a george walker bush portrait

[kitkat]

a picture of george walker bush, made from hundreds of dead soldiers' pictures. george w is puppet and a dangerous man running the most power country on earth. the people behind him and his presidency are even more dangerous.


http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=38847&stc=1

[Ferrari Tifosi]

Never knew I was dangerous. Anyways, war is a necessary evil, live with it.

[SlickHolden]

a picture of george walker bush, made from hundreds of dead soldiers' pictures. george w is puppet and a dangerous man running the most power country on earth. the people behind him and his presidency are even more dangerous.
Not a fan of dubya ???

[drakkie]

i saw the pic before, but it is a ok one.I wonder how much work went into that



QUESTION:why would you be a fan of George bush??He created such a mess in the world!!! :mad:
-he created global recession
-two wars with lots of killed and wounded men just to be popular with the american people
-he caused he oilprice to go up like hell
-and I can go on for hours .......

[gtface]

Exactly how did the President cause a recession? How did he cause the gas prices to go up? We were in a recession long before bush did ANYTHING that could possibly affect the economy.

[SlickHolden]

If my country pulls away from Iraq at xmas that is if there is a change in goverment then bush will if he is there also put bans on my country because the area where we live is a little unsafe at this time. Trouble is knocking closer and closer everyday on the door and the SAS are needed home now they are best to handle this problem if any. Doesnt meen that we wont have some influence there we will train the police give aid. But i dont see why we should be punished like a dirty dog

[IBrake4Rainbows]

To be fair GWB didn't actually start the rise in oil prices.

Instead he's merely struck fear into groups like OPEC, with each of them weary that there probably the next in line.

So what do they do? they jack up oil prices, hoping to scrounge that extra cent before GWB orders and Invasion to take their stock.

Did anyone see the news reports of the Red Cross ordering the U.S. Army that if they don't charge Saddam Hussein, and all other prisoners in Guantanemo Bay/ Abu Ghraib by June 30, they, under the Geneva Convention, have to release them. The U.S. Responded by saying - and i partially quote. " They still represent a threat and will not be released."

If this isn't a violation of the Geneva Convention, i have no clue what is. Already these people are treated like dog Sh!t, then they are classed as "Opposition Fighters", not POWs, so that they don't have to be treated the same way. The U.S. Military is blatantly grabbing the Geneva Convention, something it was all too quick to use during the build-up to the war, and indeed it helped create, ripping it up and using it to clean up it's dogs mess in the hallway.

The whole man's policy platform can be summarised as such: "Trust me, i'll bomb other countries that feed our ever-increasing oil supply. I'll help every employer make all workers casual, i'll Invade every country that disagrees with me and i'll have my little finger hovering over the big red button the whole time. Vote for me, your local Hick with a fat stack and my fathers name to ride on."

not that Kerry will be any better, or indeed Latham will be Better Than Howard....... did someone say Catch 22?

[Coventrysucks]

What is it?
43 trillion dollars of debt?
Something like that.

$43,000,000,000,000
Wow - what a lot of zeroes :)

[Matra et Alpine]

So what do they do? they jack up oil prices, hoping to scrounge that extra cent before GWB orders and Invasion to take their stock.
IB4R - that's not how oil prices work.

it's supply and demand in the oil markets around the world.
Oil refineres purchase oil at 'going rate'. If someone is fearful of future suplised then they are willing to pay more. AND so panic can set in and more buying occurs.
One of the earliest triuggers to increased oil price last year was Esso admitting that they're oil estimates were low. There was a huge futures buying spurt in the markets to ensure supply. BTW, US economy is one of the largest GROWING markets behind China. It's this connection that gas-guzzling drivers seem to miss :)

Anyway to return, OPEC has regular meetings where they plan the output for the coming period. It's at these meetings that OPEC agree output and indirectly price. If we cut oil needs by 10% then it would have a BIGGER impact than OPEC could ever weild on oil price !!

OPEC has offered to increase production before and was not taken up.
They are doing so now.
BUT it can't just be a huge increase, or very quickly we run out of storage and transport for crude. It's VERY expensive to shut a field down, it's best to keep it running at a regular output so storage, transport and field management can be maintained.

[drakkie]

Exactly how did the President cause a recession? How did he cause the gas prices to go up? We were in a recession long before bush did ANYTHING that could possibly affect the economy.

GWB has ordered very high taxes on any good that is iomported( i believe 20%), this causes theother countries to have a problem cos the US imports a lot. Starting the war in Afghanistan didnt help in creating stability in the world, and the war in Iraq made it even worse.

This may sound very strange, but I can understand why the arabian world hates America.They invade their countries for no reason , and pollute the nature and exploit natural sources.

[Gnafu the Great]

i saw the pic before, but it is a ok one.I wonder how much work went into that

Probably not much, you can get a free program that will take pictures you give it and turn it into a mosaic of the base picture you give it.

[Mustang]

I saw this picture in a newspaper a few months ago, it was much better wuality and unless you looked real carefully from a bit of a distance it looked like a normal pic. kind of shocking when you see all the people together like that, that have died for a pointless couse ;)

[Ferrari Tifosi]

I saw this picture in a newspaper a few months ago, it was much better wuality and unless you looked real carefully from a bit of a distance it looked like a normal pic. kind of shocking when you see all the people together like that, that have died for a pointless couse ;)

Yes, a pointless cause that has liberated a country from an terrorist regime, and got rid a of a possible danger to the rest of the world in Sadam Hussein.

[Mustang]

Yes, a pointless cause that has liberated a country from an terrorist regime, and got rid a of a possible danger to the rest of the world in Sadam Hussein.

that bit is rite i suppose, but they could of done it alot better, instead of bombing everywhere when they didnt even know for sure if there vere nukes. they could of had special ops people go in at night or stealth planes that just knocked out one or two buildings.

and you cant exactly say that the country is free, they still go round blowing themselfes up, if they felt free then they wouldnt do that would they :rolleyes:

[Ferrari Tifosi]

that bit is rite i suppose, but they could of done it alot better, instead of bombing everywhere when they didnt even know for sure if there vere nukes. they could of had special ops people go in at night or stealth planes that just knocked out one or two buildings.

and you cant exactly say that the country is free, they still go round blowing themselfes up, if they felt free then they wouldnt do that would they :rolleyes:

True but things take time. Hopefully Iraq will become a strong republic of some kind in the upcoming years.

[mawi427]

i saw the pic before, but it is a ok one.I wonder how much work went into that



QUESTION:why would you be a fan of George bush??He created such a mess in the world!!! :mad:
-he created global recession
-two wars with lots of killed and wounded men just to be popular with the american people
-he caused he oilprice to go up like hell
-and I can go on for hours .......
really...so Bush started the war in Afghanistan?...see i remember something involving 4 passenger jets, the twin towers, the pentagon, and a field in PA, and thousands of American citizens dead...jus had to throw my two cents in

[Coventrysucks]

Yes, a pointless cause that has liberated a country from an terrorist regime, and got rid a of a possible danger to the rest of the world in Sadam Hussein.

Balderdash!
1) There are no links between Hussein and Al Qaida, although other terrorists are available.
2) Hussein wasn't a "danger to the rest of the world". What was he going to use? Colourful language, a feather duster?
3) Yes the Iraqi people have been freed from an oppressive regime.



and you cant exactly say that the country is free, they still go round blowing themselfes up, if they felt free then they wouldnt do that would they :rolleyes:

I think that it is actually groups of Anti - American, Saddam Loyalists who are behind the bombings.
Most of their targets have been American Soldiers, Contractors working for American companies and Iraqi security forces, not the general populace.
They are attempting to get the Americans to respond in a heavy handed way so that support for the Americans amongst the general population will fade. They can't do this if they are killing the people they want to get on their side.
I think that the majority of the populace are pleased that Saddam has gone, but they probably won't be too pleased with the way that things have gone since the "end of the war"


really...so Bush started the war in Afghanistan?...see i remember something involving 4 passenger jets, the twin towers, the pentagon, and a field in PA, and thousands of American citizens dead...jus had to throw my two cents in

This kind of attitude disgusts me. It seems like you think that there was no terrorism before September 2001.
There have been countless acts of Terrorism across the globe, for many, many decades. To me September 2001 was just another terrorist attack, just one that was responsible for a greater loss of life than any others.

Just because it happened in America this time, it doesn't make you special.

Anyway YES Bush DID start the war against the rulers of Afghanistan - The Taliban.
If you can make the effort to remember back 2 years, the Taliban refused to give up Bin Laden - as a result American started hostlilties.
Afghanistan never attacked America.
Just like he started the war in Iraq. I don't recall that dramatic invasion of the Miami beaches by the Elite Iraqi Rebublican Guard, do you?

This is so depressing.
Does America know what happens beyond it's shores, sometimes I really doubt it.

[cls12vg30]

that bit is rite i suppose, but they could of done it alot better, instead of bombing everywhere when they didnt even know for sure if there vere nukes. they could of had special ops people go in at night or stealth planes that just knocked out one or two buildings.

and you cant exactly say that the country is free, they still go round blowing themselfes up, if they felt free then they wouldnt do that would they :rolleyes:

Umm that's pretty much what they did. The U.S. air campaign in Iraq used precision-guided munitions almost exclusively. Never in the history of warfare has an invading force gone to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure, even increasing the risk to themselves to do so. Sure collateral damage occurred of course, but it occurred at a lower rate for the amount of ordnance expended than in any other war in modern history. And when such damage did occur, the cameras were right there to show everybody. But when a satellite-guided bomb gutted a Baath Party building, leaving the surrounding civilian buildings undamaged, the cameras weren't so interested.

[Ferrari Tifosi]

[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Balderdash!
1) There are no links between Hussein and Al Qaida, although other terrorists are available.
2) Hussein wasn't a "danger to the rest of the world". What was he going to use? Colourful language, a feather duster?
3) Yes the Iraqi people have been freed from an oppressive regime.

1. He was a terrorist to his own damn people!
2. Not a threat to the threat to world? Anyone who kills his own people and oppresses them is a threat to the rest of the world.

[Matra et Alpine]

[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]1. He was a terrorist to his own damn people!
2. Not a threat to the threat to world? Anyone who kills his own people and oppresses them is a threat to the rest of the world.
dangerous ground.

The true free nations of the world might decide that Bush should be 'removed' as he wasn't legally voted in and hence is actually operating a dictatorship !!

No nation should presume to control another except for the due process of international law. Something which Bush and Blair seem to have conventiently forgotten.

[lithuanianmafia]

dangerous ground.

...No nation should presume to control another except for the due process of international law. Something which Bush and Blair seem to have conventiently forgotten.

true, they did go to the UN, and they said that there was no just cause to go to Iraq, yet, bush and blair sent their troops anyways, in effect, violating UN laws. what good is the UN then if countries attack a weaker country for its resources, and the UN just sits by and does practically nothing.


really...so Bush started the war in Afghanistan?...see i remember something involving 4 passenger jets, the twin towers, the pentagon, and a field in PA, and thousands of American citizens dead...

again, as coventry said, ur treatin 9/11 as the one and only terrorist attack in the history of civilization. american government always seems to blame the arab world for many terrorist attacks inside its borders. after the oklahama city bombings, the first thing the FBI did was look at extremists from India, despite the fact that McVeigh didn't exactly leave no clues, what with the Ryder truck (rental ---> can trace) and not a very organized escape. plus, it looks as if you've been watchin a lil too much CNN. CNN is so pro-Bush that it contaminates the basic news. instead of coverin an illegal war, they accept what the President says, which turned out to be a load of crap.

Let's look at the evidence that was presented to invade Iraq:


Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction --> Iraq did in fact have a nuclear weapons program, around 15 years ago. and even then, they were no where near the ability to produce nuclear weapons. the one report that said Iraq was tryin to purchase enriched uranium in 2001 from a country in Africa turned out to be a blatent lie.

Sadamm Hussein was a militious dictator: yes, he was in fact a very bad leader of his country, but the US made it appear as if he was the only kind in the world! Pakistan's military government and Saudi Arabia's monarchy have similar policies to Hussein. they execute people for disagreeing with the government, and often their family becomes victimized.

Political prisoners torchured because of their beliefs: Abu Gharib Prison, need I say anymore?




2. Not a threat to the threat to world? Anyone who kills his own people and oppresses them is a threat to the rest of the world.

and how exactly is this a threat to the rest of the world. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do the same thing, and they aren't seen as a threat. oh ya, that's right, they give the US oil!

[Coventrysucks]

3) Yes the Iraqi people have been freed from an oppressive regime.

1. He was a terrorist to his own damn people!

Which is why I put 3) :rolleyes:


2. Not a threat to the threat to world? Anyone who kills his own people and oppresses them is a threat to the rest of the world.

Yes, If I remember he was just about to launch a ferocious attack on all the free countries of the world...

With its army of highly trained men, armed with the latest high tech weaponary.
Thousands of Nuclear warheads prepared to lay waste to the homes of those who would question their rule.
Many hundereds of tanks, planes, attack helicopters, capable of delivering a devestating array of firepower.
Not to mention the reserves of many different types of chemical and biological weapons.

No, hold on, that is the American army.

The Iraqi army consisted of a few thousand men in it for the pay, armed with nought but funny moustaches and an AK 47, if they were really lucky, they might have been given some bullets as well.
For transport they mostly had 70's ex-Soviet machinery, however, most of their tanks/ heavy guns didn't have ammo either, and are less reliable than a dead donkey.

Did I feel threatened? - I almost soiled myself.
from laughing too hard

Face it - You've been lied too, by your fearless leader.

Yes, getting rid of Saddam was an A1 idea, but the reasons given publically were unfounded and highly unlikely. (Where are those chemical weapons? They have been there for over 12 months, and they still haven't found anything)

*sigh*

[GT500]

imo he should be kicked out and stuck in an insane asylum. He hasn't done anything good really. really, i can't believe he got into office. now he's got nukes under his control. what next? honestly, gwb jr jr?

[SlickHolden]

I can't see iraq every being free, They live a differnt way to us westerners.
There will always be trouble there.
But there won't be saddam insain which is a plus :D
Or his 2 worthless sons

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I can imagine the next election now.

some state will issue punch card tickets, like before, and so recount after recount will commence. Until finally, after about 2 months, a new president will be sworn in, that is unless of course any of you Americans actually vote for GWB, not that many did last time, but thems the breaks. I wonder if we will mourn him when he goes like we mourn Reagan?

[gtface]

dangerous ground.

The true free nations of the world might decide that Bush should be 'removed' as he wasn't legally voted in and hence is actually operating a dictatorship !!

No nation should presume to control another except for the due process of international law. Something which Bush and Blair seem to have conventiently forgotten.

He wasn't legally voted in? As I remember you don't have to win the popular vote to be elected the president of the United States, you only have to win the electoral vote, but you europeans wouldn't know anything about that, would you? Even through all of the recounts Bush came out on top every time. Now how was he not legally elected? There is no Florida State law (and no Federal law for that matter) that gives the losing candidate permission to hold recounts over and over until the end of time (or until he wins, whichever comes first). Face it, George W Bush was elected. Can we move on to real issues now?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

If you'd actually check your facts, i believe it was Al Gore which won the first count, only to have GWB make it go into recount, after the third or so they gave up and declared him the winner.

A real issue is that the leader of one of the worlds most powerful Nations, possibly the most dangerous, and by far the most gluttonous, may have beena ble to get into that job by having to interpret the votes to his own accord. I'll bet you that you would be on our side if it was Al Gore as President.

Iraq is a bungle, Afghanistan is no better than before (Opium is still the main industry, go figure.....) and the world is less secure than before. You've managed to piss off those people who attack you more than they were before! if this is what you call world peace, give me anarchy any day......

Would it be better without Bush? Highly unlikely, Kerry and him share similar views, other than Iraq, perhaps. And i don't think Kerry will be able to pull the U.S. out of it's economic Nosedive. I find it interesting that while Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac are soaring in the polls, Blair, Howard and Bush seem to be falling. Coincidence? Methinks not.

[Coventrysucks]

As I remember you don't have to win the popular vote to be elected the president of the United States, you only have to win the electoral vote, but you europeans wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

What does that mean?
In the UK, for any election, all people over 18 years old who are registered are entitled to vote.
The polling stations open at 7am, and close at 10pm.
You vote for who you want in, your vote goes in a ballot box and is counted.
The winner is the person with the most votes.
That is democracy.
There is no chad, pregnant or otherwise.

[Ferrari Tifosi]

Coventry, no that's a republic. There is no such thing as a democracy. Matra, how do you figure that he wasn't legally elected????? He had the most electoral votes, he won.

[megotmea7]

What does that mean?
In the UK, for any election, all people over 18 years old who are registered are entitled to vote.
The polling stations open at 7am, and close at 10pm.
You vote for who you want in, your vote goes in a ballot box and is counted.
The winner is the person with the most votes.
That is democracy.
There is no chad, pregnant or otherwise.
not the way the american electorial system works, i know its the stupidest thing in the world but the popular vote only wins half the time :mad:

[MrVette83]

I'm not gonna come out and say that I support the war 100%, what I do support though is Bush in his word. He set forth a list of items to be met, with the threat of war if they were not met. He stood by his word, the criteria of his requests were not met and we went to war. I have far greater respect for Pres. Bush than I do his supposed opponent in the upcoming elections. John Kerry supported the war at first, and now b/c it suits him does not. He visited Detroit and bragged to be an SUV owner but then on Earthday he was questioned about it publically and now all of a sudden it's not his it's "his family's". At one point he proudly fought in the Vietnam War just to turn around and claim he burned his ribbons and medals, then turn it around again to say he didn't. John Kerry has an answer for every side of a question asked, depending upon the crowd he holds, this answer changes to glorify and exemplify his greatness. I will step down from my soapbox now.

[Matra et Alpine]

Coventry, no that's a republic. There is no such thing as a democracy. Matra, how do you figure that he wasn't legally elected????? He had the most electoral votes, he won.
all that 'chad' in Florida :)

[Coventrysucks]

Coventry, no that's a republic. There is no such thing as a democracy.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a Republic, as it is ruled by a Monarchy.
Republics elect their supreme leaders, like in the US. You elect the president, he rules the country = republic.
In practice, the Monarchy doesn't rule the country, but it is still not a republic.

A democracy is

"a. a system of goverment by the whole population usu. through elected representatives
b. a State so governed."

"For electoral purposes the United Kingdom is divided into 651 constituencies each returning one MP (Member of Parliament) to the House of Commons.
All British subjects are entitled to vote provided they are 18 years old and over and are included on the electoral register which is compiled annually.
The only exceptions are members of the House of Lords and those incapacitated through insanity or imprisonment."

So the whole population votes for their MP's. The MP with the most votes is elected to the House of Commons.
The party with the most MP's elected becomes the ruling party. MP's who have been elected, but are not part of the ruling party form Her Majesty's Oppositon.

To recap:
The whole population votes.
The elected representatives govern the country.

That meets all of the criteria for "a." of the description of a democracy.
Therefore I deduce that the UK is a democracy.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Matra et Alpine]

I'm not gonna come out and say that I support the war 100%, what I do support though is Bush in his word. He set forth a list of items to be met, with the threat of war if they were not met. He stood by his word, the criteria of his requests were not met and we went to war.
But it is now known - and a few British politicians lost their positions by pointing it out at the time - that it was all fabrication.

Bush linked Al Quaeda, Saddam and 9/11 in a public broadcast and yet there was NO evidence that ANY Iraqi's were involved.

He deliberately pulled on American fears and anger to get what he wanted.

[werty]

I'm not gonna come out and say that I support the war 100%, what I do support though is Bush in his word. He set forth a list of items to be met, with the threat of war if they were not met. He stood by his word, the criteria of his requests were not met and we went to war. I have far greater respect for Pres. Bush than I do his supposed opponent in the upcoming elections. John Kerry supported the war at first, and now b/c it suits him does not. He visited Detroit and bragged to be an SUV owner but then on Earthday he was questioned about it publically and now all of a sudden it's not his it's "his family's". At one point he proudly fought in the Vietnam War just to turn around and claim he burned his ribbons and medals, then turn it around again to say he didn't. John Kerry has an answer for every side of a question asked, depending upon the crowd he holds, this answer changes to glorify and exemplify his greatness. I will step down from my soapbox now.
i agree with you 100%

[lithuanianmafia]

well, i guess u just vote for the one u hate the least, right?

[megotmea7]

well, i guess u just vote for the one u hate the least, right?
thats how it usually works out around here :(

[SlickHolden]

The S.A.S rule

God bless America
God save the queen
God defend New Zealand
And thank Christ Australia


Free Zimbabwe.

[SilverG35SportC]

Sure America has done some good in Iraq etc.. But what about the
W(eapons) of M(ass) D(estruction). THose were never found? They just took out Saddam and they still havent caught BIn Laden. They re all connected and terrosit groups( An army not part of a gvernment) will still try and take control. Its like trying to kill all the insects in the world, impossible. We will never kill all the terrorists.

[gtface]

We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We found Sarin gas, and other chemical weapons.

[Matra et Alpine]

We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We found Sarin gas, and other chemical weapons.
IIRC the quantities were so small and were mainly left-overs from when Saddam once did have a program !!

hardly worthy of bombing a country and leadership into oblivion and leaving a gaping power vacuum to be filled by possibly a different despot

[lithuanianmafia]

than we hafta remember where iraq's chemical weapons and the basis of their nuclear weapons programs in the 80's came from -----> the USA! The US gave Iraq this technology to fight against Iran, whom the Americans saw as a bigger threat. Once again, the Americans were so wrapped in defeating a Soviet backed country that they frogot who they were helping. Another famous person they originally supported was, believe it or not, Osama bin Laden when he and the origins of al Queda were fighting the Soviet force that had occupied Afghanistan. The US is partially to blame for all of this, they need to look past who they're defeating now, because it could possibly lead to another problem down the road.

[Fowler]

http://billmon.org/archives/001455.html


the more i hear about abu ghraib, the more i start to think this'll happen to everyday americans in the future.

[DodgeNitroBIRM]

and the basis of their nuclear weapons programs in the 80's came from -----> the USA!

Uhh, actually, we have France to thank for that. They sent them the reactor and the nuclear capabilities.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

You'll find the U.S actually supplied most of these countries with weapons during the mid-to-late 80's, Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and Iraq to help gain a Foothold in the Middle East. During GW1 the Americans had to choose sides, and so they chose Kuwait, and the whole thing began.

If you can, cast your mind back to 1984, a ship, name escapes me, is hit with rockets, in the Arabian sea. Around 30 American Sailors die. The attack is blamed on Saddam, he apologises and the whole matter is forgotten for the sake of a good oil supply..........

If that happened today they'd be an outcry, considering how Xenophobic america seems to be nowadays.......

Isn't it nice when you can play Pick-And-Choose with your allies, just to suit your needs and desires? GWB sure thinks so.

[Matra et Alpine]

Uhh, actually, we have France to thank for that. They sent them the reactor and the nuclear capabilities.
US CDC sent them the bioweapons components.

http://home.att.net/~vetcenter/gavebios.htm

Think how many Iraqi families were executed by Saddam by the chemical and bioweapons in the 80s. The US seem 'confused' that Iraqi's want them out of the country and do't see them as 'liberators'. That's because the US provided the very weapons Saddam used to try to exterminate them !!

It gets messy when you've played both sides.
What amazes me is how Bush/Blair seem to wish to ignore that support rather than admit it.

Chekc out ... http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/1992/10-27.html ....

On April 3, 1986, a State Department memo complained about the Pentagon's effort to hold up licenses to Iraq. It said that the Pentagon's evaluation of the Iraqi proliferation threat "differed radically from all other agencies," and that "DOD has simply found a device for blocking legitimate high-tech sales to Iraq while appearing to take the high ground on nonproliferation."

On February 22, 1989, Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral Thomas Brooks, explicitly told the House Armed Services Committee that Iraq was "actively pursuing" nuclear weapons.

On March 23, 1989, a State Department memo stated that Iraq was "working hard at chemical and biological weapons."

Despite all this, on October 2, 1989, President Bush issued NSD 26, stating that "normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States Government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and increase our influence in Iraq."

[Ferrari Tifosi]

I'd have to say that this thread and others has opened my eyes towards how much I didn't know about this situation. As a result I look at the war from a different prospective now, and view it as a bad decision. One of the great things about the UCP forums is that you get the opinions of people across the world.

On the war though. I guess all this occurred because the attacks on 9/11. This attack made us feel threatened and vulnerable, therefore the country's leadership acted out of passion(if that's the right word for it) instead of rationality, and the American people (including myself at the time) also supported the wars for the same reason.

Like I said though, hearing y'alls opinions and the facts you all put down has changed my views in these last couple of days, and I thank the UCP forum for being diverse, so that this kind of conversations can occur.

[SlickHolden]

The only W.O.M.D
In Iraq were Saddam and his 2 brats

[Fowler]

...Paul Johnson Jr just got beheaded today over this bullshit war Bush started and the CIA's kinky BDSM prison.

[gtface]

IIRC the quantities were so small and were mainly left-overs from when Saddam once did have a program !!

hardly worthy of bombing a country and leadership into oblivion and leaving a gaping power vacuum to be filled by possibly a different despot

You may not think the small quantities of WMD's were enough reason to invade Iraq, but there were many other reasons we invaded. Yes, there are other countries that are also enemies of the US who currently have way more WMD's than Iraq did. What made Iraq different, was that Saddam actually used his weapons to kill over a million innocent people. Not to mention how downright evil the man was. He put little kids through wood-chippers feet first, so the would feel the pain longer before they died. The guy was in the same league as Hitler, although he did not have the same kind of influence.Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein's government also funded, trained, and harbored many terrorists. Iraq is just one of many parts of the war on terror.

[gtface]

I'd have to say that this thread and others has opened my eyes towards how much I didn't know about this situation. As a result I look at the war from a different prospective now, and view it as a bad decision. One of the great things about the UCP forums is that you get the opinions of people across the world.

On the war though. I guess all this occurred because the attacks on 9/11. This attack made us feel threatened and vulnerable, therefore the country's leadership acted out of passion(if that's the right word for it) instead of rationality, and the American people (including myself at the time) also supported the wars for the same reason.

Like I said though, hearing y'alls opinions and the facts you all put down has changed my views in these last couple of days, and I thank the UCP forum for being diverse, so that this kind of conversations can occur.


You're changing your whole opinion in a couple of days because of what a bunch of European car buffs said? C'mon, be strong. Any rational person should realize that going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan were both justified. And none of these confused people with their ridiculous conspiracy theories and their speculating should change the rational beliefs you once had.

[megotmea7]

you also shouldnt let your blind patriotism make you ignorant to the fact that your govt. can, will, and has been wrong in the past. none of us are in any place to judge the events leading up to and taking place during the war untill it all plays out. things such as the prison scandle deserve criticism but you cannot base your whole view of the war on this. sure some of the reasons we went to war were lies but they did it because it wouldnt have happened if they didnt lie(in some eyes this is justified, in others it is not. all based on oppinion). our govt. lies to us all the time, and so does yours no matter what country your in. i have no idea if the war was for teh best or the worst or some compremise in between so ill stay out of this discussion ;)

[gtface]

Yes I am aware that our government is capable of making mistakes. Of course, theyre human. Just because governments mislead their people doesn't make it okay. I do not think that the Presisent ever lied to the American people.

[Matra et Alpine]

You may not think the small quantities of WMD's were enough reason to invade Iraq, but there were many other reasons we invaded. Yes, there are other countries that are also enemies of the US who currently have way more WMD's than Iraq did. What made Iraq different, was that Saddam actually used his weapons to kill over a million innocent people. Not to mention how downright evil the man was. He put little kids through wood-chippers feet first, so the would feel the pain longer before they died. The guy was in the same league as Hitler, although he did not have the same kind of influence.Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein's government also funded, trained, and harbored many terrorists. Iraq is just one of many parts of the war on terror.
Afraid that confuses what is moral to do and what is LEGAL to do in international relations.

Under international law NO country has the mandate to take action in acnother countries internal events.

THAT is why international sanctions were placed against Iraq.
Bush/Blair then manipulated the histeria on WMD to try to get away with justifying an ILLEGAL action to meet their political/moral needs.

THAT is the issue. Don't think you'll find many people crying over Saddam, but what about the Iraqi soldiers killed, the families in "friendly-fire" and the displacement.

Justified ? Well only if hypocrisy can be accepted.
The UK and US ( and a few other 'civilsed' countries ) have turned a blind eye to similar actiosn in countries where it was in their interest to ignore it.
THAT is a problem that Muslims have pointed out to me.

AND in terms of funding and training, if that was legitimate reason for attack then the UK should have nuked the US since the 60s when NORAID funding was THE most significant source of money to buy weapons to murder innocents in Ireland and mainland UK. Sorry, duplicity is a horrible act :(

By using MIGHT to take out Saddam rather than legal RIGHT then the "co-alition" have weakened ANY chance that democracy might have had of turning around radical groups in the Middle-East.

[Matra et Alpine]

....speculating should change the rational beliefs you once had.
Sorry but is US news NOT covering the reports from inside the US government and forces that clearly shows their was deliberate mis-truths being used to justify the actiosn ????
Or is it easier to think it could never happen :(

[Matra et Alpine]

Yes I am aware that our government is capable of making mistakes. Of course, theyre human. Just because governments mislead their people doesn't make it okay. I do not think that the Presisent ever lied to the American people.
Suggest you read ANY newspaper on the facts coming to light ( and NOT ).

Q: If WMD were an "IMMINENT THREAT" how could they so easily be hidden. Bush talked about "THOUSANDS OF TONS". Nothing substantial was found by the UN team and before they completed there task Bush/Blair invaded and oops - nada.

I'll let a former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Comitee say it .... Sen. Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

"Senate Intelligence" - now THERE's an oxymoron :)

[gtface]

Graham is a democrat. He's just spouting the same, speculative nonsense that almost all of the other democrats have been saying. Of course he is, its in his best intersts to do so. He doesn't care about wether its true or not, or if there is any evidence to back up what he is saying. The truth is that the president believed that they had WMD's, and they probably did. It might take a long time for us to find them, because Iraq is a pretty big place and they could be burried in the ground anywhere in that country. Or, it is also likely that before the US invaded, Saddam moved his weapons into another country. He had plenty of time to do so. In any case, it is highly unlikely that the President intentionally lied, and if he did there is absolutely no evidence to prove that. Personally, I think international law is kind of a joke. The UN doesnt even enforce their own resolutions. Screw that, we should do what is right, wether or not the UN or anybody else agrees.

[lithuanianmafia]

Graham is a democrat. He's just spouting the same, speculative nonsense that almost all of the other democrats have been saying. Of course he is, its in his best intersts to do so. He doesn't care about wether its true or not, or if there is any evidence to back up what he is saying. The truth is that the president believed that they had WMD's, and they probably did. It might take a long time for us to find them, because Iraq is a pretty big place and they could be burried in the ground anywhere in that country. Or, it is also likely that before the US invaded, Saddam moved his weapons into another country. He had plenty of time to do so. In any case, it is highly unlikely that the President intentionally lied, and if he did there is absolutely no evidence to prove that. Personally, I think international law is kind of a joke. The UN doesnt even enforce their own resolutions. Screw that, we should do what is right, wether or not the UN or anybody else agrees.


that sorta comment of how the US acts in foreign policy would make them no better than the person they were trying to remove from power. and by the way, who would take the "thousands of tons" of weapons from Iraq and hide them? would any country really be willing to lose their own freedom due to the onslaught of American troops just to "do a favour"? not very likely. plus, right up until the day that they went into iraq, and afterwards, Dubya was saying that the weapons were there, and they were going to get them. so, either he was lying to justify an illegal invasion, or the satellites were pointing thousands of miles away from Iraq

[mawi427]

that sorta comment of how the US acts in foreign policy would make them no better than the person they were trying to remove from power. and by the way, who would take the "thousands of tons" of weapons from Iraq and hide them? would any country really be willing to lose their own freedom due to the onslaught of American troops just to "do a favour"? not very likely. plus, right up until the day that they went into iraq, and afterwards, Dubya was saying that the weapons were there, and they were going to get them. so, either he was lying to justify an illegal invasion, or the satellites were pointing thousands of miles away from Iraq
some countries would, syria is the first that comes to mind when i think

[lithuanianmafia]

I do not think that the Presisent ever lied to the American people.

where do i start? ok:

1. They lied that Iraq tried to purchase enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from a country in Africa.

2. They lied that Sadam Hussein was personally involved with al Queda and the September 11th attacks. There is no proof whatsoever that there was any sort of meeting between al Queda and Iraqi officials.

I can keep on goin, but I'll leave it there before I get too p!ssed off and start talkin out of pure emotion that I have against Dubya.

[lithuanianmafia]

...He put little kids through wood-chippers feet first, so the would feel the pain longer before they died ... Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein's government also funded, trained, and harbored many terrorists.

OK, what proof do you have of this. And no, your buddy in the "Emperor Dubya" club doesn't count.

[Matra et Alpine]

Graham is a democrat. He's just spouting the same, speculative nonsense that almost all of the other democrats have been saying. Of course he is, its in his best intersts to do so. He doesn't care about wether its true or not, or if there is any evidence to back up what he is saying.
what ?? American politician might lie ?? nevere !!! :)

The truth is that the president believed that they had WMD's, and they probably did.[/QUOUTE]
That's not the evidence our free tv and press are reporting :)
[QUOTE] It might take a long time for us to find them, because Iraq is a pretty big place and they could be burried in the ground anywhere in that country. Or, it is also likely that before the US invaded, Saddam moved his weapons into another country. He had plenty of time to do so.
What with US surveillance and UN teams on the ground ? unlikely.
Oh and of he DID then Bush/Blair had no reason to invade Iraw.
Q-E-D

In any case, it is highly unlikely that the President intentionally lied, and if he did there is absolutely no evidence to prove that.

Personally, I think international law is kind of a joke. The UN doesnt even enforce their own resolutions.[QUOTE] Screw that, we should do what is right, wether or not the UN or anybody else agrees.
The UN does its best to enforce resolutions like any police force.
Are NYPD a joke because a murder is till committed ??
WHAT has made UN a limited force since the cold war is that when it doesn't serve the US needs they block and avoid paymend and don't contribute !!
WHen it wants something it pushes the UN, when the UN don't do what US want they then take it in their own hands and take action !!

Screw that, we should do what is right, wether or not the UN or anybody else agrees.
That only works for bullies until someojne on the block is bigger, nastier and meaner.
What is being created is a generation of willing terrorists.
MANY more than before and MUCH more willing to wreak havoc on general population.
The US has bever handled terrorism on it's shores and frankly needs to learn the lesson quickly of what has happened in countries where it supported it.
The UK ( we thought ) learned the lesson in the atrocities the IRA were willing to undertake in the last 40 years. Atrocities armed and trained with US money.
All attempts to put down those who hold an opposite view in todays world only seems to result in extremeists willing to die and take others in retaliation.
Only the aplication of FAIR law will appease and release the tensions.
And that can only come through an organisation like the UN.

A M&A prophecy for the future.... as China becomes financially stronger it will start to weild ITS might in the UN chamber and the world stage. In 50-60 years time you will find that it will be the strongest voice on the world stage and even find a US president playing blair-style-lapdog. Terrifying thought. But possible unless there is internationl agreements, laws and enforcement by a world body - the UN !!

[Matra et Alpine]

some countries would, syria is the first that comes to mind when i think
Think a little more and consider what it would entail.

- Storage facilities for missiles and deployment vehicles.
- SAFE storage for bioweapons, needing safe handling and maintenance facilities .
- SAFE storage for checmicals which are highly toxic
- HUGE construction logistics for facilities
- EVEN BIGGER transport logistics

These aren't the kind of things you "can bury", the risk of contamination and spillage is TOO high and could kill a local population

UN sanctions brough the Iraq economy to its knees - including medical services.
If Syria took any WMD, they would know to expect the same.
If caught with them, they know they could expect either unilateral attack by Israel - they've launched attacks on less - or the US.

Only a country with an economic deth-wish would take any.

So hopefully this gives something to think over and realise that the construction, trasnport and storage would be an action EASILY visible and that any government would realise it would be economic suicide and open their country to UN scrutiny.

[mawi427]

These aren't the kind of things you "can bury", the risk of contamination and spillage is TOO high and could kill a local population


your point about storage, transport, etc noted. obivously it is not a simple task or a decision to be taken at whim. however what u said about killing part of a local population...Saddam didnt exactly treat his population with respect and care. he spent money that could have elevated his peoples horrible living standards to build more palaces for his own wellbeing. im not saying that i am positive he buried (or had) WOMD but if he decided not to bury them, death of his people would not be his reason not to.

that said, you could say taht seeing an area of a people all dying from a specific illness could be a dead giveaway as to where weapons could be buried.

i could continue to have a circular discussion with myself and provide reasoning and contradictions to each of my points but i wont.

i stand by my president not "because im a republican and i have to" or nething like that. i believe in his cause (however well he caried out the action...) and continue to stand by him while the job is being finished.

[gtface]

some countries would, syria is the first that comes to mind when i think

Yes that is very likely.

[gtface]

what ?? American politician might lie ?? nevere !!! :)

I'm not at all suprised when a Democrat lies. Clinton did it almost every time he opened his mouth, and Michael Moore does it all throughout his movies.


That only works for bullies until someojne on the block is bigger, nastier and meaner.

Oh yeah, you're right. Bullies always do the right thing. That is their number one concern(sarcasm). You think China will become a gereater economic power than the US? What the hell are you smoking? China is not even close to having the economic prosperity of the US. Do you know why that is? Communism. The only reason their economy has experienced some improvements is because theyve been moving more and more toward a capitalist system. But until China becomes a totally free-market capitalist democracy, they will never be a bigger economic power. Russia just implemented a 13% flat income tax. Maybe theyve got a better chance.

[gtface]

So hopefully this gives something to think over and realise that the construction, trasnport and storage would be an action EASILY visible and that any government would realise it would be economic suicide and open their country to UN scrutiny.

Why would anyone be afraid of the UN? Theyre not going to do anything.

[lithuanianmafia]

gtface, i'm gonna take a wild flippin guess and say that you watch FOX news, mainly cus I think your view is so biast, that it borders on what is true and not true.

bill clinton lied every time he opened his mouth eh? well, he was the one, along with approval from the UN and a multi-national force, did launch a bombing run on Iraq back when they kicked out the UN weapons expectors. and you said the UN has no power? Bill Clinton only launched the attack because the UN said that it could be done. and aside from any iraq-related issues, he took the country out the the recission that the country had gone into after Bush Sr. was in office, and ever since Dubya took office, the country went back into recission. coinsidence? I think not.

then you just had to go into micheal moore. so, just because he disagrees with Dubya's policy, he is a blatent liar? he's exposed what so many companies and the government have been keepin from us. he's exposed the truth, not created more lies.

and you say that this whole anti-Dubya thing has been created by Democrats? what about Bush's former advisor that came out and said that Dubya had been planning an invasion of Iraq since his first day in office, and 9/11 became the magic reason for it? why would a republican, with a well-paying job in the government, risk his job by being a whistleblower?

and by the way gt, before you start talking about how i must be "another European car fan who hates the almighty King Dubya", I am a proud CANADIAN who, with the geographical and political position with the US, sees how much this administration has lied, and if they gain a second term in office, how much worse matters will become. I don't wanna see Dubya invade a country lookin for these "WMD's" when everyone knows that it's just oil. Look at North Korea. They have nuclear weapons, and have been warned many times to stop the program. But do u think any military action will ever be taken? NO!!! Why? Because North Korea possesses no oil, or any other resource that could be important to Dubya. If an oil-rich country like Iran or Syria even looks the wrong way, Dubya would consider a full-out invasion.

hopefully Kerry gets elected (Yeah, a DEMOCRAT!!!), and maybe these pointless wars will end, and the current administration's blood-thirsty greed for oil and money will finally end

[gtface]

somebody was asking about the "tons of WMDs in Iraq". Well, in addition to the Sarin gas, we found 80 tons of Mustard gas 450 aerial bombs, which were not accounted for in Hussein's weapons declaration.

[lithuanianmafia]

somebody was asking about the "tons of WMDs in Iraq". Well, in addition to the Sarin gas, we found 80 tons of Mustard gas 450 aerial bombs, which were not accounted for in Hussein's weapons declaration.

80 tons of mustard gas?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! what have you been smokin?

and 450 aerial bombs? what is he going to use them with? he has no air force whatsoever!

[Matra et Alpine]

somebody was asking about the "tons of WMDs in Iraq". Well, in addition to the Sarin gas, we found 80 tons of Mustard gas 450 aerial bombs, which were not accounted for in Hussein's weapons declaration.
erm, could you give us a pointer to this evidence.

Back in January, the Danes had found about 80ish mortar bombs that from their state of decay were determined to have been buried 10 years ago !!
As a WMD, not the thousands of tons "sold to the public" in Bush/Blairs justification.
Also, do you think anyone really knows what was buried 10 years ago, so
first are they expected to list EVERY minution and second are they supposed to remember when we bombed their infrastructure and records las time !!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Orright, Enough.

GWB, IMO, did not INTENTIONALLY lie to his people, the U.N. and the world, for that matter, that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda and still had WOMD. He did, however, lie, no matter how much he thought he was right, the fact remains: He was wrong.

Iraq and Saddams regime were crippled by GW1, and IMO the Americans believed they had done enough groundwork for Iraqi Civilians to rise up and overthrow Saddam, but they did not, the uprising was crushed, and Saddam began living on borrowed time.

Do they really think that Saddam will be handed back to the Iraqi people? fat freakin chance. He is now a trophy, one which will serve as a warning to Americas enemies (Namely, the world.) If he is sent back (No Matter how unlikely, and no matter what the new Iraqi Govt says) he'll be set free by a loyalist guard in prison, or break out himself, only to regain power. It was wrong the way they did overthrow him, but they did in the end.

The U.S. membership of the U.N is as good as dead. They were told no, but like a stubborn child, they just wouldn't listen, did what they wanted and have now enlisted the help of those they "Liberated" to clean up there mess. If they won't listen to the U.N, whats stopping them from doing it once more, even a few times more????

I heard a joke recently, it goes as such:
apparantly, as a trophy from GW2, GWB has taken Saddams pistols. Now it may not seem like a smart idea giving a man with a 4 year olds intellect a gun, but whats the first thing kid's do when they get a new toy? Put it in their mouth.......

[digitalcraft]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, so sorry if it's a repeat, I read 'most' of the replies :P

The whole situation is not Bush's fault. This BS has been going on since WW2 and before. Why did they blow up the twin towers? I mean they obvisouly weren't sitting around and said 'Hey, we should start hating the americans.' We've been screwing with them since forever, playing them against each other, overthrowing governments and setting up puppet dictators, just like we do with any place in the world we can.

It's not something that can be attributed to just any one person. It's been the American mindset of the controlling rich minority forever. And that being said, Bush definately has not made anything better, in my oppinion he is enflaming an already bad sitation, possibly beyond repair. It could be a hundred years or more before things cool down.

I'm glad Saddam is gone and all, but it's not worth going against the UN, alienating allies and breaking trust to do that. Stand together or hang seperately. Countries have enough power now, if we don't cooperate, we could very well end the world. Is that the kind of environment you want to cause mistrust in?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I agree with you, it's not all Bush's fault, but it has been a long time coming, so we can blame all the prior presidents, only this one seems to have gone out of his way to make life difficult for those not on his side, or not agreeing with him, and to have rewarded his allies so very much.

I've said so many times, their is only 1 world superpower. China may be emerging, but it's still America that rules over our lives. How? through the Media, Movies, Television, almost everything is made in America, and thus reflects American views on things. I know how most shows in fact are conjured up somewhere else (Japan springs to mind) but in the end, they do control what we see.

Mistrust against the U.S. has been around for a while yet, it's a very scary thing that the U.S. could, if it saw fit, invade anywhere, and then just tell everyone else to "Shove it". The world is a big place, America relies on so many outside sources for everything it does, would it be wise to piss off the world?

[gtface]

gtface, i'm gonna take a wild flippin guess and say that you watch FOX news, mainly cus I think your view is so biast, that it borders on what is true and not true.

bill clinton lied every time he opened his mouth eh? well, he was the one, along with approval from the UN and a multi-national force, did launch a bombing run on Iraq back when they kicked out the UN weapons expectors. and you said the UN has no power? Bill Clinton only launched the attack because the UN said that it could be done. and aside from any iraq-related issues, he took the country out the the recission that the country had gone into after Bush Sr. was in office, and ever since Dubya took office, the country went back into recission. coinsidence? I think not.

then you just had to go into micheal moore. so, just because he disagrees with Dubya's policy, he is a blatent liar? he's exposed what so many companies and the government have been keepin from us. he's exposed the truth, not created more lies.

and you say that this whole anti-Dubya thing has been created by Democrats? what about Bush's former advisor that came out and said that Dubya had been planning an invasion of Iraq since his first day in office, and 9/11 became the magic reason for it? why would a republican, with a well-paying job in the government, risk his job by being a whistleblower?

and by the way gt, before you start talking about how i must be "another European car fan who hates the almighty King Dubya", I am a proud CANADIAN who, with the geographical and political position with the US, sees how much this administration has lied, and if they gain a second term in office, how much worse matters will become. I don't wanna see Dubya invade a country lookin for these "WMD's" when everyone knows that it's just oil. Look at North Korea. They have nuclear weapons, and have been warned many times to stop the program. But do u think any military action will ever be taken? NO!!! Why? Because North Korea possesses no oil, or any other resource that could be important to Dubya. If an oil-rich country like Iran or Syria even looks the wrong way, Dubya would consider a full-out invasion.

hopefully Kerry gets elected (Yeah, a DEMOCRAT!!!), and maybe these pointless wars will end, and the current administration's blood-thirsty greed for oil and money will finally end

You think Dick Clarke is a Republican? He was a hold-over from the Clinton administration. So what if we had a plan to invade Iraq? I guarantee that the defense department of this administration has plans for invading just about every country. That doesn't mean that they are going to do it, but its a good idea to have a plan in case you need to do it. What else would they do with their time?

As for michael moore:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5 C%5Carchive%5C%5C200406%5C%5CSPE20040601a.html

Bill Clinton did not get us out of any recession. The only policy put in place during his administration that might have had somethimg to do with improving the economy, was welfare reform, which clinton was vehemently against at first, and only signed reluctantly after realizing it would boost his poll numbers. Bill Clinton had very little, if anything, to do with the improvement of the economy.

As for Korea, the reason we are not invading them and we are invading Iraq, is not because Korea doesn't have oil, it's because they have never used their WMD's to kill tons of people like saddam did, and we have no reason to believe that they ever will. Yes they are evil, and you can be assured that if they get out of line they will be delt with.

[gtface]

And for your information, I do get a lot of my facts from Fox News. Have fun TRYING to dissprove this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html

[Matra et Alpine]

And for your information, I do get a lot of my facts from Fox News. Have fun TRYING to dissprove this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html
It's what's NOT reported that most of us have a smile over :)

That shell had ALREADY been identified as an OLD munition.
A US weapons inspection oofficial had ALREADY commented that it was likely that the terrorist had NOT realised it was a Sarin shell, just aware that it was a large shell. I think this likely comes from the method and placement, if you knew you had Sarin you would explode it in an enclosed or walled area for meffect.

AND it was STILL unclear how much was actually in it.
Only one US soldier showed signs of exposure AFTER transporting the remains later.

On of the biggest problems with news channels is the "CNN effect", by truing to be first-to-air with "ground-breaking" stories there is a lot of poor informatino which is seldom corrected. For example, the ICAM monitors carried by the coallition forces to test for nerve agents in Iraq has so far scored VERY badly. Don't know the absolute latest info, but until recently NO ICAM positive test had passed the subsequent detailed chemical analysis. So when "Nerve agent" found reports were being made based on ICAM results there was little or NO reporting in mainstream channels that they later turned negative. So many folks think there are lots of finds when there are none.

A healthy scepticism of 'free' press in a medium dominated by advertising and selling "scoop footage" is necessary. CNN/FOX/et al is no worse than Pravda, just driven by differing controls on 'truth' :(

[Coventrysucks]

the reason we are not invading Korea it's because they have never used their WMD's to kill tons of people like saddam did

This comment is extremely naive, stupid, ill informed, and unneccessary.

How dare you assume that just because the North Korean government doesn't use WMD's to kill it's citizens, they are not worth defending.

From Amnesty International:
"Amnesty International's long-standing concerns about human rights violations in North Korea include the use of torture and the death penalty, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, inhumane prison conditions and the near-total suppression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and movement.

While these concerns are long-standing, in recent years many human rights abuses in North Korea have been linked directly or indirectly to the famine and acute food shortages which have affected the country since the mid-1990s. These have led to widespread malnutrition among the population and to the movement of hundreds of thousands of people in search of food - some across the border with China - many of whom have become the victims of human rights violations as a result of their search for food and survival."

The North Korean people have suffered horrendously, and yet, because they don't have WMD, its people are not worth the lives of American Soldiers?

America should take up its place as the last superpower in the world, and rather than sitting idly untill someone attacks an American city, it should pro-actively be preventing large scale human rights abuses all over the world.

America is probably the only country with the military and logistical infastructure to be capable of attempting this, instead it only takes action when it is American citizens under threat.

[gtface]

This comment is extremely naive, stupid, ill informed, and unneccessary.

How dare you assume that just because the North Korean government doesn't use WMD's to kill it's citizens, they are not worth defending.

From Amnesty International:
"Amnesty International's long-standing concerns about human rights violations in North Korea include the use of torture and the death penalty, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, inhumane prison conditions and the near-total suppression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and movement.

While these concerns are long-standing, in recent years many human rights abuses in North Korea have been linked directly or indirectly to the famine and acute food shortages which have affected the country since the mid-1990s. These have led to widespread malnutrition among the population and to the movement of hundreds of thousands of people in search of food - some across the border with China - many of whom have become the victims of human rights violations as a result of their search for food and survival."

The North Korean people have suffered horrendously, and yet, because they don't have WMD, its people are not worth the lives of American Soldiers?

America should take up its place as the last superpower in the world, and rather than sitting idly untill someone attacks an American city, it should pro-actively be preventing large scale human rights abuses all over the world.

America is probably the only country with the military and logistical infastructure to be capable of attempting this, instead it only takes action when it is American citizens under threat.

They do have WMDs, but as I said before, they havent used them to kill millions of their own citizens.

[Matra et Alpine]

They do have WMDs, but as I said before, they havent used them to kill millions of their own citizens.
Neither did Saddam.
Don't why I'm saying anything to lessen that evil man's crimes, but it was approx 130,000 people he was responsible for executing/murdering/genocide over his 23 year reign.

As pointed out, similar numbers in North Korea in the last 5 years alone !!

Please don't do a 'fox/cnn' and up numbers to make points, we prefer facts.

[gtface]

It's what's NOT reported that most of us have a smile over :)

That shell had ALREADY been identified as an OLD munition.
A US weapons inspection oofficial had ALREADY commented that it was likely that the terrorist had NOT realised it was a Sarin shell, just aware that it was a large shell. I think this likely comes from the method and placement, if you knew you had Sarin you would explode it in an enclosed or walled area for meffect.

AND it was STILL unclear how much was actually in it.
Only one US soldier showed signs of exposure AFTER transporting the remains later.

On of the biggest problems with news channels is the "CNN effect", by truing to be first-to-air with "ground-breaking" stories there is a lot of poor informatino which is seldom corrected. For example, the ICAM monitors carried by the coallition forces to test for nerve agents in Iraq has so far scored VERY badly. Don't know the absolute latest info, but until recently NO ICAM positive test had passed the subsequent detailed chemical analysis. So when "Nerve agent" found reports were being made based on ICAM results there was little or NO reporting in mainstream channels that they later turned negative. So many folks think there are lots of finds when there are none.

A healthy scepticism of 'free' press in a medium dominated by advertising and selling "scoop footage" is necessary. CNN/FOX/et al is no worse than Pravda, just driven by differing controls on 'truth' :(

I agree that a lot of times the problem is whats not reported. That being said, did you read the whole aricle? The part I found especially interesting was where they were saying that we are finding more weapons every day. I don't know why people are saying things like, we've been there for a year and we havent found anything, so that means there isnt anything. Obviously, we are not done searching.

I also thought it was funny how the Kurdish guy they were talking to was echoing almost all of my points about WMDs, such as the fact that other countries could be helping them hide them.

[Matra et Alpine]

I agree that a lot of times the problem is whats not reported. That being said, did you read the whole aricle? The part I found especially interesting was where they were saying that we are finding more weapons every day. I don't know why people are saying things like, we've been there for a year and we havent found anything, so that means there isnt anything. Obviously, we are not done searching.
Read the article (!), we aren't finding stockpiles, there is an occasional shell turning up here and there and the odd tin of fertilizer !!
There's the problem Bush has created amongst his supporters.... it suggests a never-ending occupation of Iraw. If there ARE no WMD, when does the coallition leave ? If it was YOUR country that was occupied how would you feel hearing that the occupier has no intention of leave ?

I also thought it was funny how the Kurdish guy they were talking to was echoing almost all of my points about WMDs, such as the fact that other countries could be helping them hide them.
First, he was echoing that Saddam DID use WMDs on the Kurds. That's never been in doubt. The rest is speculation. The kind of speculation that the CIA are now agreeing that didn't check out before advising the president !!
"Revenge" will be a HUGE issue in Iraq for years to come.

[mawi427]

"Revenge" will be a HUGE issue in Iraq for years to come.

a large portion of the next generation iraqis will be brought up believing what they are told by their parents and the biased iraqi news system. thomas jefferson once said that the most dangerous thing in a demacracy is an uninformed/ignorant public. i couldnt agree more.

i realize that the ppl of iraq feel betrayed and taken advantage of by the u.s. military/bush but their emotions could/have easily cross(ed) the line of patriotic discontent/disapproval and extremist militant acts.

[lithuanianmafia]

As for michael moore:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5 C%5Carchive%5C%5C200406%5C%5CSPE20040601a.html

u can not seriously use those as your sources. The article from hardlylaw.com is simply an opinion article. with little backup facts, this can't be considered a credible source. and CNS News? they're widely seen as a tabloid news source, so again, not credible.

[lithuanianmafia]

And for your information, I do get a lot of my facts from Fox News. Have fun TRYING to dissprove this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html

Ah, Fox News, the laughing stock of American news. :D Nothin says news when they post the headline "Kids are getting drugs from your dentist. AHH!!" and u've carefully selected ur article i can see. u haven't posted one of many times Fox News can carefully manipulated or left out facts to make a pro-Bush statement

[Matra et Alpine]

a large portion of the next generation iraqis will be brought up believing what they are told by their parents and the biased iraqi news system. thomas jefferson once said that the most dangerous thing in a demacracy is an uninformed/ignorant public. i couldnt agree more.
Good point, but it ignores the fact that they are LIVING the occupation.
They look every morning and see coallition forces walk down their streets with guns, tanks and helos.
If they ask the question "when will you leave" they hear "when we find the WMD".
Not healthy.
UK learned this as it's Empire broke up and managed to make most of the countries transfer to democracies. But still we screwed up trying to 'police'
a terrorist's home towns (NI) and suffered DECADES of attacks and bombings in the streets and pubs of mainland UK.
I've spoken with folks who lived with british squaddies with loaded weapons walking teir streets, walking in their gardens and seeking protection in their doorways. It did NOT help the emotional/political solution.

i realize that the ppl of iraq feel betrayed and taken advantage of by the u.s. military/bush but their emotions could/have easily cross(ed) the line of patriotic discontent/disapproval and extremist militant acts.
The US/UK lead invasion was a bit extreme considering the UN inspoectors were saying "there is nothing, but give us more time".
Shame that the next few generations will have to live with the terrible consequences :(

[digitalcraft]

Oh, and I may be a leftie commie or whatever, but Micheal Moore really is a liar ;)

He's the counter bs-propoganda to rush limbaugh.

[gtface]

"Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas."

That's not "a few here and there". I don't know what qualifies a "stockpile" but that is quite a lot of mustard gas.

[gtface]

Read the article (!), we aren't finding stockpiles, there is an occasional shell turning up here and there and the odd tin of fertilizer !!
There's the problem Bush has created amongst his supporters.... it suggests a never-ending occupation of Iraw. If there ARE no WMD, when does the coallition leave ? If it was YOUR country that was occupied how would you feel hearing that the occupier has no intention of leave ?

First, he was echoing that Saddam DID use WMDs on the Kurds. That's never been in doubt. The rest is speculation. The kind of speculation that the CIA are now agreeing that didn't check out before advising the president !!
"Revenge" will be a HUGE issue in Iraq for years to come.

Its the same kind of "speculation" you are using in saying that "we arent ever going to find WMDs, and therefore Bush lied". You have no facts or proof to back that up, its just specualation.

[Matra et Alpine]

"Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas."

That's not "a few here and there". I don't know what qualifies a "stockpile" but that is quite a lot of mustard gas.

First, that is NOT a lot of mustard gas.
That would not be sufficient for one artillery barrage to make an effective dispersant cloud to kill in quantity.

Second, the 450 unaccounted for are from 15 YEARS ago, some my not be accounted for and be missing, some may never have existed, the inspectors counting may just be off !! It is based on manufacturing information gleaned during and after Gulf War I. It is NOT any curent knowledge.

A little deeper reading will highlight the many discrepancies on what are presetned as FACT and what are speculation. There IS a difference, even if the TV shows don't realise it !!

[Matra et Alpine]

Its the same kind of "speculation" you are using in saying that "we arent ever going to find WMDs, and therefore Bush lied". You have no facts or proof to back that up, its just specualation.
It's clear you are blinded by patriotism, political bias or lack of srouces.

Bush lied because there were NOT the WMDs he said AT THE TIME. The UN inspectors were saying that BEFORE he pulled on the US heart-strings.
Bush lied because he linked 9/11 and Saddam.
Bush lied and the evide3nce is coming out.

British politicians who stood out and told the truth at the time were removed from the British cabinet to prevent them speaking out the truth.

The evidence of the lies are there.
Dont' think just because Moore twisted things to make his extreme viewpoitn stand that it measns it's all wrong. It's a shame they made the film, the book stated the facts better. But even there I didnt' take anything he siad unless there were corrobrating evidence. If the White House had taken that approach then Bush woul dnot have ( Willingly or otherwise ) misled (aka lied ) the US people.

[Coventrysucks]

The whole thing was badly thought out.

If you want to go to war when there is no direct threat, you need a very good reason. It is probably prudent not to fabricate that reason.

Stating that Saddam Hussein was handing out huge ammounts of chemical and biological weapons to Al Qaida, when he can find the time out of his busy schedule plotting terrorist attacks on the USA, was not a good strategy.

Stating that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, with no respect for the citizens of his country, who should be deposed to increase stability in the Middle East, would have been a good strategy.

There are no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, if there were, they would have been found.

Do you seriously think that the US military is so incompetant that it cannot glean the required information from one of the many high ranking army and government personel?

There is no link between Hussein, and Al Qaida. An official inquiry has found that to be true. For Bush to then go on to say that there is a link is huge insult to the American population.

I just can't believe that in this day and age that this general level of incompetance from the President of the world's most powerful country is allowed to continue.

Are there WMD's or aren't there?
Was there a link to Al Qaida or not?

Give us a straight, truthful answer George. Without that little smirk that you do when you lie to the public. (I saw it the other day when he was insisting there was a link with Al Qaida, very telling)

Here's an example of the "I can't hide the fact that I'm lying" smirk

[gtface]

There is no link between Hussein, and Al Qaida. An official inquiry has found that to be true. For Bush to then go on to say that there is a link is huge insult to the American population.


Actually, that is completely untrue. The 9/11 commission report you are speaking of said there was not a link between Iraq and 9/11, but it clearly said that there were definite connections between Iraq and Al Qaida. The New York Times mad a HUGE mistake.

[gtface]

First, that is NOT a lot of mustard gas.
That would not be sufficient for one artillery barrage to make an effective dispersant cloud to kill in quantity.

Second, the 450 unaccounted for are from 15 YEARS ago, some my not be accounted for and be missing, some may never have existed, the inspectors counting may just be off !! It is based on manufacturing information gleaned during and after Gulf War I. It is NOT any curent knowledge.

A little deeper reading will highlight the many discrepancies on what are presetned as FACT and what are speculation. There IS a difference, even if the TV shows don't realise it !!

It does not say that the 450 bombs containinfg mustard gas were from the first gulf war. If you read it more closely it will become clear to you. It says that the 550 shells without mustard gas were from that war, but says nothing of the sort about the bombs containing mustard gas.

[gtface]

It's clear you are blinded by patriotism, political bias or lack of srouces.

Bush lied because there were NOT the WMDs he said AT THE TIME. The UN inspectors were saying that BEFORE he pulled on the US heart-strings.
Bush lied because he linked 9/11 and Saddam.
Bush lied and the evide3nce is coming out.

British politicians who stood out and told the truth at the time were removed from the British cabinet to prevent them speaking out the truth.

The evidence of the lies are there.
Dont' think just because Moore twisted things to make his extreme viewpoitn stand that it measns it's all wrong. It's a shame they made the film, the book stated the facts better. But even there I didnt' take anything he siad unless there were corrobrating evidence. If the White House had taken that approach then Bush woul dnot have ( Willingly or otherwise ) misled (aka lied ) the US people.

My lack of sources? Excuse me? I am the only person in this forum who has provided any sources, so how do you figure that I lack sources? No, there is still no EVIDENCE of any lies. I think you are the one who is biased. I think that you are probably not a big fan of American policies in general, and I beleieve your general dislike of this country has clouded your judgement.

[gtface]

Neither did Saddam.
Don't why I'm saying anything to lessen that evil man's crimes, but it was approx 130,000 people he was responsible for executing/murdering/genocide over his 23 year reign.

As pointed out, similar numbers in North Korea in the last 5 years alone !!

Please don't do a 'fox/cnn' and up numbers to make points, we prefer facts.

I've heard/read in various sources that the number is well over 1 million.

[lithuanianmafia]

I've heard/read in various sources that the number is well over 1 million.

an opinion of someone you talked to, or an opinion article is NOT considered a source

[Matra et Alpine]

It does not say that the 450 bombs containinfg mustard gas were from the first gulf war. If you read it more closely it will become clear to you. It says that the 550 shells without mustard gas were from that war, but says nothing of the sort about the bombs containing mustard gas.
I wasn't using that as my reference.

I was using the free press of the rest of the world to glean the knowledge.

It's best to read widely and from multiple sources to get info rather than the biased US coveragte ( reasons why already covered )

For the same reason I don't read the SUN in the UK and expect to get truth on the UK government :)

[Matra et Alpine]

My lack of sources? Excuse me? I am the only person in this forum who has provided any sources, so how do you figure that I lack sources? No, there is still no EVIDENCE of any lies.
READ some of these links -- http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq-rg.htm ( but watch out for THEIR bias !! )

I think you are the one who is biased. I think that you are probably not a big fan of American policies in general, and I beleieve your general dislike of this country has clouded your judgement.
you're relatively new to UCP, so my background isn't known to you.

I love the US, spend lots of my time working their on behalf of a large multi-national.
WHile visiting ( for anything from 1 to 3 months ) I spend time learning local views, meeting and talking with people. I have at first hand the lack of news coverage the US has on all international issues.

I love Scotland too.

What I detest, is lying manipulative organisations wherever they are.

Worse when it is a government suppposedly elected to represetn the people who then lie to them to achieve thir goals. Ureopean Union is a big topic in the UK just now ( actally always has been !! )

Sorry for not quoting references, but the facts I've supplied are in multiple sources and are statements. You've tended to quote "editorials" which are opinion.

In future if you want me to quote facts, then please have the decency of respecting the effort and READING them to absorb the alternative views.
If that's reflected, I'll continue. If it's not, I'll nto waste my time.
Some opinions you can't change :(

For example, you quoted "I've read in various sources it's more than a million".
I suggest you need to learn to read below th sruface of an initial quote.
If you've seen that in "various sources" then I would put forward that they are all from the same tainted source or reflect the same bias and have no compunction in lying. It's kind of like the "holocaust never happened" BS, just because there are hundreds of sources saying that doesn't make it true !!!!
The only quote I've ever seen over the years refelecting "millions" was the Iraq claim that sanctions was causing the death of that number of children due to the loss of medical aid !! ( didnt' beleive that either as it exceeded the whole counttry death rate by 2x )
What I've gleaned on Iraq is over the last 20 years of reporting. We tend to get international coverage without their needing to be a crisis so direct quotes on things require a search. So here's an Amnesty International summary of the numbers. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_6-eng

No smileys even thoug I want to make sure this stays light-hearted between all on UCP.
But this is serious business and the deaths of MANY innocents and the continued abuse of civil rights - ours and theirs.

[gtface]

an opinion of someone you talked to, or an opinion article is NOT considered a source

How can a figure, such as a number, ever be considered an opinion?

[gtface]

This is what it really comes down to at this point (since there still isn't really proof one way or the other as to wether or not Bush was always telling the truth):

Is it reasonable to believe that the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister would both risk re-election in order to conduct a huge, secret government conspiracy just to make some oil money for a couple of their buddies? Even if Bush had absolutely no morals, which is obviously not true, I don't think there is any way he would ever do something like that.

[gtface]

This is kind of an important point that we have not discussed:

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to be lying if they do not know the truth, and they believe that what they are saying is the truth? I beleieve Bush was right, and I believe that as the search continues we will find many more WMDs. Even if the President was wrong, I don't think that makes him a liar or a manipulator, I think it would just make him wrong. I mean, what if someone he put a lot of trust into told him something that was innaccurate, and he acted on that? Does that make him a liar, or just mis-informed?

[gtface]

Sorry for not quoting references, but the facts I've supplied are in multiple sources and are statements. You've tended to quote "editorials" which are opinion.


How do you figure that? All of the sources I cited were almost completely based on facts. Sometimes I quote what people have said when iterviewed in certain articles, and that was opinion, but other than that, pretty much everythging else has been factual.

[gtface]

Here is another thing that just came to mind: If there was this huge conspiracy in Iraq, then were all of the other nations that assisted the US and UK involved (like australia, spain, etc.)?

[gtface]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_records_031215-1.html

"This is the material that will indict Saddam Hussein in his own words, so to speak, and will leave no shadow of a doubt of what kind of an extraordinary regime this was," Makiya said. "I would say he is responsible for just under two million deaths."

[gtface]

READ some of these links -- http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq-rg.htm ( but watch out for THEIR bias !! )


I read just about every speech or interview made by the President and members of his cabinet on that site. None of them said one thing that was not completely true.

[Matra et Alpine]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_records_031215-1.html

"This is the material that will indict Saddam Hussein in his own words, so to speak, and will leave no shadow of a doubt of what kind of an extraordinary regime this was," Makiya said. "I would say he is responsible for just under two million deaths."
Sorry, gtface, you either read these items with VERY rose-colored spectacle or are so biased you don't see truth.

All that article says is that Saddam punished his peopole in an aggresive and repressive way and to quote the end "responsible for thousands of deaths"

SEE *NOT* millions.

Nobody has EVER quoted a calculated source for deaths of millions.
Reporters, TV presenters/editors and politicians have SAID it as opinion.
THAT's the concept of "source", "fact" and "opinion" yo've got mixed up I think.

Let's recap, NOBODY has ever said Saddam did not deserve to be toppled.
Bush/Blair led an unstoppable force in the circles of UN and beyond to justify an invasino based on a fear THEY reported as "imminent".

Now, on whether a president 'lied' - if you are going to take a nation into a war, if you are going to potentially kill thousands of people you damn well make sure you know ALL the facts. If you don't then you're an idiot. If they did, then they lied.
So either way Bush/Blair are damned by their own actions.

[Matra et Alpine]

I read just about every speech or interview made by the President and members of his cabinet on that site. None of them said one thing that was not completely true.
I'm nopt going trough and quoting every example.
If you cannot see the lie in suggesting "IMMINIENT" danger from WMD that are NOT deployed then you're political bias won't be persuaded by ANY fact and you shuold just leave it alone.

[Matra et Alpine]

How can a figure, such as a number, ever be considered an opinion?
let's se ....

5,000 people on UCP disagree with you.

See a number .... so is it a fact ?

No it's MY opinion and worhtless in this case as it's based on nothing.

[Matra et Alpine]

I read just about every speech or interview made by the President and members of his cabinet on that site. None of them said one thing that was not completely true.
Lets look back at the inputs Bush had fbefore going to war ....

The 90-page report drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

- had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

- was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

- and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.


and yet in letter to congress asking for the go-ahead for war, Bush said ...

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



So, sorry Bush had a report which ALL the intelligence agencies stated Iraq was NOT a threat. So how can (1) or (2) justify war ????

They can't, he wasn't honest with the US people and those are coming to light now.
'course he has since back-pedalled and said he didn't mean that and it all meant something else. But at the time he was happy to go with the euphoria the original meaning carried.

One thing I think that is different with US democracy and others is we don't have a major problem with standing up and saying the elected leader is cr@p and should go. US does. It's almost like the US needs the president to be like a King. I suggest for those who do treat them like that to re-join the Commonwealth :)

[lithuanianmafia]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_records_031215-1.html
...Makiya said. "I would say he is responsible for just under two million deaths."

another opinion, stick with actual facts

[lithuanianmafia]

Actually, ...but it clearly said that there were definite connections between Iraq and Al Qaida...

there have been NO reports that have stated that the Iraqi government and Al Qaida were connected in any way whatsoever. Ever since 9/11, the government was trying to tie Iraq in with Al Qaida and 9/11. yet, they have no proof of this. show me one fact, not a quote or opinion article, editorial, or anything like that, to show me that this is true.

[lithuanianmafia]

let's se ....

5,000 people on UCP disagree with you.

See a number .... so is it a fact ?

No it's MY opinion and worhtless in this case as it's based on nothing.

exactly.

[crisis]

The semantics of how many bombs, wmds, murders , rapes, tortures can be disputed forever and they will. Saddam refused to allow UN inspections. If he had nothing to hide he would have allowed these things. Most people here agree it was good to be rid of him . Yet the major point of contention is the reasons the US gave. Heads up guys, they are not the first govenrment to manipulate facts to get their way. The Iraqi people have a hard road ahead of them. Not because the Saddam is gone. Because some of their countrymen combined with an alarmingly large group of religious psycopaths want to make some kind of show of themselves. Iraqis are killing their own police and security services. I wonder if the general population feels as badly toward them as they do toward the US who at least gave them a chance for a new start?

[gtface]

there have been NO reports that have stated that the Iraqi government and Al Qaida were connected in any way whatsoever. Ever since 9/11, the government was trying to tie Iraq in with Al Qaida and 9/11. yet, they have no proof of this. show me one fact, not a quote or opinion article, editorial, or anything like that, to show me that this is true.

Actually, yes there has. One of the latest 9/11 commission reports made the connection. It was the same one that the New York Tiimes reprted on incorrectly.

[gtface]

let's se ....

5,000 people on UCP disagree with you.

See a number .... so is it a fact ?

No it's MY opinion and worhtless in this case as it's based on nothing.

Well it certainly isn't a fact, but is it an opinion? I don't think so. Opinions are usually qualitative, not quantitative (Like, I think Saddam Hussein is an asshole). I think your number qualifies as pure bullshit. I would think that the guy they are talking to in the ABC article probably based his number on something. We know for sure that there were hundreds of thousands of bodies buried in those mass graves, but I don't think those were all of the deaths for which he was responsible.

[gtface]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
This talks about one of Iraq's terrorist training facilities, and a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (training Al Qaeda in Iraqi camps).

[gtface]

Lets look back at the inputs Bush had fbefore going to war ....

The 90-page report drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

- had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

- was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

- and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.


and yet in letter to congress asking for the go-ahead for war, Bush said ...

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



So, sorry Bush had a report which ALL the intelligence agencies stated Iraq was NOT a threat. So how can (1) or (2) justify war ????

They can't, he wasn't honest with the US people and those are coming to light now.
'course he has since back-pedalled and said he didn't mean that and it all meant something else. But at the time he was happy to go with the euphoria the original meaning carried.

One thing I think that is different with US democracy and others is we don't have a major problem with standing up and saying the elected leader is cr@p and should go. US does. It's almost like the US needs the president to be like a King. I suggest for those who do treat them like that to re-join the Commonwealth :)

Okay, so you think what these CIA people say is fact, simply because it supports your side. But if I were to show you a quote of someone saying that Iraq was a threat, and they did have a connection to Al Qaeda, you would say it was an opinion and didnt count. The people who created this report must not have seen all of the evdence, since others have said that there were clear connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[gtface]

Sorry, gtface, you either read these items with VERY rose-colored spectacle or are so biased you don't see truth.

All that article says is that Saddam punished his peopole in an aggresive and repressive way and to quote the end "responsible for thousands of deaths"

SEE *NOT* millions.

Nobody has EVER quoted a calculated source for deaths of millions.
Reporters, TV presenters/editors and politicians have SAID it as opinion.
THAT's the concept of "source", "fact" and "opinion" yo've got mixed up I think.

Let's recap, NOBODY has ever said Saddam did not deserve to be toppled.
Bush/Blair led an unstoppable force in the circles of UN and beyond to justify an invasino based on a fear THEY reported as "imminent".

Now, on whether a president 'lied' - if you are going to take a nation into a war, if you are going to potentially kill thousands of people you damn well make sure you know ALL the facts. If you don't then you're an idiot. If they did, then they lied.
So either way Bush/Blair are damned by their own actions.

See, once again. One guy said "a little under trwo million", and you say "that's just opinion". Another guy says "thousands" and you say "thats a fact!".

[gtface]

I'm nopt going trough and quoting every example.
If you cannot see the lie in suggesting "IMMINIENT" danger from WMD that are NOT deployed then you're political bias won't be persuaded by ANY fact and you shuold just leave it alone.

How can you PROVE that the imminent danger quote was a lie? There were many, well-informed people who agreed with Bush on this before the war, and there are many who still do now. Does that mean that they are "blinded by their political bias"? No, especially if they are Iraqis that used to work for Saddam, not American Republicans.

[Coventrysucks]

"There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing."

So, to prove that Bush (and you) are right; that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, you have given us a source who claims "there is no such thing" as Al Qaeda.

If there is no Al Qaeda - How can there be a link?

[gtface]

"There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing."

So, to prove that Bush (and you) are right; that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, you have given us a source who claims "there is no such thing" as Al Qaeda.

If there is no Al Qaeda - How can there be a link?

He meant they didn't talk about Al Qaeda, as if there were no such thing. Do you really think he was saying that Al Qeada doesn't exist? What kind of bonehead would believe that? Of course they exist.

[gtface]

This is what he actually said:

"Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization"

I guess it doesnt really definitively adress the issue of a connection, but it does address the "imminent threat" issue.

[Coventrysucks]

See, once again. One guy said "a little under trwo million", and you say "that's just opinion". Another guy says "thousands" and you say "thats a fact!".

Learn to read.

Matra did not say anywhere that the "thousands" was a fact. He said that the article did not mention "millions" as you claimed


"responsible for thousands of deaths"

SEE *NOT* millions.

I think you should just accept that people do not agree with you on this issue, and get back to dicussing cars ;)

[gtface]

Learn to read.

Matra did not say anywhere that the "thousands" was a fact. He said that the article did not mention "millions" as you claimed



I think you should just accept that people do not agree with you on this issue, and get back to dicussing cars ;)

Of course I am aware that people do not agree with me. I could care less if you or matra or lithuanianmafia agree with me, because you guys are not americans and wont be able to vote in the next US election. I was hoping, however, that sharing what I know in this forum might influence those who can vote in this election to either vote for Bush or stay home, and not to agree with the opinions of people like you. I think you are the one who should stick to discussing cars, since you don't seem to know much about this issue.

[Coventrysucks]

This is what he actually said:

"Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization"

I guess it doesnt really definitively adress the issue of a connection, but it does address the "imminent threat" issue.

"there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak."

He could be lying.

36 posts and counting on this thread alone.
I really think you should give it a rest.
You are never going to convince anyone of anything, so I don't see the point of trying.

[gtface]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/

Here is one about the link, but of course you will probably say this is opinion too.

[gtface]

"there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak."

He could be lying.

36 posts and counting on this thread alone.
I really think you should give it a rest.
You are never going to convince anyone of anything, so I don't see the point of trying.

Well you obviously don't believe in the American ideal of "anyone can make a difference".

You could be lying. John Kerry could be lying. Michael Moore could be lying (he is). What's your point?

[gtface]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

From a conservative magazine no doubt, yes there will be some bias, but once again contains some good information.

[Coventrysucks]

I think you are the one who should stick to discussing cars, since you don't seem to know much about this issue.

I don't particularly care to know about this issue.

If I did care, I would do some research, but I have better things to do with my time.

I think that this is a forum created to discuss cars, not created for people to go off on political crusades.

:) ;)

[gtface]

Ummm this is in the miscellaneous category if I am not mistaken, and this BEGAN as a political thread. Im glad you really care about the important issues.

[Coventrysucks]

CNN article:

"President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development"

First of all:

I didn't know that Bush's national security adviser was called Wednesday.

I personally don't trust a report from someone who can't even grasp the basic rules of grammar.

It should read

"President Bush's national security adviser, Wednesday, said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, and helped train some in chemical weapons development"

Also this article states "The accusations" not "The irrefutable proof"

[gtface]

Condie Rice seems to think that she has irrefutable truth.

[Coventrysucks]

Im glad you really care about the important issues.

I do care about important issues.

Whether the US government lied about possible links between Saddam Hussein, 11/9, or Iraq is not an important issue.
It is in the past, has already happened, and cannot be changed.

Important issues are:
What is the US government going to do to help the Iraqi people return to a state of normality?
What is going to happen with the Iranians?
What is the US government's next step in their "War of Terror", I'm sorry "War on Terrorism"?
;)

[gtface]

I agree that those are all iportant issues. You sounded like a Bush supporter just then.

[Coventrysucks]

Condie Rice seems to think that she has irrefutable truth.

Why doesn't she show us then?
Why is there still doubt?

[lithuanianmafia]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
This talks about one of Iraq's terrorist training facilities, and a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (training Al Qaeda in Iraqi camps).

again, quotes, there is no concrete proof like internal government documents, non-opinionated, non biasest newspaper, magazine, or book source. u really need to learn what a true source is

[lithuanianmafia]

Of course I am aware that people do not agree with me. I could care less if you or matra or lithuanianmafia agree with me, because you guys are not americans and wont be able to vote in the next US election. ...

i have american citizenship, and therefore can vote. also, i'm glad to see that u can not take criticism, which i've suspected for a few days now. u just yell at ppl and through other people's opinions at them, without showing concrete proof.

[gtface]

again, quotes, there is no concrete proof like internal government documents, non-opinionated, non biasest newspaper, magazine, or book source. u really need to learn what a true source is

There is no such thing as a "non-opinionated, non biasest newspaper, magazine, or book source". Everything has opinion and bias. You have not shown me any internal government documents either. I beleive a lot of that stuff is classified

[Coventrysucks]

Just to lighten the mood :)

Bush outlines his core election campaign agenda

[gtface]

i have american citizenship, and therefore can vote. also, i'm glad to see that u can not take criticism, which i've suspected for a few days now. u just yell at ppl and through other people's opinions at them, without showing concrete proof.

No, I do not do that. I don't know what gives you the idea that the way you conduct a debate is so much better than the way I do it. You have not provided one source, and I have provided plenty of facts, not just opinion.

[lithuanianmafia]

Here are two sources which I see as non-biast, and fair.

#1 (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101)

#2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html)

[lithuanianmafia]

Everything has opinion and bias.

so, what u r saying is that everything Dubya says should be considered opinionated and biast?

[Coventrysucks]

" "While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship," said Daniel Benjamin, former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council.

According to George Tenet, the director of the CIA, those claims are based on "sources of varying reliability." Information has come from detainees the U.S is holding in Guantanamo Bay, and from people like Ahmed Chalaby, an exiled Iraqi opposition leader whose claims the CIA disputes.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counter-terrrorism, says the Bush administration is putting fierce pressure on the CIA to produce evidence about the Iraq al-Qaeda link that it doesn't have."

" A CIA counterterrorism analyst who testified using the pseudonym Ted Davis said, "We’re in full agreement with the staff statement," which he said did "an excellent job" of representing the agency’s current understanding of the al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

John Pistole, the FBI's executive assistant director for counter-terrorism, concurred."

So if the people responsible for gathering the information and presenting it to the government say one thing, but the government proceeds to say another -what is going on?

Are the CIA and FBI and "Czech authorities" all wrong?

[lithuanianmafia]

Are the CIA and FBI and "Czech authorities" all wrong?

they must be, accordin to gt

[crisis]

I do care about important issues.

Whether the US government lied about possible links between Saddam Hussein, 11/9, or Iraq is not an important issue.
It is in the past, has already happened, and cannot be changed.

Important issues are:
What is the US government going to do to help the Iraqi people return to a state of normality?
I beleive they are trying to. It is the terrorists who are trying to stop it. Ask them.

What is going to happen with the Iranians?
They drop their nuclear program.

What is the US government's next step in their "War of Terror", I'm sorry "War on Terrorism"?
;)Chase down the head cutters.

[Matra et Alpine]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
This talks about one of Iraq's terrorist training facilities, and a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (training Al Qaeda in Iraqi camps).
Actually he does NOT say it was, he avoids teh point and leaves you to infer ( or not as bias dictates ).

BTW, a little bit of research on the individual turned this up on that report ....
(Editor‘s Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE‘s attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.)

So could be there was an ulterioir motive.
It was this kind of bad research by US intel that has been put forward as suggesting Bush didnt' "lie" but was poorly informed.

[Matra et Alpine]

Well it certainly isn't a fact, but is it an opinion? I don't think so. Opinions are usually qualitative, not quantitative (Like, I think Saddam Hussein is an asshole). I think your number qualifies as pure bullshit. I would think that the guy they are talking to in the ABC article probably based his number on something. We know for sure that there were hundreds of thousands of bodies buried in those mass graves, but I don't think those were all of the deaths for which he was responsible.
Lots of 'thinks' and 'probably' there :(

Oh and numbers CAN be opinions, of course they can.
Just because it is a number doesn't make it a fact

[Matra et Alpine]

Okay, so you think what these CIA people say is fact, simply because it supports your side. But if I were to show you a quote of someone saying that Iraq was a threat, and they did have a connection to Al Qaeda, you would say it was an opinion and didnt count. The people who created this report must not have seen all of the evdence, since others have said that there were clear connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
SORRY gtface, but you have a HUGE bias.

What *I* have wuoted is a report given to the US president and a sibsequent request by him to congress to jsutify the war.

This is not just some 'quote saying Iraq was a threat'.
This is fundamentally a mismatch of fact !!

Oh and what you will certailnly be abl to quote is opinion that Iraq COULD become a threat. Not justification unless oslid proff and evidence were presented of it being IMINENT. Just as Bush said and is now viewed to be untrue in all circles but the most extreme.

[Matra et Alpine]

How can you PROVE that the imminent danger quote was a lie? There were many, well-informed people who agreed with Bush on this before the war, and there are many who still do now. Does that mean that they are "blinded by their political bias"? No, especially if they are Iraqis that used to work for Saddam, not American Republicans.
I said it to you once, you'e now on your second strike ...

The US intel report TO the president did NOT say Iraq were a danger.

The fact that others may have been whispering in the presidents ear and he chose to take that on board is a condemnation of a leader if it were true.

The President is there it TAKE advice from the experts, not to take opinion and rhetoric to back a preferred plan of action.

Please take the glasses off and read with an open mind.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Hmmm. To say he didn't Knowingly lie would be stretching the truth also.

The guy might seem like an Asshole, but at least he's doing you a service by always indicating the lie: the little smirk says it all.

And just remember, over 32% of facts are false, at least 12% of people know that :p

Heres my conclusion.

Bush knew about Saddam, thought he posed a threat, and acted. The WOT was merely a front, it might have made Afghanistan look good, but not many supported the whole idea of Iraq being a terrorist base. With a crumbling Infrastructure and millions of starving civilians, do you really think he'd have bothered making WOMD to aim at other countries? for what, to cut the limited aid he already recieved? to make the rest of the world as dirt poor as his nation? Talk about the bully punching below his weight.......

Sept. 11 was a horrible occurance, but one bad deed does not deserve another. The best revenge, as they say, is to live well, and the terrorists, despite Americas efforts are winning. How? using fear. they have managed to strike paranoia into most every american, thinking that this building, or that car, is full of bombs. to do nothing would be a disgrace, to do as much as they are is overkill.

No one comes out clean from this situation, the fact still stands. Terrorists, Bush, Blair and all involved have blood on their hands, it is just that one side won't admit it.

[Matra et Alpine]

Of course I am aware that people do not agree with me. I could care less if you or matra or lithuanianmafia agree with me, because you guys are not americans and wont be able to vote in the next US election. I was hoping, however, that sharing what I know in this forum might influence those who can vote in this election to either vote for Bush or stay home,

oooh, sign od true colors coming out :)

Folks who are still reading this thread :) ...

Under NO circumstances should you "stay at home" in an electoral democracy.
You MUST vote, in the case of poor candidates then you should 'spoil' the abllot paper - best to put LOTS of crosses - and then at least you are pointing out "none of the above".

Especially I find in the US elections that you have limited 'breadth' of candidates, so it sometimes seems a bad choice either way.

But PLEASE, do NOT fall into the trap of political activists who suggest staying at home. The British fought opression for 5000 years to provide the framework of democracy your nation is built on. Don't lose it in the last 500 !!!


and not to agree with the opinions of people like you. I think you are the one who should stick to discussing cars, since you don't seem to know much about this issue.

Sorry, gtface, we may know more than you as our goverment and press are not permitted to hide behind veils of secrecy and we have a WIDE range of political views represented in our press and media.

[Matra et Alpine]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

From a conservative magazine no doubt, yes there will be some bias, but once again contains some good information.

I'll just take their copmment on dates of meetings in 1990.
At that time the US were funding Bin Laden's fighters in conflicts in Afghanistand and Bosnia.
So to condemn for meetings is a bit rich as he was meeting representatives of the US intelligence and finance groups at the same time.
You can't have it both ways - and you won't see both unless you look the other way !!

[Matra et Alpine]

Condie Rice seems to think that she has irrefutable truth.
STRIEK 3 , you're out !!!

Well see, you again post opinion - 'seems' !!!

You lose the ball game !!!

I'm out of this thread for good.
No point playing with the kiddies....

[gtface]

Actually he does NOT say it was, he avoids teh point and leaves you to infer ( or not as bias dictates ).

BTW, a little bit of research on the individual turned this up on that report ....
(Editor‘s Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE‘s attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.)

So could be there was an ulterioir motive.
It was this kind of bad research by US intel that has been put forward as suggesting Bush didnt' "lie" but was poorly informed.

they say it is unlikely that they were rlated to the 9/11 attacks, but they do not say that they definitely were not. Even if they werent related to the 9/11 attacks, that does not mean that they didnt train Al Qaeda members there, and to me that is a substantial connection.

[gtface]

Lots of 'thinks' and 'probably' there :(

Oh and numbers CAN be opinions, of course they can.
Just because it is a number doesn't make it a fact

there are more things than just facts and opinions, just because something isnt a fact, it doesn't make it opinion. What about lies?

[gtface]

oooh, sign od true colors coming out :)

Folks who are still reading this thread :) ...

Under NO circumstances should you "stay at home" in an electoral democracy.
You MUST vote, in the case of poor candidates then you should 'spoil' the abllot paper - best to put LOTS of crosses - and then at least you are pointing out "none of the above".

Especially I find in the US elections that you have limited 'breadth' of candidates, so it sometimes seems a bad choice either way.

But PLEASE, do NOT fall into the trap of political activists who suggest staying at home. The British fought opression for 5000 years to provide the framework of democracy your nation is built on. Don't lose it in the last 500 !!!



Sorry, gtface, we may know more than you as our goverment and press are not permitted to hide behind veils of secrecy and we have a WIDE range of political views represented in our press and media.

No way. If you don't know anything about the candidates or issues you are voting on, and you are too lazy to do any research, you definitely should not vote. What good is that gonna do, if a bunch of uninformed people go to the polls and vote for a guy that doesnt deserve the office? Yeah it might make you happy because stupid and lazy people usually vote for democrats.

[gtface]

I said it to you once, you'e now on your second strike ...

The US intel report TO the president did NOT say Iraq were a danger.

The fact that others may have been whispering in the presidents ear and he chose to take that on board is a condemnation of a leader if it were true.

The President is there it TAKE advice from the experts, not to take opinion and rhetoric to back a preferred plan of action.

Please take the glasses off and read with an open mind.

Where is this intel report you keep referring to? I don't see it anywhere up here. By the way, there are many intel reports to the president, some of which did talk of connections between alqaeda and Iraq.

[gtface]

STRIEK 3 , you're out !!!

Well see, you again post opinion - 'seems' !!!

You lose the ball game !!!

I'm out of this thread for good.
No point playing with the kiddies....

Hey thanks for calling me a "kiddie", and showing me how much more mature you are than me (sarcasm). I didn't realize we were at the name-calling stage yet. Do you want me to not use the word "seems" implying that I know for sure that she has irrefutable evidence? I don't think that would be right. It's pretty obvious that that is the attitude she is taking. She doesn't say, "I think we might maybe have some information that could show some kind of maybe a connection blah blah blah".

"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad,"

She seems (that's right, seems) pretty confident, does she not?

[gtface]

"According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, 'bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq.'

thats more than just having a few meetings. He wanted to have access to their rescources so he could be a more effective terrorist.

[henk4]

"According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, 'bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq.'



May be Bin Laden wanted that, but not Sadam Hussein. Until his untimely demise there were no "international" terrorist in his country, he in fact maintained a very tame version of Islam, all of which has been released. Where was Bin Sadr before the invasion? No influence at all. The road ahead as Coventry Sucks has already mentioned is going to be very difficult, after June 30th, I expect an explosion of violence.
I have just taken half an hour or more to read this thread for the first time, (never noticed its existence) and in the very beginning there were some discussions about oil prices. As far as I know GWB has refused to make available part of the US strategic reserves to lower the prices. I suppose this could well be because of the fact that a lower oil price is not in the interest of those who control the oil supply. In the USA that is not only OPEC but there are still a large number of local producers, who have always had very friendly ties with the Republican Party in general and with the Bush clan in particular. May be this is even the reason that having SUV's now even meets with tax favours! It's all about oil and money. They even go to war for it.
I have been lucky enough that I could follow fox news during the past few months on a regular basis. At least now I can somehow understand were Gtface's opinions are coming from. Compared to Fox, CNN can be qualified as an objective independent network.

[Coventrysucks]

They drop their nuclear program.

Not up to date on current affairs then?

Iran is spoiling for a fight, with the combined forces of the coalition right on their doorstep.

If they do something stupid, it could get nasty.

[henk4]

If they do something stupid, it could get nasty.

Are you talking about the just announced "to be released" british soldiers then? :)

[werty]

george w is puppet and a dangerous man running the most power country on earth. .

if he is the puppet, who is the puppet master? Time and time again history has shown that War is the only way Peace can be made. If America hadn't stopped terrorists, they would've never stopped trying to kill us. What kind of President would he be if he didn't retaliate. What would you say now if he hadn't chased down the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Would that have made him a better man?

I think people like you who are against War and against protecting your people are dangerous, not only to yourself but those around you as well.

[henk4]

if he is the puppet, who is the puppet master?

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and possibly Bush Sr. Remember the senate hearing of Rumsfeld about Abu Ghraib? he got the question what he had told the President, and between him and the military guy present as well they were more or less joking that on a daily basis they decided what the president should know and what not.

[lithuanianmafia]

terrorists in ... Iraq.

well, u have to look at the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq to begin with. the only reason that we have them now is because of the US invasion

[Coventrysucks]

Are you talking about the just announced "to be released" british soldiers then? :)

Yep.
I don't know quite what Iran are playing at.

[henk4]

Yep.
I don't know quite what Iran are playing at.

they wanted to make the point that British soldiers should not enter their territory. The Shat-al-Arab river has been a bone of contention between Iran and Iraq for a long time, in 1980 they fought a fierce war there, trapping and sinking many merchant ships. Extreme caution therefore is requested when foreign troops venture out there. They were probalby not planning any attacks, :D , but they stupidly lost there way.

[gtface]

well, u have to look at the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq to begin with. the only reason that we have them now is because of the US invasion

Not true. There was at least one, if not more major terrorist training camps in Iraq just prior to the war. You think there were no terrorists in those camps?

[lithuanianmafia]

Not true. There was at least one, if not more major terrorist training camps in Iraq just prior to the war. You think there were no terrorists in those camps?

this "terrorist camp" was one of the points brought up by Colin Powell in his speech to the UN General Counsil, trying to convince them that this war was legit. it turned out that the terrorist camp, like the supposed attempt to purchase uranium from Niger, was false.

[lithuanianmafia]

What about lies?
i'll just settle this

an example of opinion: "I believe that your view is biast"

an example of a lie: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this war was just"

there, satisfied?

anyways, I'm stepping out of this forum as well. gtface, all I have to say is that your view is completly blinded by patriotism, and the lack of wanting to believe that your leader is wrong. you have hardly any concrete evidence to establish your claims, only quotes and opinions of other people. I just hope that your view can one day see the truth in the world, and not just as your President tells you. Also gt, I think it is time to decide what your place is in this forum. This is a car-based forum, and the only thing that you've posted on in the past week is this thread. if this is what you want to discuss, go to a political forum, this site is for cars, we should leave our political differences at the door.

[gtface]

this "terrorist camp" was one of the points brought up by Colin Powell in his speech to the UN General Counsil, trying to convince them that this war was legit. it turned out that the terrorist camp, like the supposed attempt to purchase uranium from Niger, was false.

Show me proof that this terrorist camp did not exist. I don't think thats possible, since there is plenty of proof out there that it did exist.

[gtface]

i'll just settle this

an example of opinion: "I believe that your view is biast"
an example of a lie: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this war was just"

there, satisfied?

The first point is true, the second is completely false. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction as I have shown you. Oh yes, and the war was just.

Wow, way to settle it.

[crisis]

Not up to date on current affairs then?

Iran is spoiling for a fight, with the combined forces of the coalition right on their doorstep.

If they do something stupid, it could get nasty.
Irans rulers may be fanatics but I hope they are not insane. Even Ghadaffi realised his limitations. The only ones it will get nasty for will be Iran and unfortunately their population.

[crisis]

well, u have to look at the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq to begin with. the only reason that we have them now is because of the US invasion
Thats a big call. Where did you get your intelligence.

[werty]

this is way off the topic but just wanted to welcome gtface to the forums cause i haven't seen you before on UCP,.....by the way i live 2 hours away from you, your the nearest member to me :cool:

[Coventrysucks]

Colin Powell has just admitted in an interview on the BBC that information he presented as FACT in February was WRONG.

I applaud his honesty.

[crisis]

Colin Powell has just admitted in an interview on the BBC that information he presented as FACT in February was WRONG.

I applaud his honesty.
The US administration have been admitting they were wrong or at least innacurate on a lot lately. Doesnt change the fact we are all best rid of Saddam. It should be a heads up for some of the more defensive pro US types to get some balance to their ideas though. I think in the end the US did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[Matra et Alpine]

The US administration have been admitting they were wrong or at least innacurate on a lot lately. Doesnt change the fact we are all best rid of Saddam. It should be a heads up for some of the more defensive pro US types to get some balance to their ideas though. I think in the end the US did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Sorry, Crisis, doing things for the wrong reason just creates a UNLAWFUL action which has done more to damamge relations in the area.
IF they had allowed UN weapons inspectors to complete the task and report on WMD, then sanctions would have been lifted and a level of normality MAY have returned. If Saddam returned to oppression then a funded UN program could maybe have assisted best by supporting democracy and freedom of speech. Many Amnesty and UN programs which are preventative in nature, for years, have been devoid of results because 'hawks' in goverment have never supported peacful results as they always require concessions.
Because the US has always been the stronger, it has never yet had to address this as a national trait. In the one area where it had occurred it has been swept away under a carpet for the lessons to be forgotten.
The 'heads up' was learned the hard way by 10s of thousands of US forces and Johnson the hard way. And yet some still think forcing a government style on a people is the way forward :(
This last years HUGE increase in terrorist attacks repeats the umpteen phases Israel has gone through in it's "local" relations and how the US/UK thought it would be anything different is a surprise.
How a person responds to threat says a lot of the man/woman.
For a president and PM so overtly Christian, it's a shame they didn't chose saints as a role-model rather than knights :(

[gtface]

this is way off the topic but just wanted to welcome gtface to the forums cause i haven't seen you before on UCP,.....by the way i live 2 hours away from you, your the nearest member to me :cool:

Thanks for that.

[gtface]

Colin Powell has just admitted in an interview on the BBC that information he presented as FACT in February was WRONG.

I applaud his honesty.

Show me that interview.

[Coventrysucks]

Luckily for me, Newsnight have the interview up on the internet already.

The specific part of the interview starts at about 3.10, although I suggest you watch all of it.

You need Real Player BTW

Click "Colin Powell interview" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm)

[gtface]

So, what he is saying is that some of the sources that he had used for facts contained innaccuracies. He also said, "The intelligence community came together and said, 'We stand behind this presentation.' I stood behind the presentation at the time." So he is saying that he had no reason not to believe that the information was true at the time. What he is also NOT saying, is that any of the information that he presented was wrong. He simply said that they were unable to "subsequently source" some of the information. He said that some of the sources he used were wrong, but that does not mean he lied. So still no proof of lies.

[henk4]

He said that some of the sources he used were wrong, but that does not mean he lied. So still no proof of lies.

But that also does not mean that what he said was true.

[gtface]

But that also does not mean that what he said was true.

My point was that there is still no proof of lies, so people are once again making accusations that have no basis whatsoever.

[Coventrysucks]

my original post:
"information he presented as FACT in February was WRONG."

What Colin Powell said is that information presented as fact was wrong

I didn't make any baseless accusations.

[henk4]

My point was that there is still no proof of lies, so people are once again making accusations that have no basis whatsoever.

He used "wrong sources" for very far reaching decisions. Such decisions warrant a very closely scrutiny of all sources. If you later have to admit that the sources were wrong, then you have a serious credibility problem.

[gtface]

my original post:
"information he presented as FACT in February was WRONG."

What Colin Powell said is that information presented as fact was wrong

I didn't make any baseless accusations.

Actually, he didn't really say that he presented anything that was not truth. He said that some of his sources contained innacurate information, but this does not mean that he presented the information that was innaccurate. Once again, this does not prove that anyone lied.

[Coventrysucks]

Actually, he didn't really say that he presented anything that was not truth. He said that some of his sources contained innacurate information, but this does not mean that he presented the information that was innaccurate. Once again, this does not prove that anyone lied.

You really are unbelievable.

He used sources which contained innacurate information, yet you say that the information he presented, using the sources wasn't innacurate.

How can that be possible?

If you are using a source that is innacurate to make a presentation, how can the presentation not be innacurate?

Once again, I can't see where anyone claimed he lied, I didn't.

[gtface]

You really are unbelievable.

He used sources which contained innacurate information, yet you say that the information he presented, using the sources wasn't innacurate.

How can that be possible?

If you are using a source that is innacurate to make a presentation, how can the presentation not be innacurate?

Once again, I can't see where anyone claimed he lied, I didn't.

You can't see how that is possible? Why not? It's not really so hard. He said that he was using sources that contained innaccurate information. This does not mean that ALL of the information was incorrect. Powell never said that he presented any information that was innaccurate, therefore it could be that none of the innaccurate information worked its way into his presentation. Therefore, there is still no proof that anyone in this administration misled anyone.

[Coventrysucks]

Powell never said that he presented any information that was innaccurate, therefore it could be that none of the innaccurate information worked its way into his presentation. Therefore, there is still no proof that anyone in this administration misled anyone.

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!
You are a comlete fool, blinded by government propaganda.

This IS EXACTLY what Colin Powell said


It's distressful in the sense that some of the information we presented that day we have not been able to subsequently source. Some of the sources that we used on some parts of the presentation I made turned out to be wrong. That doesn't mean that I felt something was wrong in my making that presentation. At the time we believed it. At the time we believed the information was accurate, and it was the best judgment of the intelligence community, not only of the United States but of other nations as well. And so what I presented on that day was the best information we had. Some of the information has turned out now to be inaccurate and I am distressed by that.

READ IT!!!

Some of the information we presented... we have not been able to source
Some of the sources we used in some parts of the presentation I made turned out to be WRONG
What I presented that day... Some of that information turned out now to be inaccurate

Get your head straightened out, this really is tiresome.
:rolleyes:

[gtface]

"Some of the information has turned out now to be inaccurate and I am distressed by that."

I honestly must have missed that part the first few times I read it. Sorry thats kind of a big blunder. Anyway, I still don't see this as a lie. I think in order for it to be a lie he would have to know the information he presented was innaccurate and I don't think this was the case. There is no eveidence to suggest that it was.

[Coventrysucks]

From the Daily Telegraph
05/07/2004

We were wrong on WMD, admits Britain's former envoy to Iraq
By George Jones and Michael Smith
(Filed: 05/07/2004)

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction before the war, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special envoy to Iraq, conceded yesterday.

His admission that it had been "wrong" to claim that Saddam had large quantities of chemical and biological weapons came as the intelligence services braced themselves for serious criticism from the inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war.

Lord Butler's inquiry reports on July 14 on the eve of two parliamentary by-elections. It is expected to criticise John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee; MI6, the secret intelligence service; and the Defence Intelligence Staff, over their role in a claim that Saddam's WMD could be deployed at 45 minutes' notice.

The report is understood to blame Mr Scarlett, who takes over as head of MI6 at the end of this month, for acceding to the Prime Minister's desire to use the claim to help make the Government's case for war - even though the intelligence services were unsure what the claim meant.

The mounting speculation that senior figures would be censured by the inquiry led Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, to warn yesterday against a "witch hunt".

He said he accepted that mistakes may have been made and lessons would have to be learned but, overall, MI5 and MI6 did a "fantastic job".

Mr Blair still refuses to rule out the possibility that WMD may yet be found in Iraq or to apologise for basing the case for war on their existence.

But Sir Jeremy, while insisting that military action had been fully justified, appeared to acknowledge that mistakes had been made. "We were wrong on the stockpiles; we were right on the intention," he said on BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost.

Sir Jeremy suggested that the US administration had allowed itself to be misled about the size of the security challenge that the coalition would face after the invasion.

Saddam was "very likely" to be hanged if convicted of war crimes and genocide, he said.



From the Daily Telegraph
07/07/2004

Blair admits WMD may never be found
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 07/07/2004)

Tony Blair accepted for the first time yesterday that weapons of mass destruction might never be found in Iraq, but he refused to apologise for going to war to remove Saddam Hussein.

Fifteen months after the Iraq war, he told the Commons liaison committee that Saddam's stockpile of chemical and biological weapons may have been "hidden, removed or destroyed".

Mr Blair's admission was seen as an attempt to pre-empt the Butler committee's expected criticism next Wednesday of Downing Street and the security services for intelligence failings in the run-up to the conflict.

Until yesterday, the Prime Minister has refused to concede that the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - which formed the legal basis for the war against Iraq - may not have existed.

A year ago, when he appeared before the same committee, Mr Blair said he had "absolutely no doubt that evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes" would be found in Iraq.

He then described as "inherently implausible" the suggestion that Saddam could have destroyed his WMD but not told anyone about it.

Mr Blair acknowledged yesterday he had been very confident that they would be found. "I have to accept we haven't found them and that we may never find them," he said.

He was urged by Edward Leigh, the Conservative chairman of the public accounts committee, to draw a line under the controversy by "saying sorry" for going to war for the wrong reasons.

Mr Blair said the war had removed Saddam, who was a tyrant and a threat "in relation to weapons of mass destruction". Whether the weapons were hidden, removed or destroyed, Saddam "was in clear breach of UN resolutions".

He insisted that Saddam had been a threat to the region and the world. "I genuinely believe that those weapons were there and that is why the international community came together as they did."

He claimed that Iraq was where the West had to "take a stand" against rogue states developing such weapons.

Michael Ancram, the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said in the time leading up to the war Mr Blair had claimed Saddam's WMP programme was "up and running".

He said the Prime Minister "now owes the country a full explanation."

Mr Blair mounted a strong defence of his close relationship with America. He dismissed suggestions that he was President George W Bush's "poodle" and said Britain must never be ashamed of its special relationship with the US.

He said America was not being "unreasonable" in refusing to release the remaining British detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Blair confirmed that he had raised the case of the four detainees with Mr Bush "a few weeks ago" and discussions were continuing between the British and US governments.

Although he refused to speak about any individual, Mr Blair suggested some of the detainees could pose a security risk if they were set free.

Downing Street said later that America had legitimate concerns about the detainees. But Mr Blair's spokesman refused to discuss the case further, saying he did not want to prejudice security.

Mr Blair's question-and-answer session before the liaison committee also led to a backlash from senior Labour MPs over his decision to put "choice" in public services at the heart of Labour's campaign for the general election.

The MPs, who are all chairmen of watchdog select committees, voiced concern that extending choice, particularly in education, would benefit the professional middle classes at the expense of the less-well off.

They urged Mr Blair to concentrate on ensuring that the local hospital or school was up to standard - rather than offering people a "choice" of going to a school or hospital in a different town or a different part of the country.

Mr Blair and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, are both putting forward rival policies for expanding choice in public services.

The question-and-answer session showed that the issue is highly-divisive within the Labour Party, with many MPs and ministers sceptical about whether Mr Blair's "big idea" would deliver improved public services.

Tony Wright, the chairman of the public administration committee, said what people wanted was a "decent service down the road" rather than a free-for-all.

He questioned what model of choice would enable people from the poor end of town to go to the "good school at the posh end".

Alan Williams, the chairman of the liaison committee, feared Government policies would result in a return to secondary moderns with a two-tier system. Barry Sheerman, the chairman of the education select committee, suggested choice was "loading the dice towards the professional middle classes".

Mr Blair denied that his administration had "run out of steam" and he believed "passionately" that public services should be available for all sections of society.

He denied that choice was a preoccupation of the middle classes and said it was very important that all parents had a range of good secondary schools to choose from. Many working class parents felt exactly the same and wanted their children to do better.

"What everyone wants is the good school and the good hospital on their doorstep. The question is that given that we live in an imperfect world, and they don't always have it, are they then just stuck with a failing or poor service on their doorstep or can they exercise the choice to go elsewhere?"

Mr Blair acknowledged climate change was the biggest problem facing the world. He said the international community must do far more to tackle environmental damage and pressure must be maintained on the US to sign up to the Kyoto protocol of reducing carbon emissions.

He said he had not "closed the door" on a new generation of nuclear power stations, but the public had very real safety concerns. He indicated that a decision on whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations could be taken after the next election.

[gtface]

They use the word "mistake" quite a lot but not "lie". I think that makes sense. As Blair said, we may never find the amount of WMD's that we thought they had, but at the same time we could. There is still a lot of searching left to do. And if we don't find any more, that would mean that we made a mistake in making certain assumptions about the intelligence regarding WMD's. They will have made a mistake in trusting certain sources that ended up being false. But it would only be a mistake, and people (as well as governments) are always going to make some mistakes in everything they do. It is not as though the weapons of mass destruction were the only reasons that Bush or Blair gave for going to war, they gave plenty of other reasons that were equally valid. On top of that, as Blair said, Saddam was still in blatant violation of the UN resolutions even if he didnt have as many weapons as we thought.

[henk4]

Sometimes the use of the word "mistake" comes very handy. I think these Governments were not in the position to make any mistakes, they had to be absolutely sure because of the pressure they were putting on other members of the UN security council. They were a bit too happy when their intelligence services came up with the information that they thought they needed and then failed to verify.

[gtface]

The US and UK were putting pressure on the UN and I think they were just in doing so. We know that Saddam violated the UN resolutions, and the UN said if he violated the resolutions they would use force. Then the UN backed out at the last minute. That shows me that THEY have a tremendous credibility problem. Its kind of like a parent saying they are going to punish a kid for a certain offense and not following through. This would give the kid the impression that he can do whatever he wants, and would make him think he has power over his parents. This is not a good position to be in.

[werty]

good point and very true

[Coventrysucks]

that would mean that we made a mistake in making certain assumptions about the intelligence regarding WMD's. They will have made a mistake in trusting certain sources that ended up being false. But it would only be a mistake, and people (as well as governments) are always going to make some mistakes in everything they do. It is not as though the weapons of mass destruction were the only reasons that Bush or Blair gave for going to war, they gave plenty of other reasons that were equally valid. On top of that, as Blair said, Saddam was still in blatant violation of the UN resolutions even if he didnt have as many weapons as we thought.

"We" made a mistake?

I didn't.

Its a pretty big mistake to accuse a country of stockpiling WMD, using the combined might of the US and UK Intelligence services, and they all turned out to be wrong.

If they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMD, which they should have been before telling the public, then that would indicate that they would know exactly how much and exactly where they all were.

I know there are tea bags in this house, there are 60, in a cupboard.

If I thought there might be tea bags, but didn't know how many or where, how can I really be sure they exist?

How could I then say to you with iron clad certainty that tea bags exist in this house?

Neither Bush nor Blair should have used the WMD card as much as they did when they could not have been 100% certain that they existed.

[cuntukimushroom]

still reminds me of a monkey :rolleyes: :p