Uncovered: The Whole Truth

luvtolean · 03-08-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPinOZ

Well if it's not oil then I guess LTL is saying that it is OK to go an pick on a weaker country which happens to have a bastard in power and beat the **** out of them just to get a strategic toehold in the area. Doesn't the US have other bases in the ME? And if everyone is OK with that reason why invent the WMD lie?

I am not saying it is OK. I am saying you always pick your battles if it is at all possible. And picking a hostile war with a nuclear nation is not the same thing as going to war in Iraq. Why do you think so many of these ME nations are attempting to become nuclear?

And what in the hell makes you think we're "picking" on Iraq? Are we there raping and looting the place? Or are we building infrastructure and hope for people coming out of a dictatorship? Were they not violating damn near every UN sanction, however the French, Germans and Russians were getting rich doing it along with them, so it was OK right?

Great Britain left a hell of a mess in the ME when they left right after WWII. The US basically picked up the gauntlet and despite our efforts, have made plenty of mistakes. But, you must remember, we were the only ones willing to step up to the task, so by definition, nobody could've done better.

The US has paid for its mistakes there. We are trying to make things right in Iraq. It is a region that understands nothing but steel. I truly believe this.

Bush is a LOUSY diplomat. He's a poor public speaker. That's why though his intent is much more moral than Clinton could ever be, the world hates him for it. Clinton was a master bullshitter/diplomat. And the world loved him for it.

RPinOZ · 03-09-2005, 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I am not saying it is OK. I am saying you always pick your battles if it is at all possible. And picking a hostile war with a nuclear nation is not the same thing as going to war in Iraq. Why do you think so many of these ME nations are attempting to become nuclear?

And what in the hell makes you think we're "picking" on Iraq? Are we there raping and looting the place? Or are we building infrastructure and hope for people coming out of a dictatorship? Were they not violating damn near every UN sanction, however the French, Germans and Russians were getting rich doing it along with them, so it was OK right?

Great Britain left a hell of a mess in the ME when they left right after WWII. The US basically picked up the gauntlet and despite our efforts, have made plenty of mistakes. But, you must remember, we were the only ones willing to step up to the task, so by definition, nobody could've done better.

The US has paid for its mistakes there. We are trying to make things right in Iraq. It is a region that understands nothing but steel. I truly believe this.

Bush is a LOUSY diplomat. He's a poor public speaker. That's why though his intent is much more moral than Clinton could ever be, the world hates him for it. Clinton was a master bullshitter/diplomat. And the world loved him for it.

I agree with most of what you are saying LTL and I can't argue with your summation of Bush as I personally have seen nothing to contradict what you say about him. But he is not the issue AFAIC. I was not trying to cast aspersions on his integrity but I was questioning the motives of some of the wielders of influence in this. Am I saying there may be some who wield more power, albeit covertly, than the president of the most powerful nation on earth? Yes I believe that is very possible.

By "picking on Irag" I meant singling out Iraq for special treatment over other equally "deserving" cases and I was questioning whether the fact that they are an oil rich country had more to do with it than WMD. I said the only reason the US and her allies went to Iraq was oil. I realise I was wrong to categorically state that because I have no proof, just a suspicion. And I still would like to know the truth of this because I don't think those in power ever really believed in WMD as a credible threat and I don't think that is the real reason.

Cowboy1600 · 03-09-2005, 2:02 AM

Installing a pro-US governement will assist Bush and his cronies to make serious spoondooly off Iraq in the future. It will also allow him to build his gas pipeline, ooops....he has nothing to do with that does he?

It also puts him one move closer to Israel. He is a christian fundamentalist, dont forget this. According to many religions Jesus will only return to earth for judgement day once the "holy lands" are secured by christians (namely Jews). Hence the continuing support of Israel in their tiff with palestine. I dont agree with how the palestinians fight for their cause however I guess they have to come up with some pretty drastic measures to fight an enemy oozing with US supplied military equipment.

SuperDave · 03-09-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Many members of the ass party saw the exact same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
Much of the intelligence came striaght from the U.N.
Of course, none of that matters to the moronic tin hat society. Bush has the giant secret oil tanks that are his personal property, and he personally pumped all the oil out of Iraq for his own personal benefit.

Talk about 'tin hat society'

OK, did Bush lie and purposely put soldiers in harms way for his own personal gain?

No. Bush is nothing more than a puppet. Wolfawitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all planning to take care of Iraq and initiate a democratic pilot program for the Middle East. This is not 'tin hat' thinking, it's a fact. Cheney drafted the doctrine that outlined the agressive position, pre-emptive (need no excuses) policy. Wolfy wanted Iraq/Saddam bad, Cheney wanted Saddam bad, Rumsfeld wanted Saddam bad.

When 9/11 happened, all three met with the president to strike Iraq and topple Saddam. This was the perfect excuse, regardless if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. President Bush was just about to give the order when Powell begged the President for a one on one private meeting. Powell (the sensible one) informed the President that this would be his worst nightmare, attacking Iraq. Not because we couldn't easily take that country militarily, but because occupation/rebuilding would take years and many number of American lives. Powell also informed the President that the World was watching, and attacking a country that had nothing to do 9/11, probably would not be received so lightly. It was Powell who told the President, if you're set on attacking/retaliating, you must go into Afghanistan - Bin Laden. The World would understand this, but not attacking Iraq/Saddam.

Powell was hated by Cheney, Wolfy, and Rumsfeld. How dare Powell go and speak to the President directly and halt their plans.

Did anyone notice that Powell stepped down just after the re-election? Hmmmm, no why would he do that? A little difference of opinion? Was he asked to step down? This I don't know, but it was obvious those men were not going to tolerate each other in the next term.

WMDs. Made up? Lies? How about embellish? That's a perfect word. "add fictitous detail to a tale". The men who resigned from their positions as counsel to the President on "evidence" of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, such as the tube that was confiscated, all testified that the material was NOT capable of nuclear missle use. Yet, their same report was "modified" to state that YES, this confiscated tube was indeed nuclear capable (exact same "evidence" that was shown to the UN). It was simply fabricated. No ifs, or maybe, or whatever, these documents were altered to state what the administration wanted them to say for justification/approval to carry out their plan. A plan that had been sitting idle for years (Fact), waiting for the "opportunity" to become reality. Wars/overtaking countries are kinda hard to just start up even if you're a SuperPower.

Now, is this evil? No. Deceptive to achieve what they believe as for the good of this Nation? Probably. But deception none the less. Does oil play any part in this? Any? Any what so ever? You'd be a fool to say no. Now I'm not saying it had everything to do with why we're there now, let's just call it a huge benefit.

And ccwilli, I can protest how those soldiers were sucked into this and still honor them, and no, I don't believe anyone is spitting on our soldiers like Vietnam. BTW, I spent 8 years in the military, whatever that proves.

Yellar · 03-09-2005, 11:01 AM

To me Iraq was the perfect opportunity. Where else could we put boots on the ground quickly? The intelligence was outdated but scary enough to take a chance that they would be able to find WMD's when we got there. Worst case scenario was that we don't find **** but are still able to take a bad guy out of power who has been broken numerous UN resolutions over the last decade.

How much heat has ths war taken off of the homeland? If they can catch a bus into Iraq and try to kill Westerners there than why try to sneak into the U.S. The 1500 Brave men and woman that have lost their lives in Iraq took the place for the men and woman that could/would have died here if we just sit still and let Osama and the rest regroup. Yeah, I say Osama even though we are talking about Iraq. It seems to me that the Al Quaida (SP?) recruits that are making there way into Iraq are the same ones that would be heading for the hills of Pakistan if we weren't in Iraq.

The ME is and has been a powder keg ready to explode. One Western foot on the ground is too much for the radicals there. I'm not saying that some of the hostility that these people have toward that U.S. is not our own fault but it has become an impossible situation. Something serious had to, and still has to be done to stabilize the region. Not for just the good of the U.S. but for all peace loving nations. The Radicals want our ass's dead. Period. It's a shame that the non-radicals have to endure this war though... Hopefully in the long run it will all be worth while.

deez · 03-09-2005, 11:07 AM

Wow, Dave, excellent post. I agree with 100%. I wish they'd just admit it, but they never will.

luvtolean · 03-09-2005, 11:37 AM

"It's too early to tell."

Chou En Lai's response to Henry Kissinger in China in 1972, who asked Lai if he believed whether the 1789 French Revolution (which is sometimes tied to the 1949 Chinese revolution) benefited humanity.

And that's really the crux of the problem here. Everyone (self included) is slinging bullshit. Some think it's a religious conspiracy (

), some think it's oil, whatever. Time will tell. Doesn't make good headlines or anti-American, anti-Bush or anti-Republican slogans to chant though does it?

Yellar · 03-09-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

"It's too early to tell."

Everyone (self included) is slinging bullshit.

Agreed!

deez · 03-09-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Everyone (self included) is slinging bullshit.

No one is slinging as much, as this administration.

luvtolean · 03-09-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

No one is slinging as much, as this administration.

The last one taught them well.

BDA116 · 03-09-2005, 12:45 PM

The last administration slung nothing but lies and ****. Never once telling the truth.
This one has a long way to go to reach the depths of horseshit the last one did.

*Mo Noyz* · 03-09-2005, 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

And how much have we benefitted from Iraq's oil so far? We're still paying just as much, actually more in most cases, than before the war.

Funny, how no one responded to this.

By the way, RPinOz, President Bush did not "start" this war. He simply resumed the war because Hussein refused to fully comply with the U.N. resolutions that were set before him year after year.

Not many people seem to acknowledge the fact that we were under a cease fire agreement with Iraq. A cease fire agreement that Hussein persistantly **** upon from day one.

deez · 03-10-2005, 1:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

The last one taught them well.

That is all you clowns ever say when anything gets brought up about this administration. You immediately point the finger at the previous administration.

Cowboy1600 · 03-10-2005, 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Funny, how no one responded to this.

Whats Bush going to do post-presidency? Become a cotton farmer? Philanthropist perhaps? Pffft....yeah....He'll most likely get back into big business. In what industry I wonder

Probably one that he already has a standing in and knows well.....what could that be? Hmmm....who knows

luvtolean · 03-10-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

That is all you clowns ever say when anything gets brought up about this administration. You immediately point the finger at the previous administration.

Now I'm a clown?

I wish I could agree but obviously I'm not that funny. Dude, you'd be saying the same thing if Kerry was in office trying to sort through what Bush has done. Of course, I'm sure you'd be right?

It was a joke, hence the smiley. Saying this administration learned from the last, and your knowledge of how I feel for Clinton's time, shows how much I don't like the current guys either.

deez · 03-10-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Now I'm a clown?

I wish I could agree but obviously I'm not that funny. Dude, you'd be saying the same thing if Kerry was in office trying to sort through what Bush has done. Of course, I'm sure you'd be right?

It was a joke, hence the smiley. Saying this administration learned from the last, and your knowledge of how I feel for Clinton's time, shows how much I don't like the current guys either.

I know

Just giving you a hard time, that's all

If it was Kerry doing all of this, no way, I'd be pissed as hell at him as well.

This last election was the worst 2 choices since I've been alive, IMHO. Here is hope for '08, hope we get a decent choice. Fugg all of it, my biggest vote would be for political reform, it's just out of hand.

luvtolean · 03-10-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

Fugg all of it, my biggest vote would be for political reform, it's just out of hand.

"We need some o' dat REEE-form daddy."

""We're the incumbant you idjit!"

We can certainly agree on that. With Billary looking good for '08, I don't think things are looking better.

And I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE RELIGIOUS NONSENSE of the Republicans!

deez · 03-10-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

"We need some o' dat REEE-form daddy."

""We're the incumbant you idjit!"

We can certainly agree on that. With Billary looking good for '08, I don't think things are looking better.

And I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE RELIGIOUS NONSENSE of the Republicans!

That bitch needs to stay in NY!

BDA116 · 03-10-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

Fugg all of it, my biggest vote would be for political reform, it's just out of hand.

Absolutely. Start by repealing both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, get us closer to the way the Constitution should be.
Ridding us of those two Amendment burdens alone would help to break up the lame-assed two party system that isn't working right.
Senators should represent the States themselves, Representatives should represent the people, just as our government was set up.
There should not be any tax on the generation of incomes, a national use tax is the best option.
ALL politicians abuse the tax system and buy votes, if it were re-done it would be much more difficult for them to do so.
However, none of them from either of the forced-on-us parties has the balls to do what's best for the country.
Of course, having a populace that is more concerned with Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, etc. and actually believing everything the moronic mainstream says - as well as the indoctrination system called "public schools" instead of actually learning about what is going on doesn't help.

Billary in '08 would be the largest disaster this country would ever face.