You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Christopher Dodd's Irish Cottage.......
- Thread starter flytiger
- Start date
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
What do you think war in Iraq was launched for?
It was launched for OIL& Military industrial complex interests.
Medicare part D was done for Pharmaceutical interests
TARP was done to support selected (priviliged interests)
US attorney scandal was because they refused to prosecute democrats
Warrantless wiretaping scandal
Valeri Plame issue.
That is just off the top of my head. Keep talking about Chris Dodd and Barney Frank
You forgot Bush was behind 9/11. LOL. I make a distinction between political corruption and policy disputes. What you refer to are largely either nutcase conspiracy theories (Iraq), policy disputes or made-up "scandals" (Plame, US Attorney).
Quote from Z.O.G.:
Wrong. This is probably the silliest misconception among the anti-war crowd. I'm surprised to see someone still repeating this canard. It was debunked many years ago.
The U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was done for one reason, and one reason only:
ISRAEL
The Iraq war was launched in order to make Israel more "safe" and "secure", and to expand it's hegemony in the Middle East.
You are a glaring example why inbreeding should be forbidden.
How can a nation separated by 2 no fly zones, under sanctions with a ravaged military, starving children be a threat to Israel? When Iraq was building a nuclear reactor, Israel simply bombed it.
Israel is by far the strongest regional power(strongest power in the region is still US but I am talking about the "natives"). You are just proving your midget mindedness by saying taking out Iraq was done to make israel safer.
The only power in the region that is both hostile to israel and is actually capable of doing some damage is iran. US did exactly nothing to iran throughout bush presidency for one reason and one reason only: iran is not iraq. Taking out iran would have been quite a bit more painful than taking out iraq. With neoconservatives in charge US did exactly nothing to Iran. if that is not the proof that Us foreign policy is not subjugated to israel interests I don't what is.
It is unfortunate the mods/admins allow this forum to be a cesspool populated by people like zog.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
You forgot Bush was behind 9/11. LOL. I make a distinction between political corruption and policy disputes. What you refer to are largely either nutcase conspiracy theories (Iraq), policy disputes or made-up "scandals" (Plame, US Attorney).
You are not very bright are you?
Do you honestly believe in mushroom clouds that were going to appear had US not invaded Iraq? First it was WMDs. They never existed. Then it was "liberating" iraqi people. Saddam hussein was so brutal and evil it was Rumsfeld himself shaking saddams hand in the 80s and smiling...
For a clue as to US intentions you should remember how the invasion was conducted. The ground component was launched IMMEDIATELY from the south(US also wanted to do the same from the North but got rebuked by Turkey). Why is that? Hint: it had something to do with capturing oilfields as quickly as possible.
Iraq war was inevitable the moment supreme court gave W the presidency.
As lolatbushites pointed out, I am dealing with the 30% numbnuts who actually believe W was a good president.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
You are not very bright are you?
Do you honestly believe in mushroom clouds that were going to appear had US not invaded Iraq? First it was WMDs. They never existed. Then it was "liberating" iraqi people. Saddam hussein was so brutal and evil it was Rumsfeld himself shaking saddams hand in the 80s and smiling...
For a clue as to US intentions you should remember how the invasion was conducted. The ground component was launched IMMEDIATELY from the south(US also wanted to do the same from the North but got rebuked by Turkey). Why is that? Hint: it had something to do with capturing oilfields as quickly as possible.
Iraq war was inevitable the moment supreme court gave W the presidency.
As lolatbushites pointed out, I am dealing with the 30% numbnuts who actually believe W was a good president.
I hate to pile on when you are getting owned by Z.O.G., but the invasion came from the south because the troops were stationed there, in Kuwait. The fact is we didn't take control of the oil fields but allowed the Iraqis to continue to operate them through their Petroleum Ministry. In restrospect, it was one of the bigger mistakes Bush et al made, but no doubt part of the reason for it was because of sensitivity to the sort of nutcase claims you are making.
As for thinking Bush was a good president, a quick search will turn up numerous posts by yours truly saying exactly the opposite. Don't let something like facts get in the way of you and your koolaid pal high fiving each other however.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I hate to pile on when you are getting owned by Z.O.G., but the invasion came from the south because the troops were stationed there, in Kuwait. The fact is we didn't take control of the oil fields but allowed the Iraqis to continue to operate them through their Petroleum Ministry. In restrospect, it was one of the bigger mistakes Bush et al made, but no doubt part of the reason for it was because of sensitivity to the sort of nutcase claims you are making.
As for thinking Bush was a good president, a quick search will turn up numerous posts by yours truly saying exactly the opposite. Don't let something like facts get in the way of you and your koolaid pal high fiving each other however.
No dammit, it is not about ownership of oil but control over its distribution.
Iraq (under US "guidance") renounced previous Oil contracts that gave them to Russian companies(among others) and distributed them to *gasp* ExxonMobil&Co.
Must I argue every obvious point? Ok class is in session. What I was saying that instead of a prolonged bombing campaign a la Gulf War I the ground component was launched IMMEDIATELY and there is only one explanation for this: US did not want to see those oilfields torched like it happened in the first Gulf War. If the war was supposedly about "WMDs" or "making the world safer for Israel" protecting oilfields would have been of no consequence. But of course the war was not about either of those things.
Furthermore, while Baghdad museums were getting looted, US soldiers protected the only building that counts THE OIL MINISTRY Those are facts.
Getting owned by ZOG? This is a funny one. He never replies to any point I made.
When dealing with individuals who have a primitive worldview it is important to come up with an elegant solution that will nuke their theories without venturing deep into nonsense and offering a dissertation style rebuttal of every point they made.
For US foreign policy not being subject to Israel's whims I presented Iran, a country that is openly hostile to Israel in words and deeds and a country that was untouched by neoconservatives, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc. Iran completely blows off the top of any idiotic "israel runs the show" argument.
When applied against people like ZOG, they never address Iran because they can't. It won't fit into their narrow worldview.
USA&The West were concerned about free flow of oil long before israel arrived on the scene.
I am still waiting for the explanation as to what makes a White European a white European and something that a black cannot attain (I am not referring to skin color here)
ZOG will never post an answer to this because the moment he does that I will immediately reply with a "hit parade" of backward white nations and how citizens of Great Britain never looked at Czechs or Slovaks as their equals. (Poles were associated with stupidity in the US)
Quote from Z.O.G.:
Um, you do know that the Jewish neo-cons in the U.S. media and U.S. Government have been agitating for a war with Iran for almost 4 years now, don't you? You do know that the U.S. has had draconian economic sanctions going against Iran for several years now, don't you? You do know that economic sanctions like these are basically an act of war, don't you?
I find it hard to believe that you're this stupid. The arguments you try to present as contradicting mine are so ludicrous. It's almost as if you're joking around.
You should not have ventured into Iran issue.
No matter what neocons, bush administration or bibby netanyahu said, Iran was not attacked during bush administration. All those "Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable", "we will not let iran have a nuclear weapon", "all options are on the table" bullshit was empty talk.
Back when Iran captured some UK sailors, the West had a perfect casus belli yet nothing happened. Why? It was not in the interest of the UNITED STATES to fight with Iran. Case closed.
Sanctions were imposed after the Iranian revolution. Just because US imposed some more sanctions does not mean squat. Sanctions are not preventing Ahmadenijad from denouncing the zionist regime and continuing to explore nuclear facilities.
The reason US could not simply allow Saddam Hussein to sell more oil on the market was because he was a tainted figure. If you spent many years describing him as evil and putting sanctions on him, doing a 180 and saying "all is forgiven just gives us more oil" was not going to look good. So a "creative" way was found. Saddam Hussein would be removed and a "liberated" Iraqi government that does not need sanctions will let US OIl companies develop Iraq's oil supplies and sell as much Oil as needed.
As the saying goes "follow the money".
US military budget exploded under W and to think it was due to fighting some "evildoers that are armed with AK-47s in caves of Afghanistan" is laughable.
In addition to the insanely bloated military budget, US decided to engage in 2 wars at the same time, making military expenditures truly monstrous.
Bush family rose on oil fortunes made in Texas. Oil is the only thing that W knew. To deny that OIL had any significance in the Iraq war is incomprehensible.
You assume that just because a bunch of neocons wanted a war in iraq and a war in iraq happened then neocons run the show. That is a fallacy. Ahmed Chalabi advocated for the Iraq war and it happened but instead of the role of leader of iraq he imagined, he got nothing. Using your logic, one could make an inference that because war in Iraq happened some time after Chalabi advocated for it, Chalabi ran the show in the us government.