#1 2013-03-19 03:28:04

OK - I could give a fuck about the article and it's content but just the concept is worth posting.

Offline

 

#2 2013-03-19 22:14:35

Unfortunately for all of us, the US' and UK's biggest "collaborator" was Saddam himself. 

In an effort to keep some of the other countries at bay, he let it leak that he had all kinds of nasty shit lined up if anybody, Arab or otherwise, tried to invade.  Of course, we know now that most of his chemical weapons were used on his own people, but it was enough ammo for GWB and TB.

Offline

 

#3 2013-03-20 02:51:46

Of course, we know now that most of his chemical weapons were used on his own people

Nooooo!!! He didn't have chemical weapons!  No blood for oil!  Bush lied! 

Keep just opposing everything from those nasty republicans with continued mouth-foaming hatred yet ignoring it when the dhimmicrats actually do worse than what they accused the republicans of doing (which they didn't do). 

More Obaaaaaama!

Offline

 

#4 2013-03-20 03:40:48

Egoist wrote:

Of course, we know now that most of his chemical weapons were used on his own people

Nooooo!!! He didn't have chemical weapons!  No blood for oil!  Bush lied! 

Keep just opposing everything from those nasty republicans with continued mouth-foaming hatred yet ignoring it when the dhimmicrats actually do worse than what they accused the republicans of doing (which they didn't do). 

More Obaaaaaama!

Make sure you wipe all your own shit off your thumb before posting pictures of it, Troll. Unless you'd rather lick it clean, that is.

Offline

 

#5 2013-03-20 08:17:25

Historical revisionism is a wonderful thing.  When Bush 1 was prez, Cheney (who was sec ofis defense) begged and pleaded for Bush to follow saddam into iraq, but bush, in a moment of patriotic clarity, or rather, not having any holdings in haliburton or kbr, said, 'no, we are here to drive iraq out of kuwait only'.  Cheney was pissed.

Seeing those virgin oil fields in iraq not being owned by the oil cartel was just more than he could take, so he set about to change that.

You know the rest of the story.

Offline

 

#6 2013-03-20 10:49:05

Lip shitz wrote:

Historical revisionism is a wonderful thing.  When Bush 1 was prez, Cheney (who was sec ofis defense) begged and pleaded for Bush to follow saddam into iraq, but bush, in a moment of patriotic clarity, or rather, not having any holdings in haliburton or kbr, said, 'no, we are here to drive iraq out of kuwait only'.  Cheney was pissed.

Seeing those virgin oil fields in iraq not being owned by the oil cartel was just more than he could take, so he set about to change that.

You know the rest of the story.

I wonder if Bush the First, aside from geo-political pressures, used his personal knowledge of the havoc of war to make his decision.  I was on the ground in the TOA for that one, nobody really wanted an extended rebuilding engagement like we recently went through in al-Anbar.  Bush the Second lacked those real life experiences and with Cheney (the evil advisor in this version of the story) in his ear made some extremely questionable decisions that have mired us in more than a decade of continuous warfare.


**Side note - they just lit a motor off over at the Boeing facility that I can hear from 3 miles away, either that or something just blew up; honestly from my experience it sounds like major afterburners running, I've heard that sound many times.   Unusual and different.

Offline

 

#7 2013-03-20 17:23:06

Bush the First had made a promise to the Saudis that he would not invade Iraq.  The Saudis didn't want the disruption and turmoil.  Bush kept his promise and didn't.   His son, however, was bound by no such promise.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com