- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,412
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The general lie that Bush perpetrated is that Iraq was part of the war on terrorosim. It is now, in 2005, in 2002 it was not. Why was Iraq a threat the US couldn't live with? Iraq was a regional power much lessened by Gulf War 1, and had been kept in check via UN sanctions, for 11 years. After 9/11, "suposedly",Bush told the public that the attacks of 9/11 showed America's vulnerability,and hence, he coined the term,"pre-emptive strike." But Iraq didn't change at all, merely our own sentiments. Actually, right after 9/11, surveys showed that the vast majority of Americans thought that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi, and a majority believed Saddam had a part in it- Bush was happy to encourage these uninformed beliefs.
You are correct, an Iraq that held WMDs and could possibly hand them off to terrorists would be unacceptable. But Bush & co., had deeply exaggerated the WMD story,not to mention, invented the Saddam/al-Qeada links. Meanwhile, al-Qeada, which had actually attacked us, is still out there.We forget that Bush declared "Wanted,dead or alive."It's almost laughable:lol: , henever mentions him anymore, its Iraq all the time.
Islamic Jihad has very little to do with Whabbism, besides, Saddam detested fundamentalists or anyone who could threaten his regime.
Ok, well only 3 countries sent combat forces to Iraq. And 30 out of the 184 UN member nations openly voiced support for this invasion. And those 30 supporters did not include any Arab nation.
He did, but it didn't matter to Bush, who already had this invasion planned out. The CIA was pressured to produce evidence to "hype-up" this invasion. It was a pre-determined fact that every photo of a trailer truck would be a "mobile bio-weapons lab". Look, it was proved before the war that the Niger document was false, the aluminum tubes were proved by the IAEA that they were not suitable for enriching uranium.
Don't forget pakistan,Egypt, and the most important terrorist supporter of them all- Saudi Arabia. What reasons? Iraq was not the central front,or any front, on "terrorism". Bush failed to realize howmany troops it would take to control postwar Iraq, and for how long.
You are correct there.
You are correct, an Iraq that held WMDs and could possibly hand them off to terrorists would be unacceptable. But Bush & co., had deeply exaggerated the WMD story,not to mention, invented the Saddam/al-Qeada links. Meanwhile, al-Qeada, which had actually attacked us, is still out there.We forget that Bush declared "Wanted,dead or alive."It's almost laughable:lol: , henever mentions him anymore, its Iraq all the time.
Originally posted by VTA
And Not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is symptomatic of a larger problem, an ideology of Jihad. Using terrorism as a means to an end. There the two could easily find compromise
Islamic Jihad has very little to do with Whabbism, besides, Saddam detested fundamentalists or anyone who could threaten his regime.
The UN's complicity in the oil for food 'scandal' rendered it's decision as highly questionable. Funny, the 3 countries you named are the same countries responsible for this compromise. France and Russia were owed millions by Sadaam; they weren't too happy to watch that cash cow get taken away.
Ok, well only 3 countries sent combat forces to Iraq. And 30 out of the 184 UN member nations openly voiced support for this invasion. And those 30 supporters did not include any Arab nation.
At which time? After years of playing games and booting out inspectors, Sadaam could have easily publicly stated he was open to complete inspection. Whatever the CIA's decision, they must have felt people wouldn't want to accept something as ambiguous as a 'cultural war'. Everything looks fine from this coast...
He did, but it didn't matter to Bush, who already had this invasion planned out. The CIA was pressured to produce evidence to "hype-up" this invasion. It was a pre-determined fact that every photo of a trailer truck would be a "mobile bio-weapons lab". Look, it was proved before the war that the Niger document was false, the aluminum tubes were proved by the IAEA that they were not suitable for enriching uranium.
No, it stems from a vast region, with countries like Syria, Jordan and Iran being blatantly supportive of the ideology. It streches into parts of Africa, it's carried out in parts of Asia. It's a cause that transcends one country. Instead of scattering our resources and trying to run after every operative in the Middle East, America chose Iraq as it's battleground, for all of the above reasons.
Don't forget pakistan,Egypt, and the most important terrorist supporter of them all- Saudi Arabia. What reasons? Iraq was not the central front,or any front, on "terrorism". Bush failed to realize howmany troops it would take to control postwar Iraq, and for how long.
Our egos don't like to accept this, but, lacking one vital point in our opinions of the war, it's impossible for us to judge something without any real definitiveness: INFORMATION. We'll only know the truth after it's become history.
You are correct there.