IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 point out where I said we did it for terrorism? hint; I didn't. So what did we do it for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 So what did we do it for? To take out that scumbag Saddam. Easy. Next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 So what did we do it for? 17 resolutions, possibility of WMD, suffering people, attempted murder of a former president. Violations of the cease fire from GW1. there may be more........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 did you miss the part where he is giving the right wing this, conservative that. thats all he does, so I call him on it. Dude read the thread...from what I saw...Flahawker, you, and RP started with the name calling sh!t. But whatever...my main point is you guys actually do have some good info on here from time to time. I agree with alot that you say...it's how you say it. You get your point across much better when you just post what you're point is...it's just all these damn threads go from good political discussion to ridiculous namecalling before the second page. Hell, the gay marriage thread was great the other day...until the end. I like coming here and reading people's points of view...both sides. It's why I watch CNN occasionally, and read Newsweek from time to time...I like to see the other side too. It just sucks to see so many threads turn into 4 d0uchebags who have never met each other calling each other names for 5 pages. When 4000 people die for a cause, people are always going to question it...and they should. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted June 19, 2008 Man up and prove your point. I think it's hilarious that there are actually still people who believe we went there to fight terrorism. It's just comical, to say the least, that some people are that stupid. Last time I checked, none of the terrorists were from Iraq and Bin Laden most certainly isn't there either. Hmmmm.... It's equally as comical to think the US invaded Iraq entirely for the oil. The primary reason the US invaded Iraq was to flex military muscle and restore American confidence following 9/11. Not humanitarian, not WMD's, not oil. And Iraq was the perfect turkey. They were easily beatable, Americans would accept another fight with Iraq, we had technical justification due to a decade of serious UN violations, and following 9/11 Americans were thirsty for Muslim blood. Controlling the oil was one of several other benefits, but not one of the primary reasons IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 17 resolutions, possibility of WMD, suffering people, attempted murder of a former president. Violations of the cease fire from GW1. there may be more........... There were no WMDs. The UN's own inspection determined this before we went to war. And we haven't heard a damn thing about WMDs since. Remember, they were supposed to have been moved to Syria or something? Well, what happened with that? Are we following up on it? Is there any plan in the works to have inspections in Syria? No, because the whole WMD thing was a sham from the start. It was a way to sell the war. Without the threat of "mushroom clouds," a lot of people in this country would not have supported the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 It's equally as comical to think the US invaded Iraq entirely for the oil. The primary reason the US invaded Iraq was to flex military muscle and restore American confidence following 9/11. Not humanitarian, not WMD's, not oil. And Iraq was the perfect turkey. They were easily beatable, Americans would accept another fight with Iraq, we had technical justification due to a decade of serious UN violations, and following 9/11 Americans were thirsty for Muslim blood. Controlling the oil was one of several other benefits, but not one of the primary reasons IMO. I agree that oil was not the ONLY reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. In a braoder sense, they wanted to assert geo-political control in a very important region. They were losing their presence in Saudi Arabia (remember, that country kicked us out right after we invaded Iraq) and they needed to establish a presence somewhere else. But why is the region so important? Because of oil. So in a sense, it will always come back to that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 And Saddam never, ever housed terrorists or offered to pay rewards to suicide bomber families. In fact, I think Saddam was a good guy all fall into the "side benefits" of the war. Freedom for the Iraqi's. Spreading Democracy. Oil. Contracts for big businesses. Revenge for Bush Sr. Stemming terrorism etc. etc. etc. The problem with all of these threads is that they TRY to argue that one/any of these side benefits were the primary reason for going to war. They were all secondary reasons that hinged on one very important reason: WMDs and an imminent threat to US security. The fact that the intelligence was wrong on the one critical point is damning. The fact that the entire operation was grossly mismanaged leads to even more disgrace and whispers about conspiracy theories. Bush believed there were WMDs there. And he believed he'd be able to get everything he wanted in addition to "Disarming" those WMDs. Bash him for incompetence. Bash him for failure. But please stop these oh-so-tidy conspiracy theories that suggest Bush and the Exxon CEO decided to invade Iraq for oil. It's just not that simplistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 17 resolutions, possibility of WMD, suffering people, attempted murder of a former president. Violations of the cease fire from GW1. there may be more........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 It's equally as comical to think the US invaded Iraq entirely for the oil. The primary reason the US invaded Iraq was to flex military muscle and restore American confidence following 9/11. Not humanitarian, not WMD's, not oil. And Iraq was the perfect turkey. They were easily beatable, Americans would accept another fight with Iraq, we had technical justification due to a decade of serious UN violations, and following 9/11 Americans were thirsty for Muslim blood. Controlling the oil was one of several other benefits, but not one of the primary reasons IMO. wow I typed slowly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Dude read the thread...from what I saw...Flahawker, you, and RP started with the name calling sh!t. But whatever...my main point is you guys actually do have some good info on here from time to time. I agree with alot that you say...it's how you say it. You get your point across much better when you just post what you're point is...it's just all these damn threads go from good political discussion to ridiculous namecalling before the second page. Hell, the gay marriage thread was great the other day...until the end. I like coming here and reading people's points of view...both sides. It's why I watch CNN occasionally, and read Newsweek from time to time...I like to see the other side too. It just sucks to see so many threads turn into 4 d0uchebags who have never met each other calling each other names for 5 pages. When 4000 people die for a cause, people are always going to question it...and they should. dude, i don't give a fock what you think. If you must know the little twerp goes into threads and cries like a girl all the time. anyone who disagrees with him is a right winger who listens to Rush. And when someone starts a thread saying that 4000 guys died for oil when they have no proof whatso ever, guess what? guys are going to get defensive. Instead of worring about me, address how ignorant his little conspiracy theory is. I addressed the issue from the begining, I could have pulled a mayhem stunt and just jumped in with a d1ck remark. Since you apparently think that is ok, i'll try that next time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 dude, i don't give a fock what you think. If you must know the little twerp goes into threads and cries like a girl all the time.anyone who disagrees with him is a right winger who listens to Rush. And when someone starts a thread saying that 4000 guys died for oil when they have no proof whatso ever, guess what? guys are going to get defensive. Instead of worring about me, address how ignorant his little conspiracy theory is. I addressed the issue from the begining, I could have pulled a mayhem stunt and just jumped in with a d1ck remark. Since you apparently think that is ok, i'll try that next time. I'm not only worrying about you Buckeye. I've just seen too many threads ruined by Shonuff and RP. Now you can get all internet tough guy on me and tell me you don't give a fock what I think...and you should, everybody here will be greatly impressed by your internet muscles...I know I am. And yes, I know in other threads, people go around starting sh!t and you guys just respond...in this thread it was the other way around. On a positive note...during this last page it seems people are actually talking about the issue instead of swearing (aside from you)...and namecalling , hell even Igotworms seemed to have agreed that it wasn't all about oil, so I'll let you get back to what you were doing and I'll get back to reading. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 On a positive note...during this last page it seems people are actually talking about the issue instead of swearing you're welcome. I tend to bring the smarts, sanity, and occasionally some funny around here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 you're welcome. I tend to bring the smarts, sanity, and occasionally some funny around here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted June 19, 2008 "We need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations." The liberal Carl Levin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 "We need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations." The liberal Carl Levin Levin has been on the mark for a while. Here's a thread I started Nov. 2006 about Carl Levin's remarks: linky to thread one of his other comments is: Yes, some U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for the limited missions of counter-terrorism and training of Iraqi Security Forces, and to provide logistical support and force protection. this is what I believe McCain is talking about when he refers to troops being in Iraq as long as needed. Here's the entire Levin statement for those interested: Last week the American people delivered a clear - indeed a dramatic - message to the Administration, to the Congress, and to the Iraqi Government that “Stay the Course” is not a strategy for success in Iraq. It was a message heard around the world. The American people don’t accept the President’s recent assessment that “absolutely we’re winning” in Iraq. Nor should we. The American people have said forcefully that they are impatient with Iraqi leaders who will not make the political compromises required to blunt the sectarian violence and unite the Iraqi people. They are impatient with Iraqi government leaders who have not disbanded the militias and death squads that are a plague on Iraqi society. And they have lost patience with the Iraqi leaders who won’t condemn Sunni-Shia enmity, tribal rivalries, and ethnic hatred. America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over twenty thousand wounded. But the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if they insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife. We were assured by the President over a year ago that “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Even though the Pentagon claims that almost 90 percent of the Iraqi Security Forces are now trained and equipped, our troop level remains about the same. We were momentarily hopeful when the Iraqi leaders signed a four point agreement on October 2nd to end the sectarian violence. That turned out to be another false hope. Recently, Ambassador Khalilzad announced that Iraqi officials had agreed to a timeline for reaching benchmarks to confront the sectarian militias, to implement a reconciliation program, to share oil revenues, and to recommend changes to the constitution. Prime Minister Maliki repudiated that timeline the next day, providing additional evidence that the Iraqi political leaders do not understand that there is a limit to the blood and treasure that Americans are willing to spend given the unwillingness of the Iraqis themselves to put their political house in order. Our uniformed military leaders have repeatedly told us that there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq, and that a political agreement between the Iraqis sectarian factions themselves is the only way to end the violence. Just last month, at his October 25th press conference, President Bush said that “In the end, the Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve these problems.” In the end? We are 3 and one-half years into a conflict which has already lasted longer than the Korean Conflict and almost as long as World War II. We should put the responsibility for Iraq’s future squarely where it belongs – on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months. That is not precipitous. It is a responsible way to change the dynamic in Iraq, to stop the march down the path to full blown civil war on which the Iraqis are now embarked. Yes, some U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for the limited missions of counter-terrorism and training of Iraqi Security Forces, and to provide logistical support and force protection. And yes, we should also convene an international conference to support a political settlement and to provide resources for Iraq’s reconstruction. We are grateful to our witnesses for their service to our Nation and we are especially grateful and united in support of the brave troops who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We look forward to the witnesses’ best professional judgment on the issues we will be grappling with in the weeks and months to come. - Statement of Senator Carl Levin at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted June 19, 2008 "We need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations." The liberal Carl Levin Is he talking about Sunni/Shia differences as if they were Democrat/Republican differences? Overall though, yeah, he's right on. I saw an interview with two members of the council for foreign relations and a NYT columnist discussing Iraq. They were commendatory of US efforts, and to some extent Iraqi military progress. The problem they see is with the ineptitude of the of the Iraqi government. They simply don't know how to govern right now, and will continue to need the US to help them sustain whatever progress has been made thus far. To the point of oil being the primary objective, TDRyan said it perfectly: Bush believed there were WMDs there. And he believed he'd be able to get everything he wanted in addition to "Disarming" those WMDs.Bash him for incompetence. Bash him for failure. But please stop these oh-so-tidy conspiracy theories that suggest Bush and the Exxon CEO decided to invade Iraq for oil. It's just not that simplistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 I'm not only worrying about you Buckeye. I've just seen too many threads ruined by Shonuff and RP. Now you can get all internet tough guy on me and tell me you don't give a fock what I think...and you should, everybody here will be greatly impressed by your internet muscles...I know I am. And yes, I know in other threads, people go around starting sh!t and you guys just respond...in this thread it was the other way around. On a positive note...during this last page it seems people are actually talking about the issue instead of swearing (aside from you)...and namecalling , hell even Igotworms seemed to have agreed that it wasn't all about oil, so I'll let you get back to what you were doing and I'll get back to reading. telling someone you don't care what they think does not equal internet tough guy. very stupid comparison. yes, hopefully we can get you back to the discussion, since on this last page you gotten off track with dumb comparisons and the preachy attitude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 all fall into the "side benefits" of the war.Freedom for the Iraqi's. Spreading Democracy. Oil. Contracts for big businesses. Revenge for Bush Sr. Stemming terrorism etc. etc. etc. The problem with all of these threads is that they TRY to argue that one/any of these side benefits were the primary reason for going to war. They were all secondary reasons that hinged on one very important reason: WMDs and an imminent threat to US security. The fact that the intelligence was wrong on the one critical point is damning. The fact that the entire operation was grossly mismanaged leads to even more disgrace and whispers about conspiracy theories. Bush believed there were WMDs there. And he believed he'd be able to get everything he wanted in addition to "Disarming" those WMDs. Bash him for incompetence. Bash him for failure. But please stop these oh-so-tidy conspiracy theories that suggest Bush and the Exxon CEO decided to invade Iraq for oil. It's just not that simplistic. I agree with you to some extent. I DO NOT think that the WMD justification is a valid one. There really wasn't much solid evidence of WMDs before the war, and the U.N. inspections teams had decided that there weren't any. The intelligence was shaky at best, yet the administration went ahead with that justification because they wanted war anyway, and they knew it would be an easy way to sell the war to the American people who were still full of fear from 9/11. However, I agree that it is not as simple as Exxon, BP, etc. getting together with Bush to plan the war. There were certainly many other reasons for the war. And I don't think it was necessarily done for the benefit of any specific oil company, but rather just a set of western oil companies. Basically, the goal was to not become beholden to Russian and Middle Eastern oil companies, which is what will happen if western oil companies are unable to gain access to more oil reserves. To me, that is what the war really comes down to more than anything else, and I do not think it is nearly enough justification for the deaths of over 4,000 young American men and women. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footballpowers 0 Posted June 19, 2008 I'm not only worrying about you Buckeye. I've just seen too many threads ruined by Shonuff and RP. Now you can get all internet tough guy on me and tell me you don't give a fock what I think...and you should, everybody here will be greatly impressed by your internet muscles...I know I am. And yes, I know in other threads, people go around starting sh!t and you guys just respond...in this thread it was the other way around. On a positive note...during this last page it seems people are actually talking about the issue instead of swearing (aside from you)...and namecalling , hell even Igotworms seemed to have agreed that it wasn't all about oil, so I'll let you get back to what you were doing and I'll get back to reading. kpbuckeye http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4...oughguysxv2.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 I agree with you to some extent. I DO NOT think that the WMD justification is a valid one. it should be justification if you really believe they are there and that they are an imminent danger to US citizens. We know now that they weren't there and that they wer not an imminent danger but it's easy to be right with 20/20 hindsight. The US was rattled at the time. After 9/11, there were numerous Anthrax attacks too. People were afraid of their freakin' mail! and it wasn't just the Bush administration that thought Saddam had WMDs, it goes back to the Clintons too. it was almost "common knowledge" that Saddam had chem weapons; he had used them already to kill thousands. going to war because our country is threatened is about the only acceptable reason for war. too bad our government was so stupid that they thought we were being threatened when we weren't. So much hinged on finding those weapons, I'm surprised that none were planted. People want to believe that we went to war for oil, that we faked the moon landing, that 9/11 was a conspiracy... the easiest one to pull off (and most beneficial) would have been finding something WMD-ish in that Iraq desert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,317 Posted June 19, 2008 you say this after you just get done whining that we went there for oil? seriously, get a clue. I worried folks would misread the quote so I retyped this on purpose to clairify. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DAVID RUFFIN 2 Posted June 19, 2008 kpbuckeye http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4...oughguysxv2.jpg That explains a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 kpbuckeye http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4...oughguysxv2.jpg That explains a lot. Here is a shocker, my two stalkers showed up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 19, 2008 it should be justification if you really believe they are there and that they are an imminent danger to US citizens.We know now that they weren't there and that they wer not an imminent danger but it's easy to be right with 20/20 hindsight. The US was rattled at the time. After 9/11, there were numerous Anthrax attacks too. People were afraid of their freakin' mail! and it wasn't just the Bush administration that thought Saddam had WMDs, it goes back to the Clintons too. it was almost "common knowledge" that Saddam had chem weapons; he had used them already to kill thousands. going to war because our country is threatened is about the only acceptable reason for war. too bad our government was so stupid that they thought we were being threatened when we weren't. So much hinged on finding those weapons, I'm surprised that none were planted. People want to believe that we went to war for oil, that we faked the moon landing, that 9/11 was a conspiracy... the easiest one to pull off (and most beneficial) would have been finding something WMD-ish in that Iraq desert. wasn't that why the president went to the UN to get a new round of inspections??? Yes, Saddam did kill thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons....IN March of 1988...BTW, it was our goverment that sold him those weapons and after the attack, sold him more(btw, more US Soldiers have died in Iraq, than the amount suspected to have died in the chemical attact against the kurds). I find it very doubtful that the people making these decisions really believed this country was being threated by Iraq. In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 And Saddam never, ever housed terrorists or offered to pay rewards to suicide bomber families. In fact, I think Saddam was a good guy And your point is what? There are lots of bad people in the world. Many of them in our own country. Do you want the US govt. to kill all of them? Is it the responsibilty of the US to police the world? Some will say yes, I don't agree. We need to start worrying about our own domestic problems before the crap going on somewhere else. Now, I do agree that we should do everything in our power to hunt down Bin Laden and throw him in a dark hole with a bunch of other friendly prisoners so they can sodomize him for the rest of his life. This whole thing with Iraq does nothing to accomplish that goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 To take out that scumbag Saddam. Easy. Next. You do know that there are many countries who feel the same way about our President. You don't have a problem with some towel-head assassinating him then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peenie 1,915 Posted June 19, 2008 wow, just as i thought. umm....does this mean i should invest in bp stocks now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 17 resolutions, possibility of WMD, suffering people, attempted murder of a former president. Violations of the cease fire from GW1. there may be more........... How many other countries have these WMD's? Are we going there next? You are seriously naive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 wasn't that why the president went to the UN to get a new round of inspections??? Yes, Saddam did kill thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons....IN March of 1988...BTW, it was our goverment that sold him those weapons and after the attack, sold him more(btw, more US Soldiers have died in Iraq, than the amount suspected to have died in the chemical attact against the kurds). I find it very doubtful that the people making these decisions really believed this country was being threated by Iraq. I think they gambled. They didn't know for sure if the weapons were there. I don't know what they had the odds at (say 75% - 25%) and with those odds decided that the invasion based on the premise of WMDs was a good gamble because of the numerous "secondary" benefits of the invasion. The problem was (and is) they're incompetent. They had the odds wrong. They mismanaged the entire operation from day 1. still, I appreciate your response Snoopy. You say you're doubtful that they believed the WMDs were there. OK, I'm interested to hear why you think they made the decisions they made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 How many other countries have these WMD's? Are we going there next? You are seriously naive. How many other countries have used them? How many other countries are thumbing their nose at the UN after umteen resolutions? How many other countries have a mass murder who was purposly trying to portray to the world that he had them? I listed several other things that you skipped over. I guess they don't count or are you being naive? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 I think they gambled.They didn't know for sure if the weapons were there. I don't know what they had the odds at (say 75% - 25%) and with those odds decided that the invasion based on the premise of WMDs was a good gamble because of the numerous "secondary" benefits of the invasion. So...they invaded based on WMDs, even though they weren't sure Saddam had them, so that they could get the secondary benefits of the war? Um...wouldn't that mean that the "secondary" benefits were really the main reasons for the war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 So...they invaded based on WMDs, even though they weren't sure Saddam had them, so that they could get the secondary benefits of the war? Um...wouldn't that mean that the "secondary" benefits were really the main reasons for the war? I'm saying it takes the whole package of information to make the decision to invade. that package of information contains a high percentage that the WMDs are there along with numerous secondary benefits. I don't know that they'd ever get to 100% certainty of anything? I don't believe their decision making would be a whole lot different than any big decision you'd make in your own life. You basically weigh the odds, and add up all the positives and negatives for making a certain choice. The odds looked good and there were lots of positives. and in the end, they were wrong. they gambled with the good odds and lost. they mismanaged the whole thing so poorly that the secondary benefits were squandered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 19, 2008 I'm saying it takes the whole package of information to make the decision to invade.that package of information contains a high percentage that the WMDs are there along with numerous secondary benefits. I don't know that they'd ever get to 100% certainty of anything? I don't believe their decision making would be a whole lot different than any big decision you'd make in your own life. You basically weigh the odds, and add up all the positives and negatives for making a certain choice. The odds looked good and there were lots of positives. and in the end, they were wrong. they gambled with the good odds and lost. they mismanaged the whole thing so poorly that the secondary benefits were squandered. I think we basically agree, but you are willing to give the Administration much more benefit of the doubt on the WMD claim. I think they are lying POSes that would say and do anything to get the "secondary benefits" you speak of. Maybe it doesn't matter much in the final analysis, though. Point is they focked up and 4,000+ soldiers have died as a result. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 telling someone you don't care what they think does not equal internet tough guy. very stupid comparison. yes, hopefully we can get you back to the discussion, since on this last page you gotten off track with dumb comparisons and the preachy attitude. And we're back to square one. Forget I mentioned it. Just keep being the internet badass that you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted June 19, 2008 This thread is basically one long discussion of how much did the oil play into Bush and co.'s decision to invade. I think very little (for reasons stated), but some people think it played a much bigger part. Who knows, the real answer is probably somewhere in between. Goodnight! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 I think they are lying POSes that would say and do anything to get the "secondary benefits" you speak of. So where is your thread calling the Clinton Admin lying POSes? Or Israeli intelligence? Or Russian intelligence? They all said the same thing--Saddam had a WMD program. Don't worry if Obama gets elected he'll let Iran drop a nuke on Israel and then react by asking to have dialogue I'm sure that'll give you the warm and fuzzies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Savage Beast 1 Posted June 19, 2008 Go fock yourself. More than 4,000 soldiers have died in this war, more than 25,000 wounded have been wounded, and all you can do is throw out the typical right wing-left wing crap. How bad would you have been crying if you were alive during the Civil War? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flashover 0 Posted June 20, 2008 kpbuckeye http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4...oughguysxv2.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted June 20, 2008 How bad would you have been crying if you were alive during the Civil War? Umm...are you seriously drawing analogies between the Civil War and the war in Iraq? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites