More proof the War on Iraq was a lie?

LateX'Dog

LateX'Dog

LateX'Dog

Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS
CALLED FOR A MEETING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON 5 FEBRUARY
2003 AT WHICH UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL
WILL PRESENT WHAT HAS BEEN DUBBED "EVIDENCE OF IRAQ'S
POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION."

THIS PLAY-ACTING HAS BECOME TRANSPARENT AFTER THE SUBMISSION
BY THE UNITED STATES OF MORE THAN ONE REPORT FILLED WITH
ALLEGATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE TO
SUBSTANTIATE THEM, SUCH AS THE REPORT ANNEXED TO THE SPEECH
OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BUSH BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2002, ENTITLED "A DECADE OF DECEPTION AND
DEFIANCE," AND THE REPORT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
(CIA) OF OCTOBER 2002, ENTITLED "IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS." IN BOTH THOSE REPORTS, THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED IRAQ OF DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION AT MORE THAN 50 SITES. BRITISH PRIME MINISTER
TONY BLAIR HAS PLAYED A SUPPORTING ROLE IN THIS REGARD,
PUBLISHING A SIMILAR REPORT IN OCTOBER 2002 IN WHICH HE
CLAIMED THAT THERE EXISTED SPECIFIC SITES IN IRAQ AT WHICH
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE BEING DEVELOPED.

AFTER IRAQ ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF THE INSPECTORS ON 16
SEPTEMBER 2002 AND AGREED TO DEAL WITH SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 1441 (2002), THE UNITED NATIONS MONITORING,
VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION COMMISSION (UNMOVIC) AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) WERE REQUESTED TO
ACCORD PRIORITY, IN RESUMING INSPECTIONS, TO SITES ALLEGED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN TO BE DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMMES.

INSPECTION WORK BEGAN ON 27 NOVEMBER 2002. AFTER TWO MONTHS
OF INTENSIVE INSPECTIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF
STATE-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT FOR DETECTING ANY PROSCRIBED
NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY AND THE ANALYSIS OF
WATER, SOIL AND AIR SAMPLES ALL OVER IRAQ DURING 518 TOURS OF
INSPECTION COMPRISING ALL THE SITES THAT WERE THE OBJECT OF
PRESIDENT BUSH'S AND PRIME MINISTER BLAIR'S ACCUSATIONS, AS
WELL AS NUMEROUS OTHER SITES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS
IN IRAQI CITIES, THE REPORT OF MESSRS. BLIX AND ELBARADEI,
SUBMITTED TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON 27 JANUARY 2003,
SUBSTANTIATED IRAQ'S DECLARATIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED
THAT THE REPORTS OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND PRIME MINISTER BLAIR
WERE DEVOID OF TRUTH AND HAD BEEN DRAFTED IN ORDER TO DISTORT
THE PICTURE OF IRAQ AND CREATE PRETEXTS FOR AGGRESSION
AGAINST IRAQ AND AGAINST THE REGION AS A WHOLE.
Click to expand...

Scroll down to the bottom of the page:

http://laurelai.info/mirrors/cablegate/03USUNNEWYORK298.html

Ohh dear, it looks like the Guardian Newspaper has started a wildfire. They ****** of Wikileaks.
 
This is nothing new, it was all in the public arena that Hans Blix and co found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion.
 
Doesn’t anyone get bored with this old Iraq war nonsense? It strikes me that the only people left that care are trendy Groniad reads, lefty Labour party folk and namby-pamby peace campaigners. Yawn!
 
The Spoon was a lie, The cake is a lie. The War on Iraq was most definitely not a lie...

Although the reason behind it may have been a somewhat stretched truth
 
Like the governments care anyway. They do whatever they want. At the very worst the politicians retire early with titles and huge pensions and a firm place in the odl boy's network.

Look at a guy like GWBush - so thick he couldn't speak properly, so many faux pas on an international level, such a dodgy network of friends, illegally elected (?), laughing stock of the whole world and yet it makes no difference - he's untouchable.

We don't count.
 
Frankly, I don't think that there are many people left in the UK who don't know by now that Blair, Bush, Straw, Cheney, et al are war criminals.

War criminals on the winning side get an automatic pardon - in the case of the UK, a Knighthood in time.

That's just the way it is :(
 
Even if they didnt have WMD's they still went and got rid of the corrupt government and Saddam.

Reasons for the war was wrong but was still a good idea even tho they could i suppose have gone about it another way.
 
SkeeterUK said:
Even if they didnt have WMD's they still went and got rid of the corrupt government and Saddam.

Reasons for the war was wrong but was still a good idea even tho they could i suppose have gone about it another way.
Click to expand...

The trouble with the regime change argument is that there are numerous other corrupt, horrible regimes that don't get toppled. Good old Mugabe is still rocking his bad self in Zimbabwe, for example.
 
Vonhelmet said:
The trouble with the regime change argument is that there are numerous other corrupt, horrible regimes that don't get toppled. Good old Mugabe is still rocking his bad self in Zimbabwe, for example.
Click to expand...

We have gone into lots of countries and we only have limited resources.
So it's not really a point at all.
It's not like we have never gone into Africa and tried and failed. Parts of Africa as we found out are very different to the likes of "modern" countries like Iraq, that are used to being governed and have the infrastructure and the rest of it. And are far less trible. Just look at the issues we are having in Afghanistan and even that has a far better population mindset than some African countries.
It's not always about pure force, it's what you can do after you have steam rolled through the country.
 
Last edited:
SkeeterUK said:
Even if they didnt have WMD's they still went and got rid of the corrupt government and Saddam.

Reasons for the war was wrong but was still a good idea even tho they could i suppose have gone about it another way.
Click to expand...

Saddam was also elected (albeit in not the most democratic fashion). What gives us the right to go in and start taking out other countries' leaders when they pose zero threat to the UK?
 
IceBus said:
Saddam was also elected (albeit in not the most democratic fashion). What gives us the right to go in and start taking out other countries' leaders when they pose zero threat to the UK?
Click to expand...

They pose a massive threat to other humans. Regional stability especially if left to die in power, then what. Have his insane son take over. Possible extension of Iran?
 
Vonhelmet said:
The trouble with the regime change argument is that there are numerous other corrupt, horrible regimes that don't get toppled. Good old Mugabe is still rocking his bad self in Zimbabwe, for example.
Click to expand...

It is a case of ability, necessity, self interest and viability.

Zimbabwe is not a good example as the logistical issues in waging a campaign are so different, so too is the political and regional issues of such a move.

The Iraq War was over in weeks, it was hugely successful, however it was the complete inability and crass stupidity of the Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq State reconstruction plan, or lack of one, that should be the issue that are under investigation as that was the primary cause of the problems in Iraq after the initial invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom