How many open-minded liberals believe that Iraq was a false flag operation?

to where Bush used the military in order to obtain oil but are not open to believe that man-made global warming....I mean, ';Climate Change'; could have been created under false data in order to push a political agenda?How many open-minded liberals believe that Iraq was a false flag operation?
The difference, that you obviously don't like, is that W. used the US military to avenge Saddam's still being in power, when his daddy was not.


It's going to take several decades before history books recognize this, but it's true.


All of those that forced the country into war with Iraq were left over Bush-1 folks.





Contrast that with:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_P鈥?/a>





%26lt;%26lt;(The) Northwestern Passages ... was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903鈥?906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.%26gt;%26gt;





That's not made up, it's what's happening.








Edit: %26lt;%26lt;On another note, guy who says that the Democrats were fooled, what makes you think that they wouldn't be fooled into believing in something made up like man-made global warming?%26gt;%26gt;





See, that's the problem.


Global warming is science.


Going to war with Iraq is politics.


There are just too many folks who seem unable to differentiate the two.How many open-minded liberals believe that Iraq was a false flag operation?
Although 'False Flag' refers to operations which are designed to mislead witnesses and investigators as to the real perpetrators I do certainly believe there were covert objectives for the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.





There are several reasons for US belligerence and here are a few of the main ones:





Firstly the Capitalist Profit system under which the world suffers is a chaotic and brutal method to live by. So from that which is so primitive and base we see a predictable fruit of unbridled aggression and the oppression of the majority of Humanity to prop up the privileged power elite. It is essential for a system based on class distinction to not only exploit the masses but ensure that they remain in their place; under-foot and unrepresented. Therefore the international ruling class have since their formation repressed any society (including their own) or group which exhibited any sign of workers democratic representation (Socialism). They destabilise any nation that dares to step out of line, fund brutal dictatorships to overthrow and replace democratically elected presidents, then form cordial relationships with the victorious henchmen: Pinochet in Chile, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, etc., etc.





A second reason distinctive for Iraq are its reserves of Oil, which America sees as essential components of its future (environmentally friendly?) economy, even if they do belong to a far away people. The establishment of local military bases to guard and ensure these oil reserves are available to America and its closest allies in the coming period, (as opposed to other superpowers) was the real, covert agenda beneath its pretext of 'liberation' or 'eradication of WMDs'.





Last but not least War is a very profitable enterprise, as can be seen from the rich tapestry of corporations and tax-free subsidiaries with their snouts in the bloody trough of the war profiteer. Often the very politicians involved in creating the wars are making rich picking off the deaths of their countrymen who elected them, before dying in conflict. Former 'Secretary of Defence' Dick Cheney is a shameless example. He slid like a well oiled eel from his 89 - 93 government position with Bush senior into a $44 million post with Haliburton over the next 5 years, before returning to the dynastic appointment of 'Vice President' for the 'United States' ensuring military logistics were privatised and that lucrative reconstruction contracts were ring-fenced for Haliburton so his personal assets in the corporation sprang from $241,498 to a value of over $8 million.





Consider also the Power held by the oil producing industrialists, who's influence pervades every aspect of the modern world.


Last week's virtual incursion into the UK's Hadley climate research unit was undoubtedly a strike instigated by this nefarious elite. The hackers grabbed 1000s of documents yet chose to cherry-pick the most sensitive for the purposes of creating maximum damage and to undermine existing scientific consensus on man-made global warming, before the climate talks in Copenhagen
The Dems were suckered into believing Al Queida was there. There were none to be found.





You have to think of the Republican Party's mind set. War is extremely profitable.





Bush should have kept Saddam alive and threatened to reinstall him as president if the Iraqi people didn't quickly put together a viable government. Had he of done so we would have been out of there a long time ago.
You can try %26amp; attack liberals but that war %26amp; going into Afghanistan was all about trying to get control %26amp; dominance over the middle east oil.





All of the money %26amp; lives lost and it doesn't bother you and what you are comparing it too is ludicrous.
I think you need to look up the definition of ';false flag.';





Was the war in Iraq started based on lies and cherry picked 15 year old intel? Yes. Even Colin Powell admits that much.
Sure... anything is possible. But, it sure is interesting how the best ';intel'; we have goes directly against the Republican stance, with regards to both of these scenarios
Im not a liberal..democrat..etc..but a Lt Col told ME that the reason they are in Iraq is because of OIL...not weapons of ';mass destruction'; or any other bullchit..IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL!
daddy Bush didnt invade
We in the UK are currently holding an independent inquiry into why we went to iraq so will soon find out the truth
I don't think you know what a false flag operation is.
I'm a pretty open minded liberal but I find it hard to believe that some other country is tricking us into thinking that we actually attacked Iraq when actually they did. I mean, that's a pretty good trick....it's still working even.....so I'm not ';that'; open-minded and maybe the question doesn't even apply to me.





It makes me wonder about the cognitive abilities though of those who are so open-minded that they are willing to accept an argument regarding climate change so devoutly despite the fact that both sides of the argument are aligned with clear political agendas. In fact, the argument that climate change is not affected by man might even have the more obvious political agenda attached to it. A close minded liberal might say people who accept scientific evidence that global warming is not occurring or is not affected by man are similarly naive and are not considering the source of said data.





Open-mindedness is tricky I think. I use mine to determine what possibilities might exist before making a determination, but ultimately it's about the consideration that there may not be one simple correct answer. It seems to me very possible that man-made pollution might have an adverse affect on our climate, therefore I'm willing to accept that a certain political agenda may benefit vicariously from policy decisions made to address this issue. Just think how many wars wouldn't have been fought if everyone was all worried about who would benefit politically!
You need to read the Iraq war resolution.


It lists all the reasons we had to go to war.


both houses of congress passed this bill authorizing the war.


It had overwhelming bipartisan support Democrat and Republican.


Source(s):


http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq鈥?/a>





DEMS VOTED FOR IT....you can't rewrite history folks!