accusations.
You have nothing but unsupported allegations. The fact that I damned sure ain't seeing a drop of Iraqi oil is pretty good proof though ...
No it isn't, it suggests to me you didn't understand my point. If you saw Iraqi oil it would be because some oil company chief lost his or her mind. The idea is to secure the oil so it can be used gradually. If it were to flood the market then the price of oil would go down and the international oil market would be in turmoil. Are you aware oil is at record prices right now? Are you aware it won't go down? Are you aware the US oil interests have now secured one of the largest oil reserves in the world? Are you aware that Saddam was going to trade in that oil with other than US/European oil interests? Are you aware that Bush's various reasons for invading and occupying Iraq are complete bullshit?
No, of course you're not.
Here in my "jurisdiction" we don't have a drop of Iraqi oil. Seems there's a major lack of evidence to support your theory. Theories without evidence don't convict.
Fact is, there were plenty of reasons given for removing Saddam from power, all of which you ignore in favor of your own supposition.
I don't think you understand.
The goal was not to steal iraqi oil to put in your gas tank.
The goal was to keep the massive iraqi oil reserves off world markets....
November 5, 2007: "Oil closed at $95.93 in New York on Friday, near an all-time inflation-adjusted peak"
...and to keep the chinese, russian, and germans from having influence over, or developing iraqi oil reserves. Its in US interests to keep our influence over those reserves, and have them produced and developed judiciously and moderately, according to our interests. Not chinese interests.
I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.
Try getting up to date on your lies. The museum, it turns out, wasnt looted as the press reported.
Jillian, the fact that you either dont know, or ignore the information put out before and during the war about the objective, is not our fault. The objectives, and yes there are more than one, have been presented over and over. Wars rarely have one objective.
As to why we are still there since the objective of removing saddam was accomplished, why did we stay in Europe after Hitler was removed?
blah blah blah irrelevant
Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "Lead the World to ...We provide below selected references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20 ...
Map of 1150 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html - 12k
__________________
Sure I understand the point you are trying to make. You've got a conspiracy theory that's about as valid as Bush being behind 9/11.
Oh, and you are incorrect in your opinion of the Administration's reasons for invading Iraq. Every reason was valid and fact-based.
Unlike your allegation.
In December 2000, Iraq shut off and then slowed down its oil exports in an attempt to extort control of oil revenues. According to the United Nations, as of January 10, 2001, Iraq's reduced exports had already amounted to lost revenue totaling US$1.4 billion dollars.
Baghdad's recent insistence on selling its oil in Euros rather than US dollars, which is the worldwide industry standard, will likely result in Iraq losing $250 to $300 million yearly in conversion fees and lost interest.
[Source: US State Department]
blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization so we can impose our will on everyone, not just americans, blah, blah, blah, blah, globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization....
Of course I don't understand. That's always the lefty argument when someone disagrees with you, is it not.
You're guessing. Aren't you the one who goes on for pages about "guessing" in regard to Iran and nukes? Guess it's only guessing when it suits you.
Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them. Nothing he did justified what followed. Does your opinion differ? I'm sure it does.
As for oil, perhaps you want to think about this, it was written pre-war...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601c.htm
Now, ask yourself what it would have cost *us* if oil started being traded in Euros. And ask yourself if we were going to let this guy who we propped up to fight our proxy war with Iran, bankrupt this country by forcing us to trade oil in Euros?
Interestingly, I don't think protection of the oil supply is an illegitimate reason to go to war. But it should have been said instead of all the changing and evolving excuses. It's like, well, I was late, I was busy, the dog ate my homework
I think, jillian, that the Bush Administration knew that the protection of the oil supply WAS an illegitimate reason to go to war, so they had to make up some reasons.
Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them. Nothing he did justified what followed. Does your opinion differ? I'm sure it does.
As for oil, perhaps you want to think about this, it was written pre-war...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601c.htm
Now, ask yourself what it would have cost *us* if oil started being traded in Euros. And ask yourself if we were going to let this guy who we propped up to fight our proxy war with Iran, bankrupt this country by trading oil in Euros?
Interestingly, I don't think protection of the oil supply is an illegitimate reason to go to war. But it should have been said instead of all the changing and evolving excuses. It's like, well, I was late, I was busy, the dog ate my homework
