Re: So the war on Iraq was decided before 9/11

you figured that all out by yourself

 

For the most part world goverments are simply advanced gangs.

When you fully understand that, you realize that nothing is surprising.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

 

Oil is only a small part of it... the big money is in the restructuring contracts. That and military spending. War makes a ton of money for those who supply the weapons of war and those who clean up the mess.

 

the link above is about general conspiracy theorie

 

"If you think aliens are real, then ask yourself this. If you were from a million year old race that has mastered space travel, then would you be interested in interfering with the affairs of a primitive planet?"

Uhh, didn't Protoss do just that?

 

Wooh, that site is great ijffdrie!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread308160/pg1

 

yeah, im gonna start a thread about it

 

9/11 is just an excuse. What Bush is obviously after is the oil. Otherwise, what business could they still possible have in Iraq right now?

If anyone has seen the movie "3 Kings", the arab guy gives a good explanation. There are a lot of countries in the world with trouble and fighting so why does the US have to "help" Iraq? Coincidentally, the country with the most petroleum?

And still, after the death of Saddam what are they still doing there? Why is it worth wasting trillions of dollars to "promote peace"? Again, the answer should be obvious.

I have never seen anyone outside the US support Bush. He has a great speech talent which convinces a lot of people, but anyone who studies his timeline can figure out what he really is after.

If you support Bush I'm not directing this at you, this is just an opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs.

 

Osama is dead?

 

Uh oops Sadam Hussein, got that edited.

 

great speech talent!?

lmao... the guy can't say a word over three syllables - i really can't think of anything to connect the terms, "great" and "Bush"

 

Why is it then that he won both elections? He has good persuasive skills, that cannot be denied. Anyone who is ignorant will listen to his words and say "wow he has my vote".

 

I hate hearing him speak. He never says somehing new. And when he has something new....he repeats it a a few hundred times. Bad oratory skills overall. And as romans said..."good speakers make good leaders''...yeah

 

I personally get extremely annoyed with both anti-bush and pro-bush people equally as much, so I don't really like giving my opinions about bush or the war as much, because anti-bush ppl will go "Lol, Bush is Hitler reborn" and pro-Bush people will go "Unpatriotic bastard, liberation, make me richer, yadda yadda." Most of the time people from both sides, more so anti-bush people (probably cuz there's a lot more of them), really have no idea what they're talking about, so I just tend not to pay attention to either really too much.

 

If you really know what you are talking about then it's very difficult not to be anti-bush.

You shouldn't be annoyed by peoples opinions, as long as they have good arguments and aren't too blunt witht hem.

 

OH no I listen to them. I always make sure to listen to their opinions and their arguements first before I tell them why it is that I think the way I do. But in reality, most people don't have good arguements on both sides. Usually it ends up being something like "If you support ANYTHING Bush does or if you don't fully agree with Democrats on EVERYTHING you're an ignorant piece of sh*t." That my friend is what annoys me.

I look at both sides of the spectrum, I have opinions that are very Democrat and I have opinons that are very Republican. I have my own opinions of the war and I have my own opinions of how stuff should be run. You have to admit though...most people who say they dislike Bush only say it because everyone else does...a lot of really is mob mentality, which is one reason we got into Iraq in the first place.

 

im generraly against the us government set up, it puts too much power in 1 persons hand

 

Saudi Arabia???!?!
Canada??!?!?!?!
Iran!?!!?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
Thats right, Iraq is fourth. Not first.

And they aren't even producing a lot
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

Or exporting!!!
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html

Oh no! There goes your theory.
Remember kids. Before you go along with what "everyone else" is saying remember to check some FACTS.


And heres some more fun facts!
The US Intelligence community requested that we support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban (what we eventually did in October 2001) in 1998, 2000, and January 2001 and then again in March 2001. Neither administration went for it for whatever reason. Even if we had gone in in March 2001 we could have stopped 9/11 from occurring because the muscle hijackers who took over the planes started arriving from the camps in Afghanistan in April 2001. Although I'm sure the public would not have liked the invasion of another country that most of them can't even locate on a map for reasons that they don't understand. Because most Americans are a bunch of selfish ignorant assholes with their nose stuck so far up their ass it's amazing they get anything done. So, while it would have stopped 9/11 from happening, Americans would be slamming the administration for attacking some poor little country for "no reason."

Also, Iran is behind much of the unrest/violence in Iraq right now.


Please please PLEASE don't talk about shit that you know nothing about. Opinions are pointless. Stick to facts.

 

Does it matter what position they are in? Crap I got one fact wrong, oh no, my "theory" is destroyed! Or are you going to deny that Iraq doesn't have decent amounts of petroleum the US could benefit of? If Iran is the cause for so much war, great, let's invade Iran as well! More petroleum for US! country rich with petroleum?

http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=10452
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml

Or is it again, coincidence the US is going to waste more billions maybe trillions of dollars to go to war with another

Or did you see those news when you posted the above thread? Of course, there's no need to paste these links here, since you are so informed, you already knew all about it, correct?

The own title of this thread says war on iraq not Iran, not Saudi Arabia. Even if it didn't the facts I am talking about still adhere. US doesn't choose a country with the most oil to attack, that would be too obvious. US sees the shithole Iraq is in, and says hey, let's go help them out.. on the meantime why don't we just take all that petroleum?

Since your geography is so high then why you definitely don't need to see this map to tell that the countries you mentioned are practically glued to each other right?

[ http://www.map-of-asia.us/ ]

That is the region with the most petroleum on the planet. Of course, that has nothing to do with the war, right?

What you have written does not contradict any point anyone has written here so far. You just proved that 9/11 was needed in order to go to war.

This is typical radicalism. You read what I say, get angry because you don't agree. But you can't really argue against it. So, you find a mistake where I say it's first when it is actually fourth and then AHA, I PROVED YOU WRONG. And then you call me an ignorant, saying I go with everyone else.

Before you go all clever with a fraction of all that has occured in the past 4 years, I suggest you get your facts right as well. And please keep in mind, that in debates, discussions, whatever you wish to call them, you are attacking my point of view. If you are attacking me that is because your arguments don't suffice to destroy my point of view.

One more point I'd like to make clear before I shut up. You are saying opinions, points of view are useless. That there are just FACTS. Dude, if I believed Bush was right I would easily have a whole shitload of arguments I could use to defend him, the same way I could attack him.
There are both sides to this debate, it is based on the opinion of the reader to weigh out the facts and form an opinion based on those facts.

So of course opinions aren't useless, that is pure radicalism. If they were, why is there such things as "democrats and republicans?" The difference between these is how they weigh stuff. While one will weigh the divinity of human life as counter to abortion more, the other will put more weight on science and the possibilty to preserver more life. That is why these kind of issues are so controversial, because people choose the facts they consider more important and use it to form a basis of their opinion.

I've said too much, hope my point has been made clear to you.