Iraq Politically Motivated--Help Me with Freepers

[texas_teacher]

I always know I can come to DU for help. Some freeper types have invaded my happy music-forum and keep spouting a bunch of crap. They suggest that the war in Iraq was done for the sole reason of liberating the citizens of Iraq from a brutal dictator. I've suggested it was politically motivated and/or motivated by business interests.

Here's the big problem I've always had with the "liberation" BS. If * was so worried about the people of Iraq, if he was concerned about the murdering and raping and torture, why didn't he do something about it right after being elected? If these horrors weighed so heavily on his mind, why not go in right away...why go through the WMD bs.

Here's where I need your help....

Can you think of any other murderous, brutal despots who Bush is letting slide because they don't have oil?

What other concrete evidence can I pull up to show the freepers that this was not about the liberation of the Iraqi people?

THanks!

[onebigbadwulf]

1. How about

1. Taiwan. Bush renounced their democratically elected president and sided with communist China


2. Ubekistan. Bush gives millions to Kamirov the dictator of Uzbekistan who boils his enemies.

[evil_orange_cat]

2. China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, most of Africa... liberation? yeah right...

those are just a few countries that are probably more oppressive than Iraq...
IMO, Bush had a hard on for Iraq because of these reasons... in order of strongest motives for Bush...

1. He tried to get my daddy
2. Oil
3. distract attention from how Saddam got WMD's and how the US supported him
4. turn Iraq into US-friendly state
5. liberation and Saddam's evils

If the US were this great liberator, Bush would have told China to suck it... but instead he treats the Chinese PM like he's a life-long friend and ally.

[Cleita]

6. You forgot one.

Turn Iraq into an Israel friendly state.

[Torrey Pines]

3. I don't think ANYONE believes that

Bush went to all this trouble to liberate the Iraqi people. I can't imagine him or anyone else saying that with a straight face. ;-)

[wryter2000]

4. WMD's were supposed to be the reason...

May 29, 2003
What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .
. . . when first we practice to deceive!




Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass
destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002




Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for the
production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002




If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once
again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002




We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003




Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003




We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003




We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator
tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003




So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons
of
mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our
judgment
has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003




Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons
ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003




Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq
has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly .
. .
all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for
whatever
duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003




There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons
of
mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons
will
be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and
who
guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003




I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003




One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a
number
of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003




We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and
east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003




Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of
mass
destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003




I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials,
a
measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass
destruction
will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003




We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi
scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he
destroyed
some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003




There are people who in large measure have information that we need . .
. so
that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003




We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003




I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there
and the
evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003




We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass
destruction in
that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003




I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003




U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and
find"
weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003




I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean,
there's
no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they
were
destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003




Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had
weapons
of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be
found. I
still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003




Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating,
I'm
confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003




They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.


Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

[wryter2000]

5. Also...

I always ask idiots "If W had come to you and said, 'I want to spend 160 billion dollars a year to depose a tyrant,' would you have agreed? If he were to come to you tomorrow and ask for another 160 billion to depose another tyrant, would you give it to him?"

See, most freepers are isolationists at heart. They'd never have agreed to this invasion just to help some brown, Muslim people.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

7. tell them if liberation

and democratization is the goal then the U.S. should allow the Iraqis to vote. And do you know who the Iraqis are going to vote for? An anti-american muslim fundamentalist! AHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Freedom is a bitch, aint it?

[La_Serpiente]

8. Well lets see

if Bush really did care about the poor and suffereing people around the world:

He wouldn't have opened up diplomatic relations with the Equatorial Guinea, one of the world's worst abusers of human rights. What do they have? OIL BABY!!!! Last time I checked, this administration didn't put on an Amnesty shirt.

http://usembassy.state.gov/malabo/

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/11/week_3/18_guinea.html

And on top of that, they wanted to build a Air Force Base in Kazkakistan, who is up there with Equatorial Guinea. The Kazakistan turned them down, but the US was aggresively pushing for it.

Not to mention they just found oil reserves off the coast of Cuba:

http://havanajournal.com/business_comments/P1089_0_4_0/

Whether Cuba gets oil is contingent on whether they succeed or not. However, John Bolston, arms proliferation secretary at the State Dept. has gone "on the record" that Cuba has WMD :eyes: But honestly, I think Bush is just pandering to the militant faction of the Cuban community.

Now we find out that the Bush administration has been messing with Central Asian countries like Azerbaijan and Georgia. Maybe because it is right next to the oil rich Caspian sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/international/europe/06GEOR.html?ex=1071836352&ei=1&en=b6d9533de2b75326

And then there is Bolivia, who was literally being forced by the IMF (American puppeteer) to build a natural gas pipeline from the Pacific Ocean to their country. The indigenous population had enough of the corruption so Eva Morales took action and seized the government. It was almost bloodless. The dictator president ended up going to Miami, where all good ex-Latin American go. :(0

Enjoy.

[mahina]

9. China/Tibet

Aloha
Its about money, period, end of story.
If we cared about liberating the oppressed, there wouldn't be bodies floating down the Congo river. There wouldn't be innocent Tibetan nuns and monks being tortured while we do business in the billions monthly with their oppressors.
If it comes to your neighborhood, don't miss TIBET: cry of the snow lion. Take a look at savetibet.org, cryofthesnowlion.com, sakadhita.org
China has slaughtered and tortured Tibetan nuns and monks for years for the crime of their culture. We are 100% behind China and care nothing for the sufferring of innocents.
Even their children can't be educated because it costs hundreds a year to school a child there. Their children's futures are turning to ashes before them. They will be beggars with no hope for any employment as the Cinese gov't brings in workers to fill any jobs. It is a genocide, pure and simple. And who are we nurturing, coddling, protecting? The downtrodden? Oh no.

On the subject of dialogue, having just been banished from Freerepublic, (thank you, thank you) does anyone know of a forum that is neither republican only nor democrat only where reasonable people can disagree? Optimist that I am I hope to find some open minds.

Mahalo!
Mahina

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

18. Thanks for mentioning the Congo...

What's the count up to, 4 million dead? 5 million dead?
The most dead in military conflict since World War II.
And from the US. Nothing. Or nearly nothing.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi mahina!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[chopper]

10. actually, let them believe it.

then, point out that since by going into Iraq, we have effectively let Al Qaeda drop off the map, and we let OBL, the SINGLE BIGGEST OUTSIDE SECURITY THREAT AROUND, go from 'number one priority' to 'old news', then that obviously means that Bush cares more about the safety and security of the people of Iraq than he does about the safety and security of americans.

i mean, where's the $300 Billion to get rid of Al Qaeda?

[adriennel]

11. AA

Amnesty International has a number of good articles regarding human rights abuse before and after the latest war. According to "Iraq: On Whose Behalf? Reconstruction Must Ensure the Human Rights of Iraqis" and "Iraq: Continuing Failure to Uphold Human Rights", the Coalition forces were slow to respond to human rights issues and that many coalition force members were ill-equipped to deal with human rights issues. To me this indicates the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the original intent, though they are working on it now.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index

[Grins]

12. Why bother?

You’re wasting your breath. Don’t even bother trying to smarten up a chump. Instead, make them prove their point. They claim it, let THEM prove it.

There is no evidence prior to the war in March 03, or in the following months thereafter that the United States went to Iraq to liberate the people of Iraq. That would be nation building and this administration is (or said they were) adamantly against the concept. The reasons to attack Iraq were stated as:
WMD’s and those WMD’s being an imminent threat to the US,
Iraq’s line to Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States
Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions. (Like they really cared.)

It became a war of liberation only after the WMD and Al-Qaeda/9-11 connections proved to be lies.

Send them here, to the actual resolution <http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686>, and ask the goobers (No - DARE THEM!) to find a single instance where it says a damn thing about liberating the people of Iraq from a tyrant. It ain’t there!

(The part about letting other countries slide because they don't have oil doesn’t matter. It’s the tyrants of countries, regardless of their oil, that they let slide.)

[salin]

13. Ask them how things are going in Afghanistan?

As the admin began efforts (one year in advance) they began pulling intelligence resources and military resources from Afghanistan by March 2002.

By the summer of 2002, there were reports that al queada was regrouping (along with Osama and Al Zawari (sp?) in the border lands (both side) of Afghanistan/Pakistan. By the summer of 2003 the Taliban was reported to be active in various rural provinces... in part because the level of lawlessness/crime and warlord fighting had increased so much since the collapse of the Taliban government that some citizens began to feel that life under the Taliban was preferable (that means it was very bad.)

Now there are reports of strengthening grip of both the Taliban and Al Queada in various regions of Afghanistan and OBL and Zawari are still assumed to be living in the border lands.

Girls schools have been shut down by firebombing and threats of intimidation. Outside of Kabul the state of womens' rights are as awful as ever.

Political assassinations and attacks continue.

Things are dangerous, and it appears to be a haven once again for the terrorists who attacked the US.

Was capturing Saddam - worth allowing al queada and OBL to continue to exist - to regroup and to continue to threaten the US?

[chopper]

15. exactly..

i don't feel any safer now that Saddam is in custody that i did when Michael Jackson was 'off the streets' and in custody.

Saddam was never a threat to us. destroy Al Qaeda, and show me OBL in chains, and i'll start feeling safer. Saddam is nothing but a red herring re: terrorism and 911.

[proud patriot]

14. Here some stuff

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18394

The BushCo Conflict of Interest Encyclopedia: A Beginners Guide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=828541

Take an hour out from "Wilsongate" (which has been getting air time over here now!) and watch this excellent documentary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=434998

Gore Vidal BLASTS "Bush Junta" in Guardian (Oct 2002)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=426732

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18808&forum=DCForumID5#11
Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

Interview: Sidney Blumenthal with William Rivers Pitt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120803A.shtml

CIA to Bush: 'No Clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Blair Urged Bush to Delay Iraq Invasion
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111703A.shtml

The Emperor Has No Clothes
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks
October 17, 2003


In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titled The Emperor's New Clothes. It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of the Ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.

One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They convinced the Emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

The Emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms.

Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing.

Finally a grand procession was planned for the Emperor to display his new finery. The Emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

Under a royal canopy the Emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people - - all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers' tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart.

But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the Emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes.

That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war.

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

(snip)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1018-01.htm

Ellsberg believes there are many people in the Bush government who stay at their posts because they want to help from the inside, as he hoped to do during Vietnam.

(snip) more at link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ellsberg_award

Ron Paul Speech
Woa !

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html

proof of ossama and saddam being former employees of the
USA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=918621

[Skittles]

16. ask them why they care about oppression in Iraq

since it is well known repugs don't give a hoot about oppression in their own country.

[texas_teacher]

17. Thanks For All of Your Help!

:yourock: