The real reason why Bush invaded Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 16 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]376255[/snapback]</div>

Let's say we don't let oil get priced in Euros. So, would you consider such actions by an American President (Bush or otherwise) to be done for the self interest of the President, or for the interests of the Country? I would think that ensuring the solvency of the currency would be in the interests of the country. Don't you think that a President should act in the interests of the country?

Your accusatory tone certainly makes it sound to me like you believe that a President would do such a thing for greedy and selfish reasons.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]376283[/snapback]</div>

Even if we didn't consume a drop of oil, we would still be concerned about the free flow of oil and it's effects on the world economy. Because our economy is intertwined with the world economy. If the world economy goes down the drain, regardless of the reason, so does ours.

Therefore, the stability of the Middle East is important the US and it's Presidents, even when they don't have past ties to oil companies. That's why Clinton cared about the Middle East. That's why Carter cared about the Middle East. That's why the next President, who will likely be a Democrat, will continue to meddle in the Middle East.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jan 16 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]376291[/snapback]</div>

The $500 billion would have gone a long way towards some energy alternatives. Maybe if we didn't have to import so much energy (and everything else, but that's a different story) then our currency would be more solvent. Got Euros in that 401K yet?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/572b41a6-a414-11db...00779e2340.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 16 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]376281[/snapback]</div>

Let me see - we declared war on germany why in WWII? You honestly think Saddam was not involved in any way shape or form with terrorists who worked against us? Then why did Dems give overwhelming support to the nearly two dozen articles of war against him - and a bunch of them were privy to the same intelligence President Bush was?

We doing OBL a favor - really - I guess he must really enjoy living his life in a deep dark hole and not being able to plot and plan his next attack. I guess you would rather see him operating the way he was during the clinton years - with full range of motion and help from all his surrounding supporters.

And you believe that there are actually strictly defined countries and borders in that region - geeeez.

And if i were President, even though Iran did not attack us - I would level their ENTIRE nuclear program and reduce it to dust - like clinton should have done to the NoKo's when he had every opportunity to. Heck, clinton should have taken out OBL when he could have.

let me ask you - ARE YOU WONDERING WHAT DOCUMENTS SANDY BERGER DESTROYED?? I would sure like to know - we all know they would reveal how INCOMPETENT the clinton adminstration was and how it failed at its most important mission - to protect us.

You are indeed a Chamgerlainite and an enabler of evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

how about because THEY declared war on US first?
Dec 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. Tokyo declares war on United States & Britain

Dec 8, 1941 U S Congress adopts declaration of war against Japan.

Dec 11, 1941 Germany & Italy declare war on the United States

Dec 13, 1941 Hungary & Bulgaria declare war on U. S.


Now please, stop trying to use that same old line every damn time - it's been refuted enough.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

Because they declared war on us:

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, even though it was not obliged to do so under the Tripartite Pact. Hitler hoped that Japan would support Germany by attacking the Soviet Union. Japan did not oblige because it had signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union. Instead, Germany's declaration largely removed any significant opposition to the United States' joining the fight in the Europe Theater with full commitment. from wiki

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, we did him a big favor. Between Abu Gharaib (sic) photos and video footage of Iraqi casualties, we've provided just about the biggest recruiting drive Al Quaida could have ever hoped for. Bin Ladin hoped to lure into a bogged-down war in Afghanistan. Instead, we won there (not currently, unfortunately) and Chose to bog ourselves down in Iraq.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

Clinton did try to take out Bin Laden, and was accused of trying to "Wag the Dog" and only striking with missles to distract from the Lewinsky scandal. He still ordered the attack, even though he it would be interpreted as an attempt at distraction.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

There's no big secret as to the Berger documents. Even the Wall Street Journal calls this an urban myth (from Wiki):

Despite prosecutor's statements, some critics continued to make allegations. This led The Wall Street Journal to reiterate its position, stating "Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go". The paper went on to say: "The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an 'urban myth,' prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was 'so inaccurate as to be laughable.' In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror 'after-action' report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]376319[/snapback]</div>

And so is everyone else who disagrees with you. Cut it out, Dave. You're getting more laughs than I am.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jan 16 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]376329[/snapback]</div>

I've figured out The Good Doctor. He's a rabid leftist, making Michael Moore look like George Will by comparison. He posts as a parody of a rabid neocon, to A) make them look like idiots, and B) have leftists who don't get the joke post intelligent, articulate arguments to his oh-so-easily refutable posts (thus getting the word out for anyone still remaining on the fence).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jan 16 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]376329[/snapback]</div>

Probably true - sad though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 16 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]376339[/snapback]</div>

never to busy to fight crime and terror and those that enable it.

we have EMR in my office - 100% paperless - your MD have that or is he still cutting down trees?

 

Oh joy, EMR... most offices have that by now. But you make it sound like all you do all day is sit in front of a computer entering information, reading information, and making diagnostics based on the computer screen... gee, do you work for WebMD?

Most doctors i know (and i know a ton) spend a vast majority of their time with their patients, viewing symptoms, diagnosing problems and the like. They don't enter information into their EMR systems - their nurses do that.

So, how much time during the day do you spend with your patients, doctor?

 

Simple solution to iraq and that area! Learn to be less greedy in the worlds natual resources and when the demand for oil goes away!so will we from that part of the world.Be Honest! We in this country use and waist alot of resourses and our setting a bad example for the rest of the world.Just look at us! A tv in every room,3 or more cars,a 3000 sq foot home for two.Big business loves us for wanting more than what we need.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 16 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]376281[/snapback]</div>

Ok, here's where the stupidity of the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" expresses itself the best...

YOU DON'T SIT AROUND AND WAIT FOR THE CONNECTION!

It's exactly like sitting around, and waiting for that final connection that completes the circuit for the dynamite charge under your chair to go off, how far are you willing to go...

I've said this a million times before, Afghanistan WASN'T an imminent threat on 9/10 EITHER!!! You all seem to think some sort of "proof" must exist... Well guess what? PLENTY OF CRIMES ARE COMMITTED FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF!!!

I wish I had a chalkboard so I could draw up simple, understandable primary shaped diagrams for this crowd, but it really isn't worth it... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 16 2007, 05:41 PM) [snapback]376451[/snapback]</div>

This is the funniest post in a long time!

If you have an idea something might be true. Act on it! Screw the evidence.

The sad part is that is likely how some people in the administration think.

 

Agreed Alric - it's the typical conspiracy theorists wet dream - you talk about how something could be dangerous to you, you worry that "they" are out to get you, you stand up in front of the world and proclaim that "they" are out to cause trouble and need to be dealt with... and people actually believe you!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 16 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]376457[/snapback]</div>

I know. Although it's certainly been put into practice before. The former soviet union put this doctrine into action numerous times with both tragic (collectivization) and laughable (T.D. Lysenko) results.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jan 16 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]376457[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

You're the ones who are foolish, thinking evidence must somehow exist for any action. THAT, is a presumptious, and narrow minded thought process.

Although it does make it easier for those who think as such to get taken advantage of, some simply, silenced...

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 16 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]376467[/snapback]</div>

And yet you were the one who said:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 16 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]376458[/snapback]</div>

Which is clearly arguing the exact opposite point... so, which is it? Oh wait, i see... you're from Cali - so having no proof is fine when it screws someone else over, but when talking about turning your home into a war zone suddenly its all about the proof!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 16 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]376467[/snapback]</div>

The irony of this is outstanding.

IF you demand evidence it is EASIER to take advantage of you.

I guess taking things on faith therefore makes you skeptical.