- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: RP: Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:45 pm to MJM
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:45 pm to MJM
quote:
That's going to pale in comparison to him having to explain to republicans how the thinks that the former repub VP is a war criminal
I'm of the opinion that Rand is doing everything right leading up to 2016 and the old guard GOP will either have to play along with him or be exposed.
I'm also of the opinion that Cheney's motivation for going into Iraq cannot be limited to Halliburton's corporate welfare.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:15 pm to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
I'm also of the opinion that Cheney's motivation for going into Iraq cannot be limited to Halliburton's corporate welfare.
True, but it's not like any of the other motivations would be mitigating factors at all
- Love of war
- Hatered of Saddam
- Revenge on Saddam for assasination plot
- Wanting to control another country because the current leader used chemical warfare on his own citizens and we hate the current leader
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:19 pm to MJM
quote:And he doesn't even appear in the HBO doc about Cheney and Iraq. Unfrickingbelievable.
Wolfowitz used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Israel
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:20 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
1) There was the 9/11 attacks
No. You are way smarter then this. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, except that Bush wanted to kick someone's arse.
quote:
2) There was a cease fire agreement (surrender) by Saddam that was being violated and the inspection service for WMD was being thwarted.
Uh no, as it has been proven, there were no WMD, and given that the NSA can read my email I am pretty sure we knew damn well he didn't have any.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:22 pm to ironsides
quote:
True, but it's not like any of the other motivations would be mitigating factors at all - Love of war - Hatered of Saddam - Revenge on Saddam for assasination plot - Wanting to control another country because the current leader used chemical warfare on his own citizens and we hate the current leader
All of those may have been factors as well as a sincere belief Saddam was harboring WMD's and the known fact that he was discarding UN resolutions.
Thinking it was to benefit Halliburton only is misguided IMO.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:35 pm to MJM
Tribal Chief Dick couldn't have done this alone...could he?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:42 pm to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
Thinking it was to benefit Halliburton only is misguided IMO.
You're right. It was just one objective in their Project For The New American Century.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:48 pm to Erin Go Bragh
Rand is doing everything right to represent people's views and beliefs.
He is gonna have a tough battle against the big money cronies who will dump millions to other candidates to try and destroy him. His counter attack to enable his victory will depend on his fund raising abilities. If he can find himself through grassroots donations to stay in the spotlight then he can win
He is gonna have a tough battle against the big money cronies who will dump millions to other candidates to try and destroy him. His counter attack to enable his victory will depend on his fund raising abilities. If he can find himself through grassroots donations to stay in the spotlight then he can win
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:55 pm to Porky
While I don't support and have never supported the "nation building", I do think that we should be proactive in all things that can benefit or harm the US, short of war.
The old adage, "I like you but I love me" is very applicable.
For instance, the US was involved in giving money and assisting in security in Azerbaijan while the US was in Iraq. The underlying reason was for oil and development of a pipeline that would benefit the US and harm Russia.
They also attempted to influence the culture in Azerbaijan away from a ME or Russian culture to a more Western culture.
I think that is smart.
We live in a world in which everyone looks out for themselves. We should use our resources to do the same.
As to Cheney and Halliburton, Clinton had no problems with reducing military function and using the Halliburton's of the world to fill voids with the vast resources. When war broke out, because Clinton had reduced the resources so vastly, it necessitated contracting Halliburton, Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc., to fill voids.
That is not to say that money was not funneled to organizations that were GOP friendly...because that was certainly the case.
This is complicated stuff and you have men at the top, no matter the party, that look out for themselves first, then their buddies, then their country.
It just so happens that many times, what is best for the country (like cornering global minerals rights and movement) is best for themselves, their buddies and their collective pockets.
The old adage, "I like you but I love me" is very applicable.
For instance, the US was involved in giving money and assisting in security in Azerbaijan while the US was in Iraq. The underlying reason was for oil and development of a pipeline that would benefit the US and harm Russia.
They also attempted to influence the culture in Azerbaijan away from a ME or Russian culture to a more Western culture.
I think that is smart.
We live in a world in which everyone looks out for themselves. We should use our resources to do the same.
As to Cheney and Halliburton, Clinton had no problems with reducing military function and using the Halliburton's of the world to fill voids with the vast resources. When war broke out, because Clinton had reduced the resources so vastly, it necessitated contracting Halliburton, Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc., to fill voids.
That is not to say that money was not funneled to organizations that were GOP friendly...because that was certainly the case.
This is complicated stuff and you have men at the top, no matter the party, that look out for themselves first, then their buddies, then their country.
It just so happens that many times, what is best for the country (like cornering global minerals rights and movement) is best for themselves, their buddies and their collective pockets.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:55 pm to deltaland
Rand has no chance. Won't make it through the primaries.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:07 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
Clinton had no problems with reducing military function and using the Halliburton's of the world to fill voids with the vast resources. When war broke out, because Clinton had reduced the resources so vastly, it necessitated contracting Halliburton, Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc., to fill voids.
I bet those folks in Benghazi would have appreciated seeing some Blackwater guys show up before 9/11 18 months ago...
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:10 pm to JuiceTerry
If Rand or Scott Walker, should he run, fail to secure the nomination I may have to concede the GOP is doomed and the people of this country are doomed to the status quo.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:13 pm to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
harboring WMD's and the known fact that he was discarding UN resolutions.
So, we invading Israel next?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:15 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
While I don't support and have never supported the "nation building", I do think that we should be proactive in all things that can benefit or harm the US, short of war.
I agree. But I believe there are better ways to achieve this goal other than stirring up hatred in foreign countries and padding the pockets of government contractors in the process. It doesn't curb inflation. And it doesn't help the average American citizen. It's about big corporate control on the global level.
quote:
We live in a world in which everyone looks out for themselves. We should use our resources to do the same.
We can achieve this by cleaning our own house in the metaphorical sense. We could then work on alternative energy sources other than ME oil. We need to stop trying to control the world. Our own economy and infrastructure would benefit.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:15 pm to Porky
quote:
We can achieve this by cleaning our own house in the metaphorical sense. We could then work on alternative energy sources other than ME oil. We need to stop trying to control the world. Our own economy and infrastructure would benefit.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:18 pm to MJM
quote:
quote:
It’s Dick Cheney in 1995 being interviewed on why they didn’t go into Baghdad the first time under the first [President] George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There’d be a civil war. There’d be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.
As Corn points out, there have long been suspicions that Dick Cheney used the post-9/11 war on Iraq as a way to thank Halliburton for making him a very wealthy man after stepping down as Secretary of Defense under former President George H.W. Bush.
I don't care for Cheney's foreign policy views or his efforts to strengthen the Presidency, but I think looking at his career and life it's clear that:
A. He's a patriot in the negative and positive sense - first and foremost. He has always believed in a muscular and engaged US.
B. I'm sure he had vastly different views during Gulf War I than he did 5 years later and post-the most significant terrorist attack in American history that saw the WTC demolished in the middle of NYC and over 2000 people killed.
People who believe Cheney engineered the Iraq invasion for $$$ and not foreign policy reasons are the same people who believe the WTC attacks were staged or in the petrodollar. And confuse coincidence for connection.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:26 pm to cwill
And for the love of god, can we one day have a free-market libertarian run for President that doesn't have some fruit-loop conspiracy theory nonsense attached to them????
I'm still going to vote for him, but frick.
I'm still going to vote for him, but frick.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News