FuNsTeR

Don't say i told you so ... i did ... funny 1 year later on .... where's the so called WMD we were gonna find Blair & Bush have changed their tunes to justify their invasion Occupation of another sovreign country ... (yes Saddam is a evil b@stard who was supported by the west) and still the US supports Dictatorship P@kistan (rife with islamic terrorists) over the worlds largest Democracy India ... strange bedfellows methinks ... you thick yanks never learn and neither does America's poodle Tony "Himmler" Blair.

The current situation and spirraling violence is not a suprise to me , Iraq under saddam was controlable .... their were no terrorists .... after all he and Bin Laden hated each other ..... bit they did not take into account both Sunnis and laterly the shia hate the western crusaders more than the west can ever understand ... while all the time their country is being asset stripped by large US oil corporations out to make a fast buck ... no pussy footin' will ever change that ..... the longer the western powers stay in Iraq .... the worse the situation will become .... they have managed to turn a secular people into future Bin Ladens which i also said would happen .... Bush and Blair went about this illegal action and thus must be brought to trial for their in excuseable lies .... how many more young servicemen will die for there folly they have set a presidence that says if the USA or UK does not agree with the rest of the UN nations then they have the right to proceed regardless .... isn't that how the second world war started when the Nazis , Japs & Tallys ignored the League of Nations to do similar we are now as bad like America we have become pariah nation that feels we can do as we please ..... the yanks are not finding it funny now while their getting their asses kicked all over Iraq

ps i also try to avoid American goods when possible and buy European instead ... its called choice folks



oh and btw goodbye

digerati

We weren't forbidden from invading. There's the difference. I didn't want him gone because of the WMDs, but it turns out they lied about them, and that is inexcuseable, and Bush should probably be impeached, I don't know if the Brits have an impeachment process for Blair. I would type more but I'm coooold. So bbl.

zerodamage

As I've stated before, if Bush lied about them, then so did the U.N. and every democrat since 1991. And this Includes Clinton and his cabinet. We all thought he had WMD, and he did have them.

raid517

Mmm... according to Fox news he did... But the real position of the UN immediately prior to the invasion was that they were unconvinced there were any WMDs left - and that they needed more time to investigate. The weapons inspectors at that time were unhappy at the headlong rush for war and indeed they said so on many occasions. Also it wasn't all the UN, there was a campaign for second vote if you remember and the US and UK abandoned it because they knew they couldn't get enough support - that if they tried their quest for further authority to invade Iraq would fail.

You guys sure have a convenient way of filtering out the facts.

And I think that the argument isn't so much about 'he lied about WMDs' as he lied about his real intentions. That is what chokes in the craw of most folks - that maybe if he had fought a war exclusively with the expressed intention of removing an evil dictator, then maybe a lot more folks would have supported it. But the fact is he chose to lie - and associate Iraq with the war on terror and with the events of September the 11th - and it is this lying that worries people. After all people only tend to lie when they have something to hide. So what is it George is hiding? What is it he thinks we're not good enough, or not entitled to know?

If he doesn't want to make people suspicious, why doesn't he just come clean and explain what this whole damn thing was supposed to be about?

GJ

digerati

I suggest everyone read this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

raid517

And? You've done this a couple of times these last few days...

If you are trying to say Saddam was a bad man - well we all know that - and as I said many people may have supported a war on the promise of having him removed. But that was not why the war was fought. Whatever Bush's true motivations were it was certainly not the reason that was touted to the public.

I still don't get why pick this bad guy - why not pick on the countless other bad guys in the world - who would undoubtedly have made easier targets anyway. Why pick one bad guy who just so happens to be sitting on one of the largest oil fields on earth?

These are old arguments, but I guess that maybe we will see some kind of resolution if these committees ever reach a conclusion.

Hopefully it won't end up just being some kind of white wash.

GJ

digerati

If you read everything, you know, like these parts.

September 1991
In a surprise raid on an Iraqi government building, UNSCOM inspectors, led by David Kay, discover a hidden archive of documents that reveals Saddam's plans to develop a nuclear weapon.

Incensed by the inspectors' discovery, the Iraqis haul off the original documents, and demand the inspectors turn over their photographs of the documents. The standoff lasts for four days and the weapons inspectors are held hostage in the parking lot outside of the building. They are finally allowed to leave with their evidence when the U.S. announces it will intervene militarily on behalf of UNSCOM.
----------------------------

Aug. 7, 1995
Hussein Kamel, a high-ranking Iraqi general -- and one of Saddam's sons-in-law -- announces in Jordan that he has defected with his brother and their wives. Kamel had been in charge of hiding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and he tells the chief U.N. arms inspector of a vast arsenal of weapons UNSCOM had failed to find and where the cache is hidden.

The inspectors raid Al Hakam, which Kamel had described as Iraq's top-secret germ warfare production facility. The Iraqis had denied having any biological weapons programs, but there UNSCOM discovers Russian-built fermenters used to produce anthrax and growth medium used to grow biological toxins. The inspectors bury 17 tons of it and blow up the entire facility.

Nine months later, Kamel accepts Saddam's guarantee that he can safely return to Iraq. The moment they cross the border, Saddam's two daughters are separated from their husbands; Kamel and his brother are killed several days later.
-------------------------------

Fall 1997-Winter 1998
In September 1997, UNSCOM inspector Dr. Diane Seaman leads a surprise inspection of an Iraqi food laboratory suspected of housing biological weapons work. Entering through a back door, Dr. Seaman catches men running out with briefcases that contain records of biological weapons activity on the stationary of the Iraqi Special Security Organization (SSO) -- the organization that guards Saddam Hussein. That night, UNSCOM attempts to inspect the SSO offices but is blocked.

The Iraqis are furious and in October they accuse the American UNSCOM inspectors of spying. They threaten to expel all American inspectors and shoot down U-2 surveillance planes.
-------------------------------

Iraq didn't have a clean record with the UN before we invaded, during the Clinton administration as Zero said.

raid517

Yeah... and they wanted the opportunity to go on dealing with it. Iraq may not have had a clean record - but the UN firmly believed in its own capacity to go on dealing with Iraq in an effective way. Clearly they did a pretty good job of it, of that there is no denying. They were tasked initially with finding and destroying Iraq's WMD programs. In the end they were far more successful than they could ever have imagined - a fact supported by the US' later failure to find any of the WMDs that it insisted still existed.

The UN believed it had dealt with - and was dealing with the Iraq issue - and they wanted more time to reach a final conclusion on the results of their work.

Unlike some people here it seems, the UN was not then and is not now, in the business of drawing black and white conclusions until all the facts are in.

Who knows, maybe they would have even gone on in time to rubber stamp a war - which I guess would have put an end to a lot of these arguments here.

GJ

bird chest

Man the bush administartion did not lie.

raid517

Well it depends what you call lying. They certainly did manipulate the truth, oveblow things, over exagerate things etc and they did this quite deliberately. This was the job of the Office of Secret Plans. They were an ultra secret office that was set up by the Bush administration to produce propoganda and to filter intelligence comming from the CIA and others to make it seem as though Iraq posed more of an immediate theat than it really did. You should look them up.

The question is, is deliberately misrepresenting the facts any less of a sin than plumb outright lying?

Personally I would say no. But other people are entitiled to their opinion too.

GJ

kp59583

WMD's may still be found but they won't be found where people think they maybe found. It seems to me that if I wanted to hide something, I would either hide it in plan sight or a couple hundred mile from the nearest people like the in the desert a hundred feet down. They'll probably be found 10 years from now when a community starts to get sick for no reason or someone starts drilling in the desert.

__________________
ATHLON XP 2600+
K7N2G-LISR
512 SAMSUNG PC2700
ACER DVD DRIVE
memorex DVD recorder
WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE
AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD
4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY
ATI 9700 PRO

raid517

Pahh! Your on drugs man. Do you think the CIA would have interviewd thousands of people read millions of files, examined hundreds and hundreds of computer records only to come to the ofrficial conclusion that there was no WMDs and no programs to develope any either? Or haven't you heard of the report by David Kay, Bush's own handpicked CIA goon, tasked with finding WMDS in Iraq? Try looking him up.

Oh and just for fun:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111803B.shtml

GJ

kp59583

If you were trying to hide something would you keep records of it or live witness.

__________________
ATHLON XP 2600+
K7N2G-LISR
512 SAMSUNG PC2700
ACER DVD DRIVE
memorex DVD recorder
WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE
AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD
4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY
ATI 9700 PRO

raid517

You couldn't kill them all - otherwise who would work on your WMD programs? And yes most people do keep documentation of some kind on their activities, the only difference is that they tend to mark them as 'secret' so that only those with authority to look could see them. In any case this is a dumb argument. The CIA spent seven months combing through every inch of the country, talking to thousands of people, searching through possibly millions of documents - and they have come to the official conclusion that there was no WMDs and no programs to develop any either. How much clearer and more explicit do they have to be? Or do you think that you are somehow better qualified to make judgments on this than the CIA - or maybe your president is somehow psychic and he knows something that the entire intelligence community of the world has been unable to prove? In any case even he has backed off a long time ago from talking about WMDs in Iraq - so it seems it is only you a few few right wing loons on the Web (who tend to hang out in UFO abduction and Elvis is still alive forums too) who still cling to the notion that WMDs will ever be found.

It ain't going to happen. Not now, not in 10 years, not even in 100 years. Why? Because it was never real to begin with. Both Saddam and Bush exaggerated, Saddam because he thought if he fibbed about WMDs he could control his population and perhaps deter America from invading - Bush because he was really only interested in a land and an oil grab that would allow him to set up an American miltary power base in the Mid East - and he didn't think ordinary people would buy it.

The bottom line is they both screwed up, and neither of their plans worked as they had expected.

It now looks like the Iraqis are going to decide for themselves what to do with Iraq - whether Bush or anyone else has other plans for them or not.

While some of the tactics they are employing to try to achieve this may well be deplorable, you have to give them at least a degree of grudging respect for having the balls to try.

In my eyes the Iraqi people seem to have had enough. They have had enough of Saddam, enough of being told what to do, enough of occupation - and have opted to try to end this, by whatever means possible.

So what if the future they have mapped out for themselves is far different than anything the Bush administration may have envisaged for them? I wonder if you guys would support their right to decide on their own future - no matter whether it involves anyone else or not? What if the population voted in a hard line Islamic regime at the elections? Do you think we should respect their choices, do you think we should intervene? Do you think we have any right at all to interfere? If so, what I wonder gives us that right?

In any case if we tried to stop it, there is every chance there would be even more resistance than there is now.

It's a pretty crazy situation. Pretty ironic too, to watch Bush and his buddies squirm as they helplessly create the one thing they all probably feared most.

What I wonder is the right thing to do?

GJ

kp59583

As long as they didn't export or support terrorism I don't think anyone would care what type of government they had.

__________________
ATHLON XP 2600+
K7N2G-LISR
512 SAMSUNG PC2700
ACER DVD DRIVE
memorex DVD recorder
WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE
AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD
4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY
ATI 9700 PRO

raid517

What if it was a govenment that demanded the immediate and unconditional removal of all American troops and personel? What if they were openly anti-west and anti-american? Do you still think it's their right to make the call?

GJ

bird chest

If the head of the cia does not feel bush lied then I do not know what to say. The head of the cia also pointed out the fact that all the head generals thought their army had no wmd's but the army to their right and left did. How do you explain that. Maybe they did not exist but you can't blame the US for thinking they did with info like that.

bird chest

THen we would leave and allow the brits who seem to do everything right take over (sarcastic). If they are anti american and what not after we establish the gov and want us out fine we will leave.

raid517

Well as I said, my answer to this is to consider the activities of the office of special plans and decide if their activities were justifiable. Did they lie, or did they manipulate the truth? And is there any difference between either of these?

BTW try to read more than the first link, there is a lot of very interesting stuff there.

GJ

raid517

No the Brits will get kicked out too soon enough. We already did once. As I said people only tend to tolerate you as long as they think they need you - and when they are on their feet they begin to question why you need to be there at all. There is no way round it - no way to 'win'.

I like the phrase 'after we establish the government' - was that a slip of the keyboard, or do you genuinely think that the US should select the candidates the Iraqis eventually vote for? I mean, I thought it was up to the Iraqis to set up their own government?

GJ

Falstaff

THE ENTIRE NOTION THAT BUSH LIED IS UTTER BULL EXCREMENT
no reason to spin this any worse that it has already been spun up by the popular media and the disreputable sources in UK. Americans suffer from the same damn problem, the media does not and will never accurately reflect public opinion or even a half portion of the real truth. The Media is driven by one thing and one thing only regardless of what doe eyed idealists think or say. The bottom line is money. Every damn president this country has ever had and every prime minister that has ever pressed the flesh with us knows that the bottom line regardless of idealistic motives is Money. Saddam Husssien was a mad man, a murderer and a thug, and bad for world business, pure and simple, unpridictable, crude and without the support of even his closest allies, he challenged the world and the coalition to a game of bluff, and in the high stakes game of world political poker he lost. You call Bush a liar....Look in a mirror, you want hypocracy, also perform the same task. I will not mince words. there are no spins on this one, and I still know that Pres. Bush did what we all wanted to do in 1991, so Bullocks to Micheal Moore, Bullocks to popular press, and I hope tommorow and everyday thereafter the pursuit of freedom from tyranny is still an idea worth fighting for.

__________________

bird chest

Your right I meant they establish it was a slip.

Nexus7even

Doesn't anyone remember how Bush changed his mind 3 times on why America should go into Iraq?
First, we should go because it's blatantly obvious that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
-That didn't pan out...so........................
Second, Iraq was helping Al Qaeda.
-Whoops, turns out they hate each other.
Third, Iraq had huge reserves of WMD which it had been hiding from UNSCOM and weapon inspectors.
-This is a valid POSSIBILITY, but it's a far cry from the emotional reaction that Americans had to nuclear weapons and avenging the death of 3,000 non-combatants. This one didn't pan out either just like the UN Weapon inspectors warned was possible.

Don't tell me that congress gave him the power to do it and he had the support of the American people. That's just an over-simplification of the situation. The fact is that Bush made it political suicide if you chose to disagree with himi. Bush and other Republicans managed to create an atmosphere where even questioning the war was "unpatriotic." Or do you guys not remember that either?

raid517

4 reasons, he was 'liberating the Iraqi people'. Seems as though ever growing numbers of the Iraqi people aren't all that keen on the American model of 'liberation'.

GJ

raid517

Yeah but that wasn't what he said Jeff. The trouble is he never made 'regime change' the primary and only objective. Whether you believe it's true or not, he certainly gave the impression that he at least lied about his original motives. Like Nexus7even said he seemed to give every other motivation under the sun first. It was only later when everything else had faded away that he was left with the single 'good intention' of removing an evil dictator. But then the question emerges, why this evil dictator and not any others? Well you answered your own question there mate, because Saddam was plain and simply 'bad for business.'

Anyway I don't see why you guys can't just accept it for what it is. It was an attempt by Bush to grab a military power base in the Middle East. You believe in the military, right? You believe in showing strength when threatened? So why do you have such a hard time with it? It shouldn't matter if that''s what you believe, that most other people in the world find it stomach churningly repulsive behavior - that they see it as unrestrained militarism and expansionism. After all, the the ability to excesses unrivaled American power in the world is apparently the thing that floats your boat and makes you feel good about yourselves and about America. So what exactly is your problem with it?

First you shout for it - then when you get it you get a guilty conscience over it and start wringing your hands and making excuses for your actions. I'm afraid I don't quite get it.

And nice try Jeff, but I think you'll find the term is bollocks! (as in the dog's balls) and yes I agree that a lot of people do tend to talk complete bollocks when discussing this topic.

Best regards,

GJ

FuNsTeR

im quite happy American Soldiers are dieing , the more the merrier as far as im concerned .... only then will you see the errors
of your way of doing this sort of business that you cannot do as you please as you first thought America is a pariah state and
all Europeans worth their salt will boycott all your countries produce/companies.

GIRFUY Yanks

raid517

Mmm... Well Funster in my eyes that is pretty much close to a banning comment. There is a line - and clearly you have crossed it. If I were an admin...

But I'm not.

I just want you and everyone to know that you have no support from me for making those comments.

GJ