[Scape]

[bootlegga]

Reminds me of those cheesy 70s cartoons about how a bill becomes a law!

[JJ]

I don't like the leftist, ahistorical message of the thing, but it's well done.

[Psudo]

Quote:

Reminds me of those cheesy 70s cartoons about how a bill becomes a law!

You're thinking of School House Rock.

[Tiler]

I liked the message, but it's rather... odd in some areas.

Just to take the most obvious bait, when the US supported Saddam, he was a thug, a tyrant, etc, and the US only supported him because the US disliked Iran. True enough.

But when the US deposed him, it didn't depose him because he was a thug, a tyrant, etc., the US deposed him because it wanted... something. Oil, supposivly.

While it's arguably true, it's taking a view that America can do no good. When the US support bad guys, it is bad. When the US opposes bad guys, it's still bad.

[Scape]

Not that 'America' can do no good but if it walks like a duck... in other words a pirate is the same as an emperor just on a grander scale. The US can do good it just needs to stop quacking.

[simjanes2k]

I've been a lurker for a long time, but now I have to pipe up.

I'm very tired of hearing people (European, Canadian, American, alien...) suggest that the United States went to Iraq for oil. Let's all take a look at facts from any source you want. Go find out how much oil the United States has ever taken forcefully from Iraq. Ever.

Most of these ideas seem to be coming from media noticing that the US was very prepared for the changed economy of a democratic (-ish) Iraq, and thinking that a conspiracy existed to prepare a conquering for a decade or so before the invasion.

We don't own their land, we still pay for their oil, we train their soldiers, we send them millions upon millions in humanitarian aid... we DON'T, however, haul off supertankers loaded with oil for our SUVs.

Someone more patient than myself please explain to me what I'm missing.

[Pseudonym]

Perhaps one could rephrase it like this:
Iraq had much greater significance to us because it had oil. If it were viewed as a contributing factor and not the sole reason, then the argument becomes more reasonable and less offensive.

[Zipperfish]

I agree with Pseudonym. It's the whole Persian Gulf / Carter Doctrine thing. And in defence of those of us who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when it turned out that there were no WMDs and no Al Qaeda connection and that the whole thing was based on, at best, incredibly bad intelligence or, at worst, a pack of lies, well--we had to do our own search for other possible motivations to invade.

[simjanes2k]

No WMDs is tough to argue as well, unless you narrowly define WMD.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
(American government link, can google as well as me if you would rather)

There was a history, there were statements by Saddam, and W had intel that he believed indicated a strong probability of weapons sitting around. My brother spent three years in Iraq digging out mines and driving convoys, and he's told me that in 50 years we wouldn't find all the secrets under the sand there.

We may actually get 50 years to find out, too.

[Pseudonym]

simjanes2k wrote:

We may actually get 50 years to find out, too.

Yuck. Don't remind me.

[RafaelShinji]

Sometimes I wonder.

Why can't conservatives do something as catchy and creative? Not that I fully agree with the video but you can't argue that it does bear various facts. Good find.

[Psudo]

RafaelShinji wrote:

Why can't conservatives do something as catchy and creative?

How do you know they haven't? How much time have you spent looking for such a thing?

[RafaelShinji]

To tell you the truth I just stumble upon them.

[Streaker]

Scape wrote:

Great video.