O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

Originally posted by jackinthebox

WOW!! What a sales pitch--sign me up.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by mybigunit

 

The token contribution by other nations to the invasion force is the result of political and economic pressure. Nothing more. And certainly not the result of some secret intel that each contributor uncovered but never decided to share with the world, as Del is trying to assert.

You two will have to agree to disagree Jack and Del but in regards to jack I never said they provided intel to us. I always figured this was for oil since the beginning but I too also thought they had WMD just for the simple fact our government was so insistent on it. I know a monday morning quarterback routine is not cool but on the same note bush was told by a lot of people what was going to happen if we went in...information we normal people did not have. The fact is we did invade or reinvade whatever you want to call it...we were over there for oil for the first war the second was a continuation of the first but this is about oil and when you have the leading republican presidential candidate admitting that I mean what else do you want. I just wish we the people since we are paying for it could get the spoils of the war but nah lets give it to Big Oil and Blackwater and Haliburton..that is what steams me.

reply to post by _Del_

So we were all duped, but noone was fooled.. Got it...

Now yer a learnin'!

I think that Americans were the biggest ones to fall for it, but that only stands to reason. We are the ones bombarded every second of every day with the most ruthless and efficient propoganda apparatus the world has ever known.

But no, I don't think the rest of the world was fooled, even if they were obligated to go along.

We're way OT now and I've been sufficiently shamed by your brilliant use of emoticons that I'll just agree that neither of us will change our minds...

I admire your effort and integrity.

O'Really used to tick me off, but now he's like the drunk uncle at the family reunion that everyone rolls their eyes at while the kids snicker behind his back. He's info-tainment--pure and (very) simple. If he's cheerleading us into war with Iran maybe it's earlier in the process than I thought.

If O'Really is REALLY talking about enforcing UN resolutions and such, I guess that puts our "ally" Israel in the crosshairs. They've got a bunch of UN resolutions they've ignored and violated (way more than Iraq). Bombs away, you rogue regime, you!

reply to post by mybigunit

...but I too also thought they had WMD just for the simple fact our government was so insistent on it.

Indeed.

I know a monday morning quarterback routine is not cool but on the same note bush was told by a lot of people what was going to happen if we went in...information we normal people did not have.

Like all of the people who tried to tell him that invading was a very bad idea?

I just wish we the people since we are paying for it could get the spoils of the war but nah lets give it to Big Oil and Blackwater and Haliburton..that is what steams me.

No joke man. Did you know that the Army is paying state-side prices for fuel? So the taxpayers are being billed for what we already paid in dollars and blood to take.



[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by mybigunit


And to be clear I never said weapons of mass destruction were the only reason we went there. It was largely because of oil. I already said that in this thread. Noone cares if parts of Africa are unstable because we don't get our oil from that particular region. It's not right. It's sad. But it is true.
The consensus was that Iraq was a threat to the stability in the region. That is important predominately because of the oil. It also seemed widely accepted that he had contraband. Whether or not this was ultimately true, doesn't change the fact that a good part of the known world thought it was true. There WAS/IS substantial disagreement on whether or not that constituted cause for "regime-change" -- ultimately, thirty some nations decided it was good idea to remove Saddam from power. I'm not a shill for the White House. I have a huge list of things to quibble about over the war. Frankly, I wasn't very gungho about it not because of the reasons given, but because of my libertarian leanings. I don't think the access to oil was sufficiently threatened to send troops into harmsway. The administration obviously did. It WAS clear to me that Iraq wasn't going to cooperate with UN inspections and that a nuclear equipped Iraq was unpalatable. I don't know that that's compelling enough for me to send in troops, but it wasn't my call. I still don't know if that's a good enough reason. I can see both sides. Arguably the world is a better place with out Saddam in Iraq and (hopefully) an effective democracy, so I'm willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on that. I could fill a book with how the whole thing was mismanaged. I'm not blind to the faults there. I'm just trying to right a few revisionist (and 20/20 hindsight) statements that don't accurately describe the situation as it developed.



And for Jack, I have only

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

We did invade Iraq, will you refute this as well?

Yes, we invaded Iraq when we liberated the country Saddam invaded. We had to, to drive him out. Then we stopped the fighting when a peace treaty was agreed to by Saddam.

Are you forking serious? Or are you just trying to fire up a fight?
The USA never liberated Iraq. They are destroying it now.
But anyway, a comment like yours is clearly either a hoax or a set-up. Yes, a set-up. You are either completely mentally laved, or a paid disinformer, you cant be someone who doesnt like Bush; you are actually defending him and his thugs.

Weird, it seems that ATS is actually a little too unbiased to be anything but a set-up to collect ip numbers of people who are against government; I have never seen a conspiracy site thats so lenient towards cowardly gov supporters. Maybe I am wrong, but its too blatant in my opinion.

Fox news channel of course! Which by the way I find more of a comedy of tragedy's.The average American watches and believes any thing these yaa hoo's say.SAD!
Regardless of pretext for entering Iraq.Lets look at the definition of Invasion.

English

Etymology

From Middle French invasion

Pronunciation

*

Rhymes: -eɪʒən

Noun

Singular
invasion


Plural
invasions

invasion (plural invasions)

1. A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.

Bill of course is a complete pomp ass,as is the net work he is employed by.
I commonly refer to them as the new Nazi's.

There once was a Jew in the ghetto
Who was getting killed by some fellow
He turned around,and then he found
Some other fellow to fall over

Israel the new 10,000 year Reich

Peace and Mercy

reply to post by RaptureMe2


Most excellent,a picture is worth a thousand words.Besides how can this great nation of ours be wrong anyway.Well most of the way.That sums up the whole ordeal in a nutshell.At least to the informed and educated.
Bravo
Peace and Mercy

Originally posted by jasonhb
Most of you who post on this thread are a bunch of whiners. I listen to alot of am talk radio, rush, larry elder and many others. If the left in this country has all the facts like you folks seem to think where are the news outlets and radio stations backing you up. Right...I diddnt think so. The democratic fring left in the us is allways the ones who nitpick at the truth and cant come up with anything credible...ever. Kinda makes me chuckle.

Damn, mate, those were exactly o really's words, and do I hear the star spangled banner playing in the background?
Anyway, when do Americans understand that unquestioning obedience is NOT patriotic? Echoing the bullies and obeying your fears is actually a rather weak position. People like you (definitely meant personally) are the most expendable to your masters.

Also, nationalism like this is bad, even evil; its not only bad when the germans in WWII do it, it is bad when anyone does it.

The american flag, by the way, is just a piece of cloth. Like any flag and adoring it makes you almost a brownshirt. I bet you really admire people like Hitler and Bush.

Just remember, any country that promotes itself so frantically, HAS to have oodles of skeletons they want to hide...like secret agendas, like eugenics, like racism, like genocide, like, like, like, like...

[edit on 3-5-2008 by dervishmadwhirler]

reply to post by dervishmadwhirler

reply to post by Milton the Geek

It's worth remembering that Saddam Hussein would not have come to power were it not for covert operations by the CIA.

It's also worth remembering that all legal requirements for broadcasters to be honest, equitable, and politically balanced disappeared in the 1980s when the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was removed. The Supreme Court claimed it was limiting the breadth of public debate! Reagan and Bush vetoed its reinstatement.

There should now be a warning permanently displayed at the bottom of the screen like you get on cigarette packets:

Caution: Television Contains Lies and is Hazardous to Your Mind

[edit on 3-5-2008 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by Blaine91555


When you send troops into a nation, overthrow its leader, impose a new government, and occupy, that is called an invasion.

According to your logic, we didn't invade Germany, either.

They say that history is propaganda written by the winners of a war.

In this instance it would seem that they are so arrogant, that they are trying to do it in advance.

Bill O'reilly, in his own mind, has his own definitions for words LMAO. For the rest of us, this is the definition of invasion...
Source: dictionary.reference.com...

in·va·sion Audio Help /ɪnˈveɪʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-vey-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1400–50; late ME < LL invāsīon- (s. of invāsiō), equiv. to invās(us), ptp. of invādere + -iōn- -ion; see invade]

-ChriS


[edit on 3-5-2008 by BlasteR]

Buddy Stone - Flickr

Originally posted by budski
They say that history is propaganda written by the winners of a war.

In this instance it would seem that they are so arrogant, that they are trying to do it in advance.

The decider dictates who wins, and who loses wars! At least, that's what Lord Bush seems to believe he can do!

Bush: "I'm the Decider and I decide what is best"




[edit on 3-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

When you send troops into a nation, overthrow its leader, impose a new government, and occupy, that is called an invasion.

According to your logic, we didn't invade Germany, either.

Wow girl that was well said.....almost seems like common sense...now wheres my damn macrame blanket...star for you.

reply to post by dervishmadwhirler

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
The american flag, by the way, is just a piece of cloth. Like any flag and adoring it makes you almost a brownshirt. I bet you really admire people like Hitler and Bush.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by dervishmadwhirler]

There's absolutely no reason for trashtalk like that. What is it supposed to add to the debate?

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler

Just remember, any country that promotes itself so frantically, HAS to have oodles of skeletons they want to hide...like secret agendas, like eugenics, like racism, like genocide, like, like, like, like...

Oh yeah, They MUST have oodles of skeletons they want to hide. :shk:

Excellent conclusion, based upon .

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler

Weird, it seems that ATS is actually a little too unbiased to be anything but a set-up to collect ip numbers of people who are against government; I have never seen a conspiracy site thats so lenient towards cowardly gov supporters. Maybe I am wrong, but its too blatant in my opinion.

You are not only wrong, you're totally wrong.

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
Just remember, any country that promotes itself so frantically, HAS to have oodles of skeletons they want to hide...like secret agendas, like eugenics, like racism, like genocide, like, like, like, like...

I don't think it's that...subversive, if you will. Yes, America has its own agenda, so does every nation. But how can you honestly say America is that evil? After World War II, the United States was quite literally in a position to take over the world. We were the only remaining power, aside from a still weakened Soviet Union, and we had the first and only deployable nuclear weapons.

If we had been like any other superpower in the known history of mankind, you would have seen a massive grab for power, a huge expansion in borders. I seriously think that, for the first time in history, the potential for world domination was within reach. And what did the United States of America do?

We gave it away. The countries we conquered, who had just killed our soldiers and one of which had bombed one of our territories, we gave away to their own sovereignty. We rebuilt them, we gave them money, and, in time, freedom.

I think that this is a miraculous example of the virtues of a republic.

But of course, there are some subversive and coercive things that our government does, mainly to play the world power game in an attempt to keep us safe. I genuinely think that's the end they're trying to achieve - a more powerful America in relation to the rest of the world. I don't like the means, though, which includes such things as incited revolutions, even though those are countries generally under totalitarian dictators. But while I don't love how its done, I don't think there's really any sort of hidden agenda in that particular playing field.

The agenda, if you will, is probably twofold:
1) The push toward world government; global power at the expense of national sovereignty
2) The push toward socialism, which goes hand in hand with #1.

reply to post by Johnmike

After World War II, the United States was quite literally in a position to take over the world. We were the only remaining power, aside from a still weakened Soviet Union, and we had the first and only deployable nuclear weapons.

Most of America's top commanders agreed that from Berlin we should have continued on to Moscow, but FDR would not allow it. His excuse was that the American people would not support such a turn against an ally. I am of the opinion however, that propoganda could have alleviated that problem without much of a hassle, considering that the Communists had started the war on the side of the Nazis.

So perhaps FDR himself was simply to sick and too tired to carry on the war, as others have argued. Some have said that he really dropped the ball in meetings with Stalin, and gave up far too much in those negotiations.

I however, am of the opinion that we were content with our gains, and really did not have the decisive capability to conquer Russia. Instead of taking the gamble, we would build up the empire of Capitalism.

We gave it away. The countries we conquered, who had just killed our soldiers and one of which had bombed one of our territories, we gave away to their own sovereignty. We rebuilt them, we gave them money, and, in time, freedom.

And this is where you fail to see the bigger picture. These conquered nations were not annexed into the United States politically. Instead, they became a part of the Capitalist economic empire, of which even the US is only a colony. Our ideas of borders and sovereignty are antiquated.



English Version (caution, a few f-bombs)
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 5/4/0808 by jackinthebox]