Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In PVS's sig he has a quote (I hope that he doesn't mind if I borrow it here) which reads:


And that really got me thinking. Then I thought about how originally G.W. went into Iraq for the following reasons:

-Get Saddam out of power because he was a military threat to the U.S.
-Get Saddam out of power because of his connections to Al Queda
-Get rid Of Sadam's WMD's that they KNOW he had

We now find out that:
-Saddam was absolutely no strategic or military threat to the US
-Saddam had no connections with Al Queda and that Bin Laden and Saddy actual disliked each other immensely
- That Saddam had NO WMD's at all (which upon further investigation was obvious to almost every other intelligence agency other than the U.S.'s

So he America went to war (and is currently stuck there) for a bunch of reason's that obviously were incredibly misguided (if not completely fabricated). Yet Bush has justified it by now saying that it was all about taking Saddam out of power and instilling a democracy while claiming not to impose his form of government on anyone.

Does anyone else see how completely whacked, not to mention really scary it is for not only the leader of a nation to be able to re justify his reasons for a war whenever it suits him, but that no one nation has said, "WHAT THE F*CK? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"


Do we really need a reason anymore to invade a country, or can we just make it up as we go along?

oil oil oil oiloiloil (<- to the tune of "My Delilah"

Finti...

I certainly find it scary, being as I live in the US. Trust me, I've said many times "What the f*ck is Bush thinking...is he even thinking at all?"

It really appears that no real reason is needed anymore.

(I just noticed the State of the Union address was on my birthday)

Only america can get away with it...

I think we should invade California.

Lets Play the Oil for Food game.

Saddam dragged his feet when it came to allowing weapons inspectors into his country. He didn't just open up and show the world that he had nothing to hide....he played the role of the suspicious character.

why do this if he had absolutely nothing to hide?
why make yourself look guilty if you are infact innocent?

Why was the UN so slow to make decisive action in regards to allowing weapons inspectors into the country?

Could it be perhaps because some pretty big players in the UN were recieving a substancial kickback from Saddam Hussein through the oil for food program?

We know Germany, France, and Russia were recieving "a little extra" from Saddam in order to provide protection from the United States. After all, any action the US proposes to the UN can just be vetoed by Germany or France. Military action would never be approved by the UN as long as Germany and France had their say.

Where were all these other intelligence agencies who found it "obvious" that there were no WMD in Iraq?

Catch me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall ANY of them saying a damn thing to discredit the United States until several months after Bush declared the war over. Yahhhhhh....that's some real intelligence.

The reason the United States went to war? Oil....with a hint of WMD.
Why the citizens allowed it? Fear.
Who makes the decision to go to war? Congress.
Who gets pinned the blame for being the spokesman? Bush.

At this point, there is no reason to worry about an invasion of Iran or any other country. Yes, America has enough troops and resources. Not currently, but the US has proved in the past that getting a sufficient number of troops doesn't take much more than 8 weeks.

The only reason the US won't attack another country at this point is because there isn't enough fear in the country at this point. There are too many people using rationality and common sense to justify an invasion of another country.

But that all changes when/if a plane hits a sky scraper or a national monument gets bombed.

*joins* oil oil oil.

I think that it is really flippin wrong that only in the US of A it seems that presidents like Bill Clinton can do nothing about attacks on our troops and citizens in places like somalia, uss cole, the first world trade center attack, and attacks on our embassys from terrosrists. Then when a president like George Bush stands up to these threats he gets bashed into the floor by everyone!
I doubt any of you will do this but if you want go to this website for more detailed information about how saddam and al queda did have ties to each other; www.warriorsfortruth.com/911clinton.html.

It was a bunch of things really, but what it came down to was
1. Stupid pride
2. Saddam was not letting inspectors in because in one group of inspectors a cia agent was discovered in with the group. Saddam saw this as spying and would not allow any other inspectors in both for that reason and out of protest.



LOL, yes and we know that America is completely guiltless in dealing with corrupt governments. This is still absolutely no justification for this war.



Actually, everyone was dicrediting this information around the globe. The documents regarding Niger were proclaimed to be false immediatley. It was just that none of this ever made it into the american media. It was like when Powell showed those galvinized aluminum tubes and said that they were going to be used to refine uranium, every expert outside the states said, "no, you don't used galvinized aluminum tubes for that." And now that's l;ooked upon as an easily made mistake.



Well at least you admitted it was about oil. Which makes this a war of economics. And although Congress votes for war, The Bush admin. pushed for it and declared it, which makes them responsible.




Actually many politcal onservers think that there is a good chance that there might be a war with Iran. And so long as Bush can justify the current war how ever he wants there is a reason to worry.



Actually when I travel in the U.S. on Business I see fear all the time. It's in your media all the time. Have you ever been off Amber alert? Just the fact that you have that entire colour coded alert system is an example of the fear that grips america. If you watch cnn at any given day count the number of times that you hear the word "Terrorism". Fearing terrorism is now becoming as regular as fearing the ruskiesduring the cold war. This pervasive fear can easily be played upon.

And the fact that the stiffest opposition also controlled the power to veto anything the US had to propose played no part.




Did I say anything about the United States being guilt free? No. That's no reason to justify the corrupt actions of others "because the US does it too."



Really...everyone?

Out of 200+ nations in the world....I was hoping you'd name atleast one creditable source.




Every war is about economics. Some more closely tied than others....but EVERY war is about economics. The Bush Administration does not have the power to declare war....only Congress does. Bush can push and push and push until he gives birth to triplets. The problem isn't Bush....the problem is with the elected officials in Congress.




Well that's because there is a good chance that there will be a war with Iran. All I said was that there wasn't sufficient enough fear in the United States as a whole to declare an invasion with Iran. Make no mistake, there will be another terrorist attack in America, and when that happens.....someone will be invaded.



Actually I'm off the amber alert right now.

The Amber Alert is an alert sent out to notify citizens that a child has been obducted.

The enitre color coded alert system is a TOOL USED BY THE GOVERNMENT to control fear. It is not an example of the fear that is present in the American people....it is a tool used by the government to create fear within the nation so that they can do things like invade a country like Iraq.

Compare the fear level in the United States at this moment in time with that of the nation on 9/12, the day after the attack. You don't see Americans running to the store to buy plastic wrap and duct tape.

The fear isn't there currently. But ONE attack changes all of that.

Echuu, do you really think that Clinton was doing nothing about terrorism? Each incident that you talked about recieved a military response. And the website you provided is full of conservative propaganda and misrepresentation of facts.

A month before Clinton left office his administratin was praised for his counter terrorism efforts. Robert Oakley told the Washington Post, "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama". Paul Bremer told the post he believed that the Clintion Admin had "correctly focused on Bin Laden".

Clinton also tripled the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI, created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, rolled up Al Queda cells in 20 different countries, and his first and second crime bills contained stringent anti-terrorism legislation.

Clinton left offivce giving more priority to terrorism than any president before him. Barton Gellman did a four part series for the Washington post that stated that Clinton's admin "was the first to undertake such a systematic anti-terrorist effort".

Upon entry into the whitehouse the bush admin did not adopt the same stance toward terrorism as the clinton administration and look what happened.

Clinton was smart enough to know that you don't fight terrorism on the front pages of the newspapers. Whereas Bush makes sure to use the fear of terrorism to his advantage.

Echuu, before you post a statement as misinformed and lame as the one above, at least do some research, and research on a conservative blog does not count.

KD do you know what you're talking about in this part? This is the amber Alert:

http://codeamber.org/

Is to report a missing or kidnap child. What's the fear in that? We are a nation of fear? I guess right about now no one in the US is going to work or taking flights to different cities because of the fear of terrorism. I keep wondering what do they feed you guys up north about us?

"Then when a president like George Bush stands up to these threats he gets bashed into the floor by everyone!"

whats funny is as you say that, i picture osama binladen sitting back watching cnn...sipping a cup of espresso...laughing at the free world...enjoying life...and planning his next attack...which is probably what he's doing right now.
yeah, bush sure punished the terrorists didnt he?

im sick of debating this.
regardless of how clearly explain the lack of connection between
alqueda and iraq, you will always get the response "what about 9-11"...

bush repeats a lie until it becomes the truth, and oh does that lie stick to the minds of those who just dont like to reason and research...or just f**king pay attention. the man who organised the 9-11 attacks will never face justice.
thats a fact. and regardless of how much you loyally bleet praises for bush, that fact will not change.

Let me check our Amber Alert status. Let's see...it's orange. That either means one of two things:

Either someone's child has been kidnapped or there's a good chance an atomic bomb is going to land right in the middle of the country. Take your pick.

Ehhh Hans Blix the head of United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission had a report the US choose to ignore.

Once again, sorry about the amber alert thing, I was thinking of this chart.

ahh yes the distract-o-meter

LOL

By the way, as of January 11, 2005 you were listed as under "Elevated" alert status and nothing has changed. So you are at a "significant risk of terrorist attack"

What's funny is.....we found the former leader of Iraq in a 8x6 hole in the ground...sh!tting in a bucket.

but then again, i hear caves in Afgahnistan come equipped with cable and high speed internet connections.

Didn't we just spend the better part of a year at a high risk of terrorist attacks?

I dont' recall our status going down to the blue since the creation of the colored system. And YES, Americans find the systems just as laughable as other countries.

Some of those caves are actually pretty amazing. They're not uncomfortable like many are lead to belive.

bush: as we speak, osama bin laden is facing justice for his crimes. we are now taking steps to deprive him of plumbing and we took away his cable.

Nice references up there Kharm. I actually thought you were going to provide something from an international source that wasn't on "American Media" but the point is well proven.

What I was kind of hoping for was a country to declare America wrong in assuming Iraq wrong.

Most of those weapons inspectors, Hans Blinx included, made their reports out to seem like "well I looked, but I didn't find anything....your turn"

I wish Hans'y would have put his foot down on the matter and said that without a doubt...there are no weapons in Iraq.

When America went to war, I kinda got the rift that it was like "ok...now it's our turn to look around"

I agree.

Bush made a huge mistake....he should have never let Osama keep his espresso machine!

well, that would just be cruel and unusual punishment to take it away.

anyway, you get my point. osama is free, and planning...as he HAS been since 9-11. i find this very disturbing. what i find even more disturbing is how bush does not care, and niether do many of his supporters.

No, cruel and unusual punishment would be the closing of all Starbucks in Afghanistan


And yah I get your point, but I question the amount of freedom Osama truly has. He is getting some attention, but not nearly the attention that he should receieve.

It really doesn't matter that much anyway. People make it seem like terrorism is going to stop once/if Osama gets caught. If he gets caught there will be 5 more to replace him.

as is the case with all crime.
but a crime unpunished breeds far more criminals,
as they see that there are no consequences to face.

Yes, he is reaching "folk hero" status among his followers, and the longer he is out there, the more followers he'll get.

he sitting in northwest pakistan drinking tea (with milk) with biscuits sitting with his friends planning and laughing at the US. What else, they are not not not running for thier lives. Which i dislike!!!!

Well then sir, could you please direct me to a site that has the correct facts and is completely unbiased; as in no liberal bias also?


Yes Clinton was praised by the liberal media. But, Clinton himself said that his "biggest mistake" in his presidency was refusing to accept an offer from foreign governments(which he refused 3 times) to get him Binladen. This was also a Washington Post source so I hope it's not misinformation of the facts.

Yes Clinton upped the budget and created programs to keep america safe. Most of the hijackers of 9/11 were stopped in the lines in the airport for some suspicion but they had hardly any proof to arrest those people. Dubya implemented the patriot act so they could be arrested under the slightest suspicions of terrorism. That's why we don't see news clips of the Brooklyn bridge being destoyed right now.

It wasn't on the front pages cuz clinton didnt make a big deal about the problems.

Kharma Dog I would like it if you would respect my opinions even if they may or way not be true. I respect yours so please do the same.
I just get sick of threads that are so devoted to bashing bush and demeaning him and calling him stupid. I think we should all try to debate things with a little less hatred.

Ok. first hint, any site that bills itself as a "CONSERVATIVE NEWS INDEPENDENT" or a liberal one for that matter would be a start. I was going to list some papers and sources, but that would serve no purpose. If you actually want to learn something, seek out that info for yourself, don't depend on others to tell you how to do it.



The Patriot act is a pretty scary piece of legislation and I invite youto read it indepth. And the patriot act is not why you haven't seen the Brooklyn Bridge being destroyed. Generally terrorists go after targets with meaning (i.e. world trade centre = financial, pentagon = military, embassies etc.) The patriot act does not aid the fight in terrorism all that much (imho) If anything the war on terrorism has been extended by Dubya's war in Iraq.



I will respect a well informed opinion, but I cannot respect an opinion if "may not be true". To ask me to respect an opinion that is based on an untruth is insane.



I don't think I displayed any hatred whatsoever. That is a very strong word you are using there.

Well thanks a lot. You have done a great job of being a typical lib and treating me like I am an imbecil. I have searched for my own information, but I was looking to you, since you seem to know so much, to enlighten me as to why any of my sources are wrong. Your information is most likely just as biased as mine so how can anything be trusted.

Also, it appears that you shouldn't be respecting any opinion at all because any opinion may or may not be true. Just because you say something is a truth doesn't make it that.

I dont' think that you necessarily were being hateful. What I mean is that many threads started in this forum are hateful and some people and things that are posted.

Actually I am not a liberal, I consider myself an independant thinker and really don't tote a party line. And I did not treat you like an imbecile, if you feel that way that is totally your own issue not mine. I mentioned that your sources were wrong because they were found on a conservative propaganda website, surely you can see this.

As for finding information on your own, I encourage you to search using google and nexis. Once you have information, see who wrote it, why they wrote it and if they had a political agenda behind writing it. There are many good news sources and reporters out there. Once you find a fact check it, if it's a fact, there is no bias.



Correct, me saying something is true doesn't make it so, it being a fact makes it so. If you have an opinion, even if it differs than mine, and it's based on your examining of the facts, then I will indeed respect you.

I still have not seen at any point, ever, any reason which backs the asserion that oil was the reason the US went to war that actually stands up to any close or knowledgeable examination; it is a reason mostly used by people who have nothing more than a casual grasp of the facts,

Memories are also short. Other countries did NOT diebelieve that WMDs were in Iraq. The UN specifically believed that they WERE. Russian and France specifically said before the war that it would make no difference to their positions if the US invaded and found WMDs, because the presence or otherwise of them was not the grounds upon which they were objecting. People trying to make out that everyone else told the US they were not there are either lying or totally misguided and history will judge them idiots.

Intelligence agencies differed on the threat posed by, not the presence of, WMDs.

America has always been like that.Because the goverment has too much control.If they did not it would be better.However I can't see that happening.JM

That is your opinion, many knowledgeable people believe otherwise, and many of these people actually have more than a casual grasp on the facts.



Many countries did believe that Iraq posed no threat regarding WMD's. And what was in dispute was the intelligence that the U.S. using as proof and their intentions.

However, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) did declared Iraq free of nuclear weapons on Oct 8, 1997, years later Colin Powell stated that Iraq has shown no ability to reinstate their nuclear program.

Nuclear weapons were not the issue- but no major power seriously disuputed that Iraq had an WMD capacity.

And I am sorry- bit all the people I have seen saying the first about the oil have only ever struck me as showing considerable ignorance. it is a line being unthinkingly followed by people determined to criticise, without knowledge of the facts involved.

Well I guess we have to disagree on that, although I will agree that many people run to that banner without knowing remotely what of they speak.

I do believe that this was a war based on economics more so than the threat that Iraq posed to the U.S.A. I guess by your earlier statement you consider me "considerably ignorant" with "no more than a casual grasp of the facts", but that's just your opinion, and I have no problem dealing with that.

well only 1 person know. Not bush!!! Cheney!!!

Well, bottom line is there is a lesson to be learned here. Our checks and balances do not work anymore. And even if they did, seems all you have to do is cherry pick the intellegence that suits your purpose, throw away the rest , scare the hell out of your public, and label anyone who disagrees with you unpatriotic and then you can invade which ever countries you please ( or whichever ones pissed off dear old dad) which ever comes first.....

Americans are strange

God Israel Biblel Israel

You people amaze me.

I dunno if you wanna count this as reasoning or whatever, but I do remember that back before the war Iraq and the rest of the Middle East were having discussions and thinking about pricing oil in their own currency instead of American Dollars like they do now, and did then. Because of our exchange rate and such, the prices of oil would fluxuate and wreck some havoc on American economics. I don't know if this was teh primary reason, but it woundn't be too far fetched to assume...

Still the report of the UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission) was ignored and US official tried to ridicule Hans Blix

Oil has been a factor, not the key issue, but the size of Iraq's oil resources has indeed a factor. The pathetic attempt to justify the invasion with fake and false evidence doesnt linger the suspicion about the oil being the real agenda. Point is the top officials in charge of this operation has handle the entire situation very poorly, which again is like throwing petrol on the fire for the opposition to the war. And the North Korean situation in the middle of this didnt help the Bush administration attempt to assure people about oil aint a factor

they never did, and the fact is that most of the local currency aint worth crap so that would be to undermine their own means of income, and even a hint of such action would have made the price on oil drop like a fat dude skydiving without a parachute.

i second that

Just to take this so called oil agenda.
To get things clear US didnt invade Iraq to get their hands on the oil fields to keep them as a US property tehre is now way they would get away with that. They invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and have free access to look after hidden VMD stuff.
Now by liberating Iraq from Saddam they hope to get a stable government in place that can "cool" down the situation the country is in.
Iraq has large oil resources which aint operational as we speak, US goal is to get them operational again which will add another bidder to the oil marked . This will lead to overproduction on oil which again will make the oil prices to take a plunge. This will benefit the oil importing countries and not the oil exporting ones. Again this will benefit the citizen of large oil importing countries through low prises on gas as a means of fuel.

yes....
i thought it is clear

it was oil, bush's revenage okay.