America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[Trolldor]

Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Oh bollocks. He seized power on his own. The US tacitly supported him in the 1980s because he was an enemy of an enemy.

I'm pretty Sure the CIA had a hand in his rise in the Ba'athist party, hence 'they placed him there'.

[Trolldor]

I hesitate to ask, for fear of dislodging another avalanche of leftobot propaganda....but what the hell. We only live once, or so the beer commercial confidently declares...so let's get them doggies rolling.

RAWHIDE!

My question is, why do leftobot automatons keep repetitively screaming that the U.S. is taking Iraq's oil, without any evidence? Is there some reason for this, other than inherent dishonesty?

Remember, leftobots. Bald assertions and attribution of motive do not constitute evidence. Ain't you got no evidence?

Leftobots wouldn't be lying to us...would they?



Leftobot: Hey, you oil-sucking Merkins are going to have to do better than that! You missed 80 billion there, you incompetent bastards!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/ ... 6313.shtml

Leftobot: Dammit, you incompetent Merkin thieves! Can't you steal anything right??

http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2010/0 ... s-in-2010/


Come on, you greedy murdering Merkin bastards. The leftobots are counting on you to steal all of Iraq's oil. They've been counting on you all along. It's the centerpiece of their entire propaganda campaign. Their entire worldview. Their entire belief system.

Yeah, sure Saddam was at least a brutal secular illegitimate tyrant, with only a couple million scalps on his belt, who was trying to "modernize" Iraq and had only invaded two countries and gassed a few hundred thousand. But the leftobots need more than "Iraq was better off under Saddam" (nevermind Iran, Kuwait, or the Kurds, or world stability in general - (Jedi hand wave)) . They need to catch the Merkins red-handed in the act of straight up robbing Iraq at gunpoint. That's what is really important. The leftobots need something to counter the brute fact that the U.S. is indeed pulling out of Iraq and leaving behind a liberated Iraq, in full possession of it's own resources, with a legitimate chance to become something the Iraqis can be proud of - the first modern Arab democratic republic - something many leftobots continue to insist the U.S. would never do, even in the face of it happening. Because all A-rabs are inherently inferior and incompetent, you know. Yeah, I know the leftobots don't actually say that, but their meaning is clear when they predict that Iraq will quickly sink into failed-state status as soon as the U.S. finishes pulling out - which they always said the U.S. would never do.

Oh, what a tangled web the leftobots weave, in their ceaseless efforts to deceive...

In short, the leftobots need a brand new bag, not to mention personality transplants. O'Reilly is becoming mystified as to how the "far left loons" continue to cling to any credibility whatsoever. And he has a point. They lie. They lie a lot. And when they're not straight up lying, they're spinning like mutherfuckers. I wouldn't trust a fucking leftobot to take out my garbage. The crooked mutherfucker would be digging around in it, looking for something he could use.

\

Aaaand once again, Opposition to the Iraq War is a conservative, right-wing position.

[Robert_S]

I hesitate to ask, for fear of dislodging another avalanche of leftobot propaganda....but what the hell. We only live once, or so the beer commercial confidently declares...so let's get them doggies rolling.

There might be a noteworthy point in that post, but I couldn't be arsed to look at the word "leftobot" more than twice, so I will forever be without an opinion of the posts actual content.

[Ian]

Suddam was only in power because the US placed him there.

Oh bollocks. He seized power on his own. The US tacitly supported him in the 1980s because he was an enemy of an enemy.

I'm pretty Sure the CIA had a hand in his rise in the Ba'athist party, hence 'they placed him there'.

1) Can you quantify your "pretty sure" theory?
2) Even if you can, so what?

[mistermack]

What the title of this says with irony is that the invasion of Iraq was never anything to do with democracy. The US has no interest in democracy in oil rich countries. It actively supports the bandit dictators in Saudi and Kuwait, democracy there is the last thing it wants. They can control dictators like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, far better than they can a democracy.

They know that their oil supply won't be used as a political weapon, and the money will be invested in the US through shady companies, so that these sheiks will still be billionaires if a revolution comes.

The invasion of Iraq was about one thing only. George Bush. All the rest was incidental.
America got it's big fat ass kicked by some arabs, on 9/11, on the watch of George Bush. How could he possibly win the next election? He had to have a war. One where he could declare victory. Afghanistan was never enough. They just melt away into the hills, you never beat them. So it had to be Iraq.
And Saddam played ball, because he was as stupid as George Bush.

The best bit about Iraq is that they've got oil, so they could be made to pay for their own invasion. That was the clincher.
All it needed was for Saddam to play his part, which he did beautifully. They knew he would probably rather fight than lose face, because losing face would be a death sentence anyway, in the end.

So all those people died to get George W re-elected.
And it worked!!
The americans are so gullible, they can't see when they are being played like a fish.
.

[Ian]

What the title of this says with irony is that the invasion of Iraq was never anything to do with democracy. The US has no interest in democracy in oil rich countries. It actively supports the bandit dictators in Saudi and Kuwait, democracy there is the last thing it wants. They can control dictators like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, far better than they can a democracy.

They know that their oil supply won't be used as a political weapon, and the money will be invested in the US through shady companies, so that these sheiks will still be billionaires if a revolution comes.

The invasion of Iraq was about one thing only. George Bush. All the rest was incidental.
America got it's big fat ass kicked by some arabs, on 9/11, on the watch of George Bush. How could he possibly win the next election? He had to have a war. One where he could declare victory. Afghanistan was never enough. They just melt away into the hills, you never beat them. So it had to be Iraq.
And Saddam played ball, because he was as stupid as George Bush.

The best bit about Iraq is that they've got oil, so they could be made to pay for their own invasion. That was the clincher.
All it needed was for Saddam to play his part, which he did beautifully. They knew he would probably rather fight than lose face, because losing face would be a death sentence anyway, in the end.

So all those people died to get George W re-elected.
And it worked!!
The americans are so gullible, they can't see when they are being played like a fish.
.

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

[Trolldor]

Ok, one example,

If it's bullshit then please let me know, the tone is a little suspect, but it agrees with what I've read elsewhere:

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


Secondly,
What it means is that The CIA helped Suddam rise to power, it armed him through Reagan, Kissinger turned his back on the Kurds who rebelled and Bush Snr left him in power following 1994.
So the US is pretty responsible for Suddam.

[Ian]

Ok, one example,

If it's bullshit then please let me know, the tone is a little suspect, but it agrees with what I've read elsewhere:

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


Secondly,
What it means is that The CIA helped Suddam rise to power, it armed him through Reagan, Kissinger turned his back on the Kurds who rebelled and Bush Snr left him in power following 1994.
So the US is pretty responsible for Suddam.

Sheesh, with your logic the US can be traced back to pretty much anything and everything in the world.

Would you blame the Germans for Stalin's Great Terror in the 1930s? It was they who sent Lenin and his Bolsheviks on that sealed train to St. Petersburg in 1917, after all. So logically, everything bad the USSR ever did can be blamed on Germany.

[Trolldor]

If they

A) Helped him rise to power
B) Armed him with the means to assert that power
C) Twice turned around when they had the chance to depose him.

Then yes.

[Ian]

C'est la vie.

[Trolldor]

What the title of this says with irony is that the invasion of Iraq was never anything to do with democracy. The US has no interest in democracy in oil rich countries. It actively supports the bandit dictators in Saudi and Kuwait, democracy there is the last thing it wants. They can control dictators like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, far better than they can a democracy.

They know that their oil supply won't be used as a political weapon, and the money will be invested in the US through shady companies, so that these sheiks will still be billionaires if a revolution comes.

The invasion of Iraq was about one thing only. George Bush. All the rest was incidental.
America got it's big fat ass kicked by some arabs, on 9/11, on the watch of George Bush. How could he possibly win the next election? He had to have a war. One where he could declare victory. Afghanistan was never enough. They just melt away into the hills, you never beat them. So it had to be Iraq.
And Saddam played ball, because he was as stupid as George Bush.

The best bit about Iraq is that they've got oil, so they could be made to pay for their own invasion. That was the clincher.
All it needed was for Saddam to play his part, which he did beautifully. They knew he would probably rather fight than lose face, because losing face would be a death sentence anyway, in the end.

So all those people died to get George W re-elected.
And it worked!!
The americans are so gullible, they can't see when they are being played like a fish.
.

Yeah, the smart thing to do to recoup their losses is to establish an autonomous democracy which would retain rights to the oil and sign an agreement with that democracy which meant they could be asked to leave at any time and would have to comply.
Played like fish indeed.

[mistermack]

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

How could anyone assume that I meant every single american? You're picking a meaning out of what I wrote that you know perfectly well wasn't there.

I was talking about winning an election. Bush won a strong majority the second time round. He conned enough americans to do that.
.

[Ian]

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

How could anyone assume that I meant every single american? You're picking a meaning out of what I wrote that you know perfectly well wasn't there.

I was talking about winning an election. Bush won a strong majority the second time round. He conned enough americans to do that.
.

I wasn't assuming it. But I was going off what you wrote.

And how do you figure he won a strong majority the 2nd time around? If 3% of Ohio voters picked the other guy in 2004, he would've been a 1-term president.

[sandinista]

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

How could anyone assume that I meant every single american? You're picking a meaning out of what I wrote that you know perfectly well wasn't there.

I was talking about winning an election. Bush won a strong majority the second time round. He conned enough americans to do that.
.

Don't worry about Ian, he can't help himself, just ignore him.

[Ian]

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

How could anyone assume that I meant every single american? You're picking a meaning out of what I wrote that you know perfectly well wasn't there.

I was talking about winning an election. Bush won a strong majority the second time round. He conned enough americans to do that.
.

Don't worry about Ian, he can't help himself, just ignore him.

Yeah, I'm quite the fanatic.