What Were the Real Motives Behind the Iraq Invasion?

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by FZ+
Would you mind looking at the argument. Because you are saying there that being elected makes someone completely trustworthy. You want other trustworthy elected people? Clinton. Yep, let's all trust him when he says he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, right?

Who the ***k cares what he did with that woman ?!
Can't he have a life ?!

Originally posted by FZ+
Throughout the history of democracy in any country there has been idiots and liars, people abusing the faith of the people. Please stop looking at irrelevant details and notice the key point. Politicians often betray the trust of the people, and being elected is not a reason for trust. Openness is the only reason for trust.

Com'mon ! That is ridiculous and you know it.
People as a whole are a mindless mob that make
opinions according to poor bits of information
and publicity tricks. Politics is a proffession like
any other. To rule multi-million societies you must
be as good in what you do as proffessionals in any
other field. That also means that you must present things
to the people in a simplified and plausible matter.
The real test is when you look at the big picture.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

Drag: Would you please mind reading the topic, to put this in context?

Shadow said, and I quote, "we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country".

This is unadulterated BS. The fact that he was elected (we can debate whether the system was legal or not but that isn't really relavent) is not a reason to believe in him. The fact that we thought he was reliable then does not validate a government by faith. A democracy implies that people are part of the process, and that people have a say on what is done in their name. You cannot say that because someone is elected, we would allow them to take actions causing the death of thousands because we elected them. It is not a sad world that we question the trustworthiness of presidents. It is a mark on the actions of the president, and a reflection on how active democracy should be. If we did not question the trustworthiness of our leaders, then we have pretty much an equivalent of a dictatorship.

You see, that statement confuses cause and effect. We "elected" how because we believe they were trustworthy. But on that original belief we can not continue to presume trustworthiness. His being elected is not a cause for being actually trustworthy. Indeed, in this world of spin there may not even be a correlation. As in the case of Clinton, his majority in the elections is no excuse for him being held to account, even over such a trivial matter. In this case, the matter is far from trivial, and the president has done nothing to justify any trust. In fact, day to day, evidence seems to undermine this trust. If this president is in any way sane, then he should be making for openness and understanding with the people who voted him in, than delude himself with perceived superiority of the people.

If we say that the people can not comprehend reality, and need to be spoonfed and guided, then why do we have a democracy in the first place?

 

[Tog_Neve]

I am sorry it has been a while since I have been on...work has bogged me down tremendously...but a few points here

FZ

Where did that arms thing come in? ... Of course the US was a prime exporter of arms prior to the period

This is not true by a long shot. Iraq Airforce was French, Iraqi armor was Soviet, Iraq arms were also Soviet, Iraqi missiles were hodgepod of Soviet, Chinese, home grown.

Hitler was elected.

No he was not. Hitler was appointed. And from there he rested power and then was declared dictator.

Source? Do you study history? Hitler was kept undemocratically out of power by article 48 of the weimar consititution through 1930, though he have by far the majority of the votes. After he entered the chancellorship, he carried out a further election that gave him even greater majority in the reichstag. Next, he proposed the enabling act, giving himself the right to make laws without parliamentary support, which only the social democrats opposed. The remaining parties supported the law, and was brought through with the necessary majority for a consitutional change. Another election put his majority at over 90%. With the death of Hindenberg, Hitler consolidated two chairs into one - the fuhrer, as the enabling act allowed. All through this, he was 100% legal under weimar law, and enjoyed the trust of his people. Hitler remained a popular leader until it was clear the war was going wrong, hence there were little public resistance from german people.

ALthough this is getting into history and off the topic.
The Nazi party did not receive a majority in the elections. Only when the German Nationalists threw in their support did it give Hitler enough power to seize control...although he had already been appointed Chancellor..a title he kept throughout the War.

If this president is in any way sane, then he should be making for openness and understanding with the people who voted him in, than delude himself with perceived superiority of the people.

OK so let's deal with facts of the case.
Hussein - attacked 2 of his neighbors directly (Iran in the 80's and Kuwait). Also fired missiles at Israel in GW 1. So has shown aggressive tendancies.
Hussein - Used chemical weapons on military as well as civilian targets in the Iran-Iraq war.
Hussein - Used chemical agents on his own people during attempted revolt. Thus confirming that once again he has chemical agents and is willing to use them.
At the end of GW 1 Hussein was directed, and agreed to, destroy/turn over/dismantle WMD, also directed to inventory, also directed to allow inspections, as well as a host of other items. All of which he has obstructed the process of, flat out rejected.
Finally after urging from the US the UN had passed another resolution that dictated that Hussein would have to provide the proof that he has gotten rid of the WMD or that they were destroyed.
The facts are that Hussein not only admits but has been proven to have had WMD in the past. The inspectors of the past have warned of Husseins stockpiles as well as the person. Mutliple intelligence agencies have also supported the issue that he had/has them. But yet when he is to provide proof that he no longer has them, he cannot.
Here we have a man, Hussein, who has repeatedly used deception in his dealings with the world. Has been shown to have, as well as admitted to having, WMD...and he comes up and says "They were destroyed already" And when asked to prove it he cannot.
ANd then we have President Bush who brings forth the evidence that we have...the UN reports, the statements by Hussein, CIA and other world intelligence reports. He brings this forth to the people to state that this man has had them before and used them before. He was to get rid of them back in 91-92 and as far as 1998 he has not.
And then folks accuse the President of lying..all of which have no proof to back the statements. The onus there is on the those accusing him of deciept and not on him...it has already been established that Hussein had WMD and has not provided proof that he does not anymore.

And everyone is jumping on this bandwagon of lying...like they think there is now 100,000 troops over there running sand through a collander trying to find this stuff...there is not...Our troops are not even really going out and hunting for that stuff..they are maintain peace, bringing in supplies, etc. The items that have been found so far are mere chance encounters. You are talking about a country the size of California...it is real easy to hide/stash stuff if needed. Also easy to transport across the borders as well.

Yes Hussein had WMD. He could not provide evidence of destruction. President Bush did the job the UN should have done but it got bogged down in money...the biggest 3 contracts that were outstanding from Iraq were with France, Germany, and Russia...hmmmmmm.

There are many reasons for the war..and many were stated. Hussein could not be trusted-proven. He poses a threat to his neighbors-proven. He has WMD-proven. AL-q had some presence in Iraq-proven. Just a few.

Tog

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
You cannot say that because someone is elected, we would allow them to take actions causing the death of thousands because we elected them.

Yes we would, if that's the right thing to do
when you look at the big picture according to the same
primitive ideals that you appear to preach here. The world
only has perfect intentions and very few perfect deeds.
I don't care of being lied to regarding the smaller issues
(which I don't think was the case on this particular occasion)
as long as the final result is positive.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

This is not true by a long shot. Iraq Airforce was French, Iraqi armor was Soviet, Iraq arms were also Soviet, Iraqi missiles were hodgepod of Soviet, Chinese, home grown.

Iraqi chemical weapons were american.

The Nazi party did not receive a majority in the elections. Only when the German Nationalists threw in their support did it give Hitler enough power to seize control...although he had already been appointed Chancellor..a title he kept throughout the War.

Nope. The Nazis were the largest party, and entering coalition governments were perfectly legal under the Weimar constitution. In fact, prior to the Nazi rule, the two previous chancellors were leaders of minority parties, propped up by article 48. In terms of democracy as envisaged in Germany, Hitler was democratically elected, as is Bush by the electoral college system. This was used to defend him in a variety of future issues.

Yes we would, if that's the right thing to do when you look at the big picture according to the same primitive ideals that you appear to preach here.

How can we possibly know that it is the right thing to do, if the politicians don't give us the facts in the first place? If you want to be lied to, that's certainly interesting criteria on which you are voting republican.

All of which he has obstructed the process of, flat out rejected.

Not according to Hans Blix. Maybe another case of the war on truth?

Hussein - Used chemical agents on his own people during attempted revolt. Thus confirming that once again he has chemical agents and is willing to use them.

Ten years ago, like all of the intel quoted. The lie we were told was that clear evidence exists that Hussien is a continuing and urgent threat, and that there is reason that the weapons inspections cannot continue. Might I add that the US government confirmed it's readiness to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, while the Iraqis, though having weapons on "45 minute" standby, hasn't shown so much as a sign of a chemical weapon?

Finally after urging from the US the UN had passed another resolution that dictated that Hussein would have to provide the proof that he has gotten rid of the WMD or that they were destroyed.

No it didn't. Read it again. It says that they should provide an account of the weapons they have and allow complete free access to weapons inspectors. Their failure to provide proof of non-existence is not equivalent to proof of existence, as Hans Blix has said.

ANd then we have President Bush who brings forth the evidence that we have...the UN reports, the statements by Hussein, CIA and other world intelligence reports.

And then we find now that most of evidence is uncorrobarated, contrary evidence was suppressed (including interrogations of Al-Queada members who said that they did not work with Saddam), some were complete forgeries. (as are the so called documents relating to alleged nuclear arms development) We have leaks and people coming forward saying that the leadership itself did not have full confidence in this evidence, and that the public facade was a lie. The only response is the idea of "rogue elements" out to get people, and the promise of "investigations" paid out of the leadership's pocket. How does that look to you? Why are they hiding, if they have nothing to hide?

You are talking about a country the size of California...it is real easy to hide/stash stuff if needed.

Not if you are going to use them in 45 min. Not if our generals were so sure based on the same accurate intelligence we saw previous that the WMDs were based in X and X sites around Tikrit. Not if our satellite survillence equipment, which prior to the war was so effective in labelling alleged bunkers full of nerve gas, is as good at tracing these things as they are making them out to be. Not if our analysts, with such skill in pointing at tyre tracks and saying Anthrax! continued to display their marvellous skills. It is rather blatantly obvious that the case presented by Powell to the UN was an exaggeration.

President Bush did the job the UN should have done but it got bogged down in money...the biggest 3 contracts that were outstanding from Iraq were with France, Germany, and Russia...hmmmmmm.

Contracts worth 100 Million in total. And the reconstruction contracts are worth over 10 Bn. Hmmmm... These peaceniks really don't know where the money is, right?

Hussein could not be trusted-proven.

Not if you believe Rumsfeld. Apparently Saddam has kept faith with the UN after all and disarmed prior to the war. Ah well?

He poses a threat to his neighbors-proven.

Past tense, not present tense. Apparently now it's his neighbours, Iran, Syria etc that pose a threat to stability. Guess where the Baathists ran? Yep, to those precise same countries they were "threatening". I bet soon when we are at war with Syria it would be a case of pity the poor Iraqis, threatened by the big bad neighbours.

He has WMD-proven.

Past tense again. Grammar, people!

AL-q had some presence in Iraq-proven.

Not. Revealed intelligence has disproven that. Intelligence that was hidden.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you want to be lied to, that's certainly interesting criteria on which you are voting republican.

US politics is "SO" complex - two whole parties !
With "HUGE" differences !
It's strange that anybody cares to vote for either.

 

[Raven]

In my opinion, the Bush administration has destroyed its credibility by failing to produce evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction before, during and after the 2003 War in Iraq (or is the war still-on -- battles and skirmishes afterall are still being fought).

Let's face it, Iraq is the second largest oil producing country in the world -- 2nd only to Saudi Arabia. A lot of countries have a huge interest in Iraq for that very reason. True -- France, Russia, China and other countries including the USA has made investments in Iraq both in refining its oil and defending it. This includes giving the country weapons, and yes the USA supported Iraq in that fashion as well. No one is innocent in that aspect. The USA supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war since Iran was a common enemy during the 1980's. No western countries afterall seemed to have a problem when Iraq decided to go to war with Iran. It was a little different when Iraq turned its guns towards Kuwait which had good relations with the west and also happens to be the third largest oil producing country in the world. Interests in that country needed to be protected by western supporters as well.

I'm sure this will knaw on some strong opinions/emotions -- I look forward to reading them.

True, Iraq had chemical weapons before the first 1991 Iraq war and sometime after the 1991 Iraq war ended. The reference that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people refers to his use of it during 1992 which was right after the war ended. Since then the UN came in destroyed their weapons and kept inspections through 1998. In the 5 years that had passed, few experts believe Hussein could even finance such a nuclear project let alone pursue one.

But enough with history, let's look at the future. Currently, Iraq is under the leadership of the USA. America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy! (sarcastic for those of you who missed it). What will this do for the American's foreign policy? How will the lack of evidence on the WMD be seen by the rest of the world? What kind of paranoia will the right to have a "pre-emptive war" create in the international arena?

I know some might respond by saying, the US is doing it for the world's own good. The US knows what's right for the world. The US is just trying to save the world. C'mon who's fooling who. This is a capitalistic country and we look out for #1. I don't see why that motto should change in our foreign relations. If you don't agree, well that's your perogative. But really if you believe those arguments are valid, then I have to say that's a rather demeaning perspective of the world in general. Prosperity and Power does not necessarily give the US the right to run the world as it sees fit. What am I talking about? US running the world -- that's absurd. I mean really the US doesn't just do what it wants to and worry about the consequences later...does it?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Too bad that the voting machines are being made by people with deep ties to thr Republican party...one would hope for a neutral 3rd party, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest...but that doesn't matter, so long as the right-wing wins, right?

Wow.

Not according to Hans Blix. Maybe another case of the war on truth?

FZ, if Hans Blix thinks he was seeing all he needed to see, why does he need to go back now? He has made recent statements that suggest he believes he was being obstructed.

Currently, Iraq is under the leadership of the USA. America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy! (sarcastic for those of you who missed it).

Raven, how did the Marshall Plan in Europe (Germany specifically) work and how did it work out? What happened in Japan after WWII? Was it instantaneous in either case? No country in the history of the world has ever been so benevolent toward defeated enemies as the US. No superpower in the world has ever taken steps to create an organization (the UN) that could defy it.

This is a capitalistic country and we look out for #1.

Certainly. Have we profited as a result of the amazing success of Germany and Japan since WWII? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with that or does it diminish the success of those two countries? Absolutely not.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy!

Brilliant sarcasm. I think your picture is pretty much correct, but don't forget that the govmnt is appointing hand-picked corporations of the WorldCom and Bechtel variety, perpetrators of the greatest fraud and greatest cost over-runs in history, respectively.
As for freedom in Iraq, I don't think it has any. Certainly there are no cops and no bill of rights, just as intended.
The govmnt has decieved the public into thinking that we were on a crusade to free the slaves and enlighten them with democracy, while the Pentagon does not understand the First Principles of Democracy.

As for the 2000 election, the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory, so constitutionally it had to be the Supreme Court to decide luckily packed with conservatives. So it's right to say that Bush wasn't elected, but not right to question his presidency.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow.

Yeah...truth IS an incredible thing, isn't it? You should try it more often!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius


As for the 2000 election, the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory, so constitutionally it had to be the Supreme Court to decide luckily packed with conservatives. So it's right to say that Bush wasn't elected, but not right to question his presidency.

Well, that's a longer topic, involving cooking the books on the eligibility rolls, illegal overseas ballots, etc...and the opinion of the Supreme Court was that they wanted to make the Bush cabal seem legitimate, not that he had actually won fair and square.


Regime change, anyone?

 

[Tog_Neve]

FZ

Iraqi chemical weapons were american.

Actually yes there was some American hands in there...from years ago. Also more recently some German hands in there.

Nope. The Nazis were the largest party, and entering coalition governments were perfectly legal under the Weimar constitution. In fact, prior to the Nazi rule, the two previous chancellors were leaders of minority parties, propped up by article 48. In terms of democracy as envisaged in Germany, Hitler was democratically elected, as is Bush by the electoral college system. This was used to defend him in a variety of future issues.

Correct they were the largest party. But without the Nationalists they did not hold an absolute majority (51+%).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstag.htm
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE1.html
It was not until the Nationalist jumped on board and granting the absolute authority did the Nazi's basically become the dominant party and also "free" to do as they please. And immediately disolving the Reichstag.
And stating Hitler was democratically elected...can be somewhat of a stretch. Considering the political climate of the time and the instability as well as the strong arm tactics used but the Nazi's I don't know if I would call it democratic that the Nazi party (not Hitler) was able to get so many seats. Hitler was still appointed as the chancellor.

Ten years ago, like all of the intel quoted. The lie we were told was that clear evidence exists that Hussien is a continuing and urgent threat, and that there is reason that the weapons inspections cannot continue. Might I add that the US government confirmed it's readiness to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, while the Iraqis, though having weapons on "45 minute" standby, hasn't shown so much as a sign of a chemical weapon?

10 years? try more down to 5 years, 1998. And that is the entire point. That up to 1998 WMD have been acknowledged. And at not time has there been any verification provided by the Iraqi government that the weapons they themselves have used over the years as well as admitted to having have been destroyed or otherwise dismantled. And yes intel suggested that Hussein posed a threat to US indirectly by possibly providing Al Q the agents that he possessed. Also a threat to his neighbors as he has been in the past.

No it didn't. Read it again. It says that they should provide an account of the weapons they have and allow complete free access to weapons inspectors. Their failure to provide proof of non-existence is not equivalent to proof of existence, as Hans Blix has said.

Go on back to 687
Line 8 : Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: a) all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto;
Now go back up to 1441
First lines of it "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular...687..."
Now paragraph 2
"Decides, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced insepction regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completeion the disarmament process established by resolution 687"
And those disarmament obligations were to be directed by UNMOVIC and IAEA. Thus documentation of the destruction or dismantlement should be provided. Iraq was to provide evidence of disarmament from the beginning of things. 1441 did nothing but reinforce the resolutions that were already in place. SO yes Iraq was to provide any evidence concerning the destruction/dismantlement of weapons. They were to be done with the UN supervision and if not then they have to provide proof that it was done. Even the UN recognized this.

And then we find now that most of evidence is uncorrobarated, contrary evidence was suppressed (including interrogations of Al-Queada members who said that they did not work with Saddam), some were complete forgeries. (as are the so called documents relating to alleged nuclear arms development) We have leaks and people coming forward saying that the leadership itself did not have full confidence in this evidence, and that the public facade was a lie. The only response is the idea of "rogue elements" out to get people, and the promise of "investigations" paid out of the leadership's pocket. How does that look to you? Why are they hiding, if they have nothing to hide?

Have seen nor heard anything yet by a source deemed credible. "Unamed" officials are not credible. 3rd or 4th party hearsay is not credible. What we do have and know is this. Iraq has had chemical and biological agents. They have used them in the past. Iraq admitted to having chemical and biological agents in an official form after the end of the first GW. So we know they had them and have them. There has been nothing credible brought forth to date to show that Iraq no longer has these agents. Since Iraq has stated they have the weapons the onus of proof has been put on them to show they no longer have them...since the UN was not there to verify it as set out in 687 and 1441

Not if you are going to use them in 45 min. Not if our generals were so sure based on the same accurate intelligence we saw previous that the WMDs were based in X and X sites around Tikrit. Not if our satellite survillence equipment, which prior to the war was so effective in labelling alleged bunkers full of nerve gas, is as good at tracing these things as they are making them out to be. Not if our analysts, with such skill in pointing at tyre tracks and saying Anthrax! continued to display their marvellous skills. It is rather blatantly obvious that the case presented by Powell to the UN was an exaggeration.

And it was stated that they could have. Not that they do. Never heard anything other than the possibilities that if they intend on using them what the situations could be. And the intelligence that is used is the same basis that was used 10 years ago. The same reasoning for Clinton to launch all the cruise missiles as well. So what you are saying is that the UN and all the primary people involved (Russia, Germany, UK, US, and many others) have lied since the completion of the first GW. Clinton lied when he was targetting WMD facilities with over 400 cruise missiles. It has all been an elaborate cover up by these governments. Hussein never had WMD...once the first war ended they all just vanished. Get real please.

Contracts worth 100 Million in total. And the reconstruction contracts are worth over 10 Bn. Hmmmm... These peaceniks really don't know where the money is, right?

Ummmmmm guess again. You can't even strike an oil agreement for a pint of oil for 100mil...
Here is just one
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/index.html
3.4 billion. ANd that is just one. And this one was to supposedly snub France...so the french contract woudl be around the same pricing...

Not if you believe Rumsfeld. Apparently Saddam has kept faith with the UN after all and disarmed prior to the war. Ah well?

Have not heard that one...any references?

Past tense, not present tense. Apparently now it's his neighbours, Iran, Syria etc that pose a threat to stability. Guess where the Baathists ran? Yep, to those precise same countries they were "threatening". I bet soon when we are at war with Syria it would be a case of pity the poor Iraqis, threatened by the big bad neighbours.

Past tense only because he is not in power any more. In 2 decades Hussein attacked 2 different neighbors, as well as tossed some rocks on a 3rd. As long as the man was in power he was a threat to his neighbors...and his actions of the past reflect that.

WMD

Past tense again. Grammar, people!

Again the onus of proof was on him to prove he no longer had them. IT was already established not only by independant sources such as the UN but by Hussein himself, not only in declaration made to UN but also by actions against Iran and Iraqi populace. So until proven that he no longer has them then it can only be stated that he does.

Al-q

Not. Revealed intelligence has disproven that. Intelligence that was hidden.

Not by anything that I have seen. It was shown that there was Al-Q training in norther Iraq. That does not state that Al-Q had any involvement with Iraq gment or vice versa...only that Al-Q had a presence in the country of Iraq.

Tog

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve


Again the onus of proof was on him to prove he no longer had them. IT was already established not only by independant sources such as the UN but by Hussein himself, not only in declaration made to UN but also by actions against Iran and Iraqi populace. So until proven that he no longer has them then it can only be stated that he does.

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum?

 

[Tog_Neve]

Zero

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum

No actually just to darned busy at work nowdays...
And no it is not a logical fallacy...nor is it the same. In this instance Hussein has been proven to have them...as of 1998 there were still amounts of chem and bio agents that were inventoried but not yet destroyed. He was directed by resolution 687 to have them destroyed under the supervision of the UN. He claimed that they were destroyed. It is up to him to provide that proof...since he was to destroy them under supervision of the UN. There is no fallacy in that. Res 687 states clearly what Iraq is to do with its agents. Distroy, dismantle, render inert, all under the supervision of the UN. Res 1441 reinforced the statements that basically unless proven otherwise it would be assumed that he has not continued the process after 1998 and gave him 30 days to provide up to date and accurate accounting of what was left. He failed on that as well...his report was proven to not be credible...there were things on there that were not on original listings from early 90's, there were things on there that were already destroyed by UN. It had to many errors to be deemed credible. So he failed in providing the information set forth by UN (big surprise there).

 

[drag]

TN, you just wrote one of the most informative responses
I've ever seen in this forum. I do not see why you should
answer such pathetic and directly insulting responses (that are
the only thing the guy's left with after your informative
and precise statements). Just let it go, so he could go bark
at somebody else.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah...truth IS an incredible thing, isn't it? You should try it more often!

Yeah, righ. Truth. Heh. If I see any from you, I'll let you know.

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum?

Wrong, Zero. Tog covered most of this, but I'll reiterate. There has never been any evidence that there is a God. But the entire world has seen the evidence that there WERE WMD in Iraq at one time. Zero, I recommend you read http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/M32UNResolution1441.htm . I know you'll make me quote it, but it is quite clear that its intent was for Iraq to prove that they did NOT have any WMD.

How do you prove yopu destroyed something?

Several ways: documentation, openness, and cooperation for starters. But more to the point, it doesn't MATTER how. The UN resolution said they MUST, so they must.

And I KNOW we went over this a good dozen times during and before the war. I can't fault you too much for misunderstanding 1441, especially if you haven't read it, since it is consistently misrepresented by democratic politicians and the media.

TN, you just wrote one of the most informative responses
I've ever seen in this forum. I do not see why you should
answer such pathetic and directly insulting responses (that are
the only thing the guy's left with after your informative
and precise statements). Just let it go, so he could go bark
at somebody else.

Not to speak for him, but *I* respond to Zero for the benefit of the others in the forum (besides the obvious entertainment value). Us supporting T_N is enough for the causal viewers of this forum to give him some credibility. And I think most intelligent people see right through Zero - with a little help from posts like T_N's. The contrast between the level of their posts is clear

 

[schwarzchildradius]

..Not to speak for him, but *I* respond to Zero for the benefit of the others in the forum (besides the obvious entertainment value). Us supporting T_N is enough for the causal viewers of this forum to give him some credibility..

Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

Don't mind them...they are emulating their political heroes by ignoring truth at every turn.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Can this mumbo jumbo. It's boring.

On the contrary, I find Zero to be the most entertaining part of this forum.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
On the contrary, I find Zero to be the most entertaining part of this forum.

It is sort of sad that you find truth to be amusing and entertaining. I think it is sad that your obvious intellect is so used to processing lies.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Drag and Russ,
Thank you. It is a pity that when truth is brought out and laid down on the table before them...liberals often still ignore it and continue to live in their own world.


Tog

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve
Drag and Russ,
Thank you. It is a pity that when truth is brought out and laid down on the table before them...liberals often still ignore it and continue to live in their own world.


Tog

First off, you don't even know what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean. Secondly, you wouldn't know political truth if it hit you in the face. Go ahead, keep spouting the talking points from the Republicans, and pretend they are true.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
First off, you don't even know what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean. Secondly, you wouldn't know political truth if it hit you in the face. Go ahead, keep spouting the talking points from the Republicans, and pretend they are true.

Well, at least he didn't answer with another totally
unrelated and directly insulting methaphor from the
religion forum. It seems that such extreme measures are
only employed when the level and credibility of
the posted info is really high like the previous time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Let's get this back on topic. Bush's administration portrayed Iraq as a clear and present danger to America, which had explicit involvement in 9-11, and had a vibrant, active WMD program that could have struck America within the weeks before the invasion.


Is any of that true?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
Well, at least he didn't answer with another totally
unrelated and directly insulting methaphor from the
religion forum. It seems that such extreme measures are
only employed when the level and credibility of
the posted info is really high like the previous time.

Let's get this back on topic.

He agrees!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Bush's administration portrayed Iraq as a clear and present danger to America, which had explicit involvement in 9-11, and had a vibrant, active WMD program that could have struck America within the weeks before the invasion.

That's what I remember happening. It was even alluded to in the "victory" speech. Something like "on 9-11 they declared war on us, and war is just what they recieved!" Just mindless war-mongering. One thing I'd like to know that's never covered in the news is, what are the details on Saddam's death camps? Truth is just obliterated in this whole situation. But the govmnt contractors are on schedule to re-engineer the infrastructure of Iraq.

Obviously the govmnt lied about Iraq's capabilities and compliance with UN resolutions. So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has triumphed over despotism.

Is the tyrant really dead?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's what I remember happening. It was even alluded to in the "victory" speech. Something like "on 9-11 they declared war on us, and war is just what they recieved!" Just mindless war-mongering. One thing I'd like to know that's never covered in the news is, what are the details on Saddam's death camps? Truth is just obliterated in this whole situation. But the govmnt contractors are on schedule to re-engineer the infrastructure of Iraq.

Obviously the govmnt lied about Iraq's capabilities and compliance with UN resolutions. So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has triumphed over despotism.

Is the tyrant really dead?

We'll never get answers so long as idiots insist that asking the questions is somehow unpatriotic.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
So what? The tyrant is dead. The law of the jungle has
triumphed over despotism.

+ The Iraqi people are free and have a chance to
establish a free democratic society (heopefully they
will, at least). The US has gained influence. The US
is going to benefit economicly (so that you'll still
be able to keep braging about high life-style and way
of life ). The threat and support of terrorist
organizations that Saddam provided across the middle
east is over. Good final results. Case closed.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve


No one is saying asking questions is unpatriotic...I don't even see anyone questioning your patriotism. Just people asking you to open your eyes and look at the entire situation. And you can ask the questions all day long...but be prepared for the answer and don't immediately assume that the answer you get is a lie...if you ask a question it should be so that you get an answer and you can objectively examine from there.

Tog

I was referring to the idiot media, who should be pursuing truth instead of accepting the lies that Bush hands out. Again, WHERE IS THE TRUTH? The truth is, WMD were never a concern. Oil was a concern, and imperial goals in the area, but I honestly believe that either Bush lied, or teh intel was cooked for political reasons. Either way, top heads should roll over the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Shadow]

That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?

The recount was in favotr or President Bush by a large margin. And at the time the Associated Press was still under President Clintons administration so you can not even say that President Bush arranged it. No, I get it off trustworthy websites, ABC, Fox, NBC, and PBS. Two of which are claerly democrat runned. Why where do you get your news? www.democrats.com?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow

That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?

The recount was in favotr or President Bush by a large margin. And at the time the Associated Press was still under President Clintons administration so you can not even say that President Bush arranged it. No, I get it off trustworthy websites, ABC, Fox, NBC, and PBS. Two of which are claerly democrat runned. Why where do you get your news? www.democrats.com?

LOL! Actually, when the recount was stopped, Gore was a mere 66 votes behind and gaining. There was no large margin, even with all the ways that Bush cheated.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

The issue of recounts is ultimately irrelevant, because the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, i.e., you could have another vote 1 day later with same people voting the same way and the president would be Gore. Ultimately its the Supreme court who has to decide a case like that, and they chose to certify the Harris (cringe) results. As sleazy as it is, McCain is on record saying it was constitutional. If anyone would like to check that, that'd be good.

The US has gained influence. The US is going to benefit economicly

I gravely doubt that. Unless by US you mean the crooks at the top of Worldcom/Bechtel and their ilk. Let's face it - Iraqi democracy is not only a lie, it's a fantasy. It's a way for crooked companies to launder money. We were successful at displaying power and toppling a severely weakened government, the last secular one in the region. Now if we can break OPEC, which will surely fall if Iraq is exporting oil at lower prices, there's a good chance that oil companies will make a hell of a lot of dough. Obviously, they are already more powerful than our own government, do you think they'll be fair to Iraqis?! Not!

 

[Tog_Neve]

I gravely doubt that. Unless by US you mean the crooks at the top of Worldcom/Bechtel and their ilk. Let's face it - Iraqi democracy is not only a lie, it's a fantasy. It's a way for crooked companies to launder money.

So let me ask why do you think it is a fantasy? We toppled governments in Germany, Japan, and Russia and look where Germany and Japan are now. Russia is starting to rebound now and is able to show its face again. It is not a fantasy and it can become a reality. However the people have to be willing to accept it. And most will. Most are like us here in the states...as long as we are safe and our family is safe and we can provide for our family then the government type does not matter. As long as we feel taken care of. that is true here in the US as well as overseas...security.

We were successful at displaying power and toppling a severely weakened government, the last secular one in the region.

Weak as in militarily? or politically within the country? Yeah his military had been shot to heck and back 10 years ago...but he still held an iron grip on the people. And as far as secular...again not sure in what way are you referring...true it was not a theocracy, nor a monarchy. However Saddam was a Sunni and Sunni was the dominant (by force not by numbers) religion.

Now if we can break OPEC, which will surely fall if Iraq is exporting oil at lower prices, there's a good chance that oil companies will make a hell of a lot of dough. Obviously, they are already more powerful than our own government, do you think they'll be fair to Iraqis?! Not!

Ummmmm Iraq is still part of OPEC...just because Saddam is not there does not mean they are not part of OPEC... So there will be no exportations in attempts to undermine the Opec shipments. And let me ask you this where were all these companies when Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait? If it was about the oil then why did we stop the oil fires, and try so hard to prevent the soldiers from setting the rigs on fire...if they were on fire then it could have only meant more money for us.

See all of this kind of reasoning has no basis for anything but pure conspiracy theory thinking and has no footing in facts.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

So let me ask why do you think it is a fantasy?

I meant more fantasy of Americans to believe that democracy is going to be the government of Iraq. It's definitely going to be capitalist, but that's not democracy, its just a free market.

Weak as in militarily? or politically within the country?

Saddam's military was definitely weakened by sanctions. He wasn't weak politically, within his own country, because of the nastiness of his totalitarianism. Saddam's Baath party is a socialist party, but of course being the crafty guy he was, he could exploit Islam.

Ummmmm Iraq is still part of OPEC...just because Saddam is not there does not mean they are not part of OPEC..

Iraq was a founding member of OPEC. But the US has control now, why would we go to all the trouble of siezing the oil fields without breaking OPEC? Remember the gas crisis of the '70's? Caused by oil embargo from OPEC countries.

And let me ask you this where were all these companies when Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait?

How should I know? what do you mean anyway, OPEC is a pact between countries, not companies.

See all of this kind of reasoning has no basis for anything but pure conspiracy theory thinking and has no footing in facts.

No, the conspiracy theory is the fiction that we went to Iraq to spread Democracy there. I'm just pointing out obvious deceptions. You can believe them f you like.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Schwarzschild

I meant more fantasy of Americans to believe that democracy is going to be the government of Iraq. It's definitely going to be capitalist, but that's not democracy, its just a free market.

I would agree that it is entirely likely that democracy will be short lived. It would be nice if a stable form of democracy stays in place.

Saddam's military was definitely weakened by sanctions. He wasn't weak politically, within his own country, because of the nastiness of his totalitarianism. Saddam's Baath party is a socialist party, but of course being the crafty guy he was, he could exploit Islam.

Agreed.

Iraq was a founding member of OPEC. But the US has control now, why would we go to all the trouble of siezing the oil fields without breaking OPEC? Remember the gas crisis of the '70's? Caused by oil embargo from OPEC countries.

The US is not in a seizing/dictating what associations the new Iraqi Gment is to maintain. All we are doing is working to put a new gment in place. They will still be part of OPEC.

How should I know? what do you mean anyway, OPEC is a pact between countries, not companies.

You were the one to mention that there would be a lot of dough to be had by the oil companies.

No, the conspiracy theory is the fiction that we went to Iraq to spread Democracy there. I'm just pointing out obvious deceptions. You can believe them f you like.

Lets see the concept of a conspiracy theory is that there would be something going on behind the public eye...a conspiracy of alternative motives...The vocal aspects of post Iraq is to install a democratic gment...that is what is out in the public...how could it be a conspiracy theory if it is the public aspect?
All that aside there just is not enough solid evidence to support the idea that the US went into Iraq to get rich off of oil. But yet there is plenty of it to go against that idea.

Tog