So do you have any proof whatsoever that our VP got one dollar off the oil in Iraq? The answer is no you do not. This is liberal propaganda to destroy the name of a great man and American. Instead of listening to the ignorant lies of Micheal Moore and the other far left psychos do your own research.Do you really think that Bush and Blair would come along and say gee we were wrong. There were no WMD after all. Sorry everyone. I still believe that the VP was behind the war, he wanted that oil.
Actually, the question isn’t whether Saddam Hussein was an immoral tyrant/strongman, but whether the pretenses for going to war were correct. There was no evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then nor any evidence that he was harboring terrorists (Saddam was a secularist pan-Arabist while Al-Qaeda want advocates the imposition of the Sharia law along with the purging secular influences in the Muslim world). There wasn’t really any evidence at all that Iraq could be stable after he was deposed. One who had a adequate knowledge of the culture/history of Iraq should know that the US would not be accepted with open arms, due to the legacy of Western treachery as such sentiment is grounded in legitimate historical grievances (see HCKL entry below). Furthermore, it would reasonable to expect that the demographics of Iraq could lead to a power vacuum would result in instability by numerous competing factions (Baathists, Shiites, and Sunni factions).Monk,
Do you think that Saddam should still be in power? What do you think of him as a ruler?
During the multi-front, four-year war, the Ottoman world endured truly horrendous casualties through battles and disease, and the massacre of its population by the enemy military. As the war ended, British and French troops were in victorious occupation of Anatolian and Arab provinces, as well as the capital city itself. During the war, the two European powers had prepared the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 to partition the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Dominion between them. The Sykes-Picot agreement was a secret understanding concluded in May 1916, during World War I, between Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement, taking its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France, spelled out the division of Ottoman Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas. The agreement conflicted with pledges already given by the British to the Hashemite leader Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, who was persuaded to lead an Arab revolt in the Hejaz against the Ottoman rulers on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive much of the territory won. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Paris Peace Conference and the Cairo Conference were genres of political dominance of the European imperialist powers, which shifted borders and annexed territories, inventing dependency through mandates and protectorates. The British had persuaded the Arabs to rise up against the Ottoman rulers. The British high commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, corresponded with the Sharif of Mecca, promising an independent Arab state in return for fighting the Ottomans. Unaware of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, the Sharif of Mecca initiated a revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916 with the help of the British.
This secret agreement was proof of British duplicity. The Arabs learned about the agreement only in 1917, when the new Soviet Union published it. The agreement deprived the Arabs of the right to rule their newly-won territories. Most of the Middle East came under British and French control. The vision of a free and united Arab realm had been an illusion perpetrated by Western imperialism. The Sykes-Picot Agreement set scenes for a century of border conflicts that continue today. The Paris Peace Conference in 1919 legitimized imperialist partitions. Britain was entrusted with mandatory powers for Iraq and Palestine, while Syria and Lebanon came under the French mandate. Under Article 22, the League of Nations stated: “Territories inhabited by peoples unable to stand themselves would be entrusted to advanced nations until such time as the local population can handle matters.”
As the war ended, Britain and France both sent troops to enforce their claims and peace conferences subsequently confirmed this wartime division. Palestine was the exception, becoming part of the British zone and not, as was originally planned, an international zone. Britain thus obtained much of present-day Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Jordan, while France took the Syrian and Lebanese lands - both remaining in control until after World War II.
Britain merged the Ottoman provinces Baghdad, Basra and Mosul into a new state of Iraq, inhabited by three different groups of people: Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. Under British rule, the new Iraqis were subjected to more taxes than under Ottoman rule. Nationalist revolt rose against the new British rulers in 1920.
henryckliu.com/page63.htmlTo crush the Iraqi national-liberation movement, Winston Churchill, as secretary of state for war, introduced new military tactics with massive bombing of villages as the original “shock and awe” doctrine, revived eight decades later by the US military. Churchill ordered the use of mustard gas, stating: “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.” Churchill argued that the usage of gas was a “scientific expedient” and it “should not be prevented by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly”. Whole villages were bombed and gassed. There was wholesale slaughter of civilians. Men, women and children fleeing from villages were machine-gunned by low-flying planes. The Royal Air Force routinely bombed and used poison gas against the Kurd, Sunni and Shi’ite tribes without discrimination.
More obfuscation, and falsehood. Nothing to do with condemnation of socialism – just sling mud. But more falsehoods cannot be left on this DB.Black_Rose
There was no evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction
Come on now…Haliburton has been making truck loads of money off this war.The Oil companies a getting oil from Iraq at no better terms than they were before the war. No company that Cheney is affiliated with now or ever was affiliated with has gotten any sweetheart deals with the Iraqis. The idea that this war was started for oil is as ridiculous as the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Apparently, you didn’t read “Why Conspiracy Theories Persist” tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006BCome on now…Haliburton has been making truck loads of money off this war.
There are horror stories galore abt graft, missing millions and problems with the oil for medicine. But some people just turn their heads.
Funny nobody has sued Michael Moore for lies.So do you have any proof whatsoever that our VP got one dollar off the oil in Iraq? The answer is no you do not. This is liberal propaganda to destroy the name of a great man and American. Instead of listening to the ignorant lies of Micheal Moore and the other far left psychos do your own research.
Uhu, But, it is a good idea to check your sources.Apparently, you didn’t read “Why Conspiracy Theories Persist” tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B
**More obfuscation, and falsehood. Nothing to do with condemnation of socialism – just sling mud. But more falsehoods cannot be left on this DB.
Saddam Hussein used WMD, poison gas, against Iran. Who invaded and took over Kuwait?
After hiding his WMD’s from U.N. inspectors in schools, private homes, banks, business offices and even in trucks traveling from one end of then country to another as revealed in pages 258-263 of his book Saddam’s Secrets, Integrity Publishers 2006, Hussein’s General, Air Vice-Marshall Georges Sada recounts how WMDs were shipped out of Iraqi by converted civilian aircraft to Syria from mid 2002 to 2003 in fifty-six sorties. There is much more in this chapter Insurgency and Survival.
The Israeli air attack on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 may or may not have been linked to those shipments.
one thing i find interesting is that liberals love tyrants and hold them up as heroes. Saddam, Hitler, Castro, Lennin, Stalin, Kim Jung, etc. You guys just love these monsters. What does that say about your cause?Actually, the question isn’t whether Saddam Hussein was an immoral tyrant/strongman, but whether the pretenses for going to war were correct. There was no evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then nor any evidence that he was harboring terrorists (Saddam was a secularist pan-Arabist while Al-Qaeda want advocates the imposition of the Sharia law along with the purging secular influences in the Muslim world). There wasn’t really any evidence at all that Iraq could be stable after he was deposed. One who had a adequate knowledge of the culture/history of Iraq should know that the US would not be accepted with open arms, due to the legacy of Western treachery as such sentiment is grounded in legitimate historical grievances (see HCKL entry below). Furthermore, it would reasonable to expect that the demographics of Iraq could lead to a power vacuum would result in instability by numerous competing factions (Baathists, Shiites, and Sunni factions).
henryckliu.com/page63.html
Regarding the immorality of Saddam, many conservatives support Augusto Pinochet (who came into power with the support of a CIA sponsored coup against Salvador Allende in 1973) who infamously killed dissents in a Santiago soccer stadium. Also, Winston Churchill, a venerated conservative politician, had no qualms about gassing the Kurds either.
The two reasons he hasn’t been sued is because conservatives are not sue happy like liberals, and Moore’s propaganda is so far out he is considered either a sad comedian or insane by the majority.Funny nobody has sued Michael Moore for lies.
Also a Canadian manufacturer was arrested in the USA for dealing with Iran. Even though he was living in Canada and doing business from here. Cheney was doing the same thing (breaking a US law) except he used a Cayman Island mail box to do the dealing. The postmaster in the Cayman Islands said that when the mail came in he just forwarded all to Huston Tx. This was a in depth documentary by the CBC with much more on this so called wonderful man.
Isen’t that the truth. Then blame the USA for making the tyrants do what they did. i.e. Fonda said if it was not for the US Vietnam would have not started.one thing i find interesting is that liberals love tyrants and hold them up as heroes. Saddam, Hitler, Castro, Lennin, Stalin, Kim Jung, etc. You guys just love these monsters. What does that say about your cause?
Incorrect.Monk21
He [Saddam Hussein] gassed people in his own country, not Iran.
Halabja (pop. 80,000) is a small Kurdish city in northern Iraq. On Wednesday, the Star reminded readers that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army killed 5,000 Kurds in a 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja near the end of a bloody, eight-year war with Iran.Incorrect.
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas.
[See Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement]
LOL! Look, everybody, at the above quote from someone who uses Michael Moore as a source!!!Uhu, But, it is a good idea to check your sources.
…
Michael Moore is a liberal who practices capitalism to make money. Speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Credibility in my view zero.LOL! Look, everybody, at the above quote from someone who uses Michael Moore as a source!!!
Judging from the other posters, you should take some of your own advice.
No rich person who is sane would work hard to get the government to take away more of his money. They want socialism so they can be in charge of the rest of us; and, of course, like the pigs in Animal Farm, they will still have their wealth while controlling ours. That’s why we have people like Noam Chomsky who is actually a poster child for capitalism tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=1019055 .Michael Moore is a liberal who practices capitalism to make money. Speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Credibility in my view zero.
WMD were not the only reasons listed on the AuthMF.Actually, the question isn’t whether Saddam Hussein was an immoral tyrant/strongman, but whether the pretenses for going to war were correct. There was no evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then nor any evidence that he was harboring terrorists (Saddam was a secularist pan-Arabist while Al-Qaeda want advocates the imposition of the Sharia law along with the purging secular influences in the Muslim world)…
Their argument boils down to:WMD were not the only reasons listed on the AuthMF.