The Iraq Thread

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the US went to war against Saddam Hussein in March.

....and 95 percent of the patriotic US citizens will appreciate this comment and not think about the issue anymore.

In one year it will be like this:

" Well yeah there have been rumours of non existant WMD´s in Iraq but I remember Rumsi telling us that they were destroyed prior to the US invasion..."

WELL WHAT THE HELL WAS THE REASON TO INVADE IRAQ THEN ?!?!?

Once more the US administration is fooling everyone and indirectly says that their intelligence work is worth nothing at all.

Let me sum it up:

-US intelligence bureaus claim they have proof for WMD´s in Iraq.

- they start a war namely because of that weapons

- they more or less win the war and bring freedom and Mc Donalds to Iraq

- Well no WMD´s found yet. Exorbitant threat to the western hemisphere isn´t it ?

- Now they claim that WMD´s have been destroyed before the invasion started ?!?

Still on the track guys ?

[Tovarish 0]

Still on the track guys ?

Some of us are, but unfortunately a large number can't see past: "USA Good, Saddam bad" therefore anything the US does to get rid of Saddam is good. Hmm, let's summarize this history step by step ok?

1-USA is Good

2-USA helps Saddam maintain Power

3-Saddam is Good

4-USA tells Saddam "We don't care about your arab-arab conflitcs"

5-Saddam goes 'OK, great!' - attacks Kuwait

6-USA's reaction - yeah we told him we didn't care, but we didn't realize he was stupid enough to believe it Oh BTW, try to ignore that steps 2 through 4 ever took place. In fact replace step 3 with the following:

7- Saddam is EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL

8- GW1 - US kicks ass, dosen't go in because mandate was just to liberate Kuwait, but incites rebellion in Iraq. Then decides the rebels like Iran too much so screw them, let Saddam kill them off After all, Iran is Bad too.

9- 9/11 happens. War in Afghanistan. Can't find Osama. The terrorists were Saudi, so of course Iraq was involved

10-  USA: "you have WMD's"

     Iraq    "no we dont"

     USA    "prove it...aw hell you're not proving

               it fast enough , Saddam, leave the country or

               we'll invade. BTW if you leave, we'll invade

               anyway."

11- USA "hmm, no WMD's, but look, mass graves! See, we were right to attack, Saddam was BAD" (refer to step 7). We're pretty sure they destroyed their WMD's right before we attacked

Rest Of World - "But wouldn't that make your invasion wrong?"

USA  "No, because they were BAD" (refer to step 7) and we're GOOD (refer to step 1)

     

media "We also found some mass graves in Afghanistan, and evidence that US trooms committed the massacre"

USA "no no no, you're not getting it, we're the Good guys here!" (refer to step one)

12 - (to be continued in Iran?)

[bn880 5]

Yep. I'm saving that post for some people I know. Should be quite informative.

[Badgerboy 0]

I was under the impression that one of the reasons for the Iraqi war, was to ensure no materials fell into the hands of evil terrorist organisations.

So what happens? Whoops! At least Iraqi's were protecting the stuff before we kicked the door in, and then 'looters' pillage the place. If uranium turns up in a 'dirty bomb' somewhere in the US in the near future, we know it was 'part of the plan' eh?

[Balschoiw 0]

Yippie !!!

WMD´s found !!!

Unfortunallythere there is something wrong with the place where they found 100 vials of Anthrax and bacterias.

Why travel to Iraq when you have the good stuff just round the corner !

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war.

[Gollum1 0]

@Tovarish:

Good post, sums it all up quite nicely. I´m saving that for sure.

[Guest]

Paul Wolfowitz: WMD emphasis was 'bureaucratic' (BBC)

Quote[/b] ]The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.

Amazing:

Quote[/b] ]The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

So USA attacked Iraq so that it could station its troops there and by that appeasing their oil-rich Saudi friends. Machiavelli would be proud of Bush's team.

[Oligo 1]

So USA attacked Iraq so that it could station its troops there and by that appeasing their oil-rich Saudi friends. Machiavelli would be proud of Bush's team.

U.S. is appeasing the terrorists? But appeasement is... BAD!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Thats interesting, i was actually wondering what Paul Wolfowitz would be making of this situation. Im not surprised though that he has or seems to have openly admitted that he views WMD as only a pretext for the war. The neo-conservatives have been quite open about their agenda in the past and have quite openly stated their their plans regarding Iraq. But if disposing of WMD was only an excuse for the US to pusue other national interests then that excuse has to be a good one for the other members of the coalition not to look like pawns or dupes. In even implying that WMD were little more than an excuse of less than primary importance to them TBA is surely dumping on its allies (notably Blair) ?

Way to dump on your main remaining ally Wolfowitz!

TBA really seems quite careless and blase in its relationship to supposed allies. I wonder what it will take to make the US public at large take interest, or is it already too late? Is the rest of the world already percieved as a hopelessly hostile and dangerous entity (except Israel)?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.

The families of the people that died during that bureaucratic war will be happy to hear that. On all sides.

GET THESE LIARS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW !

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.

The families of the people that died during that bureaucratic war will be happy to hear that. On all sides.

GET THESE LIARS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW !

Damn your insidious efforts to oust the Party! The Party is the people! You obvioulsy need political re-education!

[FallenPaladin 0]

Quote[/b] ]The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.

The families of the people that died during that bureaucratic war will be happy to hear that. On all sides.

GET THESE LIARS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW !

Well, those people would`ve never gotten there if they hadn`t broken the law and manipulated the voting in Florida. Well, black people shouldn`t be allowed to vote, right?  

Oh, excuse me, I`m only a stupid European unable to understand the US way of voting. In addition to that I`m leftwing, too. Some people even called me democrat!!  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, excuse me, I`m only a stupid European unable to understand the US way of voting. In addition to that I`m leftwing, too. Some people even called me democrat!!

Ah c'mon, I called you very left wing, but never a democrat. Most democrats are more to towards the center than you are

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

@ May 29 2003,20:33)]Most democRats are more to towards the center than you are

[FallenPaladin 0]

Geez! That`s exactly what I meant.

[Tovarish 0]

GET THESE LIARS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW !

I don't know...I just got an e-mail of some of their campaign slogans for the upcoming election and they seem pretty snazzy....Some of my favourites:

"Vote for Bush in 2004...... doing to all of America what Clinton did to a select few."

"Fooled ya once, fool ya twice"

"Slightly less than half the American voting public can't be wrong!"

"Because I Was In Office On September 11, 2001"

"We will liberate you...... from the truth!"

"Uniting the world against America in 2004!".

"Vote Bush, and the Supreme Court Won't have to"

"All war, all the time!!!"

"Vote for me or the Arab gets it."

"In God's heart, He knows I'm right."

[Guest]

Where have all the "true American patriots" gone? You know - the ones that repeatedly said "I trust my President" or "We know Saddam has WMDs" or "Congress said that Saddam has WMDs so he must have WMDs" etc etc. You know the bunch.

I'd like to hear some comments from them about Rumsfeld saying that Iraq destroyed the weapons before the war. Or how about Wolfowit's comments that the WMDs were just an excuse to get support for war?

Where are those neo-cons that with disgust say "Clinton lied to the American people"? Kind of seems ridiculous now getting upset over him lying about a blow job compared to Bush lying to get his war.

Where are your cries of outrage? Where are your demands for impeachment of Bush?

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I trust my President

[Badgerboy 0]

To fuck the rest of the world? Hooray!

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

To fuck the rest of the world? Hooray!

This is my President

Now what did you say about F***ing?

[Badgerboy 0]

I stand corrected......

Yikes...

[Die Alive 0]

Where have all the "true American patriots" gone? You know - the ones that repeatedly said "I trust my President" or "We know Saddam has WMDs" or "Congress said that Saddam has WMDs so he must have WMDs" etc  etc. You know the bunch.

I'd like to hear some comments from them about Rumsfeld saying that Iraq destroyed the weapons before the war. Or how about Wolfowit's comments that the WMDs were just an excuse to get support for war?

Where are those neo-cons that with disgust say "Clinton lied to the American people"? Kind of seems ridiculous now getting upset over him lying about a blow job compared to Bush lying to get his war.

Where are your cries of outrage? Where are your demands for impeachment of Bush?

Shhhh, there's important new developments in the Laci Peterson investigation.

-=Die Alive=-

[Harnu 0]

Where have all the "true American patriots" gone? You know - the ones that repeatedly said "I trust my President" or "We know Saddam has WMDs" or "Congress said that Saddam has WMDs so he must have WMDs" etc  etc. You know the bunch.

I'd like to hear some comments from them about Rumsfeld saying that Iraq destroyed the weapons before the war. Or how about Wolfowit's comments that the WMDs were just an excuse to get support for war?

Where are those neo-cons that with disgust say "Clinton lied to the American people"? Kind of seems ridiculous now getting upset over him lying about a blow job compared to Bush lying to get his war.

Where are your cries of outrage? Where are your demands for impeachment of Bush?

I know he had them. I'm sure he either hid them or detroyed them, who wouldn't have if they were in Saddam's shoes? I trust my president on his decisions because it's not his sole decision.

neo-cons I like your name for republicans

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Isnt that 'Mrs Doubtfire' (played by TVs Robin Williams)?

'Neo-cons' are neo-conservatives. Not all Republicans are neo-conservatives (thankfully). Many neo-conservatives in fact used to be democrats  

Anyway ill bet my mouldy crabapple plenty of hardline right wingers are still too busy dreaming up insults for 'slick willy' Clinton to bother checking what their current wonderful Administration is patriotically doing in their name