Jeb Bush Confronted by College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS

a reply to: Gothmog

There is no doubt that Hussein was a mean SOB, but he had to be. The middle east is a dangerous region and Hussein was able to keep people in check, including other nations, because they knew he would not hesitate to respond.

Saddam Hussein was good for the middle east.

That being said, there has never been evidence presented that has proven which nation, Iraq or Iran, was behind the chemical attack. The Halabja incident took place at the end of the Iran/Iraq war, the city was being taken over by Iranian forces.

So we used the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11, and a chemical bombing which we did not know who was behind, to take over and entire country, kill it's leader and expand that war to other countries in the middle east.....throwing the entire region in to chaos and endangering the security of the US?

Please.

It's hard to get behind and support a bunch of lies. Unless, that is, you fall for the propaganda.

a reply to: damwel

While I do think Clinton did a better job, he left the economy in black because he gutted the military. Further, Nafta and the Chinese free trade agreement was implemented under him. It was the 2 things that led to the gutting of Americas industrial capacity. So while bush was an idiot. Clinton did have fault. Just as Obama has fault with running massive deficits. Put simply, they all suck, doesn't matter if there a R or a D

a reply to: 200Plus

You are so right.I was there when the UN claimed that Saddam was building nuclear weapons over ad over and over again. They are the ones that basically "pushed and shoved" the US into the war. And a far as WMDs go ,take it from me the do not have to be nuclear. Sarin , Ricin , Mustard gasses all belong there as well .Did Iraq have those ? Yes. If you do not believe me you can ask the 1'000s if not 10s of thousands of the dead in Iran itself . Oh , wait , you cannot ask them as they were murdered by those same WMDs mentioned above.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: soulwaxer
No , I do not mind at all.Saddam Hussein and his cronies were evil. Murder , rape , the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north of Iran . Need I go on ?

Like Iraq were the only nation that was doing this sort of thing if we were going to invade nations for those things then we would be invading many nations in Africa. I'll tell you the reasons why we went into Iraq. First Saddam was going to start selling his oil for Euros instead of dollars. Second that lying SOB from Israel was crying that Iraq was such a threat to Israel and removing Saddam would have such a positive effect on the ME.

a reply to: buster2010

Finally, someone understands why we invaded Iraq. It was all about the money.

a reply to: introvert
Go back to the 80s and 90s.Read some Time magazines from that period. You dont even have to read.Just look at the pictures.And if you recall the WMD story started via the UN who were the ones that pressed the issue. Also gave other misinformation to the Bush Admin.Absolutely pressed us into the war with Iraq . Now who are the "bad guys"?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: buster2010

Finally, someone understands why we invaded Iraq. It was all about the money.

Can I ask , what money and to whom ?

originally posted by: camain
a reply to: damwel

While I do think Clinton did a better job, he left the economy in black because he gutted the military. Further, Nafta and the Chinese free trade agreement was implemented under him. It was the 2 things that led to the gutting of Americas industrial capacity. So while bush was an idiot. Clinton did have fault. Just as Obama has fault with running massive deficits. Put simply, they all suck, doesn't matter if there a R or a D

Clinton didn't gut the military he raised taxes on the wealthy. NAFTA was started by Bush sr Clinton just finalized it. Also Clinton didn't sign a free trade agreement with China these are the nations that we have free trade agreements.
Australia
Bahrain
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Israel
Jordan
Korea
Mexico
Morocco
Nicaragua
Oman
Panama
Peru
Singapore
Also under Obama the deficit has been dropping not going up.

a reply to: Gothmog

First of all, pictures do not show context or provide evidence of whom was responsible for the attack. I want facts. I do not fall for the appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Second, it was the Bush administration that pushed the UN and it's members to support action against Iraq. Do you remember the infamous speech given by Colin Powell at the UN that turned out to be completely false and made-up?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: buster2010

Finally, someone understands why we invaded Iraq. It was all about the money.

Can I ask , what money and to whom ?

It wasn't about who stood to make money.

It was about Iraq setting a very bad precedent by trading oil in euros. Iraq would have paved the way for other countries to follow suit and that was a threat to the power of the US dollar and it's status as the world's reserve currency.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: buster2010

Finally, someone understands why we invaded Iraq. It was all about the money.

Can I ask , what money and to whom ?

If Saddam did start selling for Euros our oil speculators would no longer have control over the price Iraq sold their oil. Which means chances were very good that the prices would go up and that would have cut into the oil companies profits and as we have shown we are willing to destroy a nation so the oil companies can keep their profit margin up. Gen Butler was 100% right our military doesn't fight for this nation it fights for our corporations.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: soulwaxer
No , I do not mind at all.Saddam Hussein and his cronies were evil. Murder , rape , the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north of Iran . Need I go on ?

The foreign aggression of Iraq is no worse than that of the US, in fact the latter is of a much grander scale. Hell, certain agencies in the US even helped attack their own people on 9/11. Who can beat that?

Also, there are other dictators worse than Saddam, and more threatening to us, but we leave them alone for some reason. Can you think of what that reason might be?

In WW2, Hitler was raging all over Europe and elsewhere, murdering by the millions, but the US didn't enter the war until they were attacked at Pearl Harbour (We'll ignore the fact that the Pearl Harbour attack was actually facilitated by certain men in power). Iraq was attacked preemptively, on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.

You have quite a simplistic view of things, in my opinion.

soulwaxer

Maybe the job of President has become so large we need more than one President. Three persons for each: foreign policies, domestic, and economic stability. When Our government was started we were a small rural nation..... things are not the same anymore. The huge job covers a massive population increase, technological advancements, and larger more aggressive enemies. I really don't know how one person can keep it all straight in their brain. Someone successful like Bill Gates of Warren Buffet should manage the economic portion. I have no idea for the other candidates. We need new and fresh people for the jobs.

a reply to: buster2010
Ahh , the "evil oil company" debate. That would be a thread for another day. No, the dollar was the trade currency , not the Euro. Saddam never produced that threat. That would have been OPEC stating Iraq was going rogue on the oil sales. And why would the US be willing to go to war for the evil oil companies ?Are they actually that evil ? And how did anyone receive money , when all proceeds from the oil sales of Iraq went to Iraq. They didnt even fulfill their agreement to use a good portion of the oil revenue to help rebuild their own country. We did that .With US money. Even gave 2 billion dollars to help get the Central Bank of Iraq started.
Yes , Butler was really out there......somewhere......

a sign of future campaign trail questioning> surprised she didnt ask about his father's cia knowledge/setup and a 'possible' hitler conection in the family via barbara his mother, or wasnt it santan

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Daedal

That girl sounds like a smart cookie to me. I think someone needs to buy her a beer, for sticking it to the man like that.

She's 19 years old so you'll have to buy her a pepsi.

She also sounds healthy and doesn't take in much sugar...someone get her a bottle of water!

a reply to: Gothmog

I think you're completely missing the point.

But it's good that you mention central banks. That's another thing that Iraq refused to jump on board and that is the central banking system controlled by the IMF.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: soulwaxer
No , I do not mind at all.Saddam Hussein and his cronies were evil. Murder , rape , the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north of Iran . Need I go on ?

In WW2, Hitler was raging all over Europe and elsewhere, murdering by the millions, but the US didn't enter the war until they were attacked at Pearl Harbour
soulwaxer

That was due to the years of isolationism between WW1 and WW2. After WW1 this country did not want to get involved due to they were still "reeling" from WWI. We had acquired a distaste for war.
My simplicity aside , it is history and not supposition nor theory.
And , believe it or not , everything is not a conspiracy set up by oil barons , bankers , the government, etc. Some things actually happen for the reason given .

a reply to: Gothmog

And , believe it or not , everything is not a conspiracy set up by oil barons , bankers , the government, etc. Some things actually happen for the reason given .

Very true. But when it is a conspiracy between governments, oil barons and bankers....it's cool to point it out.

a reply to: buster2010

Yeah, he has an extremely simplistic view of what is.

But an extremely simplistic and naive point of view seems to be endemic to the majority of people in first world nations. Trying to explain simple logic to them, is a futile imo.

They have had there minds penetrated by TPTB. The people that are still able to resist the mind control & recognize basic logic, are powerless to explain it to the brainwashed masses.