The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that it was an
immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such weapons within 45 minutes.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically discrediting
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were incompetent and
couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every piece of evidence that
was handed to him by the USA turned out to be a total waste of time because
there were no signs of any illicit activity.

So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath. This was well known
outside the USA. Media outside the USA were quick to provide complelling
reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003 evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was
not credible. Yet in the USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and
never questioned the validity of the presented evidence.

When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council, announced
that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence on nuclear weapons
had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA media nor the democrats pounced on
the Bush regime. That alone should have started impeachement process with a
Ken Star to investigate the activities of the Bush regime.

Finding out who fabricated the evidence should be been the top stories in the
USA media until it was resolved.

And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq and that 9
months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded nothing, don't
you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?

This isn't some financial fraud that caused shareholders to lose money. This
is the destruction of a country's infrastructure and the loss of about 10,000
lives, 3 times more than were lost on Sept 11.

You say Bin Laden is a terrible butcher. Well, Bush killed 3 times as many for
no reason. He should be labeled a terrorrist too. His motives were just as
false as Bin Laden's motives were.

And consider this: Americans despise Bin Laden for what he has done to the
USA. Arabs despise the USA just as much as Americans despise Bin laden. And
guess what that means: more arabs will be motivated to join terrorist
organisation to fight back.

What is needed in the world now is some military balance. Either the USA's
military must be crippled, or other countries must mount a military that can
stop the americans from abusing their military power.

Why do you think Rumsfeld was ****ting in his pants when he heard thaty the EU
wants to build its own military that is separate from NATO and thus not
controlled by the USA ?

"Kal Alexander" wrote:

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Not control, but definately securing access to the oil was a factor.
Do you not realize the importance of that accessibility?


If oil were really that high on the agenda, the sludge would be drowning
the caribou up in Alaska right now....unless you're going to insist that
Iraq is an easier thing to swallow than environmentalist websites
drawing mustaches on W jpegs.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Eagle Eye" ] wrote in message
...


I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
was something which should have been done sooner.


I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.

On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
and said the following.


" Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.

The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Eagle Eye" ] wrote in message
...


I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
was something which should have been done sooner.


I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.

On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
and said the following.

" Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.

The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Keith

Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Eagle Eye" ] wrote in message
...


I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
was something which should have been done sooner.


I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.

On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
and said the following.

" Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.

The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Keith

Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.

Even if you do think that, it is much better than the noises that came from
the former Iraqi leader's puppets, which were more often than not screams or
mumbled prayers as they were shot and dumped into all of those mass graves
we have been finding--or do you think those were all fabricated, too?

Brooks

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:



Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.


Hoshyar Zebari is no puppet

He is a member of the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) who was
fighting the regime of Saddam Hussein long before they were perceived
as a threat to the USA. Having seen his own people gassed and bombed
by the Iraqi regime is apt to colour his views a little and he has been
VERY critical of the US from time to time. In fat he has been calling
for the UN to take command of the situation rather than have a
US military governor calling the shots.

I'd suggest that calling a man who spent 15 years as a guerilla
fighter in the mountains of Kurdistan a puppet was a cheap shot
but that's just too much of an understatement.


Keith

RogerM wrote:

The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.


The UN in my dimension has Libya heading its "Human Rights Commission".
Who heads it in your dimension?


(Sounds like we oughta swap, so we both get what we want.)

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Even if you do think that, it is much better than the noises that came from
the former Iraqi leader's puppets, which were more often than not screams or
mumbled prayers as they were shot and dumped into all of those mass graves
we have been finding--or do you think those were all fabricated, too?

Brooks

A lot of that was probably true. Once again, I am not saying Saddam was
anything other than a brutal tryant.

If a civil war breaks out, however, there will likely be more deaths
than Saddam caused.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?

What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
that they could find them.

They have been lying all alone. What is one more?

--
Stephen

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

Kal Alexander wrote:
nobody wrote:
Mike1 wrote:
As long as "we"'re indulging ambiguous-collective fallacies, allow
me to suggest that the American People never lost sight of the ball
as getting Hussein out under any expedient excuse because he's a
vicious *******
who had to go.

No single country should be allowed to unilaterally decide the fate
of another country. I know that it is a big blow to their ego, but
Americans need to understand that they cannot act alone,

Sorry, but no nation needs to ask anybody else's permission to
act in defense of itself.

Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam Hussein's
alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he had, he'd have used
them against us? Hell, lots of countries have war plans for this and war plans
for that.....that doesn't mean that we have to go to war with them. Who was
threatened with what? You may not be old enough to remember, but Adolf Hitler
had a war machine big enough to kick the bejesus out of half the world, and we
didn't feel threatened by him enough to start kicking ass until after he
declared war on us. But taking out a third rate thug and his mickey mouse army
because of what he would have liked to be able to do to us? It cost us the
respect of just about every nation in the world.....oh, they'll still deal with
us because we're the biggest gorilla on the block, but you know what they all
must think of a nation that goes to war to take out a bunch of non-existent
weapons. How can anybody respect anyone who is so fearful of so little?