Where are the Conservative voices?

Pretty much everyone agrees, and has always agreed, that when someone attacks your cities and kills thousands of your civilians, you have the right to strike back militarily,

Saddam Hussein had broken his treaty obligation to allow UN inspectors to verify that he had dismantled his WMD programs.

izzythepush wrote:

Or Egyptians, no Iraqis or Iranians.

A. We've never done anything to the Iranians.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Pretty much everyone agrees, and has always agreed, that when someone attacks your cities and kills thousands of your civilians, you have the right to strike back militarily,

Even if the people you strike back against had nothing to do with it? You managed to kill considerably more innocent Iraqi civilians that Al Qaida did on 9/11.

As for the war in Iraq, it had nothing to do with 9/11.

That was because Saddam Hussein, after 12 years, had not been persuaded to obey a treaty he signed to permit verification that he had dismantled his WMD programs. He had been warned over and over and over for years and clearly was not going to comply.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Saddam Hussein had broken his treaty obligation to allow UN inspectors to verify that he had dismantled his WMD programs.

Bullshit, Hans Blix said they were being allowed in. You knew their were no WMDs, you just wanted to kill a lot of innocent people.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As for the war in Iraq, it had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bullshit, Dubya was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq ever since he came to office.

Quote:

That was because Saddam Hussein, after 12 years, had not been persuaded to obey a treaty he signed to permit verification that he had dismantled his WMD programs. He had been warned over and over and over for years and clearly was not going to comply.

Further bullshit. He had no WMDs, you never found any did you? Hans Blix asked for more time, but you wouldn't let him have it. There was nothing Saddam Hussein could do to avoid an attack. He had no WMds he was complying with UN weapons inspectors. Your case was so weak it failed to secure a vote in the UN.

Bullshit, Hans Blix said they were being allowed in. You knew their were no WMDs, you just wanted to kill a lot of innocent people.

Bush said incessantly that we were invading Iraq because of its refusal to cooperate with WMD inspections.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush said incessantly that we were invading Iraq because of its refusal to cooperate with WMD inspections.

And it was bullshit. That's why nobody believed him. The invasion was about stealing the Iraqi peoples oil, and making huge profits for Halliburton. Not to mention revenge for making George Bush snr. look daft.

Hans Blix asked for more time. Dubya refused to give him any because he wanted to invade.

During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment.

Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

In an interview with London's The Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media".

In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion.

Any evidence of WMDs? Absolutely none. Evidence of huge profits for Halliburton shareholders? Shitloads. You just have to join the dots.

So the slaughter of 134,000 Iraqi civilians is the right thing?

Saddam Hussein had no WMDs whatsoever, biological, nuclear or chemical. When he did have them, and used them against Iranians, Donald Rumsfeld went on an arse licking trip to Baghdad. You didn't find it too terrible to contemplate then.

I notice you've been very quiet about the coup d'état that installed the Shah's dictatorship.

Please provide a link to verify that US troops killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians.

We know they had no remaining WMD programs, which they had certainly had before, only because we invaded. The "too terrible to contemplate" was about nuclear or biological weapons, not chemical weapons, in Saddam Hussein's hands.

You had stated that we had treated the Iranians unfairly because they had no connection to 9/11 and I stated that we did nothing to the Iranians in response to 9/11.

The fact that someone didn't change their mind and agree with you means that there was no point in stating your position?

If I bring facts to a thread that previously did not have those facts represented in it, then I've done my bit.