I just don't understand what people's opinions on why we went to war have to do with the actual reasons. Since none of the given reasons make any sense, wouldn't it follow that there must be other reasons that weren't politically appropriate for general knowledge. What benefit to Bush would there be to go to war for no real good reason? The press isn't very good at making leaps of insight, so you need to dig into the intelligence community to get the real answers.
George Friedman of Stratfor wrote a book on the intelligence (or lack there of) behind the events of the last three years and comes to a conclusion as to why we invaded Iraq, and it's not for any of the reasons we've heard.
You want to know why we invaded Iraq??
We physically needed Iraq's real estate to intimidate Saudi Arabia into cracking down on Al Queda, and establish an overwhelming presence in the region to deter Al Queda from enhancing its position in the Middle East.
That's it in a nutshell.
Read the book for the underlying intelligence: America's Secret War.
None of the given reasons for war with Iraq were real. The real reason we invaded Iraq was to put overwelming pressure on Saudi Arabia, the financial source of Al Queda, to eliminate Al Queda from within. We could have invaded Saudi Arabia itself, but that would have thrown the country into a chaotic religous frenzy and would have played right into Bin Laden's hands. No one like the ony optoin left to us; not Bush, not Powell, not Kerry (yes, he knows), and not France. But it's the ony cource of action to prevent prolification of Al Quada.
Invading Iraq was our only option.
George Friedman just finished a great book on the actual intelligence behind the whole situation: "America's Secret War"
It's being ignored by the press, probably because it makes them look stupid for missing the point entirely.
I'm not sure how you defend the statement that Bush's priorities are about himself and his rich friends. I don't see the motivation. Of course "rich" people are going to see a larger tax cut, since "they" pay 80% of the taxes in this country. You could spin any tax cut to say that the rich will benefit the most. That arguement is tiresome and meaningless.
The truth is that the government can't solve everyone's problems, and it also doesn't cause everyone's problems.
I do, and I work for Disaster Recovery Services:
www.ibm.com/services/continuity
The stories I could tell. . . they'll make you wan to pay cash and live in the hills.
It's about biodiversity. One day we'll get really good at cloning and then we'll clone everything, people, pets, endangered species...
It will probably be fine for a while, until something unexpected happens. When a bacteria, or virus appears that the specific genetic tree we've been using is particularly susceptible. Understanding that some genetic code is more or less vulnerable to different attacks, all of the sudden the genetic diversity that protects us on a species level is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
...Just look at the UN...
I just don't understand what people's opinions on why we went to war have to do with the actual reasons. Since none of the given reasons make any sense, wouldn't it follow that there must be other reasons that weren't politically appropriate for general knowledge. What benefit to Bush would there be to go to war for no real good reason? The press isn't very good at making leaps of insight, so you need to dig into the intelligence community to get the real answers.
George Friedman of Stratfor wrote a book on the intelligence (or lack there of) behind the events of the last three years and comes to a conclusion as to why we invaded Iraq, and it's not for any of the reasons we've heard.
You want to know why we invaded Iraq??
We physically needed Iraq's real estate to intimidate Saudi Arabia into cracking down on Al Queda, and establish an overwhelming presence in the region to deter Al Queda from enhancing its position in the Middle East.
That's it in a nutshell.
Read the book for the underlying intelligence: America's Secret War.
None of the given reasons for war with Iraq were real. The real reason we invaded Iraq was to put overwelming pressure on Saudi Arabia, the financial source of Al Queda, to eliminate Al Queda from within. We could have invaded Saudi Arabia itself, but that would have thrown the country into a chaotic religous frenzy and would have played right into Bin Laden's hands. No one like the ony optoin left to us; not Bush, not Powell, not Kerry (yes, he knows), and not France. But it's the ony cource of action to prevent prolification of Al Quada.
Invading Iraq was our only option.
George Friedman just finished a great book on the actual intelligence behind the whole situation: "America's Secret War"
It's being ignored by the press, probably because it makes them look stupid for missing the point entirely.
I'm not sure how you defend the statement that Bush's priorities are about himself and his rich friends. I don't see the motivation. Of course "rich" people are going to see a larger tax cut, since "they" pay 80% of the taxes in this country. You could spin any tax cut to say that the rich will benefit the most. That arguement is tiresome and meaningless.
The truth is that the government can't solve everyone's problems, and it also doesn't cause everyone's problems.
I do, and I work for Disaster Recovery Services: www.ibm.com/services/continuity The stories I could tell. . . they'll make you wan to pay cash and live in the hills.
It's about biodiversity. One day we'll get really good at cloning and then we'll clone everything, people, pets, endangered species... It will probably be fine for a while, until something unexpected happens. When a bacteria, or virus appears that the specific genetic tree we've been using is particularly susceptible. Understanding that some genetic code is more or less vulnerable to different attacks, all of the sudden the genetic diversity that protects us on a species level is gone.