Again, you are incorrect Anthony. You claim Bush/Cheney took us to war over oil. You provide nothing to back that up. I claim we had no support because saddam bought off countries with oil vouchers. It's really that simple. Show me where I've said anything else please? Saddam continued to starve his people while building lavish palaces and spending millions while taking over 10 Billion from that program. I ask again, what evidence do you have that Bush/Cheney took us to war over oil? Anthing at all.
Same old crap you posted 50 times already, do you even read the posts that I put up that have discredited your BS as many times as you post it?
It always amazes me that these same people that think there is some magical tie to Haliburton today, had no issue with them when Clinton gave them no bid contracts. I find the double standards refreshingly laughable. I agree very much, there is no other company capable which is why they have a long history of providing support to our military under both Republican and Democrat administrations.
Apparently they were posted with the "invisible ink" option. I take it the real facts are very disturbing to you? If you have health insurance, you may be qualified for free or low cost medical help.
You guys are both full of it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and bought off the entire Defense department.
Among other things, spite. It was the final slap in the face to Kuwait for daring to ask Saddam and Iraq to repay their debt. Keep in mind also, as I mentioned previously Kuwait was deeply undercutting Iraq's oil/gas prices, and that cut deeply into Saddams castle (palace) building plans, torture chambers, rape rooms, and WMD programs. So, on your way out, put Kuwait's only revenue generation system out of commission, then reap the benefits selling your own oil. (crap, I said the magic word) Think of Iraq as a company. It has competitors out there, "other companies", like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.. Like a lot of "mean nasty corporations" do many times, Iraq (the company) decided to try to take over another "company". That failed, so they did what they could to sabotage them.
Will you be providing the same level of facts to support that as everything else? Be sure and use the "invisible ink" option when you post
It's magical statements like that that have now convinced me that you must be correct. Now that I know that I am "full of it", I think I see the light. Yes, facts like "you guys are both full of it", are extremely convincing.
Mia, maybe G-tech will now see that these wars are all over oil money since you have told him that, I have been telling him this for a week now and he still does not believe it. PS: G-tech, what ever happened to your "no war for oil thread" where you were going to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we do not fight for oil?
I've clearly established numerous times that I dispute your claim that it was Bush/Cheney that took us to war over oil. That is incorrect and you have produced nothing to back it up. However, I do contend on the other side, the war (or lack of the world to participate) was directly because of oil and because Saddam bought off countries, the United Nations and over 270 influential world leaders and businessmen around the world.
Your a liar just like Bush and Cheney, they claimed they went in because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, in addition he was going to blow up the world with Nuclear weapons. The 9/11 commission proved these were lies told by the administration. Just admit it, Cheney was defense secretary under Bush Senior and he and Bush Senior wanted to make up for the major mistake of not taking Saddam out in the first Gulf war. Even Colin Powell the joint chief DID NOT WANT TO GO INTO IRAQ, but Bush Senior, Rumsfeld and Cheney did. For reasons you and Mia still can not understand because you are both bias supporters of them.
I did not say that the war was started over oil. Oil has a part, though ultimately the war was started because Saddam did not pay his debt to Kuwait. Kuwait was not giving Saddam oil, they gave him cash to fund his war with Iran (as did many countries for obvious reasons). Saddam just did not want to pay Kuwait back. It's pretty simple. But that is how most wars get started after all.. Stupid little events in history.
Incorrect, you are wrong again. They made no such claim. Please post any reference you have to support that. Incorrect. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml Unlike you, I need facts to support a position. I cannot make up my own facts and expect for them to not be challenged. In your case, you make up whatever you want and hope people will believe it. And yet you still do not support your claims, instead, resorting to changing the topic or saying people are crazy. It's a shame you cannot support your positions. I understand why...because you cannot. For reasons you and Mia still can not understand because you are both bias supporters of them.[/QUOTE] It appears to me that both Mia and I have spent time researching and clarying facts. Just because *you* don't support them doesn't mean you can make up your own facts.
No one in the Bush admin, Bush or otherwise ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I think Bill Maher(spelling) said that one night and everyone assumes that Bush said it. It is simply not true. Iraq however was deemed part of the "Axis of Evil" in our war against terror. We made a committment to our country and the world that we would go after terrorists and the countries that habor them, and that is what we have done. Did Saddam have ties to Bin Laden? Sure, that has been proven, but was Saddam responsible for 9/11? No, I know that, you know that, however it is really cool to say that the Bush admin does not. Again, no one ever said this. That my friend is a snope. The admin never said this. Mistake? Ok, so Bush Senior does not invade Iraq = mistake. Bush junior invades Iraq = mistake? Can you say indecisive, waffle??? Flip flop? Make up your mind. Going into Iraq at that time would have been the major mistake. Mainly because as General Schwarzkopf [font=arial,sans-serif]said at one time "we did not have a plan for invading Iraq". It would have been suicide. Besides, on thing that you have to respect of our nation and Bush senior was the fact that for the first time in our history we set an objective, accomplished that objective, and did no more than what that objective required. Bush, and Cheney obviously learned from the the mistakes made by those that started the Vietnam war. Correct, in 91 he did not want to invade Iraq. I love when present news is ill-concieved by sound bites and blipverts from the past. Again with the insults. Try being a little nicer, people might return the favor.
G-tech, it is the same old cut and paste posts that you keep putting up, until you can come up with something that actually is new I will not waste time responding to your posts. PS: Mia, Bush and Cheney learned from Vietnam???? That is why they got us into another one by not taking Saddam out in the first place. Get real man.....
Other than to say "your crazy," "get real," "you are a liar" there's not much you *can* respond. Clearly you are not going to refute anything by presenting facts and standing behind your rediculous positions. Looks to me like you've been royally owned in this thread