|
|
|
|
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:44:58 PM | You have to watch out for those gangs....83% approval rate to strike Iraq after 911....Im sure you were part of the 17% against it huh? As long as everyone can drive there cars & use the oil no one cares, the possibility is always there for a first strike against any country that trys to control the OIL....It just wont be allowed for the security of this country. ~Jr_Senator~ Those darn ol'gangs anyway
i truly hope that you really are not so stupid that you believe that iraq was ever a danger to our national security. that is imbecilic beyond belief.
you're right. i was against invading iraq for no reason. i KNEW why it was being done, and since it was being done for the sole purpose of enriching haliburton and the other neo con cronies, i knew it was wrong. not only that, since all rational people knew that they were no terrorists in iraq, i knew that it would only deplete the resources which we should be using to prevent future attacks by terrorists.
it is sad that you are so gullible that you have been deluded by a pathological liar, but, now that you have been shown reality, you can no longer blame your delusion on dumbya. if you persist in maintaining the fallacy, it is because you are incapable of grasping reality. | |
|
| Creating a more subserviant , martial law state, backed by a neocon fascist dictatorship
Posted: 12/31/2007 12:16:35 AM | MG (from article)
According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece
A PSA is a tool to develop something which the provider cannot do themselves for various reasons. Of course, when they are given, the situation is such that there is basically no opportunity of the people gaining benefit from the resource without it, hence, for the average person, there is nothing but upside to it. In Iraq, it gives the opportunity for allowing a market economy to take place where the world can buy oil and trade at market value.
From the article
PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries.
Yes, a very drastic measure however, this next quote is telling;
Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come.
Considering that to operate in Iraq fifty percent of an oil company’s cost is security, why would any sane Oil company wish to do so? Extreme environments call for extreme rewards and, who is going to develop Iraq’s oil so that the people can market it? There is a short essay here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0103/p17s01-cogn.html
From the article
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
They certainly can but, they cannot develop it themselves. Hence the need for foreign companies and, given the environment, rewards to make that development worthwhile. In short, it’s hard to get investement in their situation Hence the need for the PSA enticement.
Now MG, unless you have some magic solution whereby Iraq can support themselves without selling oil and, have no security problem so that such extreme measures such as PSAs need to be traded to entice development, it is something that is a terrible necessity.
MG
We have American and British diplomats at the UNSC clearly on the record during discussions about 1441 stating that it would not be an automatic trigger for war, and that this act would depend on the UN effort on the ground looking for WMD's, it's success, and Iraqi's willingness to cooperate in that regard.
I suppose you will haul out the usual Negroponte quote of
As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force.
However, to properly put this in perspective the entire quote has to be provided and, here is the rest with the key portion in bold.;
If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed.
If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.
http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm
So it seems that the US ambassador is in fact telling all that while the resolution does not have an automatic trigger, if certain conditions occur, (which they did surprise surprise) and, the council does not act then the US and or it’s member partners will. And all members unanimously approved this resolution knowing fully the US position. Hence, it was legal.
MG
Should that not occur as planned, it would then result in a secondary resolution authorizing military action.
That would have been optimal but, not necessary as the authorization had already been given in 1441 and, the US position on what was going to happen if the council did not act or, (in the case of France) opposed it. As the council failed to embrace the second resolution the US just said to hel with it and went ahead as they said, and, every nation that voted for 14441 knew they would do.
MG
Those UN inspectors were pulled out, not due to any Iraqi actions or lack of success, but because of an American one.
No, they were pulled out for their own safety because Blix reported a couple of material breaches and the US was going in.
MG
This, the entire basis of the war was one that broke international law. The fact that those American and British diplomats are on the record, as well as the well known facts about the American based reason for the pullout of UN inspectors, proves that.
Your facts were a partial quote with my full one explaining why it was legal. The lack of a condemnation as I explained in our last exchange confirms this. | |
|
| Creating a more subserviant , martial law state, backed by a neocon fascist dictatorship
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:07:52 AM | A rebuttal to your well researched counter argument:
On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.
By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."
At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.
In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
If indeed, as you claim, there was an inherent trigger to 1441 if Iraq was in material breach of it's acceptance of said terms, then why did the Administration call for an immediate meeting on the next step ? 
As per your logic, that step was not necessary.
In fact, discussion on the matter was deliberately avoided. Any concerns the US had over any breach could have at least been presented to the world, and voted on.
The risk was that the vote would have not authorized the war, and then by that fact made it an illegal one. That was a far worse position than claiming 1441 as a trigger, and then proceeding unilaterally.
MACVICAR: Well, the question of what's a material breach is, in fact, the most important question. A material breach meaning something that's a very important breach or trespass of the U.N. resolutions that oblige Iraq to cooperate.
Now, the question of U.N. weapons inspectors -- well, what is a material breach? Dr. Blix is on the record as saying, very clearly, that it is not up to him or the weapons inspectors to decide if a particular action or a particular lack of action on the part of Iraq constitutes a material breach. But that's for the U.N. Security Council to decide, that they say, according to Dr. Blix, that they will report factually to the council what happened.
Now, what in Dr. Blix's mind could be something serious? He is on the record as saying, well, perhaps even a delay of as little as half an hour getting into a particular site in Iraq that they want to see -- that could be something that he has said could be very serious, and could be reported back to the U.N. Security Council, and then it would be up to the U.N. Security Council to decide if that delay of perhaps 30 minutes was serious enough to be called a material breach -- material breach, of course, Arthel, being the words that could lead us toward war.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/17/sm.04.html
The UN never ruled on the facts, nor accepted that Iraq was in "material breach" of 1441.
A legal view, from experts....
Accordingly, Resolution 1441 may be seen as striking the following deal: The U.S. and U.K. agreed that before going to war against Iraq, they will return to the Security Council for a determination by that body of whether Iraq is in material breach. Meanwhile, the other Security Council members agreed that if a material breach is found, they will authorize military action to oust Saddam Hussein from power.
Thus, if the Administration does not release further evidence, and if the Blix report is ambiguous, the Security Council will be left in the position of a judge trying to decide whether there has been a material breach of a contract. It will be required, that is, to make a judgment call.
At that point, it may be useful to recall one more feature of contract law: when one party to a contract is in material breach, the other party has the option of terminating the contract, but is not required to do so. If our computer manufacturer believes that future shipments from the keyboard supplier are still a good deal, then notwithstanding a time-is-of-the-essence clause, it can continue the contract in force.
If we are to continue the analogy, it becomes clear that the U.N. Security Council will really face two questions when it receives the Blix report: First, has there been a material breach? And second, if so, what should be done? Even in the event of a material breach, the Security Council could still decide to continue "dealing" with Iraq--sending in inspectors, trying to hold it to its obligations, and imposing sanctions other than all-out war.
Despite the implicit "deal" I described above between the U.S./U.K. sponsors of Resolution 1441 and the other Security Council members, Resolution 1441 does not actually commit the Security Council to authorize war in the event of a material breach. That decision remains to be made. Thus, like the computer manufacturer in my simple example, the Security Council may legitimately decide that continuing the relationship--here, continuing weapons inspections--is the more prudent course.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030108.html
Resolution 1441 does not actually commit the Security Council to authorize war in the event of a material breach.
And yet no material breach was even decided upon, nor argued for.
Interestingly, we have some verifiable information that the US was indeed violating 1441 by using inspectors as spies, something Iraq had complained about repeatedly.
However, he (Scott Ritter) also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
In the same interview Ritter had this to say on accusations of UNSCOM being used for illegitimate spying on Iraq:
It's ironic that everyone has focused on the struggle of the inspectors vs. Iraq. Not too many people speak of the struggle between the weapons inspectors and the U.S. to beat back the forces of U.S. intelligence which were seeking to infiltrate the weapons inspectors program and use the unique access the inspectors enjoyed in Iraq for purposes other than disarmament. Iraq has a clear case that under this past inspection regime unfortunately it was misused for purposes other than set out by the Security Council resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCOM
Another thing about the CIA :
On January 20, 2004, the CIA, after a year of resistance, finally declassified the number of “high and medium priority ‘top suspect’ WMD sites” where the CIA shared information with the UN inspectors prior to the war in Iraq. In doing so, they finally acknowledge that 21 of the 105 high and medium priority top suspect sites on the CIA list were not shared with the United Nations before the war.
So the record is now clear that Director Tenet twice gave false information on this matter to the public and to the Congress shortly before the war.
The January 20, 2004, letter from the CIA states their position: the position of the CIA is that it provided the United Nations “with the intelligence that we judged would be fruitful in their search.”
One small part of this picture is this recent letter from the CIA that finally makes clear the truth: the CIA did not share all of the top suspect WMD sites in Iraq that Director Tenet said twice publicly before the war that it had shared with the UN inspectors. It is more evidence of the shaping of intelligence to fit the Administration’s policy objectives.
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=218281
The NSA was actually spying on the UN:
n March 2003 it was revealed that the National Security Agency had been spying on the United Nations Security Council including the phone conversions of Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, to gain intelligence to ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"The UN was monitored and assessed with almost as much vigour as Iraq itself." - Andrew Wilkie
Bugs found in UN
After the bugging was revealed, several actual bugging devices were found inside the UN. It was first reported by Swiss Television that a bug had been found in the Salon Francais of the Palais des Nations, formerly the League of Nations. Other devices were found later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations
Not quite kosher, one might say...
As for the pull out of inspectors, that was clearly done by the warning given by the US :
Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.
"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.
But with the United States, Britain and Spain making clear that Monday would be the final day for diplomatic efforts to avert a conflict, it appeared that the inspectors were running out of time and could begin withdrawing at any moment.
In other signs that war could be imminent, the U.S. State Department on Sunday night ordered nonessential personnel and all family members to leave Israel, Kuwait and Syria in a precautionary move.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
Even though the Iraqis were cooperating more than ever before, the decision was made by the US to stop the process.
The success of the past couple of months have shown that conditions on the ground can change -- and they are changing.We cannot expect the new strategy we are carrying out to bring success overnight.
-President Bush (radio address)
Aug 25, 2007
The patience that they require for themselves now was not anything that they wanted to give to us.
- Hans Blix | |
|
| Creating a more subserviant , martial law state, backed by a neocon fascist dictatorship
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:55:27 AM | MG
The risk was that the vote would have not authorized the war, and then by that fact made it an illegal one. That was a far worse position than claiming 1441 as a trigger, and then proceeding unilaterally.
Correct but, the US knew it did not need the second resolution in order to proceed legally. The reason why they sought it was to shore up support at home for Blair. When it was apparent that it wouldn’t go through they withdrew it for the reasons we both agree on. This changes nothing as it was never tabled for a vote and thus all remains as it was.
MG
The UN never ruled on the facts, nor accepted that Iraq was in "material breach" of 1441.
Iraq was already in material breach when 1441 was unanimously passed. Here;
1441
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq‘s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
And, was proved by Blix’s March 7th address to the UN to be once again in material breach. Their cooperation with UN. Iraq was ordered to comply with 1441 and "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002).
Blix
The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.
Picking fly shit from pepper but this is a legal issue. Iraq was in material breach at the time Blix gave this briefing. And, it was their last and final opportunity. The US had stated that they would act and enforce 1441 which gave them the authorization to use any and all means necessary to get Iraq to comply and, Blix spells out the material breech using the exact language the resolution had put it in and, all fifteen members voted on it and approved it knowing that.
MG
Interestingly, we have some verifiable information that the US was indeed violating 1441 by using inspectors as spies, something Iraq had complained about repeatedly.
Spies? You mean Iraq didn’t simply open their doors to allow the world to see they had nothing prohibited by UN law? That’s like Dahmer saying the search of his fridge was so cops could see if there were doughnuts to steal. It’s an issue he could have brought up at any time but, the main one is for him to comply, not for the US to make sure none of the people inspecting were of his personal liking. There are certain ways to go about this question and it does not nullify anything Iraq is guilty of.
For example, having one Mossad agent on the team does not mean that Saddam can trade it for a nuclear reactor and, having two of them allows him to keep certain rockets. He was in material breech, even if everyone of the inspectors were double ‘o’ agents.
MG
Even though the Iraqis were cooperating more than ever before, the decision was made by the US to stop the process.
Uh huh. Those Americans can be sticklers for details sometimes. It was legal, Saddam was a rat who had gone on playing games long past his time. Fact was, he was in material breech, Blix gave the evidence and it doesn’t matter if every one of the inspectors were spies for Israel and Iran, he was in material breech.
| |
|
| Creating a more subserviant , martial law state, backed by a neocon fascist dictatorship
Posted: 2/3/2008 6:22:44 AM | Just thought I'd share a bit more news on Iraq.
Iraq not using oil cash to rebuild
Increased Iraqi oil revenues stemming from high prices and improved security are piling up in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rather than being spent on needed reconstruction projects, a Washington Times study of Iraq's spending and revenue figures has shown.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080130/FOREIGN/458073763/1001
I wonder why the Fed is hanging onto this cash... guess they don't have banks in Iraq.
Finally, the truth is seeping out. Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily-if inadvertently-admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors "enduring") military bases.
He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law's prohibition against expending funds:
"(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," or
"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
But, if you have been asleep for the past five years, you may ask, what about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ties to al-Qaeda? A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that Bush made 260 false claims about these in the two years following 9/11. He was followed closely by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell with 254. Nor can they any longer pretend they were deceived by faulty intelligence, since hard evidence that continues to accumulate shows they knew exactly what they were doing.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02012008.html | |
|
| Creating a more subserviant , martial law state, backed by a neocon fascist dictatorship
Posted: 2/3/2008 8:07:40 AM | To get rid of a dictator who was gassing and killing his people, free the people of Iraq from his grip.
To use the oil resources for the good of all the people of Iraq and not just build palaces for Saddam
To make the world safer, from a crazy man, just ask Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Kurds
I see no problem with that result.
Just remember the purple fingers of freedom, you could vote for someone other than Saddam without being beheaded. What a concept.
I can handle that, sorry others can not. I guess living under British Rule, and not doing anything about it, does that to you. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 8:37:18 AM | | ok heres my honest opinion,afganistan is a given,because thats where the culprit was.now iraq,i think we made a mistake and it couldve been handled much differantly,but heres a good of reason than any.have any of you ever heard any of amadinajads speeches?this guy doesnt try to hide any of his intentions,he comes right out and says that bahgdad is the califate of the new muslim world,and israel will be wiped off the face of the earth,which leaves saudi arabia vulnerable to the irainians,and amadinajad has said,in a speech,that he wishes to take control of the whole area.the saudis,who are a non waring ppl would fall for sure.now everyone says this war is for oil,yes and no.we didnt go into iraq to get free oil or whatever,thats quite obvious,look at the gas pump prices,i believe were there to PROTECT our oil supply from being taken over by a madman.cause if we cant get oil,our country ceases to exist as we know it.and we all know saddam and his kids were sadists to say the least.so i think a lot of it had to do was to get between iran and our oil supply,make any sense to anyone? | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 8:46:12 AM | I can handle that, sorry others can not. I guess living under British Rule, and not doing anything about it, does that to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly statement
As Britain, Canada and Aus are just as democratic if not more than America. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:12:51 AM | | Why is America in Iraq? The neocon agenda calls for the militarize the world's oil supply as part of their goal to have "full spectrum dominance" over the globe. When 9-11 came, it was the excuse they needed to topple Saddam. Things related and not, to paraphrase Rummy, were swept up into a convoluted, nonsensical War on Terror, the first time any nation has declared a war against an emotion. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:41:45 AM | Every report so far, by the Pentagon, the CIA and West Point, has concluded that the war in Iraq is creating new enemies faster than they can be killed. You choose to believe Dub's slogans. He repeated it so many times that the dumbest of the Dubdregs still believe it.
Many of the so-called terrorists are just Iraqis who were out of a job after the Dubdolts decided to build the Iraqi army from the ground up. Brilliant. Many newly unemployed people with guns and military training pissed off at a foreign power that decimated their country is now occupying it. What did anyone with half a brain think would happen? | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:52:56 AM | | midtown,it has to do with the soverenty of our country,i dont believe there was a war when the uss cole got hit,or any of our embassies,or 911 to be honest.its all because we are a world power and were allied with israel.and we will get hit again,prob worse this time,and its not because of any war,these people want to kill us and if you dont think so,you need medication | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:05:26 AM |
midtown,it has to do with the soverenty of our country,i dont believe there was a war when the uss cole got hit,or any of our embassies,or 911 to be honest.its all because we are a world power and were allied with israel.and we will get hit again,prob worse this time,and its not because of any war,these people want to kill us and if you dont think so,you need medication[\quote]
All these acts were commited by al-qaeda not Iraqis I suggest the bush administration including congress were all off there medication! | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:08:09 AM | | Yes, I agreed with action against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. I also agreed with the real conservatives (meaning "careful" and "prudent") in the first Bush administration who said that toppling Hussein would lead to a quagmire. They were right. The neo-crazies have created one hell of a mess. I feel sorry for all of those people, civillians or soldiers, Americans or not, who are being affected by this monumental miscalculation. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:09:22 AM | tell me do you think it was right in 91 to kick saddam out of kuwait?
Glad you brought up the 1991 gulf war....... In an April 15, 1994 interview with C-SPAN, Cheney explained that occupying and attempting to take over the country would have been a "bad idea" and would have led to a "quagmire.On Iraq gee times have changed.  | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:14:22 AM | That's right, jed, but they have the same color skin, so it doesn't matter. Close enough.
Never mind that al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA or that "9-11 ringleader" Mohammed Atta received funding approved by the CIA's ally in Pakistan, the ISI, the same agency that was used to funnel cash to the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. Never mind that the head of the ISI was in Washington, D.C. the week of 9-11 meeting with former CIA heads George Tenet and Porter Goss, among others.
"They" hate us. That's all we need to know. The Communists burned the Reichstag and the Muslims all hate us. Nothing else to see. Everyone move along now. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:14:31 AM | The British are our biggest supporters on the war on terror. Both our countries believed it was the correct action to take.
Seems like you guys from Canada would back your Countrymen a little more.
Heck, the British are the ones who gave us most of the great intellegence that got us into the war.
Why because they do not have to cross the pond to get to their homeland. The British knew that they needed America to get rid of the likes of Saddam and his insane sons
I say job well done. Thank God for the British and US to help keep this world Safe. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 10:28:23 AM | The British and American governments twisted and fabricated intelligence in order to get the war that they wanted. Several intel officers have broken the chain of command and gone public with the fact that they advised their leaders that Iraq had no WMD.
If the Bush administration cared that there were no WMD, George Tenet would not have been rewarded for one of the biggest intelligence failures in American history. But he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Why Blair went along with this fake War of Terror is beyond me. | |
|
| |
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 2/3/2008 11:48:28 AM | | oh god you people are futile and unconvincable about a threat to the us.........ok lets pull out everyone right now and sit back to see what happens.lets do it,you think filling your tank for 60 bucks is bad?well all you tree huggers out there could have changed this if we could drill in anwar and the rest of the country,you wonder why were in the middle east?are you stupid or just ignorant?we cant drill here,we cant build anymore refineries,not a single nuclear power plant has been biult since the 90s,the whole war in iraq,is because we dont have the balls to do it ourselves,we should be ashamed | |
|
|
| Page 8 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
