• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hey LittleJoe, hey buddy

Whitewing

Well-known member
I see you're really upset about the US invasion and war against Iraq after 9-11. And everyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight has reason to be upset.

But if you're so inclined and have the time, I'd like to debate you on the merits of that war, going back to the events that lead up to it.

From my persepective, our reasons for launching the war were logical and reasonable at the time. I supported the logic of that invasion at the time and do so to this day.

The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
I see you're really upset about the US invasion and war against Iraq after 9-11. And everyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight has reason to be upset.

But if you're so inclined and have the time, I'd like to debate you on the merits of that war, going back to the events that lead up to it.

From my persepective, our reasons for launching the war were logical and reasonable at the time. I supported the logic of that invasion at the time and do so to this day.

The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.

BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
I see you're really upset about the US invasion and war against Iraq after 9-11. And everyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight has reason to be upset.

But if you're so inclined and have the time, I'd like to debate you on the merits of that war, going back to the events that lead up to it.

From my persepective, our reasons for launching the war were logical and reasonable at the time. I supported the logic of that invasion at the time and do so to this day.

The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.

BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...


yep, the "dumbest President evah", advised the Pentagon, to take an 8 year coffee break from planning.

:lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
I see you're really upset about the US invasion and war against Iraq after 9-11. And everyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight has reason to be upset.

But if you're so inclined and have the time, I'd like to debate you on the merits of that war, going back to the events that lead up to it.

From my persepective, our reasons for launching the war were logical and reasonable at the time. I supported the logic of that invasion at the time and do so to this day.

The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.

BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...


You are no expeert oldtimer,,,,,,Have no real clue as to what really goes on' :(
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
I see you're really upset about the US invasion and war against Iraq after 9-11. And everyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight has reason to be upset.

But if you're so inclined and have the time, I'd like to debate you on the merits of that war, going back to the events that lead up to it.

From my persepective, our reasons for launching the war were logical and reasonable at the time. I supported the logic of that invasion at the time and do so to this day.

The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.

BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...

OT, if you wish to join the debate, please do so, but be prepared to back up your assertions or just STFU. We all know what your opinions are worth.

I plan on backing up my assertions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03




HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03


So Whitewing-- LIARS or IDIOTS?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
You've proven yourself to be both here at Ranchers. :roll: :roll:


and that was just in his last post. :lol:

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03




HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03


So Whitewing-- LIARS or IDIOTS?

And like clockwork, before I can tell OT not to back up his opinions with opinions of others, what does he do?

OT, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Please back up your assertions with facts.

And please don't cut and paste page long stories (more opinions) with the parts you think are important. Simply quote them and then post a link.

Thank you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003


"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003


These are my two favorites... One dummy didn't even know what story/lie the other dummy was telling.... :roll: :wink: :lol: :(


And then Rumsfeld had the unmitigated gall to say something like this:

"The implication that there was something wrong with the war plan is amusing."

Donald Rumsfeld

So Whitewing - were they lying- or just idiots?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003


"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003


These are my two favorites... One dummy didn't even know what story/lie the other dummy was telling.... :roll: :wink: :lol: :(


And then Rumsfeld had the unmitigated gall to say something like this:

"The implication that there was something wrong with the war plan is amusing."

Donald Rumsfeld

So Whitewing - were they lying- or just idiots?

OT? If you are "trying to acquire" something, does that mean you already possess/have that item?

The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...

I assume if there was "absolutely no preplanning" then it'll be easy for you to prove that fact.

Please do so.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...

I assume if there was "absolutely no preplanning" then it'll be easy for you to prove that fact.

Please do so.

You decide what you want from the statements they made...Those are the FACTS directly from their own mouth-- no preplanning, bad preplanning, or lies to the citizenry...
I think it was a combo of all......
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...

I assume if there was "absolutely no preplanning" then it'll be easy for you to prove that fact.

Please do so.

You decide what you want from the statements they made...Those are the FACTS directly from their own mouth-- no preplanning, bad preplanning, or lies to the citizenry...
I think it was a combo of all......



now "attributed to him", means "directly from his own mouth"


:lol: :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
BULLPUCKEY-- the screw-ups started pre invasion with absolutely no preplanning and a whole lot of absolute idiots either wrong on their opinions or lying...

I assume if there was "absolutely no preplanning" then it'll be easy for you to prove that fact.

Please do so.

You decide what you want from the statements they made...Those are the FACTS directly from their own mouth-- no preplanning, bad preplanning, or lies to the citizenry...
I think it was a combo of all......

If I recall correctly OT, there were several hundred thousand troops from a number of countries involved in the invasion. If there was "absolutely no preplanning" as you've asserted, how did they get into position to invade?

Even if we beamed them over, that would indicate some level of pre-planning.

So far, you're 0 for 1.

Still waiting for you to prove your assertion.....are you going to provide evidence that there was "absolutely no pre-planning", or will you do your usual and try to change the subject?

:roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I do know one thing for sure. The U.S.A. was behind the invasion of Iraq 100% for one reason alone; Saddam had violated U.N. Resolution after U.N. Resolution. He was making a mockery of the whole world.

The video of when they toppled that Saddam Statue was played over & over & over for weeks.

We were a proud country until the media turned on Bush.

I am still proud of freeing the Iraqi people of Saddam.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg

Yep-- and sometimes the info coming from those other allies don't back the lie our government was giving the people either...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg

Yep-- and sometimes the info coming from those other allies don't back the lie our government was giving the people either...

Wow, OT has gone from "there was absolutely no pre-planning" to "yep, we went to war for oil".

Who could have guessed that he'd try to change the subject? :roll:

Does this mean I should accept the post above as evidence that you've abandoned your assertion OT?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg

Yep-- and sometimes the info coming from those other allies don't back the lie our government was giving the people either...


oh, quotes from those that used to be in power....they are very credible.

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg

Yep-- and sometimes the info coming from those other allies don't back the lie our government was giving the people either...

Nothing new. Japan invaded Pearl Harbor over oil. The ones without oil will go to the wayside. Had you rather the U.S. quit using any oil? :lol:
 
Top