Senate Intelligence Committee: No connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Those people caught in the crossfire were not specifically targetted. Wrong place and wrong time for them. America and Americans were the specific target due to their imperialist foreign policy. 9-11-2001 and every other day since has been the same as 9-10-2001 for the vast majority of Canadians. Probably different for some if some hick in kentucky is your uncle but that applies to a small number of Canadians. Life never changed. Canada never took over countries by force for oil or to install puppet governments. Canada never tried to assasinate the Presidents of Cuba & Venezuela(democratically elected). Canada does not have a foreign policy of trying to setup a military base in every country on the planet. Canada has a lot less to worry about then USA which is hated by more countries then anyother.

Now that the US directly rules Iraq through a puppet you would think they would have uncovered the WMD.

What president of Cuba was democratically elected?? Kind of the same way Hussein was elected in Iraq? I am not saying US policy towards Cuba isn't misguided because it is terribly so. However, Castro is a dictator anyway you twist it. I am not even saying he is a evil dictator, but is one nonetheless.

Also, you might want to add that Canada didn't almost single handedly rebuild a better part of the world after WW 2. The US is definitely more in the affairs of others; sometimes for better, a lot of times for worse thats for sure. But, painting it as an evil empire is definitely an overexaggeration. Especially since the current regime is going to be gone soon.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Those people caught in the crossfire were not specifically targetted. Wrong place and wrong time for them. America and Americans were the specific target due to their imperialist foreign policy.

The US had an imperialist foreign policy prior to 9/11?

I think Clinton would disagree...

[FlamingLonghorn]

You know what's funny is that if Bush Sr. would have done his job in the early 1990's than Americans would have been cast as heros for their efforts in Iraq. 20 years later they are villains. Hopefully the people of the US have learned to never elect another Bush to president again...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sowa

You know what's funny is that if Bush Sr. would have done his job in the early 1990's than Americans would have been cast as heros for their efforts in Iraq. 20 years later they are villains. Hopefully the people of the US have learned to never elect another Bush to president again...

George H.W. Bush 1999:

We did not wish to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. Unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

link

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

George H.W. Bush 1999:


link

okay i just wrote a long post about this but it disappeared so long story short. Bush Sr. underestimated Husseins power after the war and thought that the people would overthrow Hussein without aid. I believe he should have sent military aid as soon as the uprisings were answered with extreme brutality. How hard could it have been to get a UN mandate to stop Hussein from slaughtering thousands of people?

That occupation would have been much shorter and less brutal than the one we now find ourselves in. Bush Sr. also said in that same paper Hussein would have been impossible to find. It really didn't take that long...

[MatsNaslund]

Originally Posted by Azure

The US had an imperialist foreign policy prior to 9/11?

I think Clinton would disagree...

What business did the US have in Vietnam or Korea for that matter

How do you think the US acquired California & Hawai & even GuantanimoBay along with Puerto Rico

What about the invasions Grenada and Panama

How did a military base end up in the Philipines for the US

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

What business did the US have in Vietnam or Korea for that matter

How do you think the US acquired California & Hawai & even GuantanimoBay along with Puerto Rico

What about the invasions Grenada and Panama

How did a military base end up in the Philipines for the US

And this is why 9/11 happened?

For almost 8 years prior to 9/11, the US was very much 'not' an imperialistic nation.

[MatsNaslund]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

What president of Cuba was democratically elected?? Kind of the same way Hussein was elected in Iraq? I am not saying US policy towards Cuba isn't misguided because it is terribly so. However, Castro is a dictator anyway you twist it. I am not even saying he is a evil dictator, but is one nonetheless.

IF you go back and read my post it said that Venezuela had a democratically elected government.

The current Cuban government replaced a dictatorship of Batista which was a puppet of washington. So somehow Castro is a villain for saving his country from being further colonized by the US...

[MatsNaslund]

Originally Posted by Azure

And this is why 9/11 happened?

For almost 8 years prior to 9/11, the US was very much 'not' an imperialistic nation.

The US had been doing these types of things since end of WWII.
Finally they ****ed off the wrong people by invading IRaq & sending troops to Saudi Arabia & kuwait simply for oil.
People in the mid-east are not stupid. They saw the US abandon afghanistan after the cold war. Do you think they would do that if there were oilfields there...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

The US had been doing these types of things since end of WWII.
Finally they ****ed off the wrong people by invading IRaq & sending troops to Saudi Arabia & kuwait simply for oil.
People in the mid-east are not stupid. They saw the US abandon afghanistan after the cold war. Do you think they would do that if there were oilfields there...

The US invaded Iraq after 9/11.

Again, in the 8 years before 9/11, the US did NOT have an imperialistic agenda.

Plus, it was the UN would agreed on the Gulf War, not the US by themselves. Even though the US did provide the most equipment and troops.

I really don't get your point. Are you saying that US got attacked on 9/11 because of their greed for oil?

One more thing, if your economy is dire in its need for oil, I would sure as hell make sure that countries like Kuwait can keep producing at the same rate. Sadly though, the US ruined their own theory by invaded Iraq and driving up oil prices.

Although the Hurricanes did have something to do with that as well.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

One more thing, if your economy is dire in its need for oil, I would sure as hell make sure that countries like Kuwait can keep producing at the same rate. Sadly though, the US ruined their own theory by invaded Iraq and driving up oil prices.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, as you know--and I don't pretend to know what the "real" reason for the invasion of Iraq was. But it is clearly the case that higher oil prices aren't necessarily bad for people in the Oil business, particularly if they have the means to supply oil somehow themselves. As you say, higher prices in the past year had a lot to do with hurricanes, so I'm not sure how much water that theory holds. But it's important to remember that there are people out there who benefit from reducing supply to generate higher prices. It's not just oil--it's true for commodities traders as well. Just saying...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sowa

okay i just wrote a long post about this but it disappeared so long story short. Bush Sr. underestimated Husseins power after the war and thought that the people would overthrow Hussein without aid.

I don't see where this article said that? I see they said they hoped that this would happen, but the remove of Saddam was not one of the mission objectives. The whole article explains their thought process. It seems that is makes sense. Perhaps with hindsight you can say perhaps they should have continued, but then they may have been in the same position that they are now, just 10 years earlier.

Originally Posted by Sowa

I believe he should have sent military aid as soon as the uprisings were answered with extreme brutality. How hard could it have been to get a UN mandate to stop Hussein from slaughtering thousands of people?

That occupation would have been much shorter and less brutal than the one we now find ourselves in.

Who is this "we"?

And how do you know it would have been shorter and less brutal? Things may have been worse. In the years following the first Gulf war it came out that the bombs weren't as accurate as had been portrayed in the media, soldiers came down with mysterious illnesses, and many lessons had been learned. There is no way to know what would have happened if they had proceeded.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Bush Sr. also said in that same paper Hussein would have been impossible to find. It really didn't take that long...

The Republican Palace was captured on April 9 and Saddam was captured Dec.4
Now I grant that that is nothing like the "probably impossible", but it was 8 months. And everyone has been looking for bin Laden even longer, and he hasn't been caught.

You can look back and wonder "What if..." but you can't make blanket statements like "If we had done A then everything would be fine right now." The Middle East is far more complex than simplifications like that will allow.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm no conspiracy theorist, as you know--and I don't pretend to know what the "real" reason for the invasion of Iraq was. But it is clearly the case that higher oil prices aren't necessarily bad for people in the Oil business, particularly if they have the means to supply oil somehow themselves. As you say, higher prices in the past year had a lot to do with hurricanes, so I'm not sure how much water that theory holds. But it's important to remember that there are people out there who benefit from reducing supply to generate higher prices. It's not just oil--it's true for commodities traders as well. Just saying...

I'm kinda looking at it from the US government perspective.

You gotta make sure your oil supply isn't interrupted.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Al-Qaeda isn't the be all and end all of terrorism. Hussein supported terrorism and that can't be refuted.

The US has also supported terrorism. If every country involved in terrorism was to be invaded, you'd have a long list. Why Iraq and Afghanistan only?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Those people caught in the crossfire were not specifically targetted. Wrong place and wrong time for them. America and Americans were the specific target due to their imperialist foreign policy. 9-11-2001 and every other day since has been the same as 9-10-2001 for the vast majority of Canadians. Probably different for some if some hick in kentucky is your uncle but that applies to a small number of Canadians. Life never changed. Canada never took over countries by force for oil or to install puppet governments. Canada never tried to assasinate the Presidents of Cuba & Venezuela(democratically elected). Canada does not have a foreign policy of trying to setup a military base in every country on the planet. Canada has a lot less to worry about then USA which is hated by more countries then anyother.

Now that the US directly rules Iraq through a puppet you would think they would have uncovered the WMD.

So are you saying the people responsible thought only Americans worked in the WTC? LMAO

I don't think you have any idea just how many Canadians have American relatives. Its not a small number.

ANd for the record, if the move into Iraq was for oil why did it approach $80/bbl? Shouldn't the free Iraqi oil we stole have flooded the market and lowered oil prices or at least refined product prices in the US? Better yet, wouldn't it have been cheaper and less controversial to just buy the stuff from Hussein?

Get off your high horse. The strength of the US military has been nothing but beneficial to Canada.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The US has also supported terrorism. If every country involved in terrorism was to be invaded, you'd have a long list. Why Iraq and Afghanistan only?

Only?

It's been 5 years.

Why do you think only Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

IF you go back and read my post it said that Venezuela had a democratically elected government.

The current Cuban government replaced a dictatorship of Batista which was a puppet of washington. So somehow Castro is a villain for saving his country from being further colonized by the US...

No Castro is a villain for opressing Cubans.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I'm not sure how to interpret the wink there, but if I came across as sarcastic I apologize. The last thing I want is to be shrill and condescending in the way that Looger sometimes is... not to speak ill of the self-exiled.

.

Naw, I was just ribbing you. You weren't being condescending IMO.

As for the rest of your post, well said.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Only?

It's been 5 years.

Why do you think only Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't know what he thinks, but I don't know why Iraq. I've never been given a good reason for that move. I don't think you have either.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know what he thinks, but I don't know why Iraq. I've never been given a good reason for that move. I don't think you have either.

Well, I'm just looking for alternative reasonings (you know, why they REALLY wanted to go in) that make sense. I've never seen one of those either.