| # | Author | Message |
181
| X-san
Wed 5/14/2008 9:43p | Big Oil, that's who. ;) |
182
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 9:45p | Ahhh, good answer X.
Back to:
"Zeig Hail the president gasman...." |
183
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/14/2008 9:50p | <I have been opposed to this war from the beginning, so don't know exactly why we are there, other than some high-up muckity-mucks thought Hussein was helping Bin Laden with the terrorist attack.>
We went there because Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a rogue nation, supporting terrorists, threatening it's neighbors, and defying the UN. You can read the many reasons here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...2-2.html
<Yes, some have come at the hand of their own people, but many have been due to the US and British troops.>
Yes, but we've killed mostly the bad ones, who were threatening and blowing up their fellow Iraqis. Many of the Iraqi dead are due to foreign terrorists.
<What would we call this if troops from another country declared war on us and killed that many of our people?>
If they deposed a ruthless regime and gave us a chance to live free and prosperous lives? I'd call it liberation. |
184
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 9:55p | We are living under a ruthless regime now. We need liberation, can't wait until 1-20-09! Hope there's not Bush - part III. |
185
| X-san
Wed 5/14/2008 10:00p | Nice unbiased source you found there Doug.
<---rolls eyes. |
186
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 10:01p | Didn't we already fight that war because of the occupation in Kuwait back in the 90's?
Because members of Al Quaida were "known to be Iraq" we went and attacked them?? Maybe we should attack ourselves and Cananda, I'm pretty sure I've heard member of Al Quaida have been known to be here too. |
187
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 10:02p | "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; "
So, it's our mission to go to other countries and force democratic government on them? |
188
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 10:03p | Yeah, I don't think the white house site is at all biased.
They forgot to include:
"Whereas the President is an oil-man and wants to make some BIG bucks so he's able to retire in style..." |
189
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 10:10p | Here's another take on why we went to war, which I'm sure many are familiar with:
""He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade ·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker.""
" According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade." "
|
190
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/14/2008 10:11p | Whereas the president wants eveyone to think he's a big hero and to make a name for himself at the expense of innocent civilians.... |
