jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (186 posts)

Curveball lied about WMD. You Righties have blood on your hands

  1. bgamall profile image82
    bgamallposted 6 years ago

    You righties could have helped end the war in Iraq but you chose instead to vote Bush, the war criminal, to a second term. But now we find out that curveball lied, and is proud of it. And we find out that the CIA knew he was a liar.

    These are war crimes people. McCain and Abazaid said that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil and now we know they were telling the truth, inadvertent or not. The UK Guardian broke these stories: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe … stions-cia

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your theory is flawed... we aren't getting the oil China is... also voting for Obama didn end the war either did it? The war crimes nonsense is just hyperbole.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Bush promised oil to any country that didn't get in the way. You don't remember that?

      2. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Dateline June 2009

        "The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

        The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

        Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out...

        The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today. "

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.oil

        Try finding facts LaLo, instead of just making stuff up.

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Nothing personal about lady love, but parroting propaganda serves no positive purpose. Nice article. The Guardian is the only trustworthy mainstream paper on the planet.

      3. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, it isn't hyperbole at all. The Geneva Convention defines war crimes, and we agree to participate and support those decisions, and they define waterboarding as torture, and a war crime. Bush admitted he authorized it publicly, so, it is not a figure of speech at all, it is a clear and measurable declaration of reality.

        1. profile image0
          Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "lawyered"

    2. Me, Steve Walters profile image71
      Me, Steve Waltersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Why don't you scream that a little louder so that all the dead and injured troops can hear ya'? But then...they died for the right for you to say what ever you want. Meanwhile...we have had several wars that were waged that were not favorable for many in the American public. I guess it is easy to complain on what ever you want...when you aren't the one doing the fighting.

      I also agree with Cagsil on the main point he made. Here are some others:

      1. We have had court cases on the books concerning Saddam's possesion of Chemical Weapons.
      2. We were concerned and believed that many of our fighting force were exposed to Chemical Weapons during the Gulf War.
      3. I read for myself, in a page towards the back of the Houston Chronicle, that evidence of WMD's were discovered in Mosul...then no one talked about that article...ever. Weird!?
      4. Along the lines of what Cagsil said, Saddam had used WMD against his own people...but I guess that doesn't count in the common sense dept. either.
      5. One of the first Battalions to roll in to one of the very first cities during the invasion OIF discovered a prison where Saddam was holding young children and teens until they were ready to join his Army (I'm guessing they weren't volunteers...like ours). All I want to know is which direction do you need to point me...and whoever else it takes to go free up a prison full of innocent children...I'll go...even if I have to arm myself with a B.B. gun!
      6. The History channel itself has done stories on the underground secret bunkers and storage areas all over Iraq. They stated that no one will ever find all the secret storage areas in that country. And who's to say that didn't sell or get the WMD's out of the country to any of the countries that later supported them with insurgents!

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The dead and injured troops were lied to. It was about oil. No one is arguing that Saddam was not an evil guy. That was not the point. They lied because they wanted the oil and WMD was a way to cover up war crimes. The blood is on the hands of people who refused to listen to us.

      2. vietnamvet68 profile image61
        vietnamvet68posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well then tell me why is it we invaded there country? for the WMD's
        Why are they not allowed to have them, when we have them stored all over the US, in Red River, Texas, in Indiana and Utah just to name a few. Why do we keep these?. The only reason we go after other countries is because they have something that we want.......... America is becoming evil also we take people to these secret bases over seas and torture them in the name of Democracy is this right? We are no better than them. BUT NO, WE DON'T DO THAT DO WE???????????????????????????????????????????

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Well said, Vietnam Vet.

      3. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        He is talking about Iraq.

        The HERE and NOW.

      4. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Regarding your point 4 - "4. Along the lines of what Cagsil said, Saddam had used WMD against his own people...but I guess that doesn't count in the common sense dept. either."

        "Saddam Hussein told a U.S. prison guard before his execution how much he missed “President Reagan.” You see, Ronald Reagan gave Saddam Hussein billions of dollars, plus weapons technology. In fact, Reagan’s administration gave Saddam FOUR BILLION dollars in U.S. tax dollars ever AFTER Saddam had gassed to death 5,000 innocent KURDS in norther Iraq.."

        http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/do-re … m-hussein/

        After the gassing, saint Ronnie squelched Jesse Helms from making a Senate resolution condemning the genocide.

        1. manlypoetryman profile image77
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/the_swarm/RONALD%20REAGAN.jpg

          Good 'ol Ronnie! I'm touched that Saddam had such good memories of him...

          Please, Please...tell me one country on the planet that we aren't paying money to...even as we speak. It ain't right for any of it...but I'll be danged if you or I ever had a say in approving any of it...so what's the point? Saddam is gone...and at a very, very high price to America and Iraqi citizens.

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Here is a picture of your hero Reagan with the Taliban: http://www.legitgov.org/Reagan-calls-Ta … ng-fathers

            They also went to Texas in 1997, but then rejected Cheney's pipeline to hell burton investments in the Caspian Sea. That was the motive for Cheney to facilitate 911.

            1. manlypoetryman profile image77
              manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              No you deendn't just try and out Ronald Reagan me...No you deendn't...

              http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1001/ronald-reagan-ronald-reagan-would-protect-and-defend-america-political-poster-1262713366.jpg

            2. bgamall profile image82
              bgamallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Correction, these were Afghan fighters who preceeded the Taliban which were formed after Reagan's presidency. Keep in mind that Reagan probably was opposed to entanglements in the middle east.

      5. DTR0005 profile image82
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Respectfully, our "boys" in uniform haven't been fighingt and dying for our freedom. I think the last time any of our precious sons and daughters actually fought to defend our freedom was during the Second World War. I am not taking anything away from their service and I honor them - they are doing a job and are ordered to do so. But don't call it a mission to protect American freedom.

        On the whole, US and British Foreign Policy in the last 60-70 years has all about oil - obtaining it and making sure it gets to our shores unmolested and as efficaciously as possible...

        1. manlypoetryman profile image77
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Respectfully...all I got to say to that is: "For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste that the protected will never know."

      6. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "Why don't you scream that a little louder so that all the dead and injured troops can hear ya'? But then...they died for the right for you to say what ever you want. "

        The troops died completely in vain. The mainstream media, including the NYT, WAPO, the TV networks and the foreign policy establishment, framed the invasion issue on whether Iraq had WMD. This was a mistake because Saddam Hussein had neither the motive nor the method of attacking the U.S. Once the issue of WMD was framed Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Powell and UK intelligence, lied us into invading Iraq with dubious, and in the case of "curveball's" mobile labs, ridiculous concoctions. The result is now apparent to anyone who can read--4500 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis killed, half the Christians, who had been protected by Saddam Hussein, driven out of the country, women subjected to fanatical sharia law and Iraq driven into the arms of Iran. Our invasion of Iraq will go down in history as one of the US's greatest blunders.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely. We fixed ONE problem and created many more....

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ … T820110217

        2. manlypoetryman profile image77
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Spoken like a true liberal! hmm

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Plenty of conservatives have said the same thing. See C.J. Wright's comment above. He's far from being a "liberal," whatever that means. (I accept your use of the word as a compliment.)

            1. manlypoetryman profile image77
              manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              And plenty of others have not agreed with it. The term "plenty" is not definitive...even if the liberal media would like to throw out that term...with every point they try to make!

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Our invasion of Iraq is widely believed to be a horrible mistake.

                1. manlypoetryman profile image77
                  manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Describe "widely"?

                  I see what the majority of Hub Forum responses say...is that "widely"? Or is this a demographic "widely" thing...like say California or Massachussets?

                  Hhhmm...I wonder how "widely" applies to all the ones that served over there...to all the ones in Congress that voted to go to war in Iraq...to all the Joint Chiefs of Staff? I mean who is "widely" exactly?

                  Because...I tell you where "widely" just does not apply...when I go out to a young persons grave...who went to war in Iraq...because it was "widely" believed that we should go over there.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Pretty widely. I'm sure there are polls. I'll look. The consensus shifted long ago from support for Iraq and Afhghanistan to opposition.

    3. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      They removed 500 tons of yellow cake. Iraq was in constant violation of UN Security Council resolutions to inspect potential nuclear endeavors.

      Lets ignore him gassing his own people and invading neighboring countries and the place being a hotbed of terrorists. In the end you have to side with a charlie manson- like dictator.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Excuse me? No one is defending Saddam. But Korea has a dictator and no oil. So he can kill people. We went in for oil, and the press and the Bush admin lied and lied and lied. And you still defend them? Sorry for you.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          WHERE IS THE OIL????

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            In 1997 the CEO of Chevron stated he wanted reserves from Iraq. I wrote about it. And guess what? A director of Chevron became Bush's security advisor. Know who it was? It was that murderer Condi Rice. She is as guilty as Bush.

          2. lovemychris profile image59
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The World's Biggest Oil Reserves
            Christopher Helman, 01.21.10, 12:00 PM EST
            Chances are your energy needs are going to flow from one of these 10 fields in the future.

            HOUSTON -- This month Iraq will finalize contracts with the likes of ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP to develop some of its biggest oil fields. These giants are among the world's last remaining pockets of so-called "easy oil." They don't require ultradeep drilling or innovative production techniques, just the application of Big Oil know-how. No wonder the oil companies agreed to develop Iraq's fields without even getting an ownership stake in the fields and collecting as little as $1.15 per barrel recovered.


            http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/bigges … ields.html

            1. profile image61
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this
              1. lovemychris profile image59
                lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Wasting no time, Cheney secretly assembled an advisory panel of oil and gas executives from Enron, Dynergy, Shell Oil, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum under the direction of James Baker (former Secretary of State under George Bush Sr.) to help shape our national energy policy and justify the PNAC's anticipated war with Iraq.

                **James Baker was also a member of the Carlyle Group, who did business with the Bin-Ladens.**


                MARCH 2001 - Cheney closely guarded the details surrounding his energy task force but documents released through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

                "There are several areas marked 'earmarked for production sharing' (look at the map
                legend), which means privatized oil fields. Iraq did not have privatized oil fields and
                production sharing agreements before the US took it over.

                "There are also parcels marked on the Iraq oil field and exploration map (numbered
                'Block 1' through '9'). Iraq did not have an active, privatized oil exploration program
                going on before it was conquered by the US.

                "If you read the footnotes and entire contents of the other documents, there is a heavy
                emphasis on business concerns, such as contracts and vendors over items one might
                think would be more important in a government discussion, such as capacity, long term
                reserves, etc...

                "One footnote (in UAEOilProj.pdf) even contains investment advice for the participants
                at the meeting, suggesting opportunities in downstream projects, such as power
                desalination and pipeline projects.

                http://berenice.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=751386

        2. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You have to compare saddam to another dictator or rogue country as an argument?


          Its a logical fallacy as well as just a bad argument.

          The Example:

          You are guilty of getting rid of saddam! Yet you allow other dictators to kill too!


          Oh Gee, what were we thinking?

          Lets bring saddam back to gas people and invade neighboring countries; allow him to have unsupervised nuclear ambitions, because golly, others are allowed to and it's a valid argument on pluto.

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The motive was oil. That is why we let dictators without oil keep killing. The motive was not to stop dictators from killing. Wise up.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yea gas is a nickel a gallon now and it cost us billions?

              Hello?

              1. bgamall profile image82
                bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That argument is as lame as the WMD argument. It is the same old propaganda. I told you guys that Condi Rice and Chevron wanted the reserves. That was the motive.

                The price is set by speculation and sometimes by demand. Mostly by speculation. Just because the oil reserves of Chevron are puffed up by Iraq doesn't mean that ponzi oil pricing won't continue to gouge us.

                You have to understand that the oil war and the ponzi housing scheme were intimately related. Alan Greenspan, who advocated adjustable mortgages in 2004 as being a "better deal" also advocated that Bush take over the oil ministry of Iraq first thing. He wrote it in his book!

                It is all related. It is all one big conspiracy.

                1. PhoenixV profile image80
                  PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Ive worked in the oil industry. I imagine there is plenty of oil in Alaska, Texas, Gulf of Mexico for a long time. I have helped plug viable producing wells back in the 80's. Oil is a commodity. There rarer the commodity the higher the price.

                  It would be just as good an argument to say " we didnt do nothing in Iraq , so the oil "will go up in price". If we dont do anything in Iraq, US oil companies will make out like bandits.= same conspiracy only more logical

                  I think Iraq was a strategic move to have larger armed forces in a volatile area that includes countries that are nearing nuclear capabilities.

                  1. bgamall profile image82
                    bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Read it and weep Phoenix:

                    “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas—reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” —Kenneth T. Derr, CEO of Chevron, 1998 (Note that Condi Rice was a member of the Chevron Board and had a tanker named after her.)

      2. Dolores Monet profile image99
        Dolores Monetposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Terrorists had nothing to do with it. Saddam took a firm stand against that sort of thing. US wanted a 'strong man' to keep terrorists out, which was why we originally supported him.

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Very correct.

      3. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        GEEEEE, where'd he get the gas??????????????

        Hans Blix said there were NO WMD's.

        Read the books written since Iraq.

        Bush lied...Americans died, and people support it.

        yeah I know.....USA  USA  USA

    4. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      By your logic does that mean that the Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines are guilty as well? Are they murders? Afteral if mere supporters have guilt on their hands, certainly those more directly involved do. Bet your not willing to make that leap are you?

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Technically they were guilty, however they were lied to. Two issues. Don't fight for liars and don't vote Republican. As bad as the Dems are, the war party, the neocons, have taken over the Republicans. Even true conservatives like Pat Buchanan have written against this take over and against their provocation of Russia.

        1. manlypoetryman profile image77
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Whoops....History is real _______ ___________.

          http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Did he invade? No, Bush did. Nice try though.

            1. manlypoetryman profile image77
              manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              So you just wave off everything he said back then?

              1. bgamall profile image82
                bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Had he invaded i would be talking about him, not Bush.

    5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image99
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I tend to think that it was less about oil and more about the Rothschild and Rockefeller Central bank that is now in Iraq.

      Of course you're right, Bush and Rumsfeld, Cheney; the whole lot of them are war pigs, war criminals, and treasonous bastards.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It was about petrodollars as you say and about this:

        “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas—reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” —Kenneth T. Derr, CEO of Chevron, 1998 (Note that Condi Rice was a member of the Chevron Board and had a tanker named after her.)

      2. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Amen.

    6. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you voted for Kennedy/Johnson you are responsible for Vietnam

      If you voted for Nixon you are responsible for Watergate.

      If you voted for Jimmy Carter you are responsible for 21% interest rates.

      If you voted for Reagan you are responsible for Iran-Contra.

      If you voted for Clinton you are responsible for the stains on a blue dress.

      Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Vietnam may or may not have been a criminal war. There were people who believed in the threat of communism, at least in the beginning. Others have argued that the war was just about war profiteering. And Johnson didn't run a second time because we protested.

        But the Iraq war was for oil, and that is clearly a war crime.

        The point is, the game was known before the second election, and Carter only was elected once. And Iran Contra happened in the second term of Reagan.

        So my argument doesn't sound ridiculous at all.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          If you voted for George Wallace you are responsible for racism.

          If you voted for FDR you are responsible for World War 2.

          If you voted for Lincoln, well, you're dead.

          And yes, your argument is ridiculous.

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I have offered a sophisticated rebuttal to your argument. Others should be able to understand it. Your argument is beyond ridiculous.

    7. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well geez, just lock all Bush voters up, give us a trial in New York, and off with our heads..........what rubbish this is, and so politically motivated. 

      You want prosecutable crime, try our lazy attitude about our own border, even if the resources were available, which is balderdash that it is reported they are not, of course we have the resources (do check out our proposed budget and future deficit, think protecting the border would really be more than an f'ng blip), nothing additional would be happening to protect our border, to protect our citizens, as the Mexican VOTE is more important, and that is a crying shame, and the ultimate proof of this administration's lack of care for the future of this country and its particular citizens - as we NOW have a border crisis unlike any time in recent history, and it IS a matter of National Security - that someone chooses to have Obama IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Uh Huh..

        We already know you want to just forget about Bushco and go after Obama.
        Thank GOD there are enough of us who truly believe in the ideals of America....even when we don't live up to them.

    8. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Just a quick reminder:

      Obama hasn't shut down Gitmo; Obama has yet to end the Iraq war; Obama is still attacking Afghanistan; Obama has launched an undeclared war in Pakistan (we're bombing them with drones); Obama has yet to repeal the Patriot Act... and the list goes on.

      Don't get me wrong, I hated W. with a passion. The guy was not only Evil, but he was a complete idiot.

      My point is simply that the problem isn't one group of people or the other.

      It's government.

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    This is ridiculous. Saddam genocide on his own land that killed massive amounts of people, yet people are claiming he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

    Interesting, that people don't find chemical weapons, up to standards of mass destruction. lol

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are so deceived. Sorry for you too.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        So you say, which isn't good enough considering the much reported abuse Saddam did on his own people was highly documented, when it happened and what was used to do the abuse. So please.

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Lots of dictators abuse their people. We invaded because of oil. It is a war crime. Condi Rice was director at Chevron. Chevron CEO said he wanted Iraq reserves.

          Unocal is part of Chevron. Unocal wanted a pipeline to the Caspian Sea as well. They even invited the Taliban to Texas in 1997 and the BBC reported it. That became motive, I believe, for 911 and Cheney's involvement in 911.

          We don't get stories of truth unless they come out of the English press.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Nothing you said negates anything I said. So, again, I'll say, Please get past it and move on. You drumming this up is quite irrelevant NOW, since Saddam has already been executed.

            The fact that you are bringing it up, is completely foolish. You've also not address what I originally said in my first comment to your OP, but to tell me that you are sorry for me.

            So, either bring a better argument or sit in a corner sucking your thumb. hmm

            1. bgamall profile image82
              bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You read this right?

              “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas—reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” —Kenneth T. Derr, CEO of Chevron, 1998 (Note that Condi Rice was a member of the Chevron Board and had a tanker named after her.)

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                roll

                1. bgamall profile image82
                  bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I knew you couldn't much argue when the facts are presented.

                  1. Cagsil profile image61
                    Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    The level of ignorance in this thread is appalling. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. But you continue to dismiss what I did say. So you're not worth talking to, because it's either your way or the highway, which isn't actually the true case in pathetic argument posed by this thread.

    2. DTR0005 profile image82
      DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Casgil,
      No one has argued that Saddam was not a piece of "sh1t." The point is we accepted it as just "business as usual." We didn't "care" what he did to his people as long as he was manageable, as long as he didn't make waves.
      The First Gulf War was justified - Iraq had invaded another nation, violated its soverignty. The WMD issue/ Invasion of Iraq, which has cost us about a trillion dollars in the short-term, certain more in the long term, was based on cooked-up intelligence; the ulterior motive was to nail down the oil. W, looking back, tends to make the same justifications. While not admitting we really got anything wrong, he states, "well I think we did the right thing by getting rid of him..." Well ok... wow.. what a price tag! I can't help but think a simple assasination would have been a bit less expensive...
      A few on here have  said "get over it." Well maybe we should "get over it" but the massive debt it all caused, a nearly decade-long occupation of a foreign nation, etc. etc.

  3. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Oh my Lord.  I'm agreeing with Cagsil about something.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Scared now Brenda? lol

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        lol
        No.  I'm sure it was just an anomaly or temporary glitch!  big_smile

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting you say that. The only flaw in your statement is that it's not the first time we've agreed. wink

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Well.  What else do we agree on? And what percentage rate do we have to reach before you're as conservative as me?  hahhaa

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Brenda, we don't have much difference- however the difference is "religion" and the view it brings to the table. Other than that, we would agree on many aspects. wink

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That just means we're both human.
                The "religion" aspect (my Faith in Christ) isn't negotiable.  Not that you're trying to negotiate of course.   I think everyone has human traits and goals in common.   ...Religion does divide!  But indeed that's what it's meant to do.  To challenge hearts and souls.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Negotiation isn't the course of action with regards to religion and yes I'll agree, that's all religion knows how to do is divide.

                  However, your belief, should not have anything to do with other people's life. Which is why in America, Freedom of Religion(which is the right to practice whatever religion you choose to) and Freedom From Religion(keeps your religion out of my life), exists. wink

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I disagree.  For one thing, "religion", even though I used that term too, isn't necessarily Christianity.  Christianity isn't really a religion in the way that most people perceive it.  The laws of the Bible are what the Nation of America was based upon as far as its basic guidelines of social conduct, of right and wrong. 
                    And I started to say that this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but it actually does!   George W. Bush did what he thought was right, and it was also deemed right by all the people in positions of power and the responsibility to handle that situation.   A fellow hubber actually wrote a hub about this.  I can't do links, but it's by Ken Crow and the title starts off with Liberal Cowards, it's time to apologize....

  4. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Talk about beating a dead horse.....wow.....

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Are you calling our troops dead horses?

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        why not, you just "technically" called them murderers.....

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          They were lied to and had no access to news. Now they know. I am sure it upsets them greatly. Why are you splitting hairs when the truth is there were no WMD and our nation's leaders lied and killed?

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Right, both houses of Congress voted in a bi partisan manner to authorize the use of force, along with the cooperation of some 30 other nations....but only George W. Bush was the liar.  Riiiiiight.

            Bush was either a diabolical genius or the village idiot.  Would those of you on the left please decide which one?

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              The Left isnt interested in the truth.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                lol lol Neither is the right. tongue

                1. bgamall profile image82
                  bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You guys are apologists for obvious war crimes. No conscience?

                  1. Cagsil profile image61
                    Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not apologizing for the illiterate nature of American citizens. I only made the statement that both side spit out distortion and if YOU cannot see that, then you need help.

          2. profile image61
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Because there were WMD's. They were biological and chemical. They were moved. Korea has WMD's we didn't invade there, why? Because they have nukes and we know they would use them thats why also we don't need anyting from N Korea. Iraq had a different kind and couldn't hurt us. The difference is the Bush Admin thought they could stabilize the region by removing Sadam. Wrong answer, didn't work, was a bad idea. Their motivation? OIL.

            1. bgamall profile image82
              bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Motivation is where the heart is CJ.

    2. lovemychris profile image59
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      3,000 killed on 9/11...untold dead since.....it's not the horse that's dead,it's your justifications.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Um, people die in war, love.   I guess you'd rather us hide under our beds and hope the bad guys will leave us alone, right?

        1. lovemychris profile image59
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Saddam wasn't bothering us!
          We went in there for Haliburton, Exxon and all number of war profiteers.

          Perhaps you don't know Smedley Butler? Author of "War is a Racket". Decorated soldier too.

          He speaks my heart:

          "Well, it's a racket, all right. A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

          The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

          Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers – yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

          Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds. Why shouldn't they? They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are! Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else."

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            What part of Saddam was in violation of ceasefire agreement do you people not get.....

  5. BobbiRant profile image60
    BobbiRantposted 6 years ago

    Well then people in Vietnam died in vain if the person who says not to yell that to troops now.  The troops Now die LESS in vain?  ALL lives are important.  Yes we are in it for oil and those who do not know it are just what big government and big Biz are relying on.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Weren't the WMDs pretty much a red herring?
    Bush was itching to get into Iraq and finish his father's business. He did. He got his man. Not the man responsible for 9/11, but a very bad, evil dictor man nonetheless.
    In the process, many innocent civilians died.
    The country was demolished.
    But the Iraqis got a nice prize in the bottom of the Crackerjack box: democracy!!
    Oh, and Bush got a second term in office out of the war, too!
    So in this case, shouldn't we all say the ends justified the means?
    America the exceptional strikes again sad

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      American exceptionalism is a code word for war and imperial domination. But I guess if people believe the WMD lie they have trouble coming to grips with the truth.

    2. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your correct. Technically Bush had all he needed to "re-invade". The terms of the cease fire were NOT being complied with. However he couldn't get the UN to go along. BTW we may very well find the WMD's IF they existed. Some say they were removed prior to invasion. With all the unrest in the Middle East.......

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The cease fire was illegal. There were no WMD. Why do you have a problem with the obvious and want to obscure the truth?

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Saddam had used WMDs.   How do you use something that you do not have?

    3. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Are you going to move to Iraq and right all the wrongs?

      1. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, just prosecute our war criminals would be nice.

  7. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    The same could be said for any number of rulers around the world. While we can condemn their atrocities, we can't just go around invading countries because we don't like what they're doing to their people.
    If we started wars with every country that doesn't treat its citizens the way we feel they should, we'd need a much bigger military force than we now have.
    Sure, let's take on North Korea* and China, not to mention several countries in Africa**
    Hey wait -- by that standard, we should declare war on OURSELVES lol

    *Notwithstanding that N. Korea is our ally (Sarah Palin)
    **And Africa itself is a country (also Sarah Palin)

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Okay, why are you responding to my post to make your point? hmm

  8. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    But the puzzling thing is the reinvasion occurred soon after 9/11. It was most definitely "sold" to the American people as retaliation for 9/11. Which is the only reason Americans supported it. We (naively) thought Bush et al were going to get the guys who perpetrated 9/11.
    If that were the case, Bush wouldn't need the "excuse" of WMDs, would he?

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Mighty mom, the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 as guests of Unocal oil company. They then refused to build the pipeline to the Caspian Sea to Halliburton and Bush 1 investments.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

      So, Cheney had motive for 911 even before he took over the vice presidency. And then PNAC, the neocon group, with Cheney as a member, stated in 2000 that we needed a new Pearl Harbor to hasten US involvement in the middle east.

      I believe Cheney had both knowledge and motive for 911. We are dealing with a war criminal on the level of Hitler only much smarter and more diabilical.

      1. lovemychris profile image59
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "I believe Cheney had both knowledge and motive for 911. We are dealing with a war criminal on the level of Hitler only much smarter and more diabilical."

        I can't tell you how much I appreciate you saying this!
        This HORROR that we lived through...remember those torture pictures? Did you see the ones that were banned shortly after their release? Read any accounts of Guantanamo???

        In our name.

    2. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That was a media trick played on the people by the Administration. They used righteous anger to get the publics permission. Yes it was about oil. No, we haven't gotten the oil. In short all we have gotten is death.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Agreed, CJ.

      2. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly how many super tankers did we send to Iraq , since we were only there to loot the oil? Because we get less from Iraq now since the war. Seems like the "alleged plan" backfired?

        Where the US gets her oil


           1.   United States - 27.40%
           2. Canada - 13.48%
           3. Saudi Arabia - 8.44%
           4. Mexico - 7.78%
           5. Venezuela - 7.38%
           6. Nigeria - 6.74%
           7. Algeria - 3.30%
           8. Iraq - 2.77%
           9. Angola - 2.53%

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hell yea it backfired. By the way isn't it obvious that we can live WITHOUT the middle east?

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The way that these arguments are being portrayed is that the US had a large flotilla of super tankers ready to go and headed to Iraq.

            Always a "shell" game of misinformation.

            Where does oil come from hmm

            # 1        Saudi Arabia:      10,250,000 bbl/day          
            # 2       Russia:     9,876,000 bbl/day     
            # 3       United States:     8,457,000 bbl/day          
            # 4       Iran:             4,033,000 bbl/day         
            # 5       China:             3,725,000 bbl/day         
            # 6       Mexico:     3,501,000 bbl/day          
            # 7       Canada:     3,425,000 bbl/day         
            # 8       United Arab Em  2,948,000 bbl/day
            # 10       Venezuela:     2,667,000 bbl/day

            1. profile image61
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              What backs the worlds economy? Some would say it's the US Dollar. It's not, even if you disagree, you soon will change your mind. Oil is the official currency of the world economy. Who's oil could we steal? No one's really. Who's could we controll? Well the Middle east's of course. They are under developed and easily decieved or easily bribed. At least we thought so. It's been a US Diplomatic Policy since Carter. It's been a COMPLETE DISASTER.

              1. bgamall profile image82
                bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Pretty much right, but CJ it is plain stealing.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I take no responsibility for anything Bush and his cohorts perpetrated while in office.
    How about you? You wanna have a go at finding those elusive WMDs yourself?

    Cags -- I responded to your post because I interpreted it to mean that invading Iraq was justified based solely on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. Did I misconstrue your point? If so, I apologize, friend!

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are probably in a safe country I assume, and would be afraid for your life in beleaguered Iraq. Even before the US had any involvement at all.

    2. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't defending the invasion or the actions of government. I was just pointing out that "chemical" weapons, which Saddam used on his own people, are indeed "weapons of mass destruction" and anyone who claims that those types of weapons are not, is only spinning B.S.

      That's all smile

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Oh come on. Condi Rice was scaring us with the mushroom cloud talk. This was not based on some chemical attack. This was a war for oil and that is all it was.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          YEP, sure was about oil....WHERE IS THE OIL?

        2. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You must be very blissful in your position. I guess that's nothing new for many people.

          I'm not making excuses and as my post points out...weapons of mass destruction are weapons of mass destruction, regardless of the form the weapons are in.

          Your failed replies, insinuates that "chemical" weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. And I am pointing out that you are wrong. Which is truth, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not.

          Enough said.

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Mushroom cloud was the argument Cagsil. Not chemical weapons. Please, quit trying to rewrite history to fit your philosophy.

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, you would be wrong on so many levels. The WMD is a WMD, and the level of ignorance, was assumed by both sides of this argument. The politicians made sure that people would focus on Nuclear, when clearly that wasn't the case to begin with. It is obvious that it wasn't the case that Nuclear WMD were not, shortly after America went in.

              You screaming about what was said is completely irrelevant, because the inference to WMD to the most average person is a Nuclear Weapon, not chemical weapon.

              So, please take your pathetic argument and run along.

              1. bgamall profile image82
                bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Chemical was not enough. That is why they made up the biological and the nuclear.

                Again, is this over your head Cagsil? If it is I will try to break it down for you.

                And since this is my thread, you run along. Sheesh. The world does not revolve around you Cagsil.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right the world doesn't evolve around me. But, those who choose to spread misinformation and drum up past actions, just like you are doing is part of my world and needs to be addressed.

                  You fail to realize it is meaningless to drum up the past because it isn't helpful, yet here you are.

                  1. bgamall profile image82
                    bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You say it is misinformation while you continue to defend a war criminal. It is shameful to defend a war criminal for his war crimes.

                2. lovemychris profile image59
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Not only that, they implied that Bin-Laden was working with Saddam  ie Saddam was responsible for 9/11 too.. Cheney met with an operative in Checkoslovakia to try and set that little lie up.

  10. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    But Obama...the so-called "America Destroyer" voted against going to war....

    There may have been bi-partisan support....but at least our current president had his head on straight....

    As for the overall bi-partisan support...had there not been doctored "evidence" of wmd's and the repeated waving of the bloody shirt (meaning constant repetition of the towers falling down) perhaps we would not have rushed off to fulfill the goals of Halliburton, Cheney, Unocal, and the Project for the New American Century..

    By the way, Billy, I responded to your ridiculous "homosexuals don't face discrimination because gays I know have nice things" nonsense back in the "Obama is destroying America" thread started by the clueless Lady Love...

    I am eagerly awaiting your response..

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      While he wages war in Afghanistan...

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I am against that too. That was and is for a pipeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          So was Bosnia.

    2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And again, Bush the moron managed to fool the entire world into going to war over a lie.....I'm amazed at the number of hoops the left is willing to jump through to try and pin something on the man....

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Lol, that is so incredible for you to say Billie. He was the most powerful man on earth. The founder of the neocons, Leo Strauss, said to his most prize pupil, Wolfowitz, that you keep the shell of democracy and lie to the masses.

        The masses were lied to. Face it. You were lied to.

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Nope, Bush was the right man for the time and dealt with a dictator whose comeuppance was long overdue.

          1. bgamall profile image82
            bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That was not the motive. Why are you so unwilling to see the obvious. Curveball lied, and the CIA, Cheney and Bush knew it. The war was planned before they took the white House. It is a war crime. Tell your pitiful story to the mother of a soldier who died thinking he was defending the United States, when really he was stealing oil for liars in the White House. Your position is morally bankrupt.

            1. manlypoetryman profile image77
              manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              And what would you tell the Mother of an American Soldier that died in the War?

              1. bgamall profile image82
                bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That your support for the American military was born out of misplaced trust.

                1. manlypoetryman profile image77
                  manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow...that is pretty comforting, cold-hearted...and narrow minded. Seeing as how, I know a few...I'll pass that on. No wait...they have already heard an earful already. I'll let their honored dead rest in peace and in gratitude for their faithful service to us.

                  I'm just sayin'...You got your take on things...I got mine. One little pipsqueak "Curveball" mouths off in a tell-all "hot-shot" article...and suddenly now everyone knows all there is to know about why we went over there.

                  Please tell me that you don't have some faded "Support Our Troops" magnet...hanging around anywhere on your car or fridge...cause that would be a lie...as well!

                  1. bgamall profile image82
                    bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Narrow minded? When Rumsfeld admitted in his book that there were no facilities in Iraq with which to produce nuclear weapons?

                    It is a privilege to be narrow minded when you are certain of the truth. And manly, poets certainly can't support war criminals can they?

                    Gives me a whole new view of poets. sad

              2. lovemychris profile image59
                lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                He/she died as a soldier, doing what he/she wanted to do.

                1. bgamall profile image82
                  bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You would tell her that? I don't know. I like most of your insights here, but I don't know if that would be a satisfactory answer.

                  I am thinking that people need to avoid the military at all costs because our leaders cannot be trusted. Those mothers contemplating letting their children join the military should give this serious consideration.

                  1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Um, dude?  No parent "let's" their child join the military.  At that point their children are adults and can choose to do as they please.

  11. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Billy...

    Bush the moron didn't fool anyone...

    It was the doctored intelligence that Colin Powell brought before the American people....it was the constant fearmongering brought to us by Donald Rumsfeld and generals in uniform in their daily press briefings....

    I was in the Marines then, and we had CNN and Fox News on everyday... I watched these press conferences every day....  They had me convinced...

    But they were very calculated lies....not thought up at the last minute by an idiot, but well measured and prepared to deceive....

    And we were deceived....

    But Obama was not....  Like Lincoln standing against the illegal invasion of Mexico called for by President Polk, Obama showed true leadership and intestinal fortitude...  He stood against the popular consensus (based on lies) and challenged Americans and the President to face the facts...


    And, like Lady Love and others on Hubpages, most Americans budied their heads in the sand and let big business turn our military into a force of mercenaries.....

    What nonsense....

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And we are supposed to believe he fooled the whole world....not only that , but that Saddam Hussein allowed himself to be removed from power and executed over a lie.

      I applaud your service as a Marine, thank you for serving your country, but there are scores of your brethren who will agree with me that we did the right thing.....

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Listen to reason. You are wrong Ritchie.

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, wow, I guess you put me in my place.  I am slain the face of such brilliant reasoning.....

  12. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Alaska has nuclear ambitions?
    Of course, with Russia just a stone's throw from the former governor's house, I suppose it was inevitable lol

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you read the reply in context its regarding possession of huge reserves of oil and gas. Alaska has huge reserves of oil and gas, but they arent gassing entire towns of human beings- women and children and leaving them to bloat in the street.

      1981
      Operation Babylon (opera) was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on June 7, 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq

      1988
      Halabja poison gas attack 1988

      chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces :The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured around 7,000 and 10,000 more, most of them civilians


      1990 Iraq Invades Kuwait.

      It would have been immoral NOT to invade Iraq.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Apparently Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq and stealing the Iraq oil. But, you have to understand the motive. The motive of Bush 2 was to steal oil. You rewrite history yet again. But it won't work. Bush is a war criminal. Period.

        No one here is defending Saddam. I am exposing Bush. That is all that matters regarding our law and what is right for America.

        Stealing is stealing, and it doesn't matter ultimately, whether that stealing is from the corner grocery store or a war criminal act from one country to the next. You defend stealing and that is wrong.

        Bush voided every contract in place with Iraq and he did so to reward people who stayed out of his way.

  13. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    No...the whole world was not fooled...which is why we did not have worldwide support for our actions....

    Have you forgotten the protests in both this country and Europe, not to mention around the Middle East?

    Saddam had no choice....he was our man, and he was our fall guy...

    His job was to invade Iran...and we provided the weapons, money, and satellite intelligence so that the Iraqi military, especially their air force, would know where to strike...

    Lies......absolutely....

    There may be those who agree with our decision to invade Iraq.....but I guarantee they don't know the facts....

    I don't need applause for my service...  My friend who took an RPG to the chest in Iraq deserves the applause...but it is too bad he had to be sent into an illegal conflict....and it is too bad that he, and so many like him, have to suffer with PTSD...

    He did survive...the RPG didn't detonate...rather, it deflected off his chestplate and tore off his Lt's leg...

    While our troops are out there securing profits for private enterprise, who will  pick up the tab for that Marine Lieutenant who now will have to live a lesser life than he did before?

    Not big business, that's for sure.....they just keep passing the bill onto the American taxpayers....  We subsidize it all...

    We were lied to.....and intel was manufactured..people were arrested and tortured..not to find Bin Ladin, but to give the military what it wanted...."proof" that Iraq was involved in 911.....another of the bold-faced lies that Bush and the cronies concocted....and we swallowed hook, line, and sinker....

  14. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Iraq is important for many more reasons than its oil reserves....

  15. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Look at how quickly Saddam came to power, and how rapidly its war machine was turned on Iran....

    Correspond this to the weapons, money and diplomatic/corporate related visits to the dictator.....

    Then, relate this to Saddam's failure in the Iraq/Iran war, and how quickly the U.S. turned against him, and started singling him and his regime out as "rogues."

    Of course, we knew that he had possessed WMD's...for the "West" sold them to him....and he used them on the Iranians (the Iraqi's were the aggressors in this war), the Iraqi-Kurds, as well as on Iraqi-Shiites...

    I like how people point to UN Sanctions....that's what I used to do...

    But to do this is to remain completely blinded to the entire process....  We manufacture the problem, plant the evidence, and then go after to punish the Frankenstein we created...not because he was a bad guy (for we would never have allowed such a bad person to hold such power...right?) but because he failed to get the job done....he became a liability..

    And then there's the whole slant-drilling of Iraqi oil from Kuwait.....

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      But the chemical weapons were not reason enough. They manufactured the biological and mushroom cloud stories to scare Americans into supporting them.

    2. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Slant drilling. That's a story that was never realy told. It caused the war between Iraq and Iran and then caused Iraq to invade Kuwait. We courted the Shaw in Iran, it didn't work out. We set the stage for unrest and ended up with an even worse situation. We then found Sadam, got him to slant drill into Iran, armed him and then there was war between Iraq and Iran. Once Sadam had his money and his army he said the hell with the US. So we moved on over to Kuwait...guess what we did? This time we thought we could out smart them. Slant drill but don't arm Kuwait. That's why we bailed them out. Literally this thing has been going on since Carter! This is NOT a left or right issue. Its a matter of US Diplomatic Policy. That really doesn't change much from party to party.

  16. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Manly...

    You make statements supposedly in defense of the American G.I....

    But we already know what is going on....

    I remember when I first showed up at my permanent duty station... One of the first guys at my new unit (who's name escapes me) was talking about how the military was being manipulated by corporate interests abroad...

    I didn't listen very much to him...I was young and focused on just doing my job...  Everyone knew we were going to invade Iraq...long before the ultimatums delivered by Bush.....and before the "Saddam has WMD" message surfaced... 

    To say that telling the truth about the military does injustice to the men and women who serve is wrong....

    In fact, it would be better to tell the parents of servicemembers that their kids are safe from the political whims of cronies in high office...

    To lie to them would be a far graver error and insult...

    1. manlypoetryman profile image77
      manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I hear everything you say...I get it. Believe me there is no "supposedly"....I make statements in defense of them that serve in the American Marine Corp big_smile! You served and you have a brain that sees and hears exactly what's going on. I know that each military man and woman knows the same things in their own mind...but they are called to duty, never the less. I do not pretend to know the military point of view on anything...just a supportive view of them doing their duty.

      What I can't tolerate is the endless blabbering of "Bush lied...they died"...or the mindset that lead to spitting on the ones who returned after serving us in a War. That I can't stomach, in respect of them that gave so much. But, that is my perspective and one of the many who support our young ones who volunteered. That is what motivates me to speak my own viewpoint when I see such narrow-minded ones.

      1. bgamall profile image82
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You don't have to be called to duty if you don't enlist. And I believe if you know you are committing a war crime you are duty bound to resist the order.

        You guys didn't resist the order did you?

        1. manlypoetryman profile image77
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Your called to duty when you volunteer and are accepted. It starts with the decision made by our young ones. It starts at the start!

  17. Reality Bytes profile image83
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    In a complaint filed Tuesday in Federal Court in Manhattan, authorities said Faisal Shahzad, 30, has confessed to receiving bomb training in Pakistan. They said he claimed he bought an SUV, put a homemade bomb in it, and tried to set off the device in the busy square.

    Shahzad has been charged with five counts, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.



    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/0 … z1EAx9nc4B

    So an SUV packed with explosives can be considered a WMD, yet you state that NOTHING of this nature was found in Iraq?

    1. bgamall profile image82
      bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Without the help of the US government Al Qaida can't even pop a homemade bomb in the financial capital of the world. Ever wonder about that? The US government helped create 911.

      Homemade bombs don't count as weapons of mass destruction, unless you are an ant. Ants are terrified of homemade bombs.

      Check this out and you may get an education: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/91 … e-wtc.html

      1. Reality Bytes profile image83
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this



        I would have checked out your link if you did not respond in such a condescending manner!

        Especially considering all of our soldiers killed and maimed by homemade bombs.

        1. bgamall profile image82
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I am speaking of within the USA. These are not the big bombs that blow up on the side of the road that I was talking about.

  18. Randy Godwin profile image95
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Unknown to many people, most of Sadam's chemical weapons had a very short shelf life measured in days or weeks for the most part.  Low grade short lived chemical weapons were already obsolete at the time of the invasion.  Most had been incinerated and is the reason none were found.

    The war was unnecessary and was criminal at the very least.  I just hope we didn't murder more civilians than did the dictator we went in to remove.  Yes, a war of greed.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image83
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What decisions were made by the Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers.  The salesmen are just puppets.  Who are the real criminals?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image95
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Those who made out like bandits.  The same ones who always do.  Follow the money.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Ritchey needs to broaden his sources of information beyone Fox News.

  20. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Actually, Billy......

    If a youth is 17 they can enlist with parential permission...

    When I went to bootcamp I was 20, but there were several 17 years olds there too...


    So, there are parents out there who are left to decide if their children should join the military...

    School up before you spew tripe please.... 

    You don't have to be slain by true reasoning....you do a good job of slicing your own metaphorical wrists...

  21. manlypoetryman profile image77
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

    Here's what I find when I look up some "consensus"

    Iraqi War:

    Civilain body count between 99,712 and 108,865 according to one account. One site estimated: 1,421,933 by the time you include all combined incidental related deaths ...such as: journalists,contractors, etc.

    American Military Combat Deaths: 9,875 to recent history, according to one account.

    A pretty damn whole lot of people that I would not dishonor their deaths with saying that it was all a mistake...which is the root of this discussion...and the root of your "widely" held believe.

    I would hope that, in light of these many tragic deaths, that a New and Free Iraq emerged that gallant men and women gave their lives for...and that many died along the way...now free of a dictarship. (If you haven't caught my drift over the last several posts I made.)

    Tragic...H-LL Yes !
    Chalk it up to one big mistake: H-LL No!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "American Military Combat Deaths: 9,875 to recent history, according to one account."

      That figure must be for Iraq and Afghanistan. I keep hearing 4,500 in Iraq.

      Here's some CNN polling data on Iraq invasion:

      Right Decision/Wrong Decision/Unsure
         
         


         
              %     %     %    


         
         

      8/25 - 9/6/10
          41     51     7    


         
         

      Republicans
          68     25     8    


         
         

      Democrats
          28     67     5    


         
         

      Independents
          36     55     9    


         
                         


         
         

      1/7-11/09
          43     49     8    


         
         

      10/29 - 11/1/08
          39     50     11    


         
         

      6/18-29/08
          39     55     6    


         
         

      4/23-27/08
          37     57     6           
         

      2/20-24/08
          38     54     8           
         

      12/19-30/07
          36     56     8           
         

      10/17-23/07
          39     54     7    


         
         

      9/12-16/07
          42     50     8           
         

      7/25-29/07
          41     53     6           
         

      4/10-16/03
          74     19     7

  22. manlypoetryman profile image77
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

    Yeah...your right...that web site I went to listed every separate action in Iraq to date as a countback. Here's the link where I found that stat: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties

    I get lost in the poll numbers due to personal overwhelm...my bad.

  23. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    OK...but WHICH gvt?

    WHO are we doing this all for?

    It sure aint USA.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      no no no... not WHICH government.

      Just GOVERNMENT in general; The incentives created by having a monopoly on force.

  24. pisean282311 profile image60
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    @ts you are right ....bush must be tried for war crimes...0.1 million deaths...

 
working