Those Wacky Tea-Baggers!!!

[rationalist]

Hey, don't you start.

It was a noble crusade to change the regime.

To one that would supply cheap oil to the US.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Hey, don't you start.

It was a noble crusade to change the regime.

To one that would supply cheap oil to the US.

....Since the 1930s......

​

 

[rationalist]

Isn't that why they armed Saddam and helped him into office?

Imagine if they hadn't done that. There would have been no need to invade to change the regime.

Cuh!

 

[always]

It's lookin' like they trained one o' them to wear shoes, full-time!!

While I LOVE the TEABAGGERS MOVEMENTand believe is is "Mans best hope " to save America from the current Anti- America President and his misfits, The answer given by this "nurse" was not well thought out. Only crazy democrats and other gooks believe our government was envolved in 911. So her side step answer disqualified her , in my opimion , from any serious consideration for Governor. There are dozens and dozens of qualified people within the "teabaggers", so we need not lower our standards. The democrat party always starts with the lowest type character it can find and go from there. That is how we got the inept president we now have!
Lets us FILL our CUP with the BEST TEABAGGERS available!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Isn't that why they armed Saddam and helped him into office?

Imagine if they hadn't done that. There would have been no need to invade to change the regime.

....And, no cheap-oil!!

Saddam Hussein served the same purpose (in Iraq), as The Shah did (in Iran); kept their THUMB on the locals, so local-tribesmen wouldn't interfere with oil-interests.

(Much like we financed Right-Wing Dictators, in Central/South America.)​

"At the war’s end, private interests hopeful of exploiting the region’s oil urged their governments to ignore war-time promises to Arab leaders. A variety of small, divided Arab states would be much easier to maneuver into oil deal$ than a large, independent Arab republic. The European powers agreed. France assumed control of Syria and Lebanon. Britain took Palestine and Mesopotamia. London granted local control to kings and sheiks favorable to British interests. These arrangements were ratified by the League of Nations; Britain’s Palestinian colony was officially a League "Mandate."

The new states needed boundaries. Five days of wrangling over the borders (at a conference in Baghdad) ended when Sir Percy Cox, British High Commissioner, arbitrarily drew the boundary lines setting off Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The Ottoman Empire’s three Mesopotamian provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra became a new nation, Iraq. What had been an adjunct of Basra became a separate political entity, Kuwait. Tiny Kuwait obtained 310 miles of coastline, Iraq just 36. Britain offered the Iraqi throne to the Bedouin leader Faysal, Kuwait to the al-Sabah family, Transjordan to the Hashemite leader Hussein and confirmed Ibn Saud as ruler of Saudi Arabia (the world’s only country named after its ruling family).

Britain backed up its plans for the new oil-rich nations with military might. A nationalist revolt demanding the promised independence quickly spread throughout Iraq. The British army mustard-gassed Shia rebels while the Royal Air Force bombed the Kurds. (Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, recommended dropping mustard gas on the Kurds, too.)

The opening up of Palestine to Jewish settlements, meanwhile, served imperial strategy by furthering division in the region and by establishing a beachhead for British interests.

The postwar settlements guaranteed British access to oil in Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabian peninsula; British money and military-backed diplomacy ensured British control over Iran. British dominance faced competition from U.S. capital, however."

 

[OldTrapper]

Hey OldTCrapper - you have put me on the straight and narrow.

There was me wondering why oil maganetes running an oil dependent country with dwindling oil stocks would make up a story to justify invading a country that had lots of oil and all along I was just being cynical.

Obviously all of that was just a coincidence and clearthinkers like you can see that and show us the way.

Alternatively you are just a gullible old fool who can't see what is staring him in the face.

LOL irrational, nothing can set your braindead on the "straight and narrow". That one cell you have left has been so brainwashed by left wing propaganda left over from the days of FDR that without a playbook you have no ideas.

I asked you to prove we have/were stealing oil, or planning to steal oil, from Iraq, and this is the best you can come up with?

Why is it that your "clear thinkers" shut down exploring for, and drilling for, more domestic oil, or more refineries?

Why is it that these same people shut down building more nuclear reactors, or even the building of reprocessing plants for nuclear waste?

Why is it that your "clear thinkers" oppose drilling for natural gas?

There are many more examples of how the left wing loonies have created this situation, and now want to waste trillions on the failed systems of solar, and wind, and then blame others for the failure.

Of course, it matters not the age. There will always be fools like you around.

 

[rationalist]

Look, the reasons given for invading Iraq do not stand up to inspection.

So tell me why you think this oil rich nation was singled out of all the despotic regimes to be invaded by an oil dependent country that is running out of oil.

And why the same country armed SH to sieze power in the first place.

Go on, try using a bit of logic.

I won't hold my breath

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I asked you to prove we have/were stealing oil, or planning to steal oil, from Iraq, and this is the best you can come up with?

Easy with the planning-challenge, there....especially when The DICK; Cheney TRIED to declare all pre-War contracts NULL & VOID!! (Seeing-as-how all pre-War contracts were with Hussein/Iraqi-government, and...with Hussein gone, there was no more Iraqi-government/contracts!)

Yeah....ol' DICK & his oil-buds were certain they had those limited-Iraqis over-a-barrel...until the Iraqis $KUNKED 'EM!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So tell me why you think this oil rich nation was singled out of all the despotic regimes to be invaded by an oil dependent country that is running out of oil.

Tooooooooooooooooooooooo easy.....the lesson that IRAN learned:

The Iraqis HAD NO NUKES (with which to fight-back!)!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, now.....everyone's wondering why Iran WANTS to have that Ace??!!!!!

​

 

[OldTrapper]

Look, the reasons given for invading Iraq do not stand up to inspection.

So tell me why you think this oil rich nation was singled out of all the despotic regimes to be invaded by an oil dependent country that is running out of oil.

And why the same country armed SH to sieze power in the first place.

Go on, try using a bit of logic.

I won't hold my breath

I guess you forgot all of the UN Resolutions that called for regime change, and then there was Clintons Iraqui Freedom Act, etc.

Logic is not part of your forte as has often been proven.

Question still remains, prove we went there to steal the oil.

BTW, we are not running out of oil. We are just restricted by those like you who will not allow drilling for it. Billions of barrels of oil are waiting in the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, and offshore. Of course, people like you will let China get it before we can.

 

[rationalist]

Not running out of oil????

You have excelled yourself oldcrapper.

If you believe that there is no point talking to you.

Now take your meds and watch the TV

 

[rationalist]

Oh and BTW oldcrapper, as the US' given reasons for attacking Iraq do not stand up to scrutiny why do you think it attcaked Iraq?

And aren't you concerned that the Bush adminstration lied to the people to justify starting a(nother) war?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And aren't you concerned that the Bush administration lied to the people to justify starting a(nother) war?

That was a different time, as "conservatives" like to say....before the majority of Americans REALIZED how much of a LIAR he was!
​

 

[OldTrapper]

Not running out of oil????

You have excelled yourself oldcrapper.

If you believe that there is no point talking to you.

Now take your meds and watch the TV

They have been saying that since 1919.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg159

However, reality is not part of your world.

 

[OldTrapper]

Oh and BTW oldcrapper, as the US' given reasons for attacking Iraq do not stand up to scrutiny why do you think it attcaked Iraq?

And aren't you concerned that the Bush adminstration lied to the people to justify starting a(nother) war?

The information given to Bush by the Clinton administration, who also believed that Hussein had, or planned on making, nuclear weapons; comments by Hussein himself, and Husseins generals; reports from other international sources saying Hussein had WMD's, not necessarily nuclear weapons; and the very fact that the UN itself believed Hussein had WMD's, are all indications that Bush did not lie. While he may have been deceived by those who were supposed to have greater knowledge of the subject, that is not proof he lied.

As to why we attacked Iraq, I believe there were some 21 reasons given. And while one can argue the reasons for invasion, something I did not personally support, to say that Bush lied is not a rational argument when one takes in all of the evidence, and the history of events. Most people do not realize that the intent to occupy Iraq for its oil did not begin with Bush. It actually began in 1919 with Britain.

However, a rational, and logical, argument is not possible with the likes of you.

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

Just as a side note, I would have preferred the arming of the Kurds, and the Shi'ites, to remove Hussein as Bush41 promised to do, and then reneged on the promise when the uprising occured. It would have cost the US about 40 billion dollars, and had better results.