Well, who'd have guessed there was no link between Iraq and 9/11? Apart from Bush and Cheney that is...

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm[/url]

Woooohooo, now Bush's approval rating will go down even further :RockOn:

[quote=Galapidate]Woooohooo, now Bush's approval rating will go down even further :RockOn:[/quote]

Well..to be fair, Bush actually admited exactly the same thing at a press conference in January this year.

yeah...well....i think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons but i'm pretty pissed off at this administration and it's going to show on my ballot in november

[quote=tiddles]yeah...well....i think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons[/quote]

And in the wrong way. They should've commited more ground troops and properly secured the country instead of trying to minimise U.S casualties and doing a half-job.

If you want to liberate people, you can't stand back while their heritage is being looted. For Bush, Cheney et al, liberation was always the 2nd goal. Not their main goal.

don;t forget about Wolfiwitz. he's been chomping at going to war with Irag as soon as Bush entered office.

[quote=devon]don;t forget about Wolfiwitz. he's been chomping at going to war with Irag as soon as Bush entered office.[/quote]

Not just him. Bush's whole team discussed the invasion of Iraq in their very first security meeting according to Paul O Neil, the former Treasury Secretary. This despite Clinton warning them that Bin Laden should be more of a priority.

And we can't forget that there still hasn't been justice for 9/11, which I thought was the reason we're supposed to be at war.

[quote=MJDub]And we can't forget that there still hasn't been justice for 9/11, which I thought was the reason we're supposed to be at war.[/quote]

Yeah. Most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia even financed some of them (according to the US congressional report). Bush and Co and Saudi Arabia are close buddies so don't expect any "justice" soon.

[quote=delirious][quote=Galapidate]Woooohooo, now Bush's approval rating will go down even further :RockOn:[/quote]

Well..to be fair, Bush actually admited exactly the same thing at a press conference in January this year.[/quote]

But it wasn't emphasized, it was more of a side comment from him that most people don't remember. However, the 9/11 commission claiming this will be big because of all the attention focused on those hearings.

and in another case of tongue-twisting... :roll:

does everyone in this Administration just say stuff and never think about it?

[b]Bush disputes al Qaida-Saddam conclusion [/b]

By DEB RIECHMANN The Associated Press 6/17/2004, 4:49 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan."

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein ? a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement.

"What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me."

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.

"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

Bush said he told Cabinet members that he continues to have a "firm resolve" in Iraq, the scene of escalating violence less than two weeks before the handoff of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

On Thursday, a sport utility vehicle packed with artillery shells blew up in a crowd of people waiting to volunteer for the Iraqi military, killing dozens and wounding over a hundred. Another car bomb north of the capital killed several members of the Iraqi security forces.

"We fully understand terrorists who try to shake our will, who try to shake our confidence to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq," Bush said. "They won't succeed. Iraq will be free. And a free Iraq is in our nation's interest."

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."

[i]Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. [/i]

hey, all the Bush haters in one thread. You all must feel nice and cozy!

Actually, if you bother to read the report, you'd realize that the commision concluded that there were ties between Al-qaeda and Saddam.

Also, the Bush administration never said that Iraq was specifically involved in 9/11, they merely stressed the terrorists' connections to Iraq.

which gave the "excuse" to go invade them!

tie it all you want, but there is no evidence found that Iraq had a hand in, or was responsible for 9/11....which is the "excuse" that was given to go invade them.

Bill and Hillary Clinton approved invading Iraq!!! Props to Jenks or someone for this...

QUOTES to remember;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

• President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

• President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

• Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

• Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

• Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

• Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

• Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

• Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

• Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

• Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

• Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

• Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

• Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

• Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

• Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[quote=FM]which gave the "excuse" to go invade them!

tie it all you want, but there is no evidence found that Iraq had a hand in, or was responsible for 9/11....which is the "excuse" that was given to go invade them.[/quote]

Nah, the "excuse" for invading them was because Iraq 'had' WMD, which it turns out they didn't. ;)

[quote]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

• Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[/quote]

so much for that quote...:CrackUp:

America the laughing stock of the world :lol: ;)

the quote line above just goes to prove the power of decieval within the perception & ideals that our government and it's leaders possess.
Everyone says it...it must be true. right? sheep

it's all about oil & money. all the rest is just the spoon-fed excuse for their idiotic actions.

[quote=djsethnichols]

the quote line above just goes to prove the power of decieval within the perception & ideals that our government and it's leaders possess.
Everyone says it...it must be true. right? [/quote] [img]http://home.earthlink.net/~joshpowelson/images/THANK_TALLY.gif[/img]

somethin like that! :x

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

[quote=delirious][quote=tiddles]yeah...well....i think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons[/quote]

And in the wrong way. They should've commited more ground troops and properly secured the country instead of trying to minimise U.S casualties and doing a half-job.

If you want to [size=6]liberate people[/size], you can't stand back while their heritage is being looted. For Bush, Cheney et al, liberation was always the 2nd goal. Not their main goal.[/quote]

I can't believe anyone is buying this "liberate" crap. This war was never about liberation. Iraquis haven't experienced anything close to democracy, and it's a pipe dream to think that their future government would be a shining example of it. But, more likely than not, it ain't gonna be Saddam2 for a very long time. If it does ever happen, then it will be a while before the new dick-tater would/theocracy a-la Iran would be able to bulk up enough in order to be considered a serious potential threat again. "Liberation" is a selling poing, just like non-existent WMDs (although, to be fair, Saddam would have had WMD capabilities in under 10 years time if things were going the way they were).

This war was all about 1) wiping out a potential threat, 2) establishing a US presence in a region which constituents/supporters of terrorism were already a threat to its interests and 3) establishing a precedent for the mentioned supporters of terrorism in Middle East and beyond that, if they don't clean up their act, their shit may hit the fan.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to sell a preventive war to an electroate, even if history proves later on it was a necessary decision. Too many think that this was all about 1) giving a boost to ailing economy, 2) oil, and 3) feeding the bloodthirsty conservatives and Pentagon generals. But...

1. Economy was already at its nadir before the war started, and recessions happen often enough for most to know that eventually things would head toward recovery regardless of what president does - except, maybe lowering taxes (which Bush did somewhat) and not forcing Fed's hand to raise interest rates (which was a no-brainer for anybody at the time).
2. US is going to pull out of Iraq without funnelling the supply twd itself. If anything, the war's outcome results in passage of Iraqui oil to all western consumers of oil, not just US. Only the funds gained for the oil would not be used for intersts of Saddam and his kin, but (hopefully) for the needs of greater Iraq. OPEC is what really controls the prices of oil, and Iraq will too join OPEC within a year or two, by rough estimates. So arguing that this war was all about oil is shaky argument, to say the least.
3. The decision was made by the Bush administration, and they had to consider the consequences of a backlash if things did not go well. Considering this, to think that special interests had an overwhelming say in the decision is, to put it mildly, myopic.

[quote=dohturdima]So arguing that this war was all about oil is shaky argument, to say the least. [/quote]

The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: [b]"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."[/b]

This is well over a year old now but it details the neo-cons' (Wolfowitz, Perle et al) plans from the 90s - namely establishing a US powerbase in the Middle East. Make of it what you will...

[url]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,914925,00.html[/url]

[quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.

[quote=Balanc3][quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.[/quote]

Come on... a powerbase isn't a single place in a single country - it's a presence across a region ie. bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.

[quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

Another diplomacy post. :roll:

I've asked it once and I'll ask it again: 12 years and numerous resolutions isn't diplomacy? Maybe, just maybe, someday you Bush/Iraq War haters will understand that diplomacy [b]doesn't work[/b] with these fucks. Do you honesly think that someone who hacks people's head off to prove a point is going to listen or want to hear a bunch of foreign politicians tell them they need to stop what they are doing. Not likely. So forceable removal is what it comes to.

[quote=evangelion][quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

Another diplomacy post. :roll:

I've asked it once and I'll ask it again: 12 years and numerous resolutions isn't diplomacy? Maybe, just maybe, someday you Bush/Iraq War haters will understand that diplomacy [b]doesn't work[/b] with these fucks. Do you honesly think that someone who hacks people's head off to prove a point is going to listen or want to hear a bunch of foreign politicians tell them they need to stop what they are doing. Not likely. So forceable removal is what it comes to.[/quote]

So do International Accords and the U.N Charter agreements mean nothing? Is the U.S somehow immune from the world's legal system?

[quote=delirious] [b]"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."[/b][/quote]

I've said this a million times but i'll say it again. For all the imbiciles who are still insistent on posting this quote: STOP!!

I thought damn near the entire world knew that all the comments about Iraqi oil have been taken grossly out of context, but obviously there are some who still haven't gotten the memo. Everytime you here whitehouse officials talk about Iraq and oil; they are always talking about rebuilding the country. The Whitehouse has said over and over the reason they believed they could destroy the infrastructure of the country and still expect prosperity is because Iraq has plenty of oil. Next time put the elipses in and stop believing all the dumb shit you read. They pay hundreds of people hundreds of thousands of dollars each, to make sure that all Iraq statements; even off the cuff remarks, are carefully scripted.

[quote=mixu]This is well over a year old now but it details the neo-cons' (Wolfowitz, Perle et al) plans from the 90s - namely establishing a US powerbase in the Middle East. Make of it what you will...

[url]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,914925,00.html[/url][/quote]

Oh ya, thanks for the great article. :roll:

The article is entitled "Deep roots of Bush's hatred for Saddam"

:ROFLMAO:

You people are just amazing. Now we need to get philisophical regarding why someone would want to hate someone who has killed MILLIONS. Ya. Why on earth would someone hate a man like that, we better do a psychoanalysis and figure this shit out.

Thanks! :Bingo: I feel dumber just reading that pile of trash.

[quote=Balanc3]

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.[/quote]

In Somalia they got their arses kicked (Mogadishu), so they didn't want in on the Rwanda thing. It wasn't until after the massacre of between 800.000 - 1 mln people that Spain and Portugal decided to send troops there, and that is when the USA decided to join. But they only wanted to do so on the condition that they would be in command. And the U.N. refused that, so all they did was give material support.

Anyhow, try and study the Rwanda-case to learn how the UN and USA fucked up big time. They refused to condemn what was going on there as a genocide, because if it were, according to the Geneva Convention they would be mandated to take action. And now the same shit is happening in Sudan, Darfur region. And again, they are doing nothing. At this moment people are being killed and/or mutilated at a much higher rate than in Iraq. What's the reason for not taking action in Sudan? What was the reason for not taking action in Rwanda?

Try and find the answer to that.

[quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but [b]they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq[/b]. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States [b]the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein[/b] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

• Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

whatever :roll:

Sorry I did not provide pics and links before. I understand we have a string of bases throughout Persion Gulf region, but from what I understand the Al-udeid airbase is concidered a major "powerbase." It has 3 hardened underground/shelters strong enough to withstand a major airstrike and even nuclear strike. Here is what I found on it.

[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm[/url] (has more satellite images)

[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~joshpowelson/images/al-udeid_dg-2.jpg[/img]

AL-UDEID AIR BASE, QATAR (AP) ? The government of Qatar is spending millions of dollars to expand Al Udeid, a remote base in the central Persian Gulf. If President Bush were to order airstrikes on Iraq, this base, about 20 miles from the capital, Doha, would be a critical hub for US warplanes and their aerial pipeline of bombs and supplies.

In the past months, the US military quietly has moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the base from Saudi Arabia, the control center for American air operations in the Gulf for more than a decade. About 3,300 American troops are in Qatar, mostly at Al Udeid, where the signs of an American military buildup are unmistakable:

"It is likely the most capable base in the Gulf region," says William Arkin, a private military analyst.

Soon after Sept. 11, Qatar granted permission for the US to send warplanes to Al Udeid. They flew attack missions over Afghanistan. Al Udeid also is host to Air Force Red Horse squadrons, rapid-response teams of civil engineers that can repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas.

US officials will not discuss specifics, saying the Qatari government strictly limits what can be said about the American presence. There has been speculation that Al Udeid is being built up as an alternative to, or replacement for, the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have made clear they do not favor a US invasion of Iraq.

Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of US forces in the Middle East, said this year he had no plans to move the air control center. But he added, "That does not mean that I don't have plans to replicate it." He also said early in the Afghanistan war that he was considering moving his Central Command headquarters from Tampa, Fla., to Qatar, although he eventually chose not to.

Al Udeid is among several US military bases in the Gulf area. Nearly 10,000 Army soldiers are at Camp Doha in Kuwait, and 4,200 troops are in Bahrain, headquarters for the Navy's Fifth Fleet. Several thousand are in Saudi Arabia and a few thousand in Oman.

[quote=Balanc3][quote=Galapidate]They may have supported disarming Iraq, but [b]they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq[/b]. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.[/quote]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States [b]the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein[/b] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

• Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

whatever :roll:

[/quote]

I was talking about the time they first proposed disarming Saddam, with the weapons inspectors trying to get Saddam to comply and whatnot. Either way though, Kerry flip flops on so many issues that that quote is irrelevent. Now he says he shouldn't have gone into Iraq.

Its cool, it was a good argument. However, the first time U.N. inspectors tried to get Saddam to comply was in the early nineties and throughout three seperate administrations. But the quote is VERY relevant because Kerry did say it. Kerry flip flops on so many issues that anyone who votes for him is an absolute moron. Sorry if I offend you but Kerry is a liar and I do not trust him either. I trusted, Gephardt, Edwards and Dean over Kerry anyday.

[quote=mylexicon] I thought damn near the entire world knew that all the comments about Iraqi oil have been taken grossly out of context, but obviously there are some who still haven't gotten the memo. Everytime you here whitehouse officials talk about Iraq and oil; they are always talking about rebuilding the country. [/quote]

1. 2000 Bush Jr., Cheney, & oil corporations planned Iraq invasion before the election (Cheney Energy Report).
   • Iraq has 2nd largest oil reserve in world (next is Saudi Arabia); Oilmen want the oil.
   • Iraq exporting 69% of its oil to US; Oilmen decide they want it all.
   • Iraq war with US gave Bush Sr. reputation of wimp president; Bush Jr. wants revenge
   • Big Oil corporations elect U.S. President, Vice President, and staff the Whitehouse with more oil men and women.
   • Big Oil gave $26 million to Bush, Cheney & fellow Republicans in the election.
   • $1.7 million went to Bush; Gore received $133,710
   • $33 million in severance pay to Cheney from Halliburton, world's largest oil services company. Halliburton sold oil equipment to Iraq after the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.
2. 2001 - Jan 20 Bush assumes President role in White House * May - Bush puts more sanctions on Iraq * Iraq turns off oil exports from 69 to 16% for US oil corporations. * Iraq awards oil contracts to France, China & Russia worth $300 Billion (David Bacon, NM)
3. 2002 - Jan & Feb Bush is caught up in Enrongate and a war on Afghanistan, then Iraq keeps media from making Enrongate into Watergate (Boje, 2002a). * Enron contributed $736,800 directly to George W. Bush. * Enron donated $888,265 to the Republican National Committee * 5 Enron executives are hired into Bush administration (see list).
4. 2002 - October, US declares war on Iraq * Iraq has 112.5 billion barrels of oil reserves. * Iraq has 22 billion barrels in undiscovered oil reserves. * Iraq oil reserves estimated to last 128.9 years. * 4th oil war in the Middle East in 50 years begins.
5. 2003 After Iraq War - US installs puppet government Iraq that reissues oil contracts to mega oil corporations; oil cartel nets $1.1 trillion dollars from Iraq reserves * Big oil split up $1.1 trillion in oil reserves: Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell, British Petroleum-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco and TotalElfFina * Bush proposed 2003 budget awards another $34 billion in subsidies to oil, gas, coal & nuclear companies while cutting $1 billion from natural resources/environmental departments of the U.S. government.
6. 2012 US oil reserves will run out (says BP).
7. 2020 US will import 17 million barrels of oil per day (US Department of Energy).
8. 2131 Iraq oil reserves, now owned by US/UK oil cartel corporations run out (BP).
9. 2045 World oil supply runs dry at current rates of production and consumption.
10. 2046 US decides to develop alternative energy such as fuel cells, solar, and bio mass. * US economy is bankrupt after oil reserve run out, $200 billion cost of Iraq war of 2003 is paid off; but $400 billion a year defense budget since 2003 takes its toll and like, former Soviet Union and Enron, the US economy files for bankruptcy after the chief executives officers resign.

? 2002 - David M. Boje, Ph.D. Oct 19 2002 More info at PeaceAware.com

[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~joshpowelson/images/propaganda.jpg[/img]

funny. you didnt mention anything about an oil pipeline?