So democracy rules in Iraq - a good job done.....

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Okay what you're saying is "Lets face it folks, we needed the oil, and we went for it."

I find this to be, oh, about a million times more plausible than trying to convince a chicken farmer in Kentucky that his life was on the line if Iraq didn't get biotch-slapped right quick.

Everyone knows that nobody's life was in peril on acount of Iraq.

It's a joke.

So why didn't the admin say "Lets face it folks, we need the oil, and we're going for it?"

Unh-uh. Even THEY wouldn't say something like that. It's basically criminal.

Yes, it might be what's happening, but "[being] honest [about]why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done" is what? Okay?

Since when in Iraq's history did we ever decide we needed to take it's oil? Makes no sense. On the other hand is the obvious question of Iraq's WMD and refusal to cooperate with inspections, the MINOR detail that Iraq had to be removed from Kuwait and was under a cease-fire agreement from that MINOR little detail..

It's far more plausible to say we invaded Iraq because NOBODY was sure if Saddam had banned weapons and WMD.

But, if you take the sinister, "US is evil" view, then you are gonna say it's about the oil......even though absolutely nothing can be shown to  back up that view. It' just something easy to say.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by NUKE
I understand that Gixer. But Iraq could be considered a threat to the US itself at the time, and thus justified.

With all respect Nuke, but.

That's absolute Bush propergander rubbish.

The Bush admin themselves (before 9/11) said that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anyone in the Middle East let alone the US.  Nothing changed after 9/11 as far as Iraq being a threat.


...-Gixer

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
Like I said, we erred in our favor and GWB really didn't have a choice to wait and see how things might have been.

BS Nuke....

I have very little tolerance for revisionism.

The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting. They went everywhere Powel told them to go (you know, those places he mentioned in his firey UN speech).

They didn't find squat.

But their deadline for lookin was far from over when Bush said "shreckit anyways, just go - we're comin' in."

"GWB really didn't have a choice to wait " <----- Yeah, like if he waited a second longer it would have meant Iraqi cruise missiles darting over the Atlantic.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Gixer
With all respect Nuke, but.

That's absolute Bush propergander rubbish.

The Bush admin themselves (before 9/11) said that Iraq was contained and not a threat to anyone in the Middle East let alone the US.  Nothing changed after 9/11 as far as Iraq being a threat.


...-Gixer

With all due respect, I wanted Clinton to do the job for years. Iraq was never going to cooperate. I was glad to see Saddam finnaly shut down.

It was not propganda. Saddam easily could have supplied WMD to others in order to attack the US. He could have tried to kill GWB, like he tried to kill GB.

He needed to be delt with and I'm very glad we did what we did.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
BS Nuke....

I have very little tolerance for revisionism.

The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting. They went everywhere Powel told them to go (you know, those places he mentioned in his firey UN speech).

They didn't find squat.

But their deadline for lookin was far from over when Bush said "shreckit anyways, just go - we're comin' in."

"GWB really didn't have a choice to wait " <----- Yeah, like if he waited a second longer it would have meant Iraqi cruise missiles darting over the Atlantic.

Nash, you go ahead and believe it was about oil, you simpleton.

Revisionism? Revisionism is looking back with 20/20 hindesight and saying the US was wrong. At the time, most assumed Iraq possessd WMD. To this day, tons of VX nerve gas are not accounted for.

Yeah, Bush didn't have a choice. Post 911, no second guessing, and Saddam was around long enough playing his games.

I suppose we should have kept a huge military force on Saddam's borders for 14 more years, just to make sure inspectors could be allowed.

The time was right for taking out Saddam, and it was a good decision.

Don't give me your "revisionist" BS, because that's what you are doing.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you go ahead and believe it was about oil, you simpleton.

Revisionism? Revisionism is looking back with 20/20 hindesight and saying the US was wrong. At the time, most assumed Iraq possessd WMD. To this day, tons of VX nerve gas are not accounted for.

Yeah, Bush didn't have a choice. Post 911, no second guessing, and Saddam was around long enough playing his games.

I suppose we should have kept a huge military force on Saddam's borders for 14 more years, just to make sure inspectors could be allowed.

The time was right for taking out Saddam, and it was a good decision.

Don't give me your "revisionist" BS, because that's what you are doing.

And you call me a simpleton.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by NUKE
It was not propganda. Saddam easily could have supplied WMD to others in order to attack the US..

How could he supply WMD's when he didn't even have any himself???

That's all just scare mongering.


...-Gixer

[NUKE]

I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present  one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Gixer
How could he supply WMD's when he didn't even have any himself???

That's all just scare mongering.


...-Gixer

That's part of my point. People want to use 20/20 hindsight and argue that point, but at the time the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others all said they believed Iraq had WMD.

It was a very real possibility that Iraq had WMD.

The President made a good decision based on the information at the time. We were not going to keep a large force in the area just to be playing games with Saddam.

Saddam could have ended it before it began. Saddam is the whole reason we were even there in the first place.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
And you call me a simpleton.

Because you are. It was about oil, right? Let's hear your best argument to support that. Then we can compair whatever you come up with with FACTS.

Let's hear why you believe the US invaded Iraq to get the oil. If you can't explain why you believe that, then you are even more sad than I thought.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
I'd like any one of you "it's about oil" simpletons to present  one shred of evidence or even a plausible reason for the US to invade Iraq just to get it's oil.

Heh.

You're calling people simpletons for thinking it's about oil.

It clearly wasn't about WMD (unless you think you are being run by a bunch of retards).

So if it's not about WMD, and it's not about oil, what is it about?

(say "democracy" and I will personally reach across the table and bean you).

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Heh.

You're calling people simpletons for thinking it's about oil.

It clearly wasn't about WMD (unless you think you are being run by a bunch of retards).

So if it's not about WMD, and it's not about oil, what is it about?

(say "democracy" and I will personally reach across the table and bean you).

Yes, I'm calling anyone who thinks it was about oil a simpleton.

I have explained why I thought we invaded. Why don't you present your reason for thinking it was about oil? I'd be willing to bet you cannot support that view by any stretch of the imagination.

You'd have to ignore known facts about being at war with Iraq in the first place, but let's hear it.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
You's have to ignore known facts about being at war with Iraq in the first place, but let's hear it.

You know what... I just had an epiphany!

I love when that happens.

I'm scrolling up and down this thing, thinking I must be missing something. That I must be way out to lunch, because I am confused and nobody else seems to be.

Totally lost.

Then BOOM! It hit me.

We are here having an argument about the justification for a war. A war. And nobody's in agreement about the justification.

How can a country be in a war, and not be in agreement on why?

That's a recipe for suck.

Vietnam comes to mind.

WWII? You couldn't keep people away from volunteering. Iraq? You can't drag people into it.

That alone - that one thing.... should tell every one of us what we need to know about it. Obfuscation aside - if the cause is worthy, we'd know by our own commitment.

This? What we're doing here? smoke and mirrors. The validity of a war can probably be assuaged by standing outside a recruiting station for a day or two.

[NUKE]

Fine that you disagree with the war Nash, but don't be an "it's about the oil" guy if you are not prepaired to answer why you feel that way. It's such an ignorant, baseless view.

[Nash]

Blarhhg.

I'm here -----

and you're here ----

Peace.