[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Since when is oil in Kuwait our oil?

We get 5% of our oil from there.. While having the 6th largest reserves in the world. It's not our oil but it's in our interest to stay allies with them.

Strategic cooperation between the United States and Kuwait increased in 1987 with the implementation of a maritime protection regime that ensured the freedom of navigation through the Persian Gulf for 11 Kuwaiti tankers that were reflagged with U.S. markings.

Kuwait was the world's 10th largest oil producer in 2012. Despite having the second smallest land area among the OPEC member countries, Kuwait exports the third largest volume of oil.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Since when is oil in Kuwait our oil?

Since it became a vital necessity for the survival of nations and life as we know it.

The Arabs know that the world will act militarily and turn the oil producing regions of the Middle East into World Resource Protectorate Zones if they play around too much.

We could do without Arabs - and their BS - but we definitely must have oil.

We'll take it if things get bad enough.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

That makes zero sense rob. Everyone knew he had those weapons, those weapons were part of the United Nations involvement to disarm Saddam. Those weapons being hidden was a violation of the United Nations mandate to give up All weapons of mass destruction. And proves Saddam was in fact hiding his chemical weapons from the UN.

Aren't you Canadian? Hasn't your government informed you guys that Canada received a huge shipment of yellowcake taken from Iraq. Over 500 metric tons of concentrated uranium from Iraq is sitting in your country.

So there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Bush didn't lie. He just isn't like Obama, putting his own popularity above security.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/

Nope, not quite.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/

Nope, not quite.

factcheck.org??? That's your source? Oh rob

[niknik]

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://theswash.com/liberty/who-fact...-factcheck-org

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

factcheck.org??? That's your source? Oh rob

Ok, then what source would you pick? That uranium was found in 1991

Bush himself wasn't even trying to sell the war based on it

[niknik]

How did we find concentrated uranium in Iraq in 1991? We weren't in Iraq in 1991. It was found in 2003, and our forces guarded it until 2008 when it was shipped to Canada. At this point nobody knows for sure what's came from where. But I know one thing, the UN wasn't guarding shit in Iraq. The UN is an anti American shit hole. I'll put my faith in other agencies. Perhaps Italian intelligence with the Niger uranium forgeries. Or British intelligence with the former Prime Minister of Niger testimony. Not the UN, not Valerie Plame, or her husband Wilson.

And if Bush wasn't selling the war partially because of that then why did he mention the British intelligence and CIA claim that Iraq was trying or did purchase yellowcake from Niger during his State of the Union in 2003?