O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq", page 3

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

The same could be said of many countries, particularly in africa.

If shrub loves freedom so much, why hasn't he done something there?

I'm pretty sure he'd get a UN mandate for some of the african examples.

And what about saudi if it comes to that - they ain't so free...

It all comes back to oil money.

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

No doubt whatsoever that Saddam Hussein was a horrible man and a menace to innocent people living in and around Iraq. His regime was responsible for reprehensible acts and murder across the board. None of this I will dispute. As I stated before, Gulf War I made sense. At least there was a real cause and an underlying reason why went in and made war against Iraq.

Fast forward to the second arrival, you see no justification and no legitimate cause. Sure any time that a wicked dictator like Saddam is removed it is not completely a bad thing. What you have to question are the true reasons for going in, and I believe this is where we have been lied to repeatedly.

There were any number of rogue dictators and rogue states that we could have gone after, were it our actual cause to quell terrorism and make the world a safer place as Bush likes to claim. Fact be told if we really had any intention of making a dent where the terrorists were breeding we would have landed in Saudi Arabia and not Iraq. Iran was far more of a threat to the US and all of the other countries surrounding than Iraq ever was.

The reason we invaded Iraq had a lot to do with the fact that we knew nobody would come to Saddams defense. He was a hated dictator. Not to mention the huge oil reserves sitting underneath what was, for all intents and purposes, a defenseless country. Bush knew that we would be inside of Iraq and running the show within two weeks with little or no resistance. Unlike Iran, which would have been a real squabble, Iraqi military were no match for the US military.

Also, do not underestimate Bush's personal motives for going into Iraq. He knew full well that Saddam posed no threat to us. He wanted to seek revenge for his daddy who had almost been killed by the Iraqi government. Settle the score, the old Texas way. All while getting fat pockets off of stolen oil and Haliburton cash cows. Pretty sweet deal, until the real Al Quida showed up and started blowing up the place. That part is probably orchestrated too, in reality.

To say that our hostile take over of Iraq was not an invasion is completely absurd, considering that by the very definition of the word, this is exactly what they did. And Im sure it is difficult for some people around here to believe that the US did anything wrong. That is normal sheepish reaction.

People always tend to believe that their country is the only one that is above reproach. The US could blow Iran off the face of the Earth tomorrow and there would be a percentage of folks hooting and hollering and dancing for joy. Just the way it is.

[edit on 5/2/08 by BlackOps719]

reply to post by jsobecky

---

O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Or as Lincoln did to Virginia?

Kuwait was a part of Iraq, until further meddling by western powers.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky

---

O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Or as Lincoln did to Virginia?

Kuwait was a part of Iraq, until further meddling by western powers.

And that sir is an excellent point. The fact is until the 20s Kuwait was Iraq and due to oil interests the Brits decided to come in a create a province called Kuwait. In a sense yeah it would be no different from North invading south....

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

I think Saddam invading a country and his thugs raping and pillaging was a pretty good reason.

And what of the crimes that American troops are perpetrating in Iraq and Afghanistan? I wish I had a link to "Taxi to the Darkside" to insert here.

Not to mention the pillaging of a somewhat westernized and secular modern nation by the Bush andministration and companies like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater.

Oh well, bad things happen in war right? Riiiight.

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Speech amendment? No, I think free speech is fine. Opinions do not violate free speech.

However, this man has a responsibility to the country to provide facts and honest opinion. Most people have 40-60 hours per week that they work, and they do no have time to go out and do the work that Bill O'Relly gets paid for.

He constantly lies about facts, twists the truth, and intentionally disallows any other opinion.

No sir, I don't mind free speech. But just like hate speech has been banned (not against the constitution), so should journalists intentionally lying and bending the truth to push an agenda.

What does that help? What if all professions worked like Bill O'Reilly? Can you imagine if you could only place as much trust in the bridge you walk on or the food you eat as you can in the words that come out of this buffoon's mouth?

Intentionally lying to the public to sway opinion for an agenda should be a breach of free speech.

*Edited to add:

I felt I should make it clear before any reply that free speech does not cover everything. Free speech was meant to cover dissenting views, not immoral acts.

Free speech doesn't cover "yelling fire" as a prank. Free speech doesn't cover racism that incites hate. Nor should free speech cover blatantly lying on a massive scale the the American public to press an agenda.

I doubt Bill O'Reilly would be the only person affected by such a decision by the Supreme Court, so there is no reason to make this a partisan attack. I'm sure many liberals have lied on the news just as badly (it's just that they don't do it on a daily basis with a smirk on their faces).


[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by mybigunit

---

Which was equally wrong and against self-determination...

[edit on 2-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by Blaine91555

---

We did invade Iraq, will you refute this as well? Whether or not the invasion of Iraq is Gulf War Part 2 is irrelevant. The UN did not approve of Bush's war. We went against the UN weapon's inspectors' statements.

They did not find any proof of weapons of mass destruction. Was Saddam a threat to the Iraqi people? Sure. We should have taken him out during Desert Storm, not 10 years later.

If you were really worried about the truth, you would admit this was an invasion, and not even a legal one at that.

You've got a pretty huge mistake in that last part of the quote that seems to just be a spewing of a current buzz word combined with some emotionally charged nonsense. I believe I can fix this and help you on your way down the path of knowledge.

If you were really worried about agreeing with me, you would admit this was an invasion, and not even a legal one at that.

I truly love seeing the word "truth" raped and abused around here everytime someone carefully inserts it in place of some variation of the concept "agrees with my side of the argument." Apparently we've reached a point in our social evolution where a small fringe group of extremists believe by replacing the traditional "conspiracy theory" phrase with "truth movement" completely legitimizes the whole shebang, regardless the topic being discussed. We know that Alex Jones was ultimately behind this when he coined the phrase "The 9/11 truth movement" when, in reality, it should be called the "9/11 we only care about evidence that could indicate shenanigans movement."

In practice, what you've succeeded in doing is making an absolute (which is what truth is supposed to be) into a completely subjective concept word by watering it down and applying it as a be-all, end-all of any debate. "Don't agree with us, then you are an enemy of the truth!" By God, it isn't surprising that you go out of your way to defend the leaders of the Islamic terror supporting nations against this country. Their entire religious justification against the world is that they are the holders of the truth and anyone that disagrees with them defies that truth and is, therefore, and enemy of Allah.

As for O'Reilly, the guy is an arrogant douchebag and I love him for it. 90% of what he says is said purely because he knows it ticks people like you off and even more pleebs tune into his show to watch it because, inexplicably, some folks get their stones off on being irrate. I don't agree with some of what he says, to be sure. But I can certainly relate to most of what he says and I "get it" where the topic of why he acts the way he does is concerned.

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Oh Dear.....while I usually agree with you, Sublime.....I think you gave 'O'Reilly too much credit when you categorized him as a 'journalist'.

That is my only quibble with your post....of course, you're entitled to your opinion....(LOL)!!!!!

OK, Carry On!!!

WW

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

I read the transcript. And I wish he hadn't said what he did. He didn't actually call for riots, just said that if they happened he thought it would help the Republican cause. That said, when will any and all of these "pundits" just learn to think 2 squares ahead before they say anything? All they end up doing is hurting the people they claim to support because of the media backlash they cause.


[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211

---

A chess player, are ye?

Not sure what transcript you refer to, but got the other reference!!

WW

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky

---

O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Or as Lincoln did to Virginia?

Kuwait was a part of Iraq, until further meddling by western powers.

My friend, as a native of a confederate state (territory at the time), I wish someone had driven Lincoln back and freed us back then.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by budski

---

I don't think any news agency could do a worse job than Fox News. CNN is getting close. Neither of them actually report real news (which I'm sure the BBC is guilty of too).

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Now there's another "dusty" (from age) point of view.

Funny, but your candidates no longer seem to feel the same way. Billary, O(bs)ama, and Howard Dean are falling all over themselves to get on Fox. Why? Because they (or their handlers) are smart enough to have realized that elections are won in the center, not the far left or right. And since Fox has the highest ratings by far, they need to go on there to try and get their message out to more people than just the Air America crowd.

The other funny thing is that the bloggers of the Air America crowd are now howling mad because their candidates are consorting with the enemy by appearing on Fox. They're even claiming that the three stooges I mentioned above are "abandoning their base".

article

As I've mentioned before, funny to watch dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There should be no way you could lose this election ...

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Strawman it up? I never said Fox News isn't good for publicity, I just said it's terrible to get your news from (along with CNN - just CNN isn't quite as extreme).

Of course candidates are going on there. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that the fact that the candidates have actually gotten up enough balls to even show their face on Fox News is proof that Fox is a decent source.

Candidates go on the Daily Show also. I don't think you are putting John Stewart up for any awards are you?

That doesn't even make sense.

*Edit:

I mean look at you. You are saying "Billary" and comparing Obama to Osama.

What's next, Brangelina? Thanks for the E! Entertainment side of the election.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Once again you missed the key point - that jailing people for what they say can work both ways, and that you could easily be next if the politcal winds change. You have to think ahead and watch out for the slippery slopes instead of foaming at the mouth to get the people that you disagree with.

And that's what this is really all about isn't it? You hate Bill O'Rielly because his comments resonate with far more people than anyone you favor could ever dream of reaching. Admit it. Knowing that eats at you every day until all you can think of are ways to make O'Rielly stop. Even if it means jailing him or perhaps even killing him, he just has to be stopped!

Again, please step back and try looking at the bigger picture. You might be able to shut up one person that way, but at what cost to perhaps millions more - including yourself - by setting those precedents.

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 4 days ago with 74 member flags

Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 2 days ago with 74 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 11 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 7 days ago with 41 member flags

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 14 days ago with 37 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: