Old 24th September 2003, 18:01   #1
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Official(nearly): Iraq had NO WMD

So, even the Weapons Inspectors chosen by the US say there are and were not any WMD. So, this war was for nothing, the lies the US & UK goverments told about WMD is responsible the deaths of thousands and the US & UK troops are still dieing everyday, Iraqis are dieing every day and the Iraq is rapidly heading towards civil war....Bravo Mr Bush and Mr Blair....the world is now a more dangerous place.

From the BBC;

"No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.

This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil.

Downing Street branded the story "speculation about an unfinished draft of an interim report".

Mr Neil said the draft report - which the source said is due to be published next month - concludes it is highly unlikely that weapons of mass destruction were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq.


The bottom line is that the team has found no weapons of mass destruction

Andrew Neil
Daily Politics


Analysis: High stakes for Blair

It will also claim Saddam Hussein mounted a huge programme to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors, he said.

Mr Neil said, according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".

They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying weapons of mass destruction and no delivery systems for the weapons.

But, Mr Neil added, the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a weapons of mass destruction programme.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told the Reuters news agency he expected the report would "reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out".

Reuters also reported a senior US official saying the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was expected to report finding "dcoumentary evidence" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programmes.

"Whether they will find or disclose anything on the weapons themselves, I doubt," said the official.

'Savage blow'

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "This is speculation on an as yet unpublished report.

"I await the report eagerly from Mr Kay (head of the survey group), as does the international community."

Mr Straw argued the whole international community had agreed Iraq's weapons programmes had posed - the issue had been what to do about it.


Mr Neil said the report is being finalised and could undergo changes
People did not need the ISG report for evidence of that threat, he said. It was already shown in volumes of reports from UN inspectors.

A Number 10 spokesman said "we don't have this text", but asked if the prime minister had seem the report, remarked: "We are not going into details of process."

Mr Neil, a former editor of the Sunday Times, stressed the Daily Politics had not seen the draft report, and was reporting what a single source had said its findings were likely to be.

He said the report was still to be finalised and could undergo some changes, but the source had been told the content of some key passages which are not expected to be substantively altered.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said if these details of the report were true, it would be a "savage blow" to the prime minister.

'Fake facilities'

The inspectors have uncovered no evidence that any weapons were actually built in the immediate years before the war, the leak of the report suggests.

It is alleged that Saddam's programme of deception involved fake facilities and infrastructure to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors.


The group may well conclude that Iraq had an elaborate and secret effort to maintain elements of its weapons programmes - in 'suspended animation' if you like

Jonathan Marcus
BBC defence correspondent




Documents have been uncovered showing weapons facilities were concealed as commercial buildings, the report is likely to say.

The Iraq Survey Group took over the job of finding WMD from the US military in June.

The survey group, led by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector and now a special adviser to the CIA, is a largely US operation, although it includes some British and Australian staff.

Its 1,400 personnel are made up of scientists, military and intelligence experts and its work is shrouded in secrecy.

Its focus is intelligence, using documents and interviews with Iraqi scientists to build up a picture of the secret world of Iraq's weapons programmes.

The survey group has been under a good deal of pressure to prove the Bush administration's case that Iraq's weapons posed a significant threat.

Gary Samor, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, recently told the BBC that UN inspection teams should have been sent back into Iraq as there would be much scepticism about the ISG's findings.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2003, 21:23   #2
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Now worries, we can just look for them in Iran.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 09:44   #3
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
lol! you won't find iraq's weapons there, according to the report, though, it apparently says it is unlikely that iraq sold any weapons to neighbouring countries...

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 10:43   #4
Rocker
Hiding in plain sight (mod)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,907
yeah... they wern't sold they were probably given to osama's crew as a gift (or neighboring countries)

If they had nothing to hide, why did they want to stop the UN from inspecting? What did Saddam want to hide?

This war was not faught over nothing, if Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have allowed the UN inspectors in no problem in the first place.

Iraq possibly doesn't have the weapons now, or even during the war but it would have had them before he stired the shit.

my 2 cents
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 10:50   #5
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
i believe the point was that he didn't have them. basically he was keeping very primitive porgrams on hold indefinately. he would make them if he could get away with it - but the weapons inspectors ensured that he never would. in terms of WMD, the war didn't really serve a useful purpose.

and remember he was nuts. he didn't really care enough about his people - the sanctions were a convenient way of oppressing his people and having another state directly accountable. he still lived comfortably. when it's set out like that, who's to say that he wanted the sanctions to end?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 14:22   #6
mrharhar
Senior Member
 
mrharhar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From: From:
Posts: 233
Executive Summary;
Crazy maniac, Osama Bin Laden attacks America.
Thousands die.
America bombs the crap out of Afghanistan.
Thousands die.
Crazy maniac, Sadam Hussein controls oil fields and represses people.
Thousands die.
America bombs the crap out of Iraq.
Thousands die.

-there is no signature-
mrharhar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 17:09   #7
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
well put, mrharhar.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2003, 19:51   #8
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally posted by Rocker
yeah... they wern't sold they were probably given to osama's crew as a gift (or neighboring countries)

If they had nothing to hide, why did they want to stop the UN from inspecting? What did Saddam want to hide?

This war was not faught over nothing, if Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have allowed the UN inspectors in no problem in the first place.

Iraq possibly doesn't have the weapons now, or even during the war but it would have had them before he stired the shit.

my 2 cents
Saddam wouldn't give anything to Bin Laden, they were enemies. Saddam is a secular dictator and Bin Laden is Muslim extremist, they have nothing in come except their hatred of each other.

It's called a bluff. See, the US won't invade any country that has WMD, so, if you haven't got any, like Iraq, you pretend you have and hope the US falls for it. See? Makes perfect sense.

This war certainly wasn't fought for nothing, I agree, but it wasn't fought for what we were told it was. The US & UK had no interest in what Saddam was doing to his people. He'd been doing it for decades and the US & UK didn't care. This war was fought over power. Power over oil supplies, power of the Middle East and an example of what the US will do to any country that threatens its power, be that militarily or economically.

He wouldn't have had the weapons because the arms inspectors already there would have prevented that, which has just been proven by the fact that no one can find anything.

Quoted from starbucks : "Now worries, we can just look for them in Iran."

No you can't look for them in Iran. Want to know the reason why? I'll tell you...because the US dosen't have the power. They have troops trying to control Afghantistan, they have troops trying to control Iraq and they have troops hanging around N. Korea....now tell me, where they are going to get the troops to invade Iran?

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 02:31   #9
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
You know, I was only joking folks.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 03:58   #10
Patriot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1
I believe you guys should check out www.americansforwar.com where there are some excellent arguments for war. Iran, Syria, etc.. should all be bombed to get rid of these maniac Arabs.
Patriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 06:13   #11
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Quote:
Originally posted by mrharhar
Executive Summary
Crazy maniac, Osama Bin Laden attacks America.
Thousands die.
America bombs the crap out of Afghanistan.
Thousands die.
Crazy maniac, Sadam Hussein controls oil fields and represses people.
Thousands die.
America bombs the crap out of Iraq.
Thousands die.
He's Nostradamus reincarnated!!

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 07:00   #12
whitie6969
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 59
I am a member of the Us Army and Im glad to have taken care of a promblem before it came to a much higher death count. The point is Iraq by order of the UN was "forced" to allow weapons inspectors in. The Nation refused, so i believe this was the only option available. What is the point of a UN if they do not enforce what they say. (note this is how World War II started because League of Nations did not step in when Germany started ingoring laws set in place be the League of Nations)The point is that the problem had to be dealt with after years of warnings and serval conficts. And what about the thousdands that Saddam had killed, the hundreds of mass graves or is that not important. Open your eyes and see more than you want to. The death of a few to save that of millions.
whitie6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 07:17   #13
whitie6969
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 59
The Peace Treaty of Versailles
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versailles.html
whitie6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 20:54   #14
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally posted by whitie6969
I am a member of the Us Army and Im glad to have taken care of a promblem before it came to a much higher death count. The point is Iraq by order of the UN was "forced" to allow weapons inspectors in. The Nation refused, so i believe this was the only option available. What is the point of a UN if they do not enforce what they say. (note this is how World War II started because League of Nations did not step in when Germany started ingoring laws set in place be the League of Nations)The point is that the problem had to be dealt with after years of warnings and serval conficts. And what about the thousdands that Saddam had killed, the hundreds of mass graves or is that not important. Open your eyes and see more than you want to. The death of a few to save that of millions.
Some counter points :

1) You are in the army, good for you. I'll take your opinion over Iraq better than some one who talks war but won't go and fight it themselves.
2) Iraq did not refuse to allow weapons inspectors, there was the usual arguements about what they could see, who would accompany them etc, but they weren't throw out or refused entry.
3) WWII did not start because the League of Nations refused to do anything, it started because an expansionist Germany expanded.
4) The "problem" of Iraq was one created and maintained by the West. The US announced Saddam a "stablizing" prescence in the region...straight after he gassed his own people, with gas sold to him by the West.
5) Saddam asked the US goverment, through its ambassador, if the US would object if Iraq invaded Kuwait...the US goverment stated it had no opinion on the matter.
6) The West did nothing...including the US...before, during and after Saddam gassed his own people....thats worth repeating, did nothing.
7) Regarding mass graves...will you only attack dictators who aren't nice to the US? Remember, those mass graves were filled when Iraq was a close friend of the US and the US didn't care how many of his own people he killed, as long as he stayed friendly.
8) You ask me to open my eyes...my friend, my eyes are open. They are open to the lies that all goverments tell it's people to get them kill each other. You might try opening your eyes, you might try not swallowing everything your president tells you while drapping himself in your flag. George W Bush's lies in regards to Iraq are long and notorious....sorry, they are notorious in the rest of the world, but not in the US because your media will not report what the rest of the world knows.

I'm glad your alive, I'm glad your comrades are alive. Those that died, did not die for peace, they did not die to save lives...they died to make sure your president was elected again and the rich got their tax-cuts.

Don't believe me? How many US politions had family members fighting in Iraq? Answer 1. Infact, your president is a deserter from the airforce. After daddy Bush paid for little George to avoid the Vietnam draft, he was sent to the National Airguard, which he never turned up for. He is still listed as AWOL by the National Guard.

Think about that when he next orders you into battle.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 21:16   #15
godoncrack
Forum King
 
godoncrack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: http://www.mossad.gov.il
Posts: 2,135
WoW
godoncrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2003, 21:39   #16
this.user
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: D
Posts: 1
some history - relations betweeen usa and iraq

You all know that the US regime delievered B- and C-Weapons to Iraq in the 80's for fighting against the Iran from 1980 till 1988, don't you know?
When Hussein (?) killed 5,000 of his own people with nerve gas on 1988-05-16 the USA, that supported also Bin Laden and Milosevic at this time, didn't protested.
Untill the Iraq Invasion in Kuwait (1990-08) Hussein stayed in US' grace. Suddenly Hussein was described as "epitome of the bad". Bush sen. demandet a miliary intervention, but the interests of the oilbillionair were to obviously. That changed on 1990-10-10 as an 15 years old "kuwaitian" girl said that Iraq soldiers took kuwaitian Babys out of incubators an let them fall to ground. But this girl, named as "Nayirah" was the daugther of Kuwaits ambassador in the USA. The incubator-story was a lie by the US regime, pure war-propaganda. With this propaganda Bush sen. made the US people war-ready, it supported him. So 250,000 human died, 150,000 zivilian incl. children.

Do you know how people like you where called and treaded here, Patriot? They are called Nazi. When I'm reading posts like yours I wish you some more big power failures. In the USA there are used many overhead power lines, aren't they? Very sensitive... Here the most power lines are lying more than one meter under the ground, a storm won't harm them. We don't have a power system like third world countries, contrary to the USA.

I was against the Iraq war before, during and after it, I supported the D, F and RUS way. I didn't believed in Iraq' WMD. Now I'm feeling confirmed.
And now the USA want the UN to pay for they war? No way! They wanted the war without UN-mandate, they should pay for it fully, even for the reconstruction costs. If only one Euro (US-$ 1.1469) of my tax fundses goes to the US regime to support them, I'll get mad.

And because of 2001-09-11 there are many unanswered questions, here an open letter to Bush jun. and Ambassador Coats:
Quote:
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS - DEMANDING ANSWERS

Open letter to the U.S. embassy in Berlin, to members of the U.S. government, to the German Chancellery and to officers of the European Union. Concerning the testimony and documents about 9/11 that an independent investigation would logically demand.


Nicholas Levis
Ronald Thoden

Embassy of the United States of America
Neustädtische Kirchstr. 4-5
10117 Berlin

Thursday, Sept. 11, 2003

Dear President Bush, Dear Ambassador Coats:

Two years after the crime of September 11th 2001, many questions of what really happened and how - and of who bears responsibility and accountability for the tragedy of that day and its consequences - are far from settled.

We have seen your administration act to block and delay the independent investigation that in a true democracy would have immediately followed the events. Two years later, the Executive has yet to issue an independent report. Chapters of the report recently published by the U.S. Congressional Joint Inquiry remain classified. The head of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, Senator Graham, has said the most important facts about Sept. 11 have yet to be revealed.

The administration is also blocking the ongoing work of the government-appointed investigation (Kean Commission), in a way that the New York Times has said recalls the practices of the Soviet Kremlin.

Are U.S. authorities trying to hide something about Sept. 11th? Out of concern that this may be the case, we are in solidarity with the demands for disclosure raised by many families of 9/11 victims.

The public has a right to know on what basis decisions are made in its name. Sept. 11th, 2001 is considered "the day that changed the world." The tragedy of the victims has been exploited as a pretext to drum up support for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and possible wars elsewhere - to stifle dissent at home - to push through repressive and unconstitutional legislation, like the USA PATRIOT Act - to reorganize American society and shift hundreds of billion-dollars in spending priorities from butter to guns - to inspire fear among the American people.

We eschew speculation. Despite the many open questions about Sept. 11, members of the administration last year saw fit to insinuate a conspiracy theory: that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was in some way responsible for the attacks. Alongside the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the unsubstantiated link between Iraq and Qaeda was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, with its continuing consequences for the Iraqi and American peoples.

At the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, you may be aware that a number of U.S. and international scholars, lawyers and researchers gathered together last weekend for a conference in Berlin on "Unanswered Questions - Demanding Answers" (Sept. 4-7, 2003), including public events that were attended by hundreds of people from several countries.

In the informal preparations for this conference, groups of speakers debated questions about Sept. 11 that they would all like to see answered. They also identified a few of the officials and other people that an independent and appropriately empowered investigation would logically call as witnesses to answer these questions. We do not and cannot know what the answers are; we believe that the witnesses we propose should know, and should reveal what they know in the spirit of disclosure and transparency that is essential to democracy.

As the organizers of the conference, we now present to you the sense of these discussions (in the Appendix), and call upon you to address the questions therein - the answers to which are of great significance to the peoples of the United States and to the world.

Because disclosure about Sept. 11 is an international and not just American issue, and because some of the proposed witnesses are not U.S. citizens, we are also presenting these questions to the German Chancellery and to the offices of the European Parliament in Berlin.

By releasing the documents we ask for, and by initiating a real investigation that finally addresses the open questions of Sept. 11, you will be making an important contribution towards putting an end to speculation and "conspiracy theory," and for transparency and disclosure.

We shall note, although it should be self-evident, that we are against all forms of terrorism and support non-violent forms of change. We are for the American people. We are pro-New York, pro-freedom and pro-world. We do not support disinformation or ideology, and we resist all efforts to exploit the aftermath and oddities of Sept. 11th by purveyors of propaganda, paranoia, racism and mystification.

Sincerely,

(signed)
Nicholas Levis
Ronald Thoden

cc: German Chancellery, European Parliament in Berlin, press and media in Berlin.
There are around 30 unanswered questions, I didn't found an english version of it, but if someone would like to read them I give out the link for the german version.

this.user
this.user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2003, 11:29   #17
whitie6969
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 59
You, marvinbarcelona, list very good points, I tip my hat to you. But under the treaty of versaillies, Germany producing large amounts of milltary equipment was banded. The League of Nations realised Germany's huge milltary expansion, but at that time was scared to step in, so two years later WWII happened, and the whole time germany had been stock piling weapons
BUt your other point toche (SP)
whitie6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2003, 12:24   #18
Merlin
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(Forum King)
 
Merlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,209
So the initial reason given for the war - these weapons - was misinformed. Get over it.


as he faced the sun, he cast no shadow
Merlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2003, 14:57   #19
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Don't know an awful lot about the Treaty of Versailles, so I can't really comment on it. One of the possible reasons for Germany not being confronted sooner was the fact that most of Europe was low on arms and arms manufactoring, Britain certainly was and needed time to re-arm.

@ Merlin : "So the initial reason given for the war - these weapons - was misinformed. Get over it." So your not bothered by the fact that thousands of people have died because certain goverments lied about the reasons for going to war? You're not even slightly annouyed?

Well, thats okay....however, if you are from the US, you may want to read this - More US Troops Face Iraq Call-up before you think that it dosen't concern you. The US has to get troops from somewhere....."Uncle Sam wants you to go and die in some God-forsaken-country while your president lives it large at The Whitehouse"

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2003, 20:19   #20
DannyO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 3
Send a message via AIM to DannyO
The war wasn't over WMD, nor' was it about oil. It was simply just to get Saddam out of the picture. We being Americans and all of the other free living countries see this as bullshit. The Iraqi's however see it as a good thing. Before the U.S. Came in, the Iraq Power grid was not functioning at all, clean water was a rarity, and Saddam was a tyrant no matter what anyone else says. You people have to stop drawing negatives out of all of the things that Bush does. Just be thankful that we have what we got. Iraq will be a better place in a few years. This is just a rocky beginning. Just remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, neither will Iraq.
DannyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2003, 20:46   #21
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
The reason on paper to go to war was over WMDs. While there were other reasons too, WMDs were a reason we could get the public to accept our motive for going to war.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 08:27   #22
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally posted by DannyO
The war wasn't over WMD, nor' was it about oil. It was simply just to get Saddam out of the picture. We being Americans and all of the other free living countries see this as bullshit. The Iraqi's however see it as a good thing. Before the U.S. Came in, the Iraq Power grid was not functioning at all, clean water was a rarity, and Saddam was a tyrant no matter what anyone else says. You people have to stop drawing negatives out of all of the things that Bush does. Just be thankful that we have what we got. Iraq will be a better place in a few years. This is just a rocky beginning. Just remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, neither will Iraq.
Okay, some facts for you;

1) The war was over WMD. Check the internet, theres plenty of releases from your own goverment about it.
2) "...simply to get Saddam out of the picture" But you friends with him for soooo long. You turned your head when he gassed his own people and when he invaded in Kuwait.
3) "...the Iraqi's see this as a good thing" Really? You actually believe this? So, the large and growing fighting in Iraq is the Iraqi people showing how much they enjoy being invavded? Oh, it's those pesky Saddam loyalists....there's an awful lot of them isn't there.
4) "...the Iraqi powergrid was not functioning"...where did you get this from? OH, you mean literarly before US troops entered Baghad. In this case you are right.......because your military blew the damn national grid up, along with the water planets
5) "Saddam was a tyrant"...yes he was...he was when the US goverment helped him to power, he was when he started a war with Iran(which the US goverment backed Iraq), he was when the US declared him "a stablising influence in the region" after he gassed his own people and he was when he asked the US if they minded if he invaded Kuwait and the US stated they had no opinion on it.

You really need to do some research instead of believing everything that your countries media and goverment tell you...after all, 63% of US citiizens believe Saddam planned 9/11 and this was after your president said he didn't have anything to do with it.

@ m2k : in other words, the US goverment knew their basis for war was pathetically weak and so they invented some more reasons...this is called lieing. The result of which has led to the deaths of how many US troops?

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 15:46   #23
Namelessv1
Forum King
 
Namelessv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
2) "...simply to get Saddam out of the picture" But you friends with him for soooo long. You turned your head when he gassed his own people and when he invaded in Kuwait.
Turned our heads when he invaded Kuwait? Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Quote:
5) "Saddam was a tyrant"...yes he was...he was when the US goverment helped him to power, he was when he started a war with Iran(which the US goverment backed Iraq), he was when the US declared him "a stablising influence in the region" after he gassed his own people and he was when he asked the US if they minded if he invaded Kuwait and the US stated they had no opinion on it.
Of course the US government did. It was using Iraq as a buffer against Iran, who had several terrorist attacks against US and western embassies during the 70's and 80's. It's a bit naive to think that any government does not operate for its own best interest primarily.

Quote:
@ m2k : in other words, the US goverment knew their basis for war was pathetically weak and so they invented some more reasons...this is called lieing. The result of which has led to the deaths of how many US troops?
Approximately 300 troops.
Namelessv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 17:56   #24
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Dawg4Life2K1
Of course the US government did. It was using Iraq as a buffer against Iran, who had several terrorist attacks against US and western embassies during the 70's and 80's. It's a bit naive to think that any government does not operate for its own best interest primarily.
God damn hippocrits!
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 18:01   #25
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
@ Dawg4Life2K1 : The Iraqi goverment asked the US goverment if they would object if Iraqi invaded Kuwait. The US goverment stated that they had no opinion on the matter. Iraq took this to mean that the US goverment would not anything.

[b]"Of course the US government did. It was using Iraq as a buffer against Iran, who had several terrorist attacks against US and western embassies during the 70's and 80's. It's a bit naive to think that any government does not operate for its own best interest primarily. "[/b}

So, you feel that as long as Saddam was killing thousands of Iraqi's and was friends with the US it was okay, but when he was killing thousands of Iraqi's but was not friendly with the US, thats where you draw the line? Kill as many Iraqis as you want, but stay useful to the US! Nice foreign policy......why does the Middle East distrust the US?

So, 300 US troops have died in a war the rest of the world thought was pointless, has brought chaos and near anarchy to Iraqi, brought more would-be terrorists out of the woodwork, is costing the US tax-payer some $60,000,000,000 and you think this is just fine and dandy????

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 18:11   #26
Namelessv1
Forum King
 
Namelessv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
[B]@ Dawg4Life2K1 : The Iraqi goverment asked the US goverment if they would object if Iraqi invaded Kuwait. The US goverment stated that they had no opinion on the matter. Iraq took this to mean that the US goverment would not anything.

"Of course the US government did. It was using Iraq as a buffer against Iran, who had several terrorist attacks against US and western embassies during the 70's and 80's. It's a bit naive to think that any government does not operate for its own best interest primarily. "[/b}

So, you feel that as long as Saddam was killing thousands of Iraqi's and was friends with the US it was okay, but when he was killing thousands of Iraqi's but was not friendly with the US, thats where you draw the line? Kill as many Iraqis as you want, but stay useful to the US! Nice foreign policy......why does the Middle East distrust the US?

So, 300 US troops have died in a war the rest of the world thought was pointless, has brought chaos and near anarchy to Iraqi, brought more would-be terrorists out of the woodwork, is costing the US tax-payer some $60,000,000,000 and you think this is just fine and dandy????
I'm not saying it was right. I never said it was right. I'm saying the US government is not the only government who would have done what it did in that position. It's time to stop being so appalled, and time to be a bit more cynical and expect these sorta things.

Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
God damn hippocrits!
Are you calling me a hypocrite?
Namelessv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 19:15   #27
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Africa was full of tyrants and murders. After it was clear that Africa was a dangerous place with no benefits, America left. After all, Africa has no oil.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 20:24   #28
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
@Dawg4Life2k1 : I'm sorry if I missunderstood your point. You are absolutly correct, all goverments have done things that are appauling etc, but it is our duty as citizens of these countries to point thses things out, to question our leaders motives. Too many people blindly accept whatever their goverments say is the truth.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 22:10   #29
UpperKEES
Senior Member
 
UpperKEES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the Netherlands Status: hyperactive Posts: yes
Posts: 477
The strange thing is: it wouldn't surprise me if George W. Bush would be re-elected next time. After telling so many lies you would normally expect somebody to withdraw, but in the States it always seems the other way around... (almost as bad as Italy ). When will the average American start surfing around at independent news sites and find out for him/herself what the world looks like? And then vote for a president with a global, long-term view. This could be a relief for the whole world.

UK
UpperKEES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 22:59   #30
Namelessv1
Forum King
 
Namelessv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally posted by UpperKEES
The strange thing is: it wouldn't surprise me if George W. Bush would be re-elected next time. After telling so many lies you would normally expect somebody to withdraw, but in the States it always seems the other way around... (almost as bad as Italy ). When will the average American start surfing around at independent news sites and find out for him/herself what the world looks like? And then vote for a president with a global, long-term view. This could be a relief for the whole world.

UK
ignorance = bliss

it's sad, but it's true.
Namelessv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 23:30   #31
Merlin
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(Forum King)
 
Merlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
@ Merlin : "So the initial reason given for the war - these weapons - was misinformed. Get over it." So your not bothered by the fact that thousands of people have died because certain goverments lied about the reasons for going to war? You're not even slightly annouyed?
What annoys me is people CONSTANTLY WHINING about the reasons for this war. And I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF THE GOVERNMENT LIED. They all do it, since forever. Fucking hell, you'd think they'd always been fucking saints the way some people spout on.

Thousands of people died in the Bosnian conflict. Which also took place with the main intent of removing an evil dictator. Where were the media sheep - sorry, I mean people who really want valid reasons for war - then? NOWHERE. Oddly enough, the Daily Mirror (and its fellow rags) wasn't busy questioning the reasons for that war. Coincidence?

Oh and by the way, don't give me the 'our soldiers died' line, because people don't join the army without expecting to fight. They knew what joining the army involved. It's a shame that some civilians died during the conflict, but at least some consolation can be taken from the fact a greater good was achieved in the end - a free Iraq.

I am not from the US, I'm from Manchester. Where too many people read opinionated bullshit in the tabloid shitrags.


as he faced the sun, he cast no shadow
Merlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2003, 23:50   #32
UpperKEES
Senior Member
 
UpperKEES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the Netherlands Status: hyperactive Posts: yes
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally posted by Merlin
And I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF THE GOVERNMENT LIED. (...) It's a shame that some civilians died during the conflict, but at least some consolation can be taken from the fact a greater good was achieved in the end - a free Iraq.
You must be very indifferent when it doesn't matter when people you voted for lie to you. I can image you don't care about the opinion of the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally posted by Merlin
Thousands of people died in the Bosnian conflict. Which also took place with the main intent of removing an evil dictator. Where were the media sheep - sorry, I mean people who really want valid reasons for war - then? NOWHERE. Oddly enough, the Daily Mirror (and its fellow rags) wasn't busy questioning the reasons for that war. Coincidence?
May I remind you that the Bosnian conflict already started in 1991. NATO & more than 30 partner for peace nations became involved much later. More than enough press was around there. Not as much as in Iraq, as there was no need to use them for 'legalizing' the war.

UK
UpperKEES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 00:25   #33
GFlem
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by Merlin
So the initial reason given for the war - these weapons - was misinformed. Get over it.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the four supertankers sitting in international waters right now, that Saddam sent out with contents unknown right before the United States rolled his country over? I remember hearing something about those ships before... I also remember that we could have searched through them if we'd actually had the balls to declare real war on Iraq; thank the U.N. for letting that opportunity slip through our fingers.

Can anyone give us any updates on those ships?
GFlem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 02:49   #34
UpperKEES
Senior Member
 
UpperKEES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the Netherlands Status: hyperactive Posts: yes
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally posted by GFlem
Can anyone give us any updates on those ships?
Why, do you think it might save Bush' face? And even if these ships really existed, they could have gone around the world by now...
UpperKEES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 04:44   #35
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
"...simply to get Saddam out of the picture" But you friends with him for soooo long. You turned your head when he gassed his own people

"Saddam was a tyrant"...yes he was...he was when the US goverment helped him to power, he was when he started a war with Iran(which the US goverment backed Iraq), he was when the US declared him "a stablising influence in the region" after he gassed his own people and he was when he asked the US if they minded if he invaded Kuwait and the US stated they had no opinion on it.
And because the US supported Saddam in the past means we should continue supporting him forever? Why can't we change our minds?

If I am a habitual thief and one day I decide that stealing is wrong and change my ways, am I a hypocrite? Is this change of attitude somehow wrong?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 04:48   #36
SkyDaemon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10
For those that don't care about Bush lying over the reasons of war.

The reason it matters is because of what it implies was your real reason. First off, all of your allies knew you were lying when you stated it the first time (before the war started). We kind of thought maybe there were some chemical weapons or something, but even so. Analyze the weaponry and Iraqi isn't a threat to anything outside of it's bordering neighbours. Sure as hell not a threat to the US. Even if they had those weapons it would've still been a lie as a case for war. That kind of approach is what will ensure that you won't have any allies in the future. The other sad truth is that this is just the capstone on a list of issues where the US has overstepped it's authority.

Your allies basically sat down and asked themselves what your real reasons for war were, since the stated ones were obviously lies. Some of the most likely were:

1) Oil - America will do anything to help out it's corporate interests. Already seen in current American trade policy with damn near every important country in the world. America believes in one way free trade. Would America kill thousands of iraqi's just for a couple oil contracts? Duh.

2)Internal American military politics. - The US has a lot of bombs and fancy toys. One could see a bunch of generals viewing Iraqi like a big testing ground with "real combat experience" for all of their expensive toys that they never get to use. It's entirely conceivable they would organize an entire war just to play with their guns and perfect some techniques and strategies. The rest of us can understand that. We sympathize. Course, the rest of us bought playstations and got over it that way.

3)Internal American presidential politics. - Good ol' Bush isn't doing so well. Could he be listening to a group of advisors telling him to do what all good presidents do when they need a ratings boost and head to war? You do have a track record for this kind of shit, although it's usually not so blatant. Go rent Wag the Dog. At least in previous wars there was a real reason for having them, and they were needed. In any case, make the military feel good, you get military votes. Plus the patriotism factor will add some bonus votes. Absolutely sickening to listen to American newscasts reference how Americans will "rally to the flag" just after the announcement for war. The rest of the world sees a blatant cry for war votes when we hear that.

4)Outright racism. Possibly some form of excuse for wiping out those not like traditional white Americans. Even if not a xenophobic intent, it may quite possibly be that you simply don't value the lives of Iraqi's. Kind of like stepping on ants. This one is quite easy to combine with the others.

5)Expansionist America. The world has suffered through other attempted conquests. America makes enough references to "sole superpower" and having a special place/role in the world to make you wonder how long it will be before they try. The big concern is how they like to rampage around on other countries' turf with or without permission and change, demand that it be changed, or bomb anything that doesn't remind them of the way it is back home. Sure America sees itself differently, and likes to pretend it's everyone's friend, but the danger is seen. You'll find the hostility of the world towards America will be proportional to it's aggressiveness and how much it abuses it's power. If you played fair and obeyed international laws, the world wouldn't be so quick to oppose you. You'll likely win most things anyway, you don't need to cheat.

It's nice having someone lie to your face and then expect you to support their weak arguments for killing people out of various forms of self interest. Especially when the real support probably comes from points like the above. The big problem isn't that we believed any single point out of the above list. The problem was that there wasn't a single valid point on the whole list. Not one. Not one person in the whole world could come up with a valid reason for America to be attacking Iraqi, or assassinating/murdering it's leaders.

BTW, the assumption is that the reason you have to lie is because the truth is inexcusable.
SkyDaemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 09:25   #37
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
Merlin, yes all goverments lie, so we should let them get away with it? I take your point about people joining the military can't expect not to fight, but I believe they expect to fight and give their lives when it is right, just and required; not wrong, illegal and unnessecary.

When we vote, we give a goverment the right to speak and act on our behalf, if we don't critise them if they do wrong, then we are worse than they.

I live in Manchester to and I agree, too many people read unless rags, but this is a problem all over the world; too many people not searching for the truth and accepting the first thing out of a politions mouth.

Have a different opinion, but for Christs sake, make it an informed one. Just spoutting what was in the latest tabloid or wanna broadsheet is not good enough.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 09:28   #38
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
@Mattress : of course goverments change their minds, didn't say they can't. The problem with the US and Iraq is that the US knew Saddam was a dictator, murder, nasty and just plain bad and still did buisness with him and called him friend. They didn't break with Saddam because they suddenly realised what an evil person he was, no, they broke with Saddam because he was no longer any use to them. If Saddam was still useful to the US, he could have as many WMD as he wanted and the US wouldn't have done a thing about it.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 15:32   #39
UpperKEES
Senior Member
 
UpperKEES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the Netherlands Status: hyperactive Posts: yes
Posts: 477
/\
[] I love it when someone puts it all in perspective...
[]
UpperKEES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2003, 19:06   #40
Merlin
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(Forum King)
 
Merlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,209
"Let them get away with it" - And what else are we supposed to do? Elect a different government? It won't make a blind bit of difference. They all tell you what they want you to hear, regardless of whether it's the truth. That's something you learn to live with as a resident of this country, because short of seizing power in a military coup there is approximately fuck-all you can do about it.

Quote:
when people you voted for lie to you
I voted Liberal, actually.


as he faced the sun, he cast no shadow
Merlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump