[kvm_mkdb]

First as tragedy, and then as farce:

Richard Nixon biographer Roger Morris writes in a New York Times op-ed that in 1963 the CIA, under President John F. Kennedy, "conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein...Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other U.S. allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/op...t&position=top

[villalobos]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
First as tragedy, and then as farce:

Richard Nixon biographer Roger Morris writes in a New York Times op-ed that in 1963 the CIA, under President John F. Kennedy, "conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein...Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other U.S. allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/op...t&position=top

Hopefully this time the US will od a thorough background check before they hire the next dictator.....
Although, as long as they get the oil, what do they care really?

Villa

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Hopefully this time the US will od a thorough background check before they hire the next dictator.....
Although, as long as they get the oil, what do they care really?

Villa

You people and your oil claims make me sick! When is everyone going to wake up? THIS WAR IS NOT ALL ABOUT OIL!

[Logic]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
THIS WAR IS NOT ALL ABOUT OIL!

You are correct, it is not all about the oil. We may not forget control of the area, installing a US friendly "government", oilprices, destruction of OPEC, sheltering the puppet regimes already in the area, should I go on?

When will you understand that it is not all about "liberation"?

[Logic]

dp

[villalobos]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
You people and your oil claims make me sick! When is everyone going to wake up? THIS WAR IS NOT ALL ABOUT OIL!

'Noot ALL about oil', but at the end it is still has something to do about the oil. If it did not, If Irak's oil had no effect on the US economy, why would the price of oil go up so much?
But no sir, it is just about the freedom and well being of the Iraqi people. Who is sick here?

Villa

[S Monkey]

At least, everybody agree that it is not because "Saddam threatens the US and the world"

[Logic]

Originally posted by S Monkey:
At least, everybody agree that it is not because "Saddam threatens the US and the world"

Except the US and the coalition of the willing.

No wait, Iceland is on the coalition of the willing according to the US but our government does not consider Iraq a threat to the US or the rest of the world.

[Macpilot]

If it was a war for oil why did we wait this long to start it?

Why did Bush go through all the BS with the toothless UN?

So what if oil is part of the objective? Would you rather have a madman (Saddam) in charge of that resource that the WORLD (not just the US) needs, or a newly democratically elected official?

The world is not perfect. It is a Coalition that has agreed to oust this loser. Stop pointing the finger at Bush like he is going it alone here.

Why do you think the Frenchies are so resistent to this? I am actually starting to think it has less to do with their spineless nature (proven by their track record with every resolution dealing with Saddam, not to mention WWII, etc) and more to do with the technology and support and money THEY are affraid of exposing when we arrive in Baghdad.

Where was all this hubbub when the Resolution passed by ALL members, including the French?

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Logic:
You are correct, it is not all about the oil. We may not forget control of the area, installing a US friendly "government", oilprices, destruction of OPEC, sheltering the puppet regimes already in the area, should I go on?

When will you understand that it is not all about "liberation"?

Please, I insist, go on. I know your argument very well and it is wrong. Oil is important to the United States. There is no doubt about it. What bothers me is why people are sticking up for Saddam. Saddam is not a good person. Him and his sons kill people for fun. Does Bush go to the torture chambers and kill people to show his might? Everyone loves to hate the US, but when their a$$es get in a bide who do they call? When the world needs money who do they call? France, Germany, China, Russia... hell no! They call on the USA. Give that oil crap a break!

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Logic:
Except the US and the coalition of the willing.

No wait, Iceland is on the coalition of the willing according to the US but our government does not consider Iraq a threat to the US or the rest of the world.

That is why your government is wrong. Did 9/11 take place in Iceland? Why would you see Saddam as a threat? Bush does not want a 9/11 with chemical or biological weapons. That is his duty as US president; protect the people. If he has to piss off the world to protect his people than so be it. I feel a whole lot better at the end of the day.

[Logic]

I think a Zimph is appropiate here.

Originally posted by Macpilot:
If it was a war for oil why did we wait this long to start it?

Because you were busy elsewhere before. Afganistan, Kosovo, Yugoslvaia and GWI. Not to mention a few others.

Why did Bush go through all the BS with the toothless UN?

Because he probably knows that without UN support it would be harder for him to convince some of the muslim world that this isn't an imperialistic goal etc. Not to mention that he probably knows this war is illegal according to international law.

So what if oil is part of the objective? Would you rather have a madman (Saddam) in charge of that resource that the WORLD (not just the US) needs, or a newly democratically elected official?

Where does the list stop? What countries will be next under the heel of the US warmachine? And what other countries will use "pre-emptive defence"?

The world is not perfect. It is a Coalition that has agreed to oust this loser. Stop pointing the finger at Bush like he is going it alone here.

Iceland was put on the list as a member of the coalition, we do not support this war or anything. But just because our government have said they want to disarm Saddam and will allow US aircraft to fly through Icelandic territory we are put on the list. Don't you see anything suspicious about this? Look at the list and you will find other small nations who nobody gives a shite about there. Nobody is going to check on what country support in what way the invasion.

Why do you think the Frenchies are so resistent to this? I am actually starting to think it has less to do with their spineless nature (proven by their track record with every resolution dealing with Saddam, not to mention WWII, etc) and more to do with the technology and support and money THEY are affraid of exposing when we arrive in Baghdad.

Tell us how the French were spineless in WWII! They want to disarm SH peacefully, just like Dr. Blix wanted. Dr. Blix said that he only needed a month or so more to answer most or all questions asked. But the US didn't want to here his opinion. And the rest about the french money etc is bull and you can find it out by yourself. I'm not going to teach you the history of SH WMD arsenal.

Where was all this hubbub when the Resolution passed by ALL members, including the French?

1441 does not give authority to invade Iraq. Read it again and try to focus on what the resolution says, not what B&B says. The reason it is clear that it doesn't allow the invasion is that the French supported it. They will not agree to a resolution that would allow an invasion. Unless there is a special UNSC meeting about it if the Iraqi government fails in it's obligations.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by villalobos:
'Noot ALL about oil', but at the end it is still has something to do about the oil. If it did not, If Irak's oil had no effect on the US economy, why would the price of oil go up so much?
But no sir, it is just about the freedom and well being of the Iraqi people. Who is sick here?

Villa

How funny is it how oil prices are at a 3 month low today while the war is going on? You might want to rethink that one.

[Logic]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
Please, I insist, go on. I know your argument very well and it is wrong. Oil is important to the United States. There is no doubt about it. What bothers me is why people are sticking up for Saddam. Saddam is not a good person. Him and his sons kill people for fun. Does Bush go to the torture chambers and kill people to show his might? Everyone loves to hate the US, but when their a$$es get in a bide who do they call? When the world needs money who do they call? France, Germany, China, Russia... hell no! They call on the USA. Give that oil crap a break!

Tell me, why is my argument wrong. Wow, you know a lot about SH, did he just recently turn bad or was he bad when the Western world(US/UK especially) was giving him the technology for creating WMDs? What did the US do when he gassed the Iranis and Kurds? Are you saying that I hate the US?
And no, they don't go to the US, they most often go to the UN. Please stop believing all the propaganda. OK, I'll stop the oil crap, but I will not stop talking about the role oil plays in this invasion.

That is why your government is wrong. Did 9/11 take place in Iceland? Why would you see Saddam as a threat? Bush does not want a 9/11 with chemical or biological weapons. That is his duty as US president; protect the people. If he has to piss off the world to protect his people than so be it. I feel a whole lot better at the end of the day.

The effect of 9/11 was quite big in Iceland, if you didn't know we control the Northern Atlantic fly-zone. There were many jobs affected here. No we didn't loose any lifes, but many here on Iceland have family in the States and especially in NY so we know the fear you talk about. As you probably know Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11, why you Bushiejugent keep bringing 9/11 up when disgussing this war I really don't know. It probably makes you feel better about invading and occupying a country, not to mention the lives of innocent it will cost. The official number at the moment according to BBC is 37 civilians, and the war has just begun.

[jyvin563]

Logic wake up. Please... this is all a bad dream for you or something. We didn't start the war because we have troops in Afgan? What is wrong with you. It didn't start because we tried to get Saddam to disarm through the UN. We gave him a chance but he didn't want it. This war is not illegal. 1441 DOES authorize war plus 2 other UN resolutions, but no one wants to back it up and take some action. He has violated like 12 or 13 UN resolutions. Who did what illegally? Also, the French don't want to disarm Saddam peacefully because they don't want their contracts for Iraqi oil messed with. What the hell is wrong with you thinking the UN is a wholesome organization. That group is so crupt it is not even funny.

[Logic]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
How funny is it how oil prices are at a 3 month low today while the war is going on? You might want to rethink that one.

Well now we can teach you the basics of economy. If there is a suspected increase in supply, the price will go down.

[Zimphire]

People who say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are just as idiotic as the people that say he DID.

No one knows. Saying you do is very dishonest.

I agree, this IS about the Oil. This is about SAVING the oil, for the Iraq people to rebuild Iraq. The US is not taking control over the oil. That is silly, we could have done in back in the early 90s, and before.

And yes., Saddam if not at the moment a threat to the US, would be very soon. Nip it at the bud.

I guess we should wait till something really bad happens under his command eh?

Give me a break people, enough of this silliness.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well now we can teach you the basics of economy. If there is a suspected increase in supply, the price will go down.

I understand economics quite well. Other nations put more oil out on the market to maintain oil prices. What are you talking about?

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People who say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are just as idiotic as the people that say he DID.

No one knows. Saying you do is very dishonest.

I agree, this IS about the Oil. This is about SAVING the oil, for the Iraq people to rebuild Iraq. The US is not taking control over the oil. That is silly, we could have done in back in the early 90s, and before.

And yes., Saddam if not at the moment a threat to the US, would be very soon. Nip it at the bud.

I guess we should wait till something really bad happens under his command eh?

Give me a break people, enough of this silliness.

Well said Zimphire!

[Logic]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
Logic wake up. Please... this is all a bad dream for you or something. We didn't start the war because we have troops in Afgan? What is wrong with you. It didn't start because we tried to get Saddam to disarm through the UN. We gave him a chance but he didn't want it. This war is not illegal. 1441 DOES authorize war plus 2 other UN resolutions, but no one wants to back it up and take some action. He has violated like 12 or 13 UN resolutions. Who did what illegally? Also, the French don't want to disarm Saddam peacefully because they don't want their contracts for Iraqi oil messed with. What the hell is wrong with you thinking the UN is a wholesome organization. That group is so crupt it is not even funny.

What? Oh, OK.

1441 does say that Iraq will face severe consecuenses, not invasion. Link to the other two that say "will be invaded" or something like that?

Why bother............. Read your Bush speaches and sit in your comfortuble home and watch the war. You don't seem to even begin to grasp anything on this topic so your welcome to continue to live in the ignorance. We all hope you'll grow up soon.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:


What? Oh, OK.

1441 does say that Iraq will face severe consecuenses, not invasion. Link to the other two that say "will be invaded" or something like that?

What do you think "severe consecuenses" are? Telling them not to do it again?

Why bother............. Read your Bush speaches and sit in your comfortuble home and watch the war. You don't seem to even begin to grasp anything on this topic so your welcome to continue to live in the ignorance. We all hope you'll grow up soon.

After reading that last paragraph, you really aren't one to be telling people to grow up. Pot, Kettle, Black and all.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
You people and your oil claims make me sick! When is everyone going to wake up? THIS WAR IS NOT ALL ABOUT OIL!

Might wanna tell that to Dubya. After all, in his ultimatum to Saddam he told him "don't burn the oilfields on your way out." Not about oil. Right.

G Barnett

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Logic:


What? Oh, OK.

1441 does say that Iraq will face severe consecuenses, not invasion. Link to the other two that say "will be invaded" or something like that?

Why bother............. Read your Bush speaches and sit in your comfortuble home and watch the war. You don't seem to even begin to grasp anything on this topic so your welcome to continue to live in the ignorance. We all hope you'll grow up soon.

The Security Council knew what "severe consequences" were. Don't play dumb and don't assume they are dumb either! Also, why don't you resort to name calling? That always wins an argument!

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
Might wanna tell that to Dubya. After all, in his ultimatum to Saddam he told him "don't burn the oilfields on your way out." Not about oil. Right.

G Barnett

The money from the oil goes to the Iraqi people. That is Iraq's biggest asset and everyone knows that. Why wouldn't Bush say that?

[Developer]

Zimphire, you are silly. We don't know for sure that you didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and yet nobody claims that. There's just no evidence towards it. There isn't even a hint that makes us believe a laizistic Iraqi regime would want to cooperate with islamistic Al Qaida (and vice versa). That wouldn't make sense whatsoever.

Iraq is weaker than ever after 12 years of embargo and inspections. Hussein was not and would not be in the future in the position to be a threat to the US.

Find another excuse for the attack on Iraq.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People who say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are just as idiotic as the people that say he DID.

No one knows. Saying you do is very dishonest.

I agree, this IS about the Oil. This is about SAVING the oil, for the Iraq people to rebuild Iraq. The US is not taking control over the oil. That is silly, we could have done in back in the early 90s, and before.

And yes., Saddam if not at the moment a threat to the US, would be very soon. Nip it at the bud.

I guess we should wait till something really bad happens under his command eh?

Give me a break people, enough of this silliness.

You actually expect the US government to hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people? Oh yeah, that'll work. Hell, it's been working just fine here in the US itself for the past 100+ years. You know, the Indian Reservations? Pretty soon we'll have a Bureau of Iraqi Affairs and all that.

Been there, done that. Now another indigenous group of people're about to get the shaft.

G Barnett

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Developer:
Zimphire, you are silly. We don't know for sure that you didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and yet nobody claims that. There's just no evidence towards it. There isn't even a hint that makes us believe a laizistic Iraqi regime would want to cooperate with islamistic Al Qaida (and vice versa). That wouldn't make sense whatsoever.
Find another excuse for the attack on Iraq.

Developer, read what he posted. He did not say they did or didn't. With all those big words in your post, I would like to think you could read what was said.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
You actually expect the US government to hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people? Oh yeah, that'll work. Hell, it's been working just fine here in the US itself for the past 100+ years. You know, the Indian Reservations? Pretty soon we'll have a Bureau of Iraqi Affairs and all that.

Been there, done that. Now another indigenous group of people're about to get the shaft.

G Barnett

There have been hundreds of mistakes in US foreign and domestic policies in the past. Everyone can agree on that, but what you are attempting to compare are 2 absolutly different situation. Also, you are assuming the Iraqi people have it oh so good now? Get in the game G Barnett.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
Might wanna tell that to Dubya. After all, in his ultimatum to Saddam he told him "don't burn the oilfields on your way out." Not about oil. Right.

G Barnett

Of course it has nothing to do with the fires that it causes, that takes forever to put out. And it has nothing to do with wanting to us that oil to rebuild Iraq for its people. And it has nothing to do with that is the only money Iraqi's people have to live on.. right.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Developer:
Zimphire, you are silly. We don't know for sure that you didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and yet nobody claims that.

Yes because after all I would be a good pick on such things. What a bizarro comparison. And you call me silly.

There's just no evidence towards it. There isn't even a hint that makes us believe a laizistic Iraqi regime would want to cooperate with islamistic Al Qaida (and vice versa). That wouldn't make sense whatsoever.

What you mean is. "That you know of"

Iraq is weaker than ever after 12 years of embargo and inspections. Hussein was not and would not be in the future in the position to be a threat to the US.

Find another excuse for the attack on Iraq.

You mean that is you opinion on the information you know.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
You actually expect the US government to hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people? Oh yeah, that'll work. Hell, it's been working just fine here in the US itself for the past 100+ years. You know, the Indian Reservations? Pretty soon we'll have a Bureau of Iraqi Affairs and all that.

Been there, done that. Now another indigenous group of people're about to get the shaft.

G Barnett

Tell me, why didn't the US just take them in the last Gulf war? Please explain to me that. I mean it was even Bush's oil loving father that was in charge.

Meh, you can't compare something that happened hundreds of years ago from people that no longer exist about a Gov that didn't exist at the time and say it applies to today. Try again.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course it has nothing to do with the fires that it causes, that takes forever to put out. And it has nothing to do with wanting to us that oil to rebuild Iraq for its people. And it has nothing to do with that is the only money Iraqi's people have to live on.. right.

Bush cares nothing for the environment --Drilling in ANWR proposal, to name just one-- so we can rule out the first motive. Bush can't come up with a sound economic policy for his own nation and you expect him to do better for the Iraqis? Please.

I'll support our troops, because they're stuck in a situation not of their making, following orders issued by the most clueless man on earth. What I won't do is support either the war or the man waging the war.

Hell, at least the only thing Clinton ever screwed was an intern. Bush is screwing over the US, the UN, NATO and once he's done with Saddam, he'll start to screw over the Iraqis.

Yes, Saddam has to go. I have no argument with that. But Bush is not the person to do it. His approach, his reasoning and his go-it-alone attitude are all wrong. Then again, he's such an egomaniac that he probably doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the US when it's all over.

It's the American people that'll have to live with the repercussions for a long time to come.

G Barnett

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
Bush cares nothing for the environment --Drilling in ANWR proposal, to name just one-- so we can rule out the first motive. Bush can't come up with a sound economic policy for his own nation and you expect him to do better for the Iraqis? Please.

I'll support our troops, because they're stuck in a situation not of their making, following orders issued by the most clueless man on earth. What I won't do is support either the war or the man waging the war.

Hell, at least the only thing Clinton ever screwed was an intern. Bush is screwing over the US, the UN, NATO and once he's done with Saddam, he'll start to screw over the Iraqis.

Yes, Saddam has to go. I have no argument with that. But Bush is not the person to do it. His approach, his reasoning and his go-it-alone attitude are all wrong. Then again, he's such an egomaniac that he probably doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the US when it's all over.

It's the American people that'll have to live with the repercussions for a long time to come.

G Barnett

Don't even bring Clinton up in this argument. He was the dirtiest politician of them all. Why should Bush care if the rest of the world disagrees? Not that I agree with him but what does it matter. His job is not to protect France, China, or Germany is it? His job is to protect you, your family, and the rest of the American public. I agree with his economic plan is not the best in the world but he is not dumb. I am sure he is smarter than you and I! The fact is you really have no idea what the whole story is. The president gets all the information you and I don't know. I hope you can understand that much. One more thing... who do you think will take care of the Iraqi situation if the US doesn't?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
Bush cares nothing for the environment --Drilling in ANWR proposal, to name just one-- so we can rule out the first motive. Bush can't come up with a sound economic policy for his own nation and you expect him to do better for the Iraqis? Please.

For one, the President has very little control over teh Economy, for two, last time I looked, the economy was on a rise. And you can't rule out the first motive, oil fires and ANWR can't be compared.

I'll support our troops, because they're stuck in a situation not of their making, following orders issued by the most clueless man on earth. What I won't do is support either the war or the man waging the war.

And that is what is called, a opinion.

Hell, at least the only thing Clinton ever screwed was an intern. Bush is screwing over the US, the UN, NATO and once he's done with Saddam, he'll start to screw over the Iraqis.

LOL! So, Clinton attacking Iraq without UN backing was ok then? If you say so.

Yes, Saddam has to go. I have no argument with that. But Bush is not the person to do it. His approach, his reasoning and his go-it-alone attitude are all wrong. Then again, he's such an egomaniac that he probably doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the US when it's all over.

Don't you guys love baseless accusations?

It's the American people that'll have to live with the repercussions for a long time to come.

G Barnett

And you know what is great about this country. We know this. We know this, but we are STILL willing to help the people of Iraq, out of principle.

That is something to be proud of.

[finboy]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
First as tragedy, and then as farce:

Please crawl back in your f*cking hole. I'm really tired of the flamebait from some of you morons. Go shout on the streetcorner or something, and stop wasting bandwidth here.

Ask the folks fighting in the Gulf if it's about oil, or if it's about some international conspiracy. Imagine, those guys fooled almost everyone in the armed services into thinking that this is about national security?

[BasketofPuppies]

The only difference between Clinton's foreign policy and Bush's foreign policy is public relations.

Clinton would take other world leaders' opinions into account before doing something. (Which didn't mean he did what they wanted, just that he took their views into account.) Bush tends to do everything without consulting the rest of the world or only doing so half-heartedly.

Yet despite this, their foreign policies haven't differed much.

People around here are conveniently forgetting that Clinton was ready to do in 1998 what Bush is doing now. After a great deal of debate with Kofi Annan, we ended up with the useless Operation Desert Fox.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by finboy:
Please crawl back in your f*cking hole. I'm really tired of the flamebait from some of you morons. Go shout on the streetcorner or something, and stop wasting bandwidth here.

If you don't want to discuss the issues at hand, shut up!

By calling other people names just because they don't agree with you will just weaken your point.

[finboy]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
If you don't want to discuss the issues at hand, shut up!

By calling other people names just because they don't agree with you will just weaken your point.

Please don't be angry; I was just trying to help. Your posting of this and the other blind conspiracy thread looked, to me, like a cry for help. I was afraid that you might be a danger to yourself or others, so I was compelled to say something.

[clod]

Originally posted by finboy:
Please crawl back in your f*cking hole. I'm really tired of the flamebait from some of you morons. Go shout on the streetcorner or something, and stop wasting bandwidth here.

Ask the folks fighting in the Gulf if it's about oil, or if it's about some international conspiracy. Imagine, those guys fooled almost everyone in the armed services into thinking that this is about national security?

This anti-American crap is getting old FAST. You want something to hate? Hate Saddam Hussein.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you know what is great about this country. We know this. We know this, but we are STILL willing to help the people of Iraq, out of principle.

That is something to be proud of.

I'll believe he's doing this to help the Iraqi people when I actually see results, not before. Of course, based on his track record with Afghanistan, he'll probably wander off and take on North Korea next and forget Iraq ever exists.

It's not just him, though. Our entire government and political system seems to have a terminal case of ADD. He's just the worst offender by far.

G Barnett

[Captain Obvious]

All I know is that you people against this can talk all you want.
There are bombs being dropped as we speak and there's not a dammed thing any of you can do about it.

I am just going to sit back at a bar tonight watch some NCAA games and let you people fester in your contempt for what is going on. Cheers!!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
The money from the oil goes to the Iraqi people. That is Iraq's biggest asset and everyone knows that. Why wouldn't Bush say that?

The point is, Bush said don't torch the oilfields FIRST, before he cautioned him about harming his own people. Rumsfeld threatened anyone who torched an oilfield that they would be considered criminals as bad as Hussein. Notice he didn't say "and those who carried out orders to torture and oppress their own people" will be treated as criminals.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

This is not ALL about oil, but it is MOSTLY about oil.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
Don't even bring Clinton up in this argument. He was the dirtiest politician of them all. Why should Bush care if the rest of the world disagrees? Not that I agree with him but what does it matter. His job is not to protect France, China, or Germany is it? His job is to protect you, your family, and the rest of the American public. I agree with his economic plan is not the best in the world but he is not dumb. I am sure he is smarter than you and I! The fact is you really have no idea what the whole story is. The president gets all the information you and I don't know. I hope you can understand that much. One more thing... who do you think will take care of the Iraqi situation if the US doesn't?

I sincerely doubt that Bush is smarter than either of us. Yes, he has access to more information. He has reasonably intelligent advisors, all of whom are for damn sure smarter than he is. But as an individual?

I'm not saying I'd prefer a Democrat in the Oval Office, mind you. I've got no use whatsoever for either of the two major parties anymore. Hell, the best election reform I could possibly think of would be to add one simple item to every ballot:

"None of the above."

G Barnett

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point is, Bush said don't torch the oilfields FIRST, before he cautioned him about harming his own people. Rumsfeld threatened anyone who torched an oilfield that they would be considered criminals as bad as Hussein. Notice he didn't say "and those who carried out orders to torture and oppress their own people" will be treated as criminals.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

This is not ALL about oil, but it is MOSTLY about oil.

additionally, ask yourself, this question: which part of Iraq was secured first? The rich oil fields were liberated before any citizens were.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
additionally, ask yourself, this question: which part of Iraq was secured first? The rich oil fields were liberated before any citizens were.

you need a good meal and some rest man! you start to reply to your own posts

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
you need a good meal and some rest man! you start to reply to your own posts

LOL! well, I thought if I edited it, some people might miss the second point...but you're right. I've worked 65 hours this week so far and still have to work 8 more tomorrow.

durn war coverage!

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People who say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are just as idiotic as the people that say he DID.

No one knows. Saying you do is very dishonest.

So what does this make Bush and Powell?

[clod]

Originally posted by 3gg3:
Originally posted by Zimphire:
People who say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 are just as idiotic as the people that say he DID.

No one knows. Saying you do is very dishonest.

So what does this make Bush and Powell?

They didn't say with certainty that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. They presented evidence that Iraq has ties with al Qaeda.

[clod]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
additionally, ask yourself, this question: which part of Iraq was secured first? The rich oil fields were liberated before any citizens were.

They went to the oil fields first to prevent a major ecological disaster. The fields were in direct serious danger, but the civillians wern't.

Why are you so anxious to discredit the millitary?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by clod:
They went to the oil fields first to prevent a major ecological disaster. The fields were in direct serious danger, but the civillians wern't.