The real reason why Bush invaded Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]376190[/snapback]</div>

Are you serious?

 

There were two issues that ran even deeper that caused the whole Euro thing to happen... Dig even deeper and you find the real cause...

1. Bush: Tastes Great; Saddam: Less filling
2. Bush: Almond Joy; Saddam: Mounds

These guys couldn't agree on the basics which lead to the rest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 16 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]376195[/snapback]</div>

You forgot:

Saddam: Mass Graves and More
Saddam: Invades neighboring Countries and More
Saddam: Gases own citizens and More

or, and the honest answer is, and
The real reason Saddam insisted on the Euro....
The French would not take the USD in the oil-for-food scandal and only accepted the Euro :lol:
How else do you work the WORLDS LARGEST SCANDAL EVER - in an EU country?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]376202[/snapback]</div>

Excellent decision - especially when there is little to refute in my responses

And there are a lot of mass graves out there - name another country trying to stop them all -- or how about name one country or organization [ie UN] doing anything about it.

I am tired of the europeans sitting on their butts mass grave after mass murder - geez - i cannot even think of one time when they were proactive. Heck they are responsible for a good deal of them.

BTW - I dont expect an response to this from you - either way - ignoring me or because there is no good response to this truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]376190[/snapback]</div>

And from the "well, isn't that convenient?" dept:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/12/13/70300

And don't forget the world's largest embassy complex:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/44bb3006-9e80-11db...00779e2340.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]376190[/snapback]</div>

OK, I give up. Is this theory in the "Bush did it for his own self interest" camp or the "Bush did it for the good of the Country" camp? What is so confusing is that the article is written as if it's a "Bush is Bad" type article, similar to the "Bush did it to prop up his Big Oil cronies" type of article. But, wouldn't protecting the solvancy of the US dollar be a "for the good of the people" kind of thing, not necessarily a "for the good of Bush" type of thing?

My opinion is that this article is one of those "Let's criticize anything and everything about Bush and see what sticks" kind of thing.

 

So here's a question to the neos. If there weren't a drop of oil in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait would we still be there? You don't have to be a conspiracist to know the answer to this.

Oh wait, there are people here who believed that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. Oh wait, that's foolish, dinosaurs didn't exist, big bones were put in the ground by an intellectual designer to mess with us. How do I know this? The bible said so, or at least people in the bible said so.

 

Great article, good laughs. i especially liked the part about "stated neo-conservative quest for world domination" - Yes, we're out to dominate the world which is why we invaded Iraq and then gave it right back to the people with their own government. :lol: If we wanted world domination, we would have made Iraq the 51 state... followed by Canada, Mexico, etc...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 16 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]376229[/snapback]</div>

Gave it right back to the Iraqi people? Too funny. Where do you think the profits from the oil are going for the next 30 years? Why the 14 bases and the embassy complex? If you go to PNAC's web site, you can read the whole plan there, so far nothing we are doing seems to be out of line with what they have outlined. We don't need to make Iraq the 51st state. I think there's no one simple reason for our invasion, but all these combined:

military bases to replace the ones lost in Saudi Arabia

control of the world's second largest oil reserves

propping up the petrodollars

money to Halliburton, Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 16 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]376233[/snapback]</div>

It's obvious that we have something to gain from going in there... but it's not in terms of "world domination" like that line in the article suggests. We're looking out for American interests, the rest of the world be damned. Yes, creating a foreign government does lead to additional perks for ourselves, but it's still a sovereign government that will probably end up hating us and kicking us out in <5 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 16 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]376223[/snapback]</div>

Of course it's because there's oil in the Middle East. The fact that the Middle East is a major supplier to the whole world is the very reason that instability in the Middle East threatens the stability of the entire world.

So yes, it is all about oil. The flaw in your thinking is that you refuse to acknowledge that the political and economic stability of the entire world is dependent on the free flow of oil, and that if political instability or say an aggressive dictator, threatens the supply of oil, then the whole world is threatened.

So tell me, what would happen to you job and your family if an Iraq or Iran leader were capable of shutting down the flow of oil from the middle east for a month or more? Do you really think that would effect only Bush's Big Oil cronies? It would screw over just about everyone in every industrialized country in the world. It would throw the world economy in a tail spin, and therefore throw the US economy in a tail spin. You job would be toast and your family might be in the street and hungry. It doesn't matter if you live in the US, Canada, or Europe.

That's the threat that aggressive dictators in the Middle East represent. That's why the US would rather see democracies in the Middle East that are interested in stability, rather than dictators that are interested in power.

Why does the US not want Iran to have nuclear weapons? It's not because we think Iran would use them in the US. It's because it would give an aggressive Iran enough power to take control of the Middle East oil supplies, which threatens everyone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 16 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]376244[/snapback]</div>

Of course, a real democracy in Iraq might prefer to sell the oil for Euros (Iran, we're looking at you!) or want to change things with respect to the Palestinien situation. Do you really think we will let that happen?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 16 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]376255[/snapback]</div>

Explain the Palestinian thing to me if you would.

 

The war in Iraq will cost us near $500 Billion dollars. It would cost $200 Billion to give every family or single individual in the US a Prius, making the need for middle east oil unnecessary. Of course this solution would lower the profits of the all important oil companies.

Not to mention the many hundreds of thousands of lives that would not have been lost in Iraq.

By the way Dobbie, we killed or caused the death of many more Iraqis than Saddam ever did...

Cheers,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 16 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]376267[/snapback]</div>

You are troubled. You see good where there is evil and evil where there is good. How does it feel to be on the same side as the bad guys? You still do not have a plan to end this and I wonder what you would have done 9/12/01? Probably the same thing clinton did after WTC I in 1993.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]376273[/snapback]</div>

Seriously. You need to stop watching Fox News. Of course, these days, even they have admitted to NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq. How many times do you have to hear it? Or do you not quite understand?

NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ...
NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND SADDAM HUSSEIN...
NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ....
NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND SADDAM HUSSEIN...

What about this don't you get?

As I've told you before, and you've ignored it, we actually did Osama a favor by getting rid of Saddam. I think most of us agree that our initial pounding on Afghanistan was rational and just. NOT IRAQ!!!!!

Oh wait, let me explain something else to you. Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same country. Apparently, that's confusing you, too.

Geez. Never thought I'd have to treat an MD like a five year old.