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

Hey Z-Boson, mind if I make some suggestions? Well, when you said that it's hard to not be anti-Bush if you're informed, you're indirectly stating that there's no way that you can be informed and still agree with some things Bush does. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were going for, I'm just stating as to how it can be interpreted.

Anyway, I was going to correct you on Iraq's position in the world oil stage as well, but Paragon got there first, sothere you go. I must say though, 9/11 damn well could have been prevented, in fact, and FBI agent working with the Mossad even suggested that the government take a look at the people that actually hijacked the planes at least a good 8 months before it actually happened. I also agree that the US didn't necessarily have the right to go into Iraq in the first place, and that was a mistake I'll admit. However, I prefer to look more at the present than the past, and personally, I DO think we should leave...but not yet. Now before we get to the flaring, let me say some things.

First off, Democrats and some Republicans say that we're in a quagmire and that we aren't making progress and yada yada...at the same time though they aren't exactly making it easier either. Take for example what's going on now with how there's a possibility of passing a notion of officially calling the Ottoman Turk extermination of Armenians officially genocide. This does absolutely NOTHING and it is completely POINTLESS and all it does is make the Turks, a key ally in the middle east as a whole, be angry at us. Now, I'm almost dead certain that this is just a part of the plan to force Bush to get troops out of Iraq by cutting off a key resource to us...that absolutely FRUSTRATES me. Why are you going to openly sabotage the war when it is obviously difficult enough?! And they may say its to give "justice" to the genocide victims, but the reality is that there's nothing we can really do and it's pointless, and quite frankly, it's almost hypocritical by saying "oh, we'll say this is genocide so things will go our way, but we don't care to possibly stop another genocide."

I'll agree that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, but the reality is we're there, and it's not that simple getting out. I will explain further my way of thinking later, but right now I have to leave.

Both parties have faults in them, not just one.

 

To Itsmyship: You see, the fact that the US shoudn't have been there in the first place is why I think it's hard not to be anti-Bush. I mean, I'm sure you can find lots of ways to support him and all, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he is causing, or better yet, continuing a needless war.
I said it is hard for you to be informed and not be anti-bush. If you have seen tapes released from Iraq, not just read CNN news, but seen those tapes and picturing yourself as a citizen of Iraq, it is very difficult not to frown. Like I said earlier, it all depends on how you weigh things. I am assuming most people think like this, so that's why I said hardly, of course, a mistake.

Thank you for lowering down the tone of your argument.

To lichking: So I've noticed :-\

 

he won the elections cause the other choice was even worse... which pretty much sums up American politics, education system, capitalism and society in general

that is the first time I have EVER heard someone say Bush has good public speaking skills... the dude stutters, mangles words, and spouts nonsensical thoughts on a regular basis - his public speaking is a joke... it's so much of a joke that comedians don't even bother using it as a topic anymore because it's played out


--------
And as a already said... it's not about oil so much as it is about wartime industries and restructuring companies profiting.

-------
And as to the Taliban getting brought into this... the U.S. helped put the Taliban in power in the first place, back when we wanted somebody to fight the Soviets in the area. It's all bullcrap. Believe your friends, believe your family. Don't put your trust in anybody else.

 

haha bush and good public skills are like republicans and abortian, and gay marriage..

 

hmmm... if he wasn't able to convince the American people to vote for him, how else could he have won?

Aparently I haven't seen enough speeches to discern that for sure, so I think the correct argument would be:

He was more persuasive than Kerry :/

In politics the best speaker is the one that wins. Good backgrounds and history just give them more stuff to speak on.

That reminds me, this is a perfect example of what I mean:

In 2006 Brazil had it's election, between Lula, an analphabet (I'm serious) Metalurgicist who was born in a slum (I'm not kidding), and the São Paulo Governor. SInce the majority of the population here is analfabetized, they recognized better with Lula and ended up voting for him. While Lula said: "Good Sewers", the Governor said "I promise to further the sanitizing system by a discrete amount of 20%". He had a much better background and much better education and still lost, and now we have been 5 years with the shittiest president in history. Why? 'Cause the governor couldn't persuade a hungry dog to go after him.

Which is why I'm saying Bush is persuasive. He has to be in order to win, or at least more persuasive than Kerry.

 

bush won because his opponents were even worse then him.


also, america has had plans ont he middle east for a long time, back to the 80s, i think. gulf war or kuwait or something....

 

Good public speaking is only one element to getting public support. It is a very great stretch of truth to say the best public speaker always wins. One of the greatest contributing elements to getting elected is campaign funds. The more money a candidate has, the more likely he is to get elected - money lets him put adds on TV, host events, etc, etc... there are many more factors.

As far as Bush vs. Kerry - it came down to: nobody could figure out what exactly Kerry stood for. He'd say completely opposite things on different days. So it was hard for him to gather staunch supporters, because nobody was sure IF he REALLY supported the things they supported. Bush on the other hand was very clear about what he supported. For the most part he appeared a bumbling moron - but he was a RESOLUTE bumbling moron. And the ppl who think like he did, KNEW he wouldn't change - so they could feel safe to vote for him.

The rest of the American public prolly voted based on who's hair they liked better... seriously, this is America.

And finally, if you are from a foreign country you prolly don't realize that actually the majority of ppl did not vote for Bush. But because of the way the representation of votes is set up, he won anyway. It was close, but ehh - they're all doofuses, it wouldn't have made much difference.

-------------
Oh yeah, and all that is beside the point of your thread - sorry for getting side-tracked.

You are correct however, the U.S. wanted to get involved in the middle east long before 9/11.

 

That would be against Al Gore, against Kerry he won by a considerable amount.

I have lived in the US for 5 years, including the elections, so don't think I am ignorant because I am foreign

 

Ahh, sorry for assuming you still lived in Brazil was it? Wasn't trying to call you ignorant. It's just that if you were living in a foreign country... well, you obviously know a lot more about Brazil than I do - and vice versa...

And thnx for correcting me about the elections - all the names blur together anymore...

 

haha yup sorry for going off track... anyways, this really is not very surprising news to me, a country cant just start a war for no reason. if they do of course the people are gonna feel angry. congress wanted this war before 9-11, so of course this attack was a great way to start the war in iraq. I feel like we were all tricked, we supposedly went there to look for "Nuk leur" missles. Did we find any?? no we did not. another disguise to go and invade iraq. now as far as what we are looking for in iraq, one could only guess. Surely it can not be for missles, or to avenge the attacks on 9-11. As it is most of the poeple behind the attacks on 9-11 are in afghanistan, not Iraq... So i still wonder why are we in iraq? Oil? mayb by controlling iraq, we have gained a political foot hold in the middle east, a oil rich area of this world, and are using that to our advantage... And this is probably not true (Dont believe me or listen to this just an idea) but was it not true that bush and ossama bin laden were not friends, ok really the bush "family". but of course wouldnt it have been an interesting plot to some kind of fiction, where we are tricked, and this war is all a fraud, and that 9-11 is just a fraud, created to decieve the american population into taking action to "save" our country and attack those evil terrorist. Just saying.... i doubt it myself though.

Now this is for the people that do support bush... we cant share all the blame on bush, when he is not the only one who could wage war, he needs support of congress as well. So if congress supported him, and as far as i know they were the ones that wanted this, then we need to blame congress as well.

 

the funniest thing is the whole preventative attack concept

that is the definition of an evil action, but somehow a large percentage of ppl have convinced themselves it's a good thing, and they will yell at you if you say otherwise

I really cannot fathom how anybody can call hitting somebody because you thought they were about to hit you, a good thing. Practical? Maybe. Good? Yeah right.

 

Good lord, please make this non-sense stop!

Please!

There are literally thousands of blogs that cover this! Just find one you like and post there!!!

Is it to much to ask to have one forum that isn't in a war over this?!?

 

fuck blogs.

we have a forum to post and talk about things. we have a section for starcraft, and a section for other things. believe it or not, this war is one of the 'other things' that we have a section for.

 

Yeah, it kinda really stopped being an argument a while ago really.

Like I said, I'm neither Pro-Bush nor anti-Bush, I do however prefer to see it in perspective of the generals and soldiers an the people of Iraq. Probably the most frustrating thing to generals is politicians. They can help, but most of the time they just make the job harder. That's why I don't take what politicians say what they think about Iraq into as much consideration as the generals or the soldiers, because in reality, the majority of the politicians don't know how the military or warfare works or how its like.

As for the Iraqi people, a good amount of the people say they want the US to leave, but not yet. They say that if the US left now, most would be in far too much danger to even go to college or such. And when you think about it, yeah, we definitely went in for the wrong reasons and it's certainly cost not only our own peoples' lives, but their people as well, and leaving now would just continue far more death than it should. Just cuz we messed up going in, doesn't mean we can't pull at least some good out of it can we?Yea...I'm an idealist, but whatever.

I always figured that when I'm older i'd either be up there in the military or in international affairs, so I figure might as well prepare with either or nowadays hehe

 

Z-BosoN - are you seriously that dense? I single out one passage in your entire post and show that that ONE passage is wrong and ONLY THAT PASSAGE NOTHING ELSE and you think I'm talking about everything you said. If I was disagreeing with everything you said I would have f**king broken it down and quoted and responded to each piece. But did I? No. I corrected ONE thing you said that was wrong. Don't get all pissy with me just because you can't get your facts straight.

And it's great that you call me the radical for not buying into the conspiracy theory that it's all about the oil. Yep, real radical of me to base my ideas on accusations that can't actually be proven one way or another.
The general consensus is that two things "caused" the Iraq war.
1) Weapons of mass destruction
2) Connections to terror groups

Regarding 1 - By not letting weapons inspectors look for weapons Saddam was making it seem like he could have weapons of mass destruction whether they be chemical, nuclear, or biological. Had he not had them the obvious choice in hindsight would be to say that he doesn't but he was probably hoping that if the US thought he did have WMDs then this would deter the US from attacking.
Regarding 2 - There is proof of contact with various groups that use terrorist tactics. The reason for this contact was to train iraqis in eastern combat techniques (what the insurgents are currently using). Saddam knew that if the US did attack they would role over his army quicker than the first time they did. His plan was to lead his forces in an insurgency after the fall of his regime. This didn't work out for him.

Unfortunately both of these steps that Saddam had intended to use defensively were the reasons the US started the war. This is the nature of foreign policy. The US thought they could just go in, take down Saddam, and leave. And then the looting started and the US realized that they had to stabilize the country or it would get very bad.

That is the generally accepted story. Not your it's all about the oil radical bullshit.

No... Pakistani ISI "put" the Taliban in power. After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan the Northern Alliance controlled Afghanistan (1989). Hekmatyar was the ISI's main proxy in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war and since the US was funneling weapons through the ISI, most of those went to Hekmatyar. The Northern Alliance on the other hand was Iranian backed. After the Soviets left Hekmatyar tried to seize power from the Northern Alliance. They failed and decided to join the Northern Alliance in running the country together (1993). Pakistani ISI didn't like this so they decided to back the Taliban who were sitting around the NWFP in Pakistan (1994) and after 2 years of fighting they got control of Afghanistan (1996).

 

Far from being the "general consensus", it would be much fairer to say, 'these were the two most sited reasons for invading... pre-invasion'. Because, of course now, nobody says anything about either of those reasons since both were absurd exagerations. We knew Saddam had chemical weapons - some of them we sold to him. We also knew he did not have biological and certainly not nuclear weapons. And we knew he had no intention of attacking the US with jack-diddly. Not to mention that the whole situation is absurd considering that the US has a bigger stockpile of horrendous weapons than anybody. Secondly, Saddam didn't have any more 'connections to terror groups' than any other country. Osama didn't like Saddam. Either would have gladly killed the other. Which is why now the "general consensus" among supporters is that the war was/is necessary to 'free the Iraqi people'.

They gained control with our weapons technology and our money. We knew they were getting it. So yes, we put them in power. We didn't care that they were a collection of radical, generally evil, bungholes. They were doing something we wanted.

 

The war in Iraq have been started for OIL and BUSH is the man responsible for the all atrocities committed in this country.
Also the Vietnam war has been started for DRUGS industry by the CIA.

 

Very well said and very true! and yes the americans and iraqs have being agreeing and disagreing on all differnt things so things didnt go right for the oil is the main reason and yeah...a war! , static-x must of been there when that happened , iff You don't know that band then You wouldnt of udnerstood!

 

And finnaly who wants to know the truth about SUA and this world, i advice him to visit http://www.illuminati-news.com/ -
Welcome to the new world !!!

 

Not even gonna counter after this:

Seriously, google the subject and read everything there is to read about the war. Since I'm the dense one here, then don't waste your time making another post. Please.