Home | Community | Message Board


Marijuana Demystified
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them...
    #2799885 - 06/16/04 06:39 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Then what does it have to do with the war on terrorism?

In times like these, shouldn't a simple liberation effort wait until there is SECURITY in regard to al-Qaeda/the ones who actually attacked the United States?

Why do the majority of Iraqis want the coalition to leave?

Why is it that al-Qaeda's underground presence was virtually non-existent in Iraq before the invasion,

and now al-Qaeda is using it as a front line,

cutting the Afghanistan resistance fund nearly in half to put it towards Iraq?

If Iraq is being liberated, why are Iraqi people being abused and humiliated?

If Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, why did policy allow it to happen?

If Iraq is being liberated, why do nearly all peace-loving Muslims oppose the invasion?

If Iraq is being liberated, why didn't Bush announce the plan during his campaign in 2000?

If Iraq is being liberated, why didn't the U.S. do it earlier - like 1991?

Or why was Saddam Hussein even installed and empowered by the U.S. in the first place?


--------------------


Edited by Zahid (06/16/04 06:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Zahid]
    #2799997 - 06/16/04 07:27 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Zahid writes:

In times like these, shouldn't a simple liberation effort wait until there is SECURITY in regard to al-Qaeda/the ones who actually attacked the United States?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it, please?

Why do the majority of Iraqis want the coalition to leave?

If this is true, perhaps it is because they are anxious to start the process of governing themselves and feel they would be better able to provide their own security than the coalition is.

Why is it that al-Qaeda's underground presence was virtually non-existent in Iraq before the invasion, and now al-Qaeda is using it as a front line,

Because Al Qaeda has a vested interest in not seeing any Arab nation run as anything other than a Mullocracy. There is no risk of that happening anytime soon in any Arab nation other than Iraq, therefore logically they must focus their attention in Iraq.

If Iraq is being liberated, why are Iraqi people being abused and humiliated?

Which people might those be? Are there more or less Iraqis being abused and humiliated today than there were a year and a half ago? Are the abusers and humiliaters of today being rewarded or punished?

If Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, why did policy allow it to happen?

Why are bank robberies "allowed" to happen? Or embezzlements? Get real.

If Iraq is being liberated, why do nearly all peace-loving Muslims oppose the invasion?

Because they are blinded by religious indoctrination. The pertinent question to ask here is how many Iraqis (not Muslims -- Iraqis) oppose it.

If Iraq is being liberated, why didn't Bush announce the plan during his campaign in 2000?

Because things were different in 2000 than they were in 2003.

If Iraq is being liberated, why didn't the U.S. do it earlier - like 1991?

It should have been done then. It wasn't. Are you saying that if an opportunity is missed, no further action should ever be taken? Once the "golden moment" passes, there's no point correcting past errors?

Or why was Saddam Hussein even installed and empowered by the U.S. in the first place?

As has been amply proven here many many times before, Hussein wasn't "installed" by the US. However, let's for the sake of argument pretend for the next sixty seconds that he was. Whose responsibility is it to remove a monster other than those who installed him?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Zahid]
    #2800059 - 06/16/04 07:42 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

oil
money
power


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Phred]
    #2800460 - 06/16/04 10:21 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it, please?




Fairly straight-forward question, there.

Quote:

If this is true, perhaps it is because they are anxious to start the process of governing themselves and feel they would be better able to provide their own security than the coalition is.




True, but im sure many simply do want a foreign force occupying their country indefinitely.

Quote:

Which people might those be? Are there more or less Iraqis being abused and humiliated today than there were a year and a half ago? Are the abusers and humiliaters of today being rewarded or punished?




Previous degradation and abuse is not an excuse for the the degradation and abuse caused by the American and British troops.

Quote:

If Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, why did policy allow it to happen?

Why are bank robberies "allowed" to happen? Or embezzlements? Get real.




Please explain the two White House memos regarding the allowance of torture that Ashcroft refused to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day.

Quote:

Because they are blinded by religious indoctrination. The pertinent question to ask here is how many Iraqis (not Muslims -- Iraqis) oppose it.




So all those opposed to the invasion of Iraq are religious zealots? Haha - good one.

Quote:

Because things were different in 2000 than they were in 2003.




Yes, the American public was thoroughly freaked out and willingly to support nearly anything - especially if the keywords "terrorism" "weapons of mass destruction" were used over and over again as if an attack from Iraq were to happen at any hour.

Please explain the PNAC statement if the invasion of Iraq was a result of Sept 11th.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,230
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Zahid]
    #2800963 - 06/17/04 01:10 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Johnny Price- Marijuana, The Devil Flower



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Vvellum]
    #2801004 - 06/17/04 01:35 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Nice bit of comprehensive propaganda demolishing there Bio  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Phred]
    #2803275 - 06/17/04 08:04 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it, please?

Uh, ok. Right now the main theme of the presidential campaign is homeland security - i.e., securing the United States from al-Qaeda terrorists. Why is Bush busy "liberating" countries at a time like this?

If this is true, perhaps it is because they are anxious to start the process of governing themselves and feel they would be better able to provide their own security than the coalition is.

I don't think anyone would enjoy being ruled over by a foreign military occupation.

Because Al Qaeda has a vested interest in not seeing any Arab nation run as anything other than a Mullocracy. There is no risk of that happening anytime soon in any Arab nation other than Iraq, therefore logically they must focus their attention in Iraq.

Right now, they have to focus on Iraq because Bush dug them into that hole. Before the invasion, an Islamic state in Iraq was impossible; just as it's nearly impossible to organize any real revolution in any country that is secure.

Which people might those be? Are there more or less Iraqis being abused and humiliated today than there were a year and a half ago? Are the abusers and humiliaters of today being rewarded or punished?

To quote Matthew Good, Saddam will be tried for crimes committed by his government and military, while any notion of that happening to Bush for Abu Ghraib borderlines an impossibility and an "outrage" for some double-standard reason.

Why are bank robberies "allowed" to happen? Or embezzlements? Get real.

What do bank robbers and embezzlers have to do with the United States Military? Get real.

Because they are blinded by religious indoctrination. The pertinent question to ask here is how many Iraqis (not Muslims -- Iraqis) oppose it.

I hope you slipped and hit your head on the sink sometime yesterday because such comments make religion look peaceful. So, because they're religious - they uh, oppose the Iraqi war? That's what "being blind" is? Uh huh. Way to score one for God's team.  :crazy2:

Because things were different in 2000 than they were in 2003.

Like what? We're talking about "liberating" here.

It should have been done then. It wasn't. Are you saying that if an opportunity is missed, no further action should ever be taken? Once the "golden moment" passes, there's no point correcting past errors?

Not at all, mind you these are Bush's (Sr-Jr) wars. Are they stupid or something?

As has been amply proven here many many times before, Hussein wasn't "installed" by the US. However, let's for the sake of argument pretend for the next sixty seconds that he was. Whose responsibility is it to remove a monster other than those who installed him?

The fact Saddam Hussein maintained power in Iraq because of the U.S. shows the benighted nature of U.S. foreign policy. "Use em when you need em," - remember bin Laden was trained by the CIA.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Zahid]
    #2805918 - 06/18/04 04:08 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)


Uh, ok. Right now the main theme of the presidential campaign is
homeland security - i.e., securing the United States from al-Qaeda
terrorists. Why is Bush busy "liberating" countries at a time like
this?


I never wholeheartedly bought the WMD argument. I think the Iraq war
was more for political reasons and the WMD was used as an excuse.
I do think that Bush thought Saddam had WMD's(because the CIA
director Tenet told him so). I think that Bush really thought we
would find them. However, I think that the Bush administration
had more important things in mind with the Iraq invasion.

1. With Saddam gone, we have an excuse to pull our troops out of
Saudi Arabia without looking like wimps to the Islamic extremists.
One of the main reasons the Muslims hate us is because America
had troops in Saudi Arabia(the site of Islam's holiest sites).

2. We send a message to Iran and Syria(both blatant supporters of
Muslim terrorists). We now have troops on their borders. The message
is "don't fuck with us".

3. If we are able to foster democracy in a middle eastern country,
it is possible that it could spread. If Arabs were free, a lot
of resentment and anger would dissipate.


I don't think anyone would enjoy being ruled over by a foreign
military occupation.

Of course not. Nobody ever has.


To quote Matthew Good, Saddam will be tried for crimes committed by
his government and military, while any notion of that happening to
Bush for Abu Ghraib borderlines an impossibility and an "outrage" for
some double-standard reason.


There is a difference between those situations. Bush didn't
know that some low-level subordinates thousands of miles away were
screwing up. Saddam personally ordered horrific torturing and
executions. He knew what was going on and encouraged it. And
may I ask, what is more terrible? Some Iraqis being forced to take
off their clothes in the Abu Graib prison, or when Saddam would have
"traitors" thrown into wood chippers? Saddam did much much more
horrific things to his people than Americans could ever do.


The fact Saddam Hussein maintained power in Iraq because of the U.S.
shows the benighted nature of U.S. foreign policy. "Use em when you
need em," - remember bin Laden was trained by the CIA.


Use them when you need them is what the US government has a history
of doing. Unfortunately they tend to create out of control
Frankenstein monsters when they follow that policy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #2806207 - 06/18/04 05:06 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Enjoyable read.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #2806485 - 06/18/04 06:38 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Bush didn't
know that some low-level subordinates thousands of miles away were
screwing up.




Then explain the torture memos that Ashcroft refused to hand over to the Senate Judicidary Committee.

Quote:

Saddam personally ordered horrific torturing and
executions. He knew what was going on and encouraged it. And
may I ask, what is more terrible? Some Iraqis being forced to take
off their clothes in the Abu Graib prison, or when Saddam would have
"traitors" thrown into wood chippers? Saddam did much much more
horrific things to his people than Americans could ever do.




Past acts of degradation and torture are not an excuse for degradation and torture by the hands of American soliders.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Vvellum]
    #2806521 - 06/18/04 06:50 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Past acts of degradation and torture are not an excuse for degradation and torture by the hands of American soliders. 


  :thumbup:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Vvellum]
    #2806950 - 06/18/04 09:30 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)


Then explain the torture memos that Ashcroft refused to hand over to
the Senate Judicidary Committee.

Enlighten me. I have not heard of that.


Past acts of degradation and torture are not an excuse for
degradation and torture by the hands of American soliders.


Of course they aren't. But, why should America be lambasted for
the non-lethal actions of a few, when the rest of the world doesn't
raise a peep when one of the despotic Arab rulers executes and
tortures people left and right.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #2807197 - 06/18/04 10:54 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

The "torture memos" were put out by the White House and Justice Department to the CIA explaining how to bypass anti-torture laws; it was a legal interpretation explaining how CIA interrogators could avoid liability under those laws (including the Geneva Conventions), even if they used methods that might commonly be regarded as torture. The Senate Judiciary Committee wanted Ashcroft to actually hand over the memos last week and he refused (which could possibly be a contempt of court if pressed).

What these memos mean is the toture that is occuring is coming from the top. This debunks the notion that, as you put it, Bush didn't know that some low-level subordinates thousands of miles away were screwing up.

Quote:

why should America be lambasted for the non-lethal actions of a few, when the rest of the world doesn't raise a peep when one of the despotic Arab rulers executes and tortures people left and right.




Because America should take the moral highground. If the US didnt come as liberators (as the Bush rhetoric goes), then what did the US come as?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStein
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/03/03
Posts: 35,129
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Zahid]
    #2807253 - 06/18/04 11:15 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

web page

Quote:

Jun 18, 6:15 PM (ET)

By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA


ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat.

Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

"Despite that information ... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," he said in the Kazakh capital, Astana, after regional economic and security summits. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.


(AP) President Bush, left, walks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, into the plenary session...
Full Image


"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," he said.

Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the alleged plots or mention whether they were tied to al-Qaida. He said Bush had personally thanked one of the leaders of Russia's intelligence agencies for the information but that he couldn't comment on how critical it was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.

In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Putin's tip didn't give a time or place for a possible attack.

Bush alleged Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan.

Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said.

However, a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."

Also Thursday, a top Russian diplomat called for international inspectors to resolve conclusively the question of whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction.

"This problem must be resolved ... because to a great extent it became the pretext for the start of the war against Iraq," the Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov as saying. He said such a finding would allow the U.N. Security Council to "finally close the dossier on Iraqi weapons."

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, Putin sharply rebuked the United States for going to war despite opposition within the U.N. Security Council and said the threat posed to international security by the war was greater than that posed by Saddam.

But Putin's relationship with Bush is warm by the accounts of both leaders, and last week he said he has no patience for those who criticize Bush on Iraq.

"I don't pay attention to such publications," Putin said of media criticism of Bush at the end of the Group of Eight summit in the United States, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin said opponents who criticize Bush on Iraq "don't have any kind of moral right. ... They conducted exactly the same kind of policy in Yugoslavia."

Russia vehemently opposed the NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999, which the United States pushed for under President Clinton.






And the arguements keep growing thinner as the truth keeps revealing itself.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Stein]
    #2807258 - 06/18/04 11:19 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

And the arguements keep growing thinner as the truth keeps revealing itself.




yea they sure do


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStein
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/03/03
Posts: 35,129
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Vvellum]
    #2807272 - 06/18/04 11:25 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

bi0 said:
Quote:

And the arguements keep growing thinner as the truth keeps revealing itself.




yea they sure do




Quote:

bi0 said:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/

Quote:

(CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests.

Putin's comments in Kazakhstan came amid a new debate in the United States about the extent of ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda terrorist network triggered by a preliminary report from the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

The Russian leader did not elaborate on any details of the warnings of terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al Qaeda terror network.

Putin, one of the strongest critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also said Russia had no information that Saddam's regime had actually committed any terrorist acts.

The United States never cited Russian intelligence when it was making its case for the war and Putin said the information did not change his country's opposition to the war.




:lol: Remember kids, politicians are harbingers of objective truth and do not have tactical and strategic intentions while they play the game of global politics.

questions: why is this coming out now? why didnt Bush Inc. present this information while they were so desparate to justify the invasion of Iraq (they were so desparate they used obviously false and doctored intelligence but not this "credible" information)? why did Russia also oppose the invasion? what does Russia and Putin have to gain with a second Bush term? who can connect Putin's words/actions with the Oil-for-Food scandal?

"Seems to me" that Putin is playin' the game with these unverified and oddly-timed claims...




And of course you can prove this, right?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Stein]
    #2807409 - 06/19/04 12:14 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Putin? All he's good for is murdering Chechen Muslims.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Stein]
    #2807771 - 06/19/04 01:35 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

yes, that is my opinion. If your opinion differs, please answer the questions that I pose.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStein
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/03/03
Posts: 35,129
Re: If the purpose of invading Iraq is to liberate them... [Re: Vvellum]
    #2809749 - 06/19/04 10:55 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

bi0 said:
yes, that is my opinion. If your opinion differs, please answer the questions that I pose.



Quote:

questions: why is this coming out now? why didnt Bush Inc. present this information while they were so desparate to justify the invasion of Iraq (they were so desparate they used obviously false and doctored intelligence but not this "credible" information)? why did Russia also oppose the invasion? what does Russia and Putin have to gain with a second Bush term? who can connect Putin's words/actions with the Oil-for-Food scandal?






ok I'll answer them with some opinions of my own.
why is this coming out now?

Probably because the public is strenuously asking for answers.

why didnt Bush Inc. present this information while they were so desparate to justify the invasion of Iraq (they were so desparate they used obviously false and doctored intelligence but not this "credible" information)?

Once again, They used information we already knew. We gave those weapons to them years ago and funny guy didn't want to play the UN game of reporting that he had disarmed. This is probably why they used this most damning evidence because we knew he had them, at least, he should have had them. Where they went? who knows..to terrorists? to korea? to bin laden?
And furthermore, not quite sure if you heard the Presidential address after 911, but President Bush said "we will not distinguish between those who are terrorist and those who aid and abed terrorist" ...Sadam was paying $25,000 to familys who had sons or daughters suicide bomb themselves and other innocent civilians. Sounds alot like abedding, doesn't it? The war in Iraq is justified based on that fact and that fact alone. Uninformed people should quit looking for al quada ties, he was supporting terrorists and to our knowledge had WMD's.

why did Russia also oppose the invasion?

Umm, because we would we find that they were secretly doing business together. Im sure you've heard of the documents the US military found connecting the two countries and their business, wait, that may not have gotten the limelight the prisoners of abu ghirab got on the 24 hour Ultra Leftwing Spectravision channel.

what does Russia and Putin have to gain with a second Bush term?

Not sure, don't care, but Im sure when Bush is elected again, to you, it will turn out to be another conspiracy. Which is good cause then you'll have someone else to hate.

who can connect Putin's words/actions with the Oil-for-Food scandal?

I don't know. Who?


Edited by Stein (06/19/04 11:01 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 1,683 12 09/27/02 02:03 AM
by downforpot
* Logical reasoning for invading IRAQ
( 1 2 all )
cb9fl
1,675 23 01/08/06 08:06 AM
by kotik
* why did we invade iraq, again?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
afoaf 2,916 82 06/19/04 07:45 AM
by CJay
* Why should the US invade Iraq?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
PGF 3,371 73 10/05/02 11:24 AM
by T0aD
* Time to invade Iraq again? Xlea321 512 2 05/23/04 10:04 AM
by Xlea321
* George Bush Sr: Reasons Not to Invade Iraq Swami 600 3 04/10/04 01:43 PM
by Learyfan
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Xlea321 3,978 106 09/23/03 05:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* All About the Iraq Invasion dblaney 582 2 07/20/05 01:51 AM
by niteowl

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,762 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.065 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 19 queries.