Oh come on Scott, you couldn't have possibly read EVERY thread
Seriously though... what will happen? Bush says " ah well, I fubbed up... so what " and just keeps on with the Iraq occupation?
Ironically enough, seeing that the US is too chicken shit to be part of the International Court of Justice, if the US were to get him, they cant even process him 'fairly'.
...
This ICC is the only possibility for a fair trial?
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
Yeah, he was a murderer and what not and dont see any way this could happen (him getting back to Iraq in power), but what legal repercussions would there be in the USA or internationally?
Given that the USA (and the UK lakeys) 'got away with' INVADING a soverign state, I would think that this would be but a detail.
Fvck it. No one cares anymore. Lock the thread. People rather pretend it never happened and its not their problem anymore.
What a shame... what a damn shame
Part of your trouble is that you're looking at this a "legal" matter. This is war and as such the rules of war apply. Saddam can't sue to get his brutal dictatorship back.
This is a strange question ZO, no countrie in the world will vote for the return of Saddam.
In a legal point of vue, Saddam commited many crimes against humanity : poison his own population with gazs, torture, murders ...
The reason why US went in war have nothing to do with the legitimacy for Saddam to return.
IF no WMD are found in Iraq (and the chances are becoming very low), some questions will araise :
- external : US has loose some legitimacy by conducting a war from wrong reasons
- internal : the Bush admin have fooled US citizens, by "selling" them a war for a false reason. If they believed in the threat, it's simply bad job , if they knew the truth it's a betrayal. But as Sammi jo said, the truth lies between the two extremes : people fooled themself to believe what they want to believe and then they fooled the others without lying. It's not a true lie, but a lack of intellectual honesty.
I am not a conspiracy nut but I do read some of the stuff out there and parts of what is contained in This Link do raise questions to say the least.
I hope most of what is in that link is untrue but... what if.
Let me address a couple of "oh, isn't this suspicious?" questions from the above link that can be answered without resorting vague musings about who you can and can't trust in government and the media.
Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?
There's nothing surprising about this at all. First of all, the premise "was not as extensively damaged" is incorrect. The plane that struck the second tower was going much faster than the first plane. The second plane struck lower, at a steeper angle, and more off to one side of the building. The result was that in the North Tower, the damaged structure had much less weight to support above its damaged section, and that the load through that damaged section was more evenly distributed than in the other tower, allowing the North Tower to stand longer than the South Tower.
Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?
Gee... I don't know. Vast quantities of combustible and pressurized materials exposed to extremely hot fires? (Imagine such things as fire extinguishers or water tanks baking in all that heat.) Structural members buckling under enormous stresses? Nah, I can't think of anything but CIA-planted bombs that would have made loud booming noises.
As for "appear[ring] more like a controlled implosion"... I can only imagine that someone expecting other than what we saw would be expecting the building to have fallen sideways more, rather than "pancaking".
But think about it. The main force causing these buildings to fall was gravity -- straight down. The only thing that can impart lateral movement in a falling structure is sustained resistance to the downward force of the falling structure. In small structures, this sustained resistance is easy to maintain -- just stand a pencil on end, and it will tip sideways its full length rather than crumbling onto your desk. The weight of any portion of the pencil insufficient to bend or break any part of the pencil below it.
In very tall structures, however, once a fall begins, the downward force quickly overcomes any resistance that might impart lateral motion. The result is that "pancaking", while perhaps looking oddly controlled, is really the more natural outcome.
Maybe Mr. Marrs has some valid points that merit further investigation. I can't say, however, that I'm impressed with how he tries to use the above easily-answered questions to foment suspicion where none is warranted.
This is some of the stupidest ****ing shit in the world. We're to believe that the WTCs were wired for demolition? ****! What a pack of morons.
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
The only reason Bush hyped the WMD threat was because of the stupidity of the American public. There are many reasons for Saddam's regime to be out of power, but the only reason the American public would support was the possible use of WMD. Bush may be stupid, but he knows how to get what he wants.
If you actually believe that WMD was the only reason for going to war then you, too, fall into that stupid American category, which justifies Bush's actions.
The whole case for the war was WMD. If there aren't any, what the hell will the US do? Aside from the incredibly tremendous and HUGE pressure from the world community and the instant impeachment of Bush and fellow cronies, what happens with Iraq?
Sure, Saddam is a 'bad guy'... but the whole case against him would fall through. His sons would have been killed...
What a situation...
(PS, I KNOW the reply will be "never in a million years" but still...)
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
Yes timelines. Wonderful timelines. Dreamed up but rarely backed up. Enjoy your delusions.
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
Do you think my comments about how the towers fell were driven only by avoiding what's "unacceptable to contemplate"? No. My comments were driven by the dull stupidity of the specious reasons given for suspicion.
Besides the fact that there's nothing at all surprising about the manner in which the buildings fell, or about reports of sounds of explosions... are we also supposed to believe that people with the wanton disregard for human life to plot such a thing were still "kind" enough, or neatness freaks enough, to want rig the buildings for a tidy collapse? If I were trying to cause a big panic for political gain, and make sure the towers fell, I'd rig them to topple sideways as much as I could manage, not to pancake almost straight down.
Of course, if we're going to go for the complete two-week package tour vacation at Conspiracy Fantasy Island, I suppose we could say that one of the rich and powerful conspirators was trying to protect the value of his nearby real estate holdings.
A healthy suspicion of government and powerful people is a good thing. I get the impression, however, that some people have developed a twisted view that anything short of being suspicious is being naive.
[If you actually believe that WMD was the only reason for going to war then you, too, fall into that stupid American category, which justifies Bush's actions. [/B]
Well, the Bush administration has a pretty wretched opinion of the American people. They selected WMD as a "justification" for war in Iraq because, according to Condoleeza Rice, WMD was the 'only factor' they could reach consensus on.
Do you think my comments about how the towers fell were driven only by avoiding what's "unacceptable to contemplate"? No. My comments were driven by the
*SNIP*
A healthy suspicion of government and powerful people is a good thing. I get the impression, however, that some people have developed a twisted view that anything short of being suspicious is being naive.
So please tell the world your reasons why the towers fell. There are almost as many theories as there are people telling them. Which one has the most credibility to you? Are you a civil engineer? A proper and thorough inquiry into the events of 9-11 is the very least we can do for those people whose relatives died that day. Why is the Bush administartion balking at this so petulantly, first appointing Henry Kissinger (!!!!!!!!!!), who had to withdraw due to public outrage and 'in-credibility'? Now there's an ex CIA official in charge of the inquiry, which is akin to Ken Lay investigating Enron.
Btw, I would also be most curious to hear your reason as to why Number 7, World Trade Center, a 50+ story building,collapsed around 5pm on Sept 11?
Well, the Bush administration has a pretty wretched opinion of the American people. They selected WMD as a "justification" for war in Iraq because, according to Condoleeza Rice, WMD was the 'only factor' they could reach consensus on.
I have a pretty wretched opinion of American people, too (By the way, I'm an American). Perhaps, but your statement still implies that there were other reasons other than WMD.
As I'm sure every American could tell 1 year ago, the government appeared to have it's mind set on going to war. The excuses they were going to come up with to justify the war and get people on the bandwagon was probably the difficult thing for them to do.
Perhaps Bush said, "I think we should go to war because Saddam tried killing my dad."
Condoleeza responds, "Well, that's not a good enough reason. I won't support you if you do that."
Maybe Powell chimed in, "We should go because he's an ass to all his own people."
Bush, "Well, I'm an ass to my own people, so I don't think that's a good reason."
Tommy Franks, "I've got it! Why not claim he has WMD. All Americans will go for that since we just had 9/11. It will be easy to sway the public to our side since we've had over 10 years in American media talking about UN inpsections, WMD, non-cooperation by the Iraqi government. The public will eat that up like a fat person does cake."
All, "That's brilliant, Tommy! Why didn't we think of that."
And the rest is history.
I didn't believe from the onset that the only reason we were going to war was because of WMD. I felt that after 9/11 that gave the Bush administration a green light to start any wars they wanted against anybody as part of a "new world order" on the "War on Terrorism". Iraq clearly was on the top of the list after Afghanistan. Beyond those two wars, I'm sure the government knew they couldn't sway the world about starting a 3rd war, so everything since Iraq has been on a different footing, whether economical or political.
I have a pretty wretched opinion of American people, too (By the way, I'm an American). Perhaps, but your statement still implies that there were other reasons other than WMD.
As I'm sure every American could tell 1 year ago, the government appeared to have it's mind set on going to war. The excuses they were going to come up with to justify the war and get people on the bandwagon was probably the difficult thing for them to do.
Perhaps Bush said, "I think we should go to war because Saddam tried killing my dad."
Condoleeza responds, "Well, that's not a good enough reason. I won't support you if you do that."
Maybe Powell chimed in, "We should go because he's an ass to all his own people."
Yes! I agree with you!
Bush, "Well, I'm an ass to my own people, so I don't think that's a good reason."
Tommy Franks, "I've got it! Why not claim he has WMD. All Americans will go for that since we just had 9/11. It will be easy to sway the public to our side since we've had over 10 years in American media talking about UN inpsections, WMD, non-cooperation by the Iraqi government. The public will eat that up like a fat person does cake."
All, "That's brilliant, Tommy! Why didn't we think of that."
And the rest is history.
I didn't believe from the onset that the only reason we were going to war was because of WMD. I felt that after 9/11 that gave the Bush administration a green light to start any wars they wanted against anybody as part of a "new world order" on the "War on Terrorism". Iraq clearly was on the top of the list after Afghanistan. Beyond those two wars, I'm sure the government knew they couldn't sway the world about starting a 3rd war, so everything since Iraq has been on a different footing, whether economical or political.
Regards!
Yes! I agree with you! Up until 9-11, this administration seemed to be in the doldrums, rudderless, a sailing ship with no breeze... and the economy was also starting to sink. Then, 9-11 happened....and they suddenly sprang to life. Within a few days the 342 page!!!! Patriot Act appeared as if by magic. The Dept of Homeland Security came together in rapid order. On Sept 12, 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, then a CNN military analyst, was repeatedly hassled by the White House to publicly link 9-11 to Iraq, without evidence, which he declined to do.
9-11 was the Bush Admin's "savior", in a perverted way. The PNAC stated in the mid 1990s, that a "new Pearl Harbor" was required to kickstart their plans for world empire. Bush wrote in his journal in the evening of 9-11 that America had just had the "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". The rest is history.
WE (collectively, th 'Western Countries') cannot justify the US and UK invading Iraq because they didnt "like him" and that he is "bad".
What could we say if China decides to invade Taiwan? China could say "they are a threat to us and they are "bad" (from a mainland china point of view, just like Iraq was for the USA).
Any country now is basicaly justified to invade any other country because they dont like their neighbor. This is EXACTLY what Bush and co. did. Saddam was a PATHETIC target. They got destroyed more than 10 YEARS ago and you expect them to put up a fight with cannibalized weapons and spare parts?
So, come on, we all know North Korea is "bad" why arent we inavding them too? Or how about some of them little insignificant African countires? Ohhh, full of baddies there too that wont put up much of a fight.
Wake up America... wake up world.... you're all getting duped... big time.
PS Now that Iraq is "over", what will the USA choose as next target? Iraq? Nah. Korea? Nah... come on... gotta start making some 2-bit looser countries your enemy soon that you can "Awe" us with again and not loose too many soldiers with. How about Togo? Togo is easy.
'War on terror'' is a metaphor. It is not an actual war, like the World War or the Vietnamese or Korean wars. It is rather a struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists, exacerbated if not caused by the conflict in Palestine. When one turns a metaphor into a national policy, one not only misunderstands what is going on, one begins to slide toward the big lie. One invades Iraq because one needed a war.
Question: Why did America + butt-kissers went to war?
Bush's administration knew that there were no WOMD in Iraq.
Why then?
Just look at the companies being awarded contracts in post-war iraq.
Who's on board of directors in these corporations?
It is publicly available info, just needs a little digging.
I'm not saying that this is all about $$$, oil etc, but i don't believe it wasn't a factor.
Iraqi freedom is a joke.
Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?
So many questions...
I wanted to write long reply to your post, but as soon as i started i realized there's no f**** point....
What you gonna do? make a sign and protest? Who cares? Write letters?
Vote differently in next elections?
Yeah, ok.
Hey if you think about it....
There is an infinite number of planets in the universe, time is not measured by minutes, or days, but by eras, who are we with our stupid wars, conflicts, politics, schedules, and all that sh**, nothing but dust.
Heh, our live is just a blink of an eye in all this infinity, yet we have to f*** it up.
Question: Why did America + butt-kissers went to war?
Just look at the companies being awarded contracts in post-war iraq.
Who's on board of directors in these corporations?
It is publicly available info, just needs a little digging.
I'm not saying that this is all about $$$, oil etc, but i don't believe it wasn't a factor.
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
Comments
The case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost
Originally posted by ZO
Oh come on Scott, you couldn't have possibly read EVERY thread
Seriously though... what will happen? Bush says " ah well, I fubbed up... so what " and just keeps on with the Iraq occupation?
Ironically enough, seeing that the US is too chicken shit to be part of the International Court of Justice, if the US were to get him, they cant even process him 'fairly'.
...
This ICC is the only possibility for a fair trial?
Originally posted by ZO
Yeah, he was a murderer and what not and dont see any way this could happen (him getting back to Iraq in power), but what legal repercussions would there be in the USA or internationally?
Given that the USA (and the UK lakeys) 'got away with' INVADING a soverign state, I would think that this would be but a detail.
Fvck it. No one cares anymore. Lock the thread. People rather pretend it never happened and its not their problem anymore.
What a shame... what a damn shame
Part of your trouble is that you're looking at this a "legal" matter. This is war and as such the rules of war apply. Saddam can't sue to get his brutal dictatorship back.
In a legal point of vue, Saddam commited many crimes against humanity : poison his own population with gazs, torture, murders ...
The reason why US went in war have nothing to do with the legitimacy for Saddam to return.
IF no WMD are found in Iraq (and the chances are becoming very low), some questions will araise :
- external : US has loose some legitimacy by conducting a war from wrong reasons
- internal : the Bush admin have fooled US citizens, by "selling" them a war for a false reason. If they believed in the threat, it's simply bad job , if they knew the truth it's a betrayal. But as Sammi jo said, the truth lies between the two extremes : people fooled themself to believe what they want to believe and then they fooled the others without lying. It's not a true lie, but a lack of intellectual honesty.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I am not a conspiracy nut but I do read some of the stuff out there and parts of what is contained in This Link do raise questions to say the least.
I hope most of what is in that link is untrue but... what if.
Let me address a couple of "oh, isn't this suspicious?" questions from the above link that can be answered without resorting vague musings about who you can and can't trust in government and the media.
Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?
There's nothing surprising about this at all. First of all, the premise "was not as extensively damaged" is incorrect. The plane that struck the second tower was going much faster than the first plane. The second plane struck lower, at a steeper angle, and more off to one side of the building. The result was that in the North Tower, the damaged structure had much less weight to support above its damaged section, and that the load through that damaged section was more evenly distributed than in the other tower, allowing the North Tower to stand longer than the South Tower.
Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?
Gee... I don't know. Vast quantities of combustible and pressurized materials exposed to extremely hot fires? (Imagine such things as fire extinguishers or water tanks baking in all that heat.) Structural members buckling under enormous stresses? Nah, I can't think of anything but CIA-planted bombs that would have made loud booming noises.
As for "appear[ring] more like a controlled implosion"... I can only imagine that someone expecting other than what we saw would be expecting the building to have fallen sideways more, rather than "pancaking".
But think about it. The main force causing these buildings to fall was gravity -- straight down. The only thing that can impart lateral movement in a falling structure is sustained resistance to the downward force of the falling structure. In small structures, this sustained resistance is easy to maintain -- just stand a pencil on end, and it will tip sideways its full length rather than crumbling onto your desk. The weight of any portion of the pencil insufficient to bend or break any part of the pencil below it.
In very tall structures, however, once a fall begins, the downward force quickly overcomes any resistance that might impart lateral motion. The result is that "pancaking", while perhaps looking oddly controlled, is really the more natural outcome.
Maybe Mr. Marrs has some valid points that merit further investigation. I can't say, however, that I'm impressed with how he tries to use the above easily-answered questions to foment suspicion where none is warranted.
Originally posted by Scott
This is some of the stupidest ****ing shit in the world. We're to believe that the WTCs were wired for demolition? ****! What a pack of morons.
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
If you actually believe that WMD was the only reason for going to war then you, too, fall into that stupid American category, which justifies Bush's actions.
Originally posted by BR
Forced to stand in an elevator occupied by bunge, shawn, SDW, and scott FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!!!!!!
That is cruel...and unusual. Would this be considered a bio weapon?
Originally posted by ZO
Seriously...
The whole case for the war was WMD. If there aren't any, what the hell will the US do? Aside from the incredibly tremendous and HUGE pressure from the world community and the instant impeachment of Bush and fellow cronies, what happens with Iraq?
Sure, Saddam is a 'bad guy'... but the whole case against him would fall through. His sons would have been killed...
What a situation...
(PS, I KNOW the reply will be "never in a million years" but still...)
Seriously, one hell of an ignorant post.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
Yes timelines. Wonderful timelines. Dreamed up but rarely backed up. Enjoy your delusions.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's far-fetched, and unacceptable to contemplate. But on the same grounds, many of the official explanations of the events of 9-11, especially when examining the detailed timeline, seem equally far-fetched and ridiculous.
Do you think my comments about how the towers fell were driven only by avoiding what's "unacceptable to contemplate"? No. My comments were driven by the dull stupidity of the specious reasons given for suspicion.
Besides the fact that there's nothing at all surprising about the manner in which the buildings fell, or about reports of sounds of explosions... are we also supposed to believe that people with the wanton disregard for human life to plot such a thing were still "kind" enough, or neatness freaks enough, to want rig the buildings for a tidy collapse? If I were trying to cause a big panic for political gain, and make sure the towers fell, I'd rig them to topple sideways as much as I could manage, not to pancake almost straight down.
Of course, if we're going to go for the complete two-week package tour vacation at Conspiracy Fantasy Island, I suppose we could say that one of the rich and powerful conspirators was trying to protect the value of his nearby real estate holdings.
A healthy suspicion of government and powerful people is a good thing. I get the impression, however, that some people have developed a twisted view that anything short of being suspicious is being naive.
[If you actually believe that WMD was the only reason for going to war then you, too, fall into that stupid American category, which justifies Bush's actions. [/B]
Well, the Bush administration has a pretty wretched opinion of the American people. They selected WMD as a "justification" for war in Iraq because, according to Condoleeza Rice, WMD was the 'only factor' they could reach consensus on.
Originally posted by shetline
Do you think my comments about how the towers fell were driven only by avoiding what's "unacceptable to contemplate"? No. My comments were driven by the
*SNIP*
A healthy suspicion of government and powerful people is a good thing. I get the impression, however, that some people have developed a twisted view that anything short of being suspicious is being naive.
So please tell the world your reasons why the towers fell. There are almost as many theories as there are people telling them. Which one has the most credibility to you? Are you a civil engineer? A proper and thorough inquiry into the events of 9-11 is the very least we can do for those people whose relatives died that day. Why is the Bush administartion balking at this so petulantly, first appointing Henry Kissinger (!!!!!!!!!!), who had to withdraw due to public outrage and 'in-credibility'? Now there's an ex CIA official in charge of the inquiry, which is akin to Ken Lay investigating Enron.
Btw, I would also be most curious to hear your reason as to why Number 7, World Trade Center, a 50+ story building,collapsed around 5pm on Sept 11?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, the Bush administration has a pretty wretched opinion of the American people. They selected WMD as a "justification" for war in Iraq because, according to Condoleeza Rice, WMD was the 'only factor' they could reach consensus on.
I have a pretty wretched opinion of American people, too (By the way, I'm an American). Perhaps, but your statement still implies that there were other reasons other than WMD.
As I'm sure every American could tell 1 year ago, the government appeared to have it's mind set on going to war. The excuses they were going to come up with to justify the war and get people on the bandwagon was probably the difficult thing for them to do.
Perhaps Bush said, "I think we should go to war because Saddam tried killing my dad."
Condoleeza responds, "Well, that's not a good enough reason. I won't support you if you do that."
Maybe Powell chimed in, "We should go because he's an ass to all his own people."
Bush, "Well, I'm an ass to my own people, so I don't think that's a good reason."
Tommy Franks, "I've got it! Why not claim he has WMD. All Americans will go for that since we just had 9/11. It will be easy to sway the public to our side since we've had over 10 years in American media talking about UN inpsections, WMD, non-cooperation by the Iraqi government. The public will eat that up like a fat person does cake."
All, "That's brilliant, Tommy! Why didn't we think of that."
And the rest is history.
I didn't believe from the onset that the only reason we were going to war was because of WMD. I felt that after 9/11 that gave the Bush administration a green light to start any wars they wanted against anybody as part of a "new world order" on the "War on Terrorism". Iraq clearly was on the top of the list after Afghanistan. Beyond those two wars, I'm sure the government knew they couldn't sway the world about starting a 3rd war, so everything since Iraq has been on a different footing, whether economical or political.
Regards!
Originally posted by X X
I have a pretty wretched opinion of American people, too (By the way, I'm an American). Perhaps, but your statement still implies that there were other reasons other than WMD.
As I'm sure every American could tell 1 year ago, the government appeared to have it's mind set on going to war. The excuses they were going to come up with to justify the war and get people on the bandwagon was probably the difficult thing for them to do.
Perhaps Bush said, "I think we should go to war because Saddam tried killing my dad."
Condoleeza responds, "Well, that's not a good enough reason. I won't support you if you do that."
Maybe Powell chimed in, "We should go because he's an ass to all his own people."
Yes! I agree with you!
Bush, "Well, I'm an ass to my own people, so I don't think that's a good reason."
Tommy Franks, "I've got it! Why not claim he has WMD. All Americans will go for that since we just had 9/11. It will be easy to sway the public to our side since we've had over 10 years in American media talking about UN inpsections, WMD, non-cooperation by the Iraqi government. The public will eat that up like a fat person does cake."
All, "That's brilliant, Tommy! Why didn't we think of that."
And the rest is history.
I didn't believe from the onset that the only reason we were going to war was because of WMD. I felt that after 9/11 that gave the Bush administration a green light to start any wars they wanted against anybody as part of a "new world order" on the "War on Terrorism". Iraq clearly was on the top of the list after Afghanistan. Beyond those two wars, I'm sure the government knew they couldn't sway the world about starting a 3rd war, so everything since Iraq has been on a different footing, whether economical or political.
Regards!
Yes! I agree with you! Up until 9-11, this administration seemed to be in the doldrums, rudderless, a sailing ship with no breeze... and the economy was also starting to sink. Then, 9-11 happened....and they suddenly sprang to life. Within a few days the 342 page!!!! Patriot Act appeared as if by magic. The Dept of Homeland Security came together in rapid order. On Sept 12, 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, then a CNN military analyst, was repeatedly hassled by the White House to publicly link 9-11 to Iraq, without evidence, which he declined to do.
9-11 was the Bush Admin's "savior", in a perverted way. The PNAC stated in the mid 1990s, that a "new Pearl Harbor" was required to kickstart their plans for world empire. Bush wrote in his journal in the evening of 9-11 that America had just had the "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". The rest is history.
Do I sound suspicious or what?
WE (collectively, th 'Western Countries') cannot justify the US and UK invading Iraq because they didnt "like him" and that he is "bad".
What could we say if China decides to invade Taiwan? China could say "they are a threat to us and they are "bad" (from a mainland china point of view, just like Iraq was for the USA).
Any country now is basicaly justified to invade any other country because they dont like their neighbor. This is EXACTLY what Bush and co. did. Saddam was a PATHETIC target. They got destroyed more than 10 YEARS ago and you expect them to put up a fight with cannibalized weapons and spare parts?
So, come on, we all know North Korea is "bad" why arent we inavding them too? Or how about some of them little insignificant African countires? Ohhh, full of baddies there too that wont put up much of a fight.
Wake up America... wake up world.... you're all getting duped... big time.
PS Now that Iraq is "over", what will the USA choose as next target? Iraq? Nah. Korea? Nah... come on... gotta start making some 2-bit looser countries your enemy soon that you can "Awe" us with again and not loose too many soldiers with. How about Togo? Togo is easy.
snippet
'War on terror'' is a metaphor. It is not an actual war, like the World War or the Vietnamese or Korean wars. It is rather a struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists, exacerbated if not caused by the conflict in Palestine. When one turns a metaphor into a national policy, one not only misunderstands what is going on, one begins to slide toward the big lie. One invades Iraq because one needed a war.
Bush's administration knew that there were no WOMD in Iraq.
Why then?
Just look at the companies being awarded contracts in post-war iraq.
Who's on board of directors in these corporations?
It is publicly available info, just needs a little digging.
I'm not saying that this is all about $$$, oil etc, but i don't believe it wasn't a factor.
Iraqi freedom is a joke.
Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?
So many questions...
I wanted to write long reply to your post, but as soon as i started i realized there's no f**** point....
What you gonna do? make a sign and protest? Who cares? Write letters?
Vote differently in next elections?
Yeah, ok.
Hey if you think about it....
There is an infinite number of planets in the universe, time is not measured by minutes, or days, but by eras, who are we with our stupid wars, conflicts, politics, schedules, and all that sh**, nothing but dust.
Heh, our live is just a blink of an eye in all this infinity, yet we have to f*** it up.
A little of topic i guess...
Originally posted by piwozniak
Question: Why did America + butt-kissers went to war?
Just look at the companies being awarded contracts in post-war iraq.
Who's on board of directors in these corporations?
It is publicly available info, just needs a little digging.
I'm not saying that this is all about $$$, oil etc, but i don't believe it wasn't a factor.
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
Just a dose of common sense.
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere,
Show me
(edited to add quote formating)