The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Ignorant brute!

Guilty as charged.... Wink

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think Finn's summing up is pretty accurate. As to Tico's question I think a Bush denial would have at least stalled and most likely prevented the invasion.

Think about what a Bush statement saying unequivocally that Saddam had no involvement in 911 would have had internationally. I can't speak for the mood in the USA at the time (although I am aware there was a significant, if minority, protest movement against the impending invasion) but in other members of the 'coalition of the willing' the majority of the populations were against the invasion. The British, significantly, and the Australians, less signficantly, had huge protests against the impending invasion but in both cases their leaders pushed it through in any case (often misrepresenting the facts if not outright lying).

I don't think they would have been able to do that if Bush had said Hussein wasn't involved in 911. And I don't think the US would have gone it alone in defiance of the UN AND a number of key allies. I don't think a couple of Pacific Island Nations, some former soviet bloc countries and the odd African nation lending little more than moral support would have given Bush the legitimacy he craved.

I still remember 'Freedom Fries'.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Sorry mate, that was just a side lie. The main lie was that saddam had WMDs, he was the sort of bastard that would sell them to Al Qaida, and British troops in Cyprus could be hit within 15minutes of Saddam throwing a wobbly.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I remember tittering izzy when Blair announced that tripe.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I know, now he's wondering why everybody except Israel things he's done a **** job as Middle East envoy. He was on the news earlier, complaining of a 'hatchet job.'

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The main lie was that saddam had WMDs, he was the sort of bastard that would sell them to Al Qaida, and British troops in Cyprus could be hit within 15minutes of Saddam throwing a wobbly.

Of course he had them, in the 1980's +. He got them from the US, the UK, I believe, France, ... .

But it was a whole passel of bald faced lies that he had them when the Bush/Blair war criminals said he did. There were UN inspectors, ongoing inspections.

This is all somewhat diversionary, not blaming you, ECY, but these guys committed horrendous war crimes - a war of aggression is the ultimate war crime and there simply wasn't any reason for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

I think Finn's summing up is pretty accurate. As to Tico's question I think a Bush denial would have at least stalled and most likely prevented the invasion.

So, despite the fact that the official document authorizing the use of military force by the US against Iraq says nothing about Saddam being involved in 9/11, you think Bush's denial would have prevented the invasion. But you don't seem to be claiming (to your credit) that a pre-invasion denial would have prevented the AUMF from being passed -- you think it would have prevented the leaders of Britain and Australia from pushing through the invasion by duping the unwashed masses into thinking Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. So, if Bush had "come clean" and issued a "denial" before the invasion, the US would not have had the support of these other countries. If I'm following your logic, you're telling me the invasion would have been prevented had Bush issued this denial because the citizens of Britain and Australia thought Saddam was involved ... gotcha.

3 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Stop trying to make excuses for war crimes, Tico. Certainly, there are British leaders who are guilty of war crimes but there is no doubt who the leader of these two fiascoes was.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

The majority of brits and australians never believed there was a connection. A statement from Bush confirming that would have shot the already wobbly legs of our leaders out from under them. And would have increased your own nation's not insubstantial opposition to the invasion.

Quote:

gotcha

You sound smarmy - is that your intention, or is that my preconception?

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Erm...this is weird....but your temperance in the face of this nonsense makes me see you as a kind of secular saint!

Go Hinge.... I gave up a long time ago.

What really sucks is that you are quite right....Australians generally DIDN'T believe the US propaganda....yet we could not stop Howard from going to war. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Even the troops, by and large, knew it was bullshit.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

despite the fact that the official document authorizing the use of military force by the US against Iraq says nothing about Saddam being involved in 9/11,

Also Tico, a denial before the initial document was even conceived may well have meant the document was never drawn up in the first place.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

The majority of brits and australians never believed there was a connection. A statement from Bush confirming that would have shot the already wobbly legs of our leaders out from under them. And would have increased your own nation's not insubstantial opposition to the invasion.

I don't follow you. If the majority of Brits and Australians never believed Saddam was involved, and this involvement was never asserted by Bush to begin with, I don't think that a statement from Bush denying this involvement (which nobody apparently believed, anyway), would have had the effect your are suggesting.

Quote:

Quote:
gotcha
You sound smarmy - is that your intention, or is that my preconception?

My use of "gotcha" should tell you that I think your logic is strained. I don't care if you think I sound smarmy.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

What really sucks is that you are quite right....Australians generally DIDN'T believe the US propaganda....

What "US propaganda"?

2 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

I don't care if you think I sound smarmy.

Of course you don't, Tico. You are proud of those things that are of your essence.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

What "US propaganda"?

In a flash, from smarmy to scummy.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

I don't follow you. If the majority of Brits and Australians never believed Saddam was involved, and this involvement was never asserted by Bush to begin with, I don't think that a statement from Bush denying this involvement (which nobody* apparently believed, anyway), would have had the effect your are suggesting.

You don't follow me but you do disagree with me. Fine. I think it would have made a difference, you don't. Not much room for debate there.

In my alternative universe a lot of young American soldiers are still alive (and many thousands of Iraqi civilians)

*smarmy hyperbole 101

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Oh for fucks sake. Dont pretend to be dumber than you are....it makes you look really ridiculous.

Or ridiculouser.

Just think of Colin Powell at the UN for a teensy weeny dose.

Even he has admitted he spoke propaganda.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Yes, in every peacenik's alternate universe, there is no war, there is no hunger, there is no suffering in the world. It is utopia, and the dope is plenty.

But in the real world, there are other factors to deal with. If you had bothered to read the AUMF, you would see all of the official reasons for the authorization of military force, and they are valid reasons, and none of them involve a fictitious involvement of Saddam with 9/11. But, yeah, I understand you do not believe the invasion was justified. I suspect you would still have believed that way even if WMD had been found. So, sure ... let's just agree to disagree.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Oh for fucks sake. Dont pretend to be dumber than you are....it makes you look really ridiculous.

Rabbit, I wouldn't ever try to guess what's going on in that tiny rabbit brain of yours.

Quote:

Just think of Colin Powell at the UN for a teensy weeny dose.

Even he has admitted he spoke propaganda.

We were talking about a connection between Saddam and 9/11. That's what hinge and I were talking about when you stuck your whiskers in and said hinge was right, and the exceptionally smart Aussies didn't believe the US propaganda.

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

Yes, in every peacenik's alternate universe, there is no war, there is no hunger, there is no suffering in the world. It is utopia, and the dope is plenty.

Ticomaya, the good little American, making vapid excuses, using inane tangents, anything to avoid addressing the fact that successive US governments are the leading terrorist nation/group in the world, 1st class war criminals.

How is it possible for a sentinent adult to be so vacuous? The CIA has terrorist operations ongoing in countries around the globe, ghost prisons, illegal renditions, ... .

In truth, you know, Tico. That makes it much worse. Words fail me as to how to describe such a "person".

0 Replies

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know