how is stating that large companies lobby the politicians and the politicians give them tax breaks, large contracts, domestically and in the internatioinally community? it's people like you who watch tears of the sun pounding your wanna be silver back warmonger chest, without even realising it was CHEVRON who provided most of the turmoil there with the oil plundering?
this is not paranioa, like you try to convince yourself of day in and day out, but REALITY. don't kill the messenger, instead- call a spade a spade (at lesat once). it's good for the soul.
i guess i am obligated to debate this same old tired subject since you have some difficulty remaining on topic.
'Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.' ...BS! I think he was just as bad IF NOT WORSE THEN !
still! this does not explain why the safety of the iraqi people is suddenly so damn important!
' Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies. '
i implore you to post a link or anything that PROVES these ties, or stop pluggin this crap. i'm sure rummy would be interested. IÂ’d sure LOVE TO SEE IT!
'Saddam clearly had terrorist links & you can't dispute that.'
yeah that's great speculation, you are conveniently missing the consistency issue here. You pick iraq because it is an easy target, and one also rich in resources. this is an attempt to re-write the middle east political map (and it is taken so by the neighboring countries) and an OIL GRAB. tell us AGAIN (oh i mean never) your prediction on when halliburton is leaving.
'After 9/11, it was painfully made clear to us that we couldn't afford to sit back and wait for terrorist plots to mature - being proactive rather than reactive is the new watchword. To not actively eliminate threats before they arrive on our shores would be completely asinine.'
now this shit borders on the verge of pissing me off. it's a mentality like this that will make this world LESS SAFE for our kids. shooting first? since WHEN is that the american way?
your pre-emption policy sounds great until you realize that there is NO CEILING on the extent of how far to take this. can you tell us where to draw the line?
<---- answer me that, if nothing else.
...a free ticket to waste anyone we think might be a threat would sure as hell piss me off if i didn't i wasn't a citizen of the states. it sure as hell irks the crap out of me. as it does millions. go on and ride that arrogance, the kind that is in denial about there ever being another terror attack on our soil.
you haven't spelled out anything, just rehashed the same old hyped up nonsense that doesn't answer my question, but it makes you feel better at night. well good for you. and you are still chasing your tail!
i have to admit:
'That being said... there were a great many of us back in '91 that thought it was silly NOT to drive all the way to Baghdad since we were already there, but I just wasn't running the show. It was hoped that after the stunning ass kicking his military suffered in Desert Storm that there would be a coup - that didn't occur. Shit happens.'
Â….is a step in the right direction if people are going to say we went in there to help out the iraqi citizens... this *was* the topic, wasn't it?
'So, what we gave Saddam is termed 'perishable' aid. IE : intelligence that has a limited life span, such as pictures of the battle front, troop locations, convoys, etc. The reason this was done was to balance out the war & it worked. It finally ground to a halt with neither side making massive gains. '
thank you for admitting it, albeit begrudgingly.
You want records of what we supplied… didn’t the moderator go off on you for posting a totally skewed chart saying that we supplied ‘much less’ to iraq?
How about a story like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/10/sproject.irq.documents/ oh yeah we all know CNN is liberal, right?
please. and as far as us acting out our roles in the cold war goes, for one, you are going on a tangent and back to the ‘why we went to iraq’ debate minus the humanitarian plug. Instead you always start in on an angle, and back to the old conversation.
