Iraq : A summary of the Bush Gov Lies

[Bikerman2004]

The U.S. is a reresentative republic, look at the pledge of allegiance (...& to the republic for which it stands...) or more precisely a "corporatocracy". We are a nation governed by corporations & their lobbyists. Look at Cheney's "ultra secret" energy task force. **** probably said "...you boys write it up & when i get back from the golfcourse i'll give it to jr. to sign." It's sickening but it's true. It's gov't "sold to the highest bidder" & it probably would'nt be all that different from the dem's, just different companies although the dem's would be less rapacious than the repub's. The repub's steal from the people in broad daylight. It's odd because thier middleclass supporter's, even after that, continue to support them. It's like the "rich" leading the "un-rich" (bush's word). I got to hand it to them though, it just proves the maxim: "the best place to hide something is in plain view" No offense to you right leaning fellows. It would be comical, the repub's actions, if it were'nt so tragic, the ripping out by the roots of the avg. citizens capacity to compete in the marketplace of idea's (lobbyist's have that one), voting (Diebold[ a vocal republican supporter] has a good part of that one & keeping wages commensurate w/ the rising cost of living. Has the price of a barrel of oil ever been this high before-$53(u.s.), w/ the winter coming on too. I expect some repub's to "see the light" defect this winter. Nice thread, Lim. keep it up.

Typical MC diatribe. The whole world would be so much better if the Republicans weren't here. The Democrats could then get on about the business of making America a utopia. Where income redistribution is policy. One sentence slightly negative to Dems then a full out attack on Republicans. Ideological BS!

 

[homeycheese]

The premise made by the Bush goverment for the invasion of Iraq - being especially vocal between June 2002 and March 2003 - has now been demolished by :

1. The Butler Report in Britain
2. 9/11 Bi-Partisan Senate Commission
3. Iraq Survey Group Report.

No weapons of masss destruction were in Iraq.
No stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq.
No documentation for a WMD program were found in Iraq.
No stockpiles of chemical weapons were found in Iraq.
No documentation for chemical weapons program were found in Iraq.
The USA has had unfettered access to the entire territory of Iraq and has still - 18 months later - failed to provide one quantity of depleted uranium, one vial of anthrax, one vial of small, one document showing the manufacture of WMD and/or

36,000,000 (36 MILLION DOCUMENTS) were examined by the latest commission (Iraq Survey Group) to investigate WMD and not one document in the 36,000,0000 documents read, can substantiate the lie.

Remember Bush said and I quote "we know that SH possess weapons of mass destruction" in State of the Union address 2002.
He said it so often that he actually believed and still believes it to be true -
despite the findings of all of the commissions and reviews !
Tony Blair Sept 2002 in the House of Commons "we know that SH presents a real and active threat and we know that he us in possession of WMD".

"in possession of/possesses" - think about that phrase for one moment.

Both leaders - spoke with unequivocal certainty that Hussein possessed WMD/
chemical weapons.
WHEN ASKED TO PROVIDE PROOF OF THESE CLAIMS - NEITHER OF THEM CAN
PROVIDE ANY PROOF !

1,060 dead American soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqi's.
That's the price for this war in human terms, so far.
Instead of making Iraq a secure place - Iraq is in anarchy.
Outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad, anarchy reigns.
Foreigners are being kidnapped and killed.
People volunteering to join the local police are being ambushed on a daily basis.
Carbombs are detonated at will throughout Iraq.
It is a lie to conclude that Iraq is free.
No electricity/gas supplies for the civilian people.
Hospitals are barely functioning.

Democracy indeed.
And let me define democracy because there are two types of democracy here.
The USA cheerleads about democracy.
One type of democracy is the one that is within the sovereign territory of the USA - Bush would have you believe that this same democracy applies in Iraq.
Well let me tell you, it doesn't.
When Bush talks about democracy - he wants you to believe that the same democracy that applies in the USA, applies in Iraq.
It doesn't.

You see there is a puppet goverment in Iraq.
On June 30th 2004 : the US handed power to this new Iraq interm goverment.
To hand over power means, just that, hand over power.

Zarqawi demanded the release of women prisoners from this interm Iraqi
goverment in Sept 2004.
The Justice Minister of Iraq - said that the two ladies in question would be freed on bail.
After all these people are Iraq's prisoners.
THE US STATE DEPT THEN INFORMED THE IRAQ GOVERMENT THAT IT WAS NOT IN THEIR (IRAQI'S) GIFT TO AUTHORISE THE RELEASE OF THESE TWO PRISONERS.
Consequently, these two women were kept on prison and Zarqawi began executing the foreign workers held captive.

So we have a situation where an Iraq'i goverment is appointed and told that they are in charge of their own affairs BUT ONLY IF THIS IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE US GOVERMENT WANTS.

Democracy is a very precious commodity.

Lim, the only problem I see with your position is the failure to understand your "evidence" could only be achieved with SH out of power and the ability of groups like the 9/11 commision and Duelfur to have free access to Iraq and its people.

If the "proof" you claim to selectively gleam from these reports was available prior to the invasion of Iraq, then that would have meant SH had complied with the numerous UN resolutions.

Furthermore, I find it hard to understand how you can so conclusively call Bush's statements a "lie" when every credible expert involved, with the same intelligence information available to them at the time (including our Junior Senator from France), all came to the same conclusions and have had the same positons on Iraq and SH for the last 12 years?

BTW - Why do you think so many terrorists and non-Iraq citizens like Zarqawi are fighting so hard to destabilize Iraq? Do you think these folks have the best interests of the Iraqis in mind when they blow up buses and cars and building and help kill so many innocent Iraqi citizens?

 

[homeycheese]

The U.S. is a reresentative republic, look at the pledge of allegiance (...& to the republic for which it stands...) or more precisely a "corporatocracy". We are a nation governed by corporations & their lobbyists. Look at Cheney's "ultra secret" energy task force. **** probably said "...you boys write it up & when i get back from the golfcourse i'll give it to jr. to sign." It's sickening but it's true. It's gov't "sold to the highest bidder" & it probably would'nt be all that different from the dem's, just different companies although the dem's would be less rapacious than the repub's. The repub's steal from the people in broad daylight. It's odd because thier middleclass supporter's, even after that, continue to support them. It's like the "rich" leading the "un-rich" (bush's word). I got to hand it to them though, it just proves the maxim: "the best place to hide something is in plain view" No offense to you right leaning fellows. It would be comical, the repub's actions, if it were'nt so tragic, the ripping out by the roots of the avg. citizens capacity to compete in the marketplace of idea's (lobbyist's have that one), voting (Diebold[ a vocal republican supporter] has a good part of that one & keeping wages commensurate w/ the rising cost of living. Has the price of a barrel of oil ever been this high before-$53(u.s.), w/ the winter coming on too. I expect some repub's to "see the light" defect this winter. Nice thread, Lim. keep it up.

David, Do you have any clue what the demand for oil by China and other Asian countries has done to the world supply and the price of crude?

Do you realize that because of pseudo-voodoo science, gas prices in ATL-GA will automatically increase at least 8 cents as we will be forced into using reformulated gas?

Other than a bunch of half-baked, unsubstaniated, conspiratorial sound-bites, what do you know about anything?

God help us if you actually work for a governmental agency.

 

[davidmc]

David, Do you have any clue what the demand for oil by China and other Asian countries has done to the world supply and the price of crude?

Do you realize that because of pseudo-voodoo science, gas prices in ATL-GA will automatically increase at least 8 cents as we will be forced into using reformulated gas?

Other than a bunch of half-baked, unsubstaniated, conspiratorial sound-bites, what do you know about anything?

God help us if you actually work for a governmental agency.

Why do i get the impression you might be a repub.? & why drag god into the conversation

God help us

. What does he have to do w/ this thread ? People usually call on diety's when they don't have any substantitive argument to make. Human reason, more often than not, suffices.

 

[darkboong]

David, Do you have any clue what the demand for oil by China and other Asian countries has done to the world supply and the price of crude?

Do you actually have any idea of what the oil consumption figures look like ? China's consumption is surprisingly small (albeit growing rapidly). Per-head it's miniscule compared to places like the USA.

Do you realize that because of pseudo-voodoo science, gas prices in ATL-GA will automatically increase at least 8 cents as we will be forced into using reformulated gas?

Supply and Demand, baby ! That's the Free Market and Democracy in action.

 

[darkboong]

Lim, the only problem I see with your position is the failure to understand your "evidence" could only be achieved with SH out of power and the ability of groups like the 9/11 commision and Duelfur to have free access to Iraq and its people.

Duelfur merely confirmed what Kay and Blix had already stated. Blix's work remained incomplete due to the US attacking Iraq on the basis of evidence that was known to be fabricated and unreliable at the time. I can understand if you missed the reports that exposed that at the time as they were largely buried by the media.

If the "proof" you claim to selectively gleam from these reports was available prior to the invasion of Iraq, then that would have meant SH had complied with the numerous UN resolutions.

There wasn't any selectivity required. The independent pre-war reports from qualified people consistently stated that there was no evidence of WMD stockpiles. Remember the 12,000 page compliance report that Iraq produced at the behest of the US via the UN ? The US dismissed it in just 4 hours. Not very likely that they read and fully understood the report in just 4 hours is it ? I'll tell you what they did : They made their minds up to reject before it was even delivered because they knew full well it would give the lie to their fantastic claims.

Furthermore, I find it hard to understand how you can so conclusively call Bush's statements a "lie" when every credible expert involved, with the same intelligence information available to them at the time (including our Junior Senator from France), all came to the same conclusions and have had the same positons on Iraq and SH for the last 12 years?

That is complete rubbish. Take for example the Yellowcake claims, plenty of qualified experts dismissed that. Take the aluminium tube claims. The US nuke labs dismissed that and made sure it was leaked to the press. Going back further there hasn't been unanimous agreement on Iraq for many years. Sanctions remained a bone of contention and it turns out that they were very effective, perhaps too effective. Now we read that the US has been failing in it's responsibilities to prevent the proliferation of "Dual-Use" equipment and nuclear materials in Iraq. Face it : Iraq was toast whatever SH did. No big deal, the US has got it's way, game over. Just don't expect the world to thank the US for expanding it's Empire.

BTW - Why do you think so many terrorists and non-Iraq citizens like Zarqawi are fighting so hard to destabilize Iraq? Do you think these folks have the best interests of the Iraqis in mind when they blow up buses and cars and building and help kill so many innocent Iraqi citizens?

To me the evidence suggests that the vast majority of the resistance to US occupation is in fact carried out by Iraqis.

Digression...

An occupation force that makes it policy to deny the existence of civilian casualties does not care about the civilians under it's "protection". If they cared about Iraq they would be open and honest about the casualties, and in that way there is accountability. Where there is accountability there is a negative feedback loop in place to keep aberrant behaviour in check. At present that accountability simply is not there, as evidenced by the treatment of prisoners, the continued use of indiscriminate weapons in civilian areas and the government headed by exiles (not locals).

Next time you see a report of "insurgents" killed, see if you can get the name of the original source on the ground for it. Most of the dead/captured insurgent counts I've see are nice round multiples of five (that is rare in real life). Compare and contrast that with the named sources on the ground and detailed breakdowns supplied with the medical staff and aid agencies in Iraq. Quite frankly the latter have more credibility and they indicate that the US really doesn't give a toss about the Iraqi people.

 

[zapper]

Blix's work remained incomplete due to the US attacking Iraq on the basis of evidence that was known to be fabricated and unreliable at the time.

Rubbish. We continued to be shot at for 12 years and still S.H. wasn't forthcoming and you come to his conclusion???I've got news for you...If we had not attacked Iraq, his work would still be incomplete...They had been working it for 12 years...Hello, anybody there???

There wasn't any selectivity required. The independent pre-war reports from qualified people consistently stated that there was no evidence of WMD stockpiles. Remember the 12,000 page compliance report that Iraq produced at the behest of the US via the UN ? The US dismissed it in just 4 hours. Not very likely that they read and fully understood the report in just 4 hours is it ? I'll tell you what they did : They made their minds up to reject before it was even delivered because they knew full well it would give the lie to their fantastic claims.

Ah, you can read minds...Funny how the libs possess some soothsaying ability that the rest of us aren't privey too...But I contend your memory is a little slanted.....

1. "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page litany on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. His report contained information that often appeared to echo the administration's view that Saddam Hussein will never disarm unless compelled to do so.

2. He said that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration of its arms programs that Baghdad presented Dec. 7.

3. He added that his inspectors had also found at another site a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol, which he described as a precursor of mustard gas. Blix also reported that Iraq is building two missiles, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah, which he said seemed clearly to violate U.N. restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 150 kilometers.

4. Iraq has refurbished a missile plant that had been previously destroyed by weapons inspectors, and has illegally imported chemicals that could be used for weapons, Blix said.

5. Blix had especially strong language for what he called "disturbing incidents and harassment," including charges by Iraqi officials that his inspectors are spies.Doesn't sound like compliance to me....


Of course, he like kerry has now changed his position a bit...Yes, easy to say after the fact isn't it? The bottom line, if we had not gone it, Blix would still be getting blown off by S.H....

 

[darkboong]

Rubbish. We continued to be shot at for 12 years and still S.H. wasn't forthcoming and you come to his conclusion???I've got news for you...If we
had not attacked Iraq, his work would still be incomplete...They had been working it for 12 years...Hello, anybody there???

The primary strike aircraft used for the SAM suppression missions were RAF Tornados, and the UK has lost more of those to American friendly fire than Iraq. If the Iraqis were shooting they weren't achieving much with it.

1. "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page litany on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. His report contained information that often appeared to echo the administration's view that Saddam Hussein will never disarm unless compelled to do so.

Date please.

2. He said that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration of its arms programs that Baghdad presented Dec. 7.

<Apologist mode> Somewhat inevitable in a 12K report put together in a hurry. Try looking at the timescales.

3. He added that his inspectors had also found at another site a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol, which he described as a precursor of mustard gas. Blix also reported that Iraq is building two missiles, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah, which he said seemed clearly to violate U.N. restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 150 kilometers.

Hardly a big threat though were they ? Iraq was confirmed to have destroyed most those before the invasion anyway. I think that shows willing.

4. Iraq has refurbished a missile plant that had been previously destroyed by weapons inspectors, and has illegally imported chemicals that could be used for weapons, Blix said.

No confusion here, Blix has been perfectly straight about it. It's only your selective blindness that is causing the confusion. Iraq was entitled to manufacture 150km weapons, so as long as that rocket factory was building <=150km weapons it was kosher. Furthermore that quote doesn't state what kind of weapons the chemicals were intended for. From the context the reader would be likely to assume that he was talking about rocket propellant. Sugar has been used for rocket fuel for example.

5. Blix had especially strong language for what he called "disturbing incidents and harassment," including charges by Iraqi officials that his inspectors are spies.Doesn't sound like compliance to me....

Aha, but you are neglecting to mention that Blix stated he was perfectly happy with the access that he was granted *after* he publically aired these complaints.
He made the complaints to bring them into line, and they did, that's diplomacy in action and working. The next impediment to his work was in fact the US actively undermining him and launching a full blown invasion.

Of course, he like kerry has now changed his position a bit...Yes, easy to say after the fact isn't it? The bottom line, if we had not gone it, Blix would still be getting blown off by S.H....

Any idiot can take statements out of context and repeat them without appropriate context, which is what exactly what you have done here. Blix was actually making significant progress, and his findings have been confirmed by the inspections initiated by the Whitehouse by it's own staff and unfettered access who had every motive to fabricate and exaggerate. In fact Iraq has been proven to be so insignificant a threat that Bush and Blair are clinging onto the idea that Saddam "intended" to cause trouble. That's not good enough quite frankly.

Look no further than PNAC for the real motivation for the Iraq invasion.

To be honest I think that the vast majority of War apologists are smart enough to know that washing his hands didn't work for Pontius. Instead of washing their hands they are repeating lie after lie in the vain hope that the bloodshed will become righteous.

 

[zapper]

The primary strike aircraft used for the SAM suppression missions were RAF Tornados, and the UK has lost more of those to American friendly fire than Iraq. If the Iraqis were shooting they weren't achieving much with it.

Gee that's funny, we didn't have any tornados taking off of the carrier I was on while we were patrolling the no fly zone. However, although they never shot one down, they fired upon us daily you ****.

Any idiot can take statements out of context and repeat them without appropriate context, which is what exactly what you have done here. Blix was actually making significant progress, and his findings have been confirmed by the inspections initiated by the Whitehouse by it's own staff and unfettered access who had every motive to fabricate and exaggerate. In fact Iraq has been proven to be so insignificant a threat that Bush and Blair are clinging onto the idea that Saddam "intended" to cause trouble. That's not good enough quite frankly.

Ok..Dear Idiot, no one knew any of this until we put boots on the ground. I say again, easy for you armchair quarterbacks to spin it your way after the fact. I know kerry has a plan and he knew General Washington... The fact remains, Kerry, Edwards both Clintons, Albright, Gore bla bla bla bla I could go on forever, stated that Iraq had WMD's and that S.H. was a threat. So, I say again...WAKE UP!

Look no further than PNAC for the real motivation for the Iraq invasion.

Yeah and Flying saucers and little green men are real...RUN don't walk directly to the your neighborhood shrinks office...Quick before it's too late...................

 

[darkboong]

Gee that's funny, we didn't have any tornados taking off of the carrier I was on while we were patrolling the no fly zone. However, although they never shot one down, they fired upon us daily you ****.

That confirms my point that the Iraqi's weren't doing much damage *if* they were shooting. The RAF Tornados cleared out the SAM threat so your patrols wouldn't get shot down. Duh.

Ok..Dear Idiot, no one knew any of this until we put boots on the ground. I say

Actually they did. Just that folks like you refuse to accept the statements from the people who had their boots on the ground, technical competence, experience and were unbiased. Instead you chose to listen to the people with a clearly stated agenda (check out the PNAC material and the people involved) who had no direct experience of the situation on the ground or technical competence. It's pretty easy to find PNAC and their rather nasty publications via Google.

again, easy for you armchair quarterbacks to spin it your way after the fact. I know kerry has a plan and he knew General Washington... The fact remains, Kerry, Edwards both Clintons, Albright, Gore bla bla bla bla I could go on forever, stated that Iraq had WMD's and that S.H. was a threat. So, I say again...WAKE UP!

He wasn't. The only people claiming he was had an axe to grind (Chalibi, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al). The only positive evidence of threat that we saw before the war was from unreliable sources (or fabricated), while there was plenty of evidence that Iraq had decommissioned the vast majority of their "WMD" (and what a load of tosh that phrase is).

Yeah and Flying saucers and little green men are real...RUN don't walk directly to the your neighborhood shrinks office...Quick before it's too late...................

"Doublethink" is endemic in your postings. Read 1984 by Orwell for a cluebat. You claimed that America using nukes was "revisionist" history in the same post that you started with saying that America did use nukes. Perhaps you didn't bother reading my post before you responded to it, so either you are stupid, schizophrenic, or in deep denial. Perhaps a mixture of all three. You need the shrink more than I do.

 

[Bikerman2004]

You claimed that America using nukes was "revisionist" history in the same post that you started with saying that America did use nukes. Perhaps you didn't bother reading my post before you responded to it, so either you are stupid, schizophrenic, or in deep denial. Perhaps a mixture of all three. You need the shrink more than I do.

Perhaps he did read your post. I don't think anyone denies the bomb was dropped. I just take exception to you revising history and portraying the Japanese people as innocent victims in a war of their making. That was your implication when you stated we dropped the bomb on civilians.

 

[szbert]

The only good liberal anti-Bush idiot is the one who gets run over by a Bantha.

 

[darkboong]

Perhaps he did read your post. I don't think anyone denies the bomb was dropped. I just take exception to you revising history and portraying the Japanese people as innocent victims in a war of their making. That was your implication when you stated we dropped the bomb on civilians.

Civilian does not imply innocent. Criminals can be civilians for example. My post did not discuss or imply anything about the innocence or otherwise of the victims of the nuclear weapons. Here is the original text :

The only nation to use Nuclear weapons on civillians was in fact the United States of America. Many people consider the USA to be a Democracy. Besides, Israel's democracy is a sham, an illusion, just as Apartheid South Africa's democracy was.

No mention of innocence or otherwise. Are you disputing that the nuclear bombs were dropped on civilians, or are you revising the history of my posts ?

To be guilty of what you accuse with a second hand putdown is stupid.

I am wondering if you people are all sharing a bed with Ann Coulter. Maybe it's the lack of sleep that is has driven her to insanity.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Civilian does not imply innocent. Criminals can be civilians for example. My post did not discuss or imply anything about the innocence or otherwise of the victims of the nuclear weapons. Here is the original text :

No mention of innocence or otherwise. Are you disputing that the nuclear bombs were dropped on civilians, or are you revising the history of my posts ?

To be guilty of what you accuse with a second hand putdown is stupid.

I am wondering if you people are all sharing a bed with Ann Coulter. Maybe it's the lack of sleep that is has driven her to insanity.

Don't need to read between the lines to know exactly what you meant by civilians. Not revising just exposing your 'implied' intent. Nice touch giving yourself room to maneuver. Typical of an ideologically driven argument.
Who's Ann Coulter? Is that your mother?

 

[darkboong]

Don't need to read between the lines to know exactly what you meant by civilians. Not revising just exposing your 'implied' intent. Nice touch

In your case there was no need to read between the lines because you simply made it up in order to support your irrelevant rant. Those of us who are capable of using a dictionary would find this definition of "civilian" or one similar to it :

"One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military or clerical."

Or this :

"adj : associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with
the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life"
[ant: military]
n : a nonmilitary citizen [ant: serviceman]"

There is no mention of innocence in those definitions, nor any of the others I've found. Take a look in a dictionary and see for yourself. Either you don't understand the word or you fabricated that implication all by yourself, despite the fact that the post is there in it's original form on this website.

giving yourself room to maneuver. Typical of an ideologically driven argument.
Who's Ann Coulter? Is that your mother?

The ideology comes from your lies, not my post.

Thankfully no, she's not my mother. If she was I would be seriously considering involuntary euthanasia.

 

[Bikerman2004]

In your case there was no need to read between the lines because you simply made it up in order to support your irrelevant rant. Those of us who are capable of using a dictionary would find this definition of "civilian" or one similar to it :

"One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military or clerical."

Or this :

"adj : associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with
the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life"
[ant: military]
n : a nonmilitary citizen [ant: serviceman]"

There is no mention of innocence in those definitions, nor any of the others I've found. Take a look in a dictionary and see for yourself. Either you don't understand the word or you fabricated that implication all by yourself, despite the fact that the post is there in it's original form on this website.



The ideology comes from your lies, not my post.

Thankfully no, she's not my mother. If she was I would be seriously considering involuntary euthanasia.

How about that you can use a dictionary. I think everyone knows what civilian means, especially when used in your context. Apparently, something I said was truthful, or you wouldn't be so vehemently trying to deny it.

 

[darkboong]

How about that you can use a dictionary. I think everyone knows what civilian means, especially when used in your context. Apparently, something I said was truthful, or you wouldn't be so vehemently trying to deny it.

I have already demonstrated that I can use a dictionary by giving you a couple of definitions of what the word "civilian" means. By return all you've done is lie stupidly.

 

[zapper]

That confirms my point that the Iraqi's weren't doing much damage *if* they were shooting. The RAF Tornados cleared out the SAM threat so your patrols wouldn't get shot down. Duh.

Hey boogerhead, you can't "google" yourself out of this one. Ok major tung, Tornados were used during the war this is true. BUT during operation SOUTHERN WATCH, the U.S. flew patrols without assistance from the brits in the area that we were assigned to. Yes, google wouldn't confirm that we were shot at genius.

Actually they did. Just that folks like you refuse to accept the statements from the people who had their boots on the ground, technical competence, experience and were unbiased.

Once again, you make a fool of yourself. The inspectors did not have TOTAL access to the entire country. It was a joke. I refuse to accept statements as absolute fact under those circumstances.

He wasn't. The only people claiming he was had an axe to grind (Chalibi, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith et al).

Really? Ok, standyby for another education. Eventually you will learn how to use a dictionary and spellcheck and eventually you will be able to remove your hoof from your mouth...Enjoy:


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Perhaps you didn't bother reading my post before you responded to it, so either you are stupid, schizophrenic, or in deep denial. Perhaps a mixture of all three. You need the shrink more than I do.

Perhaps you didn't bother keeping your eyes and ears open while history unfolded in front of you, or perhaps, you were in an asylum and you have just been released...Either way, your statements are incoherent at best...

 

[darkboong]

Hey boogerhead, you can't "google" yourself out of this one. Ok major tung, Tornados were used during the war this is true. BUT during operation SOUTHERN WATCH, the U.S. flew patrols without assistance from the brits in the area that we were assigned to. Yes, google wouldn't confirm that we were shot at genius.

True, you flew patrols without RAF assistance, but the RAF did actually strike at SAM installations and AA batteries (not as many as I had thought to tell the truth). There is no indication that these installations posed a serious threat, the vast majority of weapons used were unguided.

Take a look at this page. Plenty of other hits in Google FWIW.

Once again, you make a fool of yourself.

Talking about yourself again... ?

The inspectors did not have TOTAL access to the entire country. It was a joke. I refuse to accept statements as absolute fact under those circumstances.

I suggest that you actually read the report made by Hans Blix to the UN after the last round of inspections.

Really? Ok, standyby for another education. Eventually you will learn how to use a dictionary and spellcheck and eventually you will be able to remove your hoof from your mouth...Enjoy:

I try to remain open to new ideas and keep learning. Thing is : I'm not learning much about you aside from that you believe everything the Whitehouse tells you without question.

Spot the common links :

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Didn't spot the common links ? OK I'll spell them out for you. All of them are US apparatchiks. As far as I know none of them took part in the inspection process directly. None of them are technically qualified in the area. None of the quotes make any reference to the last round of inspections that Blix made (he stated that access was adequate).

Perhaps you didn't bother keeping your eyes and ears open while history unfolded in front of you, or perhaps, you were in an asylum and you have just been released...Either way, your statements are incoherent at best...

Your denial and ignorance is the primary barrier to your understanding of my posts. Personal attack doesn't actually amount to anything as far as who is right and wrong in this debate, it just shows that you have run out of facts to support your position.

 

[Carrera]

Don King the boxing promoter once said something that was very much to the point. This is, more or less, what King said:

"If you repeat something often enough people will come to accept it as gospel."

Supposing Bush hadn't made the claim that Iraq posed a major threat to the world but had picked some other country? How about Cuba under Castro or even Turkey? What would have happened if the Bush Administration had repeated over and over again:

"Cuba is planning to build weapons of mass destruction and also has chemical weapons that can fall into the hands of terrorists."

I'm sure Don King knows the answer as well as anyone. The result would be that you'd soon see Tony Blair and John Howard repeating the same claim over and over again. The U.N. would be holding meetings and Blix and co would be off to Cuba to search for the alleged weapons.
It's what's known as the herd effect - anyone familiar with the fable by Hans Christian Anderson? The King's not naked at all since only the politicians and educated can see he's wearing an invisible suit.

O.K. let's take the principal claim Bush made:

(1) Saddam has WMD's, can launch WMD's within 45 minutes and poses a threat to his neighbours. He's a madman who threatens the world.

(2) Saddam Hussein posed a similar threat as ****** in the Second World War.

(3) The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Sure, I happen to agree Saddam did have some illegal weapons and had ambitions to develop his program. Having said that, when push came to shove and Iraq was actually attacked by a multinational force, the sum total of Iraq's defence consisted of a few paltry, ancient skud missiles he launched at Kuwait. That was it! Some threat! Surely a madman would have thrown everything he had in the way of WMD's? A suicide bomber, for that matter, wouldn't even have worried about retaliation. But it seems Hussein's response to war was rational. No chemical weapons were launched. Was the regime as mad as was made out?

The second point touches upon the legality of the war. ****** had a navy, air-force, the biggest European army of that period and was hell-bent on world conquest. He was actively attacking other countries and attempting to commit genocide. Iraq had no air-force to speak of, no navy, a third-rate army and had made no moves to attack either Kuwait or any other neighbour. He was also an ageing dictator, well past his sell-by date.

Thirdly, Saddam was a former ally of the U.S. and spilled the blood of his troops to oppose the spread of fundamentalism in the Middle East. Russia, France and the U.K. sold him countless weapons and armour duriong the war with Iran. However, after the removal of the regime, Iraq has become a haven for terrorists, chemical weapons programs have probably fallen into the hands of fanatics and possible civil war faces the country.

Sure, it was better for Iraq to be free of the Saddam regime but he would inevitably have fallen anyway without any direct intervention. So, why did they invade? My guess is it has to do with oil, religion, personal grudges and messianic visionaries.