Bush uses 9/11 to Justify Iraq War

[astr0creep]

Bush can use what ever he want to try to justify his invasion...but then again he can only justify it in the eyes of the US sheep and US biased ppl...the Iraq war is illegal by all means and the US will suffer because of it...it already is...over $300 billion dollars spend, close to 3000 soldiers dead...and not to mention the US has turned the Iraq into it's own battleground with the so-called terrorists combined with secretarian violence that turned the land of Iraq into a worse state than it was during Sadddam...he had Iraq under control with bloodshed...the US doesn't have control with the same ammount or even more bloodshed...the US has done it all in Iraq like Saddam other then mass graves....the US has killed, tortured, raped and abused...and for what??? WMDs? Al-Qaida link? The repeated words that Bush gave to the world - IMMINENT THREAT??!! Yeah right...Iraq is nothing but a proven fact that the US is a rotten disgusting imperialistic agressor which has over and over again proven that it's the most hypocritical nation upon the face of the world....masking their self-interest into some actions based upon morality, justice, freedom and other words that are a part of Bush's limited vocabulary....when another 9/11 happens to the US expect little symphaty in the world, yet again expect the opposite...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen!

 

"

[kirottu]

Bush can use what ever he want to try to justify his invasion...but then again he can only justify it in the eyes of the US sheep and US biased ppl...the Iraq war is illegal by all means and the US will suffer because of it...it already is...over $300 billion dollars spend, close to 3000 soldiers dead...and not to mention the US has turned the Iraq into it's own battleground with the so-called terrorists combined with secretarian violence that turned the land of Iraq into a worse state than it was during Sadddam...he had Iraq under control with bloodshed...the US doesn't have control with the same ammount or even more bloodshed...the US has done it all in Iraq like Saddam other then mass graves....the US has killed, tortured, raped and abused...and for what??? WMDs? Al-Qaida link? The repeated words that Bush gave to the world - IMMINENT THREAT??!! Yeah right...Iraq is nothing but a proven fact that the US is a rotten disgusting imperialistic agressor which has over and over again proven that it's the most hypocritical nation upon the face of the world....masking their self-interest into some actions based upon morality, justice, freedom and other words that are a part of Bush's limited vocabulary....when another 9/11 happens to the US expect little symphaty in the world, yet again expect the opposite...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don

[Arkan]

....masking their self-interest

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I agree with the majority of your posts, what, exactly, is America's interest in this?

[The Illuminator]

Those who lack the wisdom to use such knowledge don't deserve said power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed

[alanschu]

Then a great many people in the world are sad.

 

I mean, I'm sure you know exactly where Botswana is on the map without looking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I said basic geography, not exact. I knew it was an African country and not some town in South Dakota.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good for you. I hadn't even heard of the country prior to looking it up.

[metadigital]

Bush can use what ever he want to try to justify his invasion...but then again he can only justify it in the eyes of the US sheep and US biased ppl...the Iraq war is illegal by all means and the US will suffer because of it...it already is...over $300 billion dollars spend, close to 3000 soldiers dead...and not to mention the US has turned the Iraq into it's own battleground with the so-called terrorists combined with secretarian violence that turned the land of Iraq into a worse state than it was during Sadddam...he had Iraq under control with bloodshed...the US doesn't have control with the same ammount or even more bloodshed...the US has done it all in Iraq like Saddam other then mass graves....the US has killed, tortured, raped and abused...and for what??? WMDs? Al-Qaida link? The repeated words that Bush gave to the world - IMMINENT THREAT??!! Yeah right...Iraq is nothing but a proven fact that the US is a rotten disgusting imperialistic agressor which has over and over again proven that it's the most hypocritical nation upon the face of the world....masking their self-interest into some actions based upon morality, justice, freedom and other words that are a part of Bush's limited vocabulary....when another 9/11 happens to the US expect little symphaty in the world, yet again expect the opposite...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're assuming that the US is willing AND able to publish their reasons, goals and requirements into the public domain. Which is kinda na

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Hey, Hilde, not all of the US supports Bushie.

[thepixiesrock]

Because it is basic information that everyone should know about.  How do you know where you are in relation to the rest of the wourld if you do not know what the rest of the world holds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why do you need to know that though? Most people in the US never leave the US. I mean, if they don't need to know it, why do you care?

 

Sure, I encourage knowing stuff, but I'm not going to think it's bad for someone to not know something that doesn't matter to them. If they don't care, then that's fine. Why should you? Do you care that a lot of people don't know a lot about basic physics?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Because people should know about the world they live in. At least the basics. Its like going around and not knowing what 2 + 2 is.

[thepixiesrock]

So then it bothers you that they don't know basic physics?

[Arkan]

So then it bothers you that they don't know basic physics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolutely.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

So then it bothers you that they don't know basic physics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, somewhat. I am no genius but even I know the basic concepts of physics.

[alanschu]

I'm still curious if it is important to know where Armenia is off the top of your head.

 

Or heck, even Afghanistan.

 

Considering people criticize Bush about it (which is sort of how this part of the discussion got started), I'm quite surprised. I doubt many political leaders in the world could accurately list the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan. I highly doubt George W. Bush was completely clueless as to where Afghanistan was.

[Pop]

IF you're going to know history, and thus learn from it, you'd damn well better know your geography. Access to a sea is very important, economically. And the reason Germany loses so many wars has less to do with their battle prowess and more from the fact that they're in the middle of two fronts

[alanschu]

Germany didn't lose because of a second front in WWI. They lost because they didn't have enough people to be soldiers, as it was a war of attrition. (Not to mention that yet again, the RN reigned supreme). I'd wager that Germany was doomed from the beginning, and if Russia hadn't even been involved, they'd still have lost the war.

 

The Russians gave a laughable challenge as the Germans smacked them around. They were out of the war for over a year before Germany surrendered. But it's tough to match up with the manpower of France, UK, Canada, and eventually the US. This realization is what resulted in the doctrinal shift to blitzkrieg that the Germans employed in WW2. They needed to win decisively otherwise they'd lose. Which ultimately happened again on the Eastern Front in WW2.

 

 

As for your statement, I still disagree. I find I would study about the history, and as a result of my studies of history, I'd look into geography. People can learn a lot about the history of World War 2, without knowing precisely where any of the countries are. But once you start hearing about the encirclment of the Maginot Line and the initial U-Boat campaign in the North Sea, if you're interested you'll look that stuff up.

 

The history of Brunei is rather inconsequential in the world of international history. But if I wanted to look up the history of it, I'd probably be more interested in learning about it's geographical location.

 

Not knowing the geographical location of Botswana prior to this thread, does not hinder me learning about Botswana. I'll learn about it in the context of geography as I learn about the country itself. I'm not going to commit all the countries in the world (and in particularly their geographical locations) to memory, as it doesn't serve any purpose. If there's a situation that arises (such as the war in Afghanistan), I can learn about the details of Afghanistan's geographical qualities when I study it. Prior to the war I had a vague idea where it was, but that certainly hasn't stopped me from learning about it now.

 

 

I agree with the concept that learning about the history is going to be hard if you actively decided to not learn about the geography. But if someone had virtually no knowledge of Africa's geography and became interested in the crisis of Rwanda in 1994, then they'll probably look into the geography (among other things).

 

 

Have you been keeping up with the latest historical dealings in Federated States of Micronesia? Better yet, had you actually heard of the country before I mentioned it just now?

Edited September 20, 2006 by alanschu

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I have been through Micronesia.

[Hildegard]

....masking their self-interest

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I agree with the majority of your posts, what, exactly, is America's interest in this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

America's interest in Iraq, or should I say the interest of the Bush administration in Iraq is as following: Bush&Co from the beggining showed signes and actions that they want to act in Iraq, always making questions nad demands about Iraq to their intelligence and military advisers, pushing then so hard that in the end they only told them what they wanted to hear: Iraq might still have WMDs...military campain shouldn't prove to be hard...mights and maybies were more then enough for the Bush administration, and all those warnings about possible terrorist actions didn't concern them, Iraq did.

 

9/11 happend, then Afghanistan - and after the Taliban were defeated, the operation Tora Bora came along which really makes me wonder does the Bush administration even wants to capture Osama??? Such mistakes were done there that even I don't think the Bush administration is that stupid, on the contrary in my opinion the Bush administration is very clever indeed. Catching Osama and eradicating the Al Qaida were a failure and a diversion was neccessary - which was a perfect time for operation Iraqi freedom...which was never about freedom of any kind...

All the failure in Iraq, the post-war time, security and reconstruction, done by the US isn't directly a result of bad management and planing, it is merely a result of the fact that that was never, in any way, a priority of the Bush administration.

Their priorities are achived: the geo-strategic interest - a permanent US force in Iraq, minor or major, an ideal military base of operations from which they can launch actions in the future that covers pretty much the most important part of the ME. Then western allies would be much safer with Saddam out, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Taking eyes off Afghanistan in order to mask their obvious failures to capture Osama bin Laden.

The US has a defence spending of close to $500 billion and with this much value the US military industrial complex has become one of the lifelines of the US economy. And you don't have to study economics to come to a conclusion that with that much spending on production, research and development, you just have to, from time to time, have wars and conflicts to keep that part of the economy going, a basic law of supply and demand. And more money you spend on it, more often do you have to wage war as the US has been doing since the 1950's.

 

And the main reason, because of the ppl that funded Bush's campain, it isn't excatly known who funded it, but you don't have to be a genious to put two and two together when you look who are the 'best friends' of the Bush family, the elite of oil and defence tycoons, but as Bush likes to call them: his 'base'. They donated hundreds of millions of dollars for Bush to win, and those ppl are smart, they didin't give that money away just like that, they knew what profit and opportunities lay there...that's how vicepresident Chaney got his seat, and he and Rumsfeld are those that have the most influence with Bush. And indirectly they are actually calling the shots....and just take a look back at all the key figures in the first Bush administration.

 

Even if one would plan to put those ppl that best fit for the scenario of Iraq invasion, you almost couldn't put better ppl then Bush&Co did....from the moment Bush came into office, some ppl inside the 'circle' already knew what will go down. 9/11 only postponed things and in fact gave Bush even more public support for his action because some Taliban and some parts of Al-Qaida weren't enough to feed the subconcious need of revenge of many americans.

If Osama was caught of killed then maybe it would sufice, that's excatly why Bush 'let' Osama escape at Tora Bora, the mistakes done there were intentional, the Bush administration had other plans on their mind. And if Osama was out of the picture at the time being they feared the 'war on terror' would be over, and the Bush administration doesn't want that to happen, no sir, this 'war on teror' came just good to them, to shove all other agendas and actions under that carpet. How Bush exploited 9/11 just proves the fact that the Bush&Co is one of the smartest administrations in recent history, the only catch is that they are only smart when it comes to their own self-interest, the welfare of the country and the american ppl is a secondary priority to them

 

So the need for a scapegoat after 9/11 came absolutley perfectly for the Bush administration, they knew how to exploit this so they came up with a lie that Saddam has links to Al Qaida , just briliant, a masterpiece of deception. Combined with lies that Saddam is an imminent threat, that he has WMDs ready to use and give to Al Qaida, the Bush administration didn't excatly know does Saddam still have them, but they didn't care one way or another...they only cared it was a good case to push for war. And after the war, after much time has passed all of their claims turned out to e false, but they knew with time that would become irrelevent, and they would just start talking other lies...like all of this was done fot the welfare of Iraq and their ppl, for justice, democracy, bla bla bla...LOL...these deceptions and lies were so well executed that even Goebbels would be proud...

 

In the post war Iraq all the military and oil contracts were mostly given to those that funded Bush and put him in power. Companies and corporations, which some of them weren't best suited for the job, earned billions upon billions on the sufferings of the Iraqi ppl, even on the suffering of their own soldiers, own ppl...but hey they just couldn't care less...they're doing what they see is neede to be done.

 

OK, let's start with Bush&Co..and see who excatly are Bush's best friends:

 

CACI INTERNATIONAL INC - a private military corporation and an exclusive supplier of IT equipment to the US military in Iraq. With contracts with the military and intelligence agencies they insure the security of ppl and property in the 'unsafe' parts of Iraq. And according to some sources, half of CIA's budget in the year 2005 went into their hands because they got to do the job the CIA was suppose to.

 

Then you have TITAN - a company which supplies equipment for the intelligence agencies, and was recently bougth by L-3 communications, which led to making of a largest intelligence conglomeration in the world...and they, together with CACI Int. were directly involved in the tortures in the Abu Ghraib prison, it's easy then to realize why those things happend when you don't give the right job to the right ppl, but their making money, who the heck gives a damn about anything else.. Members of those companies who were there were never prosicuted just because as civilians they don't come under military judicial system...how 'convinient'. But actually one organization did care, the center for consitutional rights, I think it's called like that, Susan Burke, their lawyer, sued them, as a result CACI personal are not a part of interogation groups in Iraq and Titan got away with no consiquences.

 

BECHTEL - one of the biggest scum there is...they got a deal to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure worth $2.4 billion, there was no competion for the deal, Bechtel got it directly (read - **** Chaney). Under their leadership the costs got up to $14.6 billion. Bechtel in the end got away from Iraq and never finished the job.

 

Then we have AEGIS DEFENCE SERVICE - they have about 48 000 private security personal and mercenaries...private soldiers are not in the chain of command and they don't answer to the military judicial system, there are countless reports about them violating human rights, nobody just doesn't giva a rats ass about it...only one 'coorporate soldier' was charged for a crime in Iraq. Their headquarters is in London, but it's an American company. In the past this company is known for it's violation of arms embargo in Sierra Leon....

 

 

Custer Battles - in the March of this year, this company became the first company that was charged for a crime. The court ordered a fine of $10 million for 37 cases of fraud and false accounts. The court sentence was canceled because technicley the US Coalition authority in Iraq isn't a part of US judicial system. During one military shipment, 34 out of 36 trucks that Custer Battles delivered were mailfunctioning...when answering the charges, the CEO of the company, said: You asked for trucks and by contract we delivered them, it's irrelevent are they useable or not. It is what he said, I kid you not.

 

General Dynamics - many economic analysts say this company had the most profit from the war in Iraq. They make almost everxthing for the military, from bullets, bombs to tanks...since 9/11 their profits have tripled.

 

NOUR USA LTD. - the company was established soon after the beggining of the war, they managed to sign contracts in Iraq worth close to $400 million. With the name of the company was often mentioned the name of that opportunistic Ahmed Challabi, many accuse him he got $2 million under the table by Nour.

 

And last and most important, the oil giants - CHEVRON and EXXON MOBIL

 

The wealth taken from Iraq during this occupation will never be known, but most importantly, it will never be returned. After 3 years of occupation, after a series of skilled legal manuverous and manipulative political deals, the US oil giants have almost completley taken over the oil business in Iraq. The main turning point that lead to this happend in september 2004, when Iyad Allawi, chosen to be a temporary prime minister, brougth new oil law that excludes the Iraqi goverment from the future oil production and he announced the privatization of the whole oil industry. He wasn't the democratly elected prime minister, he was there just temporary until the elections...do I even have to tell you who appointed him that position and that played down? Even thou he isn't the prime minister now, he's charts and decisions have seriously violated the amount of income the Iraqi state and ppl will get from their own oil...yeah but sorry guys, yanks got to drive those big SUVs or otherwise they won't feel manly enough. /joking

 

 

In the end, the $300 billion spend and close to 3000 dead don't matter much to Bush and his buddies, almost all of that money went to them, they made profit and that's what matters to them. They are business man, and looking stricley this from that standpoint Bush and friends are on of the smartest ppl living on this planet today...they get to manipulate, lie and decieve to the entire US, the world...and they get away with it and in the process they earn billions of dollars....you certainly have my bow Mr. President.

 

EDIT - sorry for the grammar, I'm tired.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Hildegard

[Arkan]

....masking their self-interest

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I agree with the majority of your posts, what, exactly, is America's interest in this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*snip*.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, their interests include (after quickly scanning your post) covering up massive failures regarding bin Laden, forming a permanent US force in the ME, and giving friends of the GOP first refusal regarding all the potential profit? Is that basically what you're saying?

 

If so, they've failed in more than catching bin Laden. Not saying you're incorrect in your assessment, just that they've done a piss poor job of completing these (and any) goals and an even worse job of hiding their self-interests.

 

This "conflict" is young compared to others such as Vietnam. How many presidents had to suffer through that conflict? How long did it take before a quagmire developed into a crisis situation costing tens of thousands of American lives, let alone countless lives of those we were fighting. This "war" is young.

[Hildegard]

So, their interests include (after quickly scanning your post) covering up massive failures regarding bin Laden, forming a permanent US force in the ME, and giving friends of the GOP first refusal regarding all the potential profit? Is that basically what you're saying?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More or less...

 

 

If so, they've failed in more than catching bin Laden. Not saying you're incorrect in your assessment, just that they've done a piss poor job of completing these (and any) goals and an even worse job of hiding their self-interests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't matter if they mask it well enough, what matters is they got and are getting away with it, and nobody ain't gonna stop them. Anyways most americans buy the bullsh*t their president says about reasons for going to war in Iraq, or they just don't give a damn, with this passive attitude they will come out clean.

 

This "conflict" is young compared to others such as Vietnam. How many presidents had to suffer through that conflict? How long did it take before a quagmire developed into a crisis situation  costing tens of thousands of American lives, let alone countless lives of those we were fighting. This "war" is young.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hey I didn't say anything that counters this claim...the next administration that comes is going to have a real sh*t ass situation on their hands, and Bush&Co won't vare, they've done their part...

[astr0creep]

Hey I didn't say anything that counters this claim...the next administration that comes is going to have a real sh*t ass situation on their hands, and Bush&Co won't vare, they've done their part...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They could stil be taken to court for war crimes, no?

[Hildegard]

Hey, Hilde, not all of the US supports Bushie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know Hades and I don't hate the american ppl, sometimes I'm just bitter how easily manipulated the american ppl can be....Bush makes his freedom/democracy speech, the national anthem starts to play, the flag waves and everybody momentarily looses the ability of rational thinking... "

[Hildegard]

Hey I didn't say anything that counters this claim...the next administration that comes is going to have a real sh*t ass situation on their hands, and Bush&Co won't vare, they've done their part...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They could stil be taken to court for war crimes, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

To an international court of justice never because the US never recognized such an institution just because then they can't have their double-standards....

[astr0creep]

To an international court of justice never because the US never recognized such an institution just because then they can't have their double-standards....

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you Michael Moore?

[Hildegard]

Are you Michael Moore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmm let me see...no because I'm 191cm, 99kg, athletic body, and I'm actually considered to be handsome, so no, I'm not Michael Moore.

[Arkan]

with this passive attitude they will come out clean.

 

And this is the true crime. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.