The Right's Justification for War

Since I have grown weary of having to post this information in reply to comments of certain individuals, I finally decided to put this all in one place and I will refer to it often.

---

On several occasions when faced with the fact that invading a sovreign nation for the sake of regime change is in violation of international law. This has been admitted by Pentagon Official Richard Perle. The defenders of all that is Bush will reply that it is a "stupid law" and that we needed to go into Iraq before we got "Nuked."

I would like to think that no sane individual would believe that it is OK to break the law because it is a "stupid" law.

Saddam was never a direct threat to the US - do a Google - "rice iraq no threat."

This search will uncover HUNDREDS of reports that Rice, Powel, Rumsfeld and the CIA said in 2001 that Iraq was no threat to the US. Gee, I wonder how Saddam got from "No Threat" to "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." in less than a year? OK kids, I'll give you a hint: It's black, smelly, slick and our VP has ties to a company that deals in the sale of it. There was also a deal for a pipeline through Afghanistan that was on hold until the DAY BEFORE the September 11 Attacks. hmmmmm.....

(ed.: correction: a South American owned oil company had contracts with Afghanistan to build a pipeline from the Caspian basin to the Persian Gulf. The US, invading Afghanistan and Iraq, now have those rights. Haliburton and other US oil companies have major drilling rights to Caspian Basin oil amounting to some Trillion Dollars. Up until th US was in Iraq and Afghanistan, the oil was effectively landlocked.)

Everyone who has been paying attention and has any memory at all will know that the "Yellow Cake" (a type of nuclear material used in the making of a bomb) episode was fictitious. The documents were forged and this has been a known fact for over a year.

Their defense of, "so you want to wait until he nukes us" makes as much sense to me as saying:

"Well, officer it's like this: He looked like he was going to shoot me. ....

"Yes, officer, I realize that he doesn't have a gun, but I can prove that he was a convict 15 years ago - that has to prove something.

"Yes... I realize he was in Canada at the time I thought he was going to shoot me.....

"And here, I have proof that he was trying to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle..... Oh, you say the papers are fake,(Damn that F### told me they were supposed to be good forgeries) oh, well...

"Well he was a really bad guy and he murdered a man in 1985, he was a real bully and......."

I could go on, but I won't.

Their arguments hold no water, have been proven to be false and therefore only proves your insistence on believing and propogating a lie.

Oh, and speaking of lies, Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda, according to the Sept. 11 commission. Ask the President and he will say as much. He will not say that Iraq was working with the terrorists. In fact he will say just the opposite!

Funny how Dick Cheney said that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." even after the release of the report!

If anything, invading Iraq helped the terrorists!

The linking of terrorism to Iraq was a very clever manipulation of the American public. This is part of what the 9/11 group refer to as psyops, or Psychological Operations. An all-out campaign was waged against the American people from 9/11 on. It was a campaign of fear and distrust targeted at getting the American people to go along with whatever the administration proposed to "make us safer."

The Downing Street Memo illustrates the Administration's deep desire to change the regime in Iraq. It had nothig to do directly with Saddam Hussein. It was all about putting somone in power who would work with the US oil corporations to help secure the oil fields there and to help in the completion of a pipeline from the Caspian Sea.

It is all about the money, and nothing about security. If it were only about security, investigations into the disappearance of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenues would be under investigation - that money could very well be in the hands of terrorists right now. The reason they don't investigate it is because they know all too well where the money is, and they don't want us to find out.


Iraq war statistics