So, don't say "nobody."
As I noted in multiple threads earlier, since nothing was found, they were all idiots. Both the givers and the takers.
Ok I get your point, it wasn't only Bush. But, at the same time how does that defend someone calling it logical that they invaded Iraq. If he truly believed that Saddamn Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them on American troops then why would he send them there? Maybe, I just think differently than you guys, but I would try and keep my guys away from the madman with chemical weapons. Of course then I wouldn't be nearly as benevolent a leader as W. wanting to save all the people living in other nations and all.
I guess that means Halliburton is supporting the insurrection and helping the rebels destroy facilities. That would fit your theory.
Cute. Now I'm being labelled an extremist because I'm skeptical about the good deeds supposedly being done by a big oil company and a government that invaded a country who wasn't even a threat to them based on faulty intelligence, paranoia and an agenda.
Soon I guess I'll be facing accusations of being the #1 most liberal poster on the board and questions will be brought up about me throwing my flames jersey over the glass after the Fleury trade...
I find it a little odd you wouldn't know that Iraq, like most Middle East nations, would be in the stone age without selling oil.
I feel totally overwhelmed with this new information... Actually I'm a little confused as to why you'd bring it up. I completely agree with you that it is mostly through oil exports that Iraq is going to be able to recover. In fact, I'll even go as far as saying that of the options available, the Americans are probably the best ones to be there right now, because if it wasn't them it'd be some other rich folks who weren't concerned about making it look like they were there to help. I just don't see how this situation is a sign of good leadership. Halliburton was only mentioned by me because of my personal distaste for Cheney.
The reasons for the conflict are certainly arguable. The management of the post-conflict scenario is very arguable, in fact, I'm on your side on a lot of it.
Those points are both questions of leadership and I mentioned them because this thread is about Bush's leadership.
Or are you going to tell us the Americans actually want to go to the trouble and expense of keeping 135,000 troops there indefinitely?
Well they couldn't of been that concerned about it or there would have been an exit strategy in place.
|