The Iraq Thread

[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?

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

-=Die Alive=-

Touché

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.

If he destroyed them before the war as Rumsfeld now says how do you explain Bush's all speeches about "Saddam has failed to disarm". And more of all, how do you explain Wolfowitz comments now that a huge reason was to get a new place to station the troops that are now in Saudi Arabia.

I'm still shocked by that one. If anybody had mentioned that as a reason a while ago it would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory.

They lied for the reasons of war to the world, to your Congress and Senate and to the American people. Doesn't that bother you?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

In other news Blair visits Basra

I found this interesting:

"on Thursday, doubts were raised about the dossier of evidence the UK Government presented against Iraq last September.

A senior British intelligence official told the BBC the original version of the document had added little to what was already publicly known, but that a week before it was published it had been "transformed" on the orders of Downing Street.

The aim was to make the report more hard-hitting, the official told the BBC, adding that the intelligence services were unhappy about the changes."

This seems to support what i said when intelligence reports were previously questioned, that the US and British governments have been highly manipulative in their presentation of intelligence information perhaps to the point of alienating intelligence workers and/or lieing

[Alkurta 0]

I admit that it would be nice to find an arsenal chock full of chemical warheads.

In the meantime, I am satisfied with the 2 mobile bioweapons labs that have been discovered. They can have only one plausible function: to make bioweapons while evading UN inspectors.

That is a violation of the Cease Fire terms of the first Gulf War and of the many, many UN resolutions.

Saddam Hussein had no intention of honoring or complying with anything unless he got caught. His strategy was "Cheat and Retreat".

In the era of WMD, we can't wait for the other guy to strike first. I am content to let history judge us.

[Badgerboy 0]

I admit that it would be nice to find an arsenal chock full of chemical warheads.

In the meantime, I am satisfied with the 2 mobile bioweapons labs that have been discovered.  They can have only one plausible function:  to make bioweapons while evading UN inspectors.

That is a violation of the Cease Fire terms of the first Gulf War and of the many, many UN resolutions.

Saddam Hussein had no intention of honoring or complying with anything unless he got caught.  His strategy was "Cheat and Retreat".

In the era of WMD, we can't wait for the other guy to strike first.  I am content to let history judge us.

This is not the point.

The premis for war was the 'definative evidence' of WMD's capable of being armed within 45 minutes. Current events have shown this to be untrue, as all sites specified by Washington have been disproved.

Effectively, your President lied to you, and I would think this would upset you a little.

Additonally, read the post I added earlier. One of the reason for this war, was to stop WMD's falling into terrorist hands. Because of NO security at NUCLEAR STORAGE facilities, looters have nicked barrels of uranium, plus loads of research equipment. If this is preventing nuclear materials falling in terrorist hands, insanity does indeed prevail.

Doesn't any of this concern you?

Edit- Plus those 'bio-weapon' labs are suspected, not proved of research into bio weaopns.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]In the era of WMD, we can't wait for the other guy to strike first. I am content to let history judge us.

The era? What bollocks! Seemed to have skipped the cold war eh? Your theory only would have ended with the destruction of humanity.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]how do you explain Wolfowitz comments now that a huge reason was to get a new place to station the troops that are now in Saudi Arabia...If anybody had mentioned that as a reason a while ago it would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory.

I read a geo-political analysis a long time ago that convinced me of how important bases and basing rights are to the US strategy for global domination (of course there is such a thing).

Still it seems incredible that they might have to gone to war over it (or at least with it as a major reason)

Alkurta-

Quote[/b] ]"In the era of WMD, we can't wait for the other guy to strike first."

Its rather important to be sure that the other guy is going to stike first though dont you agree? A few months ago i might have said the same thing as you, now i am more wary.

Quote[/b] ]"I am content to let history judge us."

Good for history .

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]I read a geo-political analysis a long time ago that convinced me of how important bases and basing rights are to the US strategy for global domination (of course there is such a thing).

Still it seems incredible that they might have to gone to war over it (or at least with it as a major reason)

Please, we prefer world hegemony. Tends to get a more positive response from focus groups.

Quote[/b] ]Its rather important to be sure that the other guy is going to stike first though dont you agree? A few months ago i might have said the same thing as you, now i am more wary.

No shit. And now Mr. Wolfowitz just the other day said things that make me wonder why I ever believed that they were actually after WMD in the first place.

[The Frenchman 0]

Very funny!!!!!

Watch the whole thing.

[E6Hotel 0]

Quote[/b] ]how do you explain Wolfowitz comments now that a huge reason was to get a new place to station the troops that are now in Saudi Arabia...If anybody had mentioned that as a reason a while ago it would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory.

I read a geo-political analysis a long time ago that convinced me of how important bases and basing rights are to the US strategy for global domination (of course there is such a thing).

Still it seems incredible that they might have to gone to war over it (or at least with it as a major reason)

Guys, you're putting too much spin on this one.  Here's what Wolfowitz said in the link Denoir provided:    

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.

Basing troops in Iraq isn't mentioned.  As stated at the time of the decision to pull troops out of Saudi*, eliminating Saddam's regime eliminated the need to enforce no-fly zones, which eliminated the need to have U.S. troops based in Saudi.

The move sure as hell isn't intended as "appeasement" for AQ.

*Normally I would provide a link backing this up.  Unfortunately, I made the mistake of lurking on www.iraqwar.ru a few days ago, which temporarily dropped my higher brain functions below the minimum threshhold needed to Google successfully.

 

<wipes drool off keyboard>    

Semper Fi

[FallenPaladin 0]

There`s a funny development in Iraq lately according to our german news media (www.n24.de and www.n-tv.de) . The Iraqis seem to be on a stronger uprise against the US troops stationed in Iraq. Every day there are US casulties of which at least 3/4 are results of that resistance. The US won`t be able to control those uprisings on their own. Seems like they`ll need UN troops and UN help in negotiations in the future. It`s just too sweet... The mighty "we-shit-on-the-UN"-US government will probably need the UN`s help. *cough* *cough*

On the other hand the US goverment could of course send more and more troops to the Iraq. What do you think will be the future actions regarding Iraq? Think of the latest statements made by the TBA.

[FallenPaladin 0]

A senior British intelligence official told the BBC the original version of the document had added little to what was already publicly known, but that a week before it was published it had been "transformed" on the orders of Downing Street.

The aim was to make the report more hard-hitting, the official told the BBC, adding that the intelligence services were unhappy about the changes."

This seems to support what i said when intelligence reports were previously questioned, that the US and British governments have been highly manipulative in their presentation of intelligence information perhaps to the point of alienating intelligence workers and/or lieing

It`s Robin Cook, Blair`s former foreign minister of Great Britain who left his position because he didn`t believe in the rightenous of Gulf War 2.0, who is now accusing the premier minister Tony Blair of dramatizing the intelligence data.

Reminds me of some US shows I`ve seen on TV.

[Enter someone of the TBA here]: "We have those nice and colored Photoshop presentations here that prove that Saddam Hussein, who is an evil man, possesses WMDs and that he can use them within 45 minutes, hours, whatsoever. In addition to that we have corny satellite feed in which it`s not possible to recognize anything. Shhht, did we remove the dates? Isn`t that satellite feed from the old Bush? Well, no matter. We also have some nice recorded communications between high ranking Iraqi military, I only hope Brandon got the Iraqi language right this time! If that`s not satisfying yet we still have some emotional interviews with Iraqis that were persecuted by Saddam Hussein and almost tortured to death, but don`t tell someone that most of them were born in the USA as children of former Iraqi emigrants. By the way, what about giving that girl over there a little cat or dog to carry? I really love to fuck with US citizens, easy to manipulate aren`t they? "  

[Guest]

Basing troops in Iraq isn't mentioned.  As stated at the time of the decision to pull troops out of Saudi*, eliminating Saddam's regime eliminated the need to enforce no-fly zones, which eliminated the need to have U.S. troops based in Saudi.

So you are saying that the no-fly zones were there for no reason at all? You're making a circular argument in the best case and in the worst case you're saying that a big reason for war was to cover up that there was no justification for the no-fly zones.

Quote[/b] ]The move sure as hell isn't intended as "appeasement" for AQ.

It sure as hell looks that way to me. Saudi terrorists crash aircraft into your skyscrapers and your move is to remove your military forces from Saudi Arabia.

[Necromancer- 0]

It sure as hell looks that way to me. Saudi terrorists crash aircraft into your skyscrapers and your move is to remove your military forces from Saudi Arabia.  

I have no proof of what I'm going to say...

But perhaps it is a deal with Al Qaeda.

[Longinius 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/30/sprj.irq.britain.pow/index.html

Guess some people should learn how to develop their films at home...

[Die Alive 0]

Armless Iraqi boy wants to live in Canada

If he does, I will personally give that boy a hockey stick.

-=Die Alive=-

[Alkurta 0]

Quote[/b] ]Plus those 'bio-weapon' labs are suspected, not proved of research into bio weaopns.

Dude... Why else would you put fermentation tanks and other bio medical research equipment on the back of an 18 wheeler?

You can't do much work while the thing is moving. You test tubes and whatnot would bounce around too much.

You put your lab on an 18 wheeler to it can be moved around with ease so the UN inspectors can't find it.

We may not have the Good Housekeeping Seal of "Official WMD Research Equipment" on it yet. But I have heard no other plausible or implausible reason for the mobile bio lab.

[Alkurta 0]

Quote[/b] ]Additonally, read the post I added earlier. One of the reason for this war, was to stop WMD's falling into terrorist hands. Because of NO security at NUCLEAR STORAGE facilities, looters have nicked barrels of uranium, plus loads of research equipment. If this is preventing nuclear materials falling in terrorist hands, insanity does indeed prevail.

I believe we didn't know where this stuff was stored at and the looters got there before we could.

But the presence of Uranium Oxide brings up and important question: In a country that has NO nuclear reactors, either for power generation or for medical research, what was Saddam doing with barrel upon barrel of Uranium? It has no other use than either power generation or the making of nuclear weapons.

Once again, Saddam had refused to abide by the ceasefire terms of Gulf War 1.0 and the U.N. resolutions.

[Alkurta 0]

Quote[/b] ]It sure as hell looks that way to me. Saudi terrorists crash aircraft into your skyscrapers and your move is to remove your military forces from Saudi Arabia.

That is a fallacy know as Ad Hoc reasoning. Just because one event preceded a second event does not mean the 1st event caused the 2nd event.

Now, a more plausible chain of events is this:

The twin towers were attacked by terrorists. A government that was very friendly to the terrorists was removed.

Next, another bad apple in the middle east with a penchant for trouble making and WMD research is not cooperating with U.N. mandates. The bad apple was removed. Now, since the troops in Saudi Arabia were there to keep an eye on the aforementioned bad apple and to deter him, and he is no longer there to cause trouble, they are no longer needed in Saudi Arabia.

[Guest]

Medical research, construction, remains from their old program. They documented all that very well and presented it to the UN. Nothing the UN inspectors did not know about has emerged. Also a lot of the stuff was under IAEA seal.

At least then we knew where the stuff was and to what purpose it was used. Now when it has been looted we have no idea. Now there is a real risk of it getting to the black markets and possibly used to make 'dirty' bombs.

[Guest]

Now, a more plausible chain of events is this:

I'm not speculating. I'm just repeating what Wolfowitz said. The WMDs were just an excuse to gain world support. One 'huge' reason was to get the troops out of SA.

Not my theory but the words of one of the most prominent planners of the Iraq war.

[bn880 5]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/30/sprj.irq.britain.pow/index.html

Guess some people should learn how to develop their films at home...

How about, learn to be decent human beings first.

[Alkurta 0]

Quote[/b] ]It sure as hell looks that way to me. Saudi terrorists crash aircraft into your skyscrapers and your move is to remove your military forces from Saudi Arabia.

That is a fallacy know as Ad Hoc reasoning. Just because one event preceded a second event does not mean the 1st event caused the 2nd event.

Now, a more plausible chain of events is this:

The twin towers were attacked by terrorists. A government that was very friendly to the terrorists was removed.

Next, another bad apple in the middle east with a penchant for trouble making and WMD research is not cooperating with U.N. mandates. The bad apple was removed. Now, since the troops in Saudi Arabia were there to keep an eye on the aforementioned bad apple and to deter him, and he is no longer there to cause trouble, they are no longer needed in Saudi Arabia.

[Alkurta 0]

How do you use uranium in construction?

And do you need to use barrels and barrels of it for medical research?

I may be wrong on this last part, but didn't Saddam stop cooperating with the IAEA?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well, the people in Bagdad won`t have any trouble to get some uranium since the US attacks. There has been enough uranium ammo usement of the US troops.

[E6Hotel 0]

So you are saying that the no-fly zones were there for no reason at all?

How do you reach that conclusion?    

It sure as hell looks that way to me. Saudi terrorists crash aircraft into your skyscrapers and your move is to remove your military forces from Saudi Arabia.  

Actually, our "move" was to attack AQ's base of operations in Afghanistan.  A couple of problems with your logic:

1)  Granted that all Americans are retarded, but do you think we'd try to appease AQ by invading another Islamic country so that we'd have somewhere to place troops other than SA?

2)  If our military presence in SA is the root cause behind AQ's terrorism, as so often stated by OBL, don't you think someone should let the AQ cells in Riyahd and Morocco know that our troops are being moved?  Apparently they didn't get the message.

Semper Fi