I don't recall telling you befor so this will be the first time.
No need to take notes, google is your freind.
Three obvious reasons:
1) Replace a Dictatorship with a Democracy, helping to stabilize
2) Further isolate Iran and establish a potential base for
military operations. Although Iraq was already hostile
to Iran, it was also hostile to us. Now we have our
military massed on Iran's border. Maybe they'll stop
couterfeiting US currency now.
3) Switch the contracts for Iraqi oil reserves from France,
Russia and China to the US and UK.
What can you come up with?
firstname.lastname@example.org (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message
Perhaps that is because you understand that Bush only enunciated 1),
never menitoned 2) or 3), and advanced the discredited WMD argument
as at least an equal basis as 1) above.
So if those were he three principle reasons, he was quite deceptive.
Regarding reason 3):
It is no tnecessarly to postulate an overt conspiracy between GWB,
Cheney, Rice and their fellow oil barons. On may simply consider
that those who stood to benefit economically from the invasion were
positioned to influence the administration on the issue.
E.g. somwonw who doesn;t give a rat's ass about 1) but cares a lot
about 3) can openly promote 1), knowing that 3) would follow.
Well, I meant "you" in the same sense that John Kerry meant all the other
soldiers when he said "I" committed atrocities. ;)
I think those are all good reasons, but the overriding reason for going in
is the change in mindset, or paradigm, after 9/11. Of course number 3
smacks of the conspiracy theorist kook viewpoint, but it is quite a nice
That may be the strongest reason. Cetainly that is the reason we
jailed 1200 Middle Easterners without so much as a reasonable suspician
that they had comitted crimes. That is the reason the USDOJ wants
to be able to strong-arm librarians into telling the government what
we are reading. That is why we rejected the due process provisions
of the Geneva Conventions and our own Uniform Code of Military Justice.
That is why the Secretary of Defense has approved a secret list of
interrogation techniques that no doubt violate the UCMJ.
Our nation has been like a wounded beast tearing at itslef and lashing
out ar whomever is in reach. And like a wounded beast it has not helped
us heal or made us safer.
I'm simply trying to cut through all the bs. You characterize our nation as
a "wounded beast tearing at itself and lashing out." I see things
completely differently. You and I will never agree on this and there's no
reason we have to. Let me restate my comment above; IN MY OPINION you see
things that do not exist. I believe you attribute motives where there are
none. I find it interesting that you not only know that there is a secret
list of interrogation techniques, but have even presumed that it violates
See Seymour Hirsch's new book for all the grody details on the Presidential Finding
signed by the president which allows snatch squads and interrogation techniques
that would have formerly been considered torture.
Donald Rumsfeld and others have testified to the existance of that
classified list of interrogation techniques. The existance of the
list is not classified, secret, nor news to people who read newspapers
or listen to testimony befor Senate commitees on C-Span radio.
The content of the list remains classified.
That it includes acts which violate the UCMJ is a prediction on my part.
It's not just about Dubya. In some respects he's the puppet of
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. It has been reported that minutes
after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld penned a memo about getting Saddam.
Seems there was an irrational predisposition to go to war with Iraq-
"he tried to kill my daddy!" But, let the facts fall where they may.
Dubya could have put some time in at Yale getting an education- as it
is, he's an embarrassment, and his coterie a threat to democracy.
On 30 Sep 2004 15:05:30 GMT, email@example.com (Charlie Self)
So you truly believe that the only reason the coalition forces are under
attack are because of a single brash statement? If Bush hadn't said that,
the animals hacking peoples' heads off would have just set themselves down
and thanked us for liberating them?
Of course not. But it was brash and stupid and shows an incredible lack of
judgment on his part, whether it is a part of the cause of extreme behavior or
not. Sounds like someone backing off a bar stool, for Christ's sake, with fists
Except he isn't the one using the fists.
Much better, unless rabid. Do you think the veterinarians over there could give
everyone a rabies shot a birth?
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.