Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on April 03, 2004, 01:53:00 AM
-
"It appears that the information was not solid," said Powell on Friday. The data had been provided by the CIA.
:lol :lol
Finally an admition by the Bush admin that the intelligence given to the UN was bogus.
The headlines just keep on getting better and better. Those lies are starting to look worse each day. Amazed how anyone can still defend the actions of the Bush administration in invading Iraq.
Beyond me how they failed to identify such bad intelligence when you look at the sources they used. It only took a reporter 30 mins to realise that the Nukes from Nigeria were fake documents. How come so called experts in CIA etc couldn't see it?
Because they didn't want to! lol
...-Gixer
-
Well the total disreguard for the UN sanctions for one thing.
Then there the small oops he commited by killing 1.000.00 s of Kurds.
I would say those two reasons should be enough to take away his toys.
There are many more documented but I dont feel like wasting my time doing a google search .
-
Gixer, dude .... just invent the "way back" machine and go back and fix everything the way you like it. Other than that, maybe you can start a publishing house and print up "the fugged-up evil American world as I know it" history book so further generations can be as pissed about the way things are going as you are. Just remember ... someone's working on you having the further generations around to influence. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Gixer, dude .... just invent the "way back" machine and go back and fix everything the way you like it. Other than that, maybe you can start a publishing house and print up "the fugged-up evil American world as I know it" history book so further generations can be as pissed about the way things are going as you are. Just remember ... someone's working on you having the further generations around to influence. :D
OMG I agree arlo
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Well the total disreguard for the UN sanctions for one thing.
Then there the small oops he commited by killing 1.000.00 s of Kurds.
I would say those two reasons should be enough to take away his toys.
There are many more documented but I dont feel like wasting my time doing a google search .
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
-
Id sure like to be an american president
you can lie and do whatever you want as long as you dont admit it or pedal for you life....all is forgiven
even if secret recordings was found of bush saying he just wanted the oil would lead some of you guys here to be a tad sceptical.
6 months after kerry is elected you will prolly stand by him whatever he does :D
...well maybe ot the last sentance but the rest is spot on
:p
-
Originally posted by Gixer
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.
Well it's a good thing you, Gixer, chief of the "gullible police", is looking out for the American citizen in this, the post-war ousting of a megalomaniacal dictator in the Middle East years. I'm sure your wisdom being spread quite thickly here will influence the U.S. to never again interfere in situations that New Zealand has well under control by whining on the internet about it.
Carry on and thanks for taking over. :D
-
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,
Apparently the UNSC (incl Syria) was convinced when they voted for 1441, and in 1441 there were some issues addressed other than WMD's.
Intresting everyone remembers WMD's and no one recalls that "end to repression" part...
-
maybe it is easy to focus on the lies.
-
maybe it is easy to focus on the lies.
Oh please.
What it is easy to do is focus on what happened yesterday. What may happen tomorrow is relatively foggy.
Please find a world leader other than Saddam who said, prior to a year ago, "Iraq does not have WMD's"
All I heard were leaders who advocated letting sanctions work longer. Even the inspectors said they needed more time, not that they had concluded that weapons did not exist.
-
So Bosnia was unjustified and Milosevic should of been left alone?
Originally posted by Gixer
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.
-
Holden.
Im refering to the lies the Bush administration spread around with its bogus wmd reports.
Do you still maintain that the Bush admin did not spread lies and false reports prior to the invasion?
-
Nilsen.
lie, noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
A statement is a lie when you know it to be false.
A false statement, if it is believed to be the truth, is simply wrong, it not necessarily a lie.
I believe that the common belief (proir to GW2) by the vast majority of those who were intrested in Iraq policy was that Hussein did have WMD's. (a belief backed up by 1441) I have yet to see a quote by any nation's leader which claims Iraq did not have weapons.
I have seen transcripts of statements by leaders and diplomats which say a different policy to ascertain and or remove suspected weapons should be followed, but not one where anyone said the perceived problem was already solved.
Please show me where the PM of New Zealand or Norway objected to the idea that Iraq was armed and dangerous, not just voiced an objection to disarmament by force.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
So Bosnia was unjustified and Milosevic should of been left alone?
No but a few air strikes hardly compares to all the lies about WMD"s in Iraq and invading another country. Does it?
Plus bombing of Boania had UN and world support, unlike the situation in Iraq which is compeltely different. Months of leaders trying to sell the WMD lies and then just going ahead with action anyway.
...-Gixer
-
Nilsen,
The Bush administration acted on information provided to it by the CIA. Most of the high-level leaders and low-level operatives in that organization were on the job before Bush took office.
Ergo; it was Clinton's fault.
Only kidding. :D
I think you and I can both agree that despotic tyrants should be removed from office.
Where we disagree is over WHICH despotic tyrant should be removed FIRST! You seem to be more concerned with the removal of Bush...I support the removal of Saddam.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Gixer
....Plus bombing of Boania had UN and world support, unlike the...
IRC that was a NATO operation, not UN... no UNSC resolutions sanctioned the Balkans operations.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nilsen.
lie, noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
A statement is a lie when you know it to be false.
A false statement, if it is believed to be the truth, is simply wrong, it not necessarily a lie.
I believe that the common belief (proir to GW2) by the vast majority of those who were intrested in Iraq policy was that Hussein did have WMD's. (a belief backed up by 1441) I have yet to see a quote by any nation's leader which claims Iraq did not have weapons.
I have seen transcripts of statements by leaders and diplomats which say a different policy to ascertain and or remove suspected weapons should be followed, but not one where anyone said the perceived problem was already solved.
Please show me where the PM of New Zealand or Norway objected to the idea that Iraq was armed and dangerous, not just voiced an objection to disarmament by force.
"A statement is a lie when you know it to be false. "
Now that's really starting to get desperate as far as defending the Bush Administration.
As for this "Please show me where the PM of New Zealand or Norway objected to the idea that Iraq was armed and dangerous,"
WAKE UP! Collin Powel and Rice had said themselves before 9/11 that Iraq had no WMD"s and was not a threat. Let alone the PM from Norwary or NZ.
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
-Colin Powell
...-Gixer
-
Simple question, Gix, `ol boy.
What do you want? :D
-
lol Arlo, nice wav :D
-
Thanks, Nils. Ain't seen the movie in years. Kinda afraid to rent or buy it for fear that it ain't nearly as good as I remember. :D
-
Its not just a matter of whether or not Saddam had done enough to get taken down. No doubt he had.
What is the crux of the matter for many people is whether Saddam was enough of a threat to become the A#1 priority in the war on terror at the expense of having a weakened effort against the demonstrated threat that was/is OBL and Al Qaeda in Afganistan/Pakistan.
We were told we could kill 2 birds with one stone, and even if we couldn't, this bird in Iraq was the biggest threat and deserved the biggest stone. Both assurances by this administration turned out to be false, and it has to make any non-partisan wonder as to whether or not we have been grossly misled in our war on terrorism.
-
if i read you right Lance, its good to see that people within the US are starting to question things aswell and not just us eurotrash and other foreign lunatics. :D
-
What movies is that Arlo? sounds familiar or atleast the voice does
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
IRC that was a NATO operation, not UN... no UNSC resolutions sanctioned the Balkans operations.
LMAO you have to be kidding me? UN was involved in Balkans since the time it first blew up. Of course it had a UN Resolution authorising action in the Balkans using NATO force. Only country against was Russia for obvious reasons.
Since you seem to have a memory lapse and you may not believe me here's the actual basic detail of the resolution.
1998
July/September Conflict intensifies. U.N. Security Council approves resolution #1199 demanding the cessation of hostilities and warning that if this does not occur, additional measures will be considered NATO takes first steps towards military intervention in Kosovo, approving plans for air strikes and for monitoring and maintaining a possible ceasefire agreement
Once NATO action was completed the UN went in to rebuild the country and still there today.
...-Gixer
-
People in the U.S. have always questioned things, Nils. AAMOF ... it's more a less a trend we set. The problem some have is with the answers. I mean ... after all .... what's the fun in protesting something if someone else ruins it all by bringing up some points that make alot of what's being chanted or painted on signs sound silly?
Just look upthread. Holden posts an excerpt from the UN resolution that makes the whole "It was supposed to be all about WMDs and that evil Bush lied about it all from the start just to have an excuse to go to war, etc etc" rhetoric look kinda silly. First post after that was you calling it lies. That evil UN lied to us. :D
So same question to you as to Gix. What do you want? :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Simple question, Gix, `ol boy.
What do you want? :D
For people to realise how wrong and immoral the actions of the Bush Aministration were to try and justify an unjust war against Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
What movies is that Arlo? sounds familiar or atleast the voice does
From the movie "Dr. Strangelove." It's a cold war themed movie about an evil U.S. regime that allowed evil scientists to convince the president to start WWIII. :D
-
no no.. what i called lies was the wmd reports and al quaida connection...
:)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
For people to realise how wrong and immoral the actions of the Bush Aministration were to try and justify an unjust war against Iraq.
And if that doesn't happen, what're you gonna do? :D
-
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. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And if that doesn't happen, what're you gonna do? :D
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
-
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?
-
Ahhh .... well keep up the "good work", then. :rolleyes:
-
"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
-
Gonna read it this time or just insist that others should watch the news? (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dkay100203.html) :D
-
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.
:rolleyes:
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.:D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:rolleyes:
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
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
LOL you mean after 12 years of old SH jerkin evryone off.:D
Hardly compares to the jerking off going on now. But I understand your point. Since the inspectors and the UN pulled out we've been able to find the WMD"s within a year and prove that the UN inspections wern't working.
Errr. nope.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
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.
Jeez...Iraq was in violation of the 91' CEASE FIRE. They continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to. This is only one of many violations of the 91' cease fire (THEY AGREED TO). The war was only a continuation of the 91' Gulf War. Not a new one.
-
Rino,
Why do you specifiy Norway/New Zealand Aliance? I don't sum up your opinon as being that of your entire nation. If your going to make a comment try and keep it intelligent, as it makes it alot more interesting for the rest of us.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to.
Really, can you please point to a docuement or quote that indicates that Iraq agreed to it. And please also indicate which document gave the US, France and the UK authority to implement the "no fly zones".
-
Originally posted by 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.
Thrawn,
That's completely false and trying to relate that to Iraq is also completely false.
NATO involvement did have approval from the UN. This quote is from an International Law site regarding the exact subject. Whether NATO had UN approval to get involved militarily.
"The NATO action in Kosovo had the support of the Security Council. Twelve (out of fifteen) members of the Council voted to reject the Russian resolution of March 26, thereby agreeing in effect that the NATO intervention had been called for and should continue. And on June 10, the Security Council, in Resolution 1244 approving the Kosovo settlement, effectively ratified the NATO action and gave it the Council's support."
...-Gixer
-
NATO commenced it's bombing campaign on March 24.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Jeez...Iraq was in violation of the 91' CEASE FIRE. They continued to fire on our aircraft in the NO FLY ZONES they agreed to. This is only one of many violations of the 91' cease fire (THEY AGREED TO). The war was only a continuation of the 91' Gulf War. Not a new one.
That's all totally incorrect.
The United Nations NEVER authroized the no-fly zones they were illegal.. The defence of "they continue to fire on our aircraft and therefore break UN resolutions" was dropped by the Bush administration since U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go.
And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
NATO commenced it's bombing campaign on March 24.
Yes that bits right, what your missing is that NATO did have approval from the UN security council other then from 3 countries to do so. which i detailed in a previous post. I can paste the whole resolution if you like. Russia and China obviously would never of agreed to it. Can't remember who the 3rd was.
...-Gixer
-
1. Saying you are against something doesn't explicately mean you are for another.
2. Even if it did, NATO attacked Yugoslavia before it had UN SC approval which is contrary to the articles of the UN Charter. The UN approving an action after the fact does not change that.
What if the UN SC passes a resolution 20 years down the road saying that the coallation is allowed to invade Iraq. Does that mean they didn't break international law in 2003?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Apparently the UNSC (incl Syria) was convinced when they voted for 1441, and in 1441 there were some issues addressed other than WMD's.
Intresting everyone remembers WMD's and no one recalls that "end to repression" part...
Interesting that you chose to leave out the following.
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
and
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequentresolutions of the Council;
What I find ironic is that 1441 was sponsored by the US government and then US government decides to ignore it.
-
Yes that bits right, what your missing is that NATO did have approval from the UN security council other then from 3 countries to do so.
So apparently one does not need UNSC approval in order to act? Which three countries do not count?
It is interesting that the US and UK did choose to 'ignore' 1441, due to the inability of gathering a consensus from all five permanent members for the action.
We now know that France and Russia had complete, accurate intelligence to guide them in their decision.
It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.
Call Bush wrong on WMD's and you are stating a fact based on today's available data. Call Bush a liar on WMD's and you are taking a leap of logic based on today's evidence.
What I was trying to do was explain that decisions are made with the information at hand. After a time passes, it is easy to evaluate whether or not the decisions are correct. If one could make decisions with complete and accurate information of the aftermath many historical decisions would have been made differently.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
That's all totally incorrect.
The United Nations NEVER authroized the no-fly zones they were illegal.. The defence of "they continue to fire on our aircraft and therefore break UN resolutions" was dropped by the Bush administration since U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go.
And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.
...-Gixer
Iraq protested the no-fly zones and their legality in the UN multiple times. The UN never once instructed the U.S. or Great Britain to discontinue them. And their decision not to is an implicit acknowledgement of it's legality.
Nice try. I suggest a different tact other than that tried by the Iraqi Minister of "Information." :D
-
Originally posted by 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
lol too funny, we THINK the leaders of the USA are lying scum, we KNOW that that our leaders are lying scum - well in the UK anyway....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.
Call Bush wrong on WMD's and you are stating a fact based on today's available data. Call Bush a liar on WMD's and you are taking a leap of logic based on today's evidence.
Pls don't hate me if I laff.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea. Were they liars? No, they were simply wrong.
That's a spurious comparison. The Bush adminstation knew that the US and British intelligence agencies did not "know" that Iraq had WMD because they told them so. Yet both countries governments present it otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's a spurious comparison. The Bush adminstation knew that the US and British intelligence agencies did not "know" that Iraq had WMD because they told them so. Yet both countries governments present it otherwise.
Can you prove that CIA went to Bush and said: THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ, WERE HIGHLY CERTAIN
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The Bush adminstation knew that the US and British intelligence agencies did not "know" that Iraq had WMD because they told them so. Yet both countries governments present it otherwise.
That's a spurious conclusion. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's a spurious comparison. The Bush adminstation knew that the US and British intelligence agencies did not "know" that Iraq had WMD because they told them so. Yet both countries governments present it otherwise.
It is not a comparison at all. It is an illustration on how one can advocate incorrect ideas and still not be a liar.
-
Yes, that may be true.... but...
It is said that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea.
Erhm... So there?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Iraq protested the no-fly zones and their legality in the UN multiple times. The UN never once instructed the U.S. or Great Britain to discontinue them. And their decision not to is an implicit acknowledgement of it's legality.
Nice try. I suggest a different tact other than that tried by the Iraqi Minister of "Information." :D
Ever looked at the list of the security counseil members ?
Do you seriously think the Iraqi got the smallest chance to defend their point of view ?
@_Schadenfreude_ : I seriously think that Lazs live on another planet ...
a planet were the governements are altruists ...
:rolleyes:
-
Don't get caught up in the illustration Nash, I could illustrate it by showing that an incorrect answer on your kids math test is just wrong, it is not a lie.
-
What I find funny is the idea that the UN is some sort of uber supreme body, repleat with their own independant spys, satelites, and wotev.
No.
If the US comes at them and tells them there's this mobile chem lab at X,Y... how the shreck is, say, Nigeria supposed to respond?
"Excuse me sir mister Powell but our thermal dihadrative expulcative geigermeisters show no such weapons".
Not so much. No... Their decision making has to come from something..... some data.
Where did they get this data? Yes.... you guessed it.
Now yas want to blame them for believing it.
Er wait! They didn't!
They sent their own inspectors in there to see for themselves...
Couldn't find nuthin'. Said so.
Uhm.... but.... those inspectors got yanked due to the long awaited shawk and ah. It was imperative, you see. 45 minutes. Not a long time. For an Iraqi missle. End of Western civilization. Advanced technology and all.
Gawdamned UN...
-
So I take it the French, Russian, and Chinese intelligence agencies are completely impotent?
None of these agencies wanted to show the CIA and British Intel got it wrong?
Seems there was a legal finding in the UK about 'sexed up' intelligence that was in favor of British intel and against the BBC.
A year and a half ago indications were different from what we know today and I have yet to see any pre war quote from say, for instance, the Swiss, which says Bush's assertions were 180 degrees wrong. The pre war argument was about how to get Hussein to agree to UN disarmament regimen.
-
"So I take it the French, Russian, and Chinese intelligence agencies are completely impotent?"
Funny you should say that. The French, Chinese, and Russians were against this.
So yeah, they kind of DID say that something's wrong.
Er.... am I misunderstanding you?
"The pre war argument was about how to get Hussein to agree to UN disarmament regimen.
Depends on whose so-called argument you want to follow. There were a few of them. ;)
The UN's was to have a look-see for themselves. The US told 'em to get their arses out of there... no time for games.... 45 minutes...
uhm... yeah.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What I find funny is the idea that the UN is some sort of uber supreme body
I find that notion funny too. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
"So I take it the French, Russian, and Chinese intelligence agencies are completely impotent?"
Funny you should say that. The French, Chinese, and Russians were against this.
I chose those nations as examples carefully.
What they were against is letting the clock run out on sanctions and inspections. What they were against was the military option at that time.
The French, Chinese, and Russians voted for 1441. They agreed with the basic premise that Iraq was not acquiescing to UN mandates and WMD's were a part of those. Those three nations never said that Iraq was WMD free.
-
If they said: "We went to Iraq because we felt like it...and we don`t give a damn what You think about it!" it`d be just fine with me. There`s some other countries I`d like to see the US go in and do some cleaning up..
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
If they said: "We went to Iraq because we felt like it...and we don`t give a damn what You think about it!" it`d be just fine with me. There`s some other countries I`d like to see the US go in and do some cleaning up..
You know thats not possible. :)
-
I know, I know...
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ever looked at the list of the security counseil members ?
Do you seriously think the Iraqi got the smallest chance to defend their point of view ?
@_Schadenfreude_ : I seriously think that Lazs live on another planet ...
a planet were the governements are altruists ...
:rolleyes:
It's a worldwide conspiracy, I tell ya! :D
-
It's not very credible to say, we ‘went in because Saddam was ignoring the decisions of the UN’, when we where ignoring the UN by going in. frankly only a moron would look at that as a reasonable argument.
It makes as much sense getting together a lynch mob to round up vigilantes, and hanging them for taking the law into their own hands.
Frankly this administration sounds more and more like a teenager caught in a lie.
1. If you point out that we can’t support the UN be ignoring it, they say the war was about Iraqis ties to the 9/11 terrorists.
2. If you point out that this hasn’t been proven in any credible way, and that most of the hijackers where actually Saudis, supported by an organization headquartered in Afghanistan then the war was about Iraq having WMD and being an imminent threat.
3. If you point out that there have been none found and that daily more and more of this ‘card-house’ of evidence continues to crumble, then we talk about his civil rights violations.
4. If you point out that we really don’t have any right to interfere with the internal operations of a foreign nation, this is more the type of thing to be handled by the UN, they say he was ignoring the UN and we went to war to support the UN. Then just go back to item number one and repeat until dizzy
it's circular logic and each lie is only given the hint of credibility by the last lie they told.
Aside from the wrongness of it. this is fairly flimsy stuff to throw half a trillion dollars and almost 700 American lives at. And we aren’t near done paying yet.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
It's not very credible to say, we ‘went in because Saddam was ignoring the decisions of the UN’, when we where ignoring the UN by going in. frankly only a moron would look at that as a reasonable argument.
It makes as much sense getting together a lynch mob to round up vigilantes, and hanging them for taking the law into their own hands.
Frankly this administration sounds more and more like a teenager caught in a lie.
1. If you point out that we can’t support the UN be ignoring it, they say the war was about Iraqis ties to the 9/11 terrorists.
2. If you point out that this hasn’t been proven in any credible way, and that most of the hijackers where actually Saudis, supported by an organization headquartered in Afghanistan then the war was about Iraq having WMD and being an imminent threat.
3. If you point out that there have been none found and that daily more and more of this ‘card-house’ of evidence continues to crumble, then we talk about his civil rights violations.
4. If you point out that we really don’t have any right to interfere with the internal operations of a foreign nation, this is more the type of thing to be handled by the UN, they say he was ignoring the UN and we went to war to support the UN. Then just go back to item number one and repeat until dizzy
it's circular logic and each lie is only given the hint of credibility by the last lie they told.
Aside from the wrongness of it. this is fairly flimsy stuff to throw half a trillion dollars and almost 700 American lives at. And we aren’t near done paying yet.
- If someone whines that the no-fly zones in which UN aircraft were shot at were illegal to begin with and the answer is that the Iraqis brought up the no-fly zones time and again to the UN and the UN didn't acknowledge the validity of their argument then that supposedly means that the UN security council must have been in cahoots with the U.S. in this all along. And that the war was planned by the ultra secret illuminati security council that nobody knows about.
- And, of course, the UN resolutions that specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such were made up because everyone knows there never were such ties and never could be such.
- And, of course, the UN requiring compliance with resolutions sim-ply means that if Iraq chose not to comply that another 12 years of tapping them on the nose with resolutions would have brought greater stability to the region.
- And ... obviously ... the Bush administration, being the omniscient power in the universe, should have known that the Iraqis didn't pose as much a threat as thought (though more and more evidence is surfacing that there was a helluvalot of coving up done before and even during the conflict ... apparently hiding the fact that they were attempting to build an amusement park for the Kurds or something).
See how building "philosophical walls" works? Same either way. Which makes threads such as this more like vollies of "agree with everything I say or you're stupid" being fired back and forth. Accomplishes nothing really. Everyone here should apply for positions as UN reps.
G'day :D
-
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2003/09/25/0925bell512.jpg)
'nuff said. ;)
-
So ... when do you think President Bush will apologize to France, Germany and Russia? And if you don't think he needs to, why not?
I'd say the countries that backed us up and stood beside us while their soldiers died along with ours in this fraud should have first dibs on apologies from this administration.
ps. don't hold your breath.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2003/09/25/0925bell512.jpg)
'nuff said. ;)
Not quite. A "thank you" would suffice, however. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not quite. A "thank you" would suffice, however. ;)
OK thanks for finally starting to admit he didn't have any WMDs.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Iraq protested the no-fly zones and their legality in the UN multiple times. The UN never once instructed the U.S. or Great Britain to discontinue them. And their decision not to is an implicit acknowledgement of it's legality.
Nice try. I suggest a different tact other than that tried by the Iraqi Minister of "Information." :D
Simple question. Who Authorized the no-fly zones?
And that information I posted before about Bush Admin not being able to use them as part of the excuse to attack Iraq due to breaching a UN resolution in shooting at US planes wasn't used since the no-fly zones were illegal in the first place. That's an admission from the Bush Administration themselves, not me.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by -dead-
OK thanks for finally starting to admit he didn't have any WMDs.
No ... thank you coalition for making SURE he didn't have any WMDs. :D
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Simple question. Who Authorized the no-fly zones?
And that information I posted before about Bush Admin not being able to use them as part of the excuse to attack Iraq due to breaching a UN resolution in shooting at US planes wasn't used since the no-fly zones were illegal in the first place. That's an admission from the Bush Administration themselves, not me.
...-Gixer
Again ... nice try but it doesn't cut it. IF the no-fly zones were illegal ... the UN would have said so. As it is, the US and other coalition forces implemented them and the UN appears to have given it's blessing. YOU (and the Iraqi UN delegate) saying it was illegal over and over again doesn't make it so.
But if you wanna believe it ... hey fine. But unless you can produce something drafted by the UN that calls them illegal, you're just whistlin' in the wind as far as I'm concerned. :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
OK thanks for finally starting to admit he didn't have any WMDs.
Heh, Dead.:D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Call Bush wrong on WMD's and you are stating a fact based on today's available data. Call Bush a liar on WMD's and you are taking a leap of logic based on today's evidence.
Bush lied when he and his administration said countless times that Iraq was in possion of WMD. They didn't know that. Thier intelligence agencies did say that. They thought Iraq probably had WMD.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Can you prove that CIA went to Bush and said: THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ, WERE HIGHLY CERTAIN
Why should I? I never claimed that, you are just putting words in my mouth.
"WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet, in a passionate defense of agency findings, declared Thursday that his analysts "never said there was an imminent threat'' from Saddam Hussein."
"Tenet said "there is no consensus'' within U.S. intelligence over whether two trailers found in Iraq after the war were intended for biological weapons production, as the administration first claimed."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/7889661.htm
"
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.
In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed.
Iraq "is a grave and gathering danger," Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. At the White House two weeks later -- after referring to a British government report that Iraq could launch "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order" is given -- he went on to say, "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX -- nerve gas -- or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
Three weeks later, on the day the NIE was delivered to Congress, Bush told lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden that Iraq's current course was "a threat of unique urgency."
On Thursday, summarizing the NIE's conclusions, Tenet said: "They never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told senators last week that caveats often fall by the wayside "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain. At the top, he said, "you read the headlines, you read the summary, you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Administration supporters say Bush, Vice President Cheney and others were simply extrapolating from the comprehensive intelligence provided by Tenet's intelligence community. Critics say Bush and his Cabinet had already decided to go to war, regardless of what the intelligence efforts found.
The controversy, arising during the Democratic presidential primary campaign, has taken on a partisan hue. Some Democrats, however, say they perceived GOP partisanship earlier, when Republicans advocated an invasion of Iraq before the 2002 congressional elections. Bush said on Sept.13, 2002, that he did not think he could explain to voters the position of some Democrats who said Congress should wait for the United Nations to authorize the use of force before giving the president the authority he wanted.
Now that extended efforts to find weapons of mass destruction have proved futile, some are asking why Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used unequivocal rhetoric to describe the threat from Iraq when the intelligence on the subject was much more nuanced and subjective.
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.
In the same speech, Cheney raised the specter that Hussein would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, a prospect invoked often in the weeks to come. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
It would be more than a month later that a declassified portion of the NIE would show that U.S. intelligence analysts had forecast that Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists only if Iraq were invaded and he faced annihilation.
"The probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low," a senior CIA official told the Senate intelligence committee during a classified briefing on the estimate on Oct. 2, 2002. The CIA released a partial transcript five days later after committee Democrats complained that a published "white paper" on Iraq's weapons had not given the public a fair reading of what the classified NIE contained.
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney said of Hussein on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.
Such absolute certainty, however, did not appear in the estimate. Tenet said Thursday that the controversy has yet to be cleared up.
On Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The October estimate contained no similar language.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld described an immediate threat from biological weapons. Hussein, he said, could deploy "sleeper cells armed with biological weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or connection to the attacks."
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Tenet's "provisional bottom line" on biological weapons, he said Thursday, is that research and development efforts were underway in Iraq "that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place -- and just as clearly -- we have not yet found biological weapons."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20194-2004Feb6¬Found=true
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
None of these agencies wanted to show the CIA and British Intel got it wrong?[/i]
You would figure that the fact there intel never panned out during the UNMOVIC inspection process might have clued them in that thier 5 year old intel wasn't good anymore.
Originally posted by Arlo
the UN didn't acknowledge the validity of their argument then that supposedly means that the UN security council must have been in cahoots with the U.S. in this all along.
It was pointless to try and bring for a veto because France, the UK and the US. All have a veto. But China and Russia certainly did take issue with it.
And, of course, the UN resolutions that specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such were made up because everyone knows there never were such ties and never could be such.
Which resolution is that?
And, of course, the UN requiring compliance with resolutions sim-ply means that if Iraq chose not to comply that another 12 years of tapping them on the nose with resolutions would have brought greater stability to the region.
Can you prove that?
And ... obviously ... the Bush administration, being the omniscient power in the universe, should have known that the Iraqis didn't pose as much a threat as thought (though more and more evidence is surfacing that there was a helluvalot of coving up done before and even during the conflict ... apparently hiding the fact that they were attempting to build an amusement park for the Kurds or something).
Or he could have just listened to his intelligence agencies and get an open mind to the intell instead of forcing it to fit his preconcieved desire to invade Iraq.
See how building "philosophical walls" works?
And see how fast them come down when they are based on poor reasoning and are unsubstantiated.
-
Thrawn...
Too many words. Lacks feeble, irrelivant, yet highly irrational zinger.
Here's a tip. If you re-read what you wrote, but do not find yourself scratching your head in puzzlement - you will not connect.
-
Here ya go Thrawn:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, the UN resolutions that specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such were made up because everyone knows there never were such ties and never could be such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which resolution is that?
Excerpt from UNSC 687, and referred to in 1441
Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature in New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of international terrorism,
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,
In the Post article you pasted,
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
so the "intellegence community believed" SH had WMD's.... didn't they...
-
Well, it's hard to say...
All we can say for certain is that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush lied when he and his administration said countless times that Iraq was in possion of WMD. They didn't know that. Thier intelligence agencies did say that. They thought Iraq probably had WMD.
Why should I? I never claimed that, you are just putting words in my mouth.
"WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet, in a passionate defense of agency findings, declared Thursday that his analysts "never said there was an imminent threat'' from Saddam Hussein."
"Tenet said "there is no consensus'' within U.S. intelligence over whether two trailers found in Iraq after the war were intended for biological weapons production, as the administration first claimed."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/7889661.htm
"
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.
In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed.
Iraq "is a grave and gathering danger," Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. At the White House two weeks later -- after referring to a British government report that Iraq could launch "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order" is given -- he went on to say, "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX -- nerve gas -- or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
Three weeks later, on the day the NIE was delivered to Congress, Bush told lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden that Iraq's current course was "a threat of unique urgency."
On Thursday, summarizing the NIE's conclusions, Tenet said: "They never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told senators last week that caveats often fall by the wayside "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain. At the top, he said, "you read the headlines, you read the summary, you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Administration supporters say Bush, Vice President Cheney and others were simply extrapolating from the comprehensive intelligence provided by Tenet's intelligence community. Critics say Bush and his Cabinet had already decided to go to war, regardless of what the intelligence efforts found.
The controversy, arising during the Democratic presidential primary campaign, has taken on a partisan hue. Some Democrats, however, say they perceived GOP partisanship earlier, when Republicans advocated an invasion of Iraq before the 2002 congressional elections. Bush said on Sept.13, 2002, that he did not think he could explain to voters the position of some Democrats who said Congress should wait for the United Nations to authorize the use of force before giving the president the authority he wanted.
Now that extended efforts to find weapons of mass destruction have proved futile, some are asking why Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used unequivocal rhetoric to describe the threat from Iraq when the intelligence on the subject was much more nuanced and subjective.
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.
In the same speech, Cheney raised the specter that Hussein would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, a prospect invoked often in the weeks to come. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
It would be more than a month later that a declassified portion of the NIE would show that U.S. intelligence analysts had forecast that Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists only if Iraq were invaded and he faced annihilation.
"The probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low," a senior CIA official told the Senate intelligence committee during a classified briefing on the estimate on Oct. 2, 2002. The CIA released a partial transcript five days later after committee Democrats complained that a published "white paper" on Iraq's weapons had not given the public a fair reading of what the classified NIE contained.
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney said of Hussein on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.
Such absolute certainty, however, did not appear in the estimate. Tenet said Thursday that the controversy has yet to be cleared up.
On Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The October estimate contained no similar language.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld described an immediate threat from biological weapons. Hussein, he said, could deploy "sleeper cells armed with biological weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or connection to the attacks."
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Tenet's "provisional bottom line" on biological weapons, he said Thursday, is that research and development efforts were underway in Iraq "that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place -- and just as clearly -- we have not yet found biological weapons."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20194-2004Feb6¬Found=true
Who cares about all that.
Im an American I am not mad If the President Imbellished things a bit to get what he needed to.
As a canuck why would you even give a rats arse what we do?
I think you really need to get laid.:aok
-
Feeble: check
Irrelivant: check
Highly irrational: uhm... yup. check
Good stuff. See what I'm getting at Thrawn? With just a little less focus you too can become a grand poobah of teh intardnet.
-
Thank Holden, I came a across 687 before I posted to Arlo with the request. Although it has the word "terrorism" in it. It is certainly not used in context that his alleged resolution does. It doesn't speciifcally mention Iraqi ties to terrorism. Nor does it specifically forbid such ties, that aren't mentioned.
so the "intellegence community believed" SH had WMD's.... didn't they...
Fair enough, and the claims the Bush administration made regarding quanities, types, locations, deployability, attempts to get yellow cake from Nigeria etc?
"Good stuff. See what I'm getting at Thrawn? With just a little less focus you too can become a grand poobah of teh intardnet."
It's all a question of what you want to accomplish. If you want to have a rational discourse and maybe learn something or get a temporary ego boost. Although I struggle with that from time to time also. I blame Toad.
Ages ago he posted a link to this site.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
It was a great palce to start.
-
the Iraqi people had the leader they deserved. In fact, he is still alive. I recommend releasing Hussein back into the population and getting the heck out of their while the allied military death toll is under 1000. Hussein would have that place squared away within two weeks. Of course, 500,000 Iraqis would be liquidated in a few months but thats just a drop in the proverbial bucket. I really dont care about any of those people. They are not capabale of democratic rule. They are not evolved to that point, from a cultural point of view, unfortunately.
-
Originally posted by Pete
the Iraqi people had the leader they deserved. In fact, he is still alive. I recommend releasing Hussein back into the population and getting the heck out of their while the allied military death toll is under 1000. Hussein would have that place squared away within two weeks. Of course, 500,000 Iraqis would be liquidated in a few months but thats just a drop in the proverbial bucket. I really dont care about any of those people. They are not capabale of democratic rule. They are not evolved to that point, from a cultural point of view, unfortunately.
I agree, we know the WMD are gone, mission accomplished, let Saddam have his country back.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I agree, we know the WMD are gone, mission accomplished, let Saddam have his country back.
Oh I agree to But I say Let them have SH corpse.:aok
That animal dont deserve to live let alone govern a country that could breed a whole new generation of terrorist.
Do you think old SH would let by gones be bye gones after we killed his sons PLEASE!
-
We should either pull out now or go all out apechit on there arses.
Pull no punches air strikes full attack not some half asred invasion like the last one.
I mean go thrue them like watermelon thrue a goose as The great George S Patton would say.
There aint no room for nicities here people our troops are getting picked off in ignorant ways .
Not in battles but in ambushes.
We need FORCE
SRY for rambling But like me or hate me I hurt everytime I hear of one of our troops killed I really do.
By God they are Americans and they deserve the best our government can give them and It aint happening !
Stop Poosy footing around and Kill all the mother butterers or get the hell out.
I was almost old enough for Veit Nam And I remember seeing on the news the caskets being unloaded off the planes.
We aint seeing that in this war but If It keeps on a going th #s will start growing just like they did in s east asia.
MR BUSH Show some more BALLS and get on with it you aint got much time.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, it's hard to say...
All we can say for certain is that many pre-Columbian navigators thought the world flat and professed that idea.
And, Nash, we know them to be wrong, not liars. It is important that you get the point, not remember the example.
-
Indeed, and then in the end you can bury them in mass graves...
Ah screw it the your humour value isn't what it once was and you aren't worth the bandwidth anymore. :rolleyes:
-
Just dont want to see another Veit Nam thats all.
-
Right, just another Mai Lai. :rolleyes:
And another! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, the UN resolutions that specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such were made up because everyone knows there never were such ties and never could be such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which resolution is that?
687 (1991)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thank Holden, I came a across 687 before I posted to Arlo with the request. Although it has the word "terrorism" in it. It is certainly not used in context that his alleged resolution does. It doesn't speciifcally mention Iraqi ties to terrorism. Nor does it specifically forbid such ties, that aren't mentioned.
Several times, aamof. And it doesn't have to mention specific details of who, where, what, when, etc. It's not a police report. It's a resolution prohibiting acts of terrorism on the part of Iraq. Specifically aimed at Iraq. The U.N. doesn't make a point of such resolutions against any old country "just because."
;) Keep workin' on it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
[B And it doesn't have to mention specific details of who, where, what, when, etc. It's not a police report. It's a resolution [/B]
BS if it's how a diplomatic text should be written ,else anyone can at anytime say anything from such a "fuzzy" document.
A contrario to what you pretend this document is very specific.
I hope you don't have signed an insurance policy not mentioning "specific details of who, where, what, when, etc"
Because the day you will need it you will cry :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Several times, aamof. And it doesn't have to mention specific details of who, where, what, when, etc. It's not a police report. It's a resolution prohibiting acts of terrorism on the part of Iraq. Specifically aimed at Iraq. The U.N. doesn't make a point of such resolutions against any old country "just because."
;) Keep workin' on it.
]
No, what it does have to is specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such. Resolution 687 clear doesn't do that. There is no mention of sanction at all, nor is there any mention to Iraqi "ties" with terrorism.
-
Originally posted by straffo
BS if it's how a diplomatic text should be written ,else anyone can at anytime say anything from such a "fuzzy" document.
A contrario to what you pretend this document is very specific.
I hope you don't have signed an insurance policy not mentioning "specific details of who, where, what, when, etc"
Because the day you will need it you will cry :D
You seem torn about whether it's fuzzy or specific. It does show that the UN was concerned about Iraq committing acts of terrorism.
It's funny how the "anti-war protest" side of these threads flip-flops from "the U.S. acted against the will of the UN and therefore committed an illegal act" to "well, look at who the security council is comprised of, so there" and back again. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
]
No, what it does have to is specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such. Resolution 687 clear doesn't do that. There is no mention of sanction at all, nor is there any mention to Iraqi "ties" with terrorism.
It clearly shows the UN's concern for such. Which makes the whines about how much a nice guy Saddam was and how much he hated terrorism and would never ever have anything to do with it .... followed by all the bs about how the U.S. illegally went againt the will of the UN and all that type of rubbish sound even sillier than before.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You seem torn about whether it's fuzzy or specific. It does show that the UN was concerned about Iraq committing acts of terrorism.
You must re-read the part where the word terrorism is used .
Then look up the word starting the sentence.
It's more subtil than your affirmation.
It's funny how the "anti-war protest" side of these threads flip-flops from "the U.S. acted against the will of the UN and therefore committed an illegal act" to "well, look at who the security council is comprised of, so there" and back again. ;) :aok
[/B]
Don't confuse me with an anti-war, I never was against the war or the removal of Saddam.
I just kept saying that GWB was using weak argument ,was IMO headed to the wrong target and was wasting ressources in a "Public relation" war completly missing the objectives.
Never I did say I was supporting Saddam, I even said it was strategicaly understandable to get control of Iraq.
But I said too I was affraid to see the outcome be some desert version of VietNam.
If you have a doubt check my posts from last year.