They were warned

bush_cheney2004 · April 16, 2007

I don't see United States anywhere in that list. However, I do see some United States 'interests' in that list. Big difference.

I don't see UK or Australia or Poland either. Same difference.

B. Max · April 16, 2007

Iraq is one part of the war on terror.

That's a very vauge statement. Either Iraq was a threat or it was not. If you agree it was not a threat, then you probably agree with the rest of my post above.

Of course it was a threat. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism.

B. Max · April 16, 2007

I don't see how the DEMS are at fault here. The Democrats did not approve of the 2003 tax cuts. The senate and congress was by majority, Republican.
The Dems are saying the tax cuts BUSH made, may need to expire.

Bush has said they need to be permanent. If the dems raise taxes like this the economy will take a big hit. I think that people are starting to realize they made a big mistake and this will likely be their last trip to the trough for a while.

bush_cheney2004 · April 16, 2007

Of course it was a threat. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism.

Exactly...the same critics declared that the USA made Saddam a threat in the 1980's....they can't have it both ways.

Guthrie · April 16, 2007

Fascists love to peddle fear. Fear of Jews, fear of Blacks, fear of commies, fear of Arabs or fear of anyone they consider an enemy. Making enemies is the second love of fascists.

B. Max · April 16, 2007

Fascists love to peddle fear. Fear of Jews, fear of Blacks, fear of commies, fear of Arabs or fear of anyone they consider an enemy. Making enemies is the second love of fascists.

You forgot climate alarmists.

Guthrie · April 16, 2007

Fascists love to peddle fear. Fear of Jews, fear of Blacks, fear of commies, fear of Arabs or fear of anyone they consider an enemy. Making enemies is the second love of fascists.

You forgot climate alarmists.

yes, I forgot, fascists are quite willing to consider scientists enemies - hence the Buschistas attempts to suppress science in the name of political expediency and loyalty to deep pocket supporters

newbie · April 16, 2007

Well, let's get more specific. No one was in Iraq to take Saddam out before Bushy.

False....Operation Desert Fox was executed in 1998 specifically to decapitate Saddam's regime. CIA and Special Forces targeted Saddam before Bush was elected.

I think you're missing the overall point. Bush spent billions (and rising) in his Iraq war. That's why there is a shortfall in the U.S. We all know there was absolutely no imminent threat and war was totally unneccesary. The only people to profit from it are companies like Haliburton and weapons manufacturers. And as far as "they were warned" BS the majority of Americans are totally against this war and Bush's failed policy. link

B. Max · April 16, 2007

yes, I forgot, fascists are quite willing to consider scientists enemies - hence the Buschistas attempts to suppress science in the name of political expediency and loyalty to deep pocket supporters

Yeah taxpayer pockets. The only ones suppressing real science are the government trough sucking so-called scientists. Who promote junk science and do the bidding of their masters at the cesspool of marxist corruption.

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/04/...033755-sun.html

bush_cheney2004 · April 16, 2007

I think you're missing the overall point. Bush spent billions (and rising) in his Iraq war. That's why there is a shortfall in the U.S. We all know there was absolutely no imminent threat and war was totally unneccesary. The only people to profit from it are companies like Haliburton and weapons manufacturers. And as far as "they were warned" BS the majority of Americans are totally against this war and Bush's failed policy. link

And I think you have ignored the obvious....US economic growth with war and tax cuts. See "Vietnam War". Canada made a bundle then too!

The war in Iraq had more domestic support than Gulf War I or Kosovo. Support (and opinion) from Canada, where a balanced budget is worshipped, is irrelevant.

PolyNewbie · April 17, 2007

If everyone could learn about what the monetary Reform movement is then this problem could almost go away completely. Imagine if you didn't have to pay income tax. You should not have to pay income tax and if that were the case the country could easily afford this and decide if its necessary instead of unanswerable private bankers making the decisions while an uninformed public pays the tax.

Money As Debt 47 minute cartoon explains this

Now if everyone could take 47 minutes and watch this video we could all be far better off.

Shakeyhands · April 17, 2007

Another reason the left should never have their hands on the levers of power.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...2713.shtml?s=lh

I think its funny that you think this is a credible news source. Please, please find some other media outlet (ANY!!!) to quote and reference. Its so darn difficult to take anything from NewsMax seriously... seriously.

GostHacked · April 17, 2007

I don't see UK or Australia or Poland either. Same difference.

bush_cheney2004

Well the thing you were trying to get at was how much of a threat Iraq was to the United States. The list you showed did not have the US. So it is more of a threat to United States 'interests' and not a threat to the US itself. So there is a big difference. You failed to see that.

B.Max

Of course it was a threat. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism.

However the two were exclusive to each other. Nine Eleven was a terrorist act, that I can 100% agree on. But did Iraq have anything to do with it? It has been proven that there were NO links between Al-Queada (you know,,those guys that claimed they did it?) and Iraq. Correct me please if I am wrong, but I did not see one Iraqi name among those terrorists who committed 9/11. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Exactly...the same critics declared that the USA made Saddam a threat in the 1980's....they can't have it both ways.

Someone should have let the Republicans in on this important information. They might have just said NO to the war. Saddam was not even a threat back in the 80's. He was the US's Middle East Bastard. The US played a part in the Iraq-Iran war. Good chance they fueled it (no I cannot prove it yet) through the Shah and other tactics. Saddam was not a threat in the 80's and he was not a threat to the United States at anytime.

B. Max · April 17, 2007

Another reason the left should never have their hands on the levers of power.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...2713.shtml?s=lh

I think its funny that you think this is a credible news source. Please, please find some other media outlet (ANY!!!) to quote and reference. Its so darn difficult to take anything from NewsMax seriously... seriously.

This is a credible source. One of the best.

gc1765 · April 17, 2007

It's not just oil...it's one stop shopping for a host of geopolitical things and all the trimmings too. Who is benefitting? Hmmmmm....let's see....CANADA!
Gas is still cheaper than Diet Coke.

Geopolitical? How does having a presence in the middle east help the Americans? How are Canadians benefitting?

Gas is also still cheaper than bottled water, but I don't see how that helps out Americans who are paying hundreds of billions for this war. Gas would still be cheaper than bottled water without the war.

gc1765 · April 17, 2007

Of course it was a threat. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism.

Nice try linking the two. There are people on this board who support racism. Lynching is an act of racism. Therefore posters on this board are a threat.

bush_cheney2004 · April 17, 2007

bush_cheney2004
Well the thing you were trying to get at was how much of a threat Iraq was to the United States. The list you showed did not have the US. So it is more of a threat to United States 'interests' and not a threat to the US itself. So there is a big difference. You failed to see that.

No, you failed to understand that threats to the US and its interests are one and the same. Why did Canadians attack and sanction Iraq? Did Iraq threaten Canada?

Did Serbs threaten Canada?

Did Afghans threaten Canada?

Did Haitians threaten Canada?

bush_cheney2004 · April 17, 2007

Geopolitical? How does having a presence in the middle east help the Americans? How are Canadians benefitting?
Gas is also still cheaper than bottled water, but I don't see how that helps out Americans who are paying hundreds of billions for this war. Gas would still be cheaper than bottled water without the war.

See "Carter Doctrine"....yes, that Carter, Man of Peace, Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Canada benefits at the Alberta oil patch as # 1 crude supplier...Iron Horse Oil & Gas in Iraq ....LAV III production ....other military contracts...etc., etc....just as it always has.

If gas would still be cheaper, then why did you ask about the impact of war costs on Americans?

gc1765 · April 17, 2007

See "Carter Doctrine"....yes, that Carter, Man of Peace, Nobel Peace Prize winner.

The cold war is over. You could argue that Iraq was a threat to the region, but you have already stated that the Iraq war was not about helping people in that region (ie helping them by preventing an attack from Saddam).

Canada benefits at the Alberta oil patch as # 1 crude supplier...Iron Horse Oil & Gas in Iraq ....LAV III production ....other military contracts...etc., etc....just as it always has.

Someone has to pay for those military contracts. It might benefit Canadians, but only at the expense of Americans.

If gas would still be cheaper, then why did you ask about the impact of war costs on Americans?

Huh? You are trying to claim that Americans are benefitting financially by the war in Iraq, through oil. How is oil in Iraq helping Americans financially if Americans are paying more for it, as well as paying the $400 billion for the war?

B. Max · April 17, 2007

Of course it was a threat. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. 911 was an act of terrorism.

Nice try linking the two. There are people on this board who support racism. Lynching is an act of racism. Therefore posters on this board are a threat.

Nice spin. But it is apples and oranges.

gc1765 · April 17, 2007

Nice spin. But it is apples and oranges.

Since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...perhaps you could explain how Iraq was a threat without brining up 9/11?

Guthrie · April 17, 2007

Nice spin. But it is apples and oranges.

Since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...perhaps you could explain how Iraq was a threat without brining up 9/11?

Iraq has become a threat now but only in that it is turning into a great practical training ground for terrorists. The threat from Iraq will begin to dissipate as soon as American troops pull out. That is, to say, the Buschistas have this issue exactly backwards. Of course, for them it is a status quo position, 'backwards.'

B. Max · April 17, 2007

Nice spin. But it is apples and oranges.

Since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...perhaps you could explain how Iraq was a threat without brining up 9/11?

Iraq was a threat to everyone. They were trying to restart there weapons program, Saddam call for killing Americans many times, he was funding terrorists we know that. He had to go, but more than that it gave us something we didn't have, and needed. A second front. Another battlefield to split their forces, a draw for terrorists, and it has worked. This war, didn't start with Iraq, it started a long time ago. Iraq is not the war, it is just one battle in war that is going to continue for some time yet.

gc1765 · April 17, 2007

Iraq was a threat to everyone. They were trying to restart there weapons program,

Even if they were (which they weren't) does that automatically make them a threat to the United States? Is America a threat because it has a heck of a lot more weapons than Iraq?

Saddam call for killing Americans many times, he was funding terrorists we know that.

Saddam did not kill a single American, nor did he fund anyone who killed Americans.

Another battlefield to split their forces, a draw for terrorists, and it has worked. This war, didn't start with Iraq, it started a long time ago. Iraq is not the war, it is just one battle in war that is going to continue for some time yet.

The old "fight the terrorists there so we dont' have to fight them here"? How does a presence in Iraq prevent terrorism from happening in the U.S.? Iraq has only created more so-called "terrorists" (ie insurgents), it has not made Americans safer.

bush_cheney2004 · April 17, 2007

The cold war is over. You could argue that Iraq was a threat to the region, but you have already stated that the Iraq war was not about helping people in that region (ie helping them by preventing an attack from Saddam).

Helping people? What are you talking about? The USA helps itself....with or without a raging "Cold War". The Carter Doctrine declared that the Persian Gulf was off limits to not only the FSU, but ANYBODY who dared to threaten US interests in the region. It has been true for US administrations and closest ally UK since WW2.

Someone has to pay for those military contracts. It might benefit Canadians, but only at the expense of Americans.

I answered the question. Please send more LAV III's, depleted uranium, and Apache transmissions. We will send money in return.

Huh? You are trying to claim that Americans are benefitting financially by the war in Iraq, through oil. How is oil in Iraq helping Americans financially if Americans are paying more for it, as well as paying the $400 billion for the war?

See the 1970's era oil embargo, inflation, and 21% interest rates.