bluelight

AS everyone knows ..Usa lied to the world about the WMD´s.Two months have passed and the WDM´s for which Usa had proof....just doesnt show...

This has now led to that George Tenent...boss of the Cia has given a mission to a group of retired Cia officers to investigate ..why...the Cia miscalculated this.


Well....that looks like "operation cover it up".... ..and..laying the blame for the intentional lies on the Cia instead of the Us government admitting that they were talking bollocks.


Blkuelight

digerati

Didn't we do the same thing in the Cuban missile crisis? And showed proof of the missiles when the time was right?

bluelight

Well in that case the sense of timing of your government is completly out of hand.

The time was right ...First....months ago when they claimed they had proof and practically pissed on Blix and refused to gie the exact locations to the UN inspectors.......


The second time ...that was right..was one day aftyer Bagdad had fallen.

That was a long time ago now.......

and the time ...will not be right again.


Bluelight

Falstaff

This is a CIA link concerning WMD in IRAQ. check it out here

__________________

JavaFox

You really believe this? We lied so we could squander American and British lives? What's it like to live in such a bizarre world. It was reasonable to believe that Iraq had WMD. That alone was enough, according to the rules of the UN, to go to war with that nation. Accusing the Coalition of being too quick to jump to war based on not enough evidence is one thing, but saying that we willfully sent our men into battle KNOWING that there were no WMD is absolutely insane. Nobody on this planet KNEW with any kind of certainty whether or not Saddam had WMD except Saddam.

So you really believe that the US and UK innoculated their troops, knowing that the claims of WMD was a lie? Or that we had our troops wear chemical suits for most of the war?

Give me a break.

Falstaff

I can tell you from first hand experience, when friendly artillery fire ignited an ammunition dump, it released a toxic cloud that enveloped some aircraft and marines, casualties from this near fratricide were evacuated to a BAS (battalion aid station), the aircraft and marines were tested postive to possible nerve gas and mustard gas exposure. The IRAQI bunker was allowed to continue burning and was later buried by a bladed mine sweeping tank. Many such bunkers were burned off and buried. This is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. I took pyristigmine knowing full well the potentiol side effects. I cannot believe that WMD does not or didn't exist, there is too much circumstantial evidence. the worst thing we could have done is overestimate the potentiol quantity on hand...I am sure most of it was spirited away, and lies beneath the deserts sands or even in Bagdad as the case may be..we still haven't found all the tunnels, and they are extensive, Saddam prepared for nuclear annihalation..

__________________

bluelight

Why did you lie then??

Cause lie you did.

Why did you piss on Blix?

Cause piss on Blix you did and the UN you did for the sake of WDM´s?

Why?


Because lies were ther only thing youy could have built a coalition from.

The issue was already in the hands of Un.


As everything shows......them issue was in control.

So you needed lies to take over from the UN.

Do i think they deliberatly lied.

Yes i am convinced they did.


Bluelight

bluelight

You also say.....nobody knew with certainty....

I say no no no ....

Your government claimed with 100 percent certainty that they had PROOF of WDM´s .

Powell sat in one of the most importaNT meetings ever in the history of the UN and claimed...we have PROOF.......
They also claimed they knew where a large part of them were.

Ministers in Blairs government that had doubts about the war were ASSURED that there were evidence and actual WDM´s in orcder to make them keep their places in Blairs government and not split up the goverment.


One of them resigned recently...because.....of the lies that were obvious after.


Ther technical basis for the war given to the UN...was WDM´s and that Iraq did not declare them (which they obviously did) and that the UN did not deliver....

So...you had to lie.

And you did.


Had you not done so and left the issue where it should ave stayed....then you wouldd eventually havbe sen a coalition...but frankly...i dont think you were interested at all in that .

Bluelight

Falstaff

and if we aren't harassed, and the U.N. inspectors come back, then we will definitely find it, we know gas was used, we saw the containers, have records of it's alleged destruction. The missles? that is a no brainer, The nuclear program, they were enriching uranium somewhere, using soviet breeder reactors to do it. We are finding bodies of executed civlians now, but we will find WMD eventually. But it didn't take WMD to get rid of Saddam, we would have gone in anyway, so the point may be moot, Saddam is gone, and IRAQ and the world is a better place.

__________________

JavaFox

So, it is your belief, then, that the US and UK government knowingly sent their men to die, knowingly made them take innoculations they did not need, and knowingly forced their men to wear chemical suits for a large part of the war?

bluelight

Well when you....do ...find....the things you alrerady know exist....and where they exist.....

Then dont forget to tell George Tenent about it so he can call of the investigation he has ordered to find out why Cia was wrong.

Bluelight

bluelight

It is my belief that they lied to the UN.They said they knew Iraq had WDM´s.They said they knew were they were.

It wasnt true.

They did this to build a coalition on false grounds.

This is all irrelevant in reality .I read just 15 minutes ago that the definite desicion to go to war was taken in December when Irak presented their .."list" .Long before the discussions in the UN.







Bluelight

JavaFox

bluelight has said that the US/UK were not simply wrong, but that they LIED to the rest of the world. So, according to him, the innoculations, the chemical suits, and the deaths were all part of a US/UK-led charade.

If this is true, my question is this -- why wouldn't the US/UK fabricate WMD evidence? Why don't we simply take some Vx, stamp "Iraq" on it, and show the world? If we fooled hundreds of thousands of soliders and generals already, why don't we just lie about this?

bluelight

I suggest that you go for a walk ...cool down...and then read the topic again...cause you obviously havent read it and im not gonna do it for you by spending yet 5 post to explain what my posts says.



Bluelight

JavaFox

Huh? Bluelight, you said that the US/UK made their troops get innoculations, wear chemical suits, and die even though they were lying about WMD. You say the the CIA investigation is a lie.

So my question is, if the US/UK lied about all that and made their troops undergo false precautions, why would we have any trouble finding WMD? Wouldn't we just lie about that, too?

bluelight

Well now i know for sure you dont read topics before you reply.

Please show me where i am saying that anyone was forced to wear chemical suits???

You are saying this.

I am not.

So read the topic again.

Im not gonna repeat what is already there to read because you are to lazy to read what i actually write.


I also suggest you edit the ..."Bluelight is antisemit" before you adress me further.

Thank you.



Bluelight

bluelight

Why you would have any trouble finding WMD`s??

Because the UN has already dug them up.

Thats why.

That and the sanctions is also the reason your war took three weeks and not 5 months.

Bluelight

JavaFox

American and British troops were innoculated (as far as I know, every single serviceman was innoculated against smallpox, many against anthrax). They also wore full-body chemical suits for a good chunk of the war.

You are saying that the US and UK lied about WMD. So, in effect, you are saying that the US and the UK gave those shots to their troops, and made them wear chemical suits, and sent them to die for no good reason.

JavaFox

That wasn't my question. My question was -- if the US lied about WMD, why don't they just lie and say that they found Saddam's WMD?

bluelight

BEcause they would have to show them andthey cant show something tyhjat isnt there..

Now ..im asking you:

Did Powell or did Powell not say in the UIN That Usa had proof of WDM´s ??

Yes he did.

Did Blair give his ministers full assurances that evidence of WDM´s were at hand??

Yes.


Was the technical reason givern to the UN for the necessity of the immidiete attack on Iraq WDM´s??

Yes.


Wasnt Usa spitting on Hans Blix and the Un inspections because of that Usa claimed that Blix wasnt capable of finding...THE EXISTING WDM´s??

Yes


Wasnt this also the root of all of the controverse between Usa...Europe ..and Russia....


Yes.




Followingly they lied .They have spent two months looking for WDM´s that they have proof of exists and that they earlier on claimed knew where they were.

They have also given the CIA orders to investigate why...they arent finding...what they claimed they knew existed.


So....France Germany ...and most of the rest of the world....wanted the UN to finish its job ( which they had done very well evidently....)...änd then possibly take a final dcecision which would have forced everyone practically to join the coalition.




Bluelight


.

JavaFox

So what you are saying is that the US, a country that spends $2,000,000,000 on a single aircraft, and who, along with the British, have wide, sweeping powers to run the government of Iraq -- are you saying that a country with our influence in Iraq and with our massive resouces couldn't fabricate evidence?

Give me a break. If we are liars, then we would have simply created evidence of WMD, wouldn't we?

Falstaff

Fact #1 Saddam Hussien used gas

Fact #2 Saddam Hussien built weapons delivery systems with fantastic range.

Fact #3 Saddam Hussien invaded nieghbors to secure his outlaw province in Kuwait and raped it.

Fact #4 Saddam turned on the United States after we withdrew support for his conflict with IRAN.
He ordered an anti ship missle attack on a U.S. Navy Ship.

Fact #5 Saddam Hussien would have remained in power now if we didn't help him in his conflict with IRAN.

Fact #6 Saddam Hussien was allowed to remain in power to forstall the eventual problems a total collapse of power would have caused, and certainly because it would have made our arab allies turn on us.

Fact #7 Saddam Hussien created and purpetuated rumours of programs that hinted at an accelerated weapons development and capability, much to his undoing. CIA intelligence may have been flawed, but we have not seen the whole picture yet, since Hussien rooted out spies frequently and killed them.

Fact #8 Saddam Hussien murdered hundreds of thousands of people and led the remaining people down a path of destruction rivaling Hitler and Stalin.

Fact #9 Although French and German leaders expressed regret, and anger at the invasion of IRAQ, they all will benefit from the rebuilding of IRAQ if not now, in the future...

Fact #10 Lawless IRAQI gunmen, dismissed Baath party members and soldiers responsible for atrocities in past are among the rioting crowds, and terrorists, freedom fighters, martyrs, whatever you want to call them are still coming across the borders from all surrounding countries to exercise their version of Jihad and change the political climate with the barrel of a gun and the hollow charge of an RPG.

__________________

bluelight

They lied.

I know it.

You know it.

Because it is a FACT.



What they could or could "fabricate" is irrelevant.Should they however present proof...now...or in a month without the participatrion.....then i WILL claim such "proof" are fabricated.



Topic finished for my part.


Bluelight

JavaFox

I see. So, you want the US to prove that WMD existed but if they do, you will say they fabricated it.

bluelight

I want Usa top present the loads of WDM´s that they claimed that they had proof of.

I want the UN to verify wharever they present since it is their assigned mission to fulfill.


None if it is gonna happen though.


Bluelight

JavaFox

Nor does it have to. When it comes to WMD, even the threat/appearance of noncompliance is enough.

digerati

Bluelight your really going out for blood man. America isn't that bad, we are just perceived to be most of the time. Prime example, SH4, look at how much he disliked America and none of his reasons held any ground at all. Someone here said that the U.S. shot down the france wanting to go into congo, how much you want to bet that the U.S. would have spent more money, and sent more troops than any of the other countries, not only that, I haven't heard of a crazed kongo leader buying uranium enrichers from france and russia. But if France want's to be a hero and send troops to do stuff on their own they can go ahead. I mean if it's right it's right. So they should just bypass the U.N. and send troops, but they won't, they don't want to put in that much effort.

Dalik

The US has there reasons for taking out the gov in iraq, and I think they are very good. The US only needs 1 reason to take out there gov, only 1 because 1 to many makes it wrong and just off the top of my head. UN found missles that where able to fly 95 miles a few miles over there limit. Guess whats that is a WMD am I wrong? that along is good enough reason to do what we did. Mind you this is AFTER saddam said he didnt have any WMD, but yet again they found more WMD over and over..

So he paid the price for lying and other things that I am sure you can think of.

Also he has killed countless amount of not only people in other countries but his own people. Should he be given a slap on the wrist ? I find it weird how someone can kill 100 people and be put to death, but if he kills 50,000+ people he should not pay for it? what BS is that!

I dont agree and I do think the US is not telling the FULL truth, but I also like most of us dont know everything either. We get most of our info from the news, but we dont have the records of what is really going on.

I think US DID remove the iraq gov for these reasons:
To show that we will defend ourselfs.
remove saddam
leave a small US footprint in iraq(bases)
maybe get cheaper oil
win over arab nations to not hate us, to show them we arnt as bad
I also think the arab nations are jelous of the US because they used to have a lot of money but are suffering, but the US has ranked #1 in most fields of tech, research etc and there is always someone that hates a winner.

the nations that defended iraq had close ties with them, mainly trades, stuff for oil for example.
I am done for now...

merry

... you'd call the cops.

But the truth is, whether Saddam did pay or not for his crimes, lots of people that had nothing to do with said crimes paid alongside with him. One can say that the Iraqi people is better off without Saddam (and I agree), but looking beyond the term "people" (which is a concept, abstract) one can also see the "real" (can you say "concrete"?) people that died or were crippled - life can hardly be better now for those. And while the arithmetics of "few casualties for higher general good" sounds fine, I never heard that asserted by a dead person.

I'm not sure, how many civilians died? These things always happen in a war, so I'd say 3 missles that can fly 5 miles more than allowed is not good enough for starting wars. Weapons of Mass Destruction means more than that, chemo/bio and nukes, now THAT is better reason to - inadvertently - kill people like you and me. Not that I would agree to it (especially if it meant *I* was to die), but at least I could accept that there was no other way, or not enough time. (And it would be a lot of relief if you accepted to die in my place, I really like it here).

To justify their going to war, US *politicians* produced what they called evidence (and was really "indications") of Iraqi WMDs, or plants etc. In time, the emphasys went, but only briefly, to the AlQuaeda connection, to finally stop at the "freedom for the Iraqi people" rethorics. This latter formula seems to justify the war now, but it couldn't have been used to start it.

So. WMDs. Why did all those people die?

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

bluelight

IM not debating wheter or not it was justified to remove SAddam Hussein.


It was.


Im debating where or not Usa lied to the UN in order to build a coalition on the terms of Usa instead of the united terms of the UN.


It is now obviuous that this is the case.

Youy can go on and mumble about me supporting Saddam or supporting that he should have been left alone.

I dont care.

I have ALWAYS been in FAVOUR of a removal of Saddam ...BUT! i wanted it done by the UN..and it would eventually have been done by the UN had it not been ...rthat Usa...has wider plans for Iraq.

So far nobody has come up with one single argument that contadicts what i am claiming....because none of you have any valid such arguments.'



You did ...puke....on the UN...for months for their lack of ability to deliver WMD´s (That you claimed existed and that you had proof of).

Some of you even had the freekin nerve of stating that the UN and Blix was bought off by Saddam.


Well you have now spent 2 months delivering what you had proof of existed.

And...nothing.


Well...................................your asses are bare today.

Blix`s is not.

Period.


Bluelight