what about the earlier attacks on the world trade center, let alone the other acts of terrorism around the world -_- most of the people in the 9/11 attacks were saudi arabian. Bush must have mistaken them for iraquis i guess -_-. This attack was bush's oppurtunity to use a scare tatic in order to invade iraq. :| GORE REALLY WON, YOU ALL KNOW IT lol
This is what the USA comes too... the population is completely controlled by the media Bush didn't invade Iraq for oil. You guys who say you did are just said that Kerry and all the rest lost to him, and want to put him down. Iraq was harboring TERRORIST so don't say it has nothing to do with terrorism. Also Saddam was a tyrant who was torchering his own people so he needed to be taken out. The war is more a "preimtive" strike to stop future problems from emerging from the country. And we have not gotten anymore oil out of this, actually we have less now than before. And as soon as we leave the country then what will all of you say? We didn't start a war for oil, and we aren't going to leave with more oil control than we had before. So we might have gone to war even without 9/11, but it would not have been over oil. Please don't be a dumbarse about it and say it was.
what about North korea... I did not write this so dont accuse me of plaguirism.... "Target some tyrannies, nurture others Rice hinted at Washington's target-list of tyrants amidst an otherwise bland statement in her Senate testimony. She declared, "in our world there remain outposts of tyranny in Cuba, and Burma and North Korea, and Iran and Belarus, and Zimbabwe." Aside from the fact that the designated Secretary of State did not bother to refer to Burma under its present name, Myanmar, the list is an indication of the next phase in Washington's strategy of pre-emptive wars for its global domination strategy. As reckless as this seems given the Iraq quagmire, the fact that little open debate on such a broadened war has yet taken place, indicates how extensive the consensus is within the US Washington establishment for the war policy. According to the January 24 New Yorker report from Seymour Hersh, Washington already approved a war plan for the coming 4 years of Bush II, which targets ten countries from the Middle East to East Asia. The Rice statement gives a clue to six of the ten. She also suggested Venezuela is high on the non-public target list. Pentagon Special Forces units are reported already active inside Iran, according to the Hersh report, preparing details of key military and nuclear sites for presumable future bomb hits. At the highest levels, France, Germany and the EU are well aware of the US agenda for Iran, on the nuclear issue, which explains the frantic EU diplomatic forays with Iran. The President declared in his State of the Union speech that Iran was, 'the world's primary state sponsor of terror.' Congress is falling in line as usual, beginning to sound war drums on Iran. Testimony to the Israeli Knesset by the Mossad chief recently, reported in the Jerusalem Post, estimated that by the end of 2005 Iran's nuclear weapons program would be 'unstoppable.' This suggests strong pressure from Israel on Washington to 'stop' Iran this year. According also to former CIA official, Vince Cannistraro, the new Rumsfeld war agenda includes a list of ten priority countries. In addition to Iran, it includes Syria, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen and Malaysia. According to a report in the January 23 Washington Post, Gen. Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also has a list of what the Pentagon calls "emerging targets" for pre-emptive war, which includes Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, and Philippines and Georgia, a list he has sent to Secretary Rumsfeld. While Georgia may now be considered under de facto NATO or US control since the election of Saakashvili, the other states are highly suggestive of the overall US agenda for the new War on Tyranny. If we add Syria, Sudan, Algeria and Malaysia, as well as Condi Rice's list of Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar (Burma) and Zimbabwe, to the JCS list of Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia and Philippines, we have some 12 potential targets for either Pentagon covert destabilization or direct military intervention, surgical or broader. And, of course, North Korea, which seems to serve as a useful permanent friction point to justify US military presence in the strategic region between China and Japan. Whether it is ten or twelve targets, the direction is clear. What is striking is just how directly this list of US 'emerging target' countries, 'outposts of tyranny' maps onto the Administration strategic goal of total global energy control, which is clearly the central strategic focus of the Bush-Cheney Administration. General Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the 1991 attack on Iraq, told the US Congress in 1990: ``Middle East oil is the West's lifeblood. It fuels us today, and being 77% of the free world's proven oil reserves, is going to fuel us when the rest of the world runs dry.'' He was talking about what some geologists call peak oil, the end of the era of cheap oil, without drawing undue attention to the fact. That was in 1990. Today, with US troops preparing a semi-permanent stay in Iraq and moves to control global oil and energy chokepoints, the situation is far more advanced. China and India have rapidly emerged as major oil import economies in the last several years at a time existing sources of the West's oil, from North Sea to Alaska and beyond, are in significant decline. Here we have a pre-programmed scenario for future resource conflict on a global scale."
Ok, first RZN, don't go talking trash to US Americans who know first hand the situation in Iraq. You watch Fox News. The 'real' news network? No. 20-25% of the fox news viewers beleive that we found WMDs in Iraq. Ha! that shows you how 'reliable' that network is. And second, Iraq is not a terrorist threat. Have you heard of allittle country called 'Saudi Arabia'? You have? Good! Just so you know, they harbor and train millions of terrorists each year. Osama bin laden is saudi arabian! the al Qaeda terrorist orgainization is greatly Saudi! Don't you fools realize you've been lied into 2000 american deaths? please tell me....by invading iraq, how will this help us win the war on terrorism? If anything it will make it worse. Attacking middle eastern countries does NOTHING but piss the otherones off. If we should be attacking any one it should be Israel. They are the real terrorists in the middle east. So, in my part, no. if 9/11 had never happend, he wouldn't have had enough support to invade iraq.
omg guys stop just being anti-bush and actually answer the question. You guys are just upset because Gore and Kerry lost the election, let go! the poll results basically show the republican/democrat breakdown of GR
The backlash to 9/11 was going into afghanistan, that was where Bush directed the american hate generated by 9/11, sure 9/11 made it easier for bush to go into iraq but i think it would've happened anyway. as for countries 'harboring terrorists' you might as well bomb newyork, terrorists are everywhere, you dont even put a dent in terrorist operations when you invade a country, Saudi Arabia is a major ally of the U.S. the goverment cant afford to lose saudi arabia as an ally, so even if they developed WMD's Bush wouldnt do jack ---- and whats with 'preemptive strikes' thats like executing someone on a murder charge before he commits it! how does that stand next to the ideals of freedom democracy and justice? thats just a selfish and cowardly excuse that Bush is using to forward his agenda And as long as Bush is going against unjust regimes why hasnt he put his foot down with Israel, its been using american hardware for decades to injure maim and kill palestinians, many of the innocents and children. The same reason he doesnt do anything to Saudi, only diffrence is that the saudi goverment has no blood on its hands. Bush is a hypocrite and for all practical reasons he has the blood of american and iraqi soldiers as well as iraqi innocents on his hands
something i've learned is that Arguing over Politics and Religion gets you absolutly nowhere. chances are -both sides will have atleast somesort of proof to compliment their thesis
Im not american, so i don't care, but john howard would have done whatever bush wanted to do, so he's no angel either, but bush isn't all bad, i just thin k he should stiop and think before he made some of his decisions.
im not an american, and americans can choose whatever president they want, but i very strongly disagree with many of bush's foreign policies. He's made far too many big mistakes and right now the international opinion doesnt hold the U.S. in very good regard
This is really amazing, at the moment the poll says Yes [ 26 ] [50.00%] No [ 26 ] [50.00%] Total Votes: 52 Holy it's equal B) ... I knew there wasn't a correct answer.
the government wouldn't have allowed it? the president is the commander and cheif of our military he makes ALL final decisions, and if he wanted to go into any country, he CAN make the decision because he was elected to it by YOU and is qualified to make it. but i do not agree with the decision he made. i believe the war in iraq was a foolish, and quite feeble attempt and diverting attention from the taliban who killed 5,000 US citizens because we can not find them nor bring them to justice.
well first of all didnt bush lie that saddam was holding weapons of mass destructions? or thought? but didnt? yea well he juss did it for the oil and the reason we have no oil is because of the constant weather and that hurricane katrina thing in my opinion. also why go hunt for saddam when it was osama who did 9/11? also bush had osama right in his hand surrounded but some how let him escape. was it on purpose or accident? we dont know but wtf is bush doing now? he aint tryin to look for osama hes prolly cruising on vacation like he always do. also i heard osama and bush were real good friends in the past cuz they lend money to each other when in need. does that ring u a bell? maybe, maybe not but if 9/11 really didnt happen bush would still prolly be after the oil.
