Daggah

Somehow I bet you're the only one who thinks so.

Oh the US acted in its best interests alright - that's part of the problem. "Might makes right" and "imperialism" are supposed to be dead. Stopping the HR violations in Iraq was just a nice side benefit to the administration and you know it. If your argument held true then we'd be attacking other countries with much more gruesome records - but the media holds silent on them. Why?

Wait, so every day on the news we see more reports of Iraqi protests, more reports of American soldiers under attack, more reports of Iraqis rallying under anti-American Muslim clerics, and we're supposed to believe you, a brainwashed conservative, about what the majority thinks? Get a fucking clue: anti-Americanism is the MAJORITY EVERYWHERE in the Middle East save for Israel! To say that it is not is VERY quickly approaching an extraordinary claim - which requires extraordinary evidence from YOU. Where's the evidence that the majority of Iraq supports the American effort?

How do you think the average Iraqi feels when they see us protecting their oil ministry but allowing looters complete freedom to ransack valuable museums and essential hospitals?

Not automatically. I was not leaping from a statement to a conclusion illogically; I was merely using rhetoric in an attempt to use your brain, which appears to be faulty.

My own FAFSA reports that my mother can afford to pay $143/year towards my college education, and you don't see me attending a religious reich brainwashing center.

Pot, kettle, etc.

And it tells me a lot about how much you really care about the people (not "popel") of Iraq that it doesn't bother you at all about the hospitals.

Not that I expected genuine compassion from a compassionate conservative anyway, but whatever.

Ion

I want to emphasize this:
and this:

(read carefully the speech about war being a racket)
and this:
O.K., debater10:

any more Lynchburg gossip about Bush being "...human..." and France hindering "...human..." Bush, that has not been already debunked in this thread?

baurelio

how about the fact that the weapons inspectors found chemical warheads before the war and we have found mobile labs that iraqi scientists have admitted were used for researching chemical weapons.

pictures is not the only source of knowing the iraqi mood towards the war. you yourself ask, "why is there a guerilla war?". because there is a minority of iraqi's who still support sadaam and are opposed to the us. i actually know someone who's in iraq right now and he's said that he's recieved

the us doesn't have enough resources to protect every single building in iraq. the oil fields were known to be high on the target list of the opposition.

notice debater10's reply that one company is us. also what about all of france's contracts.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqfull.html

http://www.pntcd.ro-usa.com/discutii/0000000c.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm

just to give a couple easy to find pages by google search.

out of time for now....i'll post more latter. you guys really crack me up the way you think bush completely fabricated the war in iraq. are you serious?

Ion

Yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune says that C.I.A. states that the mobile labs are not for chemical weapons.

To war and kill thousands of Iraqis, in order to discuss two trucks?

You are under Bush-induced illusions.
The guerilla war corresponds to a majority resenting U.S..
There is an admission about the war's priority right in "...the oil fields were known to be high on the target list of the opposition."
debater10 shows buyers of oil.

The oil is produced by U.S. companies, to be sold to highest bidders.

What about France's contracts?

As far as I know, France didn't invade Iraq, but U.S. did invade Iraq.
I am serious:

1) WMDs in Iraq,

2) September 11 link,

3) al-Qaeda link,

4) Niger link,

5) 'liberating' Iraq,

that's how Bush fabricates the war in Iraq.

Godbert

So let me get this straight - to make your point that Bush did not attack Iraq because of the oil you provide a link that says without the war the french instead of Halliburton would be in control of Iraqs oil?

That's like saying there is no global warming and then triumphantly provide evidence for sharply rising average temperatures to support your claim.

this thread saddens me more and more

baurelio

it was only a reason why the french didn't support the war

Ion

For whatever reason (public opinion overwhelmingly against war, French contracts with Iraq's oil for Euros, anti-Americanism, support of U.N., good morals), it turns out that the French did (even by accident, who knows?) the right thing:

they didn't war.

Bush did the wrong thing:

war, lies and killings.

baurelio

you really think that allowing human rigths abuses to continue because it profits you economically is the right thing to do?

baurelio

i'll research it when i have time...probably tomorrow. i just threw the mobile labs off the top of my head since i remembered hearing it a while ago. i don't watch much tv myself and don't know the latest news about wmd findings in the last week or so.

if the majority opposed the us, then the citizens all around the country would be taking up arms against the us troops. that is not the case...the guerilla war is being fought by a small number of people. even the news sources you mention admit that.


it's only a statement of why they secured the oil fields early on. you (or someone else) was previously concerned about the hospitals, but the us did set up hospitals which could be used as debator10 pointed out. hospitals can easily be rebuilt and are a completely diferent story as far as securing since they are in cities where the fighting was occuring rather than being alone and isolated in the country.

they didn't invade b/c invading would ruin their contracts.

Ion

I think that in Iraq:

.) Bush is the worst thing that happened;

.) Hussein was bad, but since 1992 he was better to the Iraqis than Bush is now;

(this is documented with statistics by Godbert, if you cared to get a background in this thread before posting)

.) working under U.N. for a solution to human rights abuses, that's the best thing that could have happened;

it was the big opportunity for U.S. to act like a wonderful leader of the world, if U.S. was led by a Carter-enlightened type of President;

instead U.S. is led by a bully and crook.