[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]I think you'll find that the official reason for Iraq being invaded was down to incontrovertible proof that Saddam had vast quantities of WMD
I wasnt asked why did the US go to war, the question was what did it do, as I said, it led to the removal of an evil tyrant.
Just because someone else has done something worse, does not make Saddam some lovely chap who treated his people perfectly.
[cite]Posted By: charltonkeston[/cite]People want to believe these stories because, ( my opinion) the truth is too simple and there has to be more.
We can all make up conspiracy theories after all a conspiracy theory needs is a story line and no evidence, only an author and someone to believe it.
Nail on the head for me. I'm with Henry, Leroy, GH et al.
This is a bollocks conspiracy theory. The only likely truth is the bit about shooting the plane.
I don't want to start another conspiracy theory thread but check out the moon landing hoax stuff. These people put two and two together and make five. A mate of mine watched it and was convinced that it was a hoax. Since then, gradually as more stuff comes out debunking it he has changed to the "well some of the pictures were made up" line (which may be true). It wasn't a hoax - it isn't possible to fake that sort of thing except in Hollywood - Capricorn One is an example. People that follow the hoax line ignore the obvious explanation and look for the bizarre and unlikely ones.
The twin towers was clearly a terrorist plot. Bin Laden had already bombed the WTC in the 1990s.
After what happened in Iraq maybe it's not a bad thing if people look closely at Building Seven, 9/11 etc. Maybe everything was just as it seemed but asking questions won't hurt.
Got to be better than the innocent 'We'll be back before Christmas' attitude of the brave troops who went to war in 1914.
[cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite]I have considered the 'evidence' and come to the conclusion that the idea that USA was responsible for 11/9 is utter hogwash.
I've stayed well away from commenting on this thread so far but I will say this now - I am truly flabbergasted at just how many people are prepared to give these nonsense theories any credence whatsoever but if the subject of climate change ever comes up by far the vast majority are quite happy to accept the propaganda, half truths, exaggerated claims, guess work and extrapolations offered by clearly self interested parties as absolute gospel. What's more likely, a university reliant on the propagation of climate change as being overwhelmingly man made for it's continued funding cooking the books or 1000's and 1000's of government employees all agreeing and being able to cover up their country killing 1000's of their fellow citizens?
I'm all for keeping an open mind and having access to different points of view and sources of information, etc but.....really?
[cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite]I have considered the 'evidence' and come to the conclusion that the idea that USA was responsible for 11/9 is utter hogwash.
That's what they want you to think, sucker ;-)
I dont think its me who's the sucker mate. For every crackpot conspiracy theory there is a reasoned argument. Do you really think they couldnt have come up with a less drastic solution if they wanted to gain the public confidence to invade Iraq?
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]After all, they got 1500 of their own killed in Iraq, and for what?
To remove a powerfull, blood thirsty, murderous dictator.
And by, 'their own' you mean signed up non conscripted soldiers, rather than a 19 year old tea girl.
I think you'll find that the official reason for Iraq being invaded was down to incontrovertible proof that Saddam had vast quantities of WMD including chemical weapons and was sourcing uranium from Niger to make an atomic bomb, that and he was definitely, 100% behind September 11.
Actually, the official reason was contravention of UN resolution 1441. There was every reason to suspect Saddam had developed his chemical weapons programme even after the invasion. Since 1991 he had continually broken the resolution and hampered or blocked UN weapons inspections.
Whilst Blair had put emphasis on WMD, Bush had tended to go for the 'threat to the US and her allies' angle. If you take the Iraq situation in isolation I don't think you can argue against the invasion. Previous administrations supporting him during the Iran/Iraq war isn't really relevant. Policies were diffierent then and Iran were seen as a bigger threat to the US than Saddam. Support was limited anyway and wasn't as comprehensive as many think. It certainly didn't last 20 years.
[cite]Posted By: former addick[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
To remove a powerfull, blood thirsty, murderous dictator.
PLEASE!!!! DO NOT get me started on that. How many blood thirsty dictators have there
been in the world that the American government have not involved themselves in? Mugabe,
The Irish "political" party that kill people, the Bosnian Muslims that were systematically destroyed
by the Serbs. Where were the American govt then? No wonder people say "oh they only do it for the oil"
True or not, it appears that way!
As for Bosnia, the same US Neo-conservatives who supported the war in Iraq pushed very hard for US intervention in Bosnia but they were stopped by the UN as it was considered a European issue. As Europe dithered, lives were lost, when had the US been allowed to intervene, the chances are many lives would have been saved.
Planted winkies - now that is a conspiracy that is right up my street. No really, the old Bill raided an illegal Winkie plant two doors up from me. 911 arrests, coincidence? I think not!
watching the horrific events in Japan it was said by a number of the homeless etc "where are the Americans?" -----------with some ofthe anti USA crap on here people would do well to remember who in the World has the power and the means to assist in times of real global hardship, does it come with strings attached ? sure,sometimes but its always there.
Clearly a thread that has generated a great deal of debate. I find it interesting that people who predominately dismiss the conspiracy theorists feel that they have to be so adamant about their dismissal of the theory, so dismissive of the questions posed and frankly insulting to other contributors.
As is evident from the many opinions expressed (some with expert knowledge of the relevent sciences) there are a range of factors that raise questions many of which have never been and probably never will be satisfactorily answered.
I recall sitting in a Dallas office with 5 US colleagues listening in horror as the events of that day unfolded. The horror was matched with the incredulity of not only why anyone would want to commit such appalling crimes on the US but how on earth US air defences were not able to prevent it.
I have no expert knowledge of the events or any greater insight to the apparent anomalies raised but will question those who seem to so adamantly dismiss such anomalies - On what experience do you base your opinion?
I enjoyed my times in the US. I worked with many good people. In the course of business however there were more than a few who sent shivers down my spine. From my experience I would argue very little would be beyond some of those individuals.
As for any US government position (not to mention any associated powerbase) I do not think one has to look beyond its handling of the aftermath of Katrina to make a judgement on the value it places on its citizens.
As for 9/11 as the police say "I would rule nothing in - equally I would rule nothing out"
[cite]Posted By: Grapevine49[/cite]Clearly a thread that has generated a great deal of debate. I find it interesting that people who predominately dismiss the conspiracy theorists feel that they have to be so adamant about their dismissal of the theory, so dismissive of the questions posed and frankly insulting to other contributors.
This would be right but only if the conspiracy theory was finely balanced against the official view.
There is a clear feeling among many, for example, that the murder of JFK was not by the "angry loan nut" that the "Official" story provides. Even many in the establishment don't believe the Warren Commission.
In the case of 9/11 there just isn't a fine balance between official story and conspiracy. That is why most are somewhat contemptuous of the conspiracy theories.
I have watched many conspiracy theory programmes, the moon hoax, JFK, Diana and also this one. Frankly this one plus the moon one is the least plausible of all of them.
As a result of the 9/11 attack - 1 million Iraqui civilians have been killed in order to remove WMD or a bloodthirsty dictator.
Not to mention that we lost our most prominent chemical weapons expert Dr David Kelly, after he wrote to the Government and catagorically denied the existence and ability to produce WMD in Iraq. Don't forget his report was "sexed-up" by adding that Iraq could attack in 45 minutes.
As it turned out, once the USA had invaded, Iraq could barely muster an army - let alone WMD.
For those of you who think Governments don't alter the facts to suit the story - think again.
Libya will be next, as the USA sets to destabilise the Middle East and get closer to the control of oil.
The USA love it when countries say "where are the Americans" - just be careful what you wish for !
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]watching the horrific events in Japan it was said by a number of the homeless etc "where are the Americans?"
with some ofthe anti USA crap on here people would do well to remember who in the World has the power and the means to assist in times of real global hardship, does it come with strings attached ? sure,sometimes but its always there.
They are there and possibly the first to offer aid. It'll will almost certainly be proportionately the most significant too.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]watching the horrific events in Japan it was said by a number of the homeless etc "where are the Americans?"
with some ofthe anti USA crap on here people would do well to remember who in the World has the power and the means to assist in times of real global hardship, does it come with strings attached ? sure,sometimes but its always there.
Totally and utterly agree with you 100% mate. Well said.
[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]Actually, the official reason was contravention of UN resolution 1441. There was every reason to suspect Saddam had developed his chemical weapons programme even after the invasion. Since 1991 he had continually broken the resolution and hampered or blocked UN weapons inspections.
It always amazes me how the people who claim that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was oil seem to have completely forgotten about the UN resolutions, how Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors verify that WMDs were not been stockpiled, and how Saddam slaughtered 1,000s of his own Kurdish population in the 1980's using chemical/WMD weapons.
[cite]Posted By: AshTray[/cite]Actually, the official reason was contravention of UN resolution 1441. There was every reason to suspect Saddam had developed his chemical weapons programme even after the invasion. Since 1991 he had continually broken the resolution and hampered or blocked UN weapons inspections.
It always amazes me how the people who claim that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was oil seem to have completely forgotten about the UN resolutions, how Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors verify that WMDs were not been stockpiled, and how Saddam slaughtered 1,000s of his own Kurdish population in the 1980's using chemical/WMD weapons.
Agreed Red however my only real concern is that leading up to the invasion and during the first weeks of occupation of Iraq the intelligence was still confirming that WMD were in existence and yet with the-benefit of hindsight this was unequivocally not true and had not been true possibly for years. I am at a loss to understand how the USA with all it's intel agencies and multi billion dollar spy systems could have got this so completely wrong unless there was an intention to mislead the politicians and public by those intelligence services.
At the end of the 1991 Gulf war the UN imposed Resolution 661 which saw a trade embargo placed upon Iraq. Estimates of civilian deaths during the sanctions range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them children. When it comes to causing civilian casualties no-one does it better than the Allies...
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333[/cite]At the end of the 1991 Gulf war the UN imposed Resolution 661 which saw a trade embargo placed upon Iraq. Estimates of civilian deaths during the sanctions range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them children. When it comes to causing civilian casualties no-one does it better than the Allies...
Through out the course of his regime Saddam was murdering and torturing 100s of thousands of his own people every year! How many millions of Iraqi lives (including infants and civilians) have been saved as a result of the allies ending his regime when they did?
Saddam was a murdering madman and I shed no tears at his demise. However I don't see "the west" falling over one another to depose the North Korean leadership or Mugabe or other opressive regimes. I do question why it's only ever countries with oil or at least countries that have oil with leaders that are not well desposed towards the west. Curious at least.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Saddam was a murdering madman and I shed no tears at his demise. However I don't see "the west" falling over one another to depose the North Korean leadership or Mugabe or other opressive regimes. I do question why it's only ever countries with oil or at least countries that have oil with leaders that are not well desposed towards the west. Curious at least.
The States other reason for the invasion was that they saw the Iraqi regime as a threat to national security, in that they supported terrorism. Difficult to argue this against Zimbabwe or North Korea. Also, very little is known about what's going on in North Korea and whether the regime is persecuting its people - there isn't the evidence. True it may be another Khmer Rouge situation, but as with Cambodia, we will never know until it eventually collapses.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Saddam was a murdering madman and I shed no tears at his demise. However I don't see "the west" falling over one another to depose the North Korean leadership or Mugabe or other opressive regimes. I do question why it's only ever countries with oil or at least countries that have oil with leaders that are not well desposed towards the west. Curious at least.
The States other reason for the invasion was that they saw the Iraqi regime as a threat to national security, in that they supported terrorism. Difficult to argue this against Zimbabwe or North Korea. Also, very little is known about what's going on in North Korea and whether the regime is persecuting its people - there isn't the evidence. True it may be another Khmer Rouge situation, but as with Cambodia, we will never know until it eventually collapses.
I would say that North Korea was very much perceived by the USA as a threat. A communist regime with nuclear weapons and a mad leader.
Comments
GK Chesterton I think. He also said, even more appropriately for this thread IMO
"Do not be so open minded that your brains fall out"
I wasnt asked why did the US go to war, the question was what did it do, as I said, it led to the removal of an evil tyrant.
Just because someone else has done something worse, does not make Saddam some lovely chap who treated his people perfectly.
"If you don't know, ask someone"
It's better to look in to things and make your own opinion like I have with the structural collapse rather than assume the common view straight away.
I like that. I think I might be using it
Nail on the head for me. I'm with Henry, Leroy, GH et al.
This is a bollocks conspiracy theory. The only likely truth is the bit about shooting the plane.
I don't want to start another conspiracy theory thread but check out the moon landing hoax stuff. These people put two and two together and make five. A mate of mine watched it and was convinced that it was a hoax. Since then, gradually as more stuff comes out debunking it he has changed to the "well some of the pictures were made up" line (which may be true). It wasn't a hoax - it isn't possible to fake that sort of thing except in Hollywood - Capricorn One is an example. People that follow the hoax line ignore the obvious explanation and look for the bizarre and unlikely ones.
The twin towers was clearly a terrorist plot. Bin Laden had already bombed the WTC in the 1990s.
Got to be better than the innocent 'We'll be back before Christmas' attitude of the brave troops who went to war in 1914.
That's what they want you to think, sucker ;-)
I'm all for keeping an open mind and having access to different points of view and sources of information, etc but.....really?
I dont think its me who's the sucker mate. For every crackpot conspiracy theory there is a reasoned argument. Do you really think they couldnt have come up with a less drastic solution if they wanted to gain the public confidence to invade Iraq?
Gotcha!
I reckon the winkie was planted, Lawrie.
Actually, the official reason was contravention of UN resolution 1441. There was every reason to suspect Saddam had developed his chemical weapons programme even after the invasion. Since 1991 he had continually broken the resolution and hampered or blocked UN weapons inspections.
Whilst Blair had put emphasis on WMD, Bush had tended to go for the 'threat to the US and her allies' angle. If you take the Iraq situation in isolation I don't think you can argue against the invasion. Previous administrations supporting him during the Iran/Iraq war isn't really relevant. Policies were diffierent then and Iran were seen as a bigger threat to the US than Saddam. Support was limited anyway and wasn't as comprehensive as many think. It certainly didn't last 20 years.
As for Bosnia, the same US Neo-conservatives who supported the war in Iraq pushed very hard for US intervention in Bosnia but they were stopped by the UN as it was considered a European issue. As Europe dithered, lives were lost, when had the US been allowed to intervene, the chances are many lives would have been saved.
As is evident from the many opinions expressed (some with expert knowledge of the relevent sciences) there are a range of factors that raise questions many of which have never been and probably never will be satisfactorily answered.
I recall sitting in a Dallas office with 5 US colleagues listening in horror as the events of that day unfolded. The horror was matched with the incredulity of not only why anyone would want to commit such appalling crimes on the US but how on earth US air defences were not able to prevent it.
I have no expert knowledge of the events or any greater insight to the apparent anomalies raised but will question those who seem to so adamantly dismiss such anomalies - On what experience do you base your opinion?
I enjoyed my times in the US. I worked with many good people. In the course of business however there were more than a few who sent shivers down my spine. From my experience I would argue very little would be beyond some of those individuals.
As for any US government position (not to mention any associated powerbase) I do not think one has to look beyond its handling of the aftermath of Katrina to make a judgement on the value it places on its citizens.
As for 9/11 as the police say "I would rule nothing in - equally I would rule nothing out"
If that makes me an imbecile - then so be it.
Grapevine49
This would be right but only if the conspiracy theory was finely balanced against the official view.
There is a clear feeling among many, for example, that the murder of JFK was not by the "angry loan nut" that the "Official" story provides. Even many in the establishment don't believe the Warren Commission.
In the case of 9/11 there just isn't a fine balance between official story and conspiracy. That is why most are somewhat contemptuous of the conspiracy theories.
I have watched many conspiracy theory programmes, the moon hoax, JFK, Diana and also this one. Frankly this one plus the moon one is the least plausible of all of them.
Not to mention that we lost our most prominent chemical weapons expert Dr David Kelly, after he wrote to the Government and catagorically denied the existence and ability to produce WMD in Iraq. Don't forget his report was "sexed-up" by adding that Iraq could attack in 45 minutes.
As it turned out, once the USA had invaded, Iraq could barely muster an army - let alone WMD.
For those of you who think Governments don't alter the facts to suit the story - think again.
Libya will be next, as the USA sets to destabilise the Middle East and get closer to the control of oil.
The USA love it when countries say "where are the Americans" - just be careful what you wish for !
They are there and possibly the first to offer aid. It'll will almost certainly be proportionately the most significant too.
Totally and utterly agree with you 100% mate. Well said.
It always amazes me how the people who claim that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was oil seem to have completely forgotten about the UN resolutions, how Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors verify that WMDs were not been stockpiled, and how Saddam slaughtered 1,000s of his own Kurdish population in the 1980's using chemical/WMD weapons.
Agreed Red however my only real concern is that leading up to the invasion and during the first weeks of occupation of Iraq the intelligence was still confirming that WMD were in existence and yet with the-benefit of hindsight this was unequivocally not true and had not been true possibly for years. I am at a loss to understand how the USA with all it's intel agencies and multi billion dollar spy systems could have got this so completely wrong unless there was an intention to mislead the politicians and public by those intelligence services.
The States other reason for the invasion was that they saw the Iraqi regime as a threat to national security, in that they supported terrorism. Difficult to argue this against Zimbabwe or North Korea. Also, very little is known about what's going on in North Korea and whether the regime is persecuting its people - there isn't the evidence. True it may be another Khmer Rouge situation, but as with Cambodia, we will never know until it eventually collapses.
I would say that North Korea was very much perceived by the USA as a threat. A communist regime with nuclear weapons and a mad leader.