i can't remember where now, but i once read or saw something that tied in all recent events into one big bush lie. he knew about the world trade centers, but he let it happen to get america all riled up so he could move into afganistan. we wanted afganistan for their heroin. you are all aware the cia controls the drug trade? now bush is going after the oil in iraq.
i will try to find it again.
the main reason i am opposed to this war is because it's not about saddam. he just wants control of the oil.
Not so sure it's really about only the oil in Iraq. It's more likely about stability in the region to maintain oil flow, among many other things like:
-supporting the current power structure in the US
-Dividing the EU to make it weaker (have seen little news on this, but it makes sense from a US economic and political standpoint)
-Removing a potential threat to our only real "friend" in the region: Israel.
-rebuilding a weakened economy in the US by increasing defense spending (it's worked many times before)
-Literally a "crusade" by bush, there is evidence he wanted to do this a LONG time before he ever became president; sometime after he attended a religious revival meeting in the '80's and became a "born again Christian" (he was an alcoholic and drug user before that).
Note that I don't have any direct evidence to support the above, except about the bush born-again-christian thing, and notes from him to his aides that sound like those of a crusader, rather than a president. Additionally, there is evidence that Bush's political strategy is entirely devised by his primary adviser, Karl Rove (do a search on the name on google; SCARY!!).
However, as far as dictators go, I won't be sorry to see Saddam take a hike. I just hope it stops there, and we can gain some semblance of reconstuction going with the UN and begin repairing the damage done to relations around the world.
It is hard to believe that Bush knew about (or some say, even planned!) the 9/11 attacks. One's mind just does not want to go there. However, an interesting piece of history (was on the History Channel about a month ago) is the fact that before the U.S. was bombed at pearl harbor, Germany launched a massive U-boat attack against the entire eastern seaboard on North America in an attempt to stop supplies reaching the UK. The British had picked up the subs leaving port, and at that time had full access to de-crypted german communications, so they knew at all times where most of the subs were. they reported the sub postions to both the U.S. and Canada. The Canadians quickly responded with their navy and drove the U-boats out of their territorial waters. However, the U.S. chose to completely ignore the intelligence info supplied by the British. Dozens (hundreds?) of US ships were sunk by U-boats in the resulting raids (unkown number of dead), and yet the US navy was officially told NOT to pursue the U-boats. Interviews with the U-boat captains after the war all recounted their surprise at so easily being able to strike U.S. shipping; even being able to freely travel directly into New York harbor with no resistance.
After some time, the navy decided to scapegoat one admiral for the apparent "blunder" and finally go after the U-boats. But the public outrage at the time over losing so many U.S. ships to the germans was instrumental in Washinton building support to enter the war. Some analysts say that this was probably a direct attempt by hawks in the US govnmt to gain support for going to war.
Refer back to the quote from Goering I posted earlier. I think this is probably a more common tactic than one might at first believe.
Do I believe that Bush had anything to do with 9/11 directly? Logical or not, I just can't force myself to believe that our own president would be involved in something like that, or i would go mad. I have already decided to leave this country as it is.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/alien.gif" alt="" />
