i have surfed the web and spoke to random american people, and sometimes it crops up that i find people saying things like,

"we went to war because we were attacked on 9/11"

"iraq attacked us first, so we went to war"

etc etc.


and i dont understand how some american people can believe this, why do some people say this do they really believe this and who told them to think this?


peace.

i have surfed the web and spoke to random american people, and sometimes it crops up that i find people saying things like,

"we went to war because we were attacked on 9/11"

"iraq attacked us first, so we went to war"

etc etc.


and i dont understand how some american people can believe this, why do some people say this do they really believe this and who told them to think this?


peace.

Comon man this is really in darksid territory.

It's called stupid.

but i wondered where this thinking came from. you would never hear anything like that in england from anybody.


but i have heard many americans say it, where did this idea originate from? i dont want to debate it i just wanted to know the root of this thought,


peace.

but i wondered where this thinking came from. you would never hear anything like that in england from anybody.


but i have heard many americans say it, where did this idea originate from? i dont want to debate it i just wanted to know the root of this thought,


peace.

Dear emptyForce.

thank you for the thread you have started, i have a few suggestions

1) they listen to the bullshit media like Fox news and beleive it
2) they are Gullible
3) Its convenient to balme sads for 9-11
4) the lack analytical skills and the need to research a little deeper.

basically i dont have a clue why but it is mystery as to why they would believe such nonsense.

~~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

and i dont understand how some american people can believe this, why do some people say this do they really believe this and who told them to think this?


peace.

Nobody told them to believe this; they're just stupid. I think they really believe this, but I'm not sure.

you would never hear anything like that in england from anybody.
Er.... ever listened to Talk Radio? Or Five Live? Although usually those get challenged there and then.

no i dont listen to talk radio shows i listen to music on the radio, have english people said things like that? i am shocked i thought we knew better, shame on them.

peace.

Zakariya04 Morning, PBWYAY but you need to pay more attention to who puts what on the News.

1) they listen to the bullshit media like Fox news and beleive it



1. "we went to war because we were attacked on 9/11"

We were attacked on 9/11, and we went after al Queda. Saddam and Iraq were never a part of the reason for that.
If you read the reasons given the U.N. for going after Iraq by the U.S. never do they state that they were doing so because of 9/11, is all revolved around Saddams violations of , the Cease Fire 687, and the further violations of 1441, 1337, 686,.

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

no were does he use 9/11 as a reason for the removal of Saddam


"iraq attacked us first, so we went to war"

It was the liberal propaganda machines of, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and the George Soros machines, that have made that the story for political advantage of what happened, they don't present the actual speeches, that show that the President and his administration didn't use or connect Saddam with 9/11.


2) they are Gullible

Yes the Liberals are, if you look up all of speeches and reasons presented in the U.N. and by the Bush Administration you will not find any statement to the effect that we were Removing Saddam because of a connection to 9/11, it all revolved around U.N. resolutions 686, 687, 688, 1205 , 1284 ,1441,

3) Its convenient to blame sads for 9-11

Only in the propaganda of the Liberals are such connection made.

4) the lack analytical skills and the need to research a little deeper.

Please do this for your self, research and anyalize, for your self.

We were attacked on 9/11, and we went after al Queda. Saddam and Iraq were never a part of the reason for that.
If you read the reasons given the U.N. for going after Iraq by the U.S. never do they state that they were doing so because of 9/11, is all revolved around Saddams violations of , the Cease Fire 687, and the further violations of 1441, 1337, 686,..

WTF? You hate the UN. You cant berate them then suddenly say you went after Iraq becasue of UN cease fire violations. And furthermore, what a crock of shit. Bush didnt stand up to the UN and say "Oh cease fire violations! We must attack Iraq!" He talked WMD, weapons o' mass destruction, Colin Powell and his mysterious laboratories of death.

It was the liberal propaganda machines of, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and the George Soros machines
Wow, thats a lot of American media. Its amazing how little they explored the justifications for the war prior to the invasion (in comparison to the rest of the Worlds media).


Yes the Liberals are, if you look up all of speeches and reasons presented in the U.N. and by the Bush Administration you will not find any statement to the effect that we were Removing Saddam because of a connection to 9/11, it all revolved around U.N. resolutions 686, 687, 688, 1205 , 1284 ,1441,
Who said anything about the reason given to the UN? They sold that shite to the US public - the rest of the World werent falling for it. You needed to sway domestic support for the War.

Zakariya04 Morning, PBWYAY but you need to pay more attention to who puts what on the News.







We were attacked on 9/11, and we went after al Queda. Saddam and Iraq were never a part of the reason for that.
If you read the reasons given the U.N. for going after Iraq by the U.S. never do they state that they were doing so because of 9/11, is all revolved around Saddams violations of , the Cease Fire 687, and the further violations of 1441, 1337, 686,.

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

no were does he use 9/11 as a reason for the removal of Saddam




It was the liberal propaganda machines of, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and the George Soros machines, that have made that the story for political advantage of what happened, they don't present the actual speeches, that show that the President and his administration didn't use or connect Saddam with 9/11.


2) they are Gullible

Yes the Liberals are, if you look up all of speeches and reasons presented in the U.N. and by the Bush Administration you will not find any statement to the effect that we were Removing Saddam because of a connection to 9/11, it all revolved around U.N. resolutions 686, 687, 688, 1205 , 1284 ,1441,

3) Its convenient to blame sads for 9-11

Only in the propaganda of the Liberals are such connection made.

4) the lack analytical skills and the need to research a little deeper.

Please do this for your self, research and anyalize, for your self.


Dear Buffalo,

I hope all is well with you and thank you for your resposne to my little summary.

Baically i dont really get why you responded to me in the first palce, when all i was suggesting is why the people in the US would believe such a connection. i was not arguing about the connection itself.

As you would have noticed i did say in my last sentence i dont have a clue why they woudl think that.

Buffalo, dont go on about Un resolutions as that has nothing to do with this argument, and as you know the US does not give a shit about UN resolutions anyway.

Buffalo, if you may please can you explain to me what a liberal is in your opinion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak

Nickelodeon

WTF? You hate the UN. You cant berate them then suddenly say you went after Iraq becasue of UN cease fire violations. And furthermore, what a crock of shit. Bush didnt stand up to the UN and say "Oh cease fire violations! We must attack Iraq!" He talked WMD, weapons o' mass destruction, Colin Powell and his mysterious laboratories of death.

Well guess what (" WMD, weapons o' mass destruction, Colin Powell and his mysterious laboratories of death"). Are violations of the cease fire, and it wasn't just the U.S. that forwarded that intelligence, The U.N. in their own intelligence report reported this, and if they thought that Saddam had complied with all points of the Cease fire resolutions, didn't they lift the sanctions? why were they still placing teams in Iraq. Now if you wish I can post the reports from the U.N. and other countries, I have done so before, and it is a tiresome exercise, mainly because you don't read the information and you have closed your mind to any information that doesn't agree with you prejudges, and political views.

Wow, that's a lot of American media. Its amazing how little they explored the justifications for the war prior to the invasion (in comparison to the rest of the Worlds media).

And as usual you don't get the point, after the war started, the Democrats and Liberal Press couldn't get on the war wagon fast enough, The Democrats insisted that there be a vote that inclueded them on the presidents side in punishing the terrorist, orginaztions of al Queda, and then they insisted in joining the Presdent in removing Saddam, remember they voted Support for the Resolution
In the House of Representatives, 81 Democrats voted for" the resolution.
In the Senate, the vote Democrats; 29 voted


Democrats
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.): "Confront Saddam Hussein now, or pay a much heavier price later ... The idea of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon is too horrifying to contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate." [10]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.): "expressed severe reservations, nonetheless voted for the resolution." [11]
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Senate Majority Leader: "raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security" [12] but backed Bush and said "it is important for the country 'to speak with one voice at this critical moment' [and that] Iraq's weapons programs 'may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.' However, he urged Bush to move 'in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.'" He also "expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution ...." [13]
Sen. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), Minority Leader: "said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations." [14]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.): "broke with his father", (Sen. Edward M. Kennedy), and "sided with the president." [15]
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): See Statement on Iraq Before the War, October 9, 2002.


Who said anything about the reason given to the UN? They sold that shite to the US public - the rest of the World werent falling for it. You needed to sway domestic support for the War.

Please post any Administration officials, statement that say or make a connection between Saddam and 9/11, if the Administration did this it should be easy to find the statement, and speeches, and the policy statements, so please post any or all of the proof that you say exist.

Zakariya

I hope all is well with you and thank you for your resposne to my little summary.

Baically i dont really get why you responded to me in the first palce, when all i was suggesting is why the people in the US would believe such a connection. i was not arguing about the connection itself.

OK I think I see what you were saying, What I was trying to show is that the reason that they believe this is that the News Organization who support the liberal attacks against the President, are the ones that have propagated the myth that we removed Saddam because he was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
They have repeated this lie to the point, that the liberals that want this lie believed for political gain, now say it is the truth, and the people who don't research for them selves, or depend just on the national nightly new now believe that we want after Saddam for 9/11, and don't look any farther than their T.V. set for the supposed truth.

Well guess what (" WMD, weapons o' mass destruction, Colin Powell and his mysterious laboratories of death"). Are violations of the cease fire, and it wasn't just the U.S. that forwarded that intelligence, The U.N. in their own intelligence report reported this, and if they thought that Saddam had complied with all points of the Cease fire resolutions, didn't they lift the sanctions? why were they still placing teams in Iraq.
Actually Hans Blix and his team were struggling to actually find anything. All "intelligence" was speculation, what they could have not what they DO have. 'Course your lot just took out all the caveats and turned speculation into "fact". Actually, Hans Blix even wanted the US to turn over any intelligence they had to them, to help them find anything, cause they seemd to have solid proof that was lacking. Course now we know the US had fuck all that wasnt simply speculation. A case for war based on cynical spin, plain and simple.


Now if you wish I can post the reports from the U.N. and other countries, I have done so before, and it is a tiresome exercise, mainly because you don't read the information and you have closed your mind to any information that doesn't agree with you prejudges, and political views.
See above. For fucks sake Rummsfeld said it was a SOLID evidence. Wasnt it "around Tikrit? North east somewhat?" "We know where they are" Fuck off!Even Tenet seems to have sour grapes over this whole episode. Speculation != fact.

mainly because you don't read the information and you have closed your mind to any information that doesn't agree with you prejudges, and political views.
Comming from somebody that repeatedly believes shite that hardly anyone else does, simply becasue it fits in with your twisted World view, thats quite ironic.


And as usual you don't get the point, after the war started, the Democrats and Liberal Press couldn't get on the war wagon fast enough, The Democrats insisted that there be a vote that inclueded them on the presidents side in punishing the terrorist, orginaztions of al Queda, and then they insisted in joining the Presdent in removing Saddam, remember they voted Support for the Resolution
In the House of Representatives, 81 Democrats voted for" the resolution.
In the Senate, the vote Democrats; 29 voted

Do I give a shit what Democrats do? Nope. Lots of people voted for the War becasue they actually believed the President over WMD, I guess many wont make that dreadful mistake again.


Please post any Administration officials, statement that say or make a connection between Saddam and 9/11, if the Administration did this it should be easy to find the statement, and speeches, and the policy statements, so please post any or all of the proof that you say exist.
Spin. Unless the fact that so many Americans actually believe Saddam and 9/11 were related is simply becasue so many are dumb?

You can attempt to re-write history as much as you like Bluffalo, plain and simple fact is the rationale for the War against Iraq centered around WMD. Ie the idea that Saddam was a direct threat to the US & Israel. Heck even Blair stated these WMD were a threat to UK troops in cyprus. The only reason why you are scurrying off toward "cease fire violations" is because you failed to find any WMD.

Ha, now apparently it was all about UN resolutions! Ironic, seeing as you coinsider the UN pointless, why are you so keen on using their resolutions? Why was Blair so damn desperate to get a second resoultion authorising war? I thought the likes of you consider the UN so irrelevant that you dont need their "permission" to go to war? Now you say you had to because of 1441? Give me a fucking break.

Dodgy rationale + lack of WMD finds = illegitamacy.

Nickelodeon

You can attempt to re-write history as much as you like Bluffalo, plain and simple fact is the rationale for the War against Iraq centered around WMD. Ie the idea that Saddam was a direct threat to the US & Israel. Heck even Blair stated these WMD were a threat to UK troops in cyprus. The only reason why you are scurrying off toward "cease fire violations" is because you failed to find any WMD.

Dam if you just didn't prove my point ,the reason was WMD, pure plain and simple, the rational for the war was WMD, true they may not have been there, but it was up to Saddam to comply completely with the U.N. resolutions, and prove that WMD didn't exists, no games, no playing a shell game with the movement of material and equipment, no retaining the scientist that helped developed his WMD capability in the first place, and those who were helping developed a atomic capability, just plain open compliance with the Inspectors, and absolute transparency, that is what Saddam failed to do, and that is why after 12 years we finally took him out.
If Saddam had stopped rebuilding his conventional military, concentrated on the needs of his people, used the money in the oil for food program for what it was intended, food for the people not buying weapons for his military, if he hadn't attack the Kurds in the north? continued to launch missels at the monitoring flights, and the Marsh Arabs in the south that we might have believed that he was not a danger? that he wasn't try to build up a capability to launch another war? build WMD capability?that we might have given him the benefit of the doubt?

Nickelodeon


If Saddam had stopped rebuilding his conventional military, concentrated on the needs of his people, used the money in the oil for food program for what it was intended, food for the people not buying weapons for his military, if he hadn't attack the Kurds in the north? continued to launch missels at the monitoring flights, and the Marsh Arabs in the south that we might have believed that he was not a danger? that he wasn't try to build up a capability to launch another war? build WMD capability?that we might have given him the benefit of the doubt?

Hiya Buffalo,

I am glad we cleared up the other issue.

However i am a little confused by the above...what weapons etc did saddam actually buy after 1991, and apart from thosse missles which were destroyed (i forgotten their name but they went just over the maximum limit allowed) just before the 2003 invasion what weapons did the iRaqis build by themselves. There has been no prof that Iraq manufactured any WMD after 1991.

i am seriously confused as to why GWB invaded iraq in 2003 apart from to worsen the war on terror and to help Bin Laden. What has the Invasion of Iraq actually acheived???

And also buffalo, you were gojng to explain what the definition of a liberal is in your opinion.

Thanks a lot Buffalo

take care
zak

Zakariya04

And also buffalo, you were gojng to explain what the definition of a liberal is in your opinion.

I am working on this, when I have it clear in my thoughts I will post a answer.

Take it eazy
Buffalo

Zakariya04


I am working on this, when I have it clear in my thoughts I will post a answer.

Take it eazy
Buffalo

Thanks Buffalo,

It would be useful to know as people from different countries define the term liberal differently. And you seem to use the word a lot..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

take it ez
zak

i am seriously confused as to why GWB invaded iraq in 2003 ...

He wanted to invade and get rid of Sadman ....what's so difficult to understand, Zak? And remember, please, that he had the approval of the greater majority of congress. What more is needed for you to understand?

Baron Max

He wanted to invade and get rid of Sadman ....what's so difficult to understand, Zak? And remember, please, that he had the approval of the greater majority of congress. What more is needed for you to understand?

Baron Max

Just because everyone is stoopid doesn't make a panic attack any more legitimate.

Just because everyone is stoopid doesn't make a panic attack any more legitimate.

Legitimate? According to whom?

And I might add, if a vast group does panic, then that automatically makes it legitimate ...for that group!

Baron Max

He wanted to invade and get rid of Sadman
Why, what did Saddam do to him?

I thought it was to save Iraqis?

Why, what did Saddam do to him?

Pissed him off, I guess.

I thought it was to save Iraqis?

That's the new catch phrase of the day.

Baron Max

Pissed him off, I guess.
=

Yeah I guess. So, who's pissed him off lately?

Zakariya04


I am working on this, when I have it clear in my thoughts I will post a answer.

Take it eazy
Buffalo

Okeeey koookey buffalo, thank yiou

He wanted to invade and get rid of Sadman ....what's so difficult to understand, Zak? And remember, please, that he had the approval of the greater majority of congress. What more is needed for you to understand?

Baron Max


Dear Maximus

I hope all is well with you:D

So just cos he wanted to get rid of Saddam he invaded. Why did he want to get rid of Saddam?

Your analysis above still does not bring any logic or light to the argument, bearing in mind only 18 months earlier GWB had declared a "war on Terror"

~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

The fact is that most Americans do not have the interest to look beyond the completely false statements from the republicans, evangelical christians, and all the other war-mongers who want to make a case against any country in the Middle East they don't like. The fact is the Al Qaeda is a myth which had been exploited to cover any war which the government might want to get involved in, even to invade a crippled nation like Iraq, with the goal of seizing oil and creating a more suitable location of launching attacks on other nations who don't submit to America.

Lack of education is the main reason for support of this fallacy linking Iraq with 9/11.