P
PadawanBater
Guest
If you look at who is overwhelmingly against oil exploration , you will find it is the democrats by a WIDE WIDE margin.
Iraq was warned over and over to get out of Kuwait ( a separate nation ), they did not. Warning after warning was dismissed, hence desert storm.
Saddam then violated the peace treaty he signed over and over again during the Clinton years, but with no response. Then the oil for food program was enacted and promptly corrupted by Saddam and several EU big wigs including the very top tiers of the UN. This in and of itself was MORE than enough cause to re engage. certainly the legal thresholds were met at that point alone. After 9/11, it was just a calculated but horrific mistake on Saddams part that a blind eye to his violations would go unanswered. He thought it would be business as usual like with Clinton. Another mistake...one he admitted himself. Both invasions were completely legal and justified and voted upon. Saddam was using Al Queda for his own ends, but after 9/11 that scheme turned around and bit him on the arse. Pretty simple. He realized it before his death.
Of course our govt. is looking out for US, that's their JOB. You are free to move on out if you don't agree with it. We still have open borders, use them.
out.
Why are the democrats against domestic oil exploration, CJ?
I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. You can't just say Iraq invaded Kuwait and ignored warnings to retreat and that's what caused Desert Storm, there are a lot of other variables to consider.
What kind of a response do you think Clinton should have gave to Sadaam violating a peace treaty?
Should I just stop expecting sources from you? We've been over this at least twice, if you're going to say something, you have to cite your sources of information so I know it's not just you saying it to say it, so I know it's based on facts, that's what gets the debate/conversation moving along, this shit you keep pulling by never citing anything does nothing to support your argument, so what is the point in even posting it? CITE SOURCES for the last time!
Sadaam admitted that breaking international treaties and stealing other nations resources and NOT expecting a response from the US or UN was a mistake? I'd love to see that!! That would be like W. admitting he fucked up on something, talk about a long shot!
The invasions may have been technically legal, but in no way are they justified, if you can present me with some justification, I'd be more than willing to hear it. The reasons the US military invaded were fabricated, they had bad intelligence, they thought they knew shit they didn't. How is invading a nation based on false pretext at all justified? And one more thing, the ONLY reason congress voted on the invasion was because of 911. They, just like the rest of the US population, were scared and let emotion cloud their judgment. The mainstream media and Bush administration fortified this with every single statement made, anyone can go back and look at it and see that. Again, if you disagree with me, a simple way to prove me wrong would be to find a statement or document or even a quote by Bush or one of the top appointed officials, like Cheney or Rumsfeld condemning the Iraq war.... ever. None of them EVER have, not once (besides Cheney admitting an invasion of Iraq would lead to a quagmire back in the 90's).
How was Sadaam using Al Queda 'for his own ends'? (don't forget to CITE your SOURCES!)
Stop pulling bullshit out of your ass and making things up.
The US government is NOT looking out for US! If you seriously believe that take one look at the economic problem and the way our 'trusted government' is handling it. They are in it for THEMSELVES, to make THEMSELVES more money, to keep THEMSELVES in office longer, and to keep THEMSELVES in power longer. They couldn't give a fuck less about you or me.
Only cowards run and hide, CJ.