You rudely responded to another post that wasn't directed at you, disco. You have a bad habit of that, and I don't appreciate you answering for a man that I spent lots of time responding to. Basically, you should mind your own fucking business a bit more, and let others tend to their. When I address you you will fucking well know it. Got it?
Yep, I watched you twist logic into bullshit and contributed to the context. If the poster wishes I not participate, they'll have to be far less of a hyp than you are. Rude doesn't register on your delivery, don't expect an easy go until you're willing to consider reciprocating.
Obviously you don't remember....what was it, the carbon law...carbon legislation the Iraqis voted on? I just remember the word "carbon" and it was interesting that Iraqi sovereignty had anything to do with carbon but turns out it's their national wealth. The news reported it up to a year before the vote took place and was widely reported after the vote nationalized their oil. It was seen as defeat to us because we (western oil companies) didn't reap the benefits of oil contracts. I know the Bush family and Saddam didn't mix but I think it's even more of a stretch to suggest it was family animosity, not commerce that led their designs on Iraq. If there's a god in heaven, please tell me there are folks that think going to war over a vendetta is less probable than getting our share of peak oil. It might make a quaint Hollywood, B movie plot but please.Now, you shoot off at the mouth about W's oil war, yet you have no fucking evidence of it being so. You make shit up. Liar. Just like your leftist leadership. You are par for that course.
Also, all the reasons W claimed as evidence turned out to be false. That in itself doesn't constitute a lie but Dick's energy policy task force meeting discussed peak oil, Iraq's largest field and reps from the western oil companies were all in attendance. All this time, folks like Bill Crystal, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle were advocating their preemption ideals, months before 9/11. Their ideals were published and (I think it was Bill Crystal) commented that public opinion over preemption wouldn't fly without a galvanizing event like Pearl Harbor.
Then 9/11 came and not much long afterward, Rumsfeld says our military strength would be better displayed somewhere other than the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. Next thing we know, we're going to attack a sovereign nation. Washington didn't get the galvanized effect they wanted and protesters forced the stories of WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, alumininum tubes for "nucular" purposes....Sorry you don't remember. It's when we were all being called traitors, lol for not supporting an invasion.
I remember when "Deepthroat" aka Mark Felt told Bob Woodward to "follow the money" when Watergate blew up. This is no different. We gambled the whole casino on the assumption we'd get our foot in Iraq's oil. Two trillion later, we didn't get it.
Those of you who feel we did the Iraqi's a favor remember this, contractors reaped billions in a country that was never restored after we wrecked it. If we're as concerned about Iraqis as we were the enemy after WWII, we'd have made damn sure we had a Marshall Plan caliber operation to restore the disaster we wrought.
If it's got anything to do with evangelicals slaying the infidel to hasten the return of an apparition, sending Christians to heaven and Jews and the rest of the entire ferkin' world to hell, I think the 57(?) Muslim virgins story is far less fantasy.And what you need to do is educate yourself of what the third jihad is.
I got nothing more for you.