SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Philosopher who wrote (6785)2/10/2004 2:51:43 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) of 20773
 
Saddam hadn't used any WMDs in the last dozen years so why did the attack have to happen when it did, and why did the plans never change (except for Turkey's non-participation) from the first warning to the last bomb? This is not the actions of an administration reluctantly thrown into war by necessity.

What is known is that in all of Iraq's oil and oil service contracts there was not a single mention of Halliburton, Bechtel, or Carlyle (or any other U.S. company).
judicialwatch.org
The only way the Americans were going to get a piece of that oil action would be if they took it.

If Saddam had weapons, like Korea, he would never have been attacked. Instead Iraq was mugged because they were weak and had more potential for wealth than weapons.

TP
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News