OH! You know what I forgot? Iraq didn't need to buy uranium ore from Niger because it had unenriched uranium. I can't believe I forgot that. At least now everyone is talking about it.
The declassified summary, however, included cautionary footnotes from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, about how compelling the uranium case really was.
This agency said in an "alternative view" annex on page 84 of the 90-page summary that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
Their best evidence included this passage that obviously supports the claim that the administration knew the Iraqis weren't looking for uranium in Africa. Are they really this confused?
To be honest I couldn't be arsed reading through all five pages of this; I'm on a dial-up connection. Personally; and without any moral grounds to decide whether or not US soldiers should live or die in Iraq I beleive that your country did the right thing. Clearly many of the stated reasons are in question, but the consequences for the people will eventually prove proper. I know the notion of Liberty can become too powerful (e.g. I can't agree with you folks on the issue of guns) but it's fundamental to all life. It shouldn't be denied anyone.
To be honest I couldn't be arsed reading through all five pages of this; I'm on a dial-up connection. Personally; and without any moral grounds to decide whether or not US soldiers should live or die in Iraq I beleive that your country did the right thing. Clearly many of the stated reasons are in question, but the consequences for the people will eventually prove proper. I know the notion of Liberty can become too powerful (e.g. I can't agree with you folks on the issue of guns) but it's fundamental to all life. It shouldn't be denied anyone.
By that logic, there are lots of people we ought to go occupying.
Mr Blair's arrival in the Far East follows talks in Washington with United States President George W Bush.
The prime minister also addressed Congress, where he received a rapturous welcome.
He told US lawmakers that even if Britain and the US had been mistaken about weapons of mass destruction, history would forgive the removal of Saddam Hussein.
"If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering," he said.
"If Britain and the US had been mistaken about WOMD" ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
No offense, but a glimmer of independent, non-rhetorical thought would be nice from you.
Quote:
tell it to the families. Al queda != iraq. He could have done both though as you say, with more crediblity if not for his piss ant complex and right wing nuts that joined him in a rush to war. Bring the world community in that way it does not turn out as it has, something that looks like the U.S. vs. the world.
We are doing both, actually. Rush to war? No, I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that. 12 years and 17 resolutions is not a "rush" to war. Sorry. And sorry again, not everyone who supported war was "a right wing nut". As far as the US versus the world, we made very attempt to involve the UN. The UN failed to back up its own resloutions...big surprise on that one.
Quote:
What weapons? (I smell a bumper sticker.) No wait, how about "Bush JUNIOR busted the budget and all he got me was this stupid property tax increase."
How about you get one that says: "When in doubt, blame Bush".
Quote:
Besides, I was for going in, if we went in with the rest of the world. Instead we urinated on our allies and pissed off more people then JUNIOR can count to.
Why does the rest of the world have to come along? Who do you think is going to bear the cost anyway...France? Germany? And, your "Blame America First" attitude comes through in full force here. Why don't you accuse France of "urinating' on the US? Aren't they the ones who flew around the globe campaigning against their allies? That doesn't seem like allied behavior to me. We went to the UN. The UN, again, couldn't back its own word. Every attempt at diplomacy was made during the last twelve years. Sanctions were tried. Warnings were tried. Limited military strikes were tried. Inspections were tried. We got nothing but bald-faced defiance.
Quote:
You are not willing to accept the possibility... I think many would be feel as you do IF we hadn't unilateral invaded a country under possibly false pretenses, then to top it off. found nothing.
Now we are ARE living with the reality. Another couple of weeks and the "Q" word will not only be tossed around, but be fully applicable.
Unilateral? Hmmm. Perhaps you should look up that definition. It's also not a curse word, even it were true. As for false pretenses...that remains to be seen, Judge Judy.
Ooooh....the "Q" word!!!! I was waiting for that! "It's another Vietnam!" Do you have this stuff in your "Dictionary of Liberal Cliches"? Seriously, have an original thought. The "Q" word. Shit. It's NOTHING like Vietnam. Nothing.
giant:
Quote:
See, that's what your problem is. It doesn't matter what you 'think' when we are talking about facts. You can look up the transcript on lexis-nexis, so go get it and get back to me.
So it written, so it is done! giant has spoken!
Quote:
I can't tell if this statement is true since I have no clue about what exactly you mean by 'WMD'.
Here we go again.
Keybaord again:
Quote:
talkingpointsmemo.com
=thisisuselessliberalgarbagethathasnomeaning.com
Quote:
Of course, that 'we' must not include SDW, since reality is something he tries to avoid with hypotheticals every chance he gets.
I forgot: Only liberals can post speculative threads.
Quote:
Their best evidence included this passage that obviously supports the claim that the administration knew the Iraqis weren't looking for uranium in Africa. Are they really this confused?
What if a unicorn beat bin ladin with a hobbit? If you can't back your statement up with fact, then it is just as fantastical.
I've got another fantastical fairytale. Once upon a time a bunch of crazy terrorists hijacked a set of Airliners with box cutters. Then they took those airliners and flew them into our largest city and slammed into 2 of our largest buildings where a great deal of our financial institutions lay. There was a 3rd one that flew into our capital and slammed into our military HQ. And a 4th that crashed in the middle of nowhere, bur who knows where it was going, and who knows how many more were targets on that same day but were thwarted by the quick actions by the FAA to ground all planes.
Wakeup call. I respect descent to the popular view, I also respect and encourage descent to the views of the government. But I would also like all to realize is that those terrorists weren't trying to just disrupt our lives they were trying to completly destroy it in one grand gesture. Saddam is known to support terrorism, recently, remember the cash rewards offered to suicide bombers. There were components hidden, perhaps a decade ago, were they forgotten, I doubt it. Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went. Neither he nor bi Laden care if you disagree with Bush, Blair or your own grandmother. They would like to see America wiped out.
1): "The war against Iraq is justified by 911". No connection whatsoever.
2): The attacks against WTC, Pentagon and The White House was planned many years ahead, people were trained the project was funded, all in advance by Al Quada (until proven otherwise). What Saddam did was to try to link his own agenda (to stay in power and become a bit more popular in the middle east) by giving money to the families of suicide bombers noone in Iraq knew in advance of their blowing up. Al Quada was entrepreneurs living by the YCDBSOYA credo of the 80s. Saddam was the unpopular kid in the school yard trying to buy himself some popularity.
Yes, no direct connection. And despite your ananlogy, Saddam still linked himself to terrorists, whether it was opportunist or not. He offered the money not only for deeds done but deeds to be done, they didn't approach him. Back to my point. The indirect connection, since 9-11, the Bush admin made it clear that it would not be kind to those favoring terrorism or an agenda against the US, so first up on the docket, Afganistan, next Iraq. And Bush did try to get UN sanction, instead the UN waffled. The French and Russians were too afraid for their oil deal with the Saddam regime for when the sanctions would be lifted, and Germany, the arms dealer of the world was afraid that documents would found linking sales of chemical components to Iraq from German companies. As I said before doing the right thing is often ugly, Saddam was no innocent. As for the inexplicable actions of the admin toward N. Korea. China. and the fact that taking action in the N may dirupt the S. and S. Korea is currently one of the strongest economies and stable in that region.
PS, I am Korean and would die to see Korea reunified. NO, I am not a supporter of war without just cause or for monetary gain. I'd prefer if this could have been handled without our invasion, since my father is being shipped there soon.
And I say EVERYBODY knew that Russia, France and Germany had most to benefit in supporting the war in Iraq. US was going to start the war no matter what and that was known in late 2002.
Besides that I think in hindsight Joschka Fischer was the one who kept his head cool during all this. Here is what he said (about the WoMD argument) back in february:
Quote:
My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced. That is my problem, I cannot go to the public and say, 'these are the reasons', because I don't believe in them.
If only the danish, polish and british secretaries of state had had the same honesty back then...
Comments
The declassified summary, however, included cautionary footnotes from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, about how compelling the uranium case really was.
This agency said in an "alternative view" annex on page 84 of the 90-page summary that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
Their best evidence included this passage that obviously supports the claim that the administration knew the Iraqis weren't looking for uranium in Africa. Are they really this confused?
Originally posted by banana
To be honest I couldn't be arsed reading through all five pages of this; I'm on a dial-up connection. Personally; and without any moral grounds to decide whether or not US soldiers should live or die in Iraq I beleive that your country did the right thing. Clearly many of the stated reasons are in question, but the consequences for the people will eventually prove proper. I know the notion of Liberty can become too powerful (e.g. I can't agree with you folks on the issue of guns) but it's fundamental to all life. It shouldn't be denied anyone.
By that logic, there are lots of people we ought to go occupying.
Mr Blair's arrival in the Far East follows talks in Washington with United States President George W Bush.
The prime minister also addressed Congress, where he received a rapturous welcome.
He told US lawmakers that even if Britain and the US had been mistaken about weapons of mass destruction, history would forgive the removal of Saddam Hussein.
"If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering," he said.
"If Britain and the US had been mistaken about WOMD" ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
This is NOT funny..
BBC link
No offense, but a glimmer of independent, non-rhetorical thought would be nice from you.
tell it to the families. Al queda != iraq. He could have done both though as you say, with more crediblity if not for his piss ant complex and right wing nuts that joined him in a rush to war. Bring the world community in that way it does not turn out as it has, something that looks like the U.S. vs. the world.
We are doing both, actually. Rush to war? No, I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that. 12 years and 17 resolutions is not a "rush" to war. Sorry. And sorry again, not everyone who supported war was "a right wing nut". As far as the US versus the world, we made very attempt to involve the UN. The UN failed to back up its own resloutions...big surprise on that one.
What weapons? (I smell a bumper sticker.) No wait, how about "Bush JUNIOR busted the budget and all he got me was this stupid property tax increase."
How about you get one that says: "When in doubt, blame Bush".
Besides, I was for going in, if we went in with the rest of the world. Instead we urinated on our allies and pissed off more people then JUNIOR can count to.
Why does the rest of the world have to come along? Who do you think is going to bear the cost anyway...France? Germany? And, your "Blame America First" attitude comes through in full force here. Why don't you accuse France of "urinating' on the US? Aren't they the ones who flew around the globe campaigning against their allies? That doesn't seem like allied behavior to me. We went to the UN. The UN, again, couldn't back its own word. Every attempt at diplomacy was made during the last twelve years. Sanctions were tried. Warnings were tried. Limited military strikes were tried. Inspections were tried. We got nothing but bald-faced defiance.
You are not willing to accept the possibility... I think many would be feel as you do IF we hadn't unilateral invaded a country under possibly false pretenses, then to top it off. found nothing.
Now we are ARE living with the reality. Another couple of weeks and the "Q" word will not only be tossed around, but be fully applicable.
Unilateral? Hmmm. Perhaps you should look up that definition. It's also not a curse word, even it were true. As for false pretenses...that remains to be seen, Judge Judy.
Ooooh....the "Q" word!!!! I was waiting for that! "It's another Vietnam!" Do you have this stuff in your "Dictionary of Liberal Cliches"? Seriously, have an original thought. The "Q" word. Shit. It's NOTHING like Vietnam. Nothing.
giant:
See, that's what your problem is. It doesn't matter what you 'think' when we are talking about facts. You can look up the transcript on lexis-nexis, so go get it and get back to me.
So it written, so it is done! giant has spoken!
I can't tell if this statement is true since I have no clue about what exactly you mean by 'WMD'.
Here we go again.
Keybaord again:
talkingpointsmemo.com
=thisisuselessliberalgarbagethathasnomeaning.com
Of course, that 'we' must not include SDW, since reality is something he tries to avoid with hypotheticals every chance he gets.
I forgot: Only liberals can post speculative threads.
Their best evidence included this passage that obviously supports the claim that the administration knew the Iraqis weren't looking for uranium in Africa. Are they really this confused?
Case closed bunge! Congratulations!
Originally posted by SDW2001
We got nothing but bald-faced defiance.
And evidently, a country without WMD.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Unilateral? Hmmm. Perhaps you should look up that definition.
u·ni·lat·er·al __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(yn-ltr-l)
adj.
4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Case closed bunge! Congratulations!
No, it's just a case not closed. It's a case opening more and more each day. Why not address the link?
Originally posted by SDW2001
=thisisuselessliberalgarbagethathasnomeaning.com
YoushouldcheckoutwhoJoshMarshallisbeforeyougosayin gthathisinsightshavenomeaning. It'salwaysadangerousthingtosimplydismissinformatio nandcommentarysimplybecauseyoudisagreepolitically. Cheers,Scott
Originally posted by bunge
And evidently, a country without WMD.
Nah. We got ourselves a new little buddy!
demagogue=A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
i'm going to go read some more. how do you spell despot?
This is becoming boring. Could we please try and forget the last 20-30 posts and try again?
What if a unicorn beat bin ladin with a hobbit? If you can't back your statement up with fact, then it is just as fantastical.
I've got another fantastical fairytale. Once upon a time a bunch of crazy terrorists hijacked a set of Airliners with box cutters. Then they took those airliners and flew them into our largest city and slammed into 2 of our largest buildings where a great deal of our financial institutions lay. There was a 3rd one that flew into our capital and slammed into our military HQ. And a 4th that crashed in the middle of nowhere, bur who knows where it was going, and who knows how many more were targets on that same day but were thwarted by the quick actions by the FAA to ground all planes.
Wakeup call. I respect descent to the popular view, I also respect and encourage descent to the views of the government. But I would also like all to realize is that those terrorists weren't trying to just disrupt our lives they were trying to completly destroy it in one grand gesture. Saddam is known to support terrorism, recently, remember the cash rewards offered to suicide bombers. There were components hidden, perhaps a decade ago, were they forgotten, I doubt it. Saddam likely had a map as to where each component was hidden, where each expert he had went. Neither he nor bi Laden care if you disagree with Bush, Blair or your own grandmother. They would like to see America wiped out.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Saddam is known to support terrorism, recently, remember the cash rewards offered to suicide bombers.
Suicide bombers defending their own country aren't terrorists.
Suicide bombers defending their own country aren't terrorists.
They are when they hit Israeli cities and Israel civilian buses, and restaurants.
2): The attacks against WTC, Pentagon and The White House was planned many years ahead, people were trained the project was funded, all in advance by Al Quada (until proven otherwise). What Saddam did was to try to link his own agenda (to stay in power and become a bit more popular in the middle east) by giving money to the families of suicide bombers noone in Iraq knew in advance of their blowing up. Al Quada was entrepreneurs living by the YCDBSOYA credo of the 80s. Saddam was the unpopular kid in the school yard trying to buy himself some popularity.
PS, I am Korean and would die to see Korea reunified. NO, I am not a supporter of war without just cause or for monetary gain. I'd prefer if this could have been handled without our invasion, since my father is being shipped there soon.
Besides that I think in hindsight Joschka Fischer was the one who kept his head cool during all this. Here is what he said (about the WoMD argument) back in february:
My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced. That is my problem, I cannot go to the public and say, 'these are the reasons', because I don't believe in them.
If only the danish, polish and british secretaries of state had had the same honesty back then...
Originally posted by LiquidR
They are when they hit Israeli cities and Israel civilian buses, and restaurants.