Is this what the "war" is really about?

From "Iraq for Sale"
Why does the "war" in Iraq go on and on?

One reason is that it is immensely profitable for the Bush family and its friends.

These four minutes from the documentary "Iraq for Sale" were specifically banned by from being shown during a Congressional hearing by concerted action from Republican politicians:

[youtube]6cJlJudDtVE[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6cJlJudDtVE

 

Has this video left everyone speechless?

 

I watched it and it seems like a stretch even for you. Are you saying that if our warriors do not get their uniforms cleaned that the terrorists will stop fighting us? Are you saying if they go back to eating MRE's that they may just want to play patty cakes with us now? Maybe you are saying that if we could somehow get all National Guard E-4's to not complain about having to pull guard duty that the world would be a better place. Well you have a point there. I wasn't on a FOB with KBR, but I have been to them and those guys are great.
Oh yes maybe we should give our broken equipment to the enemy like that one person suggested that is a great idea. Maybe if we just showed this video to members of congress everything will be OK they probably do not have any real work to do.

 

Would'nt one think private contractors would be running a more "business" like operation there in Iraq as they would here in the states.Having and unlimited budget sure changes the playing field as far as resourcefulness,efficiency,manpower.

And I guess I can't blame Americans and even US Soldiers questioning why,how and who's benefitting financially from these contracts in Wash.(besides the shareholders of these private firms).

One has to question how much $$ from the recently passed War Fund Bill will actually be spent on re-enforcing our Troops and how much $$ is being spent on Gov't Contracts.
If Wash.has nothing to hide,why not appoint independent watch dog groups or auditors and keep these nesseccesary private contractors in line and on a budget.

 

on a side note, i read a quote yesterday that said something like, 'wars over religion are just people fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.' a comedian said that, can't remember who.

it's a tough call, though. fundamentally i'm anti-war, but i also agree with Machiavelli that they are inevitable. but when do you know to pull out? ideally it would be great to just call it quits today and have our troops take the next flight home, but realistically, who knows what repercussions that would have on Iraq, its people, and the rest of the world. and there is no certainty that staying put is the right thing to do. but, which, then, is the lesser of two evils?

part of me thinks, 'what power happy jerks, they had to go off and start another war just because they could...' and another part of me says, 'well, what's done is done and if we're in it, then we might as well go full force, occupy them with an iron fist, mercilessly crush any resistance, and be done with it.'

humans.

 

I do not like Bush and it makes me sad to think that history will look upon him not as a bumbling idiot, but rather a great visionary that had the foresight to place the US in an excellent strategic position. Of course it probably wasn't really him with the foresight, it was whoever is pulling his strings, but he's going to get the credit.

- In a nutshell - Everyone that thinks this war was about oil is right. But it's not about today's oil, it's about tomorrow's. We're never leaving Iraq. Due to our refusal to develop realistic options for alternative fuels, we have no choice but to follow the oil while we work to find an alternative. We don't know when it will run out, but many of the experts are saying that we're currently at peak production. From this point on, there is only going to be less. And as China continues to grow exponentially, the amount of oil available to the world will shrink faster and faster every day. As the supply begins to get tight, nations will begin to go to war over it and W has strategically placed a base of operations right in the center of the largest reserve on earth....

We do have other bases in the Middle East but we're there because the host countries allow us to be. Who's going to kick us out of Iraq?

It's after 2am and it was a long, hot, humid day. Just reread what I wrote and it sounds coherent to me, but I really should be sleeping right now... I stumbled across this thread and had to get my 2 cents in, sorry if I stepped on any toes. Just a thought to spur discussion.....

 

I wonder if the full version had a 500 dollar toilet seat in it?

Makes an interesting argument. A nice contrast to the political opportunists that claim we don't spend enough money on the war effort.

Geek you have some good material here however you taint it by using the label "Bush and his friends". Haliburton has been a favored contractor a lot longer then Bush has been in office. Haliburton also has ties to Clinton and a certain democratic congresswoman from the great state of California.

I don't know the history of the other contractors mentioned but I'm sure they don't earn lucrative government contracts by polarizing their support from one party.

 

You are right - they probably plant their people in both parties.

 

Everyone I have talked to that was from Iraq is very thankful the Butcher and his murderous sons have been removed, but I do think we need to have an exit plan asap.

Saddam should have been dealt with much sooner, but the UN allowed him to kick the inspectors out, and there were no repercussions, so we did it, right or wrong, our folks are there now, and I support their efforts!

 

Found this declassified National Security Document from late July 1990' concerning meeting our gov't via our ambassador was having with Saddam concerning the Kuwait issue. Thanks to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation for making this communica public.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/0DFD0DDB2BA34EF59F2570CE7EEE03C8.pdf

I think for most it will change nothing but for some it may prove interesting.

 

Didnt watch your movie. War, what is it really about? Its about killing people and destroying things. Iam with Bush on the war, but I dont think he 's gone far enough. We dont fight wars like we used too. Take a look at the Romans, now they kicked some ass. The silly thing I see, is that we take over one of the highest producing oil countries in the world and our gas prices go up(drastically). Why dont we do what the Romans did and take home some of the goodies. What about the spoils of war? Were to worried about what nato thinks. Its a bunch of crap. With most people voting their pocket book. The Republicans would certainly win the up coming 08 election. Bush s poll numbers would go through the roof. And you democrats(with a small "d" for dumb asses). Will let you have some of the cheap gas tooo.

 

Come on now,you have to stop living in the past...warfare isn't the same these days and you know it.You can't just go around killing women and children,you have to kill the enemy.Your statement agrees with some of the critics of this war on oil,ohh or is it war on terror?Originally ,this was supposed to be a war on WMD's.Even if we steal Iraq's oil(as you suggested)The only (R)epublican(capital R for Retards) I fear in 08 is Ron Paul.Your right though,you should'nt worry what NATO thinks,I'd be more concern what the overwelming American majority thinks about 08' elections and your suggestive pilfering of Iraq.And no thx for the Blood red Gas.

 

Warfare isnt the same now, and thats the problem. Tooo many politics. Are the innocent affectted? Yes. Dont you know the cause and affect rule. The fact we did not find wmd s doesnt not mean they didnt have them. Its a big place over there. The spoils of war. Why yes? Lets take the oil. Is it realllllly stealing? And get off your high horse(I see that big gas guzzling hog), you would be the first take the gas at 62 cents a gallon. Why do you make Bush to be the bad guy in this whole thing? Have we ever gone into a conflict with false intelligence? Its easy to be a monday morning QB(thats what most dems do). So your telling me, that before we went into Iraq, you diesel96 was one of the few people that was not taken in by all the facts at the time. You were above all the rest.lmao

 

No different then vietnam. Kennedy got us in, Johnson fumbled the football in every way imaginable and nixon took most of the blame.

Its no wonder we often limit the press in time of war. The press has actually done more to undermine the morale and support of war then our enemy could ever do.

 

Tie...You have some pressing issues!

Beware...conservative press is getting into the act also..but they like to sugar coat negative stories.


http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2...-problem/&frame=true, http://www.netscape.com

 

Do you believe Bill Clinton would have done any different? Not trying to apply the "oh yea your democrat would have done the same" argument but I think Clinton and his staff if still in power would have used the same intelligence and come to the same conclusions. Bill demonstrated he had no reservations when it came to throwing our troops into conflicts around the world. Bill Clinton also gave every indication he believed Iraq was developing nukes ( they had the other types of WMDs) based on the same intelligence he was being supplied. I think you have to rule out the staff distorting the intelligence information argument. Congress has their own unfettered , unfiltered access to intelligence and came up with the same conclusions.

What gives me a chuckle is Obama saying he was against the war. His short career has been spent avoiding the taking of any position or stance on anything. Now he loudly claims he was right all along.Politics at its finest.