The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
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: