| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:41:14 PM |
There were WMD as well as proof that Al Qaeda wanted them to use on the US. I could post links to prove it but you woudn't believe it anyway. So why waste my time.
Again, for the hundreth time, go look at the ISG report on the CIA website. I have posted links before, and it is from your own government.
The reality is there, open your eyes.
I have also previously posted links to the Duelfer report by the British, which basically claims the same thing as the ISG report. | |
|
korky
|
Joined: 12/4/2004
Msg: 177 | |
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 12:39:46 AM | Sorry to contradict you on your info regarding WMDs. you just don't get it---there were none. I would suggest you check out "Addicted to war" on the net and maybe this will enlighten you on your ill conceived info. If Hitler Bush really needs to find WMDs he will find them in N Korea but I don't think he has the courage to invade that little pissed ass country. Maybe the reason is there is no oil there or anything to be gained for that stupid invasion. He just might get a missle blasted up his rear end and I'm sure the Chinese won't stand by and let the US control that country as well as Taiwan. Of course you got my goat up but when we all know the truth that its control of the oil that Hitler bush is after. Its so sad you believe all that he says and I'm sure you don't agree with Farenheit 911 either. I'm sure there is a little exageration in the documentary but those facts speak louder than your US Hitler BS.
Don't get me wrong, the American people and country is a wonderful place but when you have an idiot at the controls then don't expect me to glorify what he is doing. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 5:09:25 AM |
I would suggest you check out "Addicted to war" on the net and maybe this will enlighten you on your ill conceived info.
Conspiracy story. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 12:05:06 PM | Perhaps addicted to war is a little strong, but Americans certainly enjoy it. They were chomping at the bit to have a scrap with oil rich Iraq. Even now after all the lies have been exposed americans still want to continue their occupation of Iraq. It's almost as if the US sees itself as running the show when it comes to international affairs and as such has the right to install or overthrow which ever government they so choose. They did it in Vietnam, Iran and now Iraq to mention just a few.
Basically the arms dealers and oil companies are the only ones that have benefitted from the war in Iraq. If anyone thinks for a second it was about democracy; guess again there was absolutely no planning for it. Terrorism only flourished in Iraq after the US invasion and occupation.
Now Georgie is trying to suggest that the US must "stay the course" because so many have already died. So more americans must die in an unjust war because so many others have alrready died? With this type of logic I would say that Georgies probably got the old bong out of storage and hit the bottle again. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 12:34:47 PM | It amazes me that after the FBI, CIA, NSA and many others have proven beyon any doubt that the war was based on spin and that Iraq posed no threat to the US or anyone else for that matter, that some neo-cons still argue otherwise.
If there really was any proof the whitehouse would be waving all over the place instead of changing the rationale for the war every time another pack of lies gets shot down in flames.
Once again for those with bad memories; It's not only that Saddam had WMD's but that he also posed an immediate threat to the peace and security of the USA. Remember Colin Powel and all the lies he presented to the UN as "hard intellegence facts" or Tony Blairs report that Saddam could strike the UK within 45 minutes. Even the US government has said they got it "DEAD WRONG" and CNN just aired a special of the same name outlining all the mistakes made. And there are those that still argue the President was right. Something tells me these same people believe the President can never be wrong.
Sad really. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 7:34:49 PM |
Terrorism only flourished in Iraq after the US invasion and occupation.
No it was there you just didn't hear about it because the US wasn't in Iraq. Just like you never heard very much about terrorism at all before 911. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 7:40:03 PM | You didn't hear about it because cars were not exploding all over Iraq with foreigners inside of them.
Even your Pentagon admits Iraq is ground zero for terrorism today. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 7:50:07 PM | No terrorism at all?
"Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves," a new report from the U.S. Agency for International Development, illuminates this aspect of Hussein's brutality. The paper — compiled by USAID staffers Ben Barber and Stephen Epstein, with graphic, jarring photographs by Thomas Hartwell — is available online at www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html.
"In June 2003, I visited Iraq's mass graves, the most recent addition to mankind's legacy of mass murder," writes USAID administrator Andrew Natsios. "The bones tell a story of horror and shame: arms bound together, skulls pierced from behind. Hundreds in one long trench."
According to the study, 270 mass graves have been reported since Hussein fell last May. Since then, 53 sites have been confirmed. "Some graves hold a few dozen bodies," the authors explain. "Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.
Assessments of the devastation vary. Last May, Human Rights Watch concluded that "as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades." Last November 20, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves." This scale of destruction rivals 1994's Rwandan genocide.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403190916.asp | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/28/2005 9:34:27 PM |
Assessments of the devastation vary. Last May, Human Rights Watch concluded that "as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades."
By some estimations, Bush has caused a third of that death toll in just two years. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/29/2005 5:43:42 AM | That isn't terrorism, as defined by your own President.
No one is saying SH should have won any Nobel Peace Prizes.
Terrorism is defined by your President as that which threatens the USA, and free nations all over the world. Those mass graves posed no threat to the USA, only to Iraqis.
If death toll was the deciding factor, North Korea would probably be at the top of the list - if not #1.
Little or no mention was made of this factor in the pre-invasion run up - check any of the public statements made beforehand, almost no mention of the Iraqi people and their conditions were made. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/29/2005 6:21:15 AM |
Little or no mention was made of this factor in the pre-invasion run up - check any of the public statements made beforehand, almost no mention of the Iraqi people and their conditions were made.
Iraq's mass graves have received some attention, but foes of Operation Iraqi Freedom prefer to discuss other things. They would rather focus on unseen weapons of mass destruction than on obvious scenes of mass death.
The liberal media appear only mildly interested in all of this. The Nexis database shows, for instance, that between January 1 and March 15, 2004, America's so-called paper of record, the New York Times, featured 191 references to Iraq and "weapons of mass destruction," but only six to Iraq and "mass graves." It's far easier to slam President Bush on Iraq while some 400,000 Iraqis who loudly would defend him, instead are busy decomposing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403190916.asp | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/29/2005 12:29:10 PM | The mass graves found in Iraq are no surprize and thats why the media hasn't paid attention to them. The case for war was that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the USA not his own people. Remember that the US under Ronnie Reagan and Bush sr. embraced and armed Saddam. It was American chemical weapons used on the Kurds and it was America that continued to supply Saddam with chemical, biological weapons, and dual use technology used in Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Nobody's arguing that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator, he was; but that wasn't the case for war. A pack of lies were and thousands have died as a result of those lies. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/29/2005 4:40:08 PM | Foxfire,
Look at the public statements of this Administration pre-invasion. I have posted links to those speeches before here.
Almost no mention of any human rights abuses in any of them. Those only came to the forefront when the WMD's were not found.
If this was such a great concern, and part of the reason for war - it should have been mentioned as a moral justification.
It was not, except in passing. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 7:35:12 AM | | I can find plenty of speeches which includes Saddams treatment of his people between September 11, 2001 and March 20, 2003. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 7:40:13 AM | | I watched quite a few Bush speeches, live, before the war. In them, he talked almost exclusively about WMDs and the 'threat' to the US. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 9:14:29 AM | Some examples :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
October 2002
Mention of the Iraqi people ?
5 small paragraphs - out of a rather lengthy speech which concentrates on WMD's and threats to the USA. Note these are towards the end as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
small passing references as the war is announced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 22nd Presidential Radio Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html
again, a passing reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 26th address to the troops
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html
small reference again, in passing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Carrier speech at the port of Philidelphia" - March 31st
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030331-4.html
Doing a little better here, but still not a main focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12th 2003 Radio address on the war
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030412.html
This seems to be the first time the Iraqi people are given priority one, perhaps due to the fact that no WMD's have been found.
If you read the speeches after about April 1st, there is a marked shifting of what the focus of the war is. The stress on WMD's has been lifted to almost no mention, the threat SH posed to the world is still there, but a miracle has occurred.
Suddenly, and with only one thing having changed - the Iraqi people are suddenly in the spotlight.
I wonder why ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
|
| |
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 12:09:14 PM | His speeches pretty much summed up what Suddam did to his people, WMD and hitory of harboring terrorism.
Did you want him to give a speech solely just on what he did to his people? | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 12:22:07 PM | We'd like to hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not so hard is it?
Well maybe for Bush! | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 5:13:37 PM | His speeches pretty much summed up what Suddam did to his people, WMD and hitory of harboring terrorism.
Did you want him to give a speech solely just on what he did to his people?
Well, two out of three ain't bad. :-(
My point is this.
He ( and the USA) had a great moral reason to invade Iraq. There are other countries in more need of the same type of liberation - there is no doubt about that.
This reason was certainly one that could not have been argued against, and it should have been pushed to the top of the list BEFORE the invasion. That way, if the WMD story didn't pan out, at least you could have said " Look, we still had to do this. Look at the graves, look at the torture rooms we DID tell you about - we WERE right about this guy. "
By NOT doing that, and pinning everything on " lucky number 7 " on that roulette wheel, the USA and it's intelligence agencies lost international credibility totally. That will have it's effects for a rather long time.
It's one of the things that got me the most upset about this war, the fact that the "spin doctors" were working overtime as the war wound down on the ground. You could almost see the change occuring in real time. | |
|
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 8/30/2005 7:46:57 PM | | Someone will write history years from now, and only then we will know again how foolish we were. | |
|
| |
| It's not about Iraqi Oil?
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:21:54 AM | | foxefire, You did not emphasize that Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam when he was committing all the crimes he would be accused to commit by the same Rumsfeld and his ilk. | |
|
Home
login 
