18th June 2010, 1:27 AM
I'm actually against the silly amounts of money from big lobbies that get tossed around too.
That said, you can't fling around accusations without some evidence to back them up. That's all. All that's been listed so far is pure circumstantial.
If you want a "why", it's all about the evidence. I'm not married to the idea they didn't do it "for oil". I just need evidence. If you're willing to abandon evidence in favor of sheer circumstance, you end up being able to convict anyone of anything. Until shown otherwise, there's more than enough already demonstrated reasons for him to have invaded (not good ones mind you) that one doesn't need to posit extras without proof. It's just Occam's razor.
That said, you can't fling around accusations without some evidence to back them up. That's all. All that's been listed so far is pure circumstantial.
If you want a "why", it's all about the evidence. I'm not married to the idea they didn't do it "for oil". I just need evidence. If you're willing to abandon evidence in favor of sheer circumstance, you end up being able to convict anyone of anything. Until shown otherwise, there's more than enough already demonstrated reasons for him to have invaded (not good ones mind you) that one doesn't need to posit extras without proof. It's just Occam's razor.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)