You know what gets me?

There's no reason sufficiantly proven for us to have invaded Iraq. Yes, "yellow cake" was discovered and removed - but that's just a small portion of a process to develop nuclear weapons - if any. For you would have to build a refinement plant (like N. Korea and now Iran has in operation) to try to get some weapons grade material out of it.

We now have another leader and before he even starts people question nearly everything about this guy.

Just recently they have proven through modern forensics and computer simulations that JFK was killed by a lone gunman.

Yet still to this day they feel there's a conspiracy.

Questioning authority is tantamount to keeping a legit government - look at the old USSR or read Animal Farm by George Orwell for a more simplified version - but wild ***, pointless imaginations and half cooked, baseless speculation is not questioning authority - it's lunatic rantings from the fringe.

Oil is currently a precious commodity and like gold and other such things, they seem to be the driving force for most conflict - not counting religious belief systems - and Iraq seems to be no different.

Don't know about Pearl Harbor being bombed, but yes, there was an embargo or sorts against Japan.

Unfortunately, our leaders are not omnipotent, nor are they infallible. But pointing fingers and laying blame prior to a leader's chance to lead is plain idiotic, senseless and pointless to any discussion.

At one point GW Bush had an excellent rating in the aftermath of 9/11 and now some are saying that he and Cheney orchestrated it so they could have a shot at wiping out Iraq and get a foothold in the Middle East.

Again, crackpot musings from retards watching YouTube videos putting 2 and 2 together to get -1.89.

AutoUnion - there's a principle called Occam's Razor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Read it - things are no where as complicated as you think they are.

 

I will gladly tell you my educational status even though I was mocked for stating it in another thread. I am in a physics graduate program and study nanotechnology. So I am educated and maybe intelligent but have only taken one or two college classes on US history, totally by chioce. However, I studied US history in high school and have been interested in WWII since I was a child.

But I never said that the Japan argument doesnt make sense. I said it does not support your agrument that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. But Pearl Harbor was about a lot more than oil. I read an interesting book (the title escapes me) that was based upon accounts of Japanese officials who were in charge during WW2. Japan was invading defenseless nations right and left for the purpose of gathering as many natural resources as possible. They wanted to expand their imperial nation and needed new sources to do so. The US did its best to prevent the voilent expansion without engaging in war. The Japanese were highly concerned over the US naval presence in the region and decided to knock it out before it became a major obstacle to their intentions.

By far a different story than what is happening in Iraq. I dont doubt that there is some validity to what you say but more proof about the motivation of current affairs would be helpful.

 

Palindari - that formula you speak of is called science, I am familar

 

The Gulf War had a lot to do with the security of the oil supplies in the region which has a lot to do with the stability of global economics. We can say that is all about oil and we can blame people (if that is what you are doing) for trying to protect oil supplies. Germany invaded a lot of places for oil and so did Japan. But they did it so they could continue to wage war. You cant use these examples to explain why the US started a war for the sole purpose of oil.

 

Yes, it's a principle of science, mate. Perhaps you need apply it to most of the arguments here?

 

Back to Occam's razor. Somewhat of a digression but it deserves some discussion. Occam's razor is very familar to the scientific world. It is used to combat philosophies such as solipsism. People may say that the world is exactly what we observe it to be, but really it is only a dream inside of my head. The dream part does not help explain anything and therefore is unecessary and should be ignored.

 

When the first Gulf War occurred - the whole region was worried that we would stay and set up large bases like Germany and Japan.

But GHW Bush said he was there to simply push Saddam out of Kuwait - that's why we stopped chasing him. That's following a diplomatic policy and gaining respect in the region.

But still, most during that time were screaming foul here in the US as to why we didn't just run it all the way to Baghdad.

Guess GW was one of those that did and took his shot.

 

Palindari - you can assert that I stand on a mound of assumptions or you can tell me which ones you think are inaccurate.

 

Precisely!!!

All these "conspiracy theories" are just that! Pipe dreams.

Unfortunately, when they are broadcasted acrossed the Internet they are misconstrued as fact and gain traction.

 

where is this thread going?