Who Thinks The Usa Should Withdraw,

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 11:00

Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.

That's true, but Blair has his hands tied-up by the UK traditional deep links with Washington.

As for Interpol, I don't know. Just know about MI-6 considering faked documents as authentic and re-writing a PhD about the 1st Gulf War, saying it's about the present situation, etc...

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

Once again, Saddam has nothing to with it. The US'd better fight the Saudians or Pakistan.

And if we're right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

You're wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what's currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....

MI-6?

Faked Doccument?
Rewriting a PhD about Desert Storm?

More details please.

I want to understand the French perception.

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+29 March 2003 - 17:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 29 March 2003 - 17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>MI-6?
[/b]

MI-6 is the Brittish CIA

Faked Doccument?

That&#39;s what Mohamad Al-Baradai (head of inspectors for International Nuclear Agency) said about the information the US gave about a collaboration between Iraq and Niger on a nuclear program, information that they received via the UK.

Rewriting a PhD about Desert Storm?

In this forum, this has been perfectly said by Chloe (see here)

<!--QuoteBegin--chloe_cc2002@8 February 2003 - 15:44

I&#39;ve heard yesterday that Tony Blair took his information about Al Qaeda links with Irak in an article written by an unknown student, and forgot to mention it

Large parts of the British Government&#39;s latest dossier on Iraq which purports to draw on &#39;intelligence material&#39; WERE PROVEN to have been plagiarised from published academic articles. Yes, Colin Powell gave high praise to the document &#39;Iraq - it&#39;s infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation&#39; to none other than the UN. ........saying it "describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities". A Cambridge University Politics lecturer noted that it sounded very familiar as he read it. It was discovered that 4 of the report&#39;s 19 pages appear to have been copied, with insubstantial editing, fromthe internet version of an article that was written by another author on Middle Eastern affairs last year. The content of yet another six pages relied heavily on articles by two other authors who had written articles in 1997 for an intelligence journal. Yet the document did not even attempt to make any reference whatsoever to these sources. That was bad enough, but when it was posted on the Government&#39;s website it accidentally named four Government officials who had worked on it.

It was then reposted with the names deleted altogether after this was noticed. This document was passed off as being the product of the work of intelligence services commissioned to prepare it for a specific purpose. Commentators who have read it and are familiar with the authors who it seeks to quote are of the consensus that it doesn&#39;t have ANY independent sources of information on Iraq&#39;s internal policies. Rather it just re-iterates previously held publicly available data packaged into a new document.

There are even obvious tell tale signs apparently that it was an amateurish cut and paste job, as one of the original authors had misplaced a comma, but his work had been reproduced without it being corrected. The same sentence in the British Government&#39;s report contains the same misplaced comma. The author&#39;s report was referring to Iraq&#39;s head of military intelligence during the 1991 Gulf War. When pressed for WHY the report&#39;s public sources hadn&#39;t been acknowledged the Government spokesperson merely said "We said that it draws on a number of sources including intelligence. It speaks for itself."

Hardly an exercise in intellectual honesty.[/quote]

I want to understand the French perception.

That&#39;s nice

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 11:00

And if we&#39;re right, why is Chirac not with us on this?

You&#39;re wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what&#39;s currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....

If we&#39;re wrong, isn&#39;t it the citizens of Iraq who should judge that?

The people who are being bombed and shot at by their own army that is &#39;supposedly&#39; defending them? the republican guard?


Admittedly the main connection was made due to the events of september 11th.

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

Now, at that point, our Government was hessitant to point the finger at IRAQ as being behind it.
Pretty much EVERYONE in the U. S. thought that they were though.

We should have gone in then. Or soon after Afganistan.

But Bush believed that the interpretation of the events coupled with inteligence information, was so obvious that the UN would agree.

Well...The UN DID agree that Iraq was in violation of the UNSC resolutions, ie. refusing to allow weapons inspectors, and that Iraq definately had motive and oportunity.
However, their solution was to send in the weapons inspectors again.
Bush kicks his heels and says, ok.
Saddam says, No way.
Bush says, You better.
Saddam says, or what?
Bush says, or we&#39;ll kick your ass again. (can he say ass on TV)?
Saddam still refuses.
Bush is ready to go in, when a weapons inspector from the 90&#39;s visits the Iraqi people and reads a very eloquently written speech about the nobility of the American people and the need for trust.
Saddam says, Ok, I&#39;ll let them in, but they can&#39;t see anything.
Bush says, everything or we start bombing.
Saddam says, oh, alright.
So the inspectors enter Iraq.
The US has its eyes in the sky and ears of the walls pealed.
We pick up a cell phone conversation from an Iraqi guard telling another one to destroy any reference to a certain type of missile.
(I forget the exact message. Anyone have the tape)?
We present that recording and several other bits of information to the security council.
Iraq accuses us of fabricating it.
Fabricating it???
Fabricating a tape so we can go into an unpopular war and add even more to our deficit?
We had no motivation to fabricate it.
Iraq had every motivation to claim it was fabricated.
(we were going to attack them).
So anyway, we have a majority of the security council starting to see the truth of the situation...We were ready to present a resolution and accept whatever the council decides...Then, what happens?
Chirac says he&#39;ll veto it anyway&#33;

Chirac said he was going against the majority if/when it came to that and use a veto.

THAT was the point where the UN lost all credibility.
At that point, any decision the UN may or may not have made, came down to the beliefs of one man...


Chirac.



Peace dude


edited to correct spelling and one mistake in sentence structure that changed the meaning from intent.

[Marcus]

Originally posted by Z@29 March 2003 - 07:55
i dunno ppl...saddam is gonna be tough ta kill. hes got like 10 imposters at every press conference and such. like i said before, they need ta get sum1 in there and just snuff em all. done deal. or they could just march into baghdad with tanks and take a bunch of casualties. its not gonna be easy. bush was so ignorant bout all this. and yes the iraqis hate saddam but they cant speak out against him and they are being invaded so they want to defend their land. (possibly).

it&#39;s a very harsh subject, The U.N. was founded on the Idea of "NEVER AGAIN" with reference to the Nazi attempt to murder a whole race "THE JEWS" and as far as we are told Saddam is a despot who denies his people the basic means of life. Isn&#39;t this an awefull position for the Iraqi people when we concider that a Whole population of Iraq have been forced to accept the the sanctuary of a political democricy whose only objective is to impose upon said people a way of life whose objectives are beyond their understanding and therefore beyond their control. idiology is mentioned but none is offered to Iraq.
Lump it or else? What a question?

Nobody has concidered yet how a muslim country can possibly accept the forced influence of the western world
.

[ClubDiggler]

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Let Saddam Win&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Did I hear this right&#33;&#33;&#33;

That is the most stupid idea in the history of stupid ideas&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s kind of like:

Stay still so I can shoot you.

No f****n way


The reasons are a million.

[Jonne]

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

&#39;Afganistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september, it&#39;s a terrorist network that happened to be in Afghanistan, because the taliban didn&#39;t really care about terrorist camps.

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

that really is bullshit: Some saudis (that didn&#39;t have support from any country) attack the USA, and you attack Iraq. It&#39;s like saying: this dog bit me, let&#39;s kill off a different one so it won&#39;t happen again... Where&#39;s the logic in that?

[ClubDiggler]

Originally posted by Jonne@1 April 2003 - 09:16

Daddy Bush attacked Saddam&#39;s regime.
Shortly after Junior assumes office, our country is directly attacked from Afganistan.

&#39;Afganistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september, it&#39;s a terrorist network that happened to be in Afghanistan, because the taliban didn&#39;t really care about terrorist camps.

Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.

We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.

that really is bullshit: Some saudis (that didn&#39;t have support from any country) attack the USA, and you attack Iraq. It&#39;s like saying: this dog bit me, let&#39;s kill off a different one so it won&#39;t happen again... Where&#39;s the logic in that?

I agree "&#39;Afghanistan&#39; didn&#39;t do 11 september",

but due to American involvement Afghanis are in better shape. The taliban
is not ruling the country, women can go to school and overall life is better
for them. They don&#39;t live in that kind of fear anymore.

The same goes for Iraq. What&#39;s wrong with that?

And why the US or US/UK?

Someone has to do it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; These countries have the means.

Bullies dont stop being bullies with words; it takes action.

[leecheskicked]

Back to the original question, NO&#33;