the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
And do you know why? Because by that point, he had already established himself as a LIAR, and because the nation knew Saddam had nothing to do with AlQuada, which the rest of us wanted to focus on!
Saddam is a very selective fellow with very high standards of personal conduct. He wouldn't dare stain himself by association with the likes of Osama. Osama just doesn't measure up to Saddam's high standards for terrorist support like the Palestinian terrorists do. And, of course everyone knows that Osama's declaration that Saddam is an infidel was sincere. It couldn't be otherwise. How could anyone with a brain think for a moment that Osama made up that accusation, so as to discourage the US from replacing Saddam, in an attempt to fool the US into thinking Saddam was not providing aid and/or sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Osama and Saddam are such men of principle and integrity that they could not do anything so underhanded as to pretend they were enemies while they were both cooperating to kill their common enemy, "Americans whereever they can find them."
Right, Whether or not. No, it doesn't show that at all, and gee, I doubt they'd be that easy to move or hide. Of course, we know he had them, and we know he used them, a long time ago. If anything is left, it's rotting to the point of uselessness.
Clearly, a person possessed of great knowledge of logistics and ordinance regarding the survivability and distributability of ordinance knows this to be true. Surely, none of the toxic agents and delivery equipments that Saddam once controlled could be moved without Saddam, a compulsive truth teller, making it widely known for all to see. Surely we can all agree that Saddam disbursed all those toxic agents and delivery equipments in secret for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment over having ever possessed such terrible stuff. The poor man has been and is simply misunderstood.
It was the USA who was caught spying on Hussein during the "inspections". Would the US have put up with that, or done as saddam did and said 'enough of that"? I think you know the answer. He was allowing inspections, but we weren't playing fair. Not like the country we thought we were. And less and less like it each day.
It's disgusting the way the US unfairly spied on Saddam. He was such a humanitarian and threat to no one. Spying on such a fellow is an abomination.
You are truly a jackass for blaming patriotic Americans doing their duty to uphold democracy as being the cause of this. Even for you, McG, that's pretty low. And need I add, wrong, wrong, wrong! Enough with the "In a time of war" excuse. It doesn't fly in a democracy.
The best way to uphold democracy in a nation under attack is, of course, open discourse that is perceived by the enemy as adhering to, aiding and comforting him so as to cause him to suppress his desire to conquer. Had we done that in WWI and WWII .................. Well, the exception proves the rule, doesn't it? ....... or does it?
Bullshit. That's all bush's doing, along with yours and all his other disciples.
or, pardon me, whatever jerk actually wrote this drivel.
The red stuff was written by
"the reincarnation of suzy"......... wasn't it?
Oh man, don't you ever leave this thread?
What a one-note Johnny...
PDiddie wrote:Oh man, don't you ever leave this thread?
What a one-note Johnny...
Yes, what a one note Johnny! What a burden I am to those who continually play a different note. Pdid on the otherhand is a symphony of discourse, not always harmonious, but always entertaining.
Meanwhile back in Blighty its going to be a tough fortnight for our ever youthful - but looking distinctly frazzled round the edges - prime minister.
Was the war legal? McTag thinks not. I thought it didn't matter, but then it seems Antony Lynton Charles Blair is certainly interested, particularly in the outcome of a trial involving some peace protesters who tried to bash up a B52 at RAF Fairford in March 2003.
At a previous hearing the judge said the defendants could not raise the issue of the legality of the war itself, as it was a matter of Crown Prerogative, i.e. lawful by definition, her Majesty never breaks the law....how could she as she would have to prosecute herself, as in the Paul Burrell trial....BUT there was a defence of "necessity" to prevent death or injury.
The same legal argument was used by lawyers acting for the victorious Allies at Nuremberg - the Nazis accused of "crime against peace".
According to John Kampfner in today's Newstatesman, on 29th June, 10 minutes before the hearing was due to begin, Sir Michael Jay, permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office handed in a submission seeking to reinforce the governments position that British courts have no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of military action. Any such ruling would be "prejudicial to the national interest and to the conduct of the govts foreign policy"....Seems someone is rattled.
Meanwhile Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General and independent law officer, is sweating on his change of mind regarding the legality of the war. When it seemed likely USUK were going to get the so-called second UN resolution, he said the legality of the war depended on it. When USUK withdrew the motion because it wasn't going to pass the Security Council, he changed his independent mind after pressure from his old mate and boss Tony Blair, and said that in his independent and completely impartial mind, the war would be legal even without the second resolution, and moreover the fact that he had his balls twisted was a state secret.
In an effort to reassert the fact that he now has his balls back, he recently said the treatment of British prisoners at Guantanamo was "unacceptable". Fighting talk indeed from Lord Goldsmith.
On top of this we have the impending Butler report, which may well be of interest to our American friends, as it investigates the mendacious lies and untruths, sorry the intelligence, on which Bush and Blair took us to war.
Blair has recently admitted that WMD have not been found. (Rather like life in outer space or the Holy Grail). But absense of evidence is of course not the same as evidence of absense, and while the Iraq Survey Group continue their diligent search, we must not jump to conclusions. What a pity such meticulous logic was not applied to the woefully inadequate evidence which led Bush and Blair to jump to the conclusion that war was necessary in the first place.
Blair has always maintained that if he took the country to war on the basis of mistaken intelligence, then it wasn't his fault. That is if he made a mistake, it was an honest mistake, the sort of thing anyone could do. Like using a match to see how much petrol is left in the tank. Easily done...ooops invaded the wrong country again, never mind there's plenty more.
Of course this is complete balls. I've always maintained there is a subtle difference between intelligence as submitted to government, and intelligence as submitted to the people, by governments who have a particular line to sell. Or rather not so subtle. In fact rather like the difference between truth and lies.
In the light of events, are we still expected to accept that the Prime Minister took us to war because he honestly believed this country was 45 minutes away from an attack by Saddam's wmd?
Sorry Tony. You may have felt you had no option, but the fact is you took this country to war knowing it would be difficult if not impossible to justify, unless (and here is the risk taking element of leadership that I quite admire in you) the dreams of the idio-cons in Washington came true. They haven't. You lost.
Thanks Steve, for a thoughtful report.
The legal mills grind slowly, and let us hope, thoroughly. The lawyers, and some journalists, are finding their voice and re-discovering their integrity.
The Butler Report in Britain, and the first congressional-CIA report in the US, will shed some light into dark corners, I hope.
The Enron trial, too, and I think these are linked through Messrs Bush and Cheyney and their energy policy. Yes folks, you may hear this one again; Operation Iraqi Freedom was about oil.
So may I summarise matters?
Bush lied to Congress.
Blair lied to Parliament.
An illegal and immoral attack was then carried out on a weakened and defenceless country.
No UN permission was obtained for this action.
Thousands of innocent civilians were killed, but the number was officially considered too unimportant to record.
A number of large military bases are being constructed there, for the use of the US military.
An extremely large civilian US embassy staff is planned, about 1300; this to control a country which is supposed now to be independent.
The country has had its infrastructure smashed and electricity, water and sewerage services are poor or absent.
The country is riven by lawlessness and factional fighting, and the US and Britain are getting their servicemen out as fast as possible, apart from those necessary for their own security. They deal with any trouble by shellfire and aircraft strikes, into domestic areas.
Friend McGentrix posted a cartoon showing an Iraqi boy, standing on a blasted landscape, saying "Thank you" to a symbol of the US military; apparently with no ironic motive.
Yes, thanks.
The Irrepressible Steve Oh-Oh-Oh wrote: . . . and moreover the fact that he had his balls twisted was a state secret.
And well it should be . . . i'm surprised at you, Steve--a gentleman simply
takes no notice of the discomfiture of another gentleman who himself does not protest, and the more so when said gentleman is known to be the toad-eater of the putative ball-twister . . . really, where are your manners?
ain't got none n'more. Been on a2k too long mixin' with 'Mericuns
A cheap shot . . . and a good one, too . . .
McTag wrote: The country is riven by lawlessness and factional fighting, and the US and Britain are getting their servicemen out as fast as possible, apart from those necessary for their own security.
Good God man. They're damned if they stay and they're damned if they go by your assessment, huh?
McTag wrote:They deal with any trouble by shellfire and aircraft strikes, into domestic areas.
Where do you come up with this garbage?
domestic areas? As opposed to what?
So according to you when there's trouble;
they just say "lets just go kill some civilians". It must suck to have such disdain for the men and woman who protect you... or do you think every decision is made by the hated Bush or Blair. Please.
We just think that the guys in charge are responsible for those things that happen on their watch, is all....
They don't make every decision; but, as our friend Spider-man is fond of thinking, with great power comes great responsibility. They have the power; they take the responsibility for what happens when that power is used.
Cycloptichorn
You said nothing there that I disagree with cyclop... :wink:
It's hard to disagree with Spider-man.
Personally, I think that we should be looking into a more superhero-based terrorism solution. Superman and the Green Lantern would take care of the situation nicely, I'm sure.
Sigh. WOuldn't that be nice?
Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL wrote:McTag wrote: The country is riven by lawlessness and factional fighting, and the US and Britain are getting their servicemen out as fast as possible, apart from those necessary for their own security.
Good God man. They're damned if they stay and they're damned if they go by your assessment, huh?
McTag wrote:They deal with any trouble by shellfire and aircraft strikes, into domestic areas.
Where do you come up with this garbage?
domestic areas? As opposed to what?
So according to you when there's trouble;
they just say "lets just go kill some civilians". It must suck to have such disdain for the men and woman who protect you... or do you think every decision is made by the hated Bush or Blair. Please.
Bill, your posts are getting closer to Ican's in tone and content.
My points were:
They didn't put enough troops in to secure the country, and now are withdrawing them before it IS secure.
They will not risk troops in ground operations, and so try to minimise the risk to themselved by maximising the risk to anyone, including civilians, who happen to be in and around the target area, usually domestic buildings. This, to my mind, is dishonourable.
Protection: do feel that your country is more safe, or less safe, than it was a year ago? I know what I think. This has been the best recruiting campaign imaginable for the forces of muslim extremism.
McT
McTag wrote: Bill, your posts are getting closer to Ican's in tone and content.
I don't know what you mean by that... but I gather you don't like it. Sorry.
McTag wrote: My points were:
They didn't put enough troops in to secure the country, and now are withdrawing them before it IS secure.
I don't believe for one second you would be less critical if they had put more troops in.
McTag wrote: They will not risk troops in ground operations, and so try to minimise the risk to themselved by maximising the risk to anyone, including civilians, who happen to be in and around the target area, usually domestic buildings. This, to my mind, is dishonourable.
You are already critical of any casualties our troops sustain. Now you're suggesting we should put more of them in harms way? YOU WILL criticize either way, no?
McTag wrote:Protection: do feel that your country is more safe, or less safe, than it was a year ago? I know what I think.
Yes, I do. And I know what you think, too. :wink:
My point was:
You will criticize regardless of more/less troops.
You will criticize regardless of whether we stay or go.
You will criticize regardless of how we attack.
I understand you will do this because you are against the war.
Understand, I will point it out because it is unfair.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I understand you will do this because you are against the war.
Understand, I will point it out because it is unfair.
Here we agree, Bill: the war really is unfair.
Our federal intelligence people failed to recognize the
true reason for removing Saddam and attempting to democratize Iraq.
It was done to protect our buildings and airliners.
The fact that those buildings and airliners often house people is of course a secondary concern. Americans love buildings and airliners but are ambivalent about the people in 'em. Well, maybe their families care, but how many votes are they worth? Buildings and airliners are owned by those who are partners or stockholders. They're the ones who really influence votes with their campaign contributions.
Icann,
there seems to be a disparity between the fact that the commission found that Al Quaeda was significantly disrupted, and the fact that last year was the worse terrorism year in a long time, much of which was planned and executed by.... Al Quaeda.
I'm not trying to piss on your post, just wondering what you think about it is all.
Cycloptichorn
