It's not liberals who oppose war, pal. Of course I want Iraq free. I just don't need people who can't remember the 80s trying to play me for stupid with propaganda about dead babies.

The graves are there. And no doubt we were punked by Sadom in the eighties. Something about american hostigas had us really pisses off back then. And we did the arm they enemies enemy crap. Now we may be looking at nukes from that 34 year old enemy. If we follow through with liberating Iraq. That was plan. WMD made it imenent. We will need them to help us stop the haters in Iran. Turning our backs our pulling together some kind of summit will not work with these people

This has been going on for years, and the US didn't go into Iraq for this reason. They ignored it for years.........but obviously now they will say this is why we went in............????????

where were those human rights inpectors???????? i forgot americans doesn't pay any interest in the UN unless it matteres to them.

what ever happened to those weapons of mass destruction.

i rest my case

Yes America dealth with Saddam in the 80s - BUT IT STOPPED (unlike the French)

And... the more you opposed his removal - the more you reinforced his ability to carry out the execution of children and allowed his guards to rape women with broken glass bottles.

You wanted to defend this activty - keep it going.

So yes - in a sense if yours and the French agenda had prevailed - if the USA and its real allies had capitulated to your agenda, this genocide would still be going on.

It would have been your fault - so HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME

Originally posted by snagltooth

It's not liberals who oppose war, pal. Of course I want Iraq free. I just don't need people who can't remember the 80s trying to play me for stupid with propaganda about dead babies.

The graves are there. And no doubt we were punked by Sadom in the eighties. Something about american hostigas had us really pisses off back then. And we did the arm they enemies enemy crap. Now we may be looking at nukes from that 34 year old enemy. If we follow through with liberating Iraq. That was plan. WMD made it imenent. We will need them to help us stop the haters in Iran. Turning our backs our pulling together some kind of summit will not work with these people

We weren't punked, funding Iraq against Iran was a good way to keep Iran in check and get cheap oil from Iraq.

Iran had the US hostages taken during the Iranian revolution in 1979 until 1980. For that deal look up Iran-Contra.

Now we have Iran developing nukes and there's a crisis there. It turned out Iraq didn't have nukes and wasn't close. Ok, but we still have to finish job there and not just have some funny elections and throw the winner the keys.

where were those human rights inpectors???????? i forgot americans doesn't pay any interest in the UN unless it matteres to them.

what ever happened to those weapons of mass destruction.

i rest my case

Those WMD were used on those people in the graves. The intel said there was WMD there. They had used them.

we have pressured the UN to intervene the hole time. The problem is the UN looks at killing 10,000 of thousands of people defrently then we do.

And don't forget, we the tax payer fund 25% of that currupt UN

Case re-opened...Sucka

Right thats it crossfire you just sank the titanic AND the lucitainia!

Tsk, tsk, shame!

Iran had the US hostages taken during the Iranian revolution in 1979 until 1980. For that deal look up Iran-Contra.

This had everything to do with arming Sadom IE..punked

Now we have Iran developing nukes and there's a crisis there. It turned out Iraq didn't have nukes and wasn't close. Ok, but we still have to finish job there and not just have some funny elections and throw the winner the keys.

If you look at are History, the election of Lincoln looked worse then this. Freedom has always been spawnd from revolution


[edit on 13-10-2004 by snagltooth]

The very idea of trying to blame anti-war protestors for this is absolutely disgusting, Saddam was kept in power by the war mongerers; I'll never defend Saddam, but certain members of the USA government are assesories to these crimes (unless conspiritors is a better term to use).

But if you are free, you, your kids, parents, and friends are a target.

Divided we fall

It's people like the guy who started this thread who seem to have a very strange view of the world. It's like some movie, where the Americas are the good guys, fighting for justice against some foriegn menace. The truth is, these 'great leaders' of the free world chose which dictators and human rights abusers to support as it suits their agenda. Saddam was supported and armed by America in the past, as we all know.

Liberals hang you head in shame! Look we have found proof that this guy was a very bad person and we had every right to invade this country even though it went against international law.

look at those locked away without trial in American camps. Look at those humiliated and tortured under US and UK control in Iraq. Look at the real reasons that led us to war. Open you eyes.

Originally posted by crossfire
Yes America dealth with Saddam in the 80s - BUT IT STOPPED (unlike the French)

And... the more you opposed his removal - the more you reinforced his ability to carry out the execution of children and allowed his guards to rape women with broken glass bottles.

You wanted to defend this activty - keep it going.

So yes - in a sense if yours and the French agenda had prevailed - if the USA and its real allies had capitulated to your agenda, this genocide would still be going on.

It would have been your fault - so HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME

This simply isn't true. Go back and read historical documents. What orifice are you pulling this from? I don't remember any liberal "defending this activity". I don't remember the U.S. "dealing with Saddam" "stopping in the 80's". And who the heck is "opposing his removal?" Hell, not even Osama bin Laden opposed his removal for Christ's sake.

You are WAY OFF BASE...sorry, I just have to call like I see it, and I've lived through all of this and it didn't happen like you're trying to portray it. Go read and come back, that will prevent you from offending others by falsely accusing them...it will also help you save your dignity.

Originally posted by earthtone
Liberals hang you head in shame! Look we have found proof that this guy was a very bad person and we had every right to invade this country even though it went against international law.

You seem to forgot that Iraq wasnt the only countrie that was ruled by a corrupt regime. What about all the countries in Africa where human rights abuses take place every day?
What about North Korea?
you only see Iraq and are blind to the rest of the world!
I dont see the USA lineing up to attack Africa or North Korea.
Lets follow your logic the USA failed to bring democracy to vietnam isnt it time the USA brought down the regime that runs Vietnam?

Originally posted by xpert11


You seem to forgot that Iraq wasnt the only countrie that was ruled by a corrupt regime. What about all the countries in Africa where human rights abuses take place every day?
What about North Korea?
you only see Iraq and are blind to the rest of the world!
I dont see the USA lineing up to attack Africa or North Korea.
Lets follow your logic the USA failed to bring democracy to vietnam isnt it time the USA brought down the regime that runs Vietnam?

I don't see your point. What about these other countries? there is far worse in the world than Saddam was. This was about a choice to move into the middle east, not directly for the benefits of the Iraqi people. Why would Bush and his oil gang care about these people?

[edit on 13/10/2004 by earthtone]

Originally posted by crossfire
So yes - in a sense if yours and the French agenda had prevailed - if the USA and its real allies had capitulated to your agenda, this genocide would still be going on.

It would have been your fault - so HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME

What kind of twisted logic is this? Thats like saying that if you eat at McDonalds, your responsible for the death of every cow. I think you need to take your medication and take another look at what happened over there, and every where else.

One more thing. Conservitaves want to negotiate with N. Korea. Kim has done the same type of things as Saddam, and has done it for even longer now. HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME for allowing kim to stay in power and starve over 1 million people. Now, conservitavers are not really to blame for this, but if you blame me for Saddam, I blame YOU for every N Korean crime agianst humanity ever perpitrated! Now, you can go on placing the blame where it doesnt belong, and you can keep your narrow minded views or wake up and put the blame where it belongs. On the PEOPLE who perpitrated these despicable acts.

I have really tried to stop replying to ignorant post such as this, but when I read this, well.... Had to voice an opinion

[edit on 10/13/04 by Kidfinger]

[edit on 10/13/04 by Kidfinger]

I am in total confusion at the main post of this message! How is this anyone's fault but those doing the killing....it's not America's fault anyway you slice it. Why is it that when these things happen, it's always someone else's fault other than those responsible...you can go back to George Sr. and blame him, or keep going back further and further and further, blaming this one and then that one., but the bottom line lays on their own leaders.......and as far as the "liberals" fault....how utterly ridiculous and unintelligent thinking. If you want to get down to brass tacks....the American people have nothing to with anything that happens at all, other than voting in a president.....and if you remember that last one, we can't really even do that for sure anymore!

Because we didn't go in for human rights issues! We went in on false intell. We went in because we (we being the administration as well) were led to believe that there was an imminent danger of WMDs in a country that was run by a lunatic that had a history of going expansionist.

Now, that the reason has changed since is a bit beside the point. And that this thread is based on the "new reason" is probably ALL THE POINT. Anybody that has been paying attention since the ramp up to invasion knows why we went in. Anybody who has been paying attention knows the reason we went in was false. Anybody who tries to blame the "falseness" of the reason we went in on Bush proper, is being disingenuous. Anybody who tries to blame the liberals of defending Saddam's atrocities because they are opposed to why we REALLY went into Iraq...is being disingenuous. Anybody who tries to claim that we're in Iraq for oil, is full of horse-hockey.

**The preceding conclusions are my personal opinions and should not be taken as official statements for any other members in this community...even if they are in my same political party.**

earthtone,

No...you can't take snippets out of context and make your point stand. I listened to every speech by every person in the administration. And the point was NEVER that he "currently could lob an WMD at his neighbor". The point was that he was actively pursuing WMD capabilities (based on false intelligence) (and the point was that he had WMD capabilities - i.e. not necessarily intra-national - i.e. chemical and biological weapons). These statements were ALWAYS made in connections with the statement "he's used them on his own people, so why wouldn't use them on somebody else" and in connection with "he's invaded another country before why wouldn't he do it again".

I believe, on reviewing the actions of the UN, and on the speeches made by this administration and the Blair administration that the belief that Saddam was a real "mass killer" threat was there. And it that conclusion was based on false information...false information that I can't help but note the CIA is trying to wriggle out of and divert attention away from. Good luck to them on that one.

Concerning your statements about Halliburton and Exxon. The money that Halliburton Corporation has made to date is completely tied to infrastructure rebuilding (including rebuilding of pipeline and pump facilities I'm sure) and military supplies and comes from the Kellog Brown & Root side of their corporation. NOT from the ESG side of their corporation. Halliburton ESG (Energy Services Group) is not a oil producer, is not a drilling company. And the only way that Halliburton can end up profiting from any oilwell in Iraq is if

1. the Iraqi government (which currently owns all the oilwells in Iraq), decides to do remedial work on wells, and they hire Halliburton as the well-servicing company.

2. if a new oilfield is developed and whatever oil company (major or government-owned) decides to contract with Halliburton for the well-servicing services.

There has been no "contract" that makes this so. There are well-servicing companies in the mid-east. And the French-owned company Schlumberger has just as much of a chance, if not more, of getting those well-servicing contracts when they occur...which is probably far in the future.

As far as what I've been able to find out so far, Exxon isn't a player in anything connected with Iraq. BUT...you might do a search on ATS for ConocoPhillips...who has just positioned themselves to possibly get a 17.5% interest in Qarn Field (?) (I think that's the correct name), by buying into Lukoil (Russian oil company)...I have a thread on this some where.

These misunderstandings - coming from the conservative side and aimed at the liberal side, and vice versa, are ALWAYS based on a lack of research...that or a closed mind.