The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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/2/hi/americas/3054423.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS /07/09/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/index.html
--
Rumsfeld admits there was "no new evidence" to support the invasion of Iraq, but "the same intelligence viewed through the prism of Sept 11th".
Which kind of debunks the entire reason given eh?
I distinctly remember Colin Powell showing satellite photographs of bomb sites, warnings of 45min capability missiles, intercepted phone calls between Iraqi officials talking about hiding "the banned substances" and "vehicles the UN forbid".
I remember warnings about chemical attacks, threats to this country in the lead up to the invasion with tanks at airports, ricin attacks, warnings from the MOD about what to do during a terrorist attack.
I remember Blair on television saying that these WOMD presented a "very real and dangerous threat to the immediate safety of our country" when trying to convince for the war.
I remember a million people marching in protest saying this evidence being presented was a sham.
I remember Hans Blix saying "there are no weapons here, nothing has changed and we must be allowed more time"
I remember Bush talking about the "evildoers who must be stopped before they commit further acts of terror against our great country"
I remember a report being waved about as evidence that turned out to be cribbed from a 12 year old thesis written by a Uni student.
Which begs the question why?
Why if there is no new evidence, were they so intent on proving it to us?
Why was it ok to leave Iraq in, by admittance from Rumsfeld, THE SAME STATE OF READINESS FOR 10 YEARS, and only act because of "the prism of Sept 11th".
I thought they were deposing a "vile and evil oppressor"? So why leave it so long, why let the people of Iraq suffer for over a decade and only free them because of "the prism of Sept 11th"?
So it's ok to let them be oppressed and murdered when nothing it done against America - but because Al-Queda (no proven links admits White House and MOD) attacks, they suddenly feel the need to liberate these poor people?
Nope - by Rumsfeld's own admittance, it was only the acts of Sept 11th that changed their view on "potential threats towards our country".
So, just so I understand this correctly:
We are told Iraq possesses WOMD that are an immediate threat and can be launched within 45 mins of command given.
Except the UN Inspectors found nothing, and the stuff they did find was destroyed in accordance with their instructions, Hans Blix states he found no evidence to suggest that they had any such weapons programme.
The nuclear programme, as mentioned by Belldandy in his "gardening in Iraq" thread, has been shown to be inactive for at least 12 years.
Blair assures us that these weapons do exist and will be found.
Except now Downing Street and White House admit these may never be found.
Then Rumsfeld admits no new evidence used to support the war.
All the time the UN is saying "There are no weapons, they have been destroyed and nothing exists, your evidence is flawed"
So it turns out that, possibly, The UN was correct all along in trying to say that maybe there were no weapons?
We can't find them, Hans Blix says they weren't there, and even The White House/Downing Street is admitting they may have been "destroyed before the war"
So we invaded a country with no new evidence (in direct opposition to the reports/satellite photos etc), did a lot of damage to European relations, discredited the UN, caused a split in backbenchers, had MPs resign, endless arguments on here etc and all because of what?
"the prism of Sept 11th"
And, just for a final spoonful of distrust -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/americas/3052453.stm
US admits the intelligence used to suggest Iraq buying Uranium from Africa was false (as I linked and discussed in Bell's "Gardening for Iraq" thread).
But Blair insists the intelligence is legit.
No new evidence used to support an invasion
No WOMD discovered and US saying they may never have existed anyway
No Hussein in custody
No interim government yet
No terrorist action against the UK by Iraq ever at any time
No terrorist action on US soil by Iraq ever at any time
No terrorist action by Iraq against any Western nation at any time
Is anyone still thinking this was a righteous thing and a just thing to do?
Remember, Rumsfeld admits the only reason for the invasion was the "prism of Sept 11th".
Not the freeing of civilians from a dictator that they helped install to combat The Ayatollah (who in turn overthrew the CIA installed Shah)
This whole thing smells bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS /07/09/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/index.html
--
Rumsfeld admits there was "no new evidence" to support the invasion of Iraq, but "the same intelligence viewed through the prism of Sept 11th".
Which kind of debunks the entire reason given eh?
I distinctly remember Colin Powell showing satellite photographs of bomb sites, warnings of 45min capability missiles, intercepted phone calls between Iraqi officials talking about hiding "the banned substances" and "vehicles the UN forbid".
I remember warnings about chemical attacks, threats to this country in the lead up to the invasion with tanks at airports, ricin attacks, warnings from the MOD about what to do during a terrorist attack.
I remember Blair on television saying that these WOMD presented a "very real and dangerous threat to the immediate safety of our country" when trying to convince for the war.
I remember a million people marching in protest saying this evidence being presented was a sham.
I remember Hans Blix saying "there are no weapons here, nothing has changed and we must be allowed more time"
I remember Bush talking about the "evildoers who must be stopped before they commit further acts of terror against our great country"
I remember a report being waved about as evidence that turned out to be cribbed from a 12 year old thesis written by a Uni student.
Which begs the question why?
Why if there is no new evidence, were they so intent on proving it to us?
Why was it ok to leave Iraq in, by admittance from Rumsfeld, THE SAME STATE OF READINESS FOR 10 YEARS, and only act because of "the prism of Sept 11th".
I thought they were deposing a "vile and evil oppressor"? So why leave it so long, why let the people of Iraq suffer for over a decade and only free them because of "the prism of Sept 11th"?
So it's ok to let them be oppressed and murdered when nothing it done against America - but because Al-Queda (no proven links admits White House and MOD) attacks, they suddenly feel the need to liberate these poor people?
Nope - by Rumsfeld's own admittance, it was only the acts of Sept 11th that changed their view on "potential threats towards our country".
So, just so I understand this correctly:
We are told Iraq possesses WOMD that are an immediate threat and can be launched within 45 mins of command given.
Except the UN Inspectors found nothing, and the stuff they did find was destroyed in accordance with their instructions, Hans Blix states he found no evidence to suggest that they had any such weapons programme.
The nuclear programme, as mentioned by Belldandy in his "gardening in Iraq" thread, has been shown to be inactive for at least 12 years.
Blair assures us that these weapons do exist and will be found.
Except now Downing Street and White House admit these may never be found.
Then Rumsfeld admits no new evidence used to support the war.
All the time the UN is saying "There are no weapons, they have been destroyed and nothing exists, your evidence is flawed"
So it turns out that, possibly, The UN was correct all along in trying to say that maybe there were no weapons?
We can't find them, Hans Blix says they weren't there, and even The White House/Downing Street is admitting they may have been "destroyed before the war"
So we invaded a country with no new evidence (in direct opposition to the reports/satellite photos etc), did a lot of damage to European relations, discredited the UN, caused a split in backbenchers, had MPs resign, endless arguments on here etc and all because of what?
"the prism of Sept 11th"
And, just for a final spoonful of distrust -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/americas/3052453.stm
US admits the intelligence used to suggest Iraq buying Uranium from Africa was false (as I linked and discussed in Bell's "Gardening for Iraq" thread).
But Blair insists the intelligence is legit.
No new evidence used to support an invasion
No WOMD discovered and US saying they may never have existed anyway
No Hussein in custody
No interim government yet
No terrorist action against the UK by Iraq ever at any time
No terrorist action on US soil by Iraq ever at any time
No terrorist action by Iraq against any Western nation at any time
Is anyone still thinking this was a righteous thing and a just thing to do?
Remember, Rumsfeld admits the only reason for the invasion was the "prism of Sept 11th".
Not the freeing of civilians from a dictator that they helped install to combat The Ayatollah (who in turn overthrew the CIA installed Shah)
This whole thing smells bad.
Page:
Practical Magic wrote:
> Ahem, the Balkans War WAS illegal because it lacked UN sanction and
> backing. No one asked us to help, instead the US, with a reluctant UK,
> mobilised forces from themselves and others to intervene. IT was not
> until evidence of a new holocaust in Europe hit the media that
> legality was given and other anti-involvement nations like Russa
> joined in.
And I'll repeat, because it appears you've misunderstood what I've said; helping the people of the Balkans had nothing to do with it. NATO went to war initially to safeguard European stability. Kosovo came after the initial conflict.
>
> With regards to Tony Blair, you must have missed what I and Dr Duck
> mentioned about this in another topic, so I'll repeat here.
>
> Tony Blair will lose the election, but not because of the Iraq
> conflict, in fact that's the only thing likely to win new votes from
> anyone. Domestically we're a mess - you have groups angered over
> crime, over racism, over asylum seekers, benefits, fox hunting, NHS,
> transport, anti fox hunting, Zimbabwe etc In other words tons of
> smaller groups of people with each having a strong reason not to vote
> Blair, or indeed Labour.
>
> Whilst I've supported Blair in the terrorism and Iraq areas, I think
> he is useless in all others. Hence I'll be voting for whoever happens
> to run for the Conservatives, I have a feeling it will still be Duncan
> Smith.
I don't disagree about Blair. But what I do disagree about is IDS and the Tory party's fitness to govern. Still, your opinion, your choice.
> Ahem, the Balkans War WAS illegal because it lacked UN sanction and
> backing. No one asked us to help, instead the US, with a reluctant UK,
> mobilised forces from themselves and others to intervene. IT was not
> until evidence of a new holocaust in Europe hit the media that
> legality was given and other anti-involvement nations like Russa
> joined in.
And I'll repeat, because it appears you've misunderstood what I've said; helping the people of the Balkans had nothing to do with it. NATO went to war initially to safeguard European stability. Kosovo came after the initial conflict.
>
> With regards to Tony Blair, you must have missed what I and Dr Duck
> mentioned about this in another topic, so I'll repeat here.
>
> Tony Blair will lose the election, but not because of the Iraq
> conflict, in fact that's the only thing likely to win new votes from
> anyone. Domestically we're a mess - you have groups angered over
> crime, over racism, over asylum seekers, benefits, fox hunting, NHS,
> transport, anti fox hunting, Zimbabwe etc In other words tons of
> smaller groups of people with each having a strong reason not to vote
> Blair, or indeed Labour.
>
> Whilst I've supported Blair in the terrorism and Iraq areas, I think
> he is useless in all others. Hence I'll be voting for whoever happens
> to run for the Conservatives, I have a feeling it will still be Duncan
> Smith.
I don't disagree about Blair. But what I do disagree about is IDS and the Tory party's fitness to govern. Still, your opinion, your choice.
Ahem, the Balkans War WAS illegal because it lacked UN sanction and backing. No one asked us to help, instead the US, with a reluctant UK, mobilised forces from themselves and others to intervene. IT was not until evidence of a new holocaust in Europe hit the media that legality was given and other anti-involvement nations like Russa joined in.
With regards to Tony Blair, you must have missed what I and Dr Duck mentioned about this in another topic, so I'll repeat here.
Tony Blair will lose the election, but not because of the Iraq conflict, in fact that's the only thing likely to win new votes from anyone. Domestically we're a mess - you have groups angered over crime, over racism, over asylum seekers, benefits, fox hunting, NHS, transport, anti fox hunting, Zimbabwe etc In other words tons of smaller groups of people with each having a strong reason not to vote Blair, or indeed Labour.
Whilst I've supported Blair in the terrorism and Iraq areas, I think he is useless in all others. Hence I'll be voting for whoever happens to run for the Conservatives, I have a feeling it will still be Duncan Smith.
With regards to Tony Blair, you must have missed what I and Dr Duck mentioned about this in another topic, so I'll repeat here.
Tony Blair will lose the election, but not because of the Iraq conflict, in fact that's the only thing likely to win new votes from anyone. Domestically we're a mess - you have groups angered over crime, over racism, over asylum seekers, benefits, fox hunting, NHS, transport, anti fox hunting, Zimbabwe etc In other words tons of smaller groups of people with each having a strong reason not to vote Blair, or indeed Labour.
Whilst I've supported Blair in the terrorism and Iraq areas, I think he is useless in all others. Hence I'll be voting for whoever happens to run for the Conservatives, I have a feeling it will still be Duncan Smith.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Rumsfeld said no NEW evidence of increased activity, there is a
> difference.
>
> I actually have no need to shout about the FASC inquiry essentially
> clearing the government of the BBC's alleged 'sexing up', because the
> comittee has cleared them, end of story. The best they coud do was say
> the 45 minute claim was given undue prominence, but that's bull,
> anyone who reads anything important like that should be able to read
> it and decide for themselves what is prominent.
So...a committee where 50% was made up of labour MP's said that they weren't happy with the info in it, but that the sexing up allegations had been given undue attention cos of the 45 minute claim? And that only because the chairman (the Labour chairman) had to use his casting vote?
*L* Not the end of story at all Bell; if it was, why are all other parties calling for a judicial review? Doesn't really suggest it's the end of the story, does it?
>
> As for illegal war ? So was the Balkans one in 1999, but we stopped a
> new holocaust in Europe and no one complained. Sure, anti-war
> supporters will continue, but no one else cares and no one else will
> do anything.
Fraid not; the NATO treaty allows for a reaction to a threat to European stability. Which the Balkans situation was. Unlike the Iraq situation. As to no-one else caring...well, that was a fairly typical Bell cheap shot; "I don't agree with them, therefore they don't matter". Alas, they do matter. Because they vote. I mean, with one breath you say anti war supporters don't matter, then in the next you're saying Blair won't get re-elected because of them. Which is it?
> Rumsfeld said no NEW evidence of increased activity, there is a
> difference.
>
> I actually have no need to shout about the FASC inquiry essentially
> clearing the government of the BBC's alleged 'sexing up', because the
> comittee has cleared them, end of story. The best they coud do was say
> the 45 minute claim was given undue prominence, but that's bull,
> anyone who reads anything important like that should be able to read
> it and decide for themselves what is prominent.
So...a committee where 50% was made up of labour MP's said that they weren't happy with the info in it, but that the sexing up allegations had been given undue attention cos of the 45 minute claim? And that only because the chairman (the Labour chairman) had to use his casting vote?
*L* Not the end of story at all Bell; if it was, why are all other parties calling for a judicial review? Doesn't really suggest it's the end of the story, does it?
>
> As for illegal war ? So was the Balkans one in 1999, but we stopped a
> new holocaust in Europe and no one complained. Sure, anti-war
> supporters will continue, but no one else cares and no one else will
> do anything.
Fraid not; the NATO treaty allows for a reaction to a threat to European stability. Which the Balkans situation was. Unlike the Iraq situation. As to no-one else caring...well, that was a fairly typical Bell cheap shot; "I don't agree with them, therefore they don't matter". Alas, they do matter. Because they vote. I mean, with one breath you say anti war supporters don't matter, then in the next you're saying Blair won't get re-elected because of them. Which is it?
Rumsfeld said no NEW evidence of increased activity, there is a difference.
I actually have no need to shout about the FASC inquiry essentially clearing the government of the BBC's alleged 'sexing up', because the comittee has cleared them, end of story. The best they coud do was say the 45 minute claim was given undue prominence, but that's bull, anyone who reads anything important like that should be able to read it and decide for themselves what is prominent.
As for illegal war ? So was the Balkans one in 1999, but we stopped a new holocaust in Europe and no one complained. Sure, anti-war supporters will continue, but no one else cares and no one else will do anything.
For what it is worth I believe Blair will not get re-elected, but Bush will.
I actually have no need to shout about the FASC inquiry essentially clearing the government of the BBC's alleged 'sexing up', because the comittee has cleared them, end of story. The best they coud do was say the 45 minute claim was given undue prominence, but that's bull, anyone who reads anything important like that should be able to read it and decide for themselves what is prominent.
As for illegal war ? So was the Balkans one in 1999, but we stopped a new holocaust in Europe and no one complained. Sure, anti-war supporters will continue, but no one else cares and no one else will do anything.
For what it is worth I believe Blair will not get re-elected, but Bush will.
*pop*
Thing is, what can anyone do about it?
They had their invasion, spoils handed out to companies like sweets, they get to install whatever form of government they tell Iraq is good for them and move on to wherever next.
Sure, Blair & Bush have (by Rumsfeld's admittance) waged war with zero evidence despite shouting over and over that they do - hence I personally consider them lying, warmongering hateful sonsofbitches - but nobody can hold them to account.
It angers me but apart from climbing a tower with a scoped rifle, I'm not sure what can be done about it.
I do know that the incessant crowing from pro-war supporters has faded with the non-appearance of WOMD. Non-appearance because, hey, they were never even there in the 1st place. Blair refuses to give evidence and instead sends Campbell, a non-elected advisor.
The report states that Campbell did not lie, but that the dossier leaves a lot of unanswered questions about things, doesn't explain a lot, gives undue significance to the 45 minute claim.
And to be honest, if that report had been exonerating Blair completely - let's be realistic here, Belldandy, you'd be shouting it from the rafters.
But the fact it, whilst not condemning, highlights a lot of innaccuracies suggests there is more to this than we'll ever know.
But the public are stupid and will re-elect Blair, just as Shrubby will get his 2nd term - it's already been agreed.
How do I know that?
Illegal, unfounded, non-evidence invasion of Iraq.
"I'll go to war, you get me re-elected"
"Sure George, worked for your daddy"
They had their invasion, spoils handed out to companies like sweets, they get to install whatever form of government they tell Iraq is good for them and move on to wherever next.
Sure, Blair & Bush have (by Rumsfeld's admittance) waged war with zero evidence despite shouting over and over that they do - hence I personally consider them lying, warmongering hateful sonsofbitches - but nobody can hold them to account.
It angers me but apart from climbing a tower with a scoped rifle, I'm not sure what can be done about it.
I do know that the incessant crowing from pro-war supporters has faded with the non-appearance of WOMD. Non-appearance because, hey, they were never even there in the 1st place. Blair refuses to give evidence and instead sends Campbell, a non-elected advisor.
The report states that Campbell did not lie, but that the dossier leaves a lot of unanswered questions about things, doesn't explain a lot, gives undue significance to the 45 minute claim.
And to be honest, if that report had been exonerating Blair completely - let's be realistic here, Belldandy, you'd be shouting it from the rafters.
But the fact it, whilst not condemning, highlights a lot of innaccuracies suggests there is more to this than we'll ever know.
But the public are stupid and will re-elect Blair, just as Shrubby will get his 2nd term - it's already been agreed.
How do I know that?
Illegal, unfounded, non-evidence invasion of Iraq.
"I'll go to war, you get me re-elected"
"Sure George, worked for your daddy"
Ha! But is he more stupid for going to war, or releasing this information?
Like Tony Blair I'm absolutely certain that WMD will be found. But I'm guessing that they will have been made by a CIA agent with unlimited access to toilet roll, bright green paint and temporary tattoos of the skull and crossbones.
That was very well written.
As Light said, summarised everything that's happened well.
Could the UN possibly have been right?
Probably.
But the US and UK won't ever admit it.
Ever.
As Light said, summarised everything that's happened well.
Could the UN possibly have been right?
Probably.
But the US and UK won't ever admit it.
Ever.
Heh. I'm looking forward to seeing the increasingly tortured syntax and sophistry that will be employed by the US and UK governments and their apologists in the weeks to come...
Nice summary of what's happened.
Nice summary of what's happened.
Page: