Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
It seems the Neo-cons have achieved all their objectives, and then some.

1. Bin Laden NOT captured or killed, so he's available to pull out and rattle whenever needed.
Surely the Afghan war couldn't have been planned THAT badly?

2. AQ active and operating out of Pakistan
- Useful for widening the 'War on Terror' and extending Homeland security legislation
- A handy excuse should the US run out of countries to bomb, 'they have nukes and Bin Ladens there! Go go go!'

3. Saddam's Iraq broken. One of the few regional powers is no longer able to challenge Israel. With Iraq in a perpetual state of chaos, or broken into multiple pieces, it should never be the case again.

4. Mayhem in Iraq, Halliburton making billions hand over fist. Don't tell me this wasn't the plan when Rumsfeld rejected the advice on how many troops would be needed to keep the place stable.

5. Oil over $100/barrel. Dubya and his buddies the Saudis coining it big time. Know how to gold plate a Hummer? There are a hundred guys in Qatar who want one for each of their wives.
Struggling to buy gas to get to work? Too bad you're not one of the 'haves or have mores'.

6. Iran sucked into the Iraqi quagmire, now the US has an excuse to nuke them - Then they won't be a bother to Israel.

7. The rapture brought a few steps closer

Anyone not believe this was the plan all along and the WMD thing was a crock of poo?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-08 03:47:25)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Onidax
Member
+41|6463
Money money money. Just imagine, if we had no one to share our things with we wouldn't be motivated this way. Man is driven by the idea of being one up on his fellow man. We are all guilty of it and for as long as we are this ride will continue. Our pleasure comes from having what others cant.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
But, Barrack is a radical who will destroy Merica.
Hannity says so.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
1.  Is Clinton a neocon now?   
2.  Obama has advocated the invasion of Pakistan.  Guess he's a neocon too?
3.  No guarantee Iraq won't still oppose Israel once they get their government sorted out.   
4.  Halliburton would be making more in a peaceful Iraq. 
5.  You know who else is coining it?  Everyone who owns mutual funds, hence anyone who has a 401K.  Shame on those oil companies for making profit.   If you think oil companies are the only cause of high prices, you need to do some research.
6.  Obama has stated military action against Iran should be on the table, too.  Neocon?
7.  God decides that, not man.  Check Revelation.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
As I've said before...  chaos was the intention.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6153|Ireland
This OP shows what is wrong with liberals.  I know that the republicans are corrupt as hell and destroying the country, but none of the OP's points are reality based or intellectually honest. 

The Moronic thought process and radical statements powered by hate actually help the Republicans and Democrats destroy this country.  Take a dose of reality and try again with your thread.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

This OP shows what is wrong with liberals.  I know that the republicans are corrupt as hell and destroying the country, but none of the OP's points are reality based or intellectually honest. 

The Moronic thought process and radical statements powered by hate actually help the Republicans and Democrats destroy this country.  Take a dose of reality and try again with your thread.
Dilbert may be a bit extreme, but he is basing this on reality.

The strongest evidence for chaos being the intention in invading Iraq is Cheney's admission to the American Enterprise Institute back in 1994 that invading Iraq would be a quagmire.  Cheney understood the conflicts between the 3 main ethnic groups in Iraq.  It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that removing Saddam would lead to chaos.

Yet, chaos is highly profitable for contractors.  Nation building is more expensive than normal when what you build is continually destroyed by insurgents.  Having a need for massive amounts of soldiers also provides ample opportunities for mercenaries.

The point is...  this administration is closely tied to oil and the military industrial complex, and there are few things more profitable for those groups than privatized war and continuous nation building.

It makes perfect sense for us to have invaded Iraq when looking at it from this war profiteering angle.  It also positions us with the ability to invade Iran, and it appeases the Christian Zionists looking forward to the Rapture.

So the general gist of what Dilbert posted makes sense.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command

Lotta_Drool wrote:

This OP shows what is wrong with liberals.  I know that the republicans are corrupt as hell and destroying the country, but none of the OP's points are reality based or intellectually honest. 

The Moronic thought process and radical statements powered by hate actually help the Republicans and Democrats destroy this country.  Take a dose of reality and try again with your thread.
Well gee Spit remember this; " The Iraqis will pay for their own liberation?"

This war has done nothing for you or me. It has made a few rich and costs the lives of thousands.

How can you take seriously a " global war on terror " when our borders are wide open?

It's a sham. A lie. The looting of Iraq is coinciding with the looting of America.

Gas prices have doubled since the war began.

Enough already.
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

Stingray24 wrote:

4.  Halliburton would be making more in a peaceful Iraq.
How?
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
No armed threat, more production.  Seems pretty obvious ....
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Stingray24 wrote:

1.  Is Clinton a neocon now?
Or the British, Russians, Germans, French, and the Democratic members of Congress on the Security council (They were privet to the same exact intelligence). All of them agreed with the assessment at the time.

Or perhaps it was just the Neo-cons that made Saddam violate sixteen different UN resolutions for over a decade. This whole forced war idea does a face plant when you have to face the reality that Saddam himself could have prevented the war by simply complying with the United Nations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

No armed threat, more production.  Seems pretty obvious ....
When it comes to oil production, yes.  When it comes to construction or mercenary work, no.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

1.  Is Clinton a neocon now?
Or the British, Russians, Germans, French, and the Democratic members of Congress on the Security council (They were privet to the same exact intelligence). All of them agreed with the assessment at the time.

Or perhaps it was just the Neo-cons that made Saddam violate sixteen different UN resolutions for over a decade. This whole forced war idea does a face plant when you have to face the reality that Saddam himself could have prevented the war by simply complying with the United Nations.
Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

1.  Is Clinton a neocon now?
Or the British, Russians, Germans, French, and the Democratic members of Congress on the Security council (They were privet to the same exact intelligence). All of them agreed with the assessment at the time.

Or perhaps it was just the Neo-cons that made Saddam violate sixteen different UN resolutions for over a decade. This whole forced war idea does a face plant when you have to face the reality that Saddam himself could have prevented the war by simply complying with the United Nations.
Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
I said 16. Although your cherry picking of the facts is inaccurate also. He routinely kicked them out and denied them access to restricted areas per the United nations, not the Neo's (UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998).


Note: this is not justification but rather simply demonstrating that Saddam created an environment that allowed the war sell.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6435|Melbourne - Home of Football

Stingray24 wrote:

7.  God decides that, not man.  Check Revelation.
And I thought I was reading the debate and serious talk section.
mikkel
Member
+383|6571

Stingray24 wrote:

No armed threat, more production.  Seems pretty obvious ....
If there's no armed threat, and no need to rapidly rebuild critical infrastructure over and over again whenever it gets blown up, then why on Earth would the Iraqi government choose an American contractor that's facing countless allegations of corruption and gross misappropriation of funds tagged for the rebuilding of Iraq for their own rebuilding purposes?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Or the British, Russians, Germans, French, and the Democratic members of Congress on the Security council (They were privet to the same exact intelligence). All of them agreed with the assessment at the time.

Or perhaps it was just the Neo-cons that made Saddam violate sixteen different UN resolutions for over a decade. This whole forced war idea does a face plant when you have to face the reality that Saddam himself could have prevented the war by simply complying with the United Nations.
Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
I said 16. Although your cherry picking of the facts is inaccurate also. He routinely kicked them out and denied them access to restricted areas per the United nations, not the Neo's (UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998).


Note: this is not justification but rather simply demonstrating that Saddam created an environment that allowed the war sell.
True, but I'm not cherry picking anything.  I know as well as you that Clinton was lobbying for war with Iraq in the late 90s just like Bush later did.

The fact that both parties were interested in invading at different points is why I'm still registered as independent.  I don't trust either party very much.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Or the British, Russians, Germans, French, and the Democratic members of Congress on the Security council (They were privet to the same exact intelligence). All of them agreed with the assessment at the time.

Or perhaps it was just the Neo-cons that made Saddam violate sixteen different UN resolutions for over a decade. This whole forced war idea does a face plant when you have to face the reality that Saddam himself could have prevented the war by simply complying with the United Nations.
Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
I said 16. Although your cherry picking of the facts is inaccurate also. He routinely kicked them out and denied them access to restricted areas per the United nations, not the Neo's (UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998).
K. you are right.

IF the news reports of him doing such thing are correct.
IF all or part of the evidence justifying the war was not concocted, since lost or otherwise created from whole cloth.
I get the fact that eight years of anti Bush media harping doesn't help public perception.
Answer my question pertaining to the underlying reason the GWOT seems bogus; no federal border policy except the policy being, they have no policy.

How can you take this shit seriously when millions of illegal  aliens and students on over stayed visas roam our countryside?
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

7.  God decides that, not man.  Check Revelation.
And I thought I was reading the debate and serious talk section.
#7 of the OP stated "the rapture brought a few steps closer".  I clarified by pointing out that Christians believe God decides when that will occur, not man.  Did you have a point or are you just trolling?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
I said 16. Although your cherry picking of the facts is inaccurate also. He routinely kicked them out and denied them access to restricted areas per the United nations, not the Neo's (UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998).


Note: this is not justification but rather simply demonstrating that Saddam created an environment that allowed the war sell.
True, but I'm not cherry picking anything.  I know as well as you that Clinton was lobbying for war with Iraq in the late 90s just like Bush later did.

The fact that both parties were interested in invading at different points is why I'm still registered as independent.  I don't trust either party very much.
Yay for common ground . I hate this idea of one party/platform accountability. It was precisely what our founding fathers warned us against.

It was Clinton who made it the official policy to remove Saddam.. that in turn was also used as official justification for the war.

Written in the: Iraq War Resolution
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liber … ct_of_1998
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Saddam did let in inspectors.

I'll give you one thing though...  The U.N. should have been willing to help us enforce the rules it set for Iraq.
I said 16. Although your cherry picking of the facts is inaccurate also. He routinely kicked them out and denied them access to restricted areas per the United nations, not the Neo's (UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998).
K. you are right.

IF the news reports of him doing such thing are correct.
IF all or part of the evidence justifying the war was not concocted, since lost or otherwise created from whole cloth.
I get the fact that eight years of anti Bush media harping doesn't help public perception.
Answer my question pertaining to the underlying reason the GWOT seems bogus; no federal border policy except the policy being, they have no policy.

How can you take this shit seriously when millions of illegal  aliens and students on over stayed visas roam our countryside?
You missed my edit. It was an important one.

Note: this is not justification but rather simply demonstrating that Saddam created an environment that allowed the war sell.

I was challenging the idea set forth in the OP that this war was an exclusive Neo-con concoction. It wasn't, you can see that no matter which position you take on the war. (If) the evidence of a threat was fabricated, it was fabricated by a great many people in varying countries and political parties.

String'em all up. .. that's all.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Thanks, K.    That's a good point about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country

Dilbert_X wrote:

4. Mayhem in Iraq, Halliburton making billions hand over fist. Don't tell me this wasn't the plan when Rumsfeld rejected the advice on how many troops would be needed to keep the place stable.
It wasn't.  The state department and the Pentagon had two competing plans.. Powell with "you break it you bought it" and his opinion that we'd need 300,000 troops or more to secure the country. The Pentagon/ Rumsfeld vision was that of a lighter footprint; less troops = less impact, less damage, fewer american targets in the country. (keep in mind that at the time they actually did think there was a danger of Saddam using WMD of some kind on our troops) They had a 'we can do this' attitude, in fact there were some in the planning stages who thought the whole thing would be wrapped up in less than a year ...and actually, in the beginning, it worked. The regime fell in what, a month ?

The chaos was set in motion by a whole series of bad moves/ decisions that came later, after the fall, and during the occupation; the initial operation was a success.

A good read about the occupation and how it went wrong  Imperial Life in the Emerald city

Also see Packer's "The Assassin's Gate", and Shadid's "Night Draws Near" for more post Saddam history.

Last edited by Vax (2008-06-08 13:54:33)

Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country

Turquoise wrote:

The strongest evidence for chaos being the intention in invading Iraq is Cheney's admission to the American Enterprise Institute back in 1994 that invading Iraq would be a quagmire.  Cheney understood the conflicts between the 3 main ethnic groups in Iraq.  It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that removing Saddam would lead to chaos.

Yet, chaos is highly profitable for contractors.  Nation building is more expensive than normal when what you build is continually destroyed by insurgents.  Having a need for massive amounts of soldiers also provides ample opportunities for mercenaries.
Do you consider that there may have been some historical event, some sea change in the security picture that happened some time between '94 and 2003 ?

Some major event that might have changed the thinking Cheney and others were doing WRT Iraq ?

I'll let you guess what that might be.

 
And I'm sorry but you and the OP are kind of bordering on the insane if you think that anyone really wants chaos death and destruction so they can "go fix it again" just to make their profits higher.  Conspiracy nuttiness, is what that is. Really some level of good security is needed to work on reconstruction projects at all if the security situation goes south, no work gets done.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
The chaos was set in motion by a whole series of bad moves/ decisions that came later, after the fall, and during the occupation; the initial operation was a success.
The chaos was set in motion by failing to send in enough troops and failing to secure the Iraqi army's weapons.
Rumsfeld's 'vision' was little more than that.
Further dumb decisions later, disbanding the army, de-Baathification, were either the actions of a very very stupid man acting with no intelligent oversight or deliberate and pre-planned. Take your pick.
Do you consider that there may have been some historical event, some sea change in the security picture that happened some time between '94 and 2003 ?
Obviously - how is this related to Iraq?
And I'm sorry but you and the OP are kind of bordering on the insane if you think that anyone really wants chaos death and destruction so they can "go fix it again" just to make their profits higher.
Then explain if you can Cheney's foreknowledge of the likely 'quagmire' and a total lack on his part of any steps taken to reduce the likelihood?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard