My old presumption has been just confirmed

Well wouldn't you know it..... George Bush had already divided the oil wealth of Iraq into sectors long before September 11th. This has been Confirmed the U.S treasury secretary... just turn on Foxy.. news. The same figure had recentely published a book supporting this thesis and many more controversial events which occured recently behind the scenes.

And I thought Saddam was ruthless....
A President in a real life situation should never have the same temptation we, players of civilization. Our decision are based on the pursuit of victory, in the real world there is no such thing

 

Welcome to the real world.

(and the forums)

 

Gee, considering the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with September 11th, that's not surprising.

 

George Bush claimed it was a necessary step to achieve national security.... which ofcorse is bull****...
Oh ya i just want to remind you of one other thing..... 'The axis of evil Speach' was a cause of September 11th.... Iraq was of the countries addressed....
I am not going to go further in detail... you should know this before commenting on this thread

 

I thought Axis of Evil speech came AFTER 9/11. how could it be a cause? if it was, that means the terrorists have time machines, and they're currently just toying with us for ahwile before they completely vapourize us with their advanced technology.

 

Welcome to CFC (OT) r4ge. Not too many Italians here, so I think a very warm welcome would be fine!

Before loosing your temper on this subject, realise it helps when expressing yourself while usign a bit more details then you just did.

on topic: It is GWB's task to protect American interests. As America's economy is dependent on oil, I don't think it is too strange Bush wants the world's largets oil reserves to be in the hands of stable countries/companies.

Before judging Bush on dividing the oil wealth, maybe you should at least take notice of the possibility that is not the money of the oil that is divided, but the oil itself. Just to ensure that American economy won't collapse.

 

The main reason Bush claimed it was necessary for our security is that he (supposedly) believed Iraq had WMD's, not that they were responsible for 9-11. We already fought a war for 9-11.

Oh, and the "axis of evil speech" happened after September 11th. You should know this before commenting in your own thread.

 

Yeah, I believe EVERYTHING someone says when they are trying to sell a book.

 

I never said they were responsible... for 9-11
The Axis of Evil speach stated clearly that Iraq was a threat....
However what i am trying to imply is that Bush had since this speach.. charactarized Iraq as a threat. The Speach Itself was a result of September 11th.

------------------
!!STAPEL** - Yes I am not writting a thesis on my position.. it would useless to waste the time and space (LoL)
I am not losing my temper it is always interesting to understand how one thinks.

Cheers!

 

Like Pete Rose right? Of course somebody who has something to sell is bias but it's not like these allegations are new.
Bush has been lying for years now and we are getting more and more proof every day.

 

Reminds me. I hope the Dutch take good care of our interests.

By the way, O'Neill didn't write the book, nor gets he money from it. He just answered questions. And gives interviews.

 

So what's the point of this thread?

Yes, the speech characterized Iraq as a threat. But not because of 9-11, as far as I know.

 

Every nation has a war plan for every other nation. When it's time to put it into effect, they just modify the needed variables to link to current events (ie- keep the people happy), then proceed.

 

One thing i don't see in this thread is the bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 declaring Iraq was in need of a regime change. This is just another thing Bill Clinton passed onto George W. Bush, including the Al-Qaeda problem.

 

Also does anyone even care about the information that this Ex-treasury secretary is so pissed off at Bush for firing him? Confirmed by friends of his, he's quite pissed at Bush, and now it seems that he may have taken classified documents and given them to a reporter. This guy is just trying to get revenge

 

i wouldn't say every, but all in all i'd say yes. The US has had several conflicts with Iraq(many about the no fly zone) we should have had some sort of plan on what to do incase the seemingly invitable happends.

 

Time of me to say "I told you so" to all our Republican viewers.

 

I for one believe it. Then again, I dont have a problem with it.

A lot of Gulf War vets came away with a bad taste over the way it ended. Then we were treated to 8 years of letting the situation go slack. I have no problem with the thought of GWBush coming into office with a massive sense of unfinished business. It is the big reason I supported the war, not WMD.

J

 

But you should have a problem with your administration lying to the American people. They claimed they had evidence of WMD in Iraq...if they had said that Iraq might have WMD, but they thought a war to free Iraqi people/stabilize the region/ensure future oil supply was justified, they would have been honest. Telling your people the truth and convincing them of your plans is what democracy is about -not getting support with lies. I know that most politicians lie, but they should not be rewarded for lying when it comes to war.

 

"National security" has been given a range of meanings these days. Protecting another nation's oil resources from evil European and Russian companies has not markedly affected my security, I can tell you. But I guess national security is in the eyes of the guy with the nukes.

This is just another thing Bill Clinton passed onto George W. Bush

Here come the cavalry, folks. Or should I say the dittoheads?

I for one believe it. Then again, I dont have a problem with it.

I may have posted it in another thread, but it bears repeating. There's nothing I can part with easier than someone else's life.

A lot of Gulf War vets came away with a bad taste over the way it ended. Then we were treated to 8 years of letting the situation go slack. I have no problem with the thought of GWBush coming into office with a massive sense of unfinished business. It is the big reason I supported the war, not WMD.

Well I, for one, am happy for you J. I don't know what you'd do without a new reason of the month. First WMD, then liberation, then "unfinished business", whatever that means. All right, folks, about face! Back to Iraq! We didn't kill enough people last time! Or was it unfulfilled munitions contracts? Kickbacks that never went through? Trying to explain things in terms of the sentiments of the VETERANS is kind of ridiculous! Since when has any President cared for Veterans except when they mobbed the White House Lawn? This is the President that has attempted to make ends meet by cutting twenty six billions of dollars worth of veteran benefits, slashing combat pay in mid-war, and using dirty tricks to keep the troop flow up and keep ordinary soldiers stranded in Iraq for months past their tours of duty. But to make up for that he gives speeches on carriers and serves soldiers turkey dinner.

Reasonable, that.

One might think that, if Bush's big goal was to take down Saddam - he has made Iraq the virtual focus of his administration - then that fact would be made apparent either overtly or by implication in his campaigning for President. After all, the people should know what they're getting into, yes?

But of course, that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way George Bush does anything. The essential rule is, "Do first, explain later - if you get caught". Or, in this case, make some pretty pathetic ATTEMPTS to explain.