Operation Name That Tune

[Commodore]

So there was no planning pre 9-11 to invade Iraq and divide up its Oil ?
And there is no pentagon documents which actual exist

Again, that is hearsay from a former government employee that cannot be independently verified. If these Pentagon documents exist, where are they? Provide a link to those documents as well as some proof the documents are legitimate and you will have me convinced.

EDIT: Mr. O'Neill is also not a reliable source since he didn't start making these claims until after he was fired by President Bush. So how do we know his claims aren't just a case of a disgruntled employee who is trying to get back at his former employer for firing him?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Again, that is hearsay from a former government employee that cannot be independently verified. If these Pentagon documents exist, where are they? Provide a link to those documents as well as some proof the documents are legitimate and you will have me convinced.

EDIT: Mr. O'Neill is also not a reliable source since he didn't start making these claims until after he was fired by President Bush. So how do we know his claims aren't just a case of a disgruntled employee who is trying to get back at his former employer for firing him?

Maybe its time for 19,000 internal documents to be leaked ?

"I don't think so. I think it was the White House concerned," says Suskind. "Understandably, because O'Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, 'This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.'"Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

"Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive," says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. "You don't get higher than that."

Every single former Bush employee is a lier and G.W.Bush is the most competent, qualified, honest and truthful president in the history of the US. And we have eight years of evidence showing that ?
Odd that one would actually still believe G.W.Bush despite everything that has occurred.
Are we arguing over incompetence over malice ? Or we just splitting hairs over nothing ?

"You're giving me the impression that you're just going to be stunned if they attack you for this book," says Stahl to O'Neill. "And they're going to say, I predict, you know, it's sour grapes. He's getting back because he was fired."
"I will be really disappointed if they react that way because I think they'll be hard put to," says O'Neill.

Is he prepared for it?

"Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth," says O'Neill. "Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?"

 

[Commodore]

Maybe its time for 19,000 internal documents to be leaked ?



Every single former Bush employee is a lier and G.W.Bush is the most competent, qualified, honest and truthful president in the history of the US. And we have eight years of evidence showing that ?

Where are the documents then? If they were leaked then they should be available somewhere. Provide the link and evidence the documents are real and you win this. The fact that you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot produce these supposedly leaked documents is a pretty strong testament to the weakness of the war-for-oil argument.

Also don't put words in my mouth. No where did I ever say I think the Iraq War was justified, only that the war-for-oil claim seems just as dubious and unfounded as the official story. Please, try to act like an adult about this and stick to the facts rather than trying to deflect attention away from your weak argument by making a pathetic attempt to turn my position into something completely different from what I actually said.

All I am asking for is for you to provide evidence to support your position. Not only have you not been able to do this, but you seem to be getting increasingly angry at the fact that I am asking for that evidence. That tells me that you, in fact, do not have such evidence and you are starting to realize your position is based on half-truths and conjecture. Yet you refuse to critically examine your own position and instead choose to defend it out of some desire to "save face" by not making it seem like you are caving in.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Your right I am just arguing for arguments sake.

Even if everything posted is 100% true including pentagon plans, secret meetings and PNAC documents. In the end its policy of neocrons regime change and preemptive wars. Along with the plan to entangle (or engage) the US into the middle east. Oil, terrorism, spreading democracy, WMDs were all just smoke screens / window dressings.

Occam's razor and all that.

The answer is found in their suspicion that Americans would be unwilling, if they knew the real agenda, to restructure the Middle East, to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives in such an unprecedented undertaking. Leaving aside the fallacy of believing that outsiders can restructure local cultures, the methods chosen to do so have brought, as have seen, little but disapproval and isolation and a region no less combustible than at the neo-conservative point of entry. Were they to reveal their true agenda, not only would it be rejected as fantastic and impossible, but the neo-conservatives would find themselves out of office

 

[gay_Aleks]

But if it's not any of the abovementioned reasons (oil, democracy, WMDs and all that), why would USA engage into an unpopular multibillion crusade?

 

[Gary Childress]

Operation ISIS Liquidation
or OIL for short.

Nailed it!

Or maybe it could be named: Operation Cute Furry Puppy or something?

 

[Paul in Saudi]

All in all, this new war upsets me. From what I have seen, few groups more deserve some ass whooping than ISIS. On the other hand, I fell for the "Saddam has nukes" line too. Fool me once ...

I don't have a better way to deal with them, but that doesn't mean I want another war. This seriously tarnishes Mr. Obama in my opinion.

Grumble.

 

[gay_Aleks]

This might hurt Obama politically.

 

[Gary Childress]

All in all, this new war upsets me. From what I have seen, few groups more deserve some ass whooping than ISIS. On the other hand, I fell for the "Saddam has nukes" line too. Fool me once ...

I don't have a better way to deal with them, but that doesn't mean I want another war. This seriously tarnishes Mr. Obama in my opinion.

Grumble.

I agree.

I will add that this is yet another undeclared war on behalf of the American people. Congress did not declare a war and yet we seem to be in a war. I'm not sure what the latest polls are on how many people in the US support this war but with all the "ISIS is coming" scares I'm sure most people are putty in the administration's hands by now. I guess we can pretty much say goodbye to democracy forever at this point.

 

[Takhisis]

The point of these undeclared wars is that Bush (and other Presidents) did things in such a way that the only way of stopping them was impeachment and removal from office. 'Do as I say or overthrow me, no middle ground!' is a surprisingly effective tactic.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Especially considering he owns one of the largest nuclear arsenals and one of the best armies.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

This might hurt Obama politically.

I presume you are joking. Unable to run for the White House again, nothing much can hurt Obama in a political way.

But it does bring up the other side of the coin. Why would he do such a thing, such an ill-thought-out, ill-conceived thing? Well, I suppose the answer is he thinks it is the right thing to do.

I admit I have no better idea about how to handle ISIS. I just wish smarter people than me did.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It's sort of a joke; in a different thread way back in 2009, downtown said "This might hurt Obama politically".

tl;dr: I am unable of being clever so I copy whatever everyone else says.