Re #59.
Post like that and you are a MODERATOR?
There was a time when I made the mistake of thinking highly of you.
Post like that and you are a MODERATOR?
There was a time when I made the mistake of thinking highly of you.
Bush: "We do not torture"
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
Have a sense of humor. re:
Besides Ron's point was directed at my previous post. I believe he was making a statement about hyperbole.
BTW, I never claimed George Bush eats pussy...
Iraq kept throwing out U.N. inspectors, no one even found the buried Iraq airforce till occupation. The war was not a UN operation, it was a NATO operation when GWB decided to attack. The problem Iraq had was of their own making, they refused to corporate with UN inspectors.
Please explain how Iraq could meet UN demands to reveal the location of their WMD stockpiles.
"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
You just keep repeating the same questions, just posting different sources saying the same thing. I agree that many say the war was not justified, but any reason by anyone would be purely speculative. I sort of like the one that has GW revenging the attempted assassination of his father. Just as good as any other reason. Iraq was just a country defying the world (UN), and since the UN would do nothing, the U.S. stepped up and did what had to be done. The only mistake the U.S. made was not turning it over to the UN and getting out fast enough. (As soon as Saddam was defeated and found)
That 2002 report above was speculative. A big clue the contents were speculative are all the statements which start with the word "IF".
Speculative reports about what Iraq "might" possess or "might" be doing are not justifications for war. Justification for war must be based on facts, not speculation. You seem to have a hard time figuring you you were bamboozled with speculation twisted to sound like facts.
For example:
IF Saddam Hussein had breasts and a vagina, he would be a women. Does this speculative statement convince you that Hussein was a women?
The facts about Iraq's alleged WMD activity before the invasion were presented to the UN security council by UNMOVIC chair Hans Blix. Blix's reports contained nothing which justified war. They indicate Iraq was cooperating actively and proactively with UN Weapon Inspectors, Iraq did not possess a WMD threat and that all remaining disarmament issues would be resolved within months. Those pre-war facts were later supported by an post-war investigations led by David Kay and Charles Duelfer which concluded that Iraq hadn't possessed any WMDs since 1995. Case closed.
None of the facts support your belief that in 2003 Iraq possessed a WMD threat or had an active WMD program.
You are also mistaken that Iraq asked or forced UN Weapon Inspectors to leave back in 1998. Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM when it became apparent that UN Weapon Inspections had been compromised by US and UK spies in violation of the agreement and that the UN weapon Inspectors were taking directions for the US and would never write a report indicating Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Clinton recommended UN Weapon Inspector leave in advance of a bombing campaign and Iraq never allowed them to re-enter. All this information is detailed above with links to reputable sources.
If you haven't figured out you were decieved into supporting a war crime by now when its so obvious, then I doubt you ever will.
Speculative reports about what Iraq "might" possess or "might" be doing are not justifications for war. Justification for war must be based on facts, not speculation. You seem to have a hard time figuring you you were bamboozled with speculation twisted to sound like facts.
For example:
IF Saddam Hussein had breasts and a vagina, he would be a women. Does this speculative statement convince you that Hussein was a women?
The facts about Iraq's alleged WMD activity before the invasion were presented to the UN security council by UNMOVIC chair Hans Blix. Blix's reports contained nothing which justified war. They indicate Iraq was cooperating actively and proactively with UN Weapon Inspectors, Iraq did not possess a WMD threat and that all remaining disarmament issues would be resolved within months. Those pre-war facts were later supported by an post-war investigations led by David Kay and Charles Duelfer which concluded that Iraq hadn't possessed any WMDs since 1995. Case closed.
None of the facts support your belief that in 2003 Iraq possessed a WMD threat or had an active WMD program.
You are also mistaken that Iraq asked or forced UN Weapon Inspectors to leave back in 1998. Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM when it became apparent that UN Weapon Inspections had been compromised by US and UK spies in violation of the agreement and that the UN weapon Inspectors were taking directions for the US and would never write a report indicating Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Clinton recommended UN Weapon Inspector leave in advance of a bombing campaign and Iraq never allowed them to re-enter. All this information is detailed above with links to reputable sources.
If you haven't figured out you were decieved into supporting a war crime by now when its so obvious, then I doubt you ever will.
Iraq was not in a position to ask anything, they were defiant to the UN who had just crushed them. And of course your totally right in believing what those liberal sites you quoted. Do you really think you or those sources would ever say oops a big mistake was made. Course not Bush did it "revenge" you all yell. At the time almost everyone thought WMD's existed, because Saddam had used them in a previous war, and even against his own people.
Last edited:
Re: Presidential Miscarriage of Executive Power
Nonetheless, the previous administration as led by The Honorable George Bush, 41st President of the United States, had refused to so much as acknowledge its own error—rather, it was swept under the rug and it seemed (at least with an extranational perception) that Mr. Bush’s government thought that the people of the United States of America were tremendously stupid. How such a miscarriage of executive power was able to go excused is entirely beyond me—the president was not held to account by the United States people, the Congress of the United States, or any other person—is this because it would have been ‘unpatriotic’ to question the decisions of an elected head of State and government?
To the root question of the thread, I think it’s quite probable that the United States has engaged the use of torture to further its own ends—and even if torture was not exercised, there was so much of nothing done to refute that perception that I doubt the United States could now convince anyone otherwise. Case and point, the announcements of closures made by His Excellency The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; these announcements make clear that either one or both of these things are true: (a) the United States used torture, and / or (b) the president knows that the current use of these institutions is of questionable constitutional status at best.
Nonetheless, the previous administration as led by The Honorable George Bush, 41st President of the United States, had refused to so much as acknowledge its own error—rather, it was swept under the rug and it seemed (at least with an extranational perception) that Mr. Bush’s government thought that the people of the United States of America were tremendously stupid. How such a miscarriage of executive power was able to go excused is entirely beyond me—the president was not held to account by the United States people, the Congress of the United States, or any other person—is this because it would have been ‘unpatriotic’ to question the decisions of an elected head of State and government?
To the root question of the thread, I think it’s quite probable that the United States has engaged the use of torture to further its own ends—and even if torture was not exercised, there was so much of nothing done to refute that perception that I doubt the United States could now convince anyone otherwise. Case and point, the announcements of closures made by His Excellency The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; these announcements make clear that either one or both of these things are true: (a) the United States used torture, and / or (b) the president knows that the current use of these institutions is of questionable constitutional status at best.
Iraq disclosed their WMD destruction program. Not all of it could be accounted for but I'd bet the US couldn't account for all of their weapons too. Blix and just about anyone else involved in previous inspections were quite convinced there was no threat. Not sure what the word "liberal" has to do with anything. It was obvious what was happening. Bush had a political reason for war and expected the "Mission Accomplished" scenario would assure his re-election (who dumps a war President) and elevate him to Godliness in US history, and everyone would live happily ever after.
Liberal is nothing. Here are couple of lists of nuclear stuff we lost, probably something similar from Iraq would have sufficed, instead they made such a mystery of it. This mystery they created I believe was responsible for the paranoia created which resulted in us invading them. Saddam was a good bluffer, to good.
http://aboutfacts.net/Weapons36.htm
http://http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158
The previous regime authorized torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and many other acts which not only violate international law, but also American law. I'm certain the current President is well aware of the previous government's illegal acts. Right now, he's focused on Health Care and the Economy and can't afford a distraction. But if Americans figured this out for themselves, it would be much easier for the Bush gang to be brought to justice.
Regarding the intelligence of the American public, please read IS and ES's posts above in response to overwhelming evidence from reputable sources which contradicts their perceptions.
BTW, I found a copy of the Duelfer Report:
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
The Report completely contradicts pretty much everything posted by ES and IS.
Read the report, or at least the key points:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm
Now your producing good sources, just quote them and don't editorialize so much and you have made your point. But it is over now, so put the accusations away, Bush has immunity, no country will charge him plus he has the secret service to protect him..
Bush isn't a President anymore. He is just as vulnerable as Pinochet:
BBC News | World | Pinochet must go to Spain, says Amnesty
BBC News | World | Pinochet must go to Spain, says Amnesty