Bush Arrested In Canada for war crimes

quote:

---

We haven't invaded the idiots in france, so why start with you.

---

Are you referring to the "idiots" in France who were 100% correct that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses, that Bush et. al. didn't have evidence of WMD?Those idiots?

quote:

---

Second, though we did not have COMPLETE proof (just a bunch of circumstanial evidence and very good likly hoods that they had WMD, as an inspector said,

---

Which inspector?Hans Blix was the head of the inspecion team and I never read a single thing about him saying that it was "very likely" that Iraq had WMD.Everything I read indicated that Blix told the Bush folks that Iraq's WMD program was successfuly eliminated at the end of the first Gulf war.That's probably why both Colin Powel and Condi Rice described Iraq in press conferences as "powerless and defanged" just before 9/11.

quote:

---

that almost everyone (contrys) thought that Iraq had WMD,

---

They did? which ones?

quote:

---

sence Iraq gave that message) But we correctly went in to free the people from a torturing dictator,

---

We did?I thought we went in because Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney said that Iraq was an imminent threat to US security.It was only after we were in Iraq for months and we did not find any WMD that their story changed and the NEW reason we invaded became "to free Iraq from Saddam".100,000+ dead civilian Iraqis sure aren't under Saddam's thumb anymore, that's for sure, eh?Oh, and there are dozens of "torturing dictators" who are responsible for much greater death and suffering than Hussein, as spychopathic as he is. Take Rowanda, or any of the many African dictators slaughtering millions of people as we speak.If we invaded Iraq to free it's people from a torturing dictator, why didn't we invade in Africa months before 9/11? We knew all of these things were going on there way back then?I'll give you a hint. Those African nations don't have the second largest oil reserve in the world. Take a wild guess which country does...

quote:

---

and what do ya know, WE FOUND WMD!

---

No we didn't. We found conventional explosives, not WMD.I have a question for you.What role did Saddam Hussein or Iraqi citizens play in the WTC bombing on 9/11?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-11-2004 12:44 PM

JF, you are avoiding my direct questions. You have made some specific factual claims that you need to support or withdraw.I have cut n pasted them from my previous message for your convenience.

quote:

---

Second, though we did not have COMPLETE proof (just a bunch of circumstanial evidence and very good likly hoods that they had WMD, as an inspector said,

---

quote:

---

that almost everyone (contrys) thought that Iraq had WMD,

---

quote:

---

sence Iraq gave that message) But we correctly went in to free the people from a torturing dictator,

---

quote:

---

Saddam may or may not have had anything to do with WTC, but we have found no released evidence that he did.

---

Exactly.There is NO evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11.Most Bush supporters believe that he did, though, because Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney repeatedly implied in interviews and speeches in the run up to the war that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.So, if you know that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, and that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, and that the Bush regime did not have VERY STRONG evidence that Iraq had WMD, tell me again why we invaded their country, killing over 100,000 civilians, angering and completely alienating the entire Arab world? Really the whole world?George Bush's incompetant and illegitimate war for oil has been the best recruitment tool Al Qaida and Bin Laden ever had.

quote:

---

However, he has given money to terrorists,

---

Palestinians, not Al Qaida....kind of similar to the way we supported Iraq by providing Saddam Hussein WMD during the Iraq/Iran war.

quote:

---

and at least one of his advisors swore allegince to al Qaida.

---

Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran have all supported al Qaida in the past, but IRAQ HAS NOT.In fact, bin Laden hated that Iraq was a secular government because he wants all Arab countries to have strict Muslim religious governments.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-13-2004 06:53 PM

quote:

---

Easy, Saudi is not a threat to us and our allies because they are a allie, at least in some sence.

---

Crash has already addressed one part of the threat Saudi Arabia poses, but there is another.You weren't alive to remember the energy crisis in the 70's, but I was. If Saudi Arabia wanted to, they could bring the US to it's knees without any violence whatsoever.The Saudis own a staggering $860 billion of the US....thats about 6 or 7 percent of our entire economy.Don't you think that this gets some serious privilage and access to the highest office in the land, especially when the ush family has been in bed with the Saudis in their personal business dealings for decades?

quote:

---

First, saudi it's self is not likely to attack anyone, Iraq was, as it proved in 91.

---

But who actually DID attack us, JF?Who had the capability to attack us?Did Iraq attack us or have the capacity to attack us?North Korea, China, Iran, and Pakistan, and Russia all actually HAVE WMD that we know about FOR SURE.Bin Laden, supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan, actually DID attack us, NOT Iraq.

quote:

---

Second, if this was over bisness interests, atacking saudi would make bush way richer than attacking Iraq, because saudi gives us so much of our oil, the price would skyrocket.

---

No, the price would plummet, because we would control the oil.