Jump to content

Twenty Years Ago Today--Iraq War Began


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Answer.  

Bretton Woods, the dollar as the reserve currency and profits for the Military industrial complex and the Investors of those companies.  

 

Libya was us and FRANCE. but was supported by IRAN and Russia.  But still wondering where all that physical gold went, as Ghaddafi at the time had one of the largest physical reserves in the world.  Now according to the IMF, they have 0

 

But from WW2, through the moronic wars of the 90's to now. nothing had much to do with The Saudis.  Vietnam?  Korea?  What did Afghanistan have to do with Saudi?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States#20th-century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States#21st-century


Yes the petro dollar. Saddam would still be In power if he hadn’t started trading oil in Euro’s. 
 

That was his cardinal sin against the US. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Answer.  

Bretton Woods, the dollar as the reserve currency and profits for the Military industrial complex and the Investors of those companies.  

 

Libya was us and FRANCE. but was supported by IRAN and Russia.  But still wondering where all that physical gold went, as Ghaddafi at the time had one of the largest physical reserves in the world.  Now according to the IMF, they have 0

 

But from WW2, through the moronic wars of the 90's to now. nothing had much to do with The Saudis.  Vietnam?  Korea?  What did Afghanistan have to do with Saudi?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States#20th-century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States#21st-century

 

My apologies for not being concise - when I mentioned the Saudis - was talking about the reasons behind the Iraq War only. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

 

I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings.

 

At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program.

This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did.

 

In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its'  cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft. 

 

The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire.

 

Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force. 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings.

 

At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program.

This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did.

 

In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its'  cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft. 

 

The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire.

 

Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force. 

 

 

 

Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, Bush did 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings.

 

At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program.

This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did.

 

In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its'  cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft. 

 

The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire.

 

Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force. 

 

 

 

Ironically, from 1980 to 1988, Washington sided with Iraq in their war with Iran.  Then changed their minds to finished off Saddam in the 2nd rendition of the gulf war under Bush 2.  Only to unleash Iran on the rest of the Middle East by removing their natural enemy from the region.  Then turning our attention to contain Iran's regional ambitions and pursuit of nuclear weapons.  All while getting regional "allies" to bulk up on US supplied weapons systems from corporate interests that hire lots of former government and military big-wigs playing some elaborate make-work whack-a-mole project.  This war thing is quite a racket.   

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings.

 

At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program.

This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did.

 

In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its'  cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft. 

 

The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire.

 

Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force. 

 

 

 

similar to now and Ukraine in that regards.

 

the very low estimate has what, 15 K civilians being killed by American/coalition actions in Iraq.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

similar to now and Ukraine in that regards.

 

the very low estimate has what, 15 K civilians being killed by American/coalition actions in Iraq.

 

 

 

Probably should do this as a message, but I would be interested in your many times expressed view that the 9-11 commission report is suspect.

You have stuck that view in unrelated threads before, and I am interested in your view, as you seem rational.

Maybe start a thread.

Sorry for being off topic, and certainly not hostile, but its not the worst that happens here. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Ironically, from 1980 to 1988, Washington sided with Iraq in their war with Iran.  Then changed their minds to finished off Saddam in the 2nd rendition of the gulf war under Bush 2.  

 

You are omitting the defining event.

Saddam invaded and planned on occupying Kuwait, then grossly violated its' ceasefire agreements.

That was what determined our "change our mind" to use your term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

@Irv I bet you were eating the Freedom Fries, huh? 

Bad war/Good war 

 

You can't see the difference, political blinders 

No such thing as a good war. You have the political blinders on to say such a thing. I hate both wars. Keep the same energy with both parties and then maybe we will get somewhere as a country 

Edited by KDIGGZ
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

Probably should do this as a message, but I would be interested in your many times expressed view that the 9-11 commission report is suspect.

You have stuck that view in unrelated threads before, and I am interested in your view, as you seem rational.

Maybe start a thread.

Sorry for being off topic, and certainly not hostile, but its not the worst that happens here. 

 

I think the 911 commission report is suspect cuz they didn't even mention the demolition of building 7 at 5:25 pm.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

Ya. He simply denied them what he had agreed to.

That's kind of "kicking them out."

 

 

 

It's crazy how none of them or that report even mentioned slumberge and a few others doing the first high volume directional drilling that many speculated was going under that border.  But I guess not even mentioning it in the report is just as telling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Probably should do this as a message, but I would be interested in your many times expressed view that the 9-11 commission report is suspect.

You have stuck that view in unrelated threads before, and I am interested in your view, as you seem rational.

Maybe start a thread.

Sorry for being off topic, and certainly not hostile, but its not the worst that happens here. 

 

The 9-11 Commission report is suspect because to this day ,through several presidential administrations, the US government has fought tooth and nail to keep documents and information pertaining to potential Saudi involvement in 9-11 classified.  Even the great party saviors - Trump and Biden - continued to classify that information.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so called bipartisan right wingers on here are completely unable to criticize their own side.  When it's them its oh both parties do that.  When its the other party... "Lock em up".  Pretty predictable.  What is the point of even having a discussion. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dpberr said:

 

My apologies for not being concise - when I mentioned the Saudis - was talking about the reasons behind the Iraq War only. 

So what are you saying, that Big Oil, Bush and the Saudis all planned this up together? 

17 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

No such thing as a good war. You have the political blinders on to say such a thing. I hate both wars. Keep the same energy with both parties and then maybe we will get somewhere as a country 

War is bad, but sometimes its good you fight one. You guys are just upset the good guys are winning this one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

The so called bipartisan right wingers on here are completely unable to criticize their own side.  When it's them its oh both parties do that.  When its the other party... "Lock em up".  Pretty predictable.  What is the point of even having a discussion. 

Most of todays Right wingers, as you call them. are anti establishment GOP.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...