-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Someone give me one solid reason why...
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If you're saying the UN needs to enforce its resolutions then how do you justify the Bush administration unilaterally usurping that authority?
Saddam was no threat to us or his neighbors. Bush lied to enforce naked aggression and grab Iraq's oil resources. You can make any excuses you like but the fact remains that Bush and members of his administration lied to America and the world when they said Iraq had WMD and the threat would come in the form of a mushroom cloud if we didn't act.
All lies all the time. And you're too hard headed to recognize them.
i only relay what i've been told by reliable sources.
yes, i dot consider the loss of 1,100 and the 8,000 wounded to be acceptable. ever study warfare throughout the ages? why dont you tell me about some other famous wars of the past. how many troops were we losing DAILY in vietnam? how many troops did we lose on d-day? how many troops were killed as a result of the civil war, and how many die because of the wounds they suffered?
its for me to say because ive enlisted. have you?
Darkhawk28
Diamond Member
Why to Bush supporters like it: they like the idea of killing "towelheads"
I can answer the title, but not the actual post. I can give the reason we went to war. I cannot give a reason I think it was right, because I do not.
We went to war to make a bunch of corporations money at taxpayers expense. The oil companies, the companies with contracts to rebuild, and the military contractors are all making a whole lot of money on this. These are the same companies that made and continue to make campaign contributions to Bush and business wise are worth every dollar.
We went to war to make a bunch of corporations money at taxpayers expense. The oil companies, the companies with contracts to rebuild, and the military contractors are all making a whole lot of money on this. These are the same companies that made and continue to make campaign contributions to Bush and business wise are worth every dollar.
jjzelinski
Diamond Member
I'll try it for you!
<ahem>
You're a communist. Die.
Just a response to those who think that establishing democracy was a neccessary first step in order to aid the growth of opportunity in Iraq:
China.
When their economy becomes larger than yours, you may realize that totalitarianism can often be more economically efficient than democracy.
China.
When their economy becomes larger than yours, you may realize that totalitarianism can often be more economically efficient than democracy.
it's very simple really.
1. At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceasefire in which he promised to disarm and allow UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access.
2. Saddam did not do this.
3. Ceasefire was violated. It's null and void.
4. US continues what was started in 1990.
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
Ah, so you don't think that a government that murders its own people and puts CHILDREN in prisons for political crimes is due for a toppling? Or do you think a government is legitimate no matter what it does to the people?
Jason
Jason
If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078
General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'
But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?
?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?
For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078
General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'
But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?
?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?
For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234
imported_Condor
Diamond Member
They pissed us off?
Because Cheney was obsessed about taking down Saddam, while such neocons as Vulvavtiz, Pearl, Abrams & Feith saw it as to Israel's advantage so became creative to neocon most Americans to think it was to their advantage..
A big mistake, As a war against Salafism (which in essence what the WoT is) cannont be won without dealing with Saudi Arabia as it is the greatest financier of Salafist intolerance & hate in the world.
The Saudis made UBL person-non-grata because he favour's a different branch of the Saud Royal family, not because of his message, which is in 100% agreement with the official tenents of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabist Salafism, & does not conflict in one iota with the what is taught in every state school in Saudi Arabia & in every Saudi funded Madrassa in the world.
So the fact is this war against Salufism will never be won while a officially Wahhabist family rules over Mecca & Medina. AFAIC unless the Saud royal family renounces Wahhabism, the best thing that could happen would be for every member of the Saud family to be executed NKVD style. The Wahhabis need to be purged from Saudi Arabia the same way the Saudis purged the Hijaz of christians, Jews & mainstream muslems when they took it from the Hashimites in the mid 20's. This is why is was so important to have a powerful Arab secularist bordering Saudi Arabia that was both totally ruthless & not tainted by America, as only Arab sacularists not tainted by America could take the Wahhab out of the kingdom of Mecca & Medina without creating a world wide Islamic backlash. Pity the Bush family had been so corrupted by millions of Saudi Petro-dollars over the years.
The only reason why there are Shi'ites in Eastern Saudi Arabia is because they are protect by the treaty obligations of the surrender agreements made when those regions were taken by the Saud family. Where there were no protections from surrender treaties, all Shias that didn't convert were killed, just as were all christians, Jews & mainstream Sunnis when Saud took the Hijaz. Even today all Saudi school children are taught that all christians & Jews should have the same fate.
We mustn't forget Saudi Arabia is a place where police would rather let school girls get burnt to death than get rescued by the fire dept, simply because some inappropiate female skin might be seen while the school girls get rescued, like skin on the ankle or face.
More than anything else it was the Saudi created/funded Madrassas that were responsable for the extremism of the Taliban & the Egyptian 'n Algierian Salafist insurgencies, plus their madrassas have created a new generation of extremist suicide bombers in Indonesia & fill the ranks of the Islamic militias commiting genocide against the christians of Ambon with new recruits as we speak, all in a land where mainstream muslem clerics even thought moderate drinking of beer was ok.
Remember it wasn't secular Arab Baathists that attacked the US, it was Saudi Wahhabis, brought up on the tenants of Saudi Arabia's official religion, Wahhabist Salufism, about the most extreme Islamic sect in the world, which is 100% incompatible with both modernity & the west.
A big mistake, As a war against Salafism (which in essence what the WoT is) cannont be won without dealing with Saudi Arabia as it is the greatest financier of Salafist intolerance & hate in the world.
The Saudis made UBL person-non-grata because he favour's a different branch of the Saud Royal family, not because of his message, which is in 100% agreement with the official tenents of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabist Salafism, & does not conflict in one iota with the what is taught in every state school in Saudi Arabia & in every Saudi funded Madrassa in the world.
So the fact is this war against Salufism will never be won while a officially Wahhabist family rules over Mecca & Medina. AFAIC unless the Saud royal family renounces Wahhabism, the best thing that could happen would be for every member of the Saud family to be executed NKVD style. The Wahhabis need to be purged from Saudi Arabia the same way the Saudis purged the Hijaz of christians, Jews & mainstream muslems when they took it from the Hashimites in the mid 20's. This is why is was so important to have a powerful Arab secularist bordering Saudi Arabia that was both totally ruthless & not tainted by America, as only Arab sacularists not tainted by America could take the Wahhab out of the kingdom of Mecca & Medina without creating a world wide Islamic backlash. Pity the Bush family had been so corrupted by millions of Saudi Petro-dollars over the years.
The only reason why there are Shi'ites in Eastern Saudi Arabia is because they are protect by the treaty obligations of the surrender agreements made when those regions were taken by the Saud family. Where there were no protections from surrender treaties, all Shias that didn't convert were killed, just as were all christians, Jews & mainstream Sunnis when Saud took the Hijaz. Even today all Saudi school children are taught that all christians & Jews should have the same fate.
We mustn't forget Saudi Arabia is a place where police would rather let school girls get burnt to death than get rescued by the fire dept, simply because some inappropiate female skin might be seen while the school girls get rescued, like skin on the ankle or face.
More than anything else it was the Saudi created/funded Madrassas that were responsable for the extremism of the Taliban & the Egyptian 'n Algierian Salafist insurgencies, plus their madrassas have created a new generation of extremist suicide bombers in Indonesia & fill the ranks of the Islamic militias commiting genocide against the christians of Ambon with new recruits as we speak, all in a land where mainstream muslem clerics even thought moderate drinking of beer was ok.
Remember it wasn't secular Arab Baathists that attacked the US, it was Saudi Wahhabis, brought up on the tenants of Saudi Arabia's official religion, Wahhabist Salufism, about the most extreme Islamic sect in the world, which is 100% incompatible with both modernity & the west.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
