Viewing Thread:
"Iraq destroyed weapons before the war?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942978.stm

So Rumsfeld now says that Iraq may have destroyed the weapons before the invasi-..sorry..war.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't that kind of mean the war wasn't necessary?

I mean, their intel was so superb and accurate that they assured us "these weapons could be ready for use within hours" right?
Only, they couldn't find them.
Now they're saying they could have been destroyed before this all happened.
"It could take months to find these weapons" Rumsfeld warns.
So why wasn't the UN given months? Oh yeah, because these weapons were a threat and ready for immediate use.
Except they didnt use them.
CNN reports that Rumsfeld is confused by the lack of discover "He said he did not know why Iraq had not used chemical weapons against the invaders as Washington had predicted it would.
And he said the speed of the US advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, adding: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

And the world grew suspicious at the non-appearance and usage of these WOMD, so the reason for war changed.
It went from "WOMD, Saddam will kill you and everyone you love!" to "We're freeing these Iraqis"
Uh-huh, nice righteous reason there Dubya.
Except it wasn't about freeing these poor people (made worse by imposition of sanctions for over a decade and continual bombing runs since 1991 by US and British planes).
Subtle spin in the news changed the "Gulf War 2" from being about destroying WOMD to liberating an oppressed people, complete with repeated showings of a statue being toppled.

Dont let yourself be distracted for a single second about the original reason for war.
WOMD.
WOMD that haven't been produced once, despite all this intel we were told about before the war.
WOMD that were never used in the invasion.
WOMD that still haven't been discovered, with the "Oh but Iraq's a big country" excuse. Yeah? But you had all this intel before the invasion, you're telling me now you can't find them?
And now we have today's little chestnut that "they may have already been destroyed"
Are you that stupid (Bell excluded) that you'll swallow this horseshit excuse for invasion?

Rumsfeld is now "warning" Iran.
Which is odd, because Iran has long been a puppet state of the USA, ever since The CIA instigated a coup to depose former leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953.
CIA ousts Mossadeq and puts in a nice, US approved Shah.
They then arm, train and fund the Iranian military to wage war on Iraq.
Except The Ayatollah overthrows The Shah and returns a hardline Muslim rule to Iran.
CIA then install, arm and train Saddam Hussein. Giving him technological knowledge, WOMD, missiles and ballistic weaponry to fight against The Ayatollah.
Who then displays pro-US ideals and suddenly is their freind again.
So what happens?
Hussein is now the bad man.

Even a child can see the workings here. Arm A to fight B. Then arm B to fight A because A doesn't like you anymore.

USA invades Iraq to destroy WOMD (provided by the USA), except there are none. Doesn't matter because now it's about freeing civilians.
USA owns Iraq and now turns to Iran, formerly a close-ally and starts to eye them up.
As predicted with the Iraq invasion almost 2 years before it happened, I'd advise you to keep your eye on Iran. Because the USA will be in there soon, then they own that region completely. Saudi is basically USA with sand and that leaves very few anti-US regions.

And if anyone fancies reading about the CIA assisted coup of Iran in 1953, in case you think this is being made up, have a read:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

Iraq was not a war about removing WOMD. It was an illegal invasion designed to solidify US interests in oil-rich nations.
Except they distract you with talk of "mass graves", which makes it appear like if you disagree you're evil.
Yeah?
So what about Mugabe? What about the mass graves of hacked to death civilians in Zimbabwe? He's invited to summit meetings in Paris, albeit with distaste.

No financial gain from bombing it to dust and then rebuilding using contracts awarded to solely US and UK companies (although the UK are losing out).
It's not about oil, it's about $$££ from rebuilding contracts, arms sales to neighbouring regions and defence budgets given "blank cheque" funding in this war against terror.

Belldandy wrote:

>
> I just love how you take this all so seriously.....

Heh. For the record, what is one meant to do in a forum for discussion? Still annoyed that no-one bows down and accepts what you say as the truth? Like we should have done about prostitution (you still haven't answered the queries on that thread) or Ebola (which saw you getting owned in a truly comprehensive manner)


And I just love what a bizarrely hypocritical oaf you truly are. Lets have a look at your 'final' post shall we?






Why do I only contribute links, and pointless crap with little thought ? Because it's not worth the effort. Anything I do just ends up with Light going off on an ego trip as usual so I see little point in putting any remote effort into posting.

There's plenty of topics I can think of - I'm surprised nobody has, as far as I can see - commented on last night's "Day That Britain Stopped". Has to be one of the better put together pieces of work the BBC has done for a while.

As it is, I'm not the only one proclaiming to know all the answers on this forum...

Goatboy, you wanted me to answer, and I did. What do I get back ? Crap. What's the point indeed...

Au revoir.

That's almost certainly spelt wrong, but what do I care, safe in the knowledge that Light is hitting refresh every minute just waiting to jump in with such literary creations as war w@nk e.t.c.

I'm going to try prove Snuggly wrong, escape, forever. Have fun, and know that for all your ranting and complaining that it changes nothing whatsoever, the world still stays the same and you're just another angry paranoid person shaking his fist.







So, whats the point dear boy? The point is taking an arrogant, bullying, and ignorant fool such as yourself, and removing one of his avenues for bullying. Which has been done rather successfully.

Funny how you only surface when HALO fan is queried, isn't it...?

Yay, Life's Western version of The Iraqi Information Minister returns!

"There is no conspiracy. These dogs will burn in the stomach of America. Fools. Fools!"

"Rumsfeld sold nuclear reactors to Korea under a previous administration, what's the problem? These Arab donkeys are stupid. Stupid!"

"I wrote this as a reaction test. You pagans shall suffer at the hands of evil midget Bush as we destroy them terrorists with socks and donkeys"

Light wrote:
> HALO Fan wrote:
>
>
> And Light, I wouldn't bother posting unless you're actually
> contributing to this. No offence, but I don't know what your problem
> is, and everyone else on this forum seems pretty okay.
>
>
> Wow. You even have Bells insistence on having the last word, even
> though I'd made it clear I was butting out....you really are his
> spiritual twin. My commiserations...

Hey Light, if you must be a complete a$$ the at least get the right person. I'm not surprised this forum is so crap with you throwing out abuse at every newbie there is. What's wrong, got nobody to argue with anymore ? Feeling a lack of attention are we ?

Believe me, if I ever post on here you'll know it's me by my name.

Not to worry though, you can still stalk me over on the GC and Xbox forums on the rare times I bother to post. Seems to me like you've been reduced to throwing snide comments around and little else, or have you ran out of boredom inducing pieces you wrote in the past? Why not show us all how Bush's plan for giving money to African states to fight AIDs is really a big oil conspiracy ? Or, tell us all why Saddam didn't deserve to be overthrown ?

I just love how you take this all so seriously.....

HALO Fan wrote:

>
> And Light, I wouldn't bother posting unless you're actually
> contributing to this. No offence, but I don't know what your problem
> is, and everyone else on this forum seems pretty okay.


Wow. You even have Bells insistence on having the last word, even though I'd made it clear I was butting out....you really are his spiritual twin. My commiserations...

Is it also coincidence that a company chaired by the Vice-President has got a major rebuilding contract

VenomByte wrote:
> A friend of mine's mum invaded his bedroom, searching for evidence of
> weaponds of mass turbation. None were found, but by then the
> justificstion had shifted to the liberation of his unclean laundry.

heh quality

Of course Iraq had no weapons of Mass distruction (WMD) this war seemed to be about two things

1. Oil noticed how our leaders said it wasn't about this yet the first things they seized were- you guessed it oilfields

2. Bush himself strikes me as the kind of guy who would try to start a war to show he is a great warrior leader. My friend pointed out that bush wouldn't be remembered as the intelligent president who saved the country at home but that he wants to be remembered as the warrior prsident. emphasized by his statement of "I Feel Good" when the war started.

Blair and Aznar Were with America because of the power it weilds on the world stage.

A friend of mine's mum invaded his bedroom, searching for evidence of weaponds of mass turbation. None were found, but by then the justificstion had shifted to the liberation of his unclean laundry.

Deterring Democracy is an excellent book, as is "Public Propaganda".
They both detail the west's habit of reporting conflicts that happen to coincide with the (usually financial) interests of "peace".

I think pretty much all countries are complicit in encouraging terrorism through their actions towards each other, it's just the most scathing attacks are reserved for America and the UK precisely because we have, albeit limited, a freedom to criticise.
And most of my unhappiness lays with our own country, because I feel if you have the freedom to say "well hang on a moment" and dont use it, it's wasted.

"Manufacturing Consent:The Political Economy of The Mass Media" by Chomsky goes into incredible detail to explain and highlight the actions of Western media in situations like Nicaragua, Chili, Mexico, Cuba, Zaire and The Sudab - demonstrating how conflicts that do not provide financial reward are to all extents and purposes ignored.
Which is why, especially since the 1st Gulf war in 1991, I've paid attention to see just how that situation has been reported. And the sequel was tantamount to propaganda daily into our homes.

The only reports we were shown were from reporters embedded with the troops, wearing the same combats and showing only their side. We were offered no independant Iraqi news reports, or Al Jazeera, or any other number of Arabic news stations. We saw Western journalists with Western troops telling us how well we were doing.
There is no way on earth that is unbiased and accurate reporting, and is no different from The Politburo or other agencies.
Especially having read Chomsky, I tend to take a step back from the news and ask myself what is being shown and why.

You noticed a very subtle (at first) shift in reporting. It was all about, as Geoff Hoon stated before it all kicked off, "securing our country from the direct threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction".
We were fed stories about possible attacks, troops at airports (and the only arrest? A man from Grenada with a hand grenade. What use are tanks in arresting someone?), and talk of a terrorist-action alert practice in Central London.
Remember airports like Stansted were closed off?
There was an air of fear and suspicion in the streets, mosques raided in Finsbury and "suspected terrorists detained".
We were all inside, peering through our curtains and being shouted at by the papers "RICIN ATTACK! RICIN CAN KIL YOU!!"
Advice on what to do in the event of a terrorist attack etc, bottled water sold in droves in supermarkets.
We were all whipped into a state of hysteria, fear and loathing for those dirty arabs.

So we went to war.
To prevent "a direct and credible threat towards the safety of our county", Geoff Hoon - Feb 2003.
No mention of the liberation of Iraqis, it was about the prevention of terrorism (the new buzzword of 2000).
Except what? There was zero resistance to speak of and the troops swarmed in with minimal casualties to their own sides.
A successful invasion on all accounts.
Except no WOMD were used.
Or found.
And we're now being told they may never be found, or possibly even destroyed before the war even began.

But as soon as it became apparent there were no WOMD to be used/found, the news shifted to stories about the "liberation" and "freeing" of civilians. Which is, without argument, a good thing.
But what people forget is that regime change was not the reason for invading Iraq. It was only proffered as a reason when public attention became focused on the total lack of serious weaponry held by Saddam Hussein.

---

I've basically repeated myself again, sorry.
I'm just amazed, as with the election of Bush in the first place, that this invasion was allowed to happen under the eyes of the world and hardly anybody said anything.

The end result may have been beneficial for the people of Iraq, it's too soon to tell, but given the history of the region and the direct influence that America has had in the past 50 years, I'm just a little cynical that all of a sudden they want to help.

The easiest way to help was to leave the country alone way back in the 1950s and not arm everyone in sight.

Thanks to Goatboy for his reply, I can honestly say that I haven't followed all Iraq's history quite so closely as he obviously has, I'm only 21 so a lot of the things which led to the Gulf War happened when I wasn't that old, and our country's history lessons seem somewhat lacking in the "look which maniac we helped" department.

As I've grown up I've found it annoying how a lot of people talk about living in peace, as conflicts are waged off camera with the media only bothering to cover certain conflicts. Unfinest Hour by Bredan Simms is quite an eye opener - one of the first books of its kind I ever read -, as is Noahm Chomsky's Deterring Democracy, Mark Shawcross's Deliver Us From Evil, and Urgent Fury by Mark Adkin.

All detail conflicts since World War Two, and how the actions, largely of the West, in particular America, haven't always been for entirely truthful reasons or what they appear to be, though Shawcross' is about the United Nations and it's (attempt) to work.

And Light, I wouldn't bother posting unless you're actually contributing to this. No offence, but I don't know what your problem is, and everyone else on this forum seems pretty okay.