Like a popular revolution led by the people and the US starting an unprovoked war which killed hundred of thousands are the same thing. One was about freedom and the other was about oil.
Revolution on the Nile, happening now, Feb 2011
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Speaking of crazy people, they don't get much crazier than Ann the hate monger. She represents all that is vile and destructive about the right wing.
What is the difference between Ann Coulter and people like Van Jones. Jones, Angela Davis or Michael Foot. (RIP) Except that she makes money.
Never heard of those people. Maybe they represent all that is vile and hateful about the left. I don't know. But I have heard enough from Ann to know she is a nasty piece of work. The US will just continue to flush itseld down the toilet as long as public opinion is being shaped by the hate mongers like Coulter, Beck and their ilk, left or right. You guys are so polarized it will tear you apart.
Behind all anger is fear. You guys need to figure out what is it that you are afraid of that is causing all this anger and frustration before you self destruct.
Ann Coulter, I heard her say in 2008 that of course Saddam had WMD, evidence? Recently Rumsfeld said Saddam didn't-at least he's honest. Coulter isn't honest and that could be why you hear so much less from her now. She has faded like Palin will. The USA's current march of folly of useless invasions brings out the worst in people and the worst people out.
The USA was provoked to invade countries by morons living in caves. The 9/11 attacks required a measured response, not a massive one. So the USA is in decline. Now they've really "lost" Arabs. the list goes on.
The USA was provoked to invade countries by morons living in caves. The 9/11 attacks required a measured response, not a massive one. So the USA is in decline. Now they've really "lost" Arabs. the list goes on.
First of all, you should ask the Kurds if Saddam had WMD.
Secondly, how exactly would you have handled terrorist training camps in Afghanistan?
Of course Hussein had WMDs. The Americans still had the sales receipts to prove it. But anyone who read Hans Blix's (UNMOVIC) reports knows Iraq did not possess a WMD capability before the 2003 invasion:
Overview of the report:
Robert Fisk: Blix Undermines US War Plans
From the report, 2 week before the invasion:
Two weeks later, the US invaded, before Blix could officially report Iraq had no WMDs.
I can understand people being bamboozled by the pro-war propaganda before the invasion. But you'd have to be a complete fool to still believe the pro-war lies now that they have been thoroughly discredited and proven wrong.
Too bad the US and NATO are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. An invasion in support of a popular revolt in Libya would be supported by everyone except Gaddafi. Libya even has oil!
Overview of the report:
Robert Fisk: Blix Undermines US War Plans
From the report, 2 week before the invasion:
Security Council 7 March 2003
Two weeks later, the US invaded, before Blix could officially report Iraq had no WMDs.
I can understand people being bamboozled by the pro-war propaganda before the invasion. But you'd have to be a complete fool to still believe the pro-war lies now that they have been thoroughly discredited and proven wrong.
Too bad the US and NATO are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. An invasion in support of a popular revolt in Libya would be supported by everyone except Gaddafi. Libya even has oil!
First of all, if either Robert Fisk or the UN told me water was wet.....I'd have to go for a swim to reassure myself water still WAS wet....
Secondly, I know they found no WMD.....but the fact they had them, and used them at one point was evidence in itself.
Thirdly, Saddam himself admitted to trying to fool the world into believing he had WMD, because he was more concerned with Iran than the US or UN.
Fourth........it has been a long hard ride, and it may go on for awhile, but Iraq was the FIRST Arab nation to become a real democracy.....and it well might remain the ONLY one.....certainly the only pro-western one.
Fifth....all that said, Bush Jr. was determined to finish the job started....and ended prematurely....by Bush Sr.
And Sixth: If tonight the USA invaded Lybia, tomorrow you would be screaming "No blood for oil!".....and I suspect you know that as well as I do.
A massive response was needed in response to 9/11, and was directed properly against Afghanistan. The mistake was stopping before the job was over and going into Iraq. Even if Saddam had WMD, so what, he would't have had the الكرات to use them. (balls)
Wow you seriously still believe the BS. I'm not even privy to top secret briefings and even I was able to figure out that by 2003 (more likely by 1996) Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
This web page from November 2001 predates the invasion:
MYTH: Iraq "has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD [weapons of mass destruction/ programs" or complied with weapons inspections. Iraqi economic sanctions "prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction" (U.S. State Department, March, 2000).
FACT: Interestingly enough, the State Department fails to address its role in helping Iraq develop its weapons programs. "...throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the government of Iraq, which was the government of the Baath party led by Saddam Hussein, was an ally of the United States. Iraq was a recipient of massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, most notably biological weapons stocks" (May 1999 National Catholic Reporter).
Yet despite this omission of history, the State Department proclaims that "Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear" based mainly on seized shipments of baby milk, baby bottles, and baby powder leaving Iraq. It seems especially unusual to state that if Hussein had greater control of baby products, he would use them to rebuild his weapons programs, especially considering that the seized items were not even directly linked to Hussein.
The truth is that Iraq has been, by and large, disarmed. "Following the Gulf War, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might has been considerably diminished by the work of UNSCOM. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler said that 'if Iraqi disarmament were a 5-lap race, we would be three-quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.' Iraq's neighbors have said that Iraq no longer poses any threat. Even an Israeli military analyst has said that Iraq's biological weapons program was over-hyped" (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).
As for UNSCOM inspections, the lack of success lies mainly with the United States government's hidden agenda. UNSCOM had eight years of virtually unrestricted inspections. Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that "95 percent of [UNSCOM's] work proceeds unhindered" ("PBS Newshour" with Jim Lehrer, February 199. But contrary to the UN goal of weapons inspections, the United States government has sought to use the inspections as intelligence gathering missions. Halliday states, "[T]he difficulty with UNSCOM has been the inclusion of espionage, of spies, of various intelligence organizations which, under the UN auspices, is something that is appalling to all of us. Now as it happens, UNSCOM staff, including Butler, are not staff members of the organization. They are hired from other organizations, but nevertheless we expect them to behave in a manner consistent of a civil servant, and that clearly was not done. And the CIA and others have owned up to what they did, in fact, that they used the UN as a cover for espionage, which is a very unfortunate thing and what, of course, the Iraqis had been saying for many years and the UN had denied for many years. They were right; we, obviously, were wrong" (The Fire This Time, April 1999).
Further evidence of this comes directly from former UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter. "Fingers point at the United States primarily in using the weapons inspection process not so much as a vehicle for disarming Iraq, but rather as a vehicle for containing Saddam and for gathering information that could be used to remove Saddam. The US perverted the system; not the weapons inspectors" (June 1999 FOR interview). Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because of this perversion.
MYTH: "Saddam retains the capability to inflict significant damage upon Iraq's neighbors and its own civilian population" and "Without sanctions, Saddam would be free to use his resources to rearm and make good on his threats against Kuwait and the region" (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Raymond Zilinskas, UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, states "Although it has been theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high" (Chicago Tribune, February 199. Scott Ritter, however, is more blunt. "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is a resounding 'NO.' 'Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale?' 'NO!' It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability" (June 1999 FOR interview).
Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact
Anyone capable of critical thought was aware, before the invasion, that the US was lying about its motivations for war with Iraq. UNSCOM knew Iraq didn't have any WMDs back in 1998. UNMOVIC had searched Iraq in 2003 and found nothing indicating Iraq had any WMDs.
When did Iraq have free and fair elections? Every Iraq election since the US took control has been tainted by overwhelming undeniable evidence of voter fraud and I'm not talking about statistical analysis indication a probability of voter fraud, but blatant evidence of election fraud on a massive scale.
Libya is another tragedy of the Iraq war. The US and NATO would have seized the opportunity to take control of Libya if they weren't are already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure such an act would be motivated in part by Libya's oil wealth, but intervening in the middle of a popular revolt being suppressed by the Dictator declaring war on the people would be far more acceptable than the Iraq war, which was quiet and peaceful (albeit oppressed) before the invasion. That last serious atrocity committed by Hussein may have been the execution of 1500 officers for treason after a failed 2001 coup attempt or the 100,000 or so people killed during a failed 1993 Shiite uprising that the US said they would support and later changed their mind.
Last edited:
When we went into Iraq looking for these WMDs, it wasn't nuclear weapons we were looking for, it was chemical weapons. Saddam used them against Iran and the Kurds. So what happened to them, did he use them all up or bury them in the desert. I don't think he used them all up, so that leaves option 2 they are buried in the desert along with part of his air force. Big country, we just don't know where to look.
Beware the Armed Forces that are prevalent in N.African coumtries.
Beware also of oversimplifying. Remember there is a rich history of sweeping invasions for several thousand years & throughout this region. Beware too of outside interference & support. Powerless but aware.
How many empires have uttered that lame excuse for a botched job by incompetents in that same training ground for excellent combatants? Do you suppose the enemies of America are that stupid? Hell no they eat you from the inside out, already you're skin and bone and only a tiny knot of muscle left in the head. You've massive responed the nation to death. IMO
When Iraq used their CWs (made with US help) against Kurdish civilians, the US initially tried to blame Iran. When it was proven that Iraq was responsible the rest of the world imposed sanctions against Iraq. The US increased trade with Iraq because it was good for business. 15 years later, the US hypocritically used this bit of history to generate irrational fear of Iraq and support for an unprovoked attack, even though they steadfastly supported Iraq at the time they gassed Kurdish civilians.
At the end of the 1991 war, Iraq agreed to give up all their WMDs as per the ceasefire agreement and allow UN weapon inspectors to verify their destruction. By 1995, UNSCOM had destroyed Iraq's WMD capability as per their reports. UNSCOM couldn't claim they had found everything as per their statements in my previous post, so economic sanctions stayed in place, long after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. UNSCOM also destroyed the factories, confiscated the raw materials and documentation. CWs have a shelf life. Even if Iraq had squirreled away some CWs from the late 80's, they'd be useless by 2003
BTW, none of the above is a secret. Only Bush and people who watch Fox News thought Iraq was a credible WMD threat before the invasion.
Last edited:
The last part is debatable, FOX news was not the only media saying there were WMDs, just about all of the said it at the time that General Powel pled the case for war at the UN. There were only two choices yes he had WMDs or he didn't. Saddam at the time was refusing UN inspectors to look, he did that like turning a water faucet on and off. I would not want to be down wind from the gas even after its shelf life has expired. Just means it might not be as lethal as when new. I do not believe that they gave up all there WMDs in 1991.
That's BS too. Iraq allowed UNMOVIC led by Hans Blix to go anywhere and talk to anyone. You should read his report that I referenced above and reference again:
Security Council 7 March 2003
That report was delivered to the UNSC two weeks before Bush declared war. That report is why the UNSC never authorized force against Iraq. They saw Blix was making progress and they knew that his reports indicated Iraq was not a credible WMD threat.
If I was an American, I'd be pissed that my government lied to me, and started an unprovoked war knowing that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat and that there was no urgent need to do anything and simply let the UN weapon inspectors do their job...
Of course don't expect FoxNews to connect those dots for you... You'd have to read what Hans Blix wrote for yourself and then decide if what he wrote was grounds for war. Its a very brief report about 2 pages, and would take about 2 minutes to read.
Before the 2003 invasion, US government made public only information which support an invasion (including information they knew was based on forged documentation and statements by people who had reason to lie about Iraq), while keeping quiet about facts and evidence which did not support war. The MSM played along with the US government deception of the American people. They never asked why the US government had to invade Iraq immediately when UNMOVIC was searching Iraq freely, finding nothing and had stated they were a month or so away from resolving all remaining disarmament issues????
Bush declared war on Iraq after Blix's report, because he knew UNMOVIC was about to collapse his case for war. If Bush waited another 2 weeks, Blix's next report probably would have declared Iraq free of WMDs.
Starting an unprovoked war is a war crime... and Americans should hold the people responsible for the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who died as a result.
Security Council 7 March 2003
That report was delivered to the UNSC two weeks before Bush declared war. That report is why the UNSC never authorized force against Iraq. They saw Blix was making progress and they knew that his reports indicated Iraq was not a credible WMD threat.
If I was an American, I'd be pissed that my government lied to me, and started an unprovoked war knowing that Iraq was NOT a WMD threat and that there was no urgent need to do anything and simply let the UN weapon inspectors do their job...
Of course don't expect FoxNews to connect those dots for you... You'd have to read what Hans Blix wrote for yourself and then decide if what he wrote was grounds for war. Its a very brief report about 2 pages, and would take about 2 minutes to read.
Before the 2003 invasion, US government made public only information which support an invasion (including information they knew was based on forged documentation and statements by people who had reason to lie about Iraq), while keeping quiet about facts and evidence which did not support war. The MSM played along with the US government deception of the American people. They never asked why the US government had to invade Iraq immediately when UNMOVIC was searching Iraq freely, finding nothing and had stated they were a month or so away from resolving all remaining disarmament issues????
Bush declared war on Iraq after Blix's report, because he knew UNMOVIC was about to collapse his case for war. If Bush waited another 2 weeks, Blix's next report probably would have declared Iraq free of WMDs.
Starting an unprovoked war is a war crime... and Americans should hold the people responsible for the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who died as a result.
Last edited:
Clarify your misunderstanding of history. Read Blix's report and you will see UNMOVIC was about to resolve all remaining disarmament issues within a month or two. Here let me quote his conclusion:
Does that sound like justification for war?
Security Council 7 March 2003
Does that sound like justification for war?
We're not Kurds and their fight for a homeland does not necessarily include us. There are many struggles in Asia for many oppressed peoples, why we need to get involved in them is hard to understand.
WMD means nuclear weapons in the fearmongering of the time. However, it was spun to mean anything dangerous from dark skinned people. Really not a good way to ensure security, vague fears work for the ignorant.
The UK govt made a deal with the IRA to end terrorism. Imagine dealing with terrorists, hey, that's not allowed according to the fearmongers. Dealing with all those terrorist camps might not have been so hard but a brief invasion is one way to make a country dummy up and realize that having your own barbaric battles are fine, just don't attack us or we will kick your ass. Meaning: don't let loser fanatical Arabs living in caves destroy your country.
You see, but you don't see, the Taliban and al-quaeda are not the same. Al-queada is against everyone every where, which is very rare. The Taliban only care about Afghanistant. The PLO is only against Israel. The IRA was only against the UK. The Italian Red Army was against the Italian govt. The PLO has never attacked any Western country. Nor has the IRA launched any attacks beyond Ireland or the UK. Most terrorist groups have very focussed political goals.
Did the FLQ attack Japan? No. Because there is no benefit for doing so, so they don't. Simple people operate with very simple logic to achieve their goals.
A massive response was NOT needed. Bush and his crowd of dummies were provoked into a stupid massive response. But hey, the dumb masses, the military-industrial complex and Israel waged the best and dumbest PR campagin in history and have so far succeeded. Time for a little pushback and measure responses to deal with losers hanging around caves. They spend thousands while we spend billions. We lose.