Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Why did Bush attack Iraq ???

by Bob / October 9, 2004 5:47 AM PDT

Now that the three reaons for attacking Iraq given by Bush have been proven false what was the reason for invading Iraq? Do you suppose that the original reason given by sceptics of the need for the attack was legitimate after all? OIL! OIL! No WMD! No legitimate fear of an attack by Saddam! He was not connected to Al Quaeda! Will one of you Fantasy Philosophers please suggest a reason so that I will not have to believe that the 1000+ lives were not lost for nothing more than a money-making scheme by greedy men. OIL!! Were not Bush and Cheney connected to the OIL industry before coming into Public Service or is their service for the public. Please give me some hope for a sane reason for an insane action.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Why did Bush attack Iraq ???
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Why did Bush attack Iraq ???
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) when you get tired of beating your dead horse post back
by Mark5019 / October 9, 2004 6:45 AM PDT
Collapse -
hindsight...
by dirtyrich / October 9, 2004 10:56 AM PDT

You seem to be the exception to the 20/20 hindsight rule... yours must be about 20/500.
We had lots of reasons to go into Iraq, but your insistance leads me to believe that trying to convince you of it would not be successful.
I'm going to go explain Descartes to my dog now...

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) 'I wag my tail, therefore I am'?
by Paul C / October 9, 2004 11:05 AM PDT
In reply to: hindsight...
Collapse -
Re: (NT) 'I wag my tail, therefore I am'?
by Bob / October 9, 2004 2:13 PM PDT

"Beat a dead horse". "Wag my tail" and something about my vision being 20/500. These are supposed to be reasonable responses to a serious question that will make the deaths of 1000+ American soldiers seem justified and necessary?

Collapse -
Re: allow me to quote you for the answer
by jonah jones / October 9, 2004 4:31 PM PDT

#Now that the three reaons for attacking Iraq given by Bush have been proven false#

i.e. there WERE three reasons...they have been proven (maybe) false AFTER the act...

.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.