Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-06-2004, 12:14 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:05 PM
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-06-2004, 09:27 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 08:05 PM
__________________

__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 10:23 AM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 02:05 AM


__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 10:55 AM   #19
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Thats incorrect. Their central case for the removal of Saddam was his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN Security Council Resolutions.
That's incorrect.

Lets be honest. No one has a friggin clue what the precise and determining factor for this war was. There were issues like the weapons, Saddam being a shitbag and the rumours that oil was the reason. Some believed it was a bit of all of those things, and probably others. Truth is, depending on who from the administration and on what day, was doing the talking, depended on what story we would all be fed. You (anyone) can post 28 articles where it has been stated this or that was the reason for it, and someone else can post 28 showing otherwise. Please dont post any if you expect me to back this up because I can say now I will not. It is not because I am right and you are wrong, it depends on your viewpoint.

The administration must be getting a tad pissed that the weapons intelligence not only might have been wrong, but if it is indeed the case that these were the primary reason for this war, then they waged it on bodgey foundations.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 10:55 AM   #20
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Thats incorrect. Their central case for the removal of Saddam was his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN Security Council Resolutions.
Even so, the administration placed a tag on that saying that there was an "imminent threat" and that he needed to be ousted expeditiously. The imminent threat was false because (a) the intelligence was not clear enough, was not good enough to declare war, and (b) Saddam did disarm his WMD's in the early 90's. Not to mention that whether the Bush administration DID go to war because of violation of UN resolutions, the majority of the American public including myself and a lot of my "friends" and foes and my dog, Potter were under the impression that we went to WAR because Saddam posed a threat to us in America. That he could sell his WMD's to terrorists who would in turn threaten the U.S.

If the UN resolution was the main reason for going to war, then Bush did a terrible job of conveying that to the American public. I'm just glad that someone in that administration had the coconuts to admit their mistake, instead of continuing to live in la la land where everything is "cool."
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 01:55 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
babyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On an open cluster called Pleiades
Posts: 6,246
Local Time: 03:05 AM
what's sad, is that hundreds of civilians and militaries are still losing undeserved their lives for someone elses fault
__________________
babyman is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 02:30 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Bush State of the Union Speech 1/28/03:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes"

My President told me that we needed to stop Iraq from using their weapons on us. This was the emotion core of his arguement to the American people. He played on our fear. Now, there are no weapons. Shouldn't ALOT of people be getting fired, or resigning? I mean, that's probably the biggest fuck-up, um, ever?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 02:44 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:05 AM
It's a screw-up of the first magnitude.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 07:12 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


That's incorrect.

Lets be honest. No one has a friggin clue what the precise and determining factor for this war was. There were issues like the weapons, Saddam being a shitbag and the rumours that oil was the reason. Some believed it was a bit of all of those things, and probably others. Truth is, depending on who from the administration and on what day, was doing the talking, depended on what story we would all be fed. You (anyone) can post 28 articles where it has been stated this or that was the reason for it, and someone else can post 28 showing otherwise. Please dont post any if you expect me to back this up because I can say now I will not. It is not because I am right and you are wrong, it depends on your viewpoint.

The administration must be getting a tad pissed that the weapons intelligence not only might have been wrong, but if it is indeed the case that these were the primary reason for this war, then they waged it on bodgey foundations.
It is a FACT, that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Saddam never accounted for stocks of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

These were the finds of United Nations weapons inspectors! It is Saddam's failure to verifiably Disarm of all WMD that was the basis for war.

This has been the on going reason for US and coalition semi-military engagement and enforcement of Sanctions and a Weapons embargo for 12 year prior to the start of the war in March 2003.

The United States began large scale vaccinations all military personal against Anthrax in the late 1990s. The major reason was Saddam's unaccounted for stocks, failure to disarm, and the fact that the United States was more likely to go to war in the Persian Gulf than any other region in the world.

The United States sent up over 200,000 troops to Kuwait in 1994 to block a potential re-invasion there by Saddam's forces. The United States extensively bombed Iraq in 1998 because Saddam essentially stopped cooperating with the Inspectors were attempting to VERIFIABLY DISARM Iraq.

President Bush went before the United Nations on September 12, 2002 and made his case based of Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm per multiple Security Council Resolutions. In October the United States Congress approved of the Presidents plan to disarm Saddam. In November, the United Nations approved of the use of force to disarm Saddam for the THIRD TIME!

Any study of the 12 year history of the Iraq situation from the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 will tell you what this war was about!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 07:23 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:05 PM
It was about GOOD TARGETS.

Thanks Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh....You will be fined you used the word COALITION without the TOKEN before it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 07:37 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by tackleberry


Even so, the administration placed a tag on that saying that there was an "imminent threat" and that he needed to be ousted expeditiously. The imminent threat was false because (a) the intelligence was not clear enough, was not good enough to declare war, and (b) Saddam did disarm his WMD's in the early 90's. Not to mention that whether the Bush administration DID go to war because of violation of UN resolutions, the majority of the American public including myself and a lot of my "friends" and foes and my dog, Potter were under the impression that we went to WAR because Saddam posed a threat to us in America. That he could sell his WMD's to terrorists who would in turn threaten the U.S.

If the UN resolution was the main reason for going to war, then Bush did a terrible job of conveying that to the American public. I'm just glad that someone in that administration had the coconuts to admit their mistake, instead of continuing to live in la la land where everything is "cool."
The administration never said "imminent threat" they said "Grave and Gathering Threat"!

a. The war did not happen because of this disputed intelligence.

b. If Saddam did disarm of all his WMD's where is the evidence? Saddam is required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and according to UNITED NATIONS inspectors, he failed to do this.

The United States and coalition allies went to war against Iraq in 1991 because of its invasion of Kuwait. They then enforced sanctions and weapons embargo against Saddam in addition to bombing on multiple occasions over several years.

THE UN resolutions in regards to Saddam's disarmament of WMD were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allows for the use of military force in order to insure the resolution is enforced. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 all approve of the use of military force to ensure the disarmament of Saddam.

Anything that threatens stability and security in the Persian Gulf is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. This has been apart of US foreign policy through both Democratic and Republican administrations since World War II.

Insuring that Saddam was disarmed was a necessity, not a mistake. The fact that intelligence that was never a central case for the war turned out to be inaccurate was not a mistake but simply the nature of intelligence.

In 1990 before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the IAEA said Iraq had no Nuclear Weapons program. Most intelligence agencies believed Saddam was more than 10 years away from getting a Nuclear Weapon.

After the War, United Nations Inspectors discovered that the IAEA's and other intelligence agencies information was totally wrong. Saddam was only MONTHS away from having a nuclear weapon.

This is precisely why covert "intelligence" was never the criteria for determining whether Saddam was disarmed or not and there for whether military force would be needed or not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 07:42 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
Bush State of the Union Speech 1/28/03:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes"

My President told me that we needed to stop Iraq from using their weapons on us. This was the emotion core of his arguement to the American people. He played on our fear. Now, there are no weapons. Shouldn't ALOT of people be getting fired, or resigning? I mean, that's probably the biggest fuck-up, um, ever?
The Weapons exist, either intact or in an un-intact form. Saddam never accounted for stocks of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax and 500 pounds of Mustard Gas and 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 07:47 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
It was about GOOD TARGETS.

Thanks Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh....You will be fined you used the word COALITION without the TOKEN before it.
Yes, according to Dick Clarke and Bob Woodward right?

ahhh, could you define what a coalition is that does not require the word token before it would be? Please be specific and site a historical example.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 08:03 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Yep....everyone is wrong. You are right.

Sorry, the people of FYM voted. Token must be in front of the word coalition.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-06-2004, 08:07 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Define coalition....yeah....after we figure out how we can say Iraq was not verifiably disarming itself at the time the US attacked. Last I knew there were inspectors there doing their job.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com