🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 27, 3:52 pm, The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > Because of the motivation of the your illustrious hero.  His invasion
> > of Iraq had nothing, nada, zilch, zero about human rights. It was
> > about oil, oil, oil, oil, OIL and about revenge against Saddam.
>
> So... where IS the oil, oil, oil, OIL????
>

In the ground.

> See... you might FEEL that way, but you can’t PROVE a thing.
>

Sure I can.  It has actually been admitted and based on the contracts
awarded and the way they were awarded you can draw no other
conclusion.

Are you saying that oil had nothing whatsoever to do with our
invasion?

> > But all they have to do to you people is wave a boogeyman like Saddam
> > to get you war mongers to salivate.
>
> YOU people...? Who are YOU people? You mean THESE 'YOU' people...??
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
> great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
> use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
> is the greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>

Were you a fan of the Clinton administration?  I doubt it so why are
you quoting them.

Bill Clinton destroyed Saddam's ability to produce nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons; the proof is that he didn't have any of them.

Saddam was contained and contained very well.  We didn't have to risk
the lives and sacrifice the lives of people who, unlike you, are not
cowards willing to send others to die

> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>

He didn't have WMDs

> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
> the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
> if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
> respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
> weapons of mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
> Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
>

And we did respond effectively as evidenced by the fact that Saddam
didn't have WMDs
> So.... is it still about oil, oil, oil, OIL?? Because if it is, you'll
> have to prove that each and every statement show above is a FAKE. Bet
> you can't do that.
>

I don't have to prove it.  It has already been proven.  Show me one
WMD that we found in six years there.

One

> > Now, there is genocide around the world, why are you guys not
> > clamoring for us to do something.
>
> Do something? We WERE 'doing something' until you dreamers went to the
> polls.
>

What were we doing?

>
> Really...? Then how so? You supported this guy, didn’t you?
>

We supported this guy?  No you did.  There is not a picture of any
liberal Democrat shaking hands with Saddam; there is one of Donald
Rumsfeld doing that.

Check out all the stuff Reagan gave to Saddam.

No Democratic president did that.

> Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
> President CLINTON: "Good evening.
> Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
> security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
> mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
> programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
>

Vast difference in a targeted, selected strike that was effective with
an invasion that cost us 10 billion dollars a month and costs almost
five thousand American lives and tens of thousands of injured whose
lives are forever damaged

If you want to fight so much for Iraq, then take your chickenshit
chickenhawk cowardly cheerleading ass down to your nearest army
recruting station