Pre-war data on Iraq not solid: Powell

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
no no.. what i called lies was the wmd reports and al quaida connection...

Ahhh .... but you've no evidence of their being lies, just mistakes based on misinformation. Evidence that turned out to be lack of evidence. So you must be lying.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Arlo
And if that doesn't happen, what're you gonna do?

What do you mean if it dosn't happen? It already is,  even in the US. Look it how many people defend the WMD"s and Iraq war on this message board compared to 6 months ago.



...-Gixer

[LAWCobra]

quote:excerpt from UNSC 1441
    Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

    Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism , pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq , or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

SO If he had nothing to hide like no WMDs then why did he not just let the UN inspectors do there thing Humm?

[Arlo]

Ahhh .... well keep up the "good work", then.

[Gixer]

"SO If he had nothing to hide like no WMDs then why did he not just let the UN inspectors do there thing Humm?"

Do you watch the news?

They WERE doing their thing! Remember it was Bush, that told them to leave Iraq when he gave Saddam his 48 hour notice speech.

Saddam never asked for the UN Inspectors to leave. UN was for spending longer with weapon inspections and so of course were the weapons inspectors themselves.  Especially given the fact that they were free to look where they wanted.



...-Gixer

[Arlo]

Gonna read it this time or just insist that others should watch the news?

[Rino]

Originally posted by Gixer
Bu that Isn't the reason Iraq was invaded. Iraq was invaded as it was sold to the world that he had WMD's and was about to use them in his support of terror.

If they hadn't of sold that story the invasion of Iraq would never of gone ahead because he killed some kurds and is a bad man.

All the lies about WMD's etc have been proven to be untrue. The fact that he killed a 1000 kurds or was a bad man and broke some sanctions hardly justifies the invasion of another country and the mess we see it in today as it edges towards civil war.

You guys are gulliable enough to believe the stuff fed to you from the Whitehouse and still argue for it. Just think for a moment whats actually happend as a result to these actions.  Not only for Iraq, but also for the US it's reputation and it's allies on the world stage.

Nice one.  I'm sure future gernations will look upon this as your finest moment.


...-Gixer

     I think future gernations of Americans will wonder why we
needed NZ approval for something so obviously in their sphere
of influence.

[Nilsen]

hehe Arlo

Whenever a poitician states something and have no evidence for his or her claims and the evidence they present are found to be forged then i call those statments a false.

For the record:

I have nothing against the USA and have in all my life considered myself and my nation a close friend of the USA. I am only against the Bush regime and their way of handeling things.

I have nothing against the removal of saddam and his m8's and i am very impressed by the capture of saddam alive. I am against the way it was done.

I am like most getting pretty fed up with discussing the issues but as many others I can't help myslef.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
This is not the issue Holden. I know most if not all world leaders thought saddam may have had the stuff. Even I belived it was likley that he had them. If the US and UK had invaded Iraq on other reasons that we all know of i would have been fine with it and so would prolly France and the rest of the UN.... we would never have had this discussion on the BBS and would prolly have spent our time debating AH2.

The issu is that Bush and or the CIA falsified reports of transactions and used those false reports to paint a picture that was obviously false.

There is no proof of WMD's or any connection with Al Quaida period.

     I seem to remember that France threatened to veto ANY UN
resolution calling for force regardless of reason prior to hostilities.

     I also find it interesting that the Norway/New Zealand alliance
is so disturbed by Bush's "lies", but didn't mind Saddam's
prevarications at all.  

     Of course they also need no proof to accuse Bush of lying, but
without a few million ICBMs or tons of chemical warheads, they
do not believe the war was justified.  I think the US just MIGHT
be able to carry on without the massive aid provided by both countries.

[LAWCobra]

Originally posted by Gixer
"SO If he had nothing to hide like no WMDs then why did he not just let the UN inspectors do there thing Humm?"

Do you watch the news?

They WERE doing their thing! Remember it was Bush, that told them to leave Iraq when he gave Saddam his 48 hour notice speech.

Saddam never asked for the UN Inspectors to leave. UN was for spending longer with weapon inspections and so of course were the weapons inspectors themselves.  Especially given the fact that they were free to look where they wanted.



...-Gixer

LOL you mean after 12 years of old SH jerkin evryone off.

[Nilsen]

ROFL @ Rino... nice try fella. everyone knew saddam was an ahole to use that term but he was a criminal.
If the US and its allies are gonna act like judge and jury without evidence to prosecute and remove saddam with the law and morality on its side then they can't resort to lies. If they do then they break the fundamental values of the law and order they try to uphold.

[lazs2]

People in the U.S. question authority more than any other nation...   Most of you think your leaders are gods and your government is altruistic.

You REALLY need to stop focusing on our govenrnment so much and fix your own socialist messes.

lazs

[Nilsen]

Dunno what nations you are refering to lazs but i think you are wrong. None of the european countries think their leaders are gods. Plenty of authority questioning here and i can't think of one euro country that does not.

Got any socialits messes you would like us to fix or discuss? I'm more than willing to discuss them.

[Thrawn]

NATO commenced air attacks in Yugoslavia before getting approval from the UN.  All the NATO countries that participated are just as guilty as the coalltion force for being in violation of the UN Charter.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Rino
I think future gernations of Americans will wonder why we
needed NZ approval for something so obviously in their sphere
of influence.

Why, because I'm from New Zealand I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject? And end up with a dirogatory comment towards my country.



...-Gixer