Originally posted by: Fencer128
Maybe I should have said "evidence" as opposed to "proof" - for the reasons you state. What I'm trying to get to is how you came to the decision that it's about oil. I've tried to read around extensively and haven't come to that conclusion. You obviously believe it to be true. I'd like to see the evidence that convinced you and to be sure that you were keeping an open mind when deciding - in case I'm wrong. I don't *think* I'm wrong (though I have been and will be again) on this - maybe you have some information that has eluded me? Basically I want to make sure that this is more than a "conspiracy theory" - that it is grounded in objective evidence.
Cheers,
Andy
Well, some "evidence"
- While building the "coallition", Dubya REJECTED the petition from the countries that were owed money by Iraq to respect those debts. If the interest is in "security and forbidden weapons" making a very little commitment is a very minor step to guarante the figh against "terror" goes smooth.
- On the same line, go a little further. If you need to show CREDIBILITY, was it that hard to say that the current contracts would be RESPECTED? I am pretty sure the heads of state of the involved countries PROPOSED that to dubya in ther meetings prior to the invasion. Why didn't it happen?
Finally, you see the contract given to halliburton without a proper bid process? Some say it is a consequence, but is it that hard to think it was in fact planned to be that way since the beginning...
If you are the strongest, you can do whatever you want, but it doesn;t mean it is RIGHT. As Salvador Allende would say
"To place into the ignominy of history those who have the brute force, but not the reason" If the reason is there, SHOW IT and PROVE it. Iraq and al-quaida connection has not been found, and unless a rusty AK-47 is a WMD, those forbidden devices have NOT been found.