The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[Aquitaine]

Hi Joe. Now given the fact that you've listed a large amount of articles covering different topics, I think it is reasonable for you to respect that for now I'm only going to address the parts about Iraq's supposed WMDs. So please bear with me.

Anyways, before I adress the 4 WMD articles I wanna talk about your reply to the Bush video.

Hi Paul,

Nice job, post a video of Bush saying that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 when I never made the argument that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Well, really...... I posted it because of the section starting at 16 seconds where he says "The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was because we thought he had WMD, it turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make w.....". Of course, the claim that Iraq had the capacity to make and launch WMDs (Chemical/ICBMs and fully functioning launching facilities etc) has time and time again been discredited, as Sunstone mentioned.

With regards to Iraq having no connection with 9/11, well duh everybody knows that so it's really not a surprise to hear your former President admit it, and thus that's not why I posted the video.

I think you are grasping at straws here because your absurd anti-Iraq war talking points got met with some actual evidence.

I disagree



Now onto your 4 articles. All of them with the exception of the Washington Post one are dated mid 2004, before the September 2004 Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's WMD threat which stated that Iraq had no WMDs: see here, here, here and here. Remember, check the dates of my articles and yours, the only exception is the WP one, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Article 1
(BBC NEWS | Middle East | US reveals Iraq nuclear operation)

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

Finding "highly radioactive sources" and enriched Uranium does not equal inter-continental WMDs - Hell we fire Uranium from our Tanks. Bear in mind that enriched Uranium is used for Commercial and Medical purposes too, as mentioned in the same article, here:

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

But just before that, the article goes on about the potential of a "dirty bomb" in which it describes what a dirty bomb is, but later admits that the Uranium found would be unsuitable for a "dirty bomb" here:

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

The whole "dity bomb" section is just a description of a dirty bomb, that's all. Again, that doesn't equal an inter-continental WMD, as further mentioned here:

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

So in conclusion, they found some Uranium and some Medical and Industrial Radioactive material, and speculated the possibility that some of the unidentified sources could hypothetically be used as a "dirty bomb", again that doesn't even equal a WMD.

Article 2
(BBC NEWS | Middle East | Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid')

*This article is pure LOL.

Poland's defence ministry claims its troops in Iraq have thwarted an attempt by militants to buy a quantity of warheads containing nerve agents.

Oh..... sounds scary.......

Gen Marek Dukaczewski said an attack using warheads such as these was hard to imagine. But the US military said the agent was so deteriorated it posed no threat.

LOL!

Gen Dukaczewski was commenting on last month's recovery by Polish troops of 17 warheads for a 1980s Soviet-era rocket system.

LOL!

But the US military said that while two of the rockets tested positive for sarin, traces of the agent were so small and deteriorated as to be virtually harmless.

LMAO!

"These rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces," a statement by the military said.

ROFLMAO!

Another 16 rockets found by the Polish troops were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals, it added, without explaining the discrepancy in numbers with the Polish version.

ROFLCOPTOR!

However, inconclusive searches by inspectors led the US to accuse Saddam Hussein of failing to surrender chemical and biological weapons and were cited as one of the reasons for the US-led invasion in 2003.

Which would later turn out to be discredited, see my articles. Oh BTW, these 80's Soviet Rockets look like conventional missiles and not inter-continental WMDs.

Other two articles will be dealt with shortly........

 

[Aquitaine]

Article 3
(Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered - washingtonpost.com)

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.

So they found some Chemicals, that doesn't equal WMDs.

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Oh well there you go, I wonder that "suspected lab" was in response to?

The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

The suspected chemical weapons lab was the biggest found so far in Iraq, Boylan said. A lab discovered last year in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah contained a how-to book on chemical weapons and an unspecified amount of chemicals.

Again......... notice how these are found after our invasion and are in the possession of Iraqi Insurgents?

Iraqi forces under Hussein used chemical agents both on enemy forces in the 1980s war with Iran and on Iraqi Kurdish villagers in 1988. Traces of a variety of killing agents -- mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX -- were detected by investigators after the 1988 attack.

Right, and who helped finance the Iraqis (and Iranians), and provide chemicals to Saddam during that time?

Article 4
(FOXNews.com - Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq - U.S. & World)

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Oh noes! A roadside bomb!!!!!!!!1

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

Phew!

The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found

Oddily enough, isn't this the same event that was mentioned in Article 2,after all they're both in Baghdad and both in May?

In May this year, an artillery shell apparently filled with sarin exploded at a roadside near Baghdad but caused no serious injury.

OMG a Roadside bomb filled with Sarin which caused no fatal injuries? WMD!!

I'm not even gonna read the rest of that last article 'cause it's most likely just the usual FOX News fear-mongering, not that the Iraqi WMD claim hasn't already been thoroughly discredited anyways.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi Paul,

Also, as the links I've posted shows, Saddam had WMD's, but he didn't have the stockpiles that the global intelligence community thought he had. This is what I believe Bush is referring to.

I disagree

I think your links show that some chemicals were found along with some Medical and Industrial radioactive material, and that some insurgents had possession of some chemicals in a "suspected lab" EDIT: dated to be from after (and no doubt in response to) our illegal invasion.

Oh and that an old artillery shell exploded and no-one was seriously injured.

 

[linwood]

Isn't Iraq choosing their political leaders in some form of democracy preferrable to Saddam's tyranny or does your ideological blinders prevent you from believing that?

I find it wildly entertaining that the guy in your avatar is the same guy who empowered Saddam to be able to control Iraq with an iron fist.

Reagans assistance and aid given to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war made it possible for him to gather and hold the power he had.
Who gave Saddam them weapons of mass destruction?

LMAO..hysterical.

Once again the US gov. succeeds greatly at what it`s best at...hypocrisy.

 

[Aquitaine]

I find it wildly entertaining that the guy in your avatar is the same guy who empowered Saddam to be able to control Iraq with an iron fist.

Reagans assistance and aid given to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war made it possible for him to gather and hold the power he had.
Who gave Saddam them weapons of mass destruction?

LMAO..hysterical.

Once again the US gov. succeeds greatly at what it`s best at...hypocrisy.

Be quiet you spineless, unpatriotic Liberal peice of trash!

You damn Terrorist-lover!

Why do you hate America?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Hi Joe. Now given the fact that you've listed a large amount of articles covering different topics, I think it is reasonable for you to respect that for now I'm only going to address the parts about Iraq's supposed WMDs. So please bear with me.

Don't worry, I posted a lot of material; take your time going through it.

Well, really...... I posted it because of the section starting at 16 seconds where he says "The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was because we thought he had WMD, it turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make w.....". Of course, the claim that Iraq had the capacity to make and launch WMDs (Chemical/ICBMs and fully functioning launching facilities etc) has time and time again been discredited, as Sunstone mentioned.

Well, the truth about Saddam's WMD capability was only learned after the invasion. There is a reason it was called "global intelligence failure." Bill Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD and the capability to use them (that is why he ordered military strikes on Iraq in 1998), political leaders across the political spectrum in the US claimed that Saddam had WMD, from Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all the way to Bush.

Now onto your 4 articles. All of them with the exception of the Washington Post one are dated mid 2004, before the September 2004 Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's WMD threat which stated that Iraq had no WMDs: see here, here, here and here. Remember, check the dates of my articles and yours, the only exception is the WP one, but we'll get to that in a minute.

This is what I am arguing. There is no contradiction between the articles you posted and ones that I posted. From the articles that I posted it shows that Saddam had WMD, from the articles that you posted it shows that Saddam didn't stockpiles of WMD. This is a big qualification. And the global intelligence failure (which was believed by politicians across the political spectrum) was that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD potentially ready for use.

Finding "highly radioactive sources" and enriched Uranium does not equal inter-continental WMDs

Who is arguing this? Saddam had the resources necessary to build a deadly WMD arsenal; the world's intelligence thought he had stockpiles of WMD. This intelligence was incorrect.

So in conclusion, they found some Uranium and some Medical and Industrial Radioactive material, and speculated the possibility that some of the unidentified sources could hypothetically be used as a "dirty bomb", again that doesn't even equal a WMD.

No, the rather uncontroversial point is that if Saddam was still in power he would be developing such WMD capability with the resources available and we know that he supported terrorism so he could pass this technology to these groups.

So they found some Chemicals, that doesn't equal WMDs.

Chemical weapons are considered part of WMD.

I disagree

I think your links show that some chemicals were found along with some Medical and Industrial radioactive material, and that some insurgents had possession of some chemicals in a "suspected lab" EDIT: dated to be from after (and no doubt in response to) our illegal invasion.

Oh and that an old artillery shell exploded and no-one was seriously injured.

What we learned is that Saddam had a WMD program only that it was in a pretty sorry state (i.e. not stockpiles). Here is the kicker: nobody knew that. It was a global intelligence failure. This doesn't mean Saddam had no WMD, he did, it was the amount and capability that was the question. And we know from interviews of Saddam after he was captured what he was doing. He was bluffing. He wanted the world to believe that he was powerful and dangerous and we know that he thought there was no way that we were going to invade (he was going to rely on 'useful idiots' like you and Sunstone to make the case that we are the bad guys).

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi linwood,

I find it wildly entertaining that the guy in your avatar is the same guy who empowered Saddam to be able to control Iraq with an iron fist.

Reagans assistance and aid given to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war made it possible for him to gather and hold the power he had.
Who gave Saddam them weapons of mass destruction?

LMAO..hysterical.

Once again the US gov. succeeds greatly at what it`s best at...hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I know this passes for intellectual discourse on the left. Yes, we gave Saddam support in the Iran/Iraq war because the US believed Iran was more dangerous than Iraq at the time.

History lesson; we also supported genocidal leader Stalin because we thought that the Axis powers were more of a threat at that time, only to oppose the Soviets after WWII. I am sure you would also cry hypocrisy on that.

 

[kai]

Being a muslim of course might give one priority to help other muslims. However, it does not make one go radical. It doesn't mean to target civilians and blow ourselves up, especially when that directly oppose our teachings.

The motive to go radical is the position they're in. The desperate position caused by the attacks and the lack of fighting back from anyone....... What the US done for example in Iraq is a motive for lots of people.

I dont think any of the 7/7 bombers in Britain were in a "desperate position" I beleive their position was a warped religious "jihad" mentality that led them to commit murder.

 

[Badran]

I dont think any of the 7/7 bombers in Britain were in a "desperate position" I beleive their position was a warped religious "jihad" mentality that led them to commit murder.

I'm not referring to a particular incident, or saying that this is the cause for all terroristic attacks. Apparently terrorism occurs even within the same groups, which wouldn't be for the reasons i'm saying. My point is such mentality that arisen against the US and perhaps some other countries as well, is a reaction to what happens to millions of muslims around the world. Which acts as a prime motivator. Radical leaders have managed to use these things committed against muslims to charge or motivate some people.

However concerning that particular incident you mentioned. What did you mean by jihad? I mean jihad against who, and for what reason do you mainly think?

 

[Aquitaine]

Well, the truth about Saddam's WMD capability was only learned after the invasion. There is a reason it was called "global intelligence failure." Bill Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD and the capability to use them (that is why he ordered military strikes on Iraq in 1998), political leaders across the political spectrum in the US claimed that Saddam had WMD, from Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all the way to Bush.

Nonesense, it was nothing more than a series of rumours , fear-mongering and a load of fabricated "intellegence" reports. There's a huge difference between presuming one has WMDs, and using fabricated intellegence to assert that one has WMDs.

Oh by the way:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd
-Oops!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1166479.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
-D' oh!

But just for the sake of it, here is a nice video clip compiling some of the BS that was produced:

[youtube]EYI7JXGqd0o[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&feature=related

This is what I am arguing. There is no contradiction between the articles you posted and ones that I posted. From the articles that I posted it shows that Saddam had WMD, from the articles that you posted it shows that Saddam didn't stockpiles of WMD. This is a big qualification. And the global intelligence failure (which was believed by politicians across the political spectrum) was that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD potentially ready for use.

Again, wrong. Both mine and your articles acknowledge that this isn't the case. Simple as. A bunch of chemicals, some old 1980's Soviet rockets, some Medical and Commercial radioactive material and a roadside bomb filled with Sarin does not equal either WMD or "stockpiles" of WMD.

Who is arguing this? Saddam had the resources necessary to build a deadly WMD arsenal; the world's intelligence thought he had stockpiles of WMD. This intelligence was incorrect.

You're right about it being an Intellegence blunder, as well as cases of fabricated intellegence (like the Yellowcake Uranium and 45 minutes claim), as well as cases of White House officials simply ignoring any intellegence that is contrary to the assertion that Iraq had WMDs.

No, the rather uncontroversial point is that if Saddam was still in power he would be developing such WMD capability with the resources available and we know that he supported terrorism so he could pass this technology to these groups.

That's nothing but speculation.

Chemical weapons are considered part of WMD.

LOLWUT? Look Joe, a bunch of old useless Soviet battlefield rockets with tiny traces of chemicals in them are not WMD. Nor does having a bunch of certain chemicals laying around in different areas in a country (in insurgent "suspect labs" created after our invasion) mean they have "part of WMD".

What we learned is that Saddam had a WMD program only that it was in a pretty sorry state (i.e. not stockpiles).

Not quite: we learnt that Iraq had no WMD, period.

Here is the kicker: nobody knew that. It was a global intelligence failure.

My Sunday Times and Salon articles that I just posted show show that both Bush and Blair knew Iraq had no WMD, prior the the invasion. It was more than just an Intellegence failure, it was an attempt to fabricate and twist the truth to justify new rapid military policies and invasions.

And we know from interviews of Saddam after he was captured what he was doing. He was bluffing. He wanted the world to believe that he was powerful and dangerous and we know that he thought there was no way that we were going to invade (he was going to rely on 'useful idiots' like you and Sunstone to make the case that we are the bad guys).

If by "we" you mean senior members of the Bush Administration and Blair Cabinet, along with individuals who deliberately tried to manipulate the truth in order to justify illegal wars, then yes, the case can be made that "we" are the bad guys here. Surprise surprise.

Give up Joe, seriously. Acknowledging the truth won't make you any less "Patriotic" or "American". Don't listen to O' Reilly and Kristol, and stop trying to hold on to these discredited conspiracy theories that Iraq had WMD and was a dire threat to the World.

 

[Aquitaine]

How about the pointless blowing up of civillians based on the lies such as the west is waging war on Islam?

Yes, that creates blowback too.

We are giving them security to enable them to take the first steps in what we take for granted

No we're not, we are propping up a corrupt and unpopular cenntralized government in a fruitless, expensive, and unwinnable war. Just like what the USA did with Nguyen Van Thieu in Vietnam.

We ae not giving up anything its up the the Afghhans who they sell their assets to, not us.

Wrong. It's Karzai who is selling off Afghanistan's assets, not the Afghan people.

I know that tell me do you get angry everytime civilians get shot or blown to pieces by insurgents?

No. You wanna know why? Because people who blow up or shoot civilians in pointless suicide bombings are the bad guys. We, on the other hand, are supposed to be the good guys. After a while, it gets harder and harder to justify your own country's actions when it starts to illegally invade and occupy other countries. I'm sorry kai, but I'm answering honestly - I find it increasingly difficult to defend my country's (or rather, government's) position on our foreign policy, when it involves **** like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thats not the only way to not get new recruits you can bow down and let them get new recruits by being hailed as victors and bully thier way into power and then have to deal with them later .

Let the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, they'll most likely do a much better job of stomping out the Opium Poppys atleast. Honestly, I do not care, and I doubt most Brits truely give a damn either - we all seem to be more concerned about the new iPhone and EastEnders. It's only when all the fear-mongering kicks in that people suddenly assume the Taliban=Terrorism on British streets - and all panic breaks loose. Hell I remember a few months back when Gordon Brown said "And of course, we all know why we're in Afghanistan: our forces are there to make sure that Terrorism doesn't make it's way onto the streets of Britain".

Now THAT is bollox.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Nonesense, it was nothing more than a series of rumours , fear-mongering and a load of fabricated "intellegence" reports. There's a huge difference between presuming one has WMDs, and using fabricated intellegence to assert that one has WMDs.

How do explain those across the political spectrum believing that Saddam had WMD? What was in it for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy to claim that Saddam had WMD?

Again, wrong. Both mine and your articles acknowledge that this isn't the case. Simple as. A bunch of chemicals, some old 1980's Soviet rockets, some Medical and Commercial radioactive material and a roadside bomb filled with Sarin does not equal either WMD or "stockpiles" of WMD.

You can deny it all you want, but Saddam had some form of a WMD program. He had materials necessary for a WMD program. What the flawed intelligence indicated was that he had stockpiles of the material. That was the incorrect part.

That's nothing but speculation.

No, it’s not. Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear facilities in the 1981. You really have to live in a fantasy land to believe that Saddam wasn't attempting to reconstitute his nuclear capabilities after this strike.

My Sunday Times and Salon articles that I just posted show show that both Bush and Blair knew Iraq had no WMD, prior the the invasion. It was more than just an Intellegence failure, it was an attempt to fabricate and twist the truth to justify new rapid military policies and invasions.

Talk about your conspiracy theories. First, we know that Saddam had WMD, although in a fairly degraded state. Second, so a CIA officer presents intelligence that Saddam has no WMD and Bush doesn't believe him (for justifiable reasons, Saddam's past use of WMD, his secrecy with regard to the UN inspectors) and you claim that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD. This doesn't logically follow.

If by "we" you mean senior members of the Bush Administration and Blair Cabinet, along with individuals who deliberately tried to manipulate the truth in order to justify illegal wars, then yes, the case can be made that "we" are the bad guys here. Surprise surprise.

Yeah, 'illegal' wars. Are you defending Saddam's sovereignty now? Then you truly are a 'useful idiot.'

Give up Joe, seriously. Acknowledging the truth won't make you any less "Patriotic" or "American". Don't listen to O' Reilly and Kristol, and stop trying to hold on to these discredited conspiracy theories that Iraq had WMD and was a dire threat to the World.

The hilarious thing is I am not arguing anything that is controversial. Saddam had WMD materials and was pursuing more. And stockpiles and the advanced state of his WMD program was the mistake based on flawed intelligence. This pursuit of a WMD program along with his extensive terrorist ties did show that he was a threat, especially not even two years after 9/11 where pretty everybody was expecting another terrorist attack.

 

[linwood]

History lesson; we also supported genocidal leader Stalin because we thought that the Axis powers were more of a threat at that time, only to oppose the Soviets after WWII. I am sure you would also cry hypocrisy on that.

Apples and oranges.

Please stop assuming everyone follows absolute dogmatic ideologies.

 

[kai]

Yes, that creates blowback too.



No we're not, we are propping up a corrupt and unpopular cenntralized government in a fruitless, expensive, and unwinnable war. Just like what the USA did with Nguyen Van Thieu in Vietnam.
No resemblance this is a UN backed operation


Wrong. It's Karzai who is selling off Afghanistan's assets, not the Afghan people.

The Afghan mine Minister, Wahid Ullah Shahrani told in a news conference at Kabul that an international investor’s conference would be held in London next week.

AFGHANISTAN TO TAP MINERAL RESERVES


Its hard to accept progress for some people failure is a happy ending for many people who would rather score points against our own governments than see the |Afghans have some kind of decent life.
No. You wanna know why? Because people who blow up or shoot civilians in pointless suicide bombings are the bad guys. We, on the other hand, are supposed to be the good guys. After a while, it gets harder and harder to justify your own country's actions when it starts to illegally invade and occupy other countries. I'm sorry kai, but I'm answering honestly - I find it increasingly difficult to defend my country's (or rather, government's) position on our foreign policy, when it involves **** like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nothing Illegal about the invasion of Afghanistan, but you still dont get angry when people blow civilians to smithereens


Let the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, they'll most likely do a much better job of stomping out the Opium Poppys atleast. Honestly, I do not care, and I doubt most Brits truely give a damn either - we all seem to be more concerned about the new iPhone and EastEnders. It's only when all the fear-mongering kicks in that people suddenly assume the Taliban=Terrorism on British streets - and all panic breaks loose. Hell I remember a few months back when Gordon Brown said "And of course, we all know why we're in Afghanistan: our forces are there to make sure that Terrorism doesn't make it's way onto the streets of Britain".

Now THAT is bollox.

Surely you have some idea of whats going on?

 

[Aquitaine]

How do explain those across the political spectrum believing that Saddam had WMD? What was in it for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy to claim that Saddam had WMD?

Uh I dunno......... maybe Politicians tend to lie in order to advance their agendas, perhaps?

You can deny it all you want, but Saddam had some form of a WMD program.

How do you explain those across the political spectrum (including your former President, his Vice President and his Secretary of Defense) have all done a U-turn and have said the opposite of what you're trying to say?

No, it’s not. Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear facilities in the 1981. You really have to live in a fantasy land to believe that Saddam wasn't attempting to reconstitute his nuclear capabilities after this strike.

Both of Bush's Secretaries of State think otherwise (atleast before 9/11 and the whole fear-mongering propaganda-fest, which again they were wrong on)

[youtube]v0wbpKCdkkQ[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

Also the former head of MI5 shares a similar view:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/20/iraq-inquiry-saddam-mi5-chief

By the way, got any evidence to back up your claim that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs to use against us?

Talk about your conspiracy theories. First, we know that Saddam had WMD, although in a fairly degraded state.

Evidence please.

Second, so a CIA officer presents intelligence that Saddam has no WMD and Bush doesn't believe him (for justifiable reasons, Saddam's past use of WMD, his secrecy with regard to the UN inspectors) and you claim that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD. This doesn't logically follow.

The article shows that senior members of the CIA had altered and "sexed up" the report and removed the part where it says Iraq had no WMD. Bush was also not interested in any intellegence that didn't agree with his own (more like PNAC's - amirite? ) assertion that Saddam had WMD.

Yeah, 'illegal' wars. Are you defending Saddam's sovereignty now? Then you truly are a 'useful idiot.'

Oh so...... basically if an evil dictator runs the show then the USA should have legal backing to just go in and blow the whole place up on false intellegence and with no after plan whatsoever? In that case let's declare war on the entire planet since it's virtually all run by tyranny (whether it Government or Corporate).

You could call it The War on the World or something.

The hilarious thing is I am not arguing anything that is controversial. Saddam had WMD materials and was pursuing more.

Evidence please. Oh and BTW I'm not including the chemicals and military aid which the US exported to Saddam in the 80's.

 

[Aquitaine]

No resemblance this is a UN backed operation

It makes no difference if it's UN, UK, or US. End of the day:

Was it a pointless conflict?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was it an unwinnable conflict?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was it a complete waste of Human lives, money and military equipment?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Did the US/UK forces end up having to pull out in the end and admit defeat anyways (which is what we'll be doing in 2014)?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were we backing an unpopular and out-of-touch, corrupt government?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was there a lot of jungle in the area?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: No.

Was the conflict a result of the US/UK trying to over-step it's authority and impose reckless and aggressive foreign policy on smaller weaker nations?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were there a lot of Muslims in the region?
Vietnam: No. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were the people back home who opposed the war and aggression nothing but unpatriotic self-haters, who hated the idea of modern Civilization, freedom and Democracy (and were Terrorist-lovers)?
Vietnam: No. Afghanistan: No.

The Afghan mine Minister, Wahid Ullah Shahrani told in a news conference at Kabul that an international investor’s conference would be held in London next week.

And?

Its hard to accept progress for some people failure is a happy ending for many people who would rather score points against our own governments than see the |Afghans have some kind of decent life.

It's hard for some people to see past their own country's propaganda, especially when being bombarded with lies such as we invaded in order to "spread Democracy and Freedom" especially whilst being force fed fear-mongering tactics, such as "We must stay there or they'll attack us on our streets!". Some people would rather remain blinded by unquestioning "Patriotism" and believe that our Armed Forces (and manipulating Government) serve only as a Humanitarian Rescue & Happy Times Force, and that we don't fire Depleted Uranium from our Tanks, but instead we fire roses and cute bunnys from them (and everywhere we go we're greeting and seen as Liberators).

Surely you have some idea of whats going on?

Huh? Are you trying to imply that we're there in order to liberate the country and prevent deaths on British streets?

 

[kai]

It makes no difference if it's UN, UK, or US. End of the day:

Was it a pointless conflict?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was it an unwinnable conflict?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was it a complete waste of Human lives, money and military equipment?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Did the US/UK forces end up having to pull out in the end and admit defeat anyways (which is what we'll be doing in 2014)?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were we backing an unpopular and out-of-touch, corrupt government?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Was there a lot of jungle in the area?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: No.

Was the conflict a result of the US/UK trying to over-step it's authority and impose reckless and aggressive foreign policy on smaller weaker nations?
Vietnam: Yes. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were there a lot of Muslims in the region?
Vietnam: No. Afghanistan: Yes.

Were the people back home who opposed the war and aggression nothing but unpatriotic self-haters, who hated the idea of modern Civilization, freedom and Democracy (and were Terrorist-lovers)?
Vietnam: No. Afghanistan: No.

Comparing it to Vietnam is just silly

And?



It's hard for some people to see past their own country's propaganda, especially when being bombarded with lies such as we invaded in order to "spread Democracy and Freedom" especially whilst being force fed fear-mongering tactics, such as "We must stay there or they'll attack us on our streets!". Some people would rather remain blinded by unquestioning "Patriotism" and believe that our Armed Forces (and manipulating Government) serve only as a Humanitarian Rescue & Happy Times Force, and that we don't fire Depleted Uranium from our Tanks, but instead we fire roses and cute bunnys from them (and everywhere we go we're greeting and seen as Liberators).
Whats patriotism got to do with it? and we have to stay there until it is such a place that groups of murdering scum like Alqueda cannot call it home. Bunnys? Roses?


Huh? Are you trying to imply that we're there in order to liberate the country and prevent deaths on British streets?

No Paul we are there to kill civillians and rape the country of all its worth( a bit of a jolly really) but you already know that and i dont know how you obtained that information as its classified 00 agents only, so i guess the cat is well and trully out of the bag.

 

[idea]

On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[16][17] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages:

1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries and engage the US in a long war of attrition.
4. Convert Al Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the 7 July 2005 London bombings.
5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the US will collapse, and a Wahhabi Caliphate will be installed across the region.

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuisDantas]

The scary thing is, that actually makes sense.

 

[Smoke]

On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[16][17] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages:

1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries and engage the US in a long war of attrition.
4. Convert Al Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the 7 July 2005 London bombings.
5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the US will collapse, and a Wahhabi Caliphate will be installed across the region.

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to be working.