Sunday, January 25, 2015

Final Answer.

Al Bush[shared meme] Considering that (1) Dick Cheney absolutely opposed any invasion of Iraq until the day he joined Halliburton, and (2) Halliburton earned $39 billion from the Iraq war, I think we know the answer to this.  

Muhammad Rasheed - Corporate greed; final answer.

Al Bush - Didn't need to call for help either.

Al Bush - Blessings to you this day MR.

Anton Von Flugelhorn - it's not like Hitler trying to invade Russia, - the russian fighting for their country and survival - those poor soldiers were sent there under false pretenses, it removes nothing to their courage and the respect due to them, but the "king is to blame" (re: Henry the V by Shakespeare, a scene exacltly about this: a little glimpse of Harry in the night, even in those days it was a valid question)

Al Bush - Correct AVF. I respect vets. I don't respect lying to vets.

Anton Von Flugelhorn - Vets have been lied to, they are victims, when they come back they are treated like crap, it's disgusting, only banks get bailed out

Tim Brown - Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities. It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD. What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991. These Resolutions were more than mere expressions of UN opinion. The first two -- Resolutions 687 and 689 -- constituted the terms of the truce negotiated in the first Gulf War, a truce whose violation was a legal justification for renewed combat. The other 14 Resolutions were failed attempts to enforce those first two. In sum, the major reason why the U.S. was preparing for war, was to enforce the UN Resolutions and international law. SO there's your truth.... but it just doesn't seem to matter to the far left.

Tim Brown - More facts to ponder: As a result of President Bush’s appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously (on November 7, 2002) to present Saddam with an ultimatum and a 30-day deadline -- to expire on December 7, 2002 -- by which date he was bound to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce and to destroy his illegal weapons programs, or face “serious consequences.” This ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441 – the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce to which Saddam had agreed after the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance, as the Iraqi dictator knew that his military suppliers and political allies -- Russia and France -- would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This -- and not a preference for unilateral measures -- is the reason why the United States eventually went to war against Iraq without UN approval.

Tim Brown - And a few more little bothersome facts.....In addition to Saddam's failure to abide by the UN Resolutions, there were other reasons for the U.S. to feel threatened by this self-declared enemy of America. For example: • he had attempted to orchestrate the assassination of former President George H.W. Bush; • he was the only head of state to openly celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center after 9/11; • every major intelligence agency in the world -- including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the Jordanian -- believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD; • there were in fact links between international terrorists (including al Qaeda) and the Saddam regime -- links that are documented in in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection

Tim Brown - Though critics -- including many Democratic Party leaders – later depicted America's invasion of Iraq as a hasty endeavor undertaken without patience or forethought, President Bush gave Saddam numerous and ample opportunities to avoid war. By March 2003, nearly 14 months had elapsed since his January 2002 "axis of evil" speech. After the December 7, 2003 deadline had passed, the United States did not immediately attack Iraq. Instead, the White House spent the next three months trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French, Russians, and Chinese to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they -- as Security Council members -- had ratified and promised to enforce. Notably, the entire national security team of the former Clinton administration -- including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence -- supported George W. Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

Muhammad Rasheed -

Tim Brown - And Muhammad is the first to reply even after facing the facts...... I will say this, there is corporate greed in every war. Even in 1776 there were Congress members getting rich from the Revolution we had yet to win! You find one war our nation fought where corporations didn't make out, big time, if you can....... but you can't.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "...there is corporate greed in every war."

That's why it's the easy $100 question.

Muhammad Rasheed - You'll have to go back pretty far to find a war that WASN'T over corporate greed. Any post-Adam Weisthaupt war was DEFINITELY corporate greed driven, and certainly any American war after 1913.

Tim Brown - Go check them All Muhammad, from the Revolution forward.

Muhammad Rasheed - I already know they are, Tim, because of the significance of the events/personages/date I mentioned. The official spin job you’ve bought into given to the public is irrelevant.

Al Bush - That was a case not made, a case I'd still struggle over and certainly not last resort. Baring assassination they posed little threat to us. But this was about oil, chest thumping, teaching someone who's boss, not honestly dealt with, wrong war, wrong plan, wrong financing, wrong deaths, wrong sales job, wrong to do to voters and wrong in outcome. Didn't make anyone safer as assassination is still an open question. It disrupted the biggest threat opposition- Iraq to our current object of scorn, Iran. Left a monster in the budget, killed a ton of the wrong people and made our weaknesses starkly apparent. We live now in a world where cyber is as deadly or more so, I'd say more so, than ground warfare and we still act like we can display military muscle for effect. BS on dry toast. Those days are over.

Tim Brown - No "spin job". The facts I have displayed are just that, facts. There is no spin. The war was brewing long before G.W. or Clinton was in office, and it had more to do with Saddam's actions than Chaney's relationship with Halliburton

Muhammad Rasheed - ...and made a small percentage of the world's populace obscenely wealthier.

Al Bush - Ahh yes we lived through the sins of the father.

Tim Brown - They always do Muhammad and always will

Gambler Wilde - Tim, you can worship your false idol, the American Empire, all you like. Now you can explain to us why McCain and the other Republicans demanded the arming of militias in Syria and Iraq that were obviously al-Qaeda affiliated - al Nusra and the entities that became ISIS/ISIL. Someone please explain to me why American air power has yet to make a dent in ISIS? Iraq folded in weeks in the face of air strikes in two different wars, but ISIS continues to hold its ground on several fronts. My guess is that ISIS knows they can't attack because they will only face significant air strikes when they are on the offensive. America needs boogeymen like ISIS.

Tim, as a likely partisan hack, will agree that Obama's air assault on Libya was a mistake. All of the Democrat shills will have to apologize for Obama's Libya adventure. The moral equivalence between Bush's Iraq War and Obama's Libya War are obvious for those with eyes to see. The real story behind the Benghazi hype was a deliberate policy of arming al-Qaeda linked terrorists in order to destabilize the world. These imperialists want nothing but war - on this, the far left and the far right agree. The dummies in the middle will continue believing their fables until the bitter end.

Tim Brown - Wow Gambler...... Who's your idol? Kardashian? We were discussing the Iraq war. ISIS and American Air Power...... Now I do know a little about that. The air power we are using today is but a fraction of what we usually do Gambler. Pretty simple answer.

Al Bush - Gambler is accurate in assessing the American policy as Empire. We don't know how apparently to realign ourselves to new realities. When I said above I thought there were as many digital dangers as ground force ones it's become clear that we are captive to our history and our weapons. And we can no longer afford it. Defense will now need every dollar to combat cyber warfare. Attacks upon our economy are as deadly or more so since they're not well thought through. The war plan against this country is now one of never ending data streams corrupted and viral, chipping away at banking, infrastructure and grid power supplies, communication and energy. We can't stay in the 20th century when the 22nd is upon us. -- Reassess. Quickly.

Tim Brown - Exactly Al, our real threats are threats where conventional warfare will do little to stop it.

Al Bush - Gambler Wilde is smart as can be. Likely correct about Libya as I've come to regret the chaos there . Now if we don't have to go through the partisan hack stage of getting to know one another we'll be better able to hear.

Carol Tvaroh - Then there's the question of how our invasion of Iraq, a counrty tht did nothing to us, would help "protect our freedom" What rubbish!

Jonathan Beatrice - In Halliburton we trust

Tim Brown - Please Carol and Jonathan please resort to the factual statements that I posted. They can not be refuted.........

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991." 

What was the ultimate purpose for grooming Saddam for that leadership role where his handlers needed him to play ball? Saddam's "ignoring & defiling" are not the root cause of that war. That's the official spin job reason; the real reason is that 1.) wealth was exchanging hands and they needed their own agent in the region to help the process along, and 2.) part of the web of sabotage in the area preventing the Arab nations from working together to attack Israel again (see: Syria & Egypt's counterattack after Israel destroyed their airforces).

Tim Brown - your theory holds no water Muhammad, actually makes no sense what do ever........

Tim Brown - What-so-ever

Muhammad Rasheed - Saddam's decision to not play along and to seize ultimate power in his area for his own benefit was a win-win for western forces: If he played along then the above two points would be in place and the west would be happy, and if he didn't play along the west would get to crank up the war machine and make their billions of dollars a day.

Muhammad Rasheed - I find your theory, Tim, to be hopelessly naive and lacking insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - So I guess we're even.

Tim Brown - I gave you facts Muhammad, you gave me theories, at best. Check the history, the UN resolutions and the votes in Congress. I believe even Al Bush can agree I Have given nothing but facts

Muhammad Rasheed - You gave me an "ultimate reason" theory based on how you interpreted the official spin job reports, which were completely divorced from the root cause of the reason the west is even over there in the first place. Please stop pretending you know what a "fact" looks like. It's getting embarrassing.

Belinda Bates - The question isn't whether or not what you posted was true. The question is how did that threaten our security, and how did going to war with Iraq further secure our freedoms?

I distinctly remember that Saddam Hussein did submit a weapons report before the war that was so heavily redacted that it was impossible for any one without top security clearance to decipher. But the reports after the war were clear. There were no WMDs and their weapons program had long been destroyed. 

And none of that really matters now because it's in the past. What really matter is: how are we treating our returning veterans? There seems to be a prevailing ideology on the right: purchase of life, limb, body, and soul is okay to secure our society and maintain our way of life, but money is sacrosanct.

So the same people who made money sending our troops to war are the same people hiding that money in tax shelters and lobbying to make sure that the tax cuts to the rich are either extended or made permanent. Meanwhile our veterans are being treated deplorably. It's hypocritical and disgusting.

Tim Brown - Oh my.... yea the facts get in the way. If you want to blame oil..... Well duh!!!!! Of course but sadly we need it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Oil is a piece of it, to keep our civilization running. A bigger piece is the protection of Israel from a unified Arab face. A bigger piece still is corporate greed.

Tim Brown - Nope..... It's just not in the facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim, so you really think the entire problem of our war machine leads only to Saddam, and what those reports said?

Really? And that represents "the facts" to you?

Tim Brown - We were only speaking of the Iraqi invasion...... You were bringing up erroneous info.....

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - All conflicts in the middle east are corporate greed driven. That's why western powers are over there. That's "the facts." Al's very first post in this thread showcases the true facts of relevance. The view that everything we need to know is in the official reports about the events that are actually only are spin-job misdirection, is a naive view.

Sam Gootas - get the hell off Halliburton's back, the Army needed the services they were contracted for.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Army could've done it themselves cheaper. It was a con job.

Al Bush - Damn Sam. They still payin?

Al Bush - Remember the 9B completely lost? Zeroed out. Pitiful.

Ken Peck - There was a time when the Army Corps of Engineers built barracks, roads, and anything else the Army needed. And the mess was the domain of army cooks. Etc. But such wasn't profitable for the corporatists.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion Tim Brown, you are a worthy foot soldier in something I often see; justifications/revisionism from those who cheer-led for this elective war, literally by The Rivers Of Babylon. I have no desire to speak at length about what shall be seen by historians as the greatest misstep of foreign policy by my nation. Suffice to say---in money, dead bodies, and political mistakes---we blew it, and this financial report leads me to ask: do you actually believe it was worth it?? With all due respect, 'Fellow White Man Please....'

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Al Bush: Is 'Tim Brown' an alias for Ken Krueger??

Ken Peck - Yes, folks forget that the cost of a war goes on long after the war is history. We will be caring for wounded veterans and paying other veteran costs for decades. (The final survivors of WWII have only recently died -- and got their government paid funerals.)

Al Bush - Lol. No. They're both decent men of a political persuasion foreign to my way of thinking but friends, obstinate friends.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - It did seem Mr. Brown was more given to justifications via UN resolutions, something of a different, if not novel way to justify a mistake.

Al Bush - Like all of us, blind in places. Brilliant in others.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - I never claimed 'brilliance', just the uncomfortable tendency for knowing there's a bad moon rising, while the big parade mistakes it for a dish of ice cream.

Al Bush - Like that Tom 'Papa' Ray. Just like that. Lolol

Tim Brown - "Novel"? No Tom, just the truth. People saying we went to war because Chaney was involved in Haliburton are just speculating. They can point at the costs and how much Haliburton made, but it's just an assumption, an opinion. There Iare no facts to hold that theory up. It's just a rallying cry for the Bush haters. I have presented you rock hard evidence and a replay of events that lead up to the war. I paid very close attention to what was going on in those days, because these events would have a profound affect upon my life I knew I would go to Iraq. I saw above where someone was saying the Corps of Engineers use to build barracks and such...... It has been a very long time that the Corp and other Civil Engineering units in the service actually built major projects. It became much cheaper to contract out. Keeping troops on active duty is very, very expensive. Are the wars in the Middle East "all corporate", driven? No, and there is no proof of that anywhere. Do corporations make money from war? Of course they do, they always have. Was the Iraqi War raged mainly because of corporate greed, no, of course not. You can accept what is solid facts or speculation....... I guess what ever gives you a warm fuzzy.

Tim Brown - MRasheed said: “Tim... so you really think the entire problem of our war machine leads only to Saddam, and what those reports said?  Really? And that represents ‘the facts’ to you?”

I do not recall ever saying our entire problem of our "war machine", leads only to Saddam. I just gave the events that lead up to the Iraqi invasion. And yes, those are the factual events that lead up to the war. Look it up yourself. Question.... How on earth did you ever construe that I thought that Saddam was or even still our entire problem? Especially today. Please note the lists of reasons and the facts I have displayed only apply to the events that lead up to the invasion.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Speaking of the warm fuzzies Tim--if you wish to view this elective war as good a deal for our nation as it was for, oh, Iran (& with the price tag stated above), I must ask: as an engineer, would you like to invest in some bridges over the nearby rivers I own??

Tim Brown - This "elective war", really went south when we left so quickly. Was it a good deal? Few wars are, most are just a violent action that at best may give temporary relief from a regional problem. World War I was the most horrible war ever up to that point, all it really did was set up WWII and in many ways set up the stage in the Middle East. I am just using that war as an example. Even the Korean War.... Well it had an outstanding outcome for the south, but catostrophic for the north.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - 'LEFT SO QUICKLY'?? LMAO. I sense in you---going out on a limb now; bear with me--- an inability to admit the reality of the past dozen years. I'll leave this with my favored example in Southern folklore for summing up this fiasco: We Got Stuck To The Tar the by sir, think there's any chance of selling that 1 Billion dollar Embassy to the Chinese?? It'd only be fitting. After all, we gave the debt to pay for this war to their bankers, and they currently have the oil leases. 'Left so quickly...' lawdhavemercy. I also am always well-amused by those who were/are cheerleaders for this molly-trolly reducing all who opposed it to the simplistic 'left/right liberal/conservative' construct. After all, the Dems drank the kool-aid also...

Tim Brown - Very funny Tom. Making fun of people because of where they are from? Really? Tom, you just don't or won't understand. If we as a nation decide we are going to invade, no matter the reason, we had better plan on staying there for a very long time. It's the only policy that has brought forth any fruit in the past. We can't just go in tear the place a part leave it vulnerable, SOFA agreement or not.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - How am I making fun of where someone is from??? I'M FROM THE SOUTH! All my kin is Georgia/South Carolina/N.E. Florida. Southern fried and sanctified. Otherwise, in all this you really can't give reply to the facts I stated. You ignore the sad realities brought when MY nation choose to invade Iraq; sad realities that are in the multitudes, still ongoing.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - It wasn't worth it for my country. ...IMO, the most positive result to salvage from this clusterf**k is the Kurds throwing off the yoke of our former CIA asset, Hussein. IMO, they are our only actual 'friends' in the region; not the House Of Saud, not the Israeli government.

Al Bush - I'll keep Israel but have had enough of Bibi. I'm good with Jordan, good with the Kurds. Good with a good portion of Egypt. Can't trust Qatar. And I don't see Iran as the end all enemy like some do. I think there's a good, better than anticipated chance there if idiocy doesn't screw it to death.

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Al...I am always amused at how so often, those policies that favor the USA the least in this region are ones most supported by Riyadh and the Knesset. Jordan, OK. Egypt? Yeah, as long as we keep shoveling the $$$. And given we are in up to our necks in this region of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', it is about time we quit acting as if it is beyond the pale to deal with the nation facing as great a threat from ISIS as any: Iran. I'm still chuckling over your friend Mistuh Brown thinking I was slamming the region of my own birth.

Al Bush - Tim's a good man. Opinionated but steady and decent. The rest? Agreed.

Tim and Ken are similar but different. I missed some of the education they got so I give room. But both will display great heart and I get more often from talking with those who think differently or have specialized knowledge. They both think very differently than me. You and I are closer but not twins. Plus you have specialized knowledge. I've enjoyed the St. Louis crew and the Kentucky crew. Y'all can eat at my place when you're here.

Sue Hulett - The al Saud is doing us a solid in taking down Putin and making it unprofitable to continue installing thousands of unregulated fracking wells per month in the great plains. Dick Cheney must be gnashing his teeth over that.

Al Bush - Excellent point Sue Hulett

Loren Gerlach - Tim, you are absolutely right that Saddam very stupidly played into Bush's hands, and effectively committed suicide, by refusing to cooperate on inspections. But the fact remains that without Cheney's repeated statements that we have PROOF (not circumstantial evidence but PROOF) that Saddam had WMD, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that either Congress or the American people would have agreed to war. Cheney lied. He repeatedly said he had proof when all he had was circumstnatial evidence. Colin Powell lied when he said we had proff that Niger had sold yellowcake to Iraq - in fact, the American official who went to Niger and found that to be bullshit was hounded by the Bush administration and his wife (a CIA agent) was outed all in an attempt to cover up the truth. And since you are so keen on historical fact, what is your explanation for the incontrovertible fact that Cheney resolutely argued against invading Iraq ("we could get to Baghdad in a week but we'd be in a guerilla quagmire for years", he repeatedly said) until the day he joined Halliburton?

Tim Brown - Sue, I think they are doing us a "solid" too, but you do know our fracking is one of the reasons the Saudi's are flodding the market. I am not sold on the "safety", they tout about fracking. It just doesn't peg my common sense meter. Being from a town that you could barely breath in downtown during the summer because of illegal sewage dumpage I know a little bit about the effects of ground water, how it moves and just how easy it is for us to ruin it.

Loren Gerlach - Ronald Reagan wanted to invade Nicaragua as badly as Halliburton wanted to invade Iraq. but we never did go to war with Nicaragua. what's the difference? Mainly it's this: while Reagan desperately sought to exaggerate the threat down there, he never flat out lied to make a false case for war. Whether that's because he had a conscience, or because he knew he wouldn't get away with it is an open question. America in the 1980s was fresh from Vietnam and skeptical about war. America post-9/11, by contrast, was in a McCarthyist fog.

Tim Brown - Loren, please check my above comments about the real and factual reasons we invaded Iraq. There wasn't any "lying" by Bush or Chaney. The reasons were real and profound and had to be addressed. Papa Ray, and just why do you call it a cluster F@$*? The invasion was one of the quickest and well orchestrated in history. When the insurgents came, we in the military felt as we had given the terrorist a battle ground far from America and most American citizens. Those terrorists wanted to kill the infidels, mainly Americans. Why not let them come after a trained force and not innocent civilians in a city. We killed hundreds of thousands of terrorist, no doubt. Things went real down hill after we left. Plain and simple. I have taken note we have changed plans and have decided to leave a much larger force in Afghanistan.... Did we learn a lesson?

Loren Gerlach - Um, Tim, cheney repeatedly stated he had PROOF THAT SADDAM HAS WMD. PROOF. That was a lie, Tim. Your statements above are very carefully and deliberately incomplete, you are committing a sin of omission.

Tim Brown - No, Loren I am actually the ONLY one giving the complete listing and reasons. There are several reasons we knew Saddam had WMD, but to think that was the only or even the main reason is absurd, and to think its because of Halliburton is ludicrous

Tim Brown - Please read the history lesson I have provide. You will find there were 23 clauses for the war, only two included WMD. So many are a victim of media hype.

Tim Brown - Does anyone here know the main reason we thought Saddam still had WMD?

Tom 'Papa' Ray - Uh, because this nation had indeed allowed the sale of chemical agents (yes, 'WMDs', even if the technology was from WW1; we did not mind when Saddam used it against the Iranians in their bloody trench war), & of course there were the hollow threats by Saddam himself--- our forces never came under attack with WMDs because the threat was empty. But let me ask you Mr. Brown: at the eventual lower estimate of 3 trillion dollars(notwithstanding the dead folks), are you willing to say 'YES WE DID THE RIGHT THING AND IT WAS WORTH IT' ?? You really seem to ignore a number of factual points here that counter your justifications for this elective war; in this, you do resemble Mr. Cheney.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "I do not recall ever saying our entire problem of our 'war machine,' leads only to Saddam. I just gave the events that lead up to the Iraqi invasion. And yes, those are the factual events that lead up to the war. Look it up yourself. Question.... How on earth did you ever construe that I thought that Saddam was or even still our entire problem?"

Because the entire war machine is corporate greed driven, producing enormous profits for the usual suspects, and it doesn't matter what excuse they use to throw us into yet another wasteful, murderous war. Your insistence on narrowing all "the facts" of this particular war segment to that particular body of spin job reports, as if everything we could possibly need to know about it is confined to that spin job, is pretty offensive. "Look, everyone! I've bought into the spin job! And if you want to truly be enlightened on this topic, you should hook, line & sinker buy into it, too, just like I have! Nothing is any different than what the slimy, murderous, war profiteers have allowed into these publicly available reports! These represent 'the facts,' and if you really want to be in the know, don't look any further than these; nothing else that has happened before or after these events are of any relevance."

Muhammad Rasheed - Tim Brown wrote: "Does anyone here know the main reason we thought Saddam still had WMD?"


Because the handful of people who would MOST profit from a war with Saddam insisted that he had them so they could get richer.

No comments:

Post a Comment