Why is USA in Iraq?

[cubedbee]

**Remember: Respect those God has put in authority over you. I pray for him and our government every day.

"I STAND WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH"

You can respect authority while still criticizing and disagreeing with the wrong that they do. Would you have stood by Sadam Hussein if you had been born in Iraq?

 

[evanman]

Iraq is where Ancient Babylon is located.

One of the artefacts on Bush's "shopping list" was an ancient copy of the Babylonian Talmud.

Bush is engaged in Babylonian Rituals along with his friends out in California at the Grove!

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

Bushes-bin Laden: 'well known fact'. Please enlighten me. I must be ignorant of the pure evil of the Bush family.

So if information is anti-Bush, it's truth, but if it's pro-Bush it's not? I see. Bush is evil. He loves to lie, steal, and destroy. Right now he is hiding bin Laden in Crawford, Texas.

The other countries who wanted to wait longer had already waited too long. For some reason they trusted Saddam Hussein, even though he had proved himself time and time again to be one who can not be trusted. The Bush administration had the courage to say, "Enough!" - and finish the stalling. Do you know of the scandal at the UN? Humanitarian money to Iraq is believed to have been given back to the UN by Saddam - so that they would keep stalling, keep turning a blind eye to Iraq's refusal to adhere to the sanctions put to it after invading Kuwait. But, of course, you probably dismiss that, don't you. Because Bush is evil, and he lied.

 

[cubedbee]

Here's an article about the bin Laden's connections to powerful American political figures, including the Bushes. They are an extremely wealthy family, who says they have no ties with Osama any longer. If you believe this, then there is nothing necessarily wrong with these dealings.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/time ... 92701.html

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The other countries who wanted to wait longer had already waited too long. For some reason they trusted Saddam Hussein, even though he had proved himself time and time again to be one who can not be trusted. The Bush administration had the courage to say, "Enough!" - and finish the stalling.

He was about to set a precedent for going against the will of the UN and for invading countries pre-emptively. The fact that there have been no WMD caches found that were not accounted for in older records, the fact that the Nigerian uranium buying information was fraudulent and the fact that none of the facilities that Powell showed the UN as evidence of Iraq's programs had any NBC warfare munitions spell out that the US invaded another country without accurate or truthful justification.
Is it alright for one country to invade another country without reason? To attack a country that while hostile presents no threat or at the very least has to be shown to present a threat with falsified evidence?

 

[john_316]

usa in iraq

"I STAND WITH PRESIDENT but the war needs to stop all of are people are dieing for what. all i know is that are lord is with them :

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

**Remember: Respect those God has put in authority over you. I pray for him and our government every day.

"I STAND WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH"

You can respect authority while still criticizing and disagreeing with the wrong that they do. Would you have stood by Sadam Hussein if you had been born in Iraq?

Well, that seems to be precisely what people here are advocating. It seems people here think the US Citizens should respect their leader but no other citizens should respect theirs. Talk about disgusting hypocrisy.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Bushes-bin Laden: 'well known fact'. Please enlighten me. I must be ignorant of the pure evil of the Bush family.

So if information is anti-Bush, it's truth, but if it's pro-Bush it's not? I see. Bush is evil. He loves to lie, steal, and destroy. Right now he is hiding bin Laden in Crawford, Texas.

Where are you getting these pitiful ideas?

The other countries who wanted to wait longer had already waited too long.

Too long for what? They have not found ANY WMD's. Get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush did not want to wait because if he did wait they would not have found any WMD's and he would not have any reason to invade Iraq

For some reason they trusted Saddam Hussein, even though he had proved himself time and time again to be one who can not be trusted.

au contrare mon frere. You have NOT proven that Hussein had WMD's. You have nothing but a vigilante mentality.

The Bush administration had the courage to say, "Enough!" - and finish the stalling.

Yes, Bush had the "courage" to decide he was the king of the world.

Do you know of the scandal at the UN? Humanitarian money to Iraq is believed to have been given back to the UN by Saddam - so that they would keep stalling, keep turning a blind eye to Iraq's refusal to adhere to the sanctions put to it after invading Kuwait. But, of course, you probably dismiss that, don't you. Because Bush is evil, and he lied.

Who cares? Are you now trying to have two wrongs make a right? That is childish.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Is it alright for one country to invade another country without reason? To attack a country that while hostile presents no threat or at the very least has to be shown to present a threat with falsified evidence?

If you are an American with the status quo brainwashed mentality, the answer is YES. USA can do no wrong. Whatever USA does is always good, no matter how evil that good may be.

Whatever USA does is right simply because USA did it.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

You need to have a little read about what is not being told in USA.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

The recent hearings about 911.... this info was well known outside the US a long time ago... American citizens are just learning about it now.

"George W. Bush starts up an oil company in Texas called Arbusto 78. Bath will invest money from Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz in this new company. Bill White is told by Bath that more than $1-million of the Saudis’ money was pumped into Bush’s venture."


"The attack occurs. The morning of the attack George Bush Sr. meets with members of the Carlyle Group in Washington. Bin Laden's own brother is at the meeting. Members of the Bin Laden family are allowed to leave the U.S. without questioning two days later."

Just how naive can you be?

JMW

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

Thanks, cubedbee for the article. It was very informative. Using the same logic that JMW is using, everybody who was friends with or who spoke with Adolf Hitler's father or uncles should share some of the blame for Adolf's atrocities.

The Bin Laden family is a wealthy family with a construction company. Muhammed bin Laden had more than 50 children, one of which is Osama bin Laden. "The bin Laden family has long disavowed Osama, and has cooperated fully with several federal investigations into his activities."

A U.S. inquiry into bin Laden family business dealings could brush against some big names associated with the U.S. government. Former President Bush said through his chief of staff, Jean Becker, that he recalled only one meeting with the bin Laden family, which took place in November 1998. Ms. Becker confirmed that there was a second meeting in January 2000, after being read the ex-president's subsequent thank-you note. "President Bush does not have a relationship with the bin Laden family," says Ms. Becker. "He's met them twice."

JMW- are you reading this?

During the past several years, the family's close ties to the Saudi royal family prompted executives and staff from closely held New York publisher Forbes Inc. to make two trips to the family headquarters, according to Forbes Chairman Caspar Weinberger, a former U.S. secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "We would call on them to get their view of the country and what would be of interest to investors."

Mr. Weinberger said no trips to Saudi Arabia were planned. "If we went," he said, "we may or may not call upon them. I don't think the sins of the son should be visited on the father or the brother and the cousins and the aunts."

There is no indication President George W. Bush has met any of the bin Ladens, but he was indirectly linked to one of them two decades ago. His longtime friend James W. Bath, who met Mr. Bush when they were both pilots in the Air National Guard, acted as a Texas business representative for Osama's older brother, Salem bin Laden, from 1976 to 1988, when Salem died in a plane crash. Mr. Bath brought real-estate acquisitions and other deals to Salem bin Laden, an ebullient man who headed the family construction business. Mr. Bath generally received a 5% interest as his fee, and was sometimes listed as a trustee in related corporate documents. Mr. Bath acknowledged that during the same period he invested $50,000 in two funds controlled by Mr. Bush but said that stake was unrelated to his dealings with Mr. bin Laden.

Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

JMW- do you still back up your original claim? You are simply parroting the anti-Bush hatred that the liberal wackos spew out - that's why I assumed you are also a liberal. Mentioning a 'relationship' between the bushes and bin Laden is just a sleazy tactic to discredit and libel the president. It is not the truth.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Thanks, cubedbee for the article. It was very informative. Using the same logic that JMW is using, everybody who was friends with or who spoke with Adolf Hitler's father or uncles should share some of the blame for Adolf's atrocities.

The Bin Laden family is a wealthy family with a construction company. Muhammed bin Laden had more than 50 children, one of which is Osama bin Laden. "The bin Laden family has long disavowed Osama, and has cooperated fully with several federal investigations into his activities."

A U.S. inquiry into bin Laden family business dealings could brush against some big names associated with the U.S. government. Former President Bush said through his chief of staff, Jean Becker, that he recalled only one meeting with the bin Laden family, which took place in November 1998. Ms. Becker confirmed that there was a second meeting in January 2000, after being read the ex-president's subsequent thank-you note. "President Bush does not have a relationship with the bin Laden family," says Ms. Becker. "He's met them twice."

JMW- are you reading this?

Sure am. I can hardly believed how easily you are duped. George Bush Sr. was meeting with a member of the bin laden family during the 911 attqack. While other planes were grounded, these Arabian planes were allowed to return to Arabia. Wake up man.

During the past several years, the family's close ties to the Saudi royal family prompted executives and staff from closely held New York publisher Forbes Inc. to make two trips to the family headquarters, according to Forbes Chairman Caspar Weinberger, a former U.S. secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "We would call on them to get their view of the country and what would be of interest to investors."

Mr. Weinberger said no trips to Saudi Arabia were planned. "If we went," he said, "we may or may not call upon them. I don't think the sins of the son should be visited on the father or the brother and the cousins and the aunts."

There is no indication President George W. Bush has met any of the bin Ladens, but he was indirectly linked to one of them two decades ago. His longtime friend James W. Bath, who met Mr. Bush when they were both pilots in the Air National Guard, acted as a Texas business representative for Osama's older brother, Salem bin Laden, from 1976 to 1988, when Salem died in a plane crash. Mr. Bath brought real-estate acquisitions and other deals to Salem bin Laden, an ebullient man who headed the family construction business. Mr. Bath generally received a 5% interest as his fee, and was sometimes listed as a trustee in related corporate documents. Mr. Bath acknowledged that during the same period he invested $50,000 in two funds controlled by Mr. Bush but said that stake was unrelated to his dealings with Mr. bin Laden.

Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.[/quote]

Bush says this Bush says that.

Deal with this.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

JMW- do you still back up your original claim? You are simply parroting the anti-Bush hatred that the liberal wackos spew out - that's why I assumed you are also a liberal. Mentioning a 'relationship' between the bushes and bin Laden is just a sleazy tactic to discredit and libel the president. It is not the truth.

Yes, I do. Bush is there for the oil. A sleazy tactic eh? You are naive man. And you thought he was just a nice man like grandpa didn't you?

Listen up. Bush has no reason to be in Iraq. NONE. Fantasies of WMD's are not good reasons. Hussein couldn't hit the broad side of a barn door with a scud for crying out loud.

Here's an idea. Invade North Korea, China, Russia, France, India, and Pakistan. They all have major WMD's and they don't hide that they do either.

Hurry up now. Get on over there and do something about it. After all, it is necessary right? You can be the world's Savior today.

And while you are at "liberating" countries, why don't you head off to the numerous countries under dictatorship and violent oppression of the people? Like Cambodia and several African counties. No oil there?

JMW

 

[john_316]

: bush just wents to stay in the white house for 4 more years that
is why he was talking to all of us last week or week before that. he is not going to get my vote this year we just need to pray :

 

[Vic C.]

WARNING.

There are 33 posts in this thread made by about 8-9 members. JMW, 14 of them are yours, with four in a row on one page and three in a row on another. To top it off, all those words do not amount to much of anything. This is considered post flooding and I won't tolerate it. Give way for others to post or I will have to lock it.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Okay, now that Vic has stepped in... I'll join in! Without further adeu,

George Bush Sr. was meeting with a member of the bin laden family during the 911 attqack. While other planes were grounded, these Arabian planes were allowed to return to Arabia.

I don't know the validity of the premise here, but I can say that I have no problem with some of the bin Laden family leaving two days after the WTC attack. The bin Laden family has disowned Osama much like Saudi Arabia has banished him... Besides, two days is plenty of time for the CIA to interrogate them to find out if they did know any information. There's no need in harrassing innocents just because of their "relation."

Bush says this Bush says that.

Deal with this.

Using a conspiracy theory page to combat a Dow Jones & Compnay article specifically made in response to the conspiracy theories is redundant and ridiculous. Down Jones is more credible and eliminates much of the conspiracies (which I must say are so full of half-truths that it's disgusting).

Yes, I do. Bush is there for the oil. A sleazy tactic eh?

Unsubstantiated.

Bush has no reason to be in Iraq. NONE.

Numerous broken UN resolutions and undocumented WMDs might be two good reasons, not to mention crimes against humanity. You can say that there are no WMDs there now, but whether there are or aren't, the fact that there were WMDs and at some point they dissappeared without documentation is a major security threat to the US.

Invade North Korea, China, Russia, France, India, and Pakistan. They all have major WMD's and they don't hide that they do either.

North Korea - I say just assassinate Mr. Kim.
China - Unneccessary and unwanted.
Russia - Slowly becoming our allies under Putin.
France - Arrogant, annoying and back-stabers, but not worthy of military invasion.
India - Let Pakistan handle them.
Pakistan - Let India handle them.

The problem is that none of said countries broke promise after promise after promise (with the exception of N.K.). Eventually, you have to recognize and be intolerant of security threats.

Like Cambodia and several African counties. No oil there?

No security threat. Afghanistan - no oil either.

BL

 

[Fish-Cross]

No, I would not stand with Sadam Hussein if I was born in Iraq. The reason I stand with George Bush is because he is a GREAT President. JMW, If you're so dissatisfied with America, why don't you move to a different country.:roll:

: bush just wents to stay in the white house for 4 more years that
is why he was talking to all of us last week or week before that. he is not going to get my vote this year we just need to pray :

I don't know how anyone could vote for a Democratic Liberal like John Kerry.

"I STAND WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH"

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Okay, now that Vic has stepped in... I'll join in! Without further adeu,

George Bush Sr. was meeting with a member of the bin laden family during the 911 attqack. While other planes were grounded, these Arabian planes were allowed to return to Arabia.

I don't know the validity of the premise here, but I can say that I have no problem with some of the bin Laden family leaving two days after the WTC attack. The bin Laden family has disowned Osama much like Saudi Arabia has banished him... Besides, two days is plenty of time for the CIA to interrogate them to find out if they did know any information. There's no need in harrassing innocents just because of their "relation."

You don't have a problem that the bin laden family were allowed to fly but NO Americans were allowed to fly ANYWHERE including those whose loved ones were killed in New York. Do tell, why the bin ladens and the Arabians were given these privileges above everyone else and how it is you don't have a problem with that?

Numerous broken UN resolutions

USA has become the self-appointed police force of the world now eh?

and undocumented WMDs might be two good reasons, not to mention crimes against humanity.

Oh I get it. Its the slippery non-documentation that made the US really mad and gave them total justification to invade a country.

You can say that there are no WMDs there now, but whether there are or aren't, the fact that there were WMDs and at some point they dissappeared without documentation is a major security threat to the US.

Uh huh. The UN Inspectors could not find any. That is what they were doing before the invasion. Of course this did not make Bush too happy since he needed an excuse.

Invade North Korea, China, Russia, France, India, and Pakistan. They all have major WMD's and they don't hide that they do either
North Korea - I say just assassinate Mr. Kim.
China - Unneccessary and unwanted.
Russia - Slowly becoming our allies under Putin.
France - Arrogant, annoying and back-stabers, but not worthy of military invasion.
India - Let Pakistan handle them.
Pakistan - Let India handle them.

No, I think USA should go in right now. These guys are all hostile in some manner or another to USA and I am sure we can all make up a good excuse just why they are. We need to put this to an end yes we do. Hey, why did the US not make the decision to just assassinate Mr. Hussein then?

The problem is that none of said countries broke promise after promise after promise (with the exception of N.K.). Eventually, you have to recognize and be intolerant of security threats.

[quote:4a7a7] Like Cambodia and several African counties. No oil there?

Actually, they all have violated Nuke treaties. I know I know. It's okay for them, just not the guys who have oil that would be nice and easy to get.

No security threat. Afghanistan - no oil either.

[/quote:4a7a7]

Afghanistan was warranted. Iraq is not. That just might be why so many other countries support the US in Afghanistan.

JMW

 

[Blue-Lightning]

You don't have a problem that the bin laden family were allowed to fly but NO Americans were allowed to fly ANYWHERE including those whose loved ones were killed in New York. Do tell, why the bin ladens and the Arabians were given these privileges above everyone else and how it is you don't have a problem with that?

Because they were meeting with a former president at the time. They were thus entitled to foreign dignitary status. Other foreign dignitaries were allowed to leave also, not only those from the Middle East, and I have no problem with that.

USA has become the self-appointed police force of the world now eh?

I haven't heard the USA appoint itself that position, so I would assume not. You might title it's foreign policies as such, but that would simply be a semantical decision on your part.

Oh I get it. Its the slippery non-documentation that made the US really mad and gave them total justification to invade a country.

If you are defeated in war and you agree to certain post-war resolutions, then you are required to meet those resolutions or meet penalties. Ten years of sanctions didn't work, ten years of diplomacy didn't work, so yes, after ten years of penalties, military action was necessary to assertain whether or not WMDs existed inside the country.

The UN Inspectors could not find any. That is what they were doing before the invasion. Of course this did not make Bush too happy since he needed an excuse.

We know Hussein had WMDs at the end of the Gulf War, we just don't know where they went to. That is what the inspectors were looking for. And your third sentence is a subjective opinion which you have no way of knowing... not worth my response.

No, I think USA should go in right now. These guys are all hostile in some manner or another to USA and I am sure we can all make up a good excuse just why they are.

There is already a silly thread on this forum if you want to use it. There's also a Games forum if that's what you're looking for.

Actually, they all have violated Nuke treaties. I know I know. It's okay for them, just not the guys who have oil that would be nice and easy to get.

Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. Try and stay on topic, please.

Afghanistan was warranted. Iraq is not.

Your opinion. I say both were warranted although I might have gone about the Iraqi post-war situation a little differently.

That just might be why so many other countries support the US in Afghanistan.

I know: France, India, and China gave us so much aide while were over there and still are there!

BL

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

You don't have a problem that the bin laden family were allowed to fly but NO Americans were allowed to fly ANYWHERE including those whose loved ones were killed in New York. Do tell, why the bin ladens and the Arabians were given these privileges above everyone else and how it is you don't have a problem with that?

Because they were meeting with a former president at the time. They were thus entitled to foreign dignitary status. Other foreign dignitaries were allowed to leave also, not only those from the Middle East, and I have no problem with that.

And they were allowed to leave when?

[quote:1770b]USA has become the self-appointed police force of the world now eh?

I haven't heard the USA appoint itself that position, so I would assume not. You might title it's foreign policies as such, but that would simply be a semantical decision on your part.
[/quote:1770b]

Semantical LOL. USA appointed itself as the nation to take care of Hussein for the good of the world. How many times as Bush said that?

[quote:1770b]Oh I get it. Its the slippery non-documentation that made the US really mad and gave them total justification to invade a country.

If you are defeated in war and you agree to certain post-war resolutions, then you are required to meet those resolutions or meet penalties. Ten years of sanctions didn't work, ten years of diplomacy didn't work, so yes, after ten years of penalties, military action was necessary to assertain whether or not WMDs existed inside the country.[/quote:1770b]

Whoa there. That is a UN decision. And they were already looking for the WMD's. When did USA gain the right to act for the world? This right here is evidence of the self-appointing attitude.

[quote:1770b]The UN Inspectors could not find any. That is what they were doing before the invasion. Of course this did not make Bush too happy since he needed an excuse.

We know Hussein had WMDs at the end of the Gulf War, we just don't know where they went to. That is what the inspectors were looking for. And your third sentence is a subjective opinion which you have no way of knowing... not worth my response.
[/quote:1770b]

Who cares what Hussein had 11 years prior? What matters is what he had in 2003. He said he had nothing; the UN inspectors found nothing, and now USA has found nothing. It is nothing but a sham and a concocted excuse.

[quote:1770b]No, I think USA should go in right now. These guys are all hostile in some manner or another to USA and I am sure we can all make up a good excuse just why they are.

There is already a silly thread on this forum if you want to use it. There's also a Games forum if that's what you're looking for.

Actually, they all have violated Nuke treaties. I know I know. It's okay for them, just not the guys who have oil that would be nice and easy to get.

Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. Try and stay on topic, please.
[/quote:1770b]

I see, so now NUKEs are not part of the WMD problem? Its just those lesser WMD's we gotta deal with right?

[quote:1770b]Afghanistan was warranted. Iraq is not.

Your opinion. I say both were warranted although I might have gone about the Iraqi post-war situation a little differently.
[/quote:1770b]

USA had clear reason to go into Afghanistan. The men who attacked New York were stationed there.

You still have shown no grounds for the invasion of Iraq. Is speculation enough now to invade a country? Heck, we can justifiably invade anyone then!!!

[quote:1770b]That just might be why so many other countries support the US in Afghanistan.

I know: France, India, and China gave us so much aide while were over there and still are there!

BL[/quote:1770b]

you skew the facts to paint a rosey picture for youself. Reality is still reality.

JMW

 

[Blue-Lightning]

And they were allowed to leave when?

You said two days later...

USA appointed itself as the nation to take care of Hussein for the good of the world. How many times as Bush said that?

That doesn't equate itself to "policing." The bottomline is that the US's actions were for the US, but it happens that it was for the bettering of the world.

That is a UN decision. And they were already looking for the WMD's. When did USA gain the right to act for the world? This right here is evidence of the self-appointing attitude.

There are no rights outside of countries, only inside of countries. The USA has the ability to do whatever is in its best interest and the president of the United States is given the direct responsiblity of defending the security of the nation... the US, and every other country, will act in its best interests or be harmed. That USA has shown that it will not be controlled by third-parties, it's unfortuante if you don't like that.

Who cares what Hussein had 11 years prior? What matters is what he had in 2003.

That's not necessarily true. However, we didn't know what he had because he wouldn't tell us... we had to find out, and that determination is not final. Although in your mind you seem to have made your opinion final.

I see, so now NUKEs are not part of the WMD problem? Its just those lesser WMD's we gotta deal with right?

Nukes are WMDs, Iraq never had nukes, all WMDs are intrinsically dangerous by their very nature.

USA had clear reason to go into Afghanistan. The men who attacked New York were stationed there.

Actually, they were dead.

You still have shown no grounds for the invasion of Iraq.

Sure I have, but you're not going to accept anything. So, it's looking like I have little reason to "debate."

you skew the facts to paint a rosey picture for youself. Reality is still reality.

Ad hominem.

BL