# Let's Speculate as to the REAL motive behind the invasion of Iraq



## Agit8r (Dec 9, 2010)

I'll start:

Bush and Rummy wanted to create a secular Babylon like in the book of Revelations in order to bring on The Rapture







This would also explain Bush's domestic policy of trying to bring about The Tribulation


----------



## Sallow (Dec 9, 2010)

Naw.

Oil. Pure and simple.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 9, 2010)

Mostly oil and control of it, what accelerated the issue was the fact that several other powers around the world were making deals with sadam for oil and other business ventures and were going to place their people and facilities there.  Which would have complicated military action by the USA.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Dec 9, 2010)

Profit for the MIC and continued domination of oil contracts.  No other reason.  9-11 was just their "in".  They were counting on the ADD and stupidity of the American citizenry - and they were right.  They got EXACTLY what  they wanted.  Read the section on Iraq in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Kline for interesting facts concerning the lead-up and execution of that invasion.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 9, 2010)

#1 reason, was that Saddam, right before 9/11, had declared that he was in the process of only accepting only Euro's for his oil and the US dollar would not be a trade currency in Iraq.

The American government was scared that if he went thru with this threat.

Then other Mid East nations would follow and the dollar would become basically worthless.

Saddam had now crossed the line and his fate was sealed.


----------



## ElephantMcDonk (Dec 9, 2010)

A bunch of reasons that added up in their NeoCon, delusional minds.

1) Free a people from the tyranny of an evil dictator 
2) Create a Democracy smack dab in the middle of that part of the world
3) Unfinished business, clean up for Daddy
4) Oil

Not on the list is WMDs, because I don't believe that was part of the equation.  It was purely a tactic to get the American People, Congress, the Rest of the World, the media, and some of the people in the room helping make the decision on board.

The smart people in the room almost certainly knew that Saddam had no WMDs to be concerned about.  At best, it was a minimal, periphery reason for going.

It was very obvious when Colin Powell was used as a pitch man for the War that he didn't believe what he was saying and his heart wasn't in it.  He hated Saddam a lot, but couldn't stand lying to the American people and everyone else...and didn't think it was an excuse to go to War.  That's my opinion anyway.  I think he convinced himself that in the chain of command, the Commander in Chief gave him a direct order and if he couldn't convince him of a different course of action, he'd have to go along with the plan.  in his eyes, he was caught between a rock and a hard place and had to go along.  I'll always believe that. Cheney might have been the mastermind, and Bushy, a pawn.


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 9, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Naw.
> 
> Oil. Pure and simple.



Where is it? Where is our control of it??

Fucking idiot


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 9, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Naw.
> 
> Oil. Pure and simple.



I wish, maybe we'd be paying 10 cents a gallon for gas instead of the bullshit wer paying now.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2010)

Bush was looking for the singular event that would establish his place in history. He wanted to use the 9-11 attacks and the unparalleled support afterwards to force his way into the history books.

He envisioned himself as the single person who would reshape the region once and for all. If he could only remove the dictatorships and replace them with democracies, the people of the entire region would rise up in democratic revolution with US support.

Iran was the key. If he could establish strong democracies with solid economies and high standards of living in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian people would finally rise up and insist on their own rights. Once Iran fell, the rest of the countries in the region would fall like dominos as they embraced democracy.

Since democracies do not encourage terrorism, Bush would solve the problems of the region once and for all and be hailed as a hero and his presidency would be one of the greatest in modern history


----------



## Jos (Dec 10, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoInPNXZJk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## asterism (Dec 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bush was looking for the singular event that would establish his place in history. He wanted to use the 9-11 attacks and the unparalleled support afterwards to force his way into the history books.
> 
> He envisioned himself as the single person who would reshape the region once and for all. If he could only remove the dictatorships and replace them with democracies, the people of the entire region would rise up in democratic revolution with US support.
> 
> ...



Assuming that's correct, it's not a bad idea.  It didn't work out that way, and there's LOTS of negative effects for which he should be directly blamed.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 10, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Naw.
> ...




cute, you seem to think controlling the ME oil will result in cheap oil for the diamond daves. lol


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 10, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Naw.
> ...




and another one.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 10, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Naw.
> ...



You little prissy pants fucking pussy.

You don't know shit from shineola.

And never will.

Pick up a paper every once in a while.

Oil companies during that period made more money then all other capitalistic ventures in the history of capitalistic ventures combined.

You don't make money with a product by "flooding the market with it". You make money by making it scarce and expensive.

Sucker.


----------



## hipeter924 (Dec 10, 2010)

Jos said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoInPNXZJk&feature=player_embedded


Ron Paul is a near perfect replica of this guy:
Robert Kinsey - Stargate Wiki
The bastard who wants financial prudence in the military at the expense of national security. 

What would have happened if the left got its way:

1. Saddam would still be in power doing genocide to thousands more Kurds:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgJ2xdek3Ro&feature=related[/ame]

2. The Iraqi would still be living under the oil for food program:
IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

3. Iraqi would still be living under economic sanctions, which led to the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi's (likely more civilian deaths than in both Iraqi wars combined):


> The *Iraq sanctions* were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait,[1] and continued until May 22, 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein government in the US-led invasion  earlier that year. Their stated purpose was at first to compel Iraq's  military to withdraw from Kuwait and after that to compel Iraq to pay  reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction, and to do certain other things.
> Initially the U.N. Security Council had adopted Resolution 661, a resolution that imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq.[2] After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[3][4] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs.[2]  They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive economic sanctions  in human history. The controversy over the increased child-and-infant  mortality, poverty, and suffering of the Iraqi people during sanctions  led two senior UN representatives in Iraq to resign in protest.[5][6] Increased child mortality  was observed in those parts of Iraq under Iraqi government control (the  south and the centre), but not the (then independent) Kurdish north,  where child mortality decreased.[7][8][9]
> *Estimates of civilian deaths during from the sanctions range from less than 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them children.[10]*


4. Iraq would still be living under a dictatorship (and terror state comparable to North Korea) rather than a islamic styled democracy comparable to it's neighbors (before Iraq was the worst dictatorship in the middle east, now it is one of the most democratic). 

So keep supporting Saddam and opposing the war, it really makes you sound good.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 10, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



It's fucking incredibly amazing how seriously stupid these people are about economics.

Half the time I keep thinking..well it's unfair that we have obscenely wealthly people in the country while many are direly poor.

Then I see some of the direly poor..and think, fuck..if they can scam the country out of money because the people are so damned idiotic...well..then..they deserve it.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 10, 2010)

If we did it for the oil, why haven't we received any oil out of Iraq yet?

Wasn't oil supposed to pay for everything?


----------



## hipeter924 (Dec 10, 2010)

Sallow said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


Actually it's even worse in EU nations, they do that while pretending there are no poor people or unemployed, plus push the scam that thanks to democratic socialism/social democracy there will be no poor people some day. Makes a great Utopian fantasy novel, but every economist with a brain (and not using it to lie to make themselves money) realizes that socialism/social democracy as well as the current US economic system are all failed economic policies.

The best economic policies are now to be found in Asian nations that don't focus on an overbearing welfare state and instead provide jobs and living wages for their people like they do in South Korea (which has had near enough the OECD's lowest unemployment for several years in a row).


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 10, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> If we did it for the oil, why haven't we received any oil out of Iraq yet?
> 
> Wasn't oil supposed to pay for everything?



Thats what I'm sayin, where is all this secret oil from Iraq being stashed? do millionares and oil company big wigs have access to secret gas stations where they pay 4 cents a gallong for the stolen Iraqi oil?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 10, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If we did it for the oil, why haven't we received any oil out of Iraq yet?
> ...



And bob's yer uncle.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 10, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



SOUTH KOREA?? You can't be serious. That would mean finding a patron state like the United States to cover the expense of the military..among other subsidies.

And if you really want to follow the Asian model..good luck

-Get rid of patents and copyrights.
-Anything that can be sold..will be sold.
-Rules? Regulations? Who needs that. Buyer beware. If you eat it..and it doesn't kill you..it's probably safe.
-Brick and mortar stores? Screw that..set up shop anywhere.
-Screw everyone except family..and with family there are exceptions.
-Hey..if you can put a bed there..it's home. 20 people in a one bedroom apartment? No problemo.
-Work until you die..literally.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 10, 2010)

The attacks of 9/11 were just a good excuse for the Bushs'  to help out their Saudi business partners by getting rid of Saddam for them and saving them billions in military expenditures of their own.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 10, 2010)

Sallow said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Saudi Arabia is the example we should follow.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 10, 2010)

ElephantMcDonk said:


> A bunch of reasons that added up in their NeoCon, delusional minds.
> 
> 1) Free a people from the tyranny of an evil dictator
> 2) Create a Democracy smack dab in the middle of that part of the world
> ...



1, 2 and 3.  No  4.  Yes.

The smart people in the room know that the American leadership supports tyrants all arround the world and freeing people is the last thing on their "things to do" list.  If it was wrong for the Communist to export communism why is it exceptable to export our form of goverment.  

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

It was the Iraqi citizen "right", or rather their "duty" to throw off the bonds of oppression. (In fact they tried that after the first war and then President Bush ignored their pleas for help)

Furthermore, no where in the Constitution does it give the Governement the right to use the military in such a fashion.

As far as Daddy's unfinished business, here's what Pappa had to say about invading Iraq to dethrone Saddam.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): 

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. 

So his son, President Bush help to destroy the pattern for handling aggression in the post cold-war era that his father helped set by becoming the aggressor.

That leave only number 4.  Control Oil.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 11, 2010)

Hubris, spite, vainglory, lies upon lies, wrong expectations, 911, historically and in all other ways uneducated men, massive military power, empire, values, business, groupthink, a weak congress, fear, propaganda, a mostly passive public, because they could.... 


"I have occasionally mentioned that I very frequently challenge myself with regard to the validity of my own views. I think anyone who is seriously concerned with ideas, as I endeavor to be, must do this, at least to some extent. As new evidence accumulates, we need to ask ourselves: do my ideas account for these developments -- or do new events call into question what I had previously thought? Is this recent occurrence explained by ideas I have discussed before, or does this represent some new phenomenon? Do my previously-held views explain this development sufficiently, or do they need to be modified in some way? That's just a sample of some of the questions that come up as I continually examine and re-examine my ideas and theories; there are usually considerably more." Arthur Silber   Once Upon a Time...: In Service of the New Fascism


Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules


"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. *But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."* Downing Street Memo


----------



## hipeter924 (Dec 11, 2010)

Sallow said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


You must be a proud supporter of the pharmaceutical industry, even if billions of people (including Americans) can't afford medicine because of excessive copyrights and patents and subsequently die or live in hellish pain for the rest of their lives, also if you read up more you would find that South Korea, Japan and Singapore all respect copyrights. 

Also who pays your check, it certainty isn't US taxpayers but Asian banks, without which you would just be a bum on the street, even Democrats know that, if you are a Democrat...consider joining the US communist party, then again they would dump you out because you support the said copyrights and patents. Have fun walking that line.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 15, 2010)

With so many liberals around, there's a shortage of sand for their boxes.
The logical solution was to go to war for silicates.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 15, 2010)

We invaded Iraq for pussy.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 15, 2010)

Oh, yes.


----------



## goldcatt (Dec 15, 2010)

Pure speculation? Because his Dad didn't, and it probably cost him enough support among the hawks to kill his re-election. Yes, he had a tanking economy too, but IMO it was the failure to take Iraq that pushed enough conservative support to Perot to allow a Clinton victory. No good deed goes unpunished.

Remember Cheney wanted to take Baghdad the first time around and got shot down because Bush the Elder was smart enough to know the fallout wouldn't be flowers and parades. Wouldn't have been hard to convince Junior to finish what Dad started. And Cheney had a few axes to grind and some cash to be made.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 16, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Oh, yes.



Israeli women are sexy as hell.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 16, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yes.
> ...



Oh, tell me about it. I spend four months a year in Israel.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 16, 2010)

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



I used to date an Israeli girl who had prior service in the Military, 4 of the best months in my life.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 16, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yes, Israeli women are quite aggressive.  

It comes from not being frightened of your men.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 16, 2010)

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



No doubt, the girl I was seeing said she got the same training in the Military as the men did and was held to the same standard, and actually saw live combat. Israeli women are bad ass.


----------



## HinduPatriot (Dec 17, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I had sex with an Israeli women who came to India after her stint in the IDF. She was an awesome lay.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 17, 2010)

HinduPatriot said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Hell yeah!


----------



## editec (Dec 17, 2010)

I think that seldom does this nation undertake such a operation with ONLY one _causus belli_

I think that the served MULTIPLE interests.

It secured the oil of Iraq.

It made a LOT of Bush II and Cheyney's  political  cronnies very very rich.

It took out a rogue CIA agent (SAddam) who might have become an embarrassment for the CIA.

Its gave Bush II a woodie so he wouldn't feel like he was standing in his father's shadow.

It gave us a base of operations to dominate the rest of central Asia.

It continued the longer range plan of the NEO-Cons to bankrupt this nations federal government.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 17, 2010)

Hegemony.

Bush and his inner circle wanted to build a better world that was more friendly to the US.  They convinced themselves of the misguided notion that people the world over want to be just like America.  If they could create a spark by taking over a weak state like Iraq and establish a strong working democracy, a wild fire would ensue where all of the surrounding states would revolt and follow suite.  They were wrong.  Everyone doesn't want to be like us.  It was a failed social experiment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2010)

For control of Sumerian technology.

You people are so uneducated and illiterate, it's no wonder you're so easily misled.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 17, 2010)

I don't believe we need to speculate, consider the Project for a New American Century and consider this article from this web site:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf

The invasion and occupation of Iraq had no relationship to 9/11/2001; it was the goal and intent of the right wing of the Republican Party for years before the WTC was destroyed.  The irony being the R's have and had two camps - the isolationists and the neo-conservative ones, yet were able to convince many Americans they were the party to trust on matters of foreign policy.
That they are still able to play this card is a sad commentary on our nation's people ability to think.


----------



## asterism (Dec 17, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> I don't believe we need to speculate, consider the Project for a New American Century and consider this article from this web site:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf
> 
> ...



If only that damn Bush would just get out of there so someone against the war could get us out right now.


Oh wait...


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> The invasion and occupation of Iraq had no relationship to 9/11/2001; it was the goal and intent of the right wing of the Republican Party for years before the WTC was destroyed.


The 9-11 attacks and other terror attacks were a response to the USA dominatated UN coalition continuing to impose economic sanctions against iraq and US and British relentless bombing of Iraqi air defense.  

The 9-11 attacks and other previous Al Qaeda attacks were primarily about US foreign policy concerning Iraq. 

Did you not read UBL's declaration of war?

The real goal of American foreign policy in Arab lands is to prevent a united Baath Arab Muslim Socialist superpower from emerging. That is why the US and UK supports corrupt monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And also Israel. The USA wants to remain the world's sole economic and military superpower. And the US knows that a united Baathist State could quickly become a dominant world superpower if it wasn't for their meddling into Arab affairs.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 20, 2010)

Right.  Arabian superpower....

And women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.

Just like America did on nine eleven. 

That's your morals and mind and it is clear.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 20, 2010)

Ropey said:


> And women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.


Why do you assume that women who dress provacatively are "asking to be raped"?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > And women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.
> ...



I am making a connection between those who say that American policy asked for Muslim extremist reaction (read Nine Eleven, et al) and the fact that Muslim women can be legally raped if they are about on their own, since the extension is that both are asking for it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > And women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.
> ...


It's simple.

He hates muslims and Islam.

And will lie to make muslims look bad.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

I simply hold you to task for your truth. 

Look at my sig for racism....


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> I simply hold you to task for your truth.
> 
> Look at my sig for racism...


How can that be construed as racism??  


#1) the Mossad is a government agency *not *a race.

#2) Israel is a country *not *a race.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > I simply hold you to task for your truth.
> ...





The Mossad and Israel are Jews.

Come on, do you truly think intelligent people do not see your lies and machinations?

Continue...


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> The Mossad and Israel are Jews.


The Jews are Not a race.

They are part of a religion.  Judiasm


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

No matter how often you and yours repeat a lie, it does not make it a truth. 

Studies of Jewish Populations



			
				http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html said:
			
		

> Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNA and mtDNA haplotyping, of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation between the groups. Important studies archived here include the University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of 2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, and others.
> 
> Key findings:
> # The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.
> ...



Studies of Cohens and Levites 



> Key findings:
> 
> The Cohen Modal Haplotype is found among many Jewish populations of the world, including Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and the Bene Israel of India.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

So black jews, white jews, asian jews, and the rest, are basically a race?

Do you even know what the word "race" refers to??


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> So black jews, white jews, asian jews, and the rest, are basically a race?
> 
> Do you even know what the word "race" refers to??



Yes, do you have any understanding what genetics show?



> Genetic variation, classification and 'race'



Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding

Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.

Correspondence should be addressed to Lynn B Jorde lbj@genetics.utah.edu



> New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analysis that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.



Our variation proves we are a race. But I don't expect you to actually study to understand. You seem to study to exclude.  That's a rather pitiful method of critical analysis.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Our singular diseases prove that we are a race. Just as the genetics show that sickle cell anemia is tied to the Black race. 

Research Sunni Man.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Our singular diseases prove that we are a race. Just as the genetics show that sickle cell anemia is tied to the Black race.


There are whites who have sickle cell anemia .

So according to you they are they now officially part of the black race?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Our singular diseases prove that we are a race. Just as the genetics show that sickle cell anemia is tied to the Black race.
> ...



Have you heard of genetic drift?



> Genetic drift occurs when a population's allele frequencies change due to random events. There is a higher probability that this surviving population will undergo drift (10/16) than the probability it will remain the same. (6/16)





> Effects of Genetic Drift





> Population bottlenecks occur when a population&#8217;s size is reduced for at least one generation. Because genetic drift acts more quickly to reduce genetic variation in small populations, undergoing a bottleneck can reduce a population&#8217;s genetic variation by a lot, even if the bottleneck doesn&#8217;t last for very many generations.



Consider the three thousand plus proven years of the Jewish race, and all the expulsions of the Jews to the "corners of the world." The race you say is not there show the genetic causal proof.

It's not hard to make the extension, that is "If" you actually study to learn, and not look for reasons to exclude data.

That's not a healthy method of critical analysis Sunni Man...


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Our singular diseases prove that we are a race. Just as the genetics show that sickle cell anemia is tied to the Black race.
> ...



If you do not research with a neutral eye I suppose I shall have to teach you Sunni Man. The removal of blacks from Africa to America has created the drift to which I speak.

But you make my point. The white race has by genetic drift (inputting the genes of others) but they are still a race due to their dominant genetic factors that remain. 

Thanks for making my point.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

So anti-semitism is racism.

Then when Israels bomb Palestinians.

They are being anti-semitic (racist) against their own race?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> So anti-semitism is racism.
> 
> Then when Israels bomb Palestinians.
> 
> They are being anti-semitic (racist) against their own race?



LOL

You need to study race and dominant genes Sunni Man. Arguing from ignorance limits your effect.

Yes, the Whites have genetic drift and causal determination of that drift.

But they are not the Black Race...


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> If you do not research with a neutral eye I suppose I shall have to teach you Sunni Man. The removal of blacks from Africa to America has created the drift to which I speak.
> 
> But you make my point. The white race has by genetic drift (inputting the genes of others) but they are still a race due to their dominant genetic factors that remain.



I think I get it.

If you posses even one tiny bit of semitic DNA. Then you are part of the so called Jewish race

But if a white has any african DNA. It is called "genetic drift" and somehow doesn't count.

If I am not mistaken; the Nazis and the KKK have similar views. Just in reverse, but the same principle applies.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


Could you explain why you presume that it is legal to rape Muslim women?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > If you do not research with a neutral eye I suppose I shall have to teach you Sunni Man. The removal of blacks from Africa to America has created the drift to which I speak.
> ...



Do you even understand genetic drift? Now you confuse race with ...



Muhammed said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



If you can't understand or *won't understand* my extension, then I put forwards repetition is in the realm of the banal.

Ask Sunni Man about this effect. He spoke of it to me. I can find the link if you so wish.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

In other words Ropey.

You just made some stuff up. 

And now can't defend your position.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> In other words Ropey.
> 
> You just made some stuff up.
> 
> And now can't defend your position.



Oh I explained. Your friend can not or is not willing to understand my connection as posted below. Repeating it is simply useless. You are not willing to open your mind to the lies you have been exposed to as a child.

You seriously lack in critical analysis. 



			
				Ropey said:
			
		

> I am making a connection between those who say that American policy asked for Muslim extremist reaction (read Nine Eleven, et al) and the fact that Muslim women can be legally raped if they are about on their own, since the extension is that both are asking for it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 21, 2010)

Ropey said:


> ]
> You are not willing to open your mind to the lies you have been exposed to as a child.
> 
> You seriously lack in critical analysis.


LOL, that you can say that to someone else is the ultimate irony.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> In other words Ropey.
> 
> You just made some stuff up.
> 
> And now can't defend your position.



The fraudulent Mahomet made up the cult of Islam by stealing Judaism and Christianity.

You = Sucker


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 21, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


*
Why I left Islam
By Waleed Al-Husseini *


> *Islam is an authoritarian religion that does not respect the individuals freedom of choice, which is easily noticeable from its barbaric verdicts such as stoning the adulterous, pushing the homosexuals off a cliff and killing the apostates for daring to express a different viewpoint. Then there is the plight of other religions followers in the Muslim State. Islam urges its followers to fight the infidels until they convert or agree to pay a tax known as "Jizya" per capita in total submission.The sacred texts in Islam also encourage blatant war and conquest of new territories to spread the religion of Muhammad, instead of using peaceful means to convey the message, relying only on a rational argumentative scheme; something that Islam, like any other religion for that matter, evidently lacks. It is simply a terrible insult to human values and a proof of unprecedented dementia.*
> 
> I was flabbergasted when I learnt the commandments of Islam regarding the alliance and disavowal and the aberrant division of the world into believers and unbelievers, with all the outrageous provisions this implies for the "Dhimmis" and the Jizya "!  A man also has the right to correct his wife by beating her and / or deserting the marital bed if she refuses to submit to his will. She has no choice when it comes to satisfying his sexual desire whenever he feels like it, with no regard whatsoever of her feelings and desires.
> 
> ...


Why I left Islam


----------



## Sallow (Dec 21, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



I think you misread my post.

My bullets points were meant to outline how an Asian economy functions.


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bush was looking for the singular event that would establish his place in history. He wanted to use the 9-11 attacks and the unparalleled support afterwards to force his way into the history books.
> 
> He envisioned himself as the single person who would reshape the region once and for all. If he could only remove the dictatorships and replace them with democracies, the people of the entire region would rise up in democratic revolution with US support.
> 
> ...



I think you probably explain it the best.

The problems:  

Those people are not "liberals".  They don't want individual freedom.  It's not in their lexicon.

Republicans are conflicted.  On one hand they want a "religious theocracy".  They see it as a "good thing".  Only they call for freedom but don't mean it, which makes their position confusing, to say the least.  You only have to talk to women's rights activists and gays in this country to know this to be true.

Bush was and is a very simple minded person.  He thought those people wanted "freedom", but if they did, why didn't they ask for our help?  Poor Bush, didn't even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni.  I bet he didn't even know there were more than a million Christians living in Iraq before we destroyed their lives.  Now they curse us along with the rest of Iraq.


----------



## daveman (Dec 21, 2010)




----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2010)

daveman said:


>



Because of the tens of thousands of Americans killed and maimed and the trillions lost in American money and the fear and hatred this brought America from around the world,  this will be a horse beat many more times.  I know Republicans want to put it behind us, and for good reason, because it was their debacle, but we won't.  We can't.  Too many have died because of that failed ideology.  We can never be silent again.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 21, 2010)

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



The next American election will prove or disprove your view...


----------



## asterism (Dec 22, 2010)

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Right on!  Take it to the streets!  Speak truth to power!  Never surrender, never submit!  Keep the fire alive!

(Or just post about it on a message board)


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 22, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


You are dodging the question. Why don't you just answer it?

I asked you to explain why you presume that it is legal to rape Muslim women. Why are you are dodging that question?


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2010)

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Face it, Skippy:  The only reason...the ONLY reason...you oppose the wars is because a Republican started them (with Democrat help, but you refuse to hold them accountable).


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Tune in, turn on, drop out!  Ban the Bomb!  Make love, not war!  Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?


asterism said:


> (Or just post about it on a message board)


Well, it's easier than actually _doing_ anything.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...




Somali fighters stone 'rape victim' 



			
				AlJazeera said:
			
		

> A Somali girl who said she had been raped has been stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery, a human rights group has said.
> 
> Amnesty International said in a press release on Friday that the victim, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, had been 13 years old - not 23 as earlier reports had suggested.




A Somali girl who said she had been raped has been stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery, a human rights group has said.

Amnesty International said in a press release on Friday that the victim, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, had been 13 years old - not 23 as earlier reports had suggested.

Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim



> the French businesswoman Touria Tiouli went to court in the United Arab Emirates. Heedlessly risking the recycling of vague Orientalist clichés, Dubai officials have turned her charge that she was raped by three men on its head and accused her of zina, sexual activity outside marriage. In Dubai, a bastion of moderate Islam, *this charge isnt punishable by stoning, as it is in more hard-line Muslim countries*  it only carries an 18-month jail sentence.



FrontPage Magazine - Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim

Women in the Quran
It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
"Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four." 4:3
Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
"All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females. 4:117
A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129
"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176
When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
Men and women are enemies! (Or is it humans and Iblis? Sometimes Allah isn't all that clear about these things.) 7:24
If your ... your wives ... are dearer to you than Allah and His messenger ... then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass." 9:24
Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78
"The guile of you women ... is very great." 12:28
Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 15:71
When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2
You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6
If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4
A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29
The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30
The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33
When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36
Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 33:37
Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53
But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55
Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved). 37:22-23
But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27
Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched before them. 55:56
Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
Allah's rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty. 65:4
O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?"

Women in the Quran



> The girls father was also fined and warned the family would be branded outcasts from their village if he did not pay. According to human rights activists, the girl, who was quickly married after the attack, was divorced weeks later after medical tests revealed she was pregnant.
> The girl was raped by a 20-year-old villager in Brahmanbaria district in April last year.
> 
> Bangladeshs Daily Star newspaper reported that she was so ashamed following the attack that she did not lodge a complaint.
> ...



Pregnant rape victim receives 101 lashes, rapist set free.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 22, 2010)

> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received -1 reputation points from Muhammed.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> ...



LOL @ Your Neg Rep. Have it back...


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 22, 2010)

Ropey said:


> > New reputation!
> > Hi, you have received -1 reputation points from Muhammed.
> > Reputation was given for this post.
> >
> ...



You just listed a whole bunch of example where Muslims said it was ok to rape, what more does he want?


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 22, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > > New reputation!
> ...


Yes I agree that you are a stupid *XXXXXXXXXX Edited*.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



There we are High_Gravity. Out comes the hate. Not very far in either. One simple discussion turns you into a ....

That's a good monthly sig High_Gravity...


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Wow so much anger from the religion of peace.

I wonder how your African Muslim brothers would feel about that

I love how Muslims like you claim to not be racist like the West, but than the truth always comes out


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 22, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I already knew Muslims were racist, their always quick to say Islam doesn't have the racism that Western countries do, but than the truth comes out doesn't it? that would make a good sig.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 22, 2010)

The truth will always "out". 

Out damned spot, yet there it is...



			
				William Shakespeare said:
			
		

> Doctor:
> What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands.
> 
> Gentlewoman:
> ...



Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26&#8211;40


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



More from the religion of peace..... Muhammed, YOU lost the debate


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 22, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I already knew Muslims think of Blacks as dogs, they use them to do their dirty work like in Sudan and Somalia and but they think of them as less human, no surprise to me.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Regardless of what you were saying......you just lost. Congratulations. 

Keep giving a good name to your religion why don't ya?


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



"Thank you for deducting Reputation from this user."


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 22, 2010)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


I am not a religious person DAN.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 22, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> I am not a religious person.





Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > You just listed a whole bunch of example where Muslims said it was ok to rape, what more does he want?
> ...



It doesn't matter if you are religious or not. Your hate comes through regardless, and is tempered even less because where you come from is the other side of religion.

Know?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 23, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



No your just a classless gutless moron.I wonder how your Muslim *XXXXXXXXXX Edited.* brothers would feel about your filthy comments.


----------



## saltshaker (Dec 23, 2010)

Muhammed is just a DEVIL SWINE who knows DOGS in the biblical sense.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 24, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > > New reputation!
> ...


Of course he failed to mention that rape is punishable by death in some Muslim traditions. While in the USA rapists oftentimes get short prison sentences and continue to rape while they are incarcerated.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 25, 2010)

To try to get this thread back on topic....

Do you agree that the 9-11 attacks and other previous Al Qaeda attacks were primarily about US foreign policy concerning Iraq.

If not, then what do you think they were about?


----------



## daveman (Dec 25, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


Usually in the Muslim world, the rape victim is punished.  The laws are ridiculously stacked in the rapists' favor.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 26, 2010)

daveman said:


> Usually in the Muslim world, the rape victim is punished.


Could you explain why you hold that bigoted belief?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 26, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Re-post. Because it is the truth...


----------



## daveman (Dec 26, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Usually in the Muslim world, the rape victim is punished.
> ...



1.  It's true.

2.  It's not bigoted.

3.  Don't make the mistake you can silence me with the misapplication of inflammatory labels.  I'm not a sissy bedwetting leftist who's afraid of offending Muslims.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 26, 2010)

daveman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Petitio principii. You are begging the question, dumbass.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 26, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Usually in the Muslim world, the rape victim is punished.
> ...



*You call black people the "N" word and then call others bigot?*






And the Rep is a thanks for your inanity... It helps us, not hurts us when others see just how blind you are.


----------



## daveman (Dec 26, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Reality says you're wrong, you damn barbarian.

Somali fighters stone 'rape victim' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Muslim Rape Victim Punished &mdash; FaithTrust Institute

RAPE VICTIM PUNISHED FOR BECOMING PREGNANT.  THE BATTLE for BRITAIN

And why are those victims being punished?  Because Sharia law requires 4 male witnesses to testify that the rape occurred.  Anything less and the woman is "confessing" to adultery.  

Why are four witnesses required?  

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (5:59:462) - The background for the Qur'anic requirement of four witnesses to adultery.  Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, was accused of cheating [on her polygamous husband].  Three witnesses corroborated the event, but Muhammad did not want to believe it, and so established the arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required.​
Isn't it time you idiots looked at a calendar and realized it's the 21st Century?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Islam is a joke.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Usually in the Muslim world, the rape victim is punished.
> ...



You have some nerve to call someone a bigot after the dumb shit you said on this thread.


----------



## Hollybaere (Dec 27, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



NOT for the "diamond daves"....................

But for:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4k4RGpP7-E&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The oil wasn't for the US. It was for Israel. 

FYI: The newspapers certainly aren't going to tell you this either. And neither will Foxsnooze.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Hey DAN. You are the dumbshit.

Can you give a serious and rational criticism of anything I said in this thread?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Whatever you say bitch.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Your concession is respectfully accepted.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Islam is trash.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 27, 2010)

Agit8r said:


> I'll start:
> 
> Bush and Rummy wanted to create a secular Babylon like in the book of Revelations in order to bring on The Rapture
> 
> ...



Actually, it was the Christian Coalition and places like "C" street that were trying to bring about the Rapture. 

By the way........the Rapture is a myth.  Ain't gonna happen, but however, it does state in some Judaic writings (I think the Tanach) that eventually evil will no longer be required, and will be winked out of existence.

But, because Bush Jr. was a good 'murikan who went to church, he let the Christian coalition idiots push him into some things.  Remember the Iraq war briefings that had Bible verses printed on their covers?

Alan Greenspan told us the real reason for the war.  Oil.  Jr.'s family had a lot of oil wells over there.

Oh yeah...........Saddam?  Probably one of the worst moves made by that administration.  Why?  Yeah, Saddam was a sadistic evil bastard, but you've gotta admit, he kept the Taliban and AQ from his country.  At least........until he was deposed.  Then?  The whole fucking country became a training ground and base for the Taliban and AQ.

Oh yeah.......let's not forget the failure of Sr. in the first Gulf war.  He stopped at the gates of Baghdad and let Saddam live.  After Saddam threatened to kill his daddy, Bushie Jr. got his dander up and decided to go after the man that wanted to kill his pa.

Combine that with the manipulations of Cheney and Halliburton, well......you can see why it was so fucked up.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 27, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Alan Greenspan told us the real reason for the war.  Oil.  Jr.'s family had a lot of oil wells over there.


Bullshit.



ABikerSailor said:


> Oh yeah...........Saddam?  Probably one of the worst moves made by that administration.  Why?  Yeah, Saddam was a sadistic evil bastard, but you've gotta admit, he kept the Taliban and AQ from his country.  At least........until he was deposed.  Then?  The whole fucking country became a training ground and base for the Taliban and AQ.


More bullshit. After the bombardment of Tora Bora in 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda opreatives fled Afghanistan and regrouped in Iraq where some of them hooked up with the AQ affiliate Ansar al Islam. AQ also had a WMD facility in Iraq near Sargat.

One thing I've noticed is that most people who criticize the Bush administration for invading Iraq are completely ignorant of the facts. They are merely dupes who were brainwashed by the Democrat's "Bush lied, people died" disinformation campaign. They are often the same idiots who think that the Bush administration blew up the WTC.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 28, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Alan Greenspan told us the real reason for the war.  Oil.  Jr.'s family had a lot of oil wells over there.
> ...



Mo, Bush invaded Iraq because every intelligence agency from the US to the UK to Egypt and Jordan and even the UN said there were WMD.

In fact, there were WMD which were transported to Syria.  

Had Bush not invaded Iraq and Iraq had attacked the US, it would have been grounds for Bush's impeachment.

That's not to say the US should have stayed around after Saddam was captured.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Mo, Bush invaded Iraq because every intelligence agency from the US to the UK to Egypt and Jordan and even the UN said there were WMD.



Oh horse shit. The intelligence community was deeply divided on the issue, and most of the "concensus" that guessed he did have WMD were based on circular intel that originated from Cheney's painfully fraudulent White House Iraq Group. Stop lying and attempting to re-write history based on what you HOPE to be true. 

If you wanna get into a link war, bring it on. I'm armed to the teeth with FACT-based reports of intelligence saying quite the opposite of the nonsense you're trying to pass off here. Either way, it certainly wasn't "every intelligence agency," liar. Not even close.



Marc39 said:


> In fact, there were WMD which were transported to Syria.



Myth. The classic unfalsifiable tactic by cons desperate to keep their bullshit narrative alive. There is zero substantiated evidence that this was ever the case. Regardless, hiding WMD is just a bit more complicated than moving some barrels over the border. Substantial evidence is left behind, in everything from paper work to facilities to traces of the stuff. Get a clue.



Marc39 said:


> Had Bush not invaded Iraq and Iraq had attacked the US, it would have been grounds for Bush's impeachment.



You know, it's amazing that after all these years and everything you clowns have gotten dead wrong regarding our war of aggression for oil, you guys are STILL trying to assert what WOULD happen if we didn't follow the neocon playbook. Give it up, Nostradamus. You had your chance, and got caught in an endless array of fraud.

Iraq had zero capability, and even less incentive, to attack the United States. He wanted to sell his oil in Euros, and that was the final straw. Accept it.

Try reading a book by a journalist for once, rather than parrot the talking points of RW chickenhawk propaganda think tanks. Your "beacon of light" fiction isn't fooling anyone anymore.


----------

