[dadyamaru]

A great tragedy that has transpired, and that being the invasion of Iraq by US occupational forces spearheaded by the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

What is the purpose of this invasion? The US government has been feeding lies to its own people as well as the rest of the world about the so-called threat of the now deposed Iraqi regime.

The threat of global terrorism, the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the threat to world peace. The US government has initiated a campaign of propaganda aimed at painting the now deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the worst enemy facing the so-called brightest beacon of democracy, The United States Of America. All things aside, without question Saddam was a tyrannical leader using intimidation and threats against his own people, however, how did that effect the security of the USA?

But, again I ask, What is the purpose of this invasion of Iraq? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Iraq holds under its dry soil the world’s second largest oil reserve? A reserve that more than likely is causing the oil crazed Bush family to salivate at the prospect of controlling such a reserve.


How sad to think of all the innocent lives lost during the bombing campaign of Afghanistan by the US. How many innocent children were killed by these bombs. Such images, obviously, were kept from the eyes of the American public. Images of a 5 year old boy who had his stomach ripped open by shrapnel from one of these bombs and how he suffered in agony for 12 hours before eventually dieing from his injuries. What did this 5 year old boy, and others like him, have to do with September 11th? We now face the same tragedy in Iraq.



The effects of this invasion is not felt in Iraq alone, but is now being felt in the US as well. On September 7, 2003, President Bush requested another $87 billion dollars, on top of the already allotted $79 billion dollars, to pay for military and reconstruction expenses for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is more money than the federal government of the US spends annually on education and roads combined. The US has gone from a surplus budget under the Clinton administration to a deficit of almost $500 billion dollars under the Bush administration.

Another $50 billion dollars will be needed from the American tax payers if the rest of the world does not assist in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan, which more than likely, they will not assist. Simply put, Bush’s war on terror is driving the USA into bankruptcy.

This has caused Bush to make an about face as he went to the United Nations and pleaded for international support, support he so arrogantly had no use for just six months prior to that. Despite Bush’s plea for assistance, he refuses to relinquish control of Iraq in exchange for cash, troops or UN support. Obviously, compromise is not a word in the Bush lexicon.



The American people have been bambuzzled into believing the lies of the Bush administration that this is a war on terror.
Does Bush care about all the innocent lives that have been so cruelly taken in this campaign?
Not just the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians, but also of the countless men and women of the US armed forces who have also lost their lives in this evil campaign.
Does he care about the mothers who have lost their sons, the wives who have lost their husbands and for the children who have lost their fathers in this “War for Oil”?
The fact that his 19 year old troops are being used as target practice by the Iraqi resistance, a resistance that Bush labels as “Islamasists(???)” and “Terrorists”.
How can you label as a terrorist one who is fighting against foreign invaders? George W. Bush has proven himself to be nothing more than a lying, greedy, tyrannical bumbling buffoon.
Bush is on par with another global terrorist, that being Ariel Sharon, the Shaytan(Satan), who without question has a hand in this so-called “War on Terror”.

[milanya]

Human beings are ultimately selfish, when the united states chose what to get involved in, they picked something that would give them something back in return, which is understandable, after all, nobody can save everyone along the way.

What I know about the issue:
Didn't Saddam use WMDs in the first gulf war? What did he do with them?
If he had no WMD, why did he refuse to let the UN inspect? What was he hiding?
What has the war turned up? Nothing as far as I know. However, women can now vote which is a big deal, they were pretty happy about the change. The standard of living will change for the better in Iraq in my opinion. Baghdad was a wonderful city before Saddam.

One thing people need to keep in mind, whether or not the war is justified, I don't think it is fair to blame the troops for just doing their jobs. Politics is politics, the troops are on contract and do what they are told.

[dadyamaru]

It is a well known fact that after the first Gulf war of 1991, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them. Furthermore, according to an article by Seth Ackerman in Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting’s July/August edition of “Extra!” that cited a 1999 UN report;

“Using forensic techniques, the inspectors confirmed that Iraq indeed undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons.”

Even if these weapons of the early 90’s were still in existence, they would have been hopelessly degraded by age and in many cases left impotent. Nerve agents “Sarin” and “Tabun” have a shelf live of only five years, “VX” a bit longer, “Botulinum Toxin” and “Liquid Anthrax”, if kept in ideal conditions, are potent for about three years. “Mustard Gas” is perhaps the most stable of the agents Iraq had possessed in the past, yet according to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, by 2003 any remaining biological or chemical weapons stores in Iraq would have turned into, after a dozen years, harmless goo. So, we are left with White House allegations about a huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq despite evidence proving that they were destroyed a decade earlier and that if indeed there were some remaining, age would have left them degraded and unable to use.


Of course, whenever Bush is prodded by journalists about these findings, he complains that he is being abused by “Revisionist Historians”. Despite the fact that in the days leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was giving full cooperation to UN weapons inspectors, the US was adamant about its attack on Iraq.
In fact, it appeared that Saddam was one of the last to grasp the fact that the United States really didn’t care what he did or didn’t posses.


There were 11 British deaths in Iraq last month, the highest total since the fall of Baghdad three years ago. More than 100 British soldiers have been killed and the American figure approaches 2,500. The number of Iraqi lives lost is somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000.
Even taking a wider view of our interests and those of the Iraqis, the war looks a failure.
It had made no effective response to a series of Al-Qaeda attacks that began with a truck bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993.

The United States has shown itself incapable of controlling Iraq or Afghanistan. As the public becomes disillusioned with the war and as the president’s ratings plummet, the world has fresh reasons to doubt America’s willpower. Its military appears overstretched and the idea of another war of conquest is implausible.

Iran is certainly not cowed by having more than 100,000 US troops next door. Saddam’s forces caused it much greater concern. Tehran pursues uranium enrichment with a new militancy. America denounces it as the premier state sponsor of terror. Yet now the White House is willing to enter direct talks with that regime, even as Iranian agents and explosives are probably killing American soldiers in Iraq.

It is a vivid illustration of US weakness, although the new démarche is nonetheless the right thing to do. America has given up a policy of pre-emptive strikes against regimes that pose a threat in favour of a cold war-style strategy of diplomacy, economic sanctions and containment.

President Bush argues that Iraq is the frontline against terror. Even if you do not believe that invading Iraq has helped terrorist recruitment (a view that is becoming harder to sustain), the war has certainly provided the West’s enemies with easy targets. America has lost about as many dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as it did in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

Nor is it now easy to argue that overall Iraqis have benefited from their liberation. Saddam ran a wicked regime under which many people suffered horrible deaths. But the unheroic ones who avoided politics lived quiet lives. Now those people are being slaughtered by the dozen

[teejay]

Dadyamru I can only tell you to watch the space. There is more violence that is going to befall the Middle East region. And since these region is known for its oil wealth, the tribulation saturated around this area of the world will bring with it negative economic effects and the whole world is soon going to be cripling under this heavy economic burden for sometime.

Now what you don’t know is that George Bush is not his own man. He is under some kind of spell. He is merely a puppet of his masters. I bet you don’t want to know who his masters are.

The whole turmoil in the Middle East is stage-managed. The purpose of this turmoil is to cause so much infliction such the rest of the world will feel it. The middle as we all know has got Israel as one of the nations therein. This tiny nation remains one the most hotly disputed and politically volatile region of our world today. The reason being the existence of Palestinian Arabs, Jerusalem City itself.

Touch the Palestinian Arabs and you stir the loyalties of powerful allies who control the world’s oil production. This in turn can seriously affect global financial markets. More significant is the City of Jerusalem, considered holy by pilgrims of three major world religions; it draws scores of devoted Jews, Christians and Moslems to hallowed sites such the Wailing Wall, the temple mount and the Via Dolarosa. Modern state of Israel can no longer claim sole devotion to Jerusalem’s sacred ground.

The most influential world leaders compete in brokering peace between its devotees, and for good reason. Jews, Christians, and Moslems are found in any nations, some holding high positions of social and political influence. Jerusalem symbolizes for these dispersed groups a touchstone of faith and unity. When Jerusalem is at peace, they are relieved. When it erupts in strife and bloodshed, they are distressed and even angry. This the plotters of turmoil in Mid East know only well and they have always used various secretive methods to achieve their goals.

In all that must be said about the mid east violence, the role of religion must not be forgotten. It is here where, again the hand of the Roman Catholic church comes into being. Now when the Jesuit Order was created in 1500s by Ignatius Loyola their purpose was to wipe Protestantism and its trait anywhere it was to be found. Their other use was to restore the rule of the pope globally that had been threatened by the protestant revolution. While they failed in the former they are about to achieve the latter. In order for the pope to revered proper, his reign has to be instated and instituted in Jerusalem. He will rule from the temple that PeterMauMau was talking about in one of his post. One may ask how? Now the role of George Bush and America is to cause so much suffering in Mid East that people there will be so conditioned so as to seek for a peacemaker. No doubt the pope will be the peacemaker and will dwell among the mid east people in Jerusalem.

Now it must be known that the Jesuits don’t wear apparels with the Jesuit inscription on them but they are a secretive society whose first allegiance is to the pope of Rome. To them the end justifies the means. Under this code they commit some of the most heinous crimes ever know to mankind.

In America these people are an enemy within. They have assumed high influential position and even cause the enacting of strange absurd policies. Invading Iraq was invented in St Peters, Rome. One may not be a Jesuit but may serve this order through his profession and George bush being a member of CFR (an organization composed of very wealthy Jesuit and Jesuit supporters) is rightly honoring their plea. Right now they are pushing for the enactment of the terrorism bill all over the world. The contents of this bill simply snatches away our right of freedom and must not be accepted anywhere in the world. Bu then again who am I to fight this powerful adversary.

Upon his ascendancy to power for his second term, George Bush said that he will put to practice the pope’s advice. Immediately after that he said that he was going to initiate a crusade against terrorism. Crusades for your information were ancient “Holy wars” fought in pope’s favour and order to exterminate antipopes (protestants). The popes used Islamic forces to accomplish this (notice the synonymy between this word Crusade and JIHAD “Islamic holy war”). Where in the world do you perceive terrorism to dwell? Of course middle east. So Chaaaarge!

Don’t nobody cheat that its all about oil. It is the Pope and his despotism; the reign of the Antichrist begins. There will never be peace in the Middle East even when the pope heads there. This operation will cause a massive of plunge of the world economy. And soon the heat will be turned on all Sabbath Keepers. They will be told because they are observing the Sunday Sabbath as decreed by the pope it is them who are causing the economic curse to befall the world. And the whole world says Amen to the pope. Let persecution begin!

Another reason why the there is too much violence in mid east is because Vatican seeks to revenge and punish the Moslems for their disobedience to the pope (cant remember the title). During the time the pope was using the Moslems to further his cause they were to hand over Jerusalem to him after defeating it but this they did not and kept it for themselves. Now payback time has arrived. They must pay dearly with their blood.

Having said that and done, my only question is where will you be when all this commences. Remember the Temple has been rebuilt in Jerusalem.

[m4one]

It is a well known fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve after the Saudi's. The failure of George Bush Snr to heed to Margaret Thatcher demands to oust Saddam during the first gulf war created an opportunity for China and Russia to warm kichinichini to Saddam.

China's economic growth has been causing jitters in the west and their military build up means more oil is needed. Therefore the US (and Britto) had to figure out a way of getting back into Iraq (forget Afghanistan), oust the sitting regime and install an American friendly government under the guise of democracy. A west friendly government in Iraq means that they would in turn control the two largets oil reserves, namely Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This would in turn keep China's military buildup in check.

Afghanistan was never a primary concern for this administration. These guys let the Osama slip through their fingers when Bush shifted focus and resources to Iraq. Now we are in deficit, and the guy is still giving the rich bigger and hefty tax cuts. You do not push a trillion dollar tax cut and then go to war in the same week. Thats just plain stupid economics. Where will all the extra money come from? Clinton's economic policies had laid out a plan where the US government would have been debt free by 2015. For the first time in US history we had a balanced budget and infact had a surplus by the time Clinton was leaving office.

[Republican1]

Iraq invasion was justified. We removed a 68yr old dictator.(Selfish A**ss bastard who used to #### on golden toilets, while the rest of the population starved) Yes the country is in chaos, but somehow things will improve. How come no one complained when U.S and the allies lost over 4,000 men on June 6th 1944? War is hell. nothing comes easy. Just like in World War 2, the Iraq war is tough. More soldiers were lost in June 6th 1944, than the soldiers lost in Iraq in the 3 years we have been there. Be patient and Victory will come someday.

[chotadipo]

>Iraq invasion was justified. We removed a 68yr old
>dictator.(Selfish A**ss bastard who used to #### on golden
>toilets, while the rest of the population starved) Yes the
>country is in chaos, but somehow things will improve. How come
>no one complained when U.S and the allies lost over 4,000 men
>on June 6th 1944? War is hell. nothing comes easy. Just like
>in World War 2, the Iraq war is tough. More soldiers were lost
>in June 6th 1944, than the soldiers lost in Iraq in the 3
>years we have been there. Be patient and Victory will come
>someday.

Nothing justifies war. I also notice you don't know how to present logic, loook at this and I quote you, "...How come no one complained when U.S and the allies lost over 4,000 men...". Don't you see the sillyness here. You are in a war, you are the agressor, you lose 4K men and you want to be seen as a victim?

[Republican1]

Sorry i meant that the allies lost over 4000 men during D-Day on June 6th 1944. America was not the agressor in this war. Japan attacked U.S on Dec 7th 1941. Germany declared war on the U.S on Dec 8th 1941. The U.S didnot declare war on Nazi Germany. U.S had declared war on Japan following Pearl Harbor.

[dadyamaru]

To pose the question, “Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq justified?”
is to ask, above all else, whether the death of more than 1,500 American soldiers (the death toll as of March 2005) along with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians was justified.
These losses may seem smaller than those of other major wars, but every human life is precious, and so we must set a very high standard for the justifiable use of military force. The U.S. invasion of Iraq does not meet this standard.

In reaching this conclusion, it is essential to understand that the war in Iraq was not a matter of necessity, but of choice.
Unlike most other foreign wars in which the United States became involved, the invasion of Iraq was not preceded by an attack on this country or on one of its allies.

World War II (1939-1945) commenced for the United States when Japan attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor; the Korean War (1950-1953) when North Korean troops crossed into South Korea; and the 1991 Persian Gulf War when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait.

In each of these cases, the outbreak of hostilities was precipitated by the aggressive action of a hostile power, and thus the decision to respond in a military fashion was justified by legitimate self-defense or the obligation, embedded in the United Nations (UN) Charter, to aid the victims of aggression.
But this justification cannot be used in the case of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, as the Iraqis did not attack the United States or invade another country; the decision to initiate hostilities was made by the United States alone, and without being triggered by the hostile action of an aggressor state.

Under these circumstances, Iraq was in no position to initiate an attack on this or any other country, and so the United States had the luxury of standing back and allowing sanctions and other forms of pressure to hasten the decline of Iraq’s military capabilities. Iraq was further enfeebled at this time by the conspicuous presence of UN weapons inspectors. These specialists had been deployed in Iraq at the end of 2002 and were dispersed throughout the country—providing a strong deterrent to aggressive action by Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who desperately sought to prevent the emergence of a unified anti-Iraq bloc in the UN Security Council. The longer the inspectors remained in Iraq, moreover, the greater the likelihood that they would discover and destroy any hidden arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (collectively, weapons of mass destruction, or WMD). By allowing time for sanctions and inspections to do their work, therefore, the United States would have strengthened its relative military advantage over Iraq, not weakened it.
Given the lack of a credible threat of aggression by Iraq at this time and the presence there of UN inspectors, most members of the UN Security Council, along with many members of Congress, preferred to wait before initiating any military action against Iraq. Indeed, the Security Council refused to support a U.S.-backed resolution that would have declared Iraq in full breach of its obligation to destroy all WMD capabilities and invite the use of military force by member states to achieve this objective. Despite this, the Bush administration chose to initiate military action, thereby incurring substantial anger and disapproval from the international community. In taking this unpopular step, the White House insisted that Iraq posed a threat to U.S. security of such magnitude and immediacy that any further delay in attacking it would be unacceptable. The question of whether the U.S. invasion was justified, therefore, hinges on the accuracy of the administration’s claim that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to America’s national security.

[Akhenaten]

I had some time on my hands this week and I got to watch material by David Icke, Moore along with other independent investigative journalism material. The catalyst to an Iraqi invasion was 9/11 and that according to quite startling material, appears to have been staged.

There is an interview where some kid asks Bush what he felt when 9/11 transpired. Bush replies that he’d seen the first plane crash into the building, and had mused to himself how the pilot must've been horrible. He then proceeded to attend a reading session by kids on a pet goat! There are lots more material on sites like power hour and info wars. The videos include "The Power of Nightmares" and "Tricks of the Matrix".

Anyway footage of the first plane crash was released on September 12th so where did he watch the plane crash from and, had he actually seen the footage, would he not immediately rally emergency responses, instead of shrugging off a terrorist attack on the towers and attending an elementary school reading fair? The independent photos showing Iraqi civilians and accounts of rape and murder will never be aired on CNN, ABC, Fox and all the other propaganda engines.

However the grim reality is that Iraq might be the tip of a bloody iceberg. I read today that should North Korea launch a 6000 Km test missile on Sunday, the USA will retaliate; world war three conspiracy theories anyone?