[the truth]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Yes those two events are definitely linked.I don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories but the way we went into Iraq straight after is definitely quite suspicious.Almost as if they were already waiting for an excuse to go in before.

the neo cons had a masterplan a few years earlier, saddam had started sellling oil in euros , that alone was costing the usa billions
the whole iraq war propoganda was a massive lie as we knew then and know now. the war was about oil , it was about revenge, it was about building pipelines and getting a foothold in the persian gulf.
some people think the americans allowed pearl harbour to happen and they claim the fact vast numbers of ships and weapons were absent shows they were expecting it, to give them an excuse to drop their atomic bomb. how on earth did 100s of japanese planes fly 1000s of miles across the atlantic unseen to bomb pearl harbour?
they also believe 911 was allowed to happen. hard to believe, but when you consider the fact bush was actually in business with the bin laden family and allowed them to fly out of america after 911 ...then maybe anything is possible

[bots]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Yes those two events are definitely linked.I don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories but the way we went into Iraq straight after is definitely quite suspicious.Almost as if they were already waiting for an excuse to go in before.

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

we all know the timeline of events, the yanks and brits rewrote saddams history but claiming genocide on 5000 iraqis which theyd previously blamed on the iranians...the fact is bush senior didnt finish off sadam in kuwait and bush junior wanted to finish the job. 911 had zero connection to iraq, absolutely zero. the terrorists were saudis and pakistanis and the mastermind was in pakistan.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

Yes you are right.But then part of me wonders if the WTC and Afghanistan kind of set the tone for us to go into Iraq not long after.It was a good time to do it when the public was desensitised to us going into conflicts in the Middle East.Going into Iraq would have been much more of a shocker to the general public had 9/11 and Afghan not happened in the recent past.Look at the protests there was when we went into Iraq already.Imagine what they would have been like had 9/11 never happened.Would we still have gone in do you think?9/11 may have softened public opinion slightly for going to war.

[Johnnyuk123]

The only basket case is Hillary Clinton.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

we all know the timeline of events, the yanks and brits rewrote saddams history but claiming genocide on 5000 iraqis which theyd previously blamed on the iranians...the fact is bush senior didnt finish off sadam in kuwait and bush junior wanted to finish the job. 911 had zero connection to iraq, absolutely zero. the terrorists were saudis and pakistanis and the mastermind was in pakistan.

Absolutely right on that one, I think too that Iraq the 2nd time was purely the finishing off job of Bush jnr for Bush snr. as you rightly say above.
I agree 100% with you on that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think the timeline of events is somewhat skewed here. We first had the war against iraq when they invaded kuwait, there was also the matter of him firing chemical weapons at his own people. Then we had 9/11 which led to the conflict in Afghanistan. People that link 9/11 to iraq are just not following the time line and the true connection of events.

9/11 generated a burst of bloodthirsty patriotism in the USA that had been missing since the individualist, self-centric hippy 60s/70s and yuppie 80s. It restored an appetite for war that had been destroyed by Vietnam and was clearly missing in the first Gulf. It was well over a decade ago now and is still used as a key event to encourage flag-waving.

The US population would not have easily accepted "shock and awe" and the full scale invasion of Iraq without 9/11.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

9/11 generated a burst of bloodthirsty patriotism in the USA that had been missing since the individualist, self-centric hippy 60s/70s and yuppie 80s. It restored an appetite for war that had been destroyed by Vietnam and was clearly missing in the first Gulf. It was well over a decade ago now and is still used as a key event to encourage flag-waving.

The US population would not have easily accepted "shock and awe" and the full scale invasion of Iraq without 9/11.

Saddam initiated his own destruction by his invasion of Kuwait, after that he was on borrowed time. The US very much had the appetite for war during the first gulf war with storming Norman. Their hands were tied then by the rules of that engagement, which were to free Kuwait. From that point forward they and the rest of the world waited on an opportunity to finish the job. We may have ended up going to war the second time under false/invisible evidence, but Saddam was the one who stood up and said he had the capability, and if you make such threats, you better be able to back it up or face the consequences.

So, really, 9/11 was an event with little significance with respect to iraq. He was just an asshole whose time had run out.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Saddam initiated his own destruction by his invasion of Kuwait, after that he was on borrowed time. The US very much had the appetite for war during the first gulf war with storming Norman. Their hands were tied then by the rules of that engagement, which were to free Kuwait. From that point forward they and the rest of the world waited on an opportunity to finish the job. We may have ended up going to war the second time under false/invisible evidence, but Saddam was the one who stood up and said he had the capability, and if you make such threats, you better be able to back it up or face the consequences.

So, really, 9/11 was an event with little significance with respect to iraq. He was just an asshole whose time had run out.

and 1 million people died to remove him and after the war and the asshole was killed the nation was infinitely worse