BF2S Forums For those still in Denial

lowing wrote:

Yeah, we discovered there was no WMD only AFTER we had to re-enter Iraq.

Since you brought it up I will ask you the same thing I have asked all the others who makes this claim.

If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?

To begin with, i can't honestly imagine that the world's best intelligence services (CIA, US Military, etc.) would not have known if Iraq still had any WMD (not only nuclear but also bio and chemical weapons) before entering the country.  Saddam could have fooled the UN inspectors, but IMO not your (or any Western) intelligence agencies.  In 1991 his country was crippled.  That's why I had to laugh watching Colin Powell - BTW one of your best members of government since 2000 - trying to explain before the UN Security Council some pictures of 'hidden installations' that afterwards proved to be wrong.

That brings us to the second question: why did the US leave the country in 1991?  Politics, my friend. A change of politics.

The military buildup in 1990 was the result of a global reaction on the attack made by Iraq on Kuwait. The Gulf War (1990–1991) (also called the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, or Second Gulf War) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 20 nations [1] led by the United States and mandated by the United Nations in order to liberate Kuwait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war).  The important issue here is that the coalition had a mandate from the UN, and could only work within the terms of said mandate, which was the liberation of Kuwait. No other country would have accepted the US going in and removing Saddam from power.

Since 1991 there was no immediate threat made by Iraq towards any country, but the new US government decided the time being right to go in and invade Iraq, under the pretext of "non-compliance with the UN regulations", which was changed afterwards to "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people".

Since 9/11 everything seemed suddenly possible, and if you watch the months before the actual invasion of Iraq you'll see the preparation and planning, not only militarily but in the media and on the political forum where the public was made ready to accept that "the war on terror" needed a second front. BS.

And you do know of the links existing between Vice-President Cheney and Halliburton - KBR, making large profits (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/)? The links between the Bush family and US Oil companies? The links with defense companies?

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah, we discovered there was no WMD only AFTER we had to re-enter Iraq.

Since you brought it up I will ask you the same thing I have asked all the others who makes this claim.

If the US wanted Iraq's oil, why did we not KEEP it after WW2, or again after the 91 start of the war? We left Iraq, without stealing their oil. Can you please explain that?

To begin with, i can't honestly imagine that the world's best intelligence services (CIA, US Military, etc.) would not have known if Iraq still had any WMD (not only nuclear but also bio and chemical weapons) before entering the country.  Saddam could have fooled the UN inspectors, but IMO not your (or any Western) intelligence agencies.  In 1991 his country was crippled.  That's why I had to laugh watching Colin Powell - BTW one of your best members of government since 2000 - trying to explain before the UN Security Council some pictures of 'hidden installations' that afterwards proved to be wrong.

That brings us to the second question: why did the US leave the country in 1991?  Politics, my friend. A change of politics.

The military buildup in 1990 was the result of a global reaction on the attack made by Iraq on Kuwait. The Gulf War (1990–1991) (also called the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, or Second Gulf War) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 20 nations [1] led by the United States and mandated by the United Nations in order to liberate Kuwait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war).  The important issue here is that the coalition had a mandate from the UN, and could only work within the terms of said mandate, which was the liberation of Kuwait. No other country would have accepted the US going in and removing Saddam from power.

Since 1991 there was no immediate threat made by Iraq towards any country, but the new US government decided the time being right to go in and invade Iraq, under the pretext of "non-compliance with the UN regulations", which was changed afterwards to "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people".

Since 9/11 everything seemed suddenly possible, and if you watch the months before the actual invasion of Iraq you'll see the preparation and planning, not only militarily but in the media and on the political forum where the public was made ready to accept that "the war on terror" needed a second front. BS.

And you do know of the links existing between Vice-President Cheney and Halliburton - KBR, making large profits (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/)? The links between the Bush family and US Oil companies? The links with defense companies?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 7uwabl.asp


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/in … 062793.htm


All about bush and cheney and oil and profits for them??


Please explain Clintons attitude toward Iraq and his lame ass attacks.

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/in … 062793.htm

All about bush and cheney and oil and profits for them??

Please explain Clintons attitude toward Iraq and his lame ass attacks.

What's your point? Clinton acts when he has to, based on the information he receives and uses cruise missiles to remove the danger, while GWB invades a country, rips it apart, killing hundreds of thousands in the process and affecting the lives of millions, and still has no clue what to do.

"Lame ass attacks"? some people really think they are John Wayne, do they?

Clinton, IMO, has no links to the defense industries while Cheney still received large payments while in office:
DEFERRED SALARY: Cheney received $205,298 in deferred salary from Halliburton in 2001, $162,392 from the company in 2002 and $178,437 in 2003. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said, "Deferred salary is not a retirement benefit or a payment from a third party escrow account, but rather an ongoing corporate obligation paid from company funds."

STOCK OPTIONS: The Vice President has signed an agreement to donate any profits from his stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donations. Should Halliburton's stock price increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial profit, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction.

Halliburton Stock Options Currently Held by Cheney (current to end of 2002): 100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07; 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08; 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09.

Cheney's deferred compensation and stock option benefits are in addition to a $20 million retirement package paid to him by Halliburton after only five years of employment; a $1.4 million cash bonus paid to him by Halliburton in 2001; and additional millions of dollars in compensation paid to him while he was employed by the company. (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/ethics.html).

What does a marine earn while on duty in Fallujah?

Guess ya didn't read the article.........Clinton viewed Iraq, AND it's WMD's as a real threat..........Blowing up tents and camels didn't really take care of the problem.

The point is.............for over 10 years, prior to Bush and Cheney, Iraq was viewed upon as having WMD's, viewed upon as a "grave" threat. He was breaking the UN resolutions that stopped the fighting, it is his fault he lost his country, and his fault he is going to be hanged in the spring.

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Guess ya didn't read the article.........Clinton viewed Iraq, AND it's WMD's as a real threat..........Blowing up tents and camels didn't really take care of the problem.

The point is.............for over 10 years, prior to Bush and Cheney, Iraq was viewed upon as having WMD's, viewed upon as a "grave" threat. He was breaking the UN resolutions that stopped the fighting, it is his fault he lost his country, and his fault he is going to be hanged in the spring.

I did read the article, and I agree there has been a real problem with Saddam having (and using) WMD in the past, prior to 1991 (remember the Kurds). And I also agree that Saddam tried to obtain WMD again since 1991 (mostly chemical), and was prevented by the actions undertaken by the UN (sanctions) and the US/Clinton.

As I said earlier, these actions did take care of the WMD problem, since no traces of WMD were found by the US troops upon entering Iraq.

My point is: Bush used the WMD problem and the link to Osama to invade Iraq, while there was enough evidence both reasons were false. So he had his own reasons, and removing Saddam or bringing freedom to the Iraqi people sure weren't one of them.

Iraq's deceptive practices continued after the 2000 election....They continued to jack around the UN and the inspectors.....The UN, I am sure would continue to play grab ass with Iraq for the next 10 years. The US has decided it would not.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Iraq's deceptive practices continued after the 2000 election....They continued to jack around the UN and the inspectors.....The UN, I am sure would continue to play grab ass with Iraq for the next 10 years. The US has decided it would not.

It seems it was some pretty effective 'grab assing' for the previous ten years, given that Saddam hadn't made any headway on obtaining WMD...

Hard to know that when he refused to let inspectors in isn't it?

splixx wrote:

*yawn*

let me guess Jr. High??