O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

reply to post by djvexd


Well, I've already talked about this in previous pages. I did not mean forcing them by not allowing dissenting opinion, but rather falsifying information or continuously promoting agendas that have been proven false.

sorry I was surfing through most of the jibberjabber that was going on....I might have missed that.actually all you have to do is look at the U.N. votes on resolutions approx 2 months before the war. IAll of the resolutions put forth by th U.S. included forcable consequences and were unanimously adopted by the general assembly. Although you can argue that the intel shown to this body was false, but then again I say WE supplied IRAQ with chem weapons during the Iran -Iraq war, they used them repeatedly. Are we to blame partially?...yes...but to dismiss it out of hand is ludicrous. Not saying you did..

[edit on 3-5-2008 by djvexd]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by djvexd]

To get to the point of this thread I'm sure Bill would gladly take back his exact wording but I think we need to understand his main point. His main point being that we were enforcing the un's resolutions as well as the intel most of the colition believed saddam had. Saddam brought his own undoing by playing cat and mouse with the international community. I think the same will happen with iran if they dont stop the proxies and the nuclear program. First world nations wont put up with 2nd and 3rd world nations that are agressive toward their neighbors and have wmd capabilities. proliferation is just too great to take that chance. It's like letting the 7 year old bullie next door play with his dads rifle. Just ain't gonna happen.

I agree...however there are quite a few on this site that want everyone to believe that NOONE in this world wants to do harm to anyone else other than the U.S. The only want WMD for thier protection...LMAO

reply to post by Blaine91555

But isn't it "spin" to say that we didn't "invade" Iraq? We did invade during Desert Storm and then invaded again after 9-11. We can call it an "operation or whatever you like, but it's still an invasion. It's still ripping their country apart and destroying whatever sense of order they might have had before in order to impose our will upon them. The fact that the UN was not behind us on our second "invasion" just goes to show the point I'm making here.

Personally, I hate semantic arguments because the concept and the end result are still the same no matter what word we use to designate the war/invasion/incursion/occupation.

Wow! Is about all i can say.

If this guy isn't being influenced to spew the garbage that comes out of his cake-hole...he is seriously demented.

I knew B.O. was a bigtime jack-off, but some of these videos (I've never seen) just take it to a whole new level.

Just, unbelievable. I wish I could say I'm not suprised. But in some small way I am.

You people give O'Reilly too much credit. He is an idiot, racist who obviously doesn't think of what he says when he opens his mouth. It's outrageous that some of you think he is some kind of government employed puppet, its freaking Fox News for crying out loud. Uncalled for, Controversial shows brings in the masses to see the freak show, why do you think Jerry Springer was so popular...

reply to post by jasonhb

Definitely see this happening eventually.....Hopefully Iran takes a good hard look at what happened to Iraq before they play one to many games with the rest of the world.

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by mybigunit
Becky case is closed McCain admitted we are in Iraq cause of oil ....

We're in Iraq because of oil in the sense that if there wasn't oil the region we wouldn't be interested. No oil in Darfur, so we don't care. It's not right, but it's true. But don't think that we went to get free or even cheap oil. Is the oil price so much lower now than it was before? Not last time I went to the pump...
They removed Sadaam b/c Iraq was causing instability in a region that has enough instability already. Now if you want to criticize what we did afterward, I'll be happy to add to your list of complaints.

Umm we are getting free oil from Iraq and our oil companies are selling it for full market value. Let me throw something at you and this does not have to do with Iraq but look at the big oil producers Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran because of this boom all of a sudden their people are happy their infrastructure is being fixed in the arabs case they are coming out of the 17th century I mean these countries have really made out like bandits I think you can agree with me on that. Ok so why have we not made out like bandits. Why does Venuzuela charge their people $.20 for gas and they dont even refine. How are we the 43rd cheapest country for gas but the third oil producer and the number one refiner...do you catch my drift. Make not mistake we are there for oil and that oil is not to benefit us it is to benefit big oil and the Federal Reserve. Sorry to bring the reality check.

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

You specifically said noone thought there was cause for the war. I said several countries with more information than you personally were privy to thought otherwise. Then you said we didn't get a "real" coalition. When I showed a list of countries that did send troops then the debate turned into, "well, we sent more troops." Whether the information ultimately was correct or not, thirty odd countries with intelligence agencies of their own thought there was enough cause to go to war.
You can obfuscate that with troop numbers, but it doesn't really mean anything in my opinion. You can say, "there's more people in the world than just the US" and it doesn't really mean anything in the context of the statement.
Instead of accepting the statement of fact (unless someone thinks there was a conspiracy where none of those countries really sent troops), some people have decided to throw pot shot talking points into the conversation. It has nothing to do with what it is supposedly "countering" and it's annoying.

Im going to agree with you on this one to an extent. The extent is that they are US allies (most of them are weak US allies but still allies none the less) and we told them there was a threat and they listened and sent their 20 troops. Ok they are good allies and they are packing what we are. But then you look at Afganistan where we have to fight with europe to help us out there. So I say to myself are these guys really with us and just there to say eh there that a boy or are they really giving their all. The fact is these countries have armies but their people was against Iraq and that is why they didnt send more. UK aside in Iraq the coalition was really there for the pyscological support but at least they were there.

So on this one I partly agree we did have allies there but they were not there helping us like we helped them in WWII and the way we help them currently in NATO for their dances like Yugoslavia. This is why Ive always said we need to quit policing the world because one day it will backfire and I think the only real people who will help us is the UK.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
LMFAO @ "Shill O'LIEly"...That's a keeper....

Maybe O'LIEly, Scum Hannity and that fat tub of Goo Rush Limbaugh can all start their own professional liars association.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Now there is a well reasoned, mature response.

For a third grader.


reply to post by Sublime620

Originally posted by Sublime620

Again, and for the last time:

There is a difference between opinion and lies.

Opinion:

Liberals are ruining this country. [Though the statement may be false, it is not a bold-faced lie, just an ignorant opinion]

Lie:

Today we have former military official Joe Dirt on. He will be discussing why Iraq is a threat. [Joe Dirt still works for the pentagon. This is a bold-faced lie]


[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

You're stuck in some weird "opinion vs lie" miasma that you think is key. It isn't. You're just confused.

There aren't too many people that owe you the truth in this world, and Bill O'Reilly or Joe Dirt aren't among them. So get over it.

O'Reilly owes you nothing.

reply to post by jsobecky


I only got "stuck" there because some people were too thick to figure it out themselves, so I've had to sit here and explain it around 15 times. Hell, I even had to prove that making lies illegal is constitutional. But hey, no sweat off my back.

Bill O'Reilly is a public figure who gets paid to inform the public. He owes everyone everything (or if not everything, than at least to do his job decently).

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now there is a well reasoned, mature response.

For a third grader.

Sounds like something you'd hear on their shows. I can just hear it now:

O'Reilly: "Shut up. Shut up. Dammit, shut up you tub of goo! We did not invade Iraq, they had WMDs, and they supported terrorism. We won the war and the Iraqis greeted us as friends, until al Qaeda showed up and ruined it!"



[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sublime620]

O'Rielly is a self important blowhard and an idiot... I don't pay attention to a word he says... and if everybody else did the same eventually they will pull the plug on him and the airwaves will be just a little less polluted.

reply to post by grover


That'll never happen.

He's got that Howard Stern status (1/3 watch because they like it, 1/3 watch because they hate it, and 1/3 watch because they want to see what he'll do next).

It's a damn circus.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by jetxnet
Thanks Sublime for pointing out the obvious.

The US committed 140,000, Britain 7000, and the rest of the Coalition about 15 or so.

Sounds alot like WWII doesn't it? The US lead the way again, while countries like France were save from Hitler and company.

Of course we are the leaders of the free world. Things are changing though, I suggest you vote for Ron Paul if you can.

History 101: The rest of the world had already been fighting the fascists for over two years when the United States entered the war after Pearl Harbor. The Europeans had already paid huge sacrifices in manpower, before the US sent one jeep or airplane to aid them in the struggle.

Bush's family however, were not part of the war effort. At least not for the Allies. Bush's family was knee deep in financing the rise to power of Hitler and his Third Reich. Fascism is the Bush family business.

reply to post by _Del_

You specifically said noone thought there was cause for the war. I said several countries with more information than you personally were privy to thought otherwise.

Just because other nations made a token contribution to the invasion force, does not mean that they had any more information than anyone else. Political and financial pressure certainly would have been enough to garner their support. In other words, just because they went along with it, does not mean that they had any more information than anyone else that would have made the case for war.

Then you said we didn't get a "real" coalition. When I showed a list of countries that did send troops then the debate turned into, "well, we sent more troops."

I am fully aware that other nations did in fact send troops, and have been aware of that fact from the start. Is it your argument then that a seven percent overall contribution is an unambiguous show of international support for the invasion of Iraq?

Whether the information ultimately was correct or not, thirty odd countries with intelligence agencies of their own thought there was enough cause to go to war.

What do the intelligence agencies of other nations have to do with this? Did they have intel that has never been made public? Show me the intel from the services of the nations who contributed to the seven percent of the invasion force.

You can obfuscate that with troop numbers, but it doesn't really mean anything in my opinion.

I didn't think so. Then you should also accept that the Nazis were really after one-legged cripples the whole time and not the Jews. You see, numbers do matter.

(unless someone thinks there was a conspiracy where none of those countries really sent troops)

US Puts a Spin on Coalition Numbers

reply to post by mybigunit


The token contribution by other nations to the invasion force is the result of political and economic pressure. Nothing more. And certainly not the result of some secret intel that each contributor uncovered but never decided to share with the world, as Del is trying to assert.

Originally posted by jackinthebox And certainly not the result of some secret intel that each contributor uncovered but never decided to share with the world, as Del is trying to assert.

I'm only asserting that each of those countries have rather bright people working to analyze data, and they all came to the conclusion that the war was worth spilling their own nationality's blood over. You keep asserting that noone believed that.
And more accurately the US employed "bribery" with economic incentives as opposed to "blackmail" as you assert. If you're going to use pejorative for emotional effect, atleast use a correct description of the process.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by _Del_

I'm only asserting that each of those countries have rather bright people working to analyze data, and they all came to the conclusion that the war was worth spilling their own nationality's blood over.

They did not come to that conclusion based on anything but what they were told by the US. So stop trying to invoke some sort of authority where none exists. None of them had any sort of data to be interpreted which was relevant that we were and are not privy to.

Please, I beg you, show me what data these other countries had that their "bright people" analyzed to find the smoking gun.

And more accurately the US employed "bribery" with economic incentives as opposed to "blackmail" as you assert.

We did not "bribe" them. We threatened them. In fact, many of them were sqeezed to contribute funds. Many of them ended up not actually paying what they had stated they would contribute. I wonder why they would do that if this was such a legitimate and noble enterprise?

If you're going to use pejorative for emotional effect, atleast use a correct description of the process.

Nice posturing there.

Too bad you have nothing.


Look, end all be all, most of the world wasn't buying the load of crap that the Bush administration was selling. That is why they were unable to secure a UN resolution to invade. Those that wound up going along with it were obviously pressured. They did not do so out of some interpretation of intel that never existed in the first place.

But don't feel bad you were duped. I was duped too. I really believed at the time, that there was some secret smoking gun that Powell was going to show some people behind closed doors at the UN. When he came out without a resolution to invade, I was pissed off at the UN. I was so confident, in Powell in particular, that I was sure the UN was dead wrong and that we should go it alone if we had to. Of course it turns out that I had confidence in intel that never existed, and wrongly trusted the Bush administration.

[edit on 5/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

So we were all duped, but noone was fooled.. Got it...

We're way OT now and I've been sufficiently shamed by your brilliant use of emoticons that I'll just agree that neither of us will change our minds...