Printable View
check the link out and then tell me why the war was really started and what was the main aim of this war or shell i say Attack cos that wasnt war that was attack. i really hate bush and Blair for killing thousands. both of them are f****** dirty Rats. then loved petrol more then people's blood. i know some of you guys did support this War and i wanna hear ur side of story now.
Iraq weapons 'unlikely to be found'
told you so. 6 months ago.
Politicians are only good for stating the obvious and talking nonsence.
So I'll say I told them so.
Neil
Why the war was started?
(just my opinion)
1. Gain a strategic foothold in the area.
2. Effect regime change
3. Look for terrorists & other miscreants.
4. Implement a freindly democratically based government with hopes of
spread to other parts of the region.
5. Intimidate others in region, especially Syria & Iran.
6. Look for WMDs & intelligence thereof.
.
.
11. Free Iraqi people from said regime.
.
200. Personal grudge against the regime.
i could talk about that forever to prove u wrong, why are u saying all that we all know what the war was all about. and what u mean Free Iraqi People from Said Regime. how do u know sadam was a bad man. is it that u seen on TV or read in the newspaper, we all know what media does. Media is hopeless. and how the f*** is america do decide to free iraqi people. America never asked what Iraqis wanted. i got lot more to say but i cant be bothered cos i know people like u know what is right and what is wrong.Quote:
Why the war was started?
(just my opinion)
1. Gain a strategic foothold in the area.
2. Effect regime change
3. Look for terrorists & other miscreants.
4. Implement a freindly democratically based government with hopes of
spread to other parts of the region.
5. Intimidate others in region, especially Syria & Iran.
6. Look for WMDs & intelligence thereof.
7. Find OIL and kill more Iraqis
8. kill Saddam cos saddam never liked America
9. cos Saddam was threat to America
10.
.
.
11. Free Iraqi people from said regime.
.
200. Personal grudge against the regime.
there's one thing I know for sure. Iraqi's don't want an imposed government.
Neil
The sad part about this is that no one really cares. I mean we all think it's fucked up, but Chimpy up in the White House is going to get away with it. One of our generals announced today that we're going to have troops in Iraq for 4 more years. 4 MORE YEARS!? Hell no. This is starting to sound more and more like the Beggining of the Cold War. Except this time it's worse, there isn't any USSR to keep us in check. We need to protest this injustice. Screw Bush and all of his warmongers.
The thing about the Iraqi people is that, i think, they don't really care what spies and rebels are being tortured by the regime! all they want is the man to have a job and bring money and food into the family. so the regime has captured some spies, who cares.
the same as anywhere else in the world. so if americans don't care about what the USG is up to (CIA behind terror attacks, Fooreign leaders removed), does that mean USG's regime should be forcibly removed?
it's only fair.
its the right of any democratic citizenry to be apathetic. but, hey, if you want to launch a coup against bush and company, be my guest. see you in the afterlife.Quote:
Originally posted by Eugenius@11 July 2003 - 08:45
The thing about the Iraqi people is that, i think, they don't really care what spies and rebels are being tortured by the regime! all they want is the man to have a job and bring money and food into the family. so the regime has captured some spies, who cares.
the same as anywhere else in the world. so if americans don't care about what the USG is up to (CIA behind terror attacks, Fooreign leaders removed), does that mean USG's regime should be forcibly removed?
it's only fair.
[dohtml]
File:Around D Bush.mp3
Length:10848838 Bytes, 10595KB
UUHash:=IIBysrmmX2DfgRUIHVdRCG72r58=
[do/html]
war = oil
AND THE FINGER POINTING BEGINS...
RICE BLAMES CIA:
CIA Approved Iraqi Uranium Claim -W.House
Fri July 11, 2003 07:40 AM ET
ENTEBBE, Uganda (Reuters) - The CIA approved in advance President Bush's accusation in a speech that Iraq had sought to acquire nuclear material from Africa, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.
CIA BLAMES UK:
CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim
Advice on Alleged Uranium Buy Was Refused
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 11, 2003; Page A01
The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday.
EDIT:
Bush points finger at CIA
Deutsche Welle, Germany - 1 hour ago
The White House has blamed the US Central Intelligence Agency over
a false accusation that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. ...
Number 10 defends uranium claim
BBC News, UK - 3 hours ago
Downing Street says it stands by claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa
despite reports that America asked the UK not to publish the allegation. ...
Scapegoat City
Slate - 3 hours ago
By Holly Bailey. The Washington Post leads with word that the CIA,
four months before President Bush's State of the Union address ...
we really don't want any friends do we? All of europe hates us for being so lone rangerish, so we go and blame everything on our one allie. We really are assholes.
Not you mate just BushQuote:
Originally posted by mogadishu@11 July 2003 - 19:41
we really don't want any friends do we? All of europe hates us for being so lone rangerish, so we go and blame everything on our one allie. We really are assholes.
How dare that asshole pass the buck to Britain when British Troops are still dying in Iraq.
Neil.
It gives me no small pleasure to watch these flunkies squirm...aparently, fleischer's basic spin is that it wasn't a central reason for going to war, so incompetence, if not outright fraud, is excusable. I wish they would have pointed out before they went to war which pieces of evidence were primary. we may never know.
White House tries to end 'frenzy' over Iraq-Africa line
Fleischer: 'The bottom line has been gotten to.'
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Attempting to stop what he called a "media frenzy" over the president's disputed State of the Union claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday the line was not a major part of the U.S. justification for war.
"This revisionist notion that somehow this is now the core of why we went to war, a central issue of why we went to war, a fundamental underpinning of the president's decisions, is a bunch of bull," Fleischer told reporters Monday.
Echoing an argument used Sunday by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Fleischer said the claim was only one component in a broad argument for deposing Saddam Hussein.
Friday, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet accepted responsibility for allowing the line to stay in the January 28 State of the Union address, but many Democrats say the White House still has explaining to do. (Full story)
Fleischer indicated the White House does not intend to find or disclose answers.
"The bottom line has been gotten to," he said.
Fleischer was peppered with questions about who in the White House put the line into the speech, and who knew of intelligence agencies' concerns about the claim.
"The president believes the vetting process here did not serve the White House," was as far as Fleischer would go in answering those questions.
"The president also believes the issue of whether or not Saddam sought uranium from Africa was not a central matter," he said.
Referenced British reports
The president referenced British reports in his State of the Union address, and Fleischer said that because the British government stands by its intelligence, "it still may be fact."
The White House has confirmed intelligence officials successfully excised a line in the president's speech in Cincinnati last October about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Niger.
Fleischer sought to explain why that was taken out, while the reference to Africa remained in the State of the Union.
"The reference that the CIA recommended be taken out of the Cincinnati speech was a very specific to the country of Niger and to the quantity of uranium that Iraq sought from Niger. ... The language in the State of the Union says 'sought uranium from Africa,' not just Niger, because there was other reporting from other countries beyond Niger," said Fleischer.
Many Democrats are accusing the White House of misleading the American people in the State of the Union address.
Fleischer attributed that to a "media frenzy" because of the media misinterpreting the reason for going to war in a way that "puts it in the center of the decision. .... That was not the reason we went to war. Whether or not [Saddam Hussein] sought uranium from Africa, he was still reconstituting his nuclear program."
It seems to me that a very important point is being missed.
Obviously, both the British and US governments knew that no WMD would be found (at least not until they have been secretly imported). And other neighbouring countries also knew this.
So why was WMD used as the excuse for going to war?
There is only one possible answer, that this was a message to other countries:
Behave as we tell you or we will accuse you of having your own/hiding Iraqi WMD and you will get the same treatment.
This has already happened to some extent with Syria and Iran, how far is it going to be allowed to continue.
lynx, I think you're right that the USA is making an example out of Iraq, knowing that Iran and Syria in particular will listen. but I think you are missing an obvious point -- they needed *some* sort of excuse, and as a tenuous as the WMD one is, i can't really think of another thats better, simple human rights violations would be so patently selective that they probably couldn't have gathered any kind of coaltion at all.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx@14 July 2003 - 20:28
So why was WMD used as the excuse for going to war?
There is only one possible answer, that this was a message to other countries: Behave as we tell you or we will accuse you of having your own/hiding Iraqi WMD and you will get the same treatment.
Bush has once again missed a golden political opportunity.
I read in a editorial yesterday that Tony Blair is held in higher esteem in the US than Bush is ( I think the source was a Pew report). Part of the reason for this is Blair's ability to acknowledge that many issues are complex and multi-sided. Bush is much more a "black and white" sorta guy.
That very mentality is what got Bush into his current quagmire. He was unequivical during his State of the Union address and now his own words are coming back to haunt him.
If he was a halfway savvy politician, he could have said " Well, it looks like we f*cked up, I'm going to find out what happened and fix it. Meanwhile , as President I must take full responsibility for this mistake."
Instead we get childish finger pointing and the assignation of blame to hapless underlings.
The White House is now going through such ridiculous contortions trying to minimize the infamous "16 words" that they make Clinton's asking for the definition of the word "is" look bush-league (sorry, I couldn't resist).
Bush has squandered the highest ( and most totally undeserved) public approval rating in history, and I won't be at all surprised if he goes down in flames ( a military analogy he would no doubt approve of) in the next election.
Americans won't fall for his Top Gun macho posturing twice.
and, thanks to shrub, many commentators have opined that the USA has squandered all of the goodwill the world felt for them in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. somehow, they've managed to go from a victim empathized and supported by just about everyone in the world save radical islam, to perhaps the greatest level of anti-americanism ever. its really amazing, in a sick and unfortunate way.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@14 July 2003 - 22:47
Bush has squandered the highest ( and most totally undeserved) public approval rating in history, and I won't be at all surprised if he goes down in flames ( a military analogy he would no doubt approve of) in the next election.
how not to win friends and influence people.
EDIT:
but i have to admit, if shrub can pull of a palestinian state by 2005, thats going to go a looooong way to reconciling right-thinking people everywhere to the snafu that is gulf war II.
lynx, I think you're right that the USA is making an example out of Iraq, knowing that Iran and Syria in particular will listen. but I think you are missing an obvious point -- they needed *some* sort of excuse, and as a tenuous as the WMD one is, i can't really think of another thats better, simple human rights violations would be so patently selective that they probably couldn't have gathered any kind of coaltion at all. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000+14 July 2003 - 22:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 14 July 2003 - 22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@14 July 2003 - 20:28
So why was WMD used as the excuse for going to war?
There is only one possible answer, that this was a message to other countries: Behave as we tell you or we will accuse you of having your own/hiding Iraqi WMD and you will get the same treatment.
Ah, no, I didn't miss that point at all.
I was saying that there were plenty of other 'excuses' they could have used, but those would have applied to Iraq (or rather Saddam Hussein) only, so the 'message' to other countries would not have been there.
I actually think that if they had attempted to remove Saddam for the human rights violations, there would have been few if any protests from other countries (who, as a western politician, would stand up and try to support Saddam for that).
And they were also violations of UN mandates.
Um, like which would those be, that Iraq had a monopoly on?!Quote:
I was saying that there were plenty of other 'excuses' they could have used, but those would have applied to Iraq (or rather Saddam Hussein) only, so the 'message' to other countries would not have been there.
do you know how many nations are equally guilty of HR violations as Baathist Iraq? I don't, but I'd hazard a guess in the dozens. It includes all of the arab nations that the US would like to get rid of. But the justification for war wasn't based on HR issues, it was WMD. You seem to think that the elimination of WMD was an end in itself...Quote:
I actually think that if they had attempted to remove Saddam for the human rights violations, there would have been few if any protests from other countries (who, as a western politician, would stand up and try to support Saddam for that).
Did I say they had a monopoly on them ?Quote:
Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 04:32
Um, like which would those be, that Iraq had a monopoly on?!Quote:
I was saying that there were plenty of other 'excuses' they could have used, but those would have applied to Iraq (or rather Saddam Hussein) only, so the 'message' to other countries would not have been there.
No - but Iraq was the only country subject to UN mandates for it's abuses, and unlike WMD they could not be used as an excuse for being a threat to other countries.
You seem to have totally missed the point of my post.Quote:
do you know how many nations are equally guilty of HR violations as Baathist Iraq? I don't, but I'd hazard a guess in the dozens. It includes all of the arab nations that the US would like to get rid of. But the justification for war wasn't based on HR issues, it was WMD. You seem to think that the elimination of WMD was an end in itself...Quote:
I actually think that if they had attempted to remove Saddam for the human rights violations, there would have been few if any protests from other countries (who, as a western politician, would stand up and try to support Saddam for that).
How could I think the elimination of WMD to be an end in itself ? I have already said that there are no WMD (or at least not until they have been planted there).
You seem to be going round in circles trying to avoid the issue that whichever way you look at it, the 'coalition' governments lied through their teeth, to the UN, to each other, to the other members of their own governments and to their people.
Still, I suppose it comes down to a simple statement:
Show me an honest politician and I will show you two liars.
Let me ask you all a question. Do you want more terrorist attacks on US soil? NOt saying that it wont happen. But dont you want to at least try to disrupt the terrorist network? Im not up-to-date on exactly what the heck our troops are doing at this point. But IM proud that they are sacrificing their lives in order to "hopefully" protect our nation. Just my 2 cents :D
hot, the most obvious rejoinder is that the invasion of iraq will increase the chances of terrorists attacks on the USA, more the basic reason that arabs the world over will feel only more alienated and exploited than they did previously. It is worth stating, yet again, that hussein's ties to terrorism are not established. WMD is another matter, or should i say WAS another matter, as the administration has basically conceded in the past week that evidence is now unlikely to be found.Quote:
Originally posted by hot@17 July 2003 - 14:14
Let me ask you all a question. Do you want more terrorist attacks on US soil? NOt saying that it wont happen. But dont you want to at least try to disrupt the terrorist network? Im not up-to-date on exactly what the heck our troops are doing at this point. But IM proud that they are sacrificing their lives in order to "hopefully" protect our nation. Just my 2 cents :D
Why you should be proud of soldiers being blown apart is a sentiment i can't understand, especially given the circumstances of this particular episode.
It is often a ploy used by those in favour of unjustifiable war to cite patriotism, defense of nation, supporting the troops, etc.
Another giveaway is when they use the 'if you are not for us, you are against us' scenario.
These were used both in the run up to and during the war to try to get the people 'onside'. To suggest that those who are opposed to an unjustifiable war are unpatriotic or do not care about the troops is a real act of cowardice, it shows lack of belief in ones own opinions, and does nothing to forward any arguments in favour of the conflict.
I believe very strongly in my nation and it's armed forces, I believe that there were some very good reasons for going to war. But the reasons given, the timing, the method of execution and the aftermath were completely wrong. The war has done nothing to stabilise the region and has made the whole world a less safe place.
Unjust, unwise, unAmerican: America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake
The Economist, Jul 10th 2003
---
don't remember off the top of my head the last time said publication made such a sweeping criticism of US foreign policy, on the front cover no less.
--myfiles
America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake
YOU are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice. Finally, you are told what is to be your fate: a trial before a panel of military officers. Your defence lawyer will also be a military officer, and anything you say to him can be recorded. Your trial might be held in secret. You might not be told all the evidence against you. You might be sentenced to death. If you are convicted, you can appeal, but only to yet another panel of military officers. Your ultimate right of appeal is not to a judge but to politicians who have already called everyone in the prison where you are held “killers” and the “worst of the worst”. Even if you are acquitted, or if your appeal against conviction succeeds, you might not go free. Instead you could be returned to your cell and held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant”.
Sad to say, that is America's latest innovation in its war against terrorism: justice by “military commission”. Over-reaction to the scourge of terrorism is nothing new, even in established democracies. The British “interned” Catholics in Northern Ireland without trial; Israel still bulldozes the homes of families of suicide bombers. Given the barbarism of September 11th, it is not surprising that America should demand retribution—particularly against people caught fighting for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
This newspaper firmly supported George Bush's battles against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We also believe that in some areas, such as domestic intelligence gathering (see article), his government should nudge the line between liberty and security towards the latter. But the military commissions the Bush administration has set up to try al-Qaeda suspects are still wrong—illiberal, unjust and likely to be counter-productive for the war against terrorism.
A question of integrity
The day before America's Independence Day celebrations last week, the Pentagon quietly announced that Mr Bush had identified six “enemy combatants” as eligible for trials before military commissions, which are to be set up outside America's civilian and military court systems. The Pentagon did not release the names of the accused, or any charges against them, but the families of two British prisoners and one Australian held at the American naval base at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay were told by their governments that their sons were among the six deemed eligible for trial.
The Australian government's failure to protest about this has caused protests (see article). British ministers have expressed “strong reservations” about the commissions. In the past, they have asked for British citizens caught in Afghanistan to be sent home for trial in British courts—just as Mr Bush allowed John Walker Lindh, a (white, middle-class Californian) member of the Taliban, to be tried in American courts.
American officials insist that the commissions will provide fair trials. The regulations published by the Pentagon stipulate that the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and that the trials should be open to the press and public if possible.
The problem is that every procedural privilege the defendant is awarded in the regulations is provisional, a gift of the panel which is judging him. The regulations explicitly deny him any enforceable rights of the sort that criminal defendants won as long ago as the Middle Ages. Moreover, the planned commissions lack the one element indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding—an independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and for any appeal against a conviction. The military officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of command reporting to the secretary of defence and the president, who will designate any accused for trial before the commissions and will also hear any final appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process.
Why dispense with such basic rules of justice? Mr Bush's officials say they must balance the demand for fair trials with the need to gather intelligence to fend off further terrorist attacks. Nobody denies that fighting terrorism puts justice systems under extraordinary strain. But this dilemma has frequently been faced by others without resorting to military trials. The established procedure is to pass special anti-terrorism laws, altering trial rules somewhat to handle terrorist cases, but not abandoning established court systems, and trying to retain the basic rights of those accused as far as possible. Britain and Spain have done this. There is no reason why America's own civilian courts, which have successfully tried plenty of domestic and foreign terrorists (including Mr Lindh), could not be adapted to this purpose.
Since the 2001 attacks, the Bush administration has avoided America's own courts repeatedly. Soon after the attacks, Mr Bush issued his executive order permitting military commissions outside the purview of the courts. Since then, his administration has imprisoned some 680 people at Guantanamo Bay precisely because it believed that the naval base, held on a perpetual lease, is outside the reach of anyone's courts, including America's. It has also claimed the right to arrest American citizens, even on American soil, as “enemy combatants” and to imprison them without charge until the war on terrorism is over. Appeals by civil libertarians to America's court system have been resisted at every stage.
Mr Bush could have asked Congress to pass new anti-terrorism laws. Instead, he is setting up a shadow court system outside the reach of either Congress or America's judiciary, and answerable only to himself. Such a system is the antithesis of the rule of law which the United States was founded to uphold. In a speech on July 4th, Mr Bush rightly noted that American ideals have been a beacon of hope to others around the world. In compromising those ideals in this matter, Mr Bush is not only dismaying America's friends but also blunting one of America's most powerful weapons against terrorism.