The "Why We're In Iraq" Checklist

[rmbarron]

Lets do a comparison shall we?

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, don't you think? The rules can understandably change when it's a civil war you're fighting.

 

[Chip]

We did not invade Iraq for any of the WMD, terrorist, "evil" dictator, fight Muslim jihadists, spread democracy, etc. reasons Bush gave. Those were all red herring lies.

Nor did we invade Iraq for any of the left-wing cynical excuses such as jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, expand Christian missions, etc. Those were just denials from people who couldn't handle the truth.

The truth is that we invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We were so motivated in response to Saddam Hussein's promise in the fall of 2002 to divert our Iraqi crude to China as soon as the sanctions ended that prevented him from choosing new trading partners. And those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

Had we not invaded, the loss of that essential, special, light, sweet Iraqi crude, for which there is no available compensational alternative supply anywhere in the world, would have spun us into a a severe economic depression and taken our "industrial" allies with us.

So we spent many billions on the invasion ... to prevent the loss of many trillions -- pure national economics, as usual.

In the process of stealing Iraq's oil distribution rights, we predictably slaughtered and contributed to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, nearly half of whom were children with a median age of eight years old.

That makes us murderous thieves.

That makes our "troops" henchmen.

That makes Bush a crime boss.

This is the truth.

There was no other reason that caused us to invade.

Though the result of our invasion may appear to have accomplished some "goals", those "goals" were not the intent of the invasion -- they are merely functions that appear to have occurred as a result. It is important not to mistake function for intent, or you succumb to the liars' brianwashing manipulation.

Also, the "goals" are fleeting. When we are forced to leave Iraq and give back what we stole, all those mirage intentions will simply vanish!

That's why Bush -- and his successors, be they Republican or Democrat! -- have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.

Iran knows this -- every world leader does.

And our continued presence there is just as unpalatable to Iran as a Chinese invasion of Mexico would be to the U.S. ...

 

[rmbarron]

The truth is that we invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen" I am curious in your hypothesis. What are your sources?

 

[palerider]

It happens a lot with him.

Still sniping from the side rather than engaging me head on? Typical.

 

[palerider]

Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen" I am curious in your hypothesis. What are your sources?

I am curious as well. Oil is sold on the commodities market to the highest bidder. We have no claim on anyone's oil but our own unless we are the highest bidder.

 

[Napoleon]

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, don't you think? The rules can understandably change when it's a civil war you're fighting.

I consider Nazi Germany to have been a bigger threat to the UNITED States than the Old South. Don't you? Anyway, which portion of the Constitution allows the President to become a dictator when the going gets tough?

 

[Chip]

Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen"

I'm not "portraying" them at all.

They are what they are by definition.

I am curious in your hypothesis.

It was in all the papers and news webs in the summer and fall of 2002, just as I've presented ... until the White House gag order silenced them ... and after the public memory faded ... we invaded.

What are your sources?

Like I said, the news media back then ... subsequently confirmed ... by a SSC leak.

But no leak was really necessary.

The reasons were obvious ... just as it was obvious that the social reason of slavery as an abomination wasn't the reason for the Civil War, but the North's inability to compete economically against slave labor was.

Nation-level politics are obvious, especially when oil is involved.

When people remove their ideological blinders, the truth is easy to see.

Sadly, many actually choose to keep their blinders on ... because to remove them would then require the courage to take remedial action ... such as to impeach our President and try him for crimes against humanity ... and the fear of what that would entail makes cowards of many.

 

[palerider]

It was in all the papers and news webs in the summer and fall of 2002, just as I've presented ... until the White House gag order silenced them ... and after the public memory faded ... we invaded.

The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from the net. I would be interested in seeing some of the old news reports with credible sources beyond "unnamed government sources".

 

[Beetle Bailey]

The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from the net. I would be interested in seeing some of the old news reports with credible sources beyond "unnamed government sources".

Presumes that the news media are all lying and people in the white house always tell the truth. Gosh, what could be wrong with that theory? No agenda there, huh?

 

[Chip]

The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from the net. I would be interested in seeing some of the old news reports with credible sources beyond "unnamed government sources".

Actually, your statement is incorrect.

The threat of being ostracized at White House news conferences will indeed cause news services to pull their web reports.

I too would love to see these reports again. But sadly, what was once there is simply now unavailable no matter, it seems, what search criteria I use to try to find it. I ask others with probably better Google-searching knowledge to give it a good try, though.

Their absence, however, makes our crime of murderous thievery all the more heinous when the crime boss can so control the media that he can make valuable information disappear with the backroom snap of a finger.

 

[palerider]

Actually, your statement is incorrect.

The threat of being ostracized at White House news conferences will indeed cause news services to pull their web reports.

I too would love to see these reports again. But sadly, what was once there is simply now unavailable no matter, it seems, what search criteria I use to try to find it. I ask others with probably better Google-searching knowledge to give it a good try, though.

Their absence, however, makes our crime of murderous thievery all the more heinous when the crime boss can so control the media that he can make valuable information disappear with the backroom snap of a finger.

Chip, you know as well as I that there are plenty of places on the net that copy news articles that could care less whether they are ostracized or not. In fact, you can visit the wayback machine which is a place where the internet is archived. Maybe you can find some of them there. Really chip, some evidence is required to support such a claim.

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Actually, your statement is incorrect.

The threat of being ostracized at White House news conferences will indeed cause news services to pull their web reports.

I too would love to see these reports again. But sadly, what was once there is simply now unavailable no matter, it seems, what search criteria I use to try to find it. I ask others with probably better Google-searching knowledge to give it a good try, though.

Their absence, however, makes our crime of murderous thievery all the more heinous when the crime boss can so control the media that he can make valuable information disappear with the backroom snap of a finger.

he is incorrect alot but will never admit any such thing
he seems to have someone who slings words as well as him now so im gonna grab the popcorn and watch the new guy re-invent his spinchter

thats my only regret about leaving school to join the Navy. I cant write in circles like some of you all, i can think it, but not always articulate it......No matter my almost 50 yrs of living, have provided me all the knowledge i could want, and it still happens daily learning as ya go............

learning .tweaking the brain, keeping it fresh, its the key..........................i may not posess the articulation and debate skills that many of you seem to have ,But I can assure you there is FAR MORE to REAL LIFE than what is discussed here in an anonymous webforum, and with that said many of you would be surprised.....at what an old biker/stoner is truly capable of..........

I know some of you know this.........and find it amusing to weave webs of words around me .......as well i know this and now you know that I know....

thanks all for being you

 

[palerider]

and with that said many of you would be surprised.....at what an old biker/stoner is truly capable of..........

So stop talking about what you are capable of and put up. To date, you have just shown that you are capable of following certain folks around and sniping from the sidelines. You have shown that you are capable of inventing multiple personages (who misspell the same words and have the same quirky grammatical habits) with which to blow your own horn. You have shown that you will go to the mat over the words of an uneducated stoner who referenced mad magazine with a straight face and whose books are published by, among others, Knockabout Comics and Primo Publications over actual scientific publications.


If you are capable of more then show it man. To date, the only talent you have demonstrated, and the one that you have crowed the most about is your ability to be a first class irritant. Quite the accomplishment. If you are capable of more than you have shown thus far, then by all means be more.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

So stop talking about what you are capable of and put up. To date, you have just shown that you are capable of following certain folks around and sniping from the sidelines. You have shown that you are capable of inventing multiple personages (who misspell the same words and have the same quirky grammatical habits) with which to blow your own horn. You have shown that you will go to the mat over the words of an uneducated stoner who referenced mad magazine with a straight face and whose books are published by, among others, Knockabout Comics and Primo Publications over actual scientific publications.


If you are capable of more then show it man. To date, the only talent you have demonstrated, and the one that you have crowed the most about is your ability to be a first class irritant. Quite the accomplishment. If you are capable of more than you have shown thus far, then by all means be more.

apparently you didnt read the post.................



as usual



But However you were as Usual able to muster quite a few insults in you 2 paragraph missive


Big deal

 

[palerider]

But However you were as Usual able to muster quite a few insults in you 2 paragraph missive

insult - v. - speak to or treat with disrespect or abuse.

If an accurate description of what you have done is an insult, the problem lies with you and not me.