Finally disgusted with Bush
- Thread starter AndrewTB
- Start date
Yes 459, I know. Where is your proof that Bush went to Iraq over oil?
If you mean that we wouldn't be paying attention to the Middle East without needing the oil, you would be correct, except for 9/11 and Israel.
With regards to the French..there is more than a little dislike of the French government on this board. The French did aid the American colonies in fighting the British, but this was a long time ago and was in the context of long standing British-French animosity. Personally, my last visit to France was during the Vietnam war and I vowed never to go there again.
If you mean that we wouldn't be paying attention to the Middle East without needing the oil, you would be correct, except for 9/11 and Israel.
With regards to the French..there is more than a little dislike of the French government on this board. The French did aid the American colonies in fighting the British, but this was a long time ago and was in the context of long standing British-French animosity. Personally, my last visit to France was during the Vietnam war and I vowed never to go there again.
Yeah but 9-11...that was afghanistan. I dont see any correlation between invading Iraq other than for oil. The argument over wmds has been proven false, and was shown to be directly fabricated to justify the invasion of Iraq. Also the Alqueda scum didnt arrive in Iraq till after it was invaded.
As to the French I am merely pointing out facts about them. Personally in regards to separatist Quebecers, I believe they are traitors and should be hung. But history is what it is, whether we choose to agree with it or like it.
As to the French I am merely pointing out facts about them. Personally in regards to separatist Quebecers, I believe they are traitors and should be hung. But history is what it is, whether we choose to agree with it or like it.
459:
Your post make it obvious that you are an educated man, so I must assume that I won't be able to persuade you. In fact, I can bet that you already know my response, but I'll go through the motions.
1. 911 resulted in a war against an ideology and terrorism in general. This means that the war was not directed against any one country.
2. Even Saddam's generals thought that they had WMDs. We certainly thought that they did and so did many foreign intellegence agencies. He previously use WMD's. So, you accuse Bush of fabrication. That demands proof, but the facts are against you. There is a difference between acting on bad intelligence and fabricating.
3. You might have noticed that Iran was singled out as one of the three terrorist countries and in fact they may be number one. Iran lies between the two countries that we attacked. Also, shortly after 911, reports suggested that the Bush administration was looking for a long term strategy to eliminate the violent Moslem fundamentalist. He has since used Iraq as a model and hopes that the democratic process will lead to affluence and other countries will follow. The thinking was that Middle Eastern poverty and the lack of hope propagated this violent theology. So, this is why Bush has stressed the democratic angle..not the oil angle with respect to Iraq. If we were there for oil economic, we certainly shouldn't be pumping money into the country, but rather doing what colonial powers always do..drain the country of resources.
Now, if you have a better plan as to how to stop this violent theocratic movement, then go to it.
Bushes handling of the Iraq invasion has been less than stellar. He has treated a regional war as a local war within Iraq. For example, he doesn't stop the Syrian and Iranian supply of weapons that enter Iraq. He doesn't deal with either of these countries to any great extent. The American left has undermined his ability to influence Iran. Iranian leaders were initially very concerned that they were next. Bush failed to factor in both the opposition from the surrounding countries (dahhh) and the one element that can defeat the United States, the opposition from the left within the U.S.
Your post make it obvious that you are an educated man, so I must assume that I won't be able to persuade you. In fact, I can bet that you already know my response, but I'll go through the motions.
1. 911 resulted in a war against an ideology and terrorism in general. This means that the war was not directed against any one country.
2. Even Saddam's generals thought that they had WMDs. We certainly thought that they did and so did many foreign intellegence agencies. He previously use WMD's. So, you accuse Bush of fabrication. That demands proof, but the facts are against you. There is a difference between acting on bad intelligence and fabricating.
3. You might have noticed that Iran was singled out as one of the three terrorist countries and in fact they may be number one. Iran lies between the two countries that we attacked. Also, shortly after 911, reports suggested that the Bush administration was looking for a long term strategy to eliminate the violent Moslem fundamentalist. He has since used Iraq as a model and hopes that the democratic process will lead to affluence and other countries will follow. The thinking was that Middle Eastern poverty and the lack of hope propagated this violent theology. So, this is why Bush has stressed the democratic angle..not the oil angle with respect to Iraq. If we were there for oil economic, we certainly shouldn't be pumping money into the country, but rather doing what colonial powers always do..drain the country of resources.
Now, if you have a better plan as to how to stop this violent theocratic movement, then go to it.
Bushes handling of the Iraq invasion has been less than stellar. He has treated a regional war as a local war within Iraq. For example, he doesn't stop the Syrian and Iranian supply of weapons that enter Iraq. He doesn't deal with either of these countries to any great extent. The American left has undermined his ability to influence Iran. Iranian leaders were initially very concerned that they were next. Bush failed to factor in both the opposition from the surrounding countries (dahhh) and the one element that can defeat the United States, the opposition from the left within the U.S.
Whitefalls
New member
The French have a long history of being a strong military force. Unfortunately their most recent history hasn't followed suit.
Uhhh, no, it is not fact! The United States Constitution was adopted in 1787. The French Revolution didn't even start until 1789 and it ended in 1799. Prior to 1799, France was a monarchy.
Once again, you are wrong! Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq fought with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan where he was wounded. After Zarqwi was wounded, and PRIOR to the U.S. invasion, he joined fellow Al Qaeda members seeking refuge in a terrorist cell known as Ansar al-Islam in NE Iraq. Zarqawi was treated for his wounds in a Bahgdad hospital.
Really!
So why didn't the U.S. just buy it from Saddam like the French did? Instead we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and have not imported even one drop of Iraqi oil into the U.S.Yes, history is what it is. But maybe you should read some actual history instead of whatever web sites you got your information from.
