Sept. 11 changed view on Iraq: Blair

[YukonJack]

"Hey Jackie baby....you're just a tad off with who agreed with the invasion of Iraq...... The invasion was NOT sanctioned by the U.N., and the majority of the world (including Canada) did NOT agree with the americans and their coalition of ass kissers invading Iraq."

Hey gerryh, baby, where did I say that the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the U.N.? Or by Canada?

I simply stated the fact that at that time EVERYONE thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And the fact that they have not been found DOES NOT negate that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Iraq WAS invaded because the entire world, the United Nations, politicians left or right, conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats were convinced, based on available data at the time, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that they were not found does not negate that. And the shills that cry that Bush lied are the biggest liars and hypocrites of them all.

That is total nonsense, YJ. The entire world was not convinced that Saddam had WMDs. USA tried desperately to convince the rest of the world to that effect, with the now famous (or infamous) speech by Collin Powell.

But the world at large was not convinced. That is why the invasion was not sanctioned by UN, that is why countries like Canada (and indeed, most of the world) stayed out; they did not get involved in the mission.

Iraq having WMDs was mainly the baby of Bush and Blair, hardly anybody else bought the story. There was no worldwide support for the assertion.

 

[gerryh]

"Hey Jackie baby....you're just a tad off with who agreed with the invasion of Iraq...... The invasion was NOT sanctioned by the U.N., and the majority of the world (including Canada) did NOT agree with the americans and their coalition of ass kissers invading Iraq."

Hey gerryh, baby, where did I say that the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the U.N.? Or by Canada?

I simply stated the fact that at that time EVERYONE thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And the fact that they have not been found DOES NOT negate that.

Wrong....everyone did NOT think that Iraq still had WMD.... that's why the u.s. didn't have the support of the world in their thirst for blood.

The fact that no WMD's were found supports what the inspectors and the majority knew.....that Iraq no longer had WMD and the americans were talking out of their ass.

 

[#juan]

Where were you when all this happened? Hiding in a closet? The entire world did not believe Bush's self designed delusion that Saddam had WMD.

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, critics referred to the countries which helped the US effort not as the 'Coalition of the Willing,' but the 'Coalition of the Bribed, Bullied, and Blind' (Manchester Guardian). This paper will examine the role of American economic linkage in assembling the coalition, looking at the mix of positive and negative economic linkage which Washington employed to bolster the ranks of its allies. As we shall see, a wide range of positive instruments was used, from foreign aid and military aid to offers of access to US markets. In other cases, threats of economic sanctions were effective. When were these efforts needed? How effective were they? What is the going rate for a military ally in today's market?

 

[JBeee]

Why was it then, at the time, 20 odd yrs ago, I felt the first attack on the WTC was somehow `justified` , when I knew next to nothing about this **** at the time, cept for what I gathered on 60 Minutes and such....programs that told BOth sides of a story

Obviously the US had it coming to them for a long time. Sept 11, 2001 was and is a day to celebrate for most free thinking people in the world. The WMD line was BS and you know it Jack. Coming to terms with yourself is your problem.

"That is not true JLM; it has always been known that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or indeed, Al Qaeda type of terrorism. Saddam was not a good Muslim, according to Osama Bin Laden. Saddam’s Iraq was not an Islamic state, like Taliban controlled Afghanistan was. Saddam’s Iraq was a Saddam state, where Saddam was worshipped as the God.

Indeed, his Prime minister, presumably the number 2 man in Iraq was a Christian. This has been well known for a long time now, long before 9/11 and the Iraq invasion. So it is nonsense to say that it was not evident to the people that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, it has been evident for a long time.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who governed Iraq with an iron fist. However, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or with terrorism."

Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain was not a good Muslim.
Iraq was NOT invaded because Saddam Hussain had anything to do with 9/11.
Iraq was NOT invaded because it was an Islamic state.
Iraq was NOT invaded because its Prime Minister was a Christian.
Iraq was NOT invaded even for the very obvious reason that it was a brutal regime.

Iraq WAS invaded because the entire world, the United Nations, politicians left or right, conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats were convinced, based on available data at the time, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact that they were not found does not negate that. And the shills that cry that Bush lied are the biggest liars and hypocrites of them all.

 

[YukonJack]

It is an acknowledged fact that liars always try to re-write history.

EVERYONE thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Look up history before it is permanently changed by lying liberals.

 

[JLM]

It is an acknowledged fact that liars always try to re-write history.

EVERYONE thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Look up history before it is permanently changed by lying liberals.

One question for you Y.J. - How are "lying liberals" any more detrimental than "lying conservatives"?

 

[gerryh]

It is an acknowledged fact that liars always try to re-write history.

EVERYONE thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Look up history before it is permanently changed by lying liberals.

Actually...in this case...... it was the lying right wing conservitards trying to "re-write" things.

and the only ones that believed that Iraq still had WMD and was a threat to more than the local fly population was either slow or mentally deficient. Which are you?

 

[Canaduh]

Iraq has served its purpose. Instead of the fundamentalists concentrating and attacking America they focused everyone of them in the region on an expendable country in which the US could fight a conventional war against them. In this context it was a success, regardless of its beginnings.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Iraq has served its purpose. Instead of the fundamentalists concentrating and attacking America they focused everyone of them in the region on an expendable country in which the US could fight a conventional war against them. In this context it was a success, regardless of its beginnings.

Depends upon how one looks at it. Iraq was a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists. Al Qaeda was probably able to recruit many more terrorists because of Iraq war, in a way, Iraq war was good for Al Qaeda.

Also, Iraq war took away vital resources from the real war on terror, the fight against Taliban and Al Qaeda. Incredibly Taliban is much stronger today than it was in 2001, right after it was driven out of Afghanistan. I thought Taliban would be destroyed in a few years at most.

The reason it wasn’t (and the reason it poses such a serious threat to Afghanistan today) is that Bush took his eye off the ball by invading Iraq. He went on a wild goose chase when he should have been fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I think invasion of Iraq did serious damage to the war on terror.

 

[Spade]

An analysis of a character flaw!