0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 09:58 am
As many including me suspected at the time, Congress and Parliament were lied to by the grinning criminals who still represent us.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 09:59 am
Actually, on Friday, 3 February 2006, the BBC already reported:

Quote:
The book by Philippe Sands says the two leaders discussed going to war regardless of any United Nations view.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:21 am
sumac wrote:

...
"March 27, 2006
...
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
...
behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons
...

I think this is true. I thought it was true each of the previous times the anti-war crowd brought this up. Note the date Jan. 31, 2003 of the Blair-Bush meeting. It was almost two months before we invaded Iraq ... well ok, it was only 48 days before we invaded Iraq March 20, 2003. So Bush probably had decided to invade Iraq before Jan. 31, 2003. OK! Can we all agree on that now, or will we have to revisit this long known fact again?

I bet Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq on October 17, 2002, which was after Saddam's then latest UN inspection dodge, and which was also after Congress passed its Joint Resolution, Oct. 16, 2002, To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?

Because you repeat, I repeat:
ican711nm wrote:
We are fighting a war.

These are the reasons why:

(1) We Americans probably face a sizeable risk of being murdered by Terrorist Malignancy, if we decide to limit the defense of ourselves against Terrorist Malignancy to only here in America;

(2) The state of Afghanistan harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from May 1996 to October 2001, when the USA invaded Afghanistan seeking to end their sanctuary in Afghanistan;

(3) The state of Iraq harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from December 2001 to March 2003, when the USA invaded Iraq to end their sanctuary in Iraq;

(4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


(5) Friday, September 14, 2001 Congress passed:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
Quote:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


(6) Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


(7) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave two subsequently verified, primary and sufficient reasons for doing so:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


But, you protest Bush and Congress also said Iraq possessed WMD when it did not. But, I protest that 19 terrorists, first trained in Afghanistan, armed with box cutters and no WMD, hijacked four airliners, and flew them into American buildings or into the ground killing almost 3,000 American civilians.

If less than 20 terrorists could do that, what could 20,000 do?

4. 9-11 Commission Report, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78


How should we prevent 9/11s happening again in future: Domestically surveilling suspected terrorists, removing terrorist training sanctuaries, removing governments that harbor terrorists, exterminating terrorists, or ignoring terrorists?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:24 am
Quote:

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?


Bush did it to fufill a PNAC policy objective that was set long before he came into office. Had nothing to do with Liberty, WMD, or any of that mess and everything to do with NeoCon plans for nation-building in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:34 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?


Bush did it to fufill a PNAC policy objective that was set long before he came into office. Had nothing to do with Liberty, WMD, or any of that mess and everything to do with NeoCon plans for nation-building in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn


...and that's why we say he lied. He knew he was going before he made all the trumped up excuses.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:37 am
Everything he/they said was a lie from day one.

Remember the Clarke book which stated the zeal Rumsfeld and the other top neocons had for attacking Iraq on 9/12/01? Remember how the administration and DoD illegally shifted millions of dollars of planning to the Iraq war, while we were still hunting for OBL?

I do. So do a lot of people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:41 am
What's unsettling is that the "Downing Street Memo"- which shows clearly that bush was going to go into Iraq, and use whatever ginned-up "evidence" he could find to validate himself - has been in circulation for months, but no one in the major media seems to think it matters much.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 11:41 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?


Bush did it to fufill a PNAC policy objective that was set long before he came into office. Had nothing to do with Liberty, WMD, or any of that mess and everything to do with NeoCon plans for nation-building in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn

Without knowing why you believe this, I nevertheless assume you truly believe this is truly true.

What was the PNAC policy objective that was set long before Bush came into office, and Bush sought to fulfill? Who are the individuals that lead PNAC and set this policy? When did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too? Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Everything he/they said was a lie from day one.

Remember the Clarke book which stated the zeal Rumsfeld and the other top neocons had for attacking Iraq on 9/12/01?
Why do you believe Clarke?

Remember how the administration and DoD illegally shifted millions of dollars of planning to the Iraq war, while we were still hunting for OBL?

I do. So do a lot of people.
I think lots of people are nuts. That doesn't mean they really are nuts.

I think they are nuts because they claim to believe that which contradicts reality as I have observed it, or as reality is described by sources and logic I trust.

Why didn't Bush invade Iraq before he invaded Afghanistan if what you say is true? Why did Bush wait 18 months after invading Afghanistan before invading Iraq if what you say is true?


Cycloptichorn

By the way, I admit my bias! I prefer to think Bush is a horse's ass than Bush is no damn good.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:00 pm
Political storm over Iraq deaths
The US military in Iraq is facing growing political pressure over a raid on a Baghdad mosque complex that left about 20 people dead on Sunday evening.
US officials said 16 insurgents had been killed and 18 captured, along with a significant weapons cache.

However, members of Iraq's ruling Shia Islamist bloc say many of the dead were civilians taking part in prayers.

"Entering the mosque and the killings there are an unjustified and flagrant attack," the interior minister said.

"Approximately 18 innocent men who were inside the mosque performing sunset prayers were killed and became martyrs," Bayan Jabr added in an interview on Dubai-based al-Arabiya television. "They were killed unjustly and wrongfully."


We decided to stop dealings with coalition forces and the US Embassy because of the cowardly attack on the Mustafa prayer hall
Baghdad Governor Hussein Tahan

Some members of the ruling Shia Islamist alliance repeated allegations - denied by US officials - that Americans and Iraqi troops under their command had tied people up at the Mustafa mosque in north-east Baghdad's Sadr City up and shot them in cold blood.
Earlier on Monday, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports and had telephoned US military commander General George Casey, who had promised a full inquiry.

Baghdad Governor Hussein Tahan said all co-operation with US forces would be suspended unless the incident was investigated by a panel not including the US military.

Joint operation


The US military said the bloodshed happened after Iraqi commandos and soldiers from the Iraqi counter-terrorism force came under fire during a house-to-house search for insurgents.
Members of the US special forces were present but only in an "advisory capacity", officials said.

The fighting took place in an office adjacent to the mosque, the US military said.

Large numbers of weapons were found, the US military said, and an abducted employee of the ministry of health was freed, after a 12-hour ordeal of beating.

Iraqi police said the dead included seven members of the Mehdi Army, the militia loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, three members of another Shia Islamist party and seven civilians with no party affiliation.


In our observation of the place and the activities that were going on, it's difficult for us to consider this a place of prayer
US spokesman Barry Johnson

News footage taken after the attack seemed to belie US assertions that troops had not entered or damaged any sacred building during the raid.
The room where the killing occurred appeared to be a prayer hall. The floors are carpeted and the walls covered with religious posters.

The tape showed a tangle of male bodies and spent 5.56mm bullet casings on the blood-smeared floor - the kind of ammunition used by the US military.

"In our observation of the place and the activities that were going on, it's difficult for us to consider this a place of prayer," said US military spokesman Barry Johnson.

"It was not identified by us as a mosque, though we certainly recognised it as a community gathering centre. I think this is frankly a matter of perception," he added.

The area is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4850108.stm
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:06 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?


Bush did it to fufill a PNAC policy objective that was set long before he came into office. Had nothing to do with Liberty, WMD, or any of that mess and everything to do with NeoCon plans for nation-building in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn

Without knowing why you believe this, I nevertheless assume you truly believe this is truly true.

What was the PNAC policy objective that was set long before Bush came into office, and Bush sought to fulfill? Who are the individuals that lead PNAC and set this policy? When did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too? Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?


http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Read the earlier years and note who signed their names. You will notice a lot of the same names have been or continue to be in the administration and were major figures in the campaign to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussien.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:12 pm
That weekend raid might turn out to be a turning point in terms of how the Iraqi Shiite's feel about the US.

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - New violence flared Monday in northern Iraq with 40 dead in a suicide bombing, while Shiite leaders cut off political talks and denounced the United States over a weekend raid that they said killed worshippers in a mosque.

Although the United States said no mosque was attacked, Shiites blamed the military for killing 22 people Sunday. Jawad al-Maliki, a lawmaker from the United Iraqi Alliance, said the Shiite bloc had canceled Monday's session of negotiations to form a new government because of the raid.

"We suspended today's meetings to discuss the formation of the government because of what happened at the al-Moustafa mosque," al-Maliki said, adding that the alliance was expected to decide Tuesday when to resume the talks.

President Jalal Talabani said he called U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and they decided to form an Iraqi-U.S. committee to investigate the attack.

"I will personally supervise, and we will learn who was responsible. Those who are behind this attack must be brought to the justice and punished," Talabani said.


more here
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:15 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Why did Bush do that? Did Bush do that because he's no damn good? Did Bush do that because he's a horse's ass? Or did Bush do that because he thought it was necessary to prevent another 9/11?


Bush did it to fufill a PNAC policy objective that was set long before he came into office. Had nothing to do with Liberty, WMD, or any of that mess and everything to do with NeoCon plans for nation-building in the Middle East.

Cycloptichorn

Without knowing why you believe this, I nevertheless assume you truly believe this is truly true.


That's a good start!

Quote:
What was the PNAC policy objective that was set long before Bush came into office, and Bush sought to fulfill?


The PNAC, headed by Kristoll and staffed to the brim with Neocons, has long held (through the opinions of its members and position papers) that using US military might in the middle east is a neccessary step to the assured stability of our country in the 21st century. Specifically, they wished to attack Iraq. As far back as '97 and '98, it was argued that military intervention in Iraq to bring about Regime change was neccessary for the safety of the US, despite any real evidence that this was true.

Quote:
Who are the individuals that lead PNAC and set this policy?


Here, you may recognize some of these names:

William Kristol
Dick Cheney
Elliot Abrams
Richard Armitage
John Bolton
Seth Cropsey
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Bruce Jackson
Zalmay Khalilzad
Lewis Libby
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
Randy Scheunemann
Paul Wolfowitz
Dov S. Zakheim
Robert B. Zoellick
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Ellen Bork
Rudy Boschwitz
Jeb Bush
Eliot A. Cohen
Thomas Donnelly
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Frank Gaffney
Reuel Marc
Fred Ikle
Donald Kagan
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer
Christopher Maletz
Daniel McKivergan
Richard Perle
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Stephen Rosen
Henry Rowen
Gary Schmitt
George Weigel, political commentator
R. James Woolsey

You can see, without even a detailed study, that these people have become the ruling group in government under Bush.

Quote:
When did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?


When members of the PNAC approached him and asked if he would like to be made president.

Why did Bush agree to make this PNAC policy his policy too?[/quote]

Because that was the condition of their support. He never would have been elected, or even chosen as the Republican candidate, without the express backing of this group.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:18 pm
revel wrote:

...
Read the earlier years and note who signed their names. You will notice a lot of the same names have been or continue to be in the administration and were major figures in the campaign to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussien.

Ahaa! Guilt by association!

So you know Bush decided to invade Iraq before he was even elected, because some people with whom Bush was associated before he was even elected advocated invading Iraq before Bush was even elected.

Rolling Eyes

Dare we play that game with any of the current leadership of the anti-war crowd?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:20 pm
revel, Why can't neocons figure out why this administration doesn't wish to see news reports on Iraq? They wish to keep the American People ignorant of what's really happening, so they can continue their rhetoric that "we're making progress" and "it's not a civil war."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:30 pm
If that's what they actually wish, to keep Americans ignorant, then they should be proud of the success they are having as many lefties on A2K demonstrate daily!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:32 pm
A useless comment, intended only to insult and not further the conversation at all. You score 1/10.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
A useless comment, intended only to insult and not further the conversation at all. You score 1/10.

Cycloptichorn


Will you be critiquing all such posts in the Politics forums, or just certain ones?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 12:41 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:

...
Read the earlier years and note who signed their names. You will notice a lot of the same names have been or continue to be in the administration and were major figures in the campaign to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussien.

Ahaa! Guilt by association!

So you know Bush decided to invade Iraq before he was even elected, because some people with whom Bush was associated before he was even elected advocated invading Iraq before Bush was even elected.

Rolling Eyes

Dare we play that game with any of the current leadership of the anti-war crowd?


Paul O'neill and Clark both have said that the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq since they took office. The Downing Street memo further bares that out. Those same people that were in the PNAC are in the Bush administration. It is plain for anyone not knee deep in denial that Bush wanted/planned to go to war with Iraq since the beginning.

Personally I really don't care to keep going over this, believe what you want.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 01:09 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:

...
Read the earlier years and note who signed their names. You will notice a lot of the same names have been or continue to be in the administration and were major figures in the campaign to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussien.

Ahaa! Guilt by association!

So you know Bush decided to invade Iraq before he was even elected, because some people with whom Bush was associated before he was even elected advocated invading Iraq before Bush was even elected.

Rolling Eyes

Dare we play that game with any of the current leadership of the anti-war crowd?



hey, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

naww... i'm sure your'e right, ican. it's just a coincidence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 11:03:05