by Xander 4 Replies latest social current
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared to support that premise Tuesday, saying a possible reason that Iraqi chemical and biological weapons have not been found was that Saddam's government had destroyed them before the conflict.
Link here.
Certainly interesting implications, if true.
So, what, we invade other countries even if they DO follow all UN resolutions, but fail to file the proper paperwork?
But, the war's not about oil, though, right?
Nope, it's definitely not about oil. Think it through.
Do the math: It would take fifteen years at maximum oil capacity (after spending 30 billion in upgrades to achieve this) just to pay for the war, let alone, doing it for oil.
Also, Iraq was in material breach for other violations including the act or omission in cooperating with the Un inspectors.
It would take fifteen years at maximum oil capacity (after spending 30 billion in upgrades to achieve this) just to pay for the war, let alone, doing it for oil.
Indeed, and you think the Bush family, let alone the US, plans on not existing 15 years from now?
Nations regularly take actions not expecting an immediate benefit. The US wanted a stake in the region of the world's largest oil reserves, and now the US has a piece of land there. Coincedence?
Also, Iraq was in material breach for other violations including the act or omission in cooperating with the Un inspectors
Been through this already:
Bump for those who haven't seen it.
(It seems especially appropriate in view of this thread)
