English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The corporate-owned mainstream media rarely reminds me anymore. But Amy Goodman at DemocracyNow.org does!

2007-11-13 14:41:24 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Once again I see that asking a Q results in unwarranted insults by certain participants. The Q will be asked until the Answer is correct and complete.


Someone asked:
"Who is Amy Goodman and why do you think her opinion affects my life in any way?

She is a journalist and anchor woman and she heads up the only honest source of information about the activities of the US gov't and the corporations. US mainstream media ,controlled by 6 mega corporations, isn't doing the investigatory and reporting job that they are supposed to under the 1st Amendment.

2007-11-13 21:34:45 · update #1

"US military was sent in to [Iraq] to reinforce UN mandate 1441 on Weapons of Mass destruction."
I thought the USgov jumped the gun, and went in without the final UN mandate or full NATO backing.

2007-11-13 21:42:19 · update #2

"We removed a dictator from Iraq" Yes a dictator we backed until he turned on us. Sort of like what seems to be happening in Pakistan where we back the dictator as long as he plays ball with us. And did we not train Osama bin Ladin to fight the Soviets until he turned on us? We should examine the policies of the US gov't so we don't need to invade countries remove or kill crazy, evil dictators or crazy evil terrorists. Score one for the Extreme Right who gets us in the US in messes like Iraq and Vietnam to get rid of the boogeymen they create.LOL

2007-11-15 09:51:48 · update #3

If you want to say everyone including our leaders were in shock over the 9-11 terrorist attacks and that our leaders and the citizens of the US made a poor decision, I'd lke to buy that.

2007-11-21 09:10:20 · update #4

15 answers

OIL, OIL, & a little more oil. That 9/11 excuse is getting a little old.

2007-11-13 16:50:48 · answer #1 · answered by logue2michelle 1 · 2 5

Go to the link below. It's the pdf version of the Congressional Authorization to carry out offensive military operations against Iraq. The reasons are listed therein. It passed into law in 2002. We began those operations on March 19, 2003. And I doubt that Amy Goodman or anyone at the organization you cite has ever read that authorization.

2007-11-13 14:50:44 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1 1

since G W Bush was elected, Iraq was the target of the US administration from the day one, that's right, BEFORE the 911.

Oil was one thing, but Iraq was one of the countries where Rothschild dynasty didn't have the access to. that's another reason to invade Iraq.

and by occupying Iraq, the US can put a military base in Iraq, a preparation for attack in Iran, another reason.

and the US military presence in Iraq makes Israel feel safe and happy. more reason.

why should the US please Israel? because the US government is there to please AIPAC.

and why you don't know all this? because Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) controls the main stream news media, it won't let any news about AIPAC be on TV or radio, let alone the negative ones.

let's get back to the original question. why did the US send the military to invade & occupy Iraq? because everything the majority of average Americans heard about Iraq through the CFR fed mainstream media was a gigantic cheap lie, but they fell for it I mean, if Iraq was ready to attack America with Weapons of Mass Destruction, what would you do, right?

now the Americans have an opportunity to show the world they are not that dumb anymore by opposing the invasion of Iran. just google on Iran and the Iranian people, they don't live in caves, folks. Iran has a long history and rich culture, it is a developed country. remember Persia from the history class?

2007-11-13 15:23:09 · answer #3 · answered by little concerned 2 · 2 5

US military was sent in to reinforce UN mandate 1441 on Weapons of Mass destruction.

2007-11-13 20:25:19 · answer #4 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 1 2

You advise those WMD's that many usa's intelligence companies advised them that Iraq had? It wasn't only the US bro. do slightly examine previously you get spoon fed by using the media.

2016-10-02 07:49:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Try the truth.

Almost everyone in the world knew that Saddam was still producing and hiding WMD.

All the major players in the US Agreed that Saddam was a threat. (Reps and Dems)

Saddam was playing dangerous games with the world.

Saddam rolled snake eyes.

Add to the aftermath that we are giving 25 million Iraqis the chance at freedom, and its not exactly a bad thing.

2007-11-13 14:47:26 · answer #6 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 4 4

911,hello,all the people that died in the towers,terrorist attack,remember now.all the Innocent people on the plane,the Pentagon.gosh how quick we forget.

2007-11-13 14:50:28 · answer #7 · answered by git r done 4 · 1 1

You're beating a dead horse. Who is Amy Goodman and why do you think her opinion affects my life in any way?

2007-11-13 14:56:16 · answer #8 · answered by 2nd AD/ 4th ID 5 · 3 3

Paraphrased directly from the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq passed in 2002.

1. The Gulf War was not fully concluded

2. Iraq lost and had agreed to a number of conditions to cease hostilities among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism

3. We believed that Iraq had more and more advanced WMDs than now appears to be the case

4. Iraq had attempted to stymie verification of the peace conditions at every turn unless under threat of immanent use of force

5. The Congress had already found Iraq to be in material breach of its obligations in 1998

6. Saddam Hussein represented a continuing danger to global stability and to his neighbors by, among other things, failing over twelve years to verify the status and inventories of his WMD programs and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations

7. Saddam Hussein represented a continuing danger to his own people and refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait

8. Hussein had used WMDs before

9. Iraq demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, attempted in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and fired on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

10. Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, were known to be in Iraq

11. Iraq continued to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens

12. Even unaccounted for WMD materiel could end up in the hands of those who would use them for terrorist attacks

13. Any number of combinations of the foregoing could plausibly result in a terrorist attack on the United States

14. UNSCR 678 authorized force, subsequent resolutions required further actions and Iraq refused at every turn except under threat of immanent use of force

15. Congress had authorized force in 1991 to achieve many of these same goals

16. Congress recognized in December of 1991 that the use of force was or would be consitent with enforcement of UNSCR 687 and 688

17. It has been the policy of the US Government since 1998 that the US should pursue courses that would result in the change of regime in Iraq.

18. The UNSCRs should be enforced

19. The United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary

20. Congress has authorized other actions in the Global War on Terror

21. It doesn’t matter whether terrorists be directly involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

22. The President has the authority to take proactive steps against terrorism

23. It is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

2007-11-13 14:51:13 · answer #9 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 3 3

Pay attention! We got rid of a dictator who murdered more people than Hitler. Got it?

2007-11-13 14:46:20 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 6 4

fedest.com, questions and answers