NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , Why do you think Bush went ahead to invade Iraq ???

by run dont walk 28 Replies latest social current

• 

  AlanB

  OK, here are some facts to make the Americans amongst us think, as we live in free countries in Europe we have access to information Americans do not.

  The weapons of mass destruction were sold to Iraq by America during the Iran - Iraq war.

  Osama Bin Laden was funded and trained by America during the Russian - Afghan war.

  The Bin Laden family are connected with the Bush oil cartell.

  America has been bombing Iraq for 11 years since the Kuwait gulf war, to the point where they ran out of legitimate miltary targets and ended up bombing sheep stations and villages.

  France was not being disloyal in voting against the war, they used their democratic vote in the UN which is their right. They should not have been berated for that.

  The Bush election was rigged to the extent that had it happenned in a 3rd world country the UN would have sent in peacekeepers.

  Several British military officers refused to fight in the latest war because they disagreed with the weapons the Americans were using that are banned under international treaties of which the US has not signed up to.

  Several RAF (Royal Air Force) officers resigned because they discovered that they were told to stand down during their patrols of the no fly zones due to 'ITM's' which they later found were incoming Turkish missions to bomb Kurds, the people they were supposed to protect.

  All the key members of Bush's government have connections in the oil industry.

  The poorest member of the government has an oil tanker named after her.

  Iraq has one of the largest reserves of oil remaining in the world.

  Afghanistan forms a natural link with the trans-caucasus oil reserves in the former USSR with the gulf ports.

  American oil companies have deals in place to run a pipeline from Trans-Caucasus to the gulf via Afghanistan. The Bin Laden family are involved in this deal.

  Weapons inspectors have gone on record as saying there are no WMD in Iraq.

  There is no link with Iraq and Al Quada other than they have both been armed and funded by the USA in recent history.

  Al Quada attempted to assasinate Saddam twice over the last 10 years.

  There are reports amongst the anti war movement in the UK of significant squadrons of US bombers flying into bases in Scotland and parking up.

  There is more to this that we shall ever know, what we read in the news is often what the people with the power want us to read. There is an agenda that if we knew the full story would outline a level of corruption never seen since the fall of the Roman empire.

  It is all about oil, which is running out. There will be a final scramble to secure the remaining stocks.

  Not wishing to get apocolyptic about this especially on this board, as I firmly believe that one of the freedoms we have in not believing religious dogma of any brand is that we finally realise that we, mankind have to sort this out for ourselves.

  A
• 

  rem

  Not that I want to get into this discussion, but I just wanted to say that, in my humble opinion, Saddam was much more than just an ass.

  rem
• 

  Panda

  Hey you guys remember the UN?

  Remember the UN vote which said "Yeah Saddam's got WMD --- SOMEWHERE."?

  If you truly believe that President Bush would be so petty as to allow some imagined personal vendetta against SH, then you watch too much LINK-TV.

  If you recall, #41 was all for NOT entering Iraq and driving to Bagdad.Let's not get into who gave what to whom and when. The Cold War is over. Many leaders have supported the "bad" or "wrong team." And if you want to recall a really seriously damaging move think about the UK support of Hitler taking control of the "Sudetenland" and Poland, and everything up to the borders of the USSR(which was supposedly an ally to England). Over 6 million dead because of that sweet support. And how about NOT allowing German Jews into England, eventually kids were allowed in w/o their parents . Oh let's go further back in time when England often supported rival factions in order for them to destroy one another,(India, Thailand, Saudi Arabia) really peace loving eh? Oh and this is good --- the forced opium trade in China. Imagine fighting a war so you can sell opium! Oh yeah and guess which country actually paid her merchants not to sell opium --- yep those evil selfish Americans --- they were the only country to stop.

  Pres.Jimmy Carter left Iran open for Ayatollah Khomeni because he didn't understand what religious nuts were capable of doing. He also lost soldiers and civilians to wacko muslims. Religion is an ugly creature no matter where it sits.

  Pres.Bill Clinton visited the US military on more countries than any President past or present.

  WMD were never the only reason to invade Iraq. President Bush's speeches revolving around this war are easily obtained on the internet, you should read them.

  And yes I watch Euro-news and the translated AlJesseera. No I am not cold hearted and uncaring about our soldiers dying. If you pay attention to some of the soldiers returning home you'll find out that part of the reason they are easily targeted is because they are not just taking over and shooting everyone in their way. They are attempting to minimize civilian casualties by not bombing everything. Talk to some WWII Vets and they'll tell you that it was never like this, ie., saving lives and rebuilding the nation.

  But if you prefer to hate America and American President's then that's your perogative. I hope you will always have the freedom to voice your opinion, oh yeah if some despot attempts to curtail your rights the US will be there to save your ass ---yet again.
• 

  patio34

  War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
  
  Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
  Thursday November 20, 2003
  The Guardian International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

  In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

  President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

  But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

  French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

  Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

  "They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

  Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

  Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

  The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

  Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

  The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

  Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

  Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

  "I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

  "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

  The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

  Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

  The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.
• 

  AlanB

  Of course, I am not suggesting that Britain has not done all of these things during its history. We invented the concentration camp, the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, our gradual takeover of India by trade and playing warring factions off against each other (sound familiar).

  And not forgetting our current partnership with America in the illegal invasion of a soverign state without a UN mandate.

  Some people accuse Blair (British Prime Minister) as being Bush's lapdog. What I want to know is, why have the British got all the best bits of Iraq, an area in the South loyal to the British (from the last time we ruled Iraq) haters of Sadam and the largest of the major oil regions and the only port. Odd how no British soldiers have been killed.

  Sometimes I wonder if Bush is Blairs poodle and it suits us to let America take all the heat while we quietly bring peace to the south and silently pump all the oil out.

  Interesting to see how all of this pans out.
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  As of Nov. 21 there have been 53 British deaths, according to CNN International. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
• 

  AlanB

  But if you prefer to hate America and American President's then that's your perogative. I hope you will always have the freedom to voice your opinion, oh yeah if some despot attempts to curtail your rights the US will be there to save your ass ---yet again.

  Yea, but only after you have sold us shedloads of weapons and got to the point where we owe you so much money that you have to come in to help otherwise if we loose you wont see a cent.

  Dont get me wrong, I love Americans, as you share a similar language we know you all like close family and as such we also see all the things we dislike more than any other nation.
• 

  AlanB

  Yea, but how many since the War 'officially ended'.

  I guess the British death toll has fallen since the Americans have stopped firing on us.

  <ducking>
• 

  patio34

  Alan B, you quoted this:

  But if you prefer to hate America and American President's then that's your perogative. I hope you will always have the freedom to voice your opinion, oh yeah if some despot attempts to curtail your rights the US will be there to save your ass ---yet again.

  Whose words were they?

  I suppose it's silly to point out (as it seems self-evident), that to disagree with the president's policies is not equal to "hate America and American President's". Whoever made that emotional and polemic statement needs to slow down a bit, and do some deep breathing.

  Pat
• 

  czarofmischief

  And what about pulling down a statue of Bush in parody of toppling Saddam's statue?

  That's just disgusting. Calculated to enrage people like me. Trying to provoke a reaction, like the bombing of a mosque in the US, further driving a wedge between our peoples, most of whom are just trying to get by.

  CZAR