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.

And the remaining "Q" is in Al Queda. I see a connection! Quick let's ring the Pentagon and arrange a meeting between Lionel Blair and Curious George!

monkey_man wrote:
> Look, what is your f*cking problem with WOMAD!? All I've been hearing
> for the last few months is "WOMAD this", and "WOMAD
> that" without any real evidence or thought put into people's
> comments. If you're going to be ignorant about a group or
> organisation, why can't it be SCOPE - no-one's accused them of hiding
> in Iraq.

IRA is in Iraq.

'War on Terror'.

First an oxymoron in my book, as war creates terror, or more to the point, more terrorists in retaliation. And since when have Basque seperatists, 'patriotic' Americans etc (i.e Omaha bombing) NOT been terrorists?

Just a point I recently discovered in my head.

Look, what is your f*cking problem with WOMAD!? All I've been hearing for the last few months is "WOMAD this", and "WOMAD that" without any real evidence or thought put into people's comments. If you're going to be ignorant about a group or organisation, why can't it be SCOPE - no-one's accused them of hiding in Iraq.

Just wondering if anyone thinks Blair would visit Iraq if there was even the *tiniest* possibility of WOMD existing in any kind of readiness.
Or, indeed, at all?

Heh. Sure you're not Belldandy...I mean, Bell keeps posting in the Xbox forum and foreswears this place, then all of a sudden a newbie appears posting exactly the same "The US are great" points in response to any attacks on 'em, in precisely the same style of writing.

Tell you what; if you're not Bell, then of course you have my apologies for confusing you with a man so gutless that he runs crying the second he starts getting hammered in a debate. Not that it should worry you; if you'r not him, there's nothing to get offended at, right?
And of course, if you are him, then you're doing an excellent job of reinforcing the belief that you're a coward. And an ignorant one at that.

Still, Goatboy put forward an excellent post, so I'm going to butt out entirely and see if you're able to actually respond to it, or resort to one of the standard Belldandy counterpoints.

True the situation in Achen is unacceptable, as is Rwanda, Chile, Zimbabwe, El Salvador and any other number of countries.

However I have only been reading about Indonesia for a few days, and as such I am unable to offer anything beyond "yes this is terrible" platitudes - which help no argument either side.

The reason I am, as you put it, "who cares when you have America and the UK to criticise" is simply because I have followed this particular conflict since I learned about the deposing of a legitimate ruler in Iran by the CIA at school way back in about '87. I found it shocking that a foreign country deemed it acceptable to use their own intelligence agencies to meddle in the politics of another country to the extent of funding and operating a coup, with our assistance.
Indonesia has been going on a hell of a lot longer than Achen, it goes way back further than the East Timoor situation as well.

However, if you need to barrack somebody for trying their best to raise awareness and questions on one single issue - whether you deem it worthy or not - then I ask what are you doing about Achen?
I mean you personally, what are your actions concerning Achen - a situation you obviously care much about.
Don't think I'm being facaetious, because I'm genuinely interested.

And why is it that the illegal invasion of Iraq is less worth talking about than Acehn? Feeling outraged over the invasion and killings in Iraq may no longer be in vogue now that it's all been sorted out (if you believe mainstream media), but that doesn't mean I simply wish to ignore it and let the USA and UK claim footholds in regions that are not theirs, nor should be a concern.

And I'm not blaming America for everything, so please do not level that argument against me.
I am blaming America and the UK for this direct action, simply this invasion of Iraq using spurious reasonings and blatently false excuses offered to placate a once outraged nation.

I do not hold America in loathing, not being a leftist liberal or a right-wing patriot.
To highlight the possibly illegal (on advice from the government's legal advisor) actions of our country and America is to not blithely blame them for every single action in the history of everyhing.

I am simply talking about the actions of one country, in this instance America, and their actions and behaviour towards another, Iraq.
Not holding them as an example of global evil by any means.

America acted wrongly, and continues to do so with our pallid support.
To point that out cannot be blaming them for anything, it is merely mentioning facts in this situation.
I hope I cleared my own position up on this matter.

And I could not allow myself to become a politician, as I believe in order to do so you must first have your soul sucked out through your eyes and surrender your dignity forever.

I would just like to say that Goaty should be a politician.

"Why can't we find the weapons of mass destruction?"
"Well, they had so much warning of the war that they could dispose of them in time before we got there"

"So...why didn't they just use them against you?"
"Well, you see, they were SO SURPRISED that we went to war, they didn't have the chance"

LL Cool TT - Rebooted wrote:
> However, the fact of the matter is that Goatboy raised some very
> interesting points about the US and their possible illegal actions
> against Iraq. Diverting the subject on a matter that, while
> undoubtedly worthy of attention, is irrelevant in this discussion, is
> clearly not appropriate. I fail to see how, just because something
> else to occurring at the same time, America should escape criticism
> for undoubtedly peculiar and unjustifiable actions. Perhaps you could
> explain this, HALO Fan.

It wasn't diverting, it was simply pointing out that there are far more wars , and far more nations comitting questionable actions, than just America and the UK. If you read what I have put I make it clear that I believe ALL nations should be held accountable for what they do.

I do not, however, believe in picking and choosing. Goatboy makes good points, but it's nothing that should surprise anyone, really. When nations cannot agree, listen, and understand each others worries and fears then don't be surprised when several of them go off and do their own thing regardless.

The problems run much deeper than the fact there's a "bomb them - it works every time" President in the USA and a Prime Minister who is stuck between a rock (Europe) and a hard place (the US administration).

Even so, it has to be remembered that rarely are all countries at fault, typically it is the administration/government of that nation, and with voting rates dropping every election in most Western nations then those in power are usually there only because about 1/3 of a nation voted for them anyway. More people have to understand that voting apathy has dire results with wide ranging effects. Also at fault are the major political parties in both America and the UK, for failing to provide alternatives to the voters.

There is a highly likely chance that Bush will be re-elected, simply because the Democrats can do little against him in areas such as homeland security and the war on terror. Sure, they can say he's wrong, but where are they with the viable alternatives that people will vote for ? More likely, those who want to see Bush continue to bomb the situation into a further irreversible disaster of foreign policy will vote for him, with those who don't simply staying at home. Domestic issues, like the questionable Tax Cut, may hit Bush, but it's doubtful in a world climate that basically appears to hate America. Blair's position is less sound but any major political party would still support America,, unless we end up with a BNP government and in that case I'd pray for Mr Bush to turn America's arsenal onto us....

I'm saying: Understand why nations have done what they've done, understand how we got here, and instead of an international slanging match it would be far better to address real issues. No amount of talking will reverse history, but it can change the future.