The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
"We don't have any cruise missiles and we don't know how our cruise missiles hit Israel."
As many will tell you, 'Belldandy' was a pro-American forum regular until recently, so Light was not trying to call you a female name or anything like that.
The Indonesians are committing atrocities against the Aceh, and vice versa. However, I do not know much about this issue,. so will have to read up on it to properly comment on it.
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.
The Indonesians are committing atrocities against the Aceh, and vice versa. However, I do not know much about this issue,. so will have to read up on it to properly comment on it.
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.
Light wrote:
> And so it was that in the space of a few posts, HALO Fan tried to
> distract attention from the fact that the US and UK invaded another
> country on the basis of lies.
>
> If you're not Belldandy, then he has a clone. Even the rather poor
> standard of argument is the same.
Thank you for proving my argument for me.
Listen, is it my fault if you can't even read what I have typed ? Did you suddenly go blind at the point where I clearly said that I did not believe in excusing the wrongful actions of a country ? Obviously you did.
You seem yet another person determined to right wrongs, as long as those wrongs are comitted by two certain nations and screw everyone else.
Where is a post on this forum about Indonesia ? If you guys think what happened in Iraq was bad then you really have seen nothing yet compared to what's happening right now in Aceh.
People who are really bothered about the state we find ourselves in on this planet are bothered about all wars going on, not just those they can watch on the BBC and use as a convenient excuse to throw a bit of criticism around. And more to the point how we've ended up here, and the answer lies not at any few nation's metaphorical door.
I really don't care who or what you compare me to, and besides you'll find that the name "Belldandy" is a female one. Admittedly it is also the name of one of the old Norse (I think) gods/goddesses but I'd wager that it's more than likely come from the old Japanese Anime Ah! My Goddess. So if you really must make comparisons at least get a name to match the gender...
> And so it was that in the space of a few posts, HALO Fan tried to
> distract attention from the fact that the US and UK invaded another
> country on the basis of lies.
>
> If you're not Belldandy, then he has a clone. Even the rather poor
> standard of argument is the same.
Thank you for proving my argument for me.
Listen, is it my fault if you can't even read what I have typed ? Did you suddenly go blind at the point where I clearly said that I did not believe in excusing the wrongful actions of a country ? Obviously you did.
You seem yet another person determined to right wrongs, as long as those wrongs are comitted by two certain nations and screw everyone else.
Where is a post on this forum about Indonesia ? If you guys think what happened in Iraq was bad then you really have seen nothing yet compared to what's happening right now in Aceh.
People who are really bothered about the state we find ourselves in on this planet are bothered about all wars going on, not just those they can watch on the BBC and use as a convenient excuse to throw a bit of criticism around. And more to the point how we've ended up here, and the answer lies not at any few nation's metaphorical door.
I really don't care who or what you compare me to, and besides you'll find that the name "Belldandy" is a female one. Admittedly it is also the name of one of the old Norse (I think) gods/goddesses but I'd wager that it's more than likely come from the old Japanese Anime Ah! My Goddess. So if you really must make comparisons at least get a name to match the gender...
HALO Fan wrote:
> Like I said, who cares about the rest of the world slowly going up in
> flames when you've got America and the UK to criticise......
And so it was that in the space of a few posts, HALO Fan tried to distract attention from the fact that the US and UK invaded another country on the basis of lies.
If you're not Belldandy, then he has a clone. Even the rather poor standard of argument is the same.
> Like I said, who cares about the rest of the world slowly going up in
> flames when you've got America and the UK to criticise......
And so it was that in the space of a few posts, HALO Fan tried to distract attention from the fact that the US and UK invaded another country on the basis of lies.
If you're not Belldandy, then he has a clone. Even the rather poor standard of argument is the same.
Like I said, who cares about the rest of the world slowly going up in flames when you've got America and the UK to criticise......
this whole business makes me sick to my stomach. idiot blair and jackass bush should be sentenced to a life a cleaning toilets
I was reading an article in the the new Time magazine about this.
Apparently it's surfacing that Rumsfeld, post 9/11, gained authority to set up something akin to his own intelligence group which worked outside of the CIA, from the Pentagon, and that refused to share it's information with other agencies.
This new group was the source of claims about WOMD inside Iraq, and it essentially battered the CIA into believing this was the case by convincing the CIA it would look incompetent if it claimed otherwise. Bush, trusted Rumsfeld's group to deliver accurate information on the situation in Iraq, and that obviously failed. Has the Sec of Defence gone partly rogue methinks ?
On another note, I think that the fact the war was initially about finding WOMD was more about finding something that would get the rest of the world of it's collective behind to finish off somebody that should never have been installed in power in the first place. Going to war to stop another nation killing you with weapons is easier to sell than going to war to change a regime and liberate a nation.
Ultimately the fact it came down to war is a failure of all sides, and there are far more important questions to be answered than nitpicking over the motivations for it. What's done is done.
Me, I'm more interested in questions like:
*Why could the United Nations not resolve the problem, and how did it allow Iraq, and other nations like Israel to evade, and continue to evade, sanctions and various resolutions ?
*Why did America decided to go to war without United Nation's backing > And here I do not mean oil, or the usual lame reasoning tied to anti-globalisation fears and general anti-American sentiment, I mean the real reasons that a nation fears another so much it will go to war and give up on diplomacy.
*How could China, Russia and France be regarded as against the war, and somewhat blameless, when they also supplied weapons and equipment, as well as personnel in the case of Russia, to Iraq ? Ultimately no nations in the chambers of the United Nations was acting for Iraq, but for itself.
Sadly heaping scorn on the US and UK administrations will do little to prevent this, as it will be forgotten.
And whilst people still obsess over this all but over war, Indonesia launches it's own war against Rebels in the Aceh province of the war.
Luckily no one is paying any attention media wise, and seeing as this war involves the Indonesian Army task force (27000 troops, tanks, air support, bombers, warships, Surface to Surface missiles) versus roughly 6000 rebels whose heaviest weapons ae RPGS and homemade bombs, and who are established in civilian areas, I suspect it will make civilian casualties in Iraq look like peanuts, already around 400 schools have been destroyed, with boths sides blaming each other....
Let's not forget the new pushes of the Russian military against Chechen rebels either, with the memory of various attacks on Russia still fresh in the minds of new recruits I suspect they'll be acting with customary restraint....
Still, look at those Americans...
I'm not against holding nations to account for their actions, but I think its high time that this was applied evenly to every nation, and that others should recognise what they have done in the past. Take the colonial exploits of our own country. Until University I knew little of this, A Level History was all about our nation's history, but it strangely excluded our comlpicity in state sanctioned murder, slavery, torture and invasions of far away lands that we "Discovered".
Apparently it's surfacing that Rumsfeld, post 9/11, gained authority to set up something akin to his own intelligence group which worked outside of the CIA, from the Pentagon, and that refused to share it's information with other agencies.
This new group was the source of claims about WOMD inside Iraq, and it essentially battered the CIA into believing this was the case by convincing the CIA it would look incompetent if it claimed otherwise. Bush, trusted Rumsfeld's group to deliver accurate information on the situation in Iraq, and that obviously failed. Has the Sec of Defence gone partly rogue methinks ?
On another note, I think that the fact the war was initially about finding WOMD was more about finding something that would get the rest of the world of it's collective behind to finish off somebody that should never have been installed in power in the first place. Going to war to stop another nation killing you with weapons is easier to sell than going to war to change a regime and liberate a nation.
Ultimately the fact it came down to war is a failure of all sides, and there are far more important questions to be answered than nitpicking over the motivations for it. What's done is done.
Me, I'm more interested in questions like:
*Why could the United Nations not resolve the problem, and how did it allow Iraq, and other nations like Israel to evade, and continue to evade, sanctions and various resolutions ?
*Why did America decided to go to war without United Nation's backing > And here I do not mean oil, or the usual lame reasoning tied to anti-globalisation fears and general anti-American sentiment, I mean the real reasons that a nation fears another so much it will go to war and give up on diplomacy.
*How could China, Russia and France be regarded as against the war, and somewhat blameless, when they also supplied weapons and equipment, as well as personnel in the case of Russia, to Iraq ? Ultimately no nations in the chambers of the United Nations was acting for Iraq, but for itself.
Sadly heaping scorn on the US and UK administrations will do little to prevent this, as it will be forgotten.
And whilst people still obsess over this all but over war, Indonesia launches it's own war against Rebels in the Aceh province of the war.
Luckily no one is paying any attention media wise, and seeing as this war involves the Indonesian Army task force (27000 troops, tanks, air support, bombers, warships, Surface to Surface missiles) versus roughly 6000 rebels whose heaviest weapons ae RPGS and homemade bombs, and who are established in civilian areas, I suspect it will make civilian casualties in Iraq look like peanuts, already around 400 schools have been destroyed, with boths sides blaming each other....
Let's not forget the new pushes of the Russian military against Chechen rebels either, with the memory of various attacks on Russia still fresh in the minds of new recruits I suspect they'll be acting with customary restraint....
Still, look at those Americans...
I'm not against holding nations to account for their actions, but I think its high time that this was applied evenly to every nation, and that others should recognise what they have done in the past. Take the colonial exploits of our own country. Until University I knew little of this, A Level History was all about our nation's history, but it strangely excluded our comlpicity in state sanctioned murder, slavery, torture and invasions of far away lands that we "Discovered".
Ahhhh
You can't really do much but laugh that these people are the most powerful force on Earth.
Slightly off topic... did you hear that the Bush and Bin Laden family had dinner together a year before 11th September? It's in the new Micheal Moore film that they're trying to stop.
You can't really do much but laugh that these people are the most powerful force on Earth.
Slightly off topic... did you hear that the Bush and Bin Laden family had dinner together a year before 11th September? It's in the new Micheal Moore film that they're trying to stop.
Everything was in there. Nice summary (?).
So it seems the only "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq were the ones raining down from B-52s.
Page: