IS AMERICA A BULLY?

Your belief was not informed by the facts.

If there had been evidence that Saddam did have WMD capability,
and could use that within 45 minutes to attack targets in the region,

they wouldn't have had so much trouble trying to get the UN security
council to pass a second resolution.

The evidence was scant at best and had been spun out of all recognition but still didn't pass muster.

And most importantly Hans Blix was not given time to do his job.

I'm amazed that there are still people who believe the nonsense
that we didn't know Saddam had WMDs until post invasion.

It was fairly clear he didn't have any when the evidence was presented to the UN.

Lets make it really simple for you. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie. Got it now.

Now before you trot out your mantras like a good little drone, lets have a few more facts. UN weapons inspector Hans Blix wanted more time but was not allowed to by America. What evidence there was of WMDs was laughable including comments by Baghdad taxi drivers. Halliburton made **** loads of money out of Iraq.

Those are the facts, and if you had a brain you'd see that Iraq was all about oil money and bloodlust. You just allow yourself to be told what to think by your masters at Fox News.

I deem the UN to be a joke.
I don t take it seriously.

I deem the claims made by rightwing war mongers to be a joke, and we should never take them seriously again. The vote in the Commons on Syria shows we've swallowed more than enough American bullshit.

Don't forget who sold Saddam all that military hardware in the first place.

I deem the UN to be a joke.
I don t take it seriously.

I deem the claims made by rightwing war mongers to be a joke,
and we should never take them seriously again.

The vote in the Commons on Syria [????]
shows we've swallowed more than enough American bullshit.

Don't forget who sold Saddam all that military hardware in the first place.

That 's OK.
U have your sovereignty; we have ours.

The Bush administration’s primary justification for launching the Iraq War is thought, probably correctly, to be an alleged WMD program that did not exist. The coterie of delusional neoconservatives surrounding Bush and Cheney contributed to a systematic process of cherry-picking dubious intelligence and outright manipulation of evidence in order to satisfy a political decision that had already been made to change the regime in Iraq through a war of aggression.

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who said they didn’t exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.

Some of the things happening have been considered by people of both parties...people both in the executive and legislative branches...and people who lean both to the left and to the right in the American political spectrum. If you want to think that your considerations trump theirs...fine.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some of the things happening have been considered by people of both parties...people both in the executive and legislative branches...and people who lean both to the left and to the right in the American political spectrum. If you want to think that your considerations trump theirs...fine.

BTW, could you list these people and what they have said of Gitmo? I find it quite presumptuous of them to think I am wrong...

The belief that he had merely taken his WMD programs underground was very widespread at the time all over the world.

" A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.”

Since 2001 the Canadian government was growing increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of an Iraq invasion, Ottawa simply did not see a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

For Ottawa to see an invasion of Iraq as legitimate, it believed it must pose a threat.

Foreign minister Bill Graham argued that “under international law, proof of an imminent threat of an attack would be required to justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.”

But after a conversation where Bush attempted to convince Chrétien of the danger of Iraqi WMD, Chrétien’s senior policy advisor Eddie recalls Chrétien “shrugged and said, ‘I started my career as a small-town lawyer, and I heard nothing today from the president that would convince any judge in a rural courthouse.’”

On 4 December 2002 statement before the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Charles – Philippe David stated that “the argument that the evil Iraq regime must be toppled now, immediately, without delay, rings hollow. The threat today is not so much greater as it was four years ago, certainly not enough to justify imminent war.”

Put simply, both Chrétien and the Canadian government saw an invasion of Iraq for what it was, both unnecessary and illegitimate.

Canada “had to consider whether participating in a war declared by non-Islamic western countries, without the support of the United Nations, against a government of an Islamic country, no matter how abhorrent the regime, would in the end bring about more democracy in the Middle East, or whether it would be responsible for provoking more terrorism in the world.”

Chrétien argued it is important for the United States to act multilaterally, stated that “‘it is imperative to avoid the perception on a clash of civilizations. Maximum use of the United Nations would minimize that risk.’"

No, I'd rather not. But they are lumped together and called "our government."

Quote:

No, I'd rather not. But they are lumped together and called "our government."

Meaning you don't know who they are nor what they said or thought about Gitmo, yet you're positive I am presumptuous in thinking what I think... Go figure.

You don't need to ask permission to the government before thinking, you know?

Whichever way you want to look at Frank, you can't deny that Guantanamo Bay has been Al Qaida's greatest recruiting sergeant.

If a majority of the government thought Gitmo should have closed...it would be closed by now.