I like how cunning they were by setting up their evil scheme a decade before the war!

quote:

The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely,

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 God that stare just burns a hole through me. I bet The17sss just made a mess on his keyboard.

Hey, she's kind of sexy.








I mean if you're into that whole spliced gene thing between a human being, a raptor and a snapping turtle and want to know your progeny will be secure enough to provide her sustenance when she kills you after mating.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

Last edited by EddieZilker on Apr-06-2011 at 23:22

I guess she's kind of sexy in that I want to be slamming her head against the headboard with a belt around her neck kind of way.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO This isn't about physics, this is about waves.

I can't stand Ann Coulter.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't stand Ann Coulter.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't stand Ann Coulter.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Just thought it was interesting that this showed up when I opened the thread, just now. At least it didn't yell at me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

for real. she doesn't do anything productive... she just lobs overly incendiary grenades with the sole purpose of getting outrageously outrageous reactions. she should go back to being a lawyer and keep her trap shut; she's not doing the Republicans any favors.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss for real. she doesn't do anything productive... she just lobs overly incendiary grenades with the sole purpose of getting outrageously outrageous reactions. she should go back to being a lawyer and keep her trap shut; she's not doing the Republicans any favors.

So, you’re like the ann coulter of TA?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

You're one of the strangest people I've ever conversed with on this subject. I've never had anyone agree with me in such a subversive manner, yet vehemently deny we're talking about the same thing.

Let me give it to you simply. This is what you beleive:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US’ dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.

I can only assume at this point you're utterly naive. The only part that is true is that they had long held desires to remove Saddam, but again they were financial.

You really think Bush/Cheyney/Neocons care about "spreading democracy". Give me a fucking break. It's not very well hidden code for removing people they don't like with military force so they can make more money once they are out of the way.

Sorry if it's too simplistic for you but sadly that is what it comes down to. Billions have been made from Defense contracts handed out to his cronies, including his VP, and that doesn't even mention oil (which I'll get to). I agree it's it's complex in organisation and logistics, but extremely simply when distilled down to the essence, or fundamental reason for going to war.

Again, "reducing dependence on Hostile oil?". You've backtracked on that since so I won't say anymore but they're not a green party and have a stern track record on derailing the progress alternative energy sources. Ask yourself why; Because of their interests in Oil as a commodity i.e it's monetary value to them and their supporters.

You have to be able to see past that language.

I'm starting to think, you're either truly shit at getting your point across or you don't know what you're trying to say yourself. I do and it's simple. This war was about financial interests and there's too much of a paper trail and too much proof to believe anything else.

As for the oil, go back to that article I posted. If you can't be bothered, the look up the Carlyle group, which Bush Sn was forced to resign as Chairman from in 2003 due to criticism of war profiteering. he still gets paid huge consultancy fees, and is a major shareholder (all public record). Carlyle group was also a massive contributor to all Bush campaigns.

Here is Carlyle groups webpage listing in many of their companies, their expertise in "Oil and gas exploration and development in the middeleast" not to mention funds and infrastructure.

http://www.carlyle.com/fund/buyout/...i/item9177.html

Now go a few pages back and look at your responses. Your entire language and tone is nothing but defensive of the Republicans with special emphasis for their "reasons" for going to war. When I challenge it, you start giving excuses such PNAC and Neocons, which are nothing but distractions from the primary point that this war was about financial interests for the Bush Adminstrations and fuck all to do with those key words like "democracy" and "dependence on hostile oil".

Also, please read this:

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Some great info, not just about oil but a preconceived plan to invade that had nothing to do with reacting to humanitarian issues or democracy.

Finally and most damningly, read this, especially the bit about how Exxon mobil (yes, Exxon) has magically won the contracts for the HUGE future expansion or Iraq's oil output.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3055705494.html


Still think I don't get the "nuances"?