Justice and an Illegal war.

[Bikerman2004]

Well said about ideologies and labels.

Regarding the PNAC, I'm not so sure I think of them or their ideologies as evil, so much as I think they color the Iraq debate in a way which doesn't receive enough attention in the public landscape.

Think tank organizations never show up in the public eye. This applies to both liberal and conservative groups. When they do it usually becomes a ideology war. Much like it being mentioned in this thread. I'm still trying to decide why the PNAC is being introduced now. Most knew about it but are glad someone else brought it up. If its that big a deal it would have be mentioned much earlier.

 

[lokstah]

Think tank organizations never show up in the public eye. This applies to both liberal and conservative groups. When they do it usually becomes a ideology war. Much like it being mentioned in this thread. I'm still trying to decide why the PNAC is being introduced now. Most knew about it but are glad someone else brought it up. If its that big a deal it would have be mentioned much earlier.

Well, the PNAC has always been at the front of my brain; personally, I hadn't brought it up because we'd had plenty to talk about before hand.

The significance, of course, of the PNAC's work as opposed to that of your run-of-the-mill think tank is the presence of Oval Office dignitaries among their ranks; it's a vertiable slice into the thought process within the White House. There's a consistency of action between their recommendations and the current administration's work, and why shouldn't there be? The PNAC wasn't erected for laughs.

In light of that (and of Wolfowitz's earlier writings offering even more explicit recommedations regarding Iraq), I question how confidently Bush supporters can subscribe to the official claim that the invasion was born solely of an urgent necessity... urgent enough, that is, to supercede a hard-fought and now virtually stalled campaign begun in Afghanistan.

 

[wanderer390000]

Actually that's not entirely true. A CIA report was leaked/published that stated that the attack happened while Iranian and Iraqi forces were fighting in the area. What's more it claimed that it was more likely to be Iranian chemical weapons that killed those poor bastards. I'm amazed that people have forgotten about that report so quickly, it caused a shitstorm when it was appeared. Lots of cries of US cover-up.

Even tho limerickman is never rigth this would be the first time he was and you come and say it is wrong omg another person who make up his own history are you in the CIA if not how did you get to read the top serect report oh then you woke up

 

[lokstah]

Even tho limerickman is never rigth this would be the first time he was and you come and say it is wrong omg another person who make up his own history are you in the CIA if not how did you get to read the top serect report oh then you woke up

It's been in debate for some time now, actually.

What makes you so sure your sources are operating with confirmed facts?

I'm not sure anyone other than the generals at play in the fields that day knows .

What's not in debate is that the Iraqis used chemical weapons under our noses for years, and we scarcely yawned .

 

[wanderer390000]

Not that it makes an differrence what my religion is - I am Roman Catholic for the record.

The UN inspectors, inspected Iraq, on the basis that WMD were used in the 1980's.
So yes, I concede that at some point Hussein had WMD.
But it was clear from the statements made by UN inspectors, Richard Kay, Butler and others, that during the UN inspections from 1992 onwards, that there were no traces of WMD.
In addition MI6 and the CIA prefaced their reports about WMD on the basis that although there was a lot of rumour of WMD, no physical evidence could be shown to prove that Saddam Hussein had WMD from 1991 onward.
Rt Honourable Foreign MInister - Robin Cook in Tony Blairs goverment, said in Parliament that all documentation from the intelligence services never, ever suggested that SH had WMD from 1997 onwards.
He said the reports given to Cabinet contained a lot of conjecture but little direct evidence.

I don't know where you come from or your religious affiliation.
This discussion isn't about religion or being pro-anti American.
The discussion is about whether or not the US/British invasion was legal and just.
The fact of the matter remains - and will remain until proof of WMD is provided - that the reason for going to war was a lie.
It was a lie - and it is a lie.

Iraq did not declare war on the USA.
Iraq posed no threat to the USA.
Iraq did not invade the USA.

So why did the USA invade Iraq ?
If Iraq posed no threat, if Iraq did not declare war on the USA, and Iraq did not possess WMD : then why did they invade Iraq ?
They invaded Iraq for reasons not given to the public.
Therefore, Bush & Co lied.

As regards the taking of hostages - it is repugnant.
it is despicable.
I condemn - as forcefully as I condemn the USA/British invasion - the acts
of Al Zaqhawi & Co.
But by invading Iraq. - the USA and Britain have endangered the lives of their innocent civilians in Iraq.

Where were you when S\H was killing innocent civilians in Iraq ????

My ponit was and still is Before the war the UN french and germay (well every one ) thogth that S\H had WMD ok they have not found any but he had 10 years of non action from the UN to hide them

You blame the USA but was it not the UN that FAILED (yet again) done rigth this could have been done better

you have said before that Iraq never had WMD yet now you say he did in 1988 so what happen to them

and if you think he had them then find out after you invaded that you can't find any how can this be a lie

I allso belive that they said he had links to terriost this to me has been PROVED just lok at the people there now (links to bed laden)

Is it ok for people to killed thier own people??? if you sit back and do nothing are you not allso to blame (jews) as and example

I am R\C

you would own a car and you would use fuel and buy food to feed your family what happen if they took over the oils and was able to set the price and you could not afford to pay the war was about making the middle east a more stable place the WMD was a way they could do that LEGALY if i remeber rigth they had to disarmed after first gulf war so that would make this war LEGAL

 

[wanderer390000]

It's been in debate for some time now, actually.

What makes you so sure your sources are operating with confirmed facts?

I'm not sure anyone other than the generals at play in the fields that day knows .

What's not in debate is that the Iraqis used chemical weapons under our noses for years, and we scarcely yawned .

you just proved me rigth he must have had them if that was true go bake to sleep BTW better to keep you mouth shut and have every one think your dumb then to open it and have every one KNOW YOU ARE

 

[lokstah]

you just proved me rigth he must have had them if that was true go bake to sleep BTW better to keep you mouth shut and have every one think your dumb then to open it and have every one KNOW YOU ARE

Have I "proved you right?"

I know I stated previously that limerickman's claim that Hussein never possed chemical weapons was clearly either an oversight or an oversimplification; my point is that we know he held and used those weapons in exchanges with Iran, and with Kurds, because we considered the bugger a pro-American statesman for most of the time prior to the Kuwait invasion.

We virtually sanctioned his use of the things until we decided he was an unpleasant ally.

 

[lokstah]

It remains unclear, however, who's precisely responsible for the genocidal act you're referencing.

It suits the US's purpose to consider the case closed, but that's simply not the reailty.

 

[limerickman]

Have I "proved you right?"

I know I stated previously that limerickman's claim that Hussein never possed chemical weapons was clearly either an oversight or an oversimplification; my point is that we know he held and used those weapons in exchanges with Iran, and with Kurds, because we considered the bugger a pro-American statesman for most of the time prior to the Kuwait invasion.

We virtually sanctioned his use of the things until we decided he was an unpleasant ally.

I told 390000 that SH used WMD against the Kurds in Hallabja and against the Iranians between 1980-1988.
On both occasions, the USA did not invade Iraq.

I also pointed out to 390000 that WMD were not found by the UN between
1992-1998 and that subsequent visits uncovered nothing.
I finally informed 390000 that the Rt Honourable British Foreign Secretary
Robin Cook, who served with Blair since 1997, in his resignation speech to the Commons in 2003, said and I quote "no intelligence briefings seen by the Cabinet and Prime Minister between 1997-2003, indicated any WMD programs
or WMD hardware".
The USA did invade Iraq in 2003 - even though the CIA and MI6 and the weapons inspectors could not locate any WMD.

390000 does not read replies to his/her posts for some reason.

 

[limerickman]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040924/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_scientists

Blix and Richard Kay confirm that no WMD were in Iraq and they question the continues detention of the two women scientists - for whose continued detention Al Zaqhawi claimed to executed tow innocent American civilians this week.

 

[wanderer390000]

Where were you when S\H was killing innocent civilians in Iraq ????

My ponit was and still is Before the war the UN french and germay (well every one ) thogth that S\H had WMD ok they have not found any but he had 10 years of non action from the UN to hide them

You blame the USA but was it not the UN that FAILED (yet again) done rigth this could have been done better

you have said before that Iraq never had WMD yet now you say he did in 1988 so what happen to them

and if you think he had them then find out after you invaded that you can't find any how can this be a lie

I allso belive that they said he had links to terriost this to me has been PROVED just lok at the people there now (links to bed laden)

Is it ok for people to killed thier own people??? if you sit back and do nothing are you not allso to blame (jews) as and example

I am R\C

you would own a car and you would use fuel and buy food to feed your family what happen if they took over the oils and was able to set the price and you could not afford to pay the war was about making the middle east a more stable place the WMD was a way they could do that LEGALY if i remeber rigth they had to disarmed after first gulf war so that would make this war LEGAL

Still waiting for your answers ??? limerickman

 

[lokstah]

Still waiting for your answers ??? limerickman

You'd have more luck getting answers if you posed a few coherent questions. l see a few question marks mingled in with the smiley faces, but your train of thought is difficult to grasp.

The only clear thing you've said recently is "nuke'em all," which believe me -- eveyone here grasped just fine. Pretty satisfyingly discrediting, I'd say.

Where'd the sensible conservatives around here go?

 

[limerickman]

Still waiting for your answers ??? limerickman

I don't intend to insult you - but is english your first language ?
I ask this because in reading your posts, I don't know whether you are asking me a question or making a statement : with the way some of your sentances are constructed.
As I say, I am not posting this to insult you.

If you want me to answer a question - can you please post the questions which you want me to answer and I will revert back to you.

 

[wanderer390000]

You'd have more luck getting answers if you posed a few coherent questions. l see a few question marks mingled in with the smiley faces, but your train of thought is difficult to grasp.

The only clear thing you've said recently is "nuke'em all," which believe me -- eveyone here grasped just fine. Pretty satisfyingly discrediting, I'd say.

Where'd the sensible conservatives around here go?

as before NUKE them was a joke any one who took it seroius is a w-------er

 

[wanderer390000]

I don't intend to insult you - but is english your first language ?
I ask this because in reading your posts, I don't know whether you are asking me a question or making a statement : with the way some of your sentances are constructed.
As I say, I am not posting this to insult you.

If you want me to answer a question - can you please post the questions which you want me to answer and I will revert back to you.

OK i will type slowwwwwwwww for you

If Iraq had WMD in 1988 and used them as you say he did

What happen to them between 1988 and 2003 ?? this is the question

this is a statment

I did not hear of S|H handing over any to your friends (do no wrong) the UN
as before all you can do is talk anti USA crapppp

as for my spelling or is english is my first langage at least i have my own thougths and am open mind enougth that if you gave me a good answer i may even change my mind.

I see yours is closed you first stated that Iraq never had WMD now you had to admit they did

 

[limerickman]

OK i will type slowwwwwwwww for you

If Iraq had WMD in 1988 and used them as you say he did

What happen to them between 1988 and 2003 ?? this is the question

I acknowledged that Iraq had WMD and used WMD against the Iraniand and Kurds in the 1980's, in my earlier replies to you.

In 1990/1991, there was an event called the Gulf War.
During the Gulf War, the allies attacked and destroyed SH's WMD stocks.
To prove this point, the UN carried out weapons inspections between 1992-1998 on a continuous basis.
Hans Blix, richard Kaye and others such as Robin Cooke British Foreign Minister confirmed that all intelligence reports stated that Iraq had no WMD
between 1992-2003.
The Commision for 9/11 and the British Butler Report concluded that the findings of Blix and others wwere in fact correct.

 

[wanderer390000]

I acknowledged that Iraq had WMD and used WMD against the Iraniand and Kurds in the 1980's, in my earlier replies to you.

In 1990/1991, there was an event called the Gulf War.
During the Gulf War, the allies attacked and destroyed SH's WMD stocks.
To prove this point, the UN carried out weapons inspections between 1992-1998 on a continuous basis.
Hans Blix, richard Kaye and others such as Robin Cooke British Foreign Minister confirmed that all intelligence reports stated that Iraq had no WMD
between 1992-2003.
The Commision for 9/11 and the British Butler Report concluded that the findings of Blix and others wwere in fact correct.

Another ?

if this happen why was the UN still trying to disarmed him just before the sec gulf war???

 

[lokstah]

Another ?

if this happen why was the UN still trying to disarmed him just before the sec gulf war???

The UN was attempting to verify whether or not Hussein in fact possesed any weapons of mass destruction. The safe assumption held by most of those with an opinion was that the regime did, in fact, harbor some sort of stash, but that assumption was clearly unsubstantiated.

The free world, as a whole, was operating on extremely lousy intelligence. The entire sequence of events highlights the need for thoughtful foreign policy -- something not even Bush will accuse himself of being capable of.

 

[Fixey]

as before NUKE them was a joke any one who took it seroius is a w-------er

OK, so anyone who doesn't get your rather unusual sense of humor is a W-------er?

I never thought I would ever say this but BRING BACK ZAPPER......
at least his one-track arguments and insults are coherent.

 

[davidmc]

OK, so anyone who doesn't get your rather unusual sense of humor is a W-------er?

I never thought I would ever say this but BRING BACK ZAPPER......
at least his one-track arguments and insults are coherent.

Yeah, at least that sissy (zapper) puts a little more effort in his sophmoric put downs & ad hominem attacks so that they seemlessly mesh into his "tirade of the day"