or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 9  

post #321 of 631
Bush's assertion that Iraq had the stated quantities of chemical etc. weapons was the testimony from Hussein Kamel, an in-law of Saddam Hussein who defected from Iraq and was assassinated by the regime on his return. The bit that Bush omitted (from the Kamel testimony used in that infamous UNMOVIC report) was where Kamel stated that all Iraq's chemical weapons were dumped or destroyed in 1991 shortly before the inspections started. Obviously, widespread publicity about those inconvenient parts was kept quiet in the US media during the lead up to the war. Not only was Bush, Powell and the rest of the admin lying but they were deliberately misleading the US people and the rest of the world. A trial, (or articles of impeachment) is what's needed to sort this mess all out once and for all. If Clinton was impeached for lying to the US people, then why should the current batch of scum be immune?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #322 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
They also said they that he had the weapons and was a threat.

I agree that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat and their own intelligence on the issue. You can say they lied, even, but to extrapolate that out to the entire WoMD being a Bush admin fabrication is just stupid.

FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.

Quote:
Their whole push was based on making Saddam disarm. You can't beat this one with symantics. And if it's so tenuous why have a war?

I'm not allowed to discuss semantics in a thread about someone lying? I'm sorry, jimmac, but that's the entire purpose.

-

sammi jo:

Quote:
If Clinton was impeached for lying to the US people, then why should the current batch of scum be immune?

Was Clinton impeached for lying to the US people?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #323 of 631
Quote:
I agree that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat and their own intelligence on the issue. You can say they lied, even, but to extrapolate that out to the entire WoMD being a Bush admin fabrication is just stupid.

FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.

The latest Sy Hersh piece in the New Yorker (Q & A with him here, the article here indicates that those weapons are unaccounted for simply because the Iraqis disposed of them when they were supposed to.

You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.

As you say above, the admin "misrepresented the threat" for whatever reason. I *would* go so far as to say that they lied about it. It seems clear to me that the admin recognized along the way that "Saddam is a bad, bad man" wasn't going to fly with the American people. This is why, I suspect, we all have such a difficult time talking about/debating this: the admin tried seemingly every way to justify the escalation on the way to conflict, but nothing would stick to the wall. And so in the end folks like me were simply left asking "Why did we attack, invade, and now occupy another country, again?"

But this is serious business. Hersh has a really good response to why we ought to care whether we were misled by the admin:

Quote:
It matters because the threat from Iraq was the whole basis of selling the war to the American people. There's a striking observation in my article from Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska, who wants to see a secular, democratic Iraq and was a strong supporter of the war. Kerrey said that it's very possible that they thought if they made a public argument on the basis of Saddam Hussein's being a bad guy the public really wouldn't care enough to endorse a war. But what they could do to mobilize public opinion was suggest that Saddam was involved in generating weapons of mass destruction, whose mere existence could potentially be a threat to us, and allow people to believe that he was involved in 9/11. If it is true that this Administration deliberately, from the very beginning, understood that the best way to mobilize the American people was to present Saddam as a direct national-security threat to us, without having the evidence beforehand that he was, that's, well, frankly, lying. That's the worst kind of deceit a President can practice. We don't elect our President to not tell us the real situation of the world, particularly when he sends kids to kill and be killed.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #324 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.

Oh really? So you like making unsubstantiated claims?

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

moving on:

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

So from this statement blue=truth and red=questionable:

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

Can the second sentence be proven or disproven? I don't think so.

red: already disproven. Here's an easy one--Al Furat. Hell, that was disproven BEFORE the war.

blue: see link above
post #325 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Was Clinton impeached for lying to the US people?

Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life. Bush lied to Congress, the UN, and the American people about a matter of national security, massive budget implications and international relations. If Americans can't put the difference in perspective, then I guess there's really no hope for us any more.
post #326 of 631
Quote:
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life

and why was he being questioned about his private sex life? (the legal reasons, not conjecture)
post #327 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
and why was he being questioned about his private sex life? (the legal reasons, not conjecture)

Yeesh! Isn't it obvious? It was a crucial line of questioning in the investigation of the Whitewater land deal! Jeez! The connections are *obvious*!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #328 of 631
midwinter:

Quote:
The latest Sy Hersh piece in the New Yorker (Q & A with him here, the article here indicates that those weapons are unaccounted for simply because the Iraqis disposed of them when they were supposed to.

Without a trace or any proof at all?

Odd... how does one destroy thousands of tons of deadly chemicals with ZERO evidence of such disposal?

It's possible

Quote:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.

The administration!?
The administration put them in that predicament!?
Did you even look at the URL of the link I provided? UN.ORG

I swear to God this is maddening, it's like you people forget that this whole thing was a big deal 10 goddam years before George W Bush even ****ing took office!

Here's the link again. click

Let me walk you through the URL since the significance seems to escape everyone who sees it.
un.org (Hey! It's a UN document!)
/depts/unmovic (A department of the UN! UNMOVIC! OH WAIT, THAT'S BLIX AND COMPANY! Not exactly the Bush administration now is it, sparky?)
/06 March 2003 (HMMM! Seems fairly recent to me, how about you?)

Make an effort, please. Please please please please please.

----

giant:

Quote:
Oh really? So you like making unsubstantiated claims?

Unsubstantiated? Have you even been paying attention to the Iraq situation for more than 2 days?

click

Look at P. 21 published by that blood-thirsty warhawk oil-man Hans Blix. A beautiful list just for you.

Unsubstantiated... Christ al-****ing-mighty. I link to the goddam UNMOVIC report from March 2003 and it's unsubstantiated...

---

tonton:

Quote:
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life.

You know, as much as I'd love to re-tread the tired and pointless argument about privacy and Clinton witch-hunting I think I'll avoid it.

Thanks for proving my point.

Perhaps "Sammi Jo is still lying to justify attacks on GeeDub" as a thread is in order?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #329 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
and why was he being questioned about his private sex life? (the legal reasons, not conjecture)

Because he rejected Paula Jones (probably called her "horsey") and she made a vow to herself to get back at him. Then Ken Starr saw an opportunity to get into the spotlight, and he hated Clinton anyway, so he turned it into a big deal, with full support from his Republican buddies. He was hired as an independent counsel. Independent, my ass.

Now... what exactly is your point? Does the reason for his testimony somehow magically transform the issue to one in any way comparable to what Bush did?

Can't you all see the difference?
post #330 of 631
in cases regarding possible sexual assault, your private sex life with other women in similar situations is not actually private anymore.

there's a huge difference between the two (bill/gwb), but it's pointless to try and paint Bill as horribly wronged regarding his testimony along these lines.

in front of a grand jury, when the line of questioning is directly related to the charges against you, it's not really your private life anymore.

if you can't admit that to yourself you're delusional.
post #331 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life.

This is nitpicky, but he wasn't impeached for that. Even the House rejected that one. He was impeached for lying to the Independent Counsel and for obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case.
post #332 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life.

...when you are married, it isn't your private sex life




Quote:
Originally posted by tonton Bush lied to Congress, the UN, and the American people about a matter of national security, massive budget implications and international relations. [/B]

I am always have to smile at people who sincerely believe they are privy to the same material as the president, the NSA, or CIA. I get positively giddy with those who same people who don't know IF or WHEN the PPC970 is coming out trying to tell me they have the "inside track" on geopolitics.

post #333 of 631
Quote:
This is nitpicky.....

not to worry, that's about all that been left in this thread for the last 10 pages.......
post #334 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Without a trace or any proof at all?

Odd... how does one destroy thousands of tons of deadly chemicals with ZERO evidence of such disposal?

It's possible

Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.

Quote:
The administration!?

Yes.

Quote:
The administration put them in that predicament!?

Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.

Quote:
Did you even look at the URL of the link I provided? UN.ORG

Nope. Didn't even see it.

We've had some good and productive exchanges before, Groverat. The rest of this post isn't one of them. Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #335 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
in cases regarding possible sexual assault, your private sex life with other women in similar situations is not actually private anymore.

Just to be accurate, it wasn't about sexual assault. Jones filed a civil suit against Clinton for propositioning her and then denying it when the story later came out.
post #336 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
I am always have to smile at people who sincerely believe they are privy to the same material as the president, the NSA, or CIA. I get positively giddy with those who same people who don't know IF or WHEN the PPC970 is coming out trying to tell me they have the "inside track" on geopolitics.

Maybe you should read this thread. There is ample evidence of specific claims the Bush administration made that have been proved fallacious, misguiding, or wrong, such as the Niger plutonium deal. I don't care what other evidence was shown. He lied about some of it. In an issue far more important to America's future than Clinton's penis.

Then there are all the quotes from British and Americans in the loop claiming that the respective administrations knew they were being misleading. Sure, it's hearsay, but doesn't this warrant an investigation?
post #337 of 631
cool. close enough for this thread.
post #338 of 631
Yeah I just looked up and realized this thread is supposed to be about war. I'm glad I missed the first 6 pages.

Maybe we could work a little evolution-creationism in here, too?
post #339 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I don't care what other evidence was shown. He lied about some of it. In an issue far more important to America's future than Clinton's penis.

I would imagine the stakes are a little higher than Clinton's penis as well.

You are still assuming you know what is going on---which, I can assure you, will take many years to sort out. (all things do---this is no different)


By the way---when IS the 970 coming out?
post #340 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
...when you are married, it isn't your private sex life

I agree. Then its a matter between you, your spouse and god, if you are one of those persons.

But noone can claim that when you are married your sex life is the possible subject of a Jerry Springer-like show like that Starr staged.

Is Hillary really a weak woman that need the entire american nation to deal with her and Clintons marital problems?
post #341 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



I agree that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat and their own intelligence on the issue. You can say they lied, even, but to extrapolate that out to the entire WoMD being a Bush admin fabrication is just stupid.

FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.



I'm not allowed to discuss semantics in a thread about someone lying? I'm sorry, jimmac, but that's the entire purpose.

-

sammi jo:



Was Clinton impeached for lying to the US people?

This was an exuse more than a fabrication. I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way. Like say N. Korea does. However the Bush administration said before the war that they had intelligence that Saddam had these weapons for certain. Certain enough to start a war. So if they were that sure of themselves the WOMD should have been easy to find. This whole thing doesn't wash. I'm sorry but it doesn't.

You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #342 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
I would imagine the stakes are a little higher than Clinton's penis as well.

You are still assuming you know what is going on---which, I can assure you, will take many years to sort out. (all things do---this is no different)

So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.

And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?
post #343 of 631
Here is something else:

If the Iraqis were as pure as the driven snow, them why the minders? Why the obfuscation? If there was nothing to hide, then why give the inspectors a ration of shite?

Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?
post #344 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.

And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?


Think of it this way: pick any conflict, the Cold War or The Great Game (Britain in the 19th century.) We STILL don't know about ALL the maneuvering that went on, the operatives, the deals etc., etc. Was that ship in the Gulf of Tonkin REALLY attacked?

We generally know what is going on, but for one side to reveal its strategy to the other is FATAL. I just don't think we can resort to cowboy strategies and comic book finishes when approaching this.

Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if its not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harms way for some nefarious cause? Wed better hope and pray thats not the case.

They ARE NOT going to give away their strategy in any event.
post #345 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if it?s not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harm?s way for some nefarious cause? We?d better hope and pray that?s not the case.

Players and hopes doesn´t do it.

So if he lied to start the war I think NOW is a good time to come clean on the reason.
post #346 of 631
midwinter:

Quote:
Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.

Or e) just haven't been found yet within Iraq.

Most likely a mix of most of those.

Quote:
Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.

Trying to move the goalposts, eh?

Your statement:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.

I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council

Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?

If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.

As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.

Quote:
Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.

I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.

You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?

---

jimmac:

Quote:
This was an exuse more than a fabrication.

An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...

How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?

Quote:
I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way.

How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.

Quote:
You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.

You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?

My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?

---

ena:

Quote:
Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?

Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.

Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #347 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?

Not a single one of them says that the U.S. can go to war if Iraq can't prove they've destroyed the supposed weapons. Quit lying.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #348 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.

Between the two Iraq wars, did Saddam slaughter Iraqis by the millions? Quit lying.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #349 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.

You sound almost as if you're condemning a country for wanting to control Iraq's oil economy. Is this the case or are you going to try and lie your way around this point as well?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #350 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


Unsubstantiated? Have you even been paying attention to the Iraq situation for more than 2 days?

Do you even read the stuff you post? How about anything anyone else posts?

BTW: your link doesn't work
http://mdsme.de/cgi-bin/nph-spinnerp...March%2003.pdf

Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends. What a news flash. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and actually read ALL of the UN reports that have come out for the past 12 years, as some of us did long ago, so that you actually have a full view of what is being discussed.

Anyway, hopefully if you ACTUALLY READ THROUGH something, such as the following meta-analysis, maybe you can be a man and stop retreating to fantasy land in an attempt to save face.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

Anyway, you've already agreed that the Bush admin lied.
post #351 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Quit lying.

But Groverat has already said (and demonstrated) that he thinks lying is OK.
post #352 of 631
Your mdsme.de link doesn't work. Your second link discusses US/UK claims, I don't give a rat's nutsack about those.

UNMOVIC's official site: click
"Cluster Document" link on left side: click
The "Cluster Document": click

P. 19, please, and tell me how much of that is Bush administration lies.

Quote:
Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends.

So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons controlled by a brutal dictator is "tying up loose ends". I like how you try to mix your opinion with broken links to unofficial sources.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #353 of 631
....what about the tractor-trailers WMD labs? Doesn't that mitigate some of this alleged lying?
post #354 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Your second link discusses US/UK claims, I don't give a rat's nutsack about those.

THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!
Quote:
So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons ...

That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!

So were things unaccounted for? Of course. But was there a large-scale program? NO! Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.

Stop playing games.
post #355 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
....what about the tractor-trailers WMD labs? Doesn't that mitigate some of this alleged lying?

Hi ena!

No.
meh
meh
post #356 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
midwinter:



Or e) just haven't been found yet within Iraq.

Most likely a mix of most of those.



Trying to move the goalposts, eh?

Your statement:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.

I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council

Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?

If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.

As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.



I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.

You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?

---

jimmac:



An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...

How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?



How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.



You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?

My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?

---

ena:



Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.

Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.

Ok first of all I knew he had WOMD at one time because the U.S. government knew that from the first war.

Secondly since he wasn't much of a threat ( really, it was an exuse remember ) The exuse wasn't about him being a terrible threat at all. It was all about another agenda which has been gone over by me and other people here ad infinitum.

Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.

The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means. In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future. This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).

This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #357 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!! Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!

HA! CONFERMED!!! You're WRONG!!! You misspelled the word decision!!!

Everything else you post is now considered balderdash.

PS Anyone have a link to the article that states the Bush Administration is now requesting permission to control Iraq's oil funds? I posted it somewhere but can't find it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #358 of 631
Thread Starter 
Here's your balderdash
Quote:
Iraqis want U.N. to control oil cash

By Nadim Ladki

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis have welcomed U.S. and British moves to lift U.N. economic sanctions but are calling for the United Nations
or an Iraqi interim government to take charge of the nation's oil wealth, not Washington.

The United States and Britain are pushing a proposal to lift nearly 13 years of sanctions and give them control of the Iraq's oil revenues for
at least a year.

"It is a good initiative that should have taken place a long time ago," said Ragheb Naaman, 43. "But we don't accept that the revenues be
controlled by the United States and Britain."

Naaman, an employee at Iraq's Military Industrialisation Commission in charge of developing weapons, said: "The regime (of President
Saddam Hussein) is gone, why are they staying? This shows that they are occupiers not liberators."

The sanctions, imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, have crippled the economy of the oil-rich country, pushing a majority of Iraq's 26
million people around the poverty line.

"These sanctions should've been lifted long time ago, look at our situation now," said a man who named Ali. "But, I guess, better late than
never."

The U.S.-British proposal would relegate the United Nations and other international institutions to an advisory role and phase out over four
months the existing U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian programme.

The United States and Britain, who sponsored the proposal along with Spain, want a vote at the U.N. Security Council by June 3, when that
programme, which gives the United Nations control over the oil revenues, needs to be renewed.

Without adoption of the resolution, no Iraqi, U.S. or U.N. entity in Baghdad has the legal authority to export oil.

"We should run ourselves, not be controlled by Washington or London," Ali Hamad said.

"The whole of Iraq is now theirs so the sanctions should be lifted. They are taking Iraq's wealth," Ahmad Dulaimi said. "The United Nations
and not the United States should run the country until we have our own government."

According to the proposed resolution, decisions on where to spend the money would be made mainly by the United States and Britain.

They would make those decisions in consultation with an Iraqi interim authority Washington is now setting up until a new elected Iraqi
government is formed, which could take years.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissin...43&sid=1846282
post #359 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Hi ena!

No.


"Serves me right for asking a direct question"

--Claude Rains, Casablanca
post #360 of 631
giant:

Quote:
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO WAR!!!

Certainly wasn't the entire reason. I remember Bush & Blair making the humanitarian case for months.

Quote:
Blix has been extremely critical not only of the Bush admin intelligence but the discision to start a war!

And that matters....?

Quote:
That's the whole point! G-agents degrade, meaning they are not a threat! Get a clue!

Not a threat?
If you can provide a source that says the chemicals would be harmless at this point I'd love to see it. Please please please.

Quote:
So were things unaccounted for? Of course.

And this, to you, doesn't matter?

Quote:
But was there a large-scale program? NO!

Wouldn't really matter if Hussein already had thousands of tons of chemical agents, now would it?

Quote:
Did anyone ever claim there was a weapons program that was a treat to the US? Yes, and it was only the US.

The US certainly didn't claim the Iraqi weapons were a treat. I think only France viewed it that way.

Quote:
Here's your balderdash

You're right. One Iraqi = Iraqis!

---

jimmac:

Quote:
Also guess what? There are still dictators out there just as bad or worse.

So...

Quote:
The fact that Iraq's oil is in the hands of the west doesn't justify the means.

Iraq's oil has been in the hands of the West since 1991. Or have you forgotten about the Oil-For-Food program so soon?

Quote:
In fact this period in history won't be discussed in a positive light in the future.

By you? Of course not.
The last thing you want is a successful Iraqi movement to a peaceful and prosperous nation with a healthy economy and abundant freedoms. That would just be a huge political blow for you, wouldn't it?

Quote:
This kind of blatant " You're a bad guy so we're going to take your resources by force " attitude is way beneath the posture the U.S. should be showing to the rest of the world. Truly disgusting and making us just as bad as those evil dictators out there. We did it because we could ( and because it was an easy target ).

Kind of like killing 1.2 million Iraqi civilians with sanctions to control their oil? Oh wait... that didn't include any bombs.

Quote:
This had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with gain for the U.S. and the west ( and politcal gain for Bush ). The shame is on us. You ether fight the evil in the world or find yourself becoming part of the problem.

And the net result of this war is negative?
~4000 civilian casualties in a direct overthrow of one of the most brutal dictators in the world and the potential for a bright future for a nation which saw 1/6th of its population in foreign exile?

Versus what? What was going well before the war, jimmac?
The 274 dead per day from the UN's method?

Let's see... two months since the start of war:
war killed: ~4000
sanctions killed: ~16400

WHAT A HORRIBLE MONSTER BUSH IS! WHAT A HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MONSTER!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war