Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
It was Al Qaeda, then WMD, then regime change but the funny thing is that Al Qaeda is run by a Saudi, there were no WMD and there are loads of countries that could benefit from regime change (the US being one of them).
The origins of the man running Al Qaeda are unimportant. Unless you can provide documented evidence that makes this information important, you have no point.
Yeah, nearly every country benefits from regime change. In fact, Iraqi benefited from regime change. Another unimportant fact.
It knows it can lie and lie and lie again and most of them will just carry on believeing in the goodness of their leaders.
As opposed to a prior felon that lied and lied, and everyone supported him?
If there is any group that opposes leadership that goes bad, it is not the left in America.
Finely, the Rockefeller report proved conclusively that Bush didn't lie. To still hang on to this fallacy is a lie of your own.
Despite the fact that oil barons, running an oil dependent country running out of oil attacked an oil rich country that was not attacking them.
Again, logic disproves this flat out ignorant theory. We bought oil at market price from Iraq, prior to the war. Now... after the war, we buy oil at market price from Iraq. What has changed? Nothing. What value did 'oil barons' gain from this? Nothing. At least make up something remotely plausible.
Do you think it could have been for oil at all?
Does matter what opinion could be dreamed up. The fact is, the oil wells in Iraq were owned by Iraq before, and are owned by Iraq after, and will be owned by Iraq in the foreseeable future. So no, I don't 'think' it wasn't about oil, I 'know' it wasn't about oil.
Only ignorant people who don't know anything about the topic, dream up that it was all about oil.