Oh, I don’t believe Saddam either – only a fool would believe he doesn’t have some WMDs stashed away somewhere. I just don’t buy into the still-unsupported-by-Bush excuse that this war is the only way to disarm him, nor that he posed an imminent threat to the United States. This entire war is a manufactured crisis, to give the U.S. an excuse to invade Iraq, oust Saddam, and secure those valuable oil rights.
And against my better judgement, I will try to explain this one more time in very simple terms, so Weirddave might understand(*):
In the mid-1990s, a neo-conservative group advocated invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Many members of this group are now working in the G. W. Bush Administration.
In 2001, vice-President Dick Cheney wrote an energy policy paper emphasizing the need for the United States to “secure” (read: control) more Middle Eastern sources of oil.
In 2003, George W. Bush wages war on Iraq, conveniently addressing issues #1 and #2.
(* = Not that I expect anything to penetrate Weirddave’s granite skull, since he’s already been roundly spanked on this topic several times in Great Debates. Just call me a masochist…)
I’m going to revise my previous theory on you, rjung, and apologise. You don’t have grand conspiracy theory after all, I’m sorry I said as much.
You seem to have a little itty-bitty conspiracy theory. Follow me closely for a minute, O.K.?
#1 A statement from “a neo-conservative” group in the mid 90s is meaningless. Such statements are made all of the time from the party/political faction out of power at the time and say all kinds of outrageous things. Their purpose is to embarass the sitting administration and hopefully swing a few votes their way, nothing more. If GWB came up with a plan that was guaranteed to end the deficit, feed every hungry person in the world and give everyone orgasms on demand, Democratic groups would be oposing it for some reason. That’s the way American politics works.
Aside from that, IIRC, Dubya wasn’t a signatory to that paper, so claiming that it’s representive of his policies is misleading at best, flat out lying at worse.
#2 “Securing” more Mid East sources of oil has been U.S. policy for decades. You are the one making the unsubstanciated claim that Cheney in fact means “control” and that that further means “Control by occupation”. How the hell can you read the man’s mind?
#3 Since I’ve just shown how the first two are meaningless, the point tying them together is meaningless too.
This is what is know as a “porveable assertation”, something rjung is not know for, so I’m simply going to ask for links to the “several times” I have been “spanked on this topic in Great Debates”. Back up your statement, fuckbreath, it’s time to put up or shut up.
Here is one of the problems with war protesters once hostilities have started. As you are indulging yourself in your civil disobedience, you are filmed by a local news crew. Naturally, this pleases you very much because only you can protest with such panache. Your exploits are then fed to the network level, where they are aired for public consumption. That would include Saddam and his cronies, who make sure that his soldiers see the video and are then told to hold out and fight a little longer because “even the Americans themselves are protesting this illegal attack”. And I’m sure the video will also come in handy to attenmpt to demoralize the prisoners of war held in Iraq.
Hmm! Is it possible that it could work the other way? Iraqi soldiers see anti-war demonstrations and think, “Blimey! You couldn’t get a way with that here! – Maybe this freedom thing that the West boasts about has something going for it.”
What part of “what I want is a link that has Cheney quoted as …” don’t you understand? For Gods sakes, dude, you make 4 bullet points that you claim that Cheney made, that “his fingerprints are all over”. When we ask for that cite, you give us a paper that says that “America will need more oil, and there is lots of it in the Middle East”. Now I will admit that that is so obvious that I can’t beleive someone bothered to write that down as if he discovered DNA, but that only shows your point #1. With some stretching, you can get points 2&3- at least you can argue them. But only a crazed conspiracy nut can get your point #4 out of that. Sure, that’s an arguement that many have made, and there even can be some truth to it. But saying that cite, that paper “proves” your point is nuts.
I apologize, then, if I wrote something that seemd like an overstatement – must be the heat in the Pit getting to me.
However, I stand by my belief that this war is not about WMDs and Iraqi repression and UN violations, but is simply a collusion of convenience between the White House’s long-term plans for securing foreign energy sources and a group of neo-conservative Cabinet members who want to assert American control of the Middle East (and the fact that American petroleum companies get rich as a result doesn’t hurt).
You may or may not choose to believe that there is a relationship, but I think this all but screams “Iraqi oil grab” in big blinking neon letters. And unlike Weirddave, at least I’ve produced cites for my claims.
So it’s your own opinion then. Fine, you’re entitled to it. Present it as such, then, asswipe.
Well, you ignored my request for links to the GD threads in which I’ve been “spanked”, so I’m not holding out much hope here, but what the hell. Do you have a link to a post where I haven’t produced cites for what I’ve presented as fact?
I’m still waiting for links. I have a feeling I will be waiting a long time. Prophaganda always turns tail and runs on this board when faced with facts.
