Do we really need a reason anymore?

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

"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies." -Dubya(State of the Union address, 2/2/05)

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic." (same speech)

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)

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

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.

Originally posted by finti
oil oil oil oiloiloil (<- to the tune of "My Delilah"😉

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
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.

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

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

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."

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.

Really...everyone?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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!

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.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
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.

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.

Sorry for the Amber alert mess up. My bad. Just so many darn colour alerts I screwed up.

As for intelligence that counter what weas used to declare war, I'll site american, british and french examples.

Oct 8, 1997 – IAEA says Iraq is “FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS”

Feb 23 & 24, 2001 – Colin Powell say, “SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED”
U.S. Weapons inspector David Kay admitted in 2001 that that the previous policy of containment (including the 1998 bombing of Iraq) destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.

Sept 16, 2001 – Cheney acknowledges that Iraq is contained

Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case.

Feb 6, 2002 – CIA says that Iraq has no ability to provide wmd’s to terrorists

Colin Powell, in his presentation to the UN Security Council, draws attention to "the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in detail Iraqi deception activities". Ten pages of that 19 pages report happen to be lifted from sources not referenced. Four pages are taken verbatim (including typographic errors) from a postgraduate student's publication in an internet-journal.

British intelligence source said the best intelligence on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence stated that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme.

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

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"

Originally posted by PVS
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?

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.