Was The Iraq War All About Oil?

HTML:
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.

You are consistently among the least informed posters here. I'd shut up if I were you. Then again, if I were you I'd probably kill myself.


I provide information with my posts - you provide no information at all.

If I am least informed then you are not at all informed.

This thread you started proves you are not informed because you have no information to convey.

I say Obama was specific about his support for the military effort in Afghanistan. You have no information to support an argument that he did not support that war and finishing it.

Obama wanted to copy Bush's Iraq Surge, after declaring the Iraq Surge wouldn't work. He picked the plan his generals said had the least chance of success. And he made it worse. He announced a withdrawal date to satisfy his base. All it did was embolden the Taliban. He was played by the Taliban and fooled into returning 5 high value leaders for one deserter and probably accomplice. We are not winning in Afghanistan. We are losing. And we will lose entirely once Obama withdraws all troops. A total waste of lives, including a US general's.

The plan and conduct were so bad his own handpicked general effectively quit.
 
The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil


It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.

1. Well the Clinton cult did cut the CIA budget and set policy which made it nearly impossible to hire assets, forbidding assets which had a criminal history, were known hostiles to the subject culture, etc, etc.. .

2. You're thinking of the service of justice and foolishly used the word revenge.

3. ROFLMNAO! That is ADORABLE. The US did not take a gallon of oil from Iraq for which it did not pay a stark premium price. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Post 9-11, Iraq, had a decades long history as a long standing proponent of the use of international Islamic terrorism as a proxy through which to attack US in the targeting and killing of her citizens, repeatedly attacking her interests and allies...

Iraq was also in material breech of its treaty obligations and we know from the extensive, respective reports of Charles Dulfer and David Kay that Iraq was in fact operating programs for the development and production of CBW, with enormous stockpiles of dual use chemicals and components at the ready and, that once the pressures by the US were relieved and had the US not invaded, Iraq was ready to rebuild production on a massive scale.

There was no legitimate choice available to US Leadership, post 9-11 not to invade and conquer Iraq, removing it's socialist government and providing the people of Iraq the OPPORTUNITY for self governance.


"Feelings" to the contrary are absurd and thoroughly irrelevant.
 
Removing Saddam when his cooperation with weapons inspectors was unprecedented was the biggest presidential blunder of all time.

So StillobsessedwithW, that just isn't what happened. Hussein played constant cat and mouse with the UN and we had to keep threatening him to keep him cooperating at all.

Why can't liberals just oppose Iraq because we didn't belong there? Why do you have to make up crap and tell lies like this? It really weakens the argument for those of us who just want a better US policy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top