Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
We couldn't move in and 'rebuild' Iraq until Saddam was dead and his government removed.
It's easier to control the relationship between government and business from inside government. He could have remained at Haliburton and allowed someone else to oversee the invasion, but I'm sure Cheney, like myself, believes that if you want a job done right, you do it yourself.
|
This suggests that he needed the Iraq war for his financial gain. This is false. Ironically Haliburton sold goods to Saddam while Chaney was CEO. I think you need another motive.
Quote:
|
Halliburton. Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oilfield equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
|
http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=16168
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pig
ace, as to your last question, that seems to be a rehash of machiavelli, and i hated the prince the first time i read it. if all that happens, that's great. but i disagree that the only way we, or the western world, or the middle-eastern world, or iraq itself, could have brought those changes is via violent destruction as we now have in iraq. this pathway is only the one that we are conditioned to see, implement, and respect.
|
I agree, but the target of my question is with the notion that Bush and Chaney are solely responsible for the consequences of the war. You rightfully called on my question, but you did not call on what prompted my question. Why single me out for logical flaws?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
Last edited by aceventura3; 08-14-2007 at 10:26 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|