Sept. 11 changed view on Iraq: Blair

[#juan]

What is evident to people now was not necessarily evident to people then. It's like when you are looking at a mountain from five miles away, you get a lot clearer view of it than you do from 50 feet away. None of us spoke up or heard the outcry now we did then. It sure is nice when you reach the point where you have the benefit of that old 20/20 vision. :smile:

It didn't take 20/20 vision to see that Blair was regurgitating what Bush told him to say. It has been proven to my satisfaction that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 period, and nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden by choice. Attacking Iraq came right out of the twisted little brain of George W. Bush and Blair jumped off his knees and followed him.

 

[JLM]

It didn't take 20/20 vision to see that Blair was regurgitating what Bush told him to say. It has been proven to my satisfaction that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 period, and nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden by choice. Attacking Iraq came right out of the twisted little brain of George W. Bush and Blair jumped off his knees and followed him.

Yep and perhaps a lot to do with Saddam invading Kuwait for no good reason and what he did to the Kurds for no good reason, people had excellent reasons to believe he was capable of starting something else and better to have any conflicts in his back yard rather than ours..........:lol::lol::lol:

 

[JLM]

Sept 11th gave them the excuse to invade Iraq.....and they did.

They used the horrors of 9/11 to play on the public outrage the story of WMD's that did not exist so thousands upon thousands could die for nothing.

The coalition of the willing are murderers and if there is such a place will occupy the same fate as Saddam in the afterlife.

Yep, of course back in '03 no one knew for sure that the W.M.D.s didn't exist, and we still don't for that matter. All we know now is that they were never found. One theory is that Saddam had them buried somewhere in Syria.

 

[JBeee]

:lol::roll:

Yep, of course back in '03 no one knew for sure that the W.M.D.s didn't exist, and we still don't for that matter. All we know now is that they were never found. One theory is that Saddam had them buried somewhere in Syria.

 

[gerryh]

Yep and perhaps a lot to do with Saddam invading Kuwait for no good reason and what he did to the Kurds for no good reason, people had excellent reasons to believe he was capable of starting something else and better to have any conflicts in his back yard rather than ours..........:lol::lol::lol:

:roll:.... how's that american ass taste?

 

[talloola]

How many years after WWII were the Jews still hunting down Nazis and prosecuting them? Do not the Iraqi and Afghani people have the same right? Blaire Bush,Chaney et al should all stand accused and have their day in court. I don't care how you cut it,the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were blatant acts of aggression based on lies. The world will never stop repeating the sins of the past until those commiting those sins are held accountable.

afghanistan and iraq are two completely separate issues,
and shouldn't be linked together as though it is all one.
there were murdurous thugs who lit the fuse of the afghan
war, it was retaliation, not an attack based on lies.
If the taliban would have 'handed' over bin laden like
they were 'told' to do, that war would not have happened.

Even though I despise bush, I do remember the facts at the
time.

Iraq is a different story.

 

[Spade]

Meanwhile, ...

 

[JLM]

afghanistan and iraq are two completely separate issues,
and shouldn't be linked together as though it is all one.
there were murdurous thugs who lit the fuse of the afghan
war, it was retaliation, not an attack based on lies.
If the taliban would have 'handed' over bin laden like
they were 'told' to do, that war would not have happened.

Even though I despise bush, I do remember the facts at the
time.

Iraq is a different story.

You got that right Talloola. I'm beginning to think that perhaps old Bush isn't quite as despisable as a lot of people once thought. Of course there is a definite upper limit that any politician can achieve on the "Nobility Scale", probably about 20%..............:lol::lol:

 

[talloola]

You got that right Talloola. I'm beginning to think that perhaps old Bush isn't quite as despisable as a lot of people once thought. Of course there is a definite upper limit that any politician can achieve on the "Nobility Scale", probably about 20%..............:lol::lol:

that high? lol

 

[JLM]

that high? lol

I'm in a good mood today Talloola, thinking about the thrashings Toronto and Calgary are going to get laid on them today. Gotta leave now for the daily walking routine.

 

[darkbeaver]

You got that right Talloola. I'm beginning to think that perhaps old Bush isn't quite as despisable as a lot of people once thought. Of course there is a definite upper limit that any politician can achieve on the "Nobility Scale", probably about 20%..............:lol::lol:

The organisms that count on this planet gave Mr Bush their full support to them he is 100% loyal.

 

[darkbeaver]

They call him Mr Bliar now.

 

[gerryh]

If the taliban would have 'handed' over bin laden like
they were 'told' to do, that war would not have happened.

That's right! when the united sl*ts of america talks....you do as they say....or else!

:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What is evident to people now was no necessarily evident to people then. It's like when you are looking at a mountain from five miles away, you get a lot clearer view of it than you do from 50 feet away. None of us spoke up or heard the outcry now we did then. It sure is nice when you reach the point where you have the benefit of that old 20/20 vision. :smile:

That is not true JLM; it has always been known that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or indeed, Al Qaeda type of terrorism. Saddam was not a good Muslim, according to Osama Bin Laden. Saddam’s Iraq was not an Islamic state, like Taliban controlled Afghanistan was. Saddam’s Iraq was a Saddam state, where Saddam was worshipped as the God.

Indeed, his Prime minister, presumably the number 2 man in Iraq was a Christian. This has been well known for a long time now, long before 9/11 and the Iraq invasion. So it is nonsense to say that it was not evident to the people that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, it has been evident for a long time.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who governed Iraq with an iron fist. However, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or with terrorism.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep and perhaps a lot to do with Saddam invading Kuwait for no good reason and what he did to the Kurds for no good reason, people had excellent reasons to believe he was capable of starting something else and better to have any conflicts in his back yard rather than ours..........:lol::lol::lol:

Now here you may have something. There have been speculations as to why Bush really invaded Iraq. Possible reason include oil, a desire to establish USA’s ‘Manifest Destiny’, desire to build an American empire (similar to the now dead British Empire), to experience the glory of war and victory etc. Another possible reason is that he wanted to take revenge for what his father left unfinished. Bush was trying to complete the incomplete mission by his father, where he drove Saddam out of Kuwait (for which he had worldwide support) but did not oust him from Iraq (for which he didn’t).

But that certainly is a possible reason for Iraq invasion; it was to take revenge for his father.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep, of course back in '03 no one knew for sure that the W.M.D.s didn't exist, and we still don't for that matter. All we know now is that they were never found. One theory is that Saddam had them buried somewhere in Syria.

So is invasion of Syria next on the agenda? Perhaps not right away, but in four or eight years (when there presumably will be a republican president)?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

afghanistan and iraq are two completely separate issues,
and shouldn't be linked together as though it is all one.
there were murdurous thugs who lit the fuse of the afghan
war, it was retaliation, not an attack based on lies.
If the taliban would have 'handed' over bin laden like
they were 'told' to do, that war would not have happened.

Even though I despise bush, I do remember the facts at the
time.

Iraq is a different story.

That is how most liberals feel, talloola. There was universal support for invasion of Afghanistan, for taking out the Taliban. There was very little support outside USA and Britain for invading Iraq.

During his long term in office, Saddam involved Iraq into three wars and in the process ruined Iraq's economy. During his shorter term in office, Bush involved USA in two wars (one justified, one unjustified) and ruined USA's economy.

 

[Spade]

That is how most liberals feel, talloola. T

I think you meant, "That is how many Liberals felt, Talloola."

 

[YukonJack]

"That is not true JLM; it has always been known that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or indeed, Al Qaeda type of terrorism. Saddam was not a good Muslim, according to Osama Bin Laden. Saddam’s Iraq was not an Islamic state, like Taliban controlled Afghanistan was. Saddam’s Iraq was a Saddam state, where Saddam was worshipped as the God.

Indeed, his Prime minister, presumably the number 2 man in Iraq was a Christian. This has been well known for a long time now, long before 9/11 and the Iraq invasion. So it is nonsense to say that it was not evident to the people that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, it has been evident for a long time.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who governed Iraq with an iron fist. However, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or with terrorism."

Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain was not a good Muslim.
Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain had anything to do with 9/11.
Iraq was NOT invaded because it was an Islamic state.
Iraq was NOT invaded because its Prime Minister was a Christian.
Iraq was NOT invaded even for the very obvious reason that it was a brutal regime.

Iraq WAS invaded because the entire world, the United Nations, politicians left or right, conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats were convinced, based on available data at the time, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that they were not found does not negate that. And the shills that cry that Bush lied are the biggest liars and hypocrites of them all.

 

[gerryh]

Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain was not a good Muslim.
Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain had anything to do with 9/11.
Iraq was NOT invaded because it was an Islamic state.
Iraq was NOT invaded because its Prime Minister was a Christian.
Iraq was NOT invaded even for the very obvious reason that it was a brutal regime.

Iraq WAS invaded because the entire world, the United Nations, politicians left or right, conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats were convinced, based on available data at the time, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that they were not found does not negate that. And the shills that cry that Bush lied are the biggest liars and hypocrites of them all.

Hey Jackie baby....you're just a tad off with who agreed with the invasion of Iraq...... The invasion was NOT sanctioned by the U.N., and the majority of the world (including Canada) did NOT agree with the americans and their coalition of ass kissers invading Iraq.