Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
Of this, I have no doubt at all. It was the perfect opening for the Administration to attack Iraq and finish off Saddam. I have felt since 1441 passed, that Bush wanted Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam-under any pretext-to be the centerpiece of his first term, and the springboard for re-election.
Sadly, Iraq isn't working out the way he, or anyone else, wanted.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
"Can someone remind me again what Iraq had to do with 9/11?"
I asked that same question in different discussions over the past couple of weeks, but no one seems to have been able to give any answer at all.
It is exactly this reasons that 90% of the Spanish people do not believe a War on Terror needs to be fought in Iraq in the first place. Sure, the country needs the presence of international troops, but for reconstruction purposes only, not for fighting terrorism.
If the Bush Administration truly wants the Spanish Troops to continue in Iraq and if they believe the reconstruction and stabilisation of Iraq is Priority #1, then there shouldn't be any obstacle at all in giving a (much) broader role to the UN, as Spain, amongst other countries, have requested as a condition for the (continued) presence of their troops. But this Bush Administration continues to ignore the UN completely, which makes me believe the reconstruction of Iraq is not their Top Priority.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
george bush himself could go out and adress the nation and say " i had the invasion on iraq planned the second i entered oval office, 9/11 was a convenient excuse to allow the invasion no matter who would oppose it."
you'd still have the bush lovers applaude it because it brought iraq freedom and democracy and bla bla bla.
some people do not want to take off their blinders about the current u.s. administration because doing so would imply admitting that you have been wrong about them before.
TWISTEDWHISPER From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
An even more interesting thought would be this: Did Bush deliberately avoid to act on the intelligence indicating on that 9/11 was in the pipeline, knowing that it would give him the perfect reason to invade Iraq...? Or did the events following 9/11 lead to an invasion by coincidence?
I guess we'll never know, it sounds harsh that a US president would be willing to sacrifice 5000+ persons to be able to act on his own agenda...
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
An even more interesting thought would be this: Did Bush deliberately avoid to act on the intelligence indicating on that 9/11 was in the pipeline, knowing that it would give him the perfect reason to invade Iraq...?
The fact that, on September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration agreed on how to approach The Taliban about OBL, then that whole plan was blown to hell the next day indicates an emphatic NO on that question. We had indications that something was afoot, but most indications, by almost every account, was that it would happen outside the U.S., not a direct attack on the U.S.
Or did the events following 9/11 lead to an invasion by coincidence?
I have no doubt that, AFTER 9/11, it was seen by the Hawks in the Administration-which includes just about everyone in that group-definitely saw it as an opening to move on Iraq sometime in the fairly near future. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.
it sounds harsh that a US president would be willing to sacrifice 5000+ persons to be able to act on his own agenda...
It is harsh, and I don't think it happened that way. If it did, there would be someone who's concsience would bother him to the point where he/she would spill the beans, and Bush would be impeached and thrown out of office for such a thing-an probably end up in jail for it. That's why I don't think anyone thought that way about 9/11.