NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

Originally posted by zappafan1

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.

Wrong. As an American citizen, I absolutely have that right.

As well as the right to criticize it for its occasional foolish policies...

I'd suggest you read the constitution.

It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.

I'd like to point out that when the US saved Europe's ASS years ago (they would likely all be speaking German and wearing swastikas if it weren't for the US) we stayed; and in fact, we are still there (by invitation). We'll be in Iraq for many years to come. I'm willing to bet that Syria and Iran are next to go in the next 10 years.

Lighten up FOOLS!! You have the ability and the freedom to criticize all you want largely because of US policy.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

Whoah, hold the phone there, that constitutes a connection?

The New Yorker magazine, in its December 13 edition set to hit US newsstands on Monday, reported that according a longtime acquaintance from his native Saudi Arabia, bin Laden made at least one trip to the United States, in about 1978, with his wife and oldest son, who needed medical treatment.

Bin Laden Visted US For Medical Treatment

Wouldn't a Bin Laden connection trump an al-Libi connection any day? Well according to some decks of cards it does.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.

That required a second resolution remember? Thats what the Blair camp was vying for as it would sure up the legal right to invade. That never eventuated, the UN did not approve and hence it was never legal.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd like to point out that when the US saved Europe's ASS years ago (they would likely all be speaking German and wearing swastikas if it weren't for the US) we stayed; and in fact, we are still there (by invitation). We'll be in Iraq for many years to come. I'm willing to bet that Syria and Iran are next to go in the next 10 years.

Flash back to grade 2

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Lighten up FOOLS!! You have the ability and the freedom to criticize all you want largely because of US policy.

I'd rather hold onto the view that we have the freedom to criticize INSPITE of recent US policy.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.

Here, here, people we have found another justification to the war in Iraq.

Is because Its a continuation of the first Gulf war

Occurs 10 years later.

Do you think Bush will buy your idea?

I find it ironic that some of these people who support the president ignore common facts to keep from answering real questions like.

Where are the WMD, Mobile chemical Labs, and Yellow cake from Niger, and Links to Al-Qaeda.

None of that was proven. The biggest laugh was when the bush Administration tried to portray 911 done by Iraq. LOL Most of the republican leadership is in some type of corruption trouble yet that did not stop them from illegally invading (UN Said) another sovereign country BTW a country the United States help setup. The 800lb gorilla is now ten 1-ton Gorillas in tutus dancing the 1812 overture.

I find it ironic that some of these people who support the president ignore common facts to keep from answering real questions like.

Where are the WMD, Mobile chemical Labs, and Yellow cake from Niger, and Links to Al-Qaeda.

None of that was proven. The biggest laugh was when the bush Administration tried to portray 911 done by Iraq. LOL Most of the republican leadership is in some type of corruption trouble yet that did not stop them from illegally invading (UN Said) another sovereign country BTW a country the United States help setup. The 800lb gorilla is now ten 1-ton Gorillas in tutus dancing the 1812 overture.

Originally posted by thermopolis
(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............
Now picture saddam today on trial in Iraq................
Democracy in action people....................get it?]

your right, how could we miss those important facts

defying the UN? ... didnt the US just do that inorder to INVADE?
breaking 17resolutions?... Iraq turned out not to have 1 single WMD... not 1..
he wasnt building them, supplying them or nothing. back in gw1 i agree he did.
But the 5yrs prior to the iraq invasion , saddam was no more a threat to the western world than france was..
shooting at aircraft?... every country has the RIGHT to a defence, and to stop other countries interfering. The no fly zones was not a WORLD saftey thing, it wasnt a UN imposed restriction. It was the USA and BRITAN imposing its own rules and regulations. THE US doesnt OWN Iraq, they didnt CONTROL it.
They had no right to say we are going to fly planes over your territory as we please...

If we did that to china?.. would you really expect them not to shoot us down?
HELL, if CHINA did it to the USA, would the US NOT SHOOT THEM DOWN ?

People in woodchippers...
What about the people in falluja?
Or the people in Abu Grahib
Or the tortured people found in the prison 2weeks back?
what about the mothers of dead sons?
the fathers of dead daughters?
the babies of murdered families?
what about the parents back home in the US thinking of there murdered son?

saddam killed people with an even method, it makes no different if the us kills people quickly or in the same methods.
You dont kill innocent people and try to justify it in any way.

Saddam on trial today, I agree the man should be held accountable,
but under no circumstances should any contry feel they have the right to invade, and hold the countries leader on trial for crimes he commited years nad years and years ago.. its UNETHICAL and UNJUSTIFIED
What is the difference in saddam ordering his henchman to kill 144people in a town that tried to assinate him.... then bush sitting in his leather arm chair ordered helicopters to destroy houses, media networks, schools, weddings, so forth and so forth.

Democracy barely works in your own country at the moment, how the hell are you going to make it work in the middle of the fricken hostile arab lands.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Are you referring to Saddam or U.S. Rendition?

If we (The U.S.) are to present ourselves as bastions of freedom, defenders of liberty, and champions of human rights to the rest of the world, we better damn well have our ethical house in order first.

We didn't.

We still don't.

And we have no plans to change that.

The policies of this administration (and previous administrations) are calling catastrophe to our doorstep.

This is an interesting point... We must have our ethical house in order before we can liberate anyone or do anything else in foreign affairs.

Hmmm looks like we will be getting our door dirty alot in the future. This country, The USA, has the ability to do outstanding things because of our wealth and ingenuity.

If we continue hire/elect the only people who can financially afford to run for office we will NEVER have our ethical house in order.

The very system that elects the leaders is the cause of the muck. One can not get elected with out certain "groups" supporting the election, these groups ALWAYS require and expect access once you are elected.

That access is needed to push their agenda through. "Their" agenda is going to represent what "they" want. NOT necessarily what is best for the country or reflective of the ethics you and I hold dear.

This is the reason for the great distraction and the continued division of our population. The power is ALWAYS worth getting and hanging on to. Once you have the power you can't perform ethically because of commitments you made to those who helped you get the power.

See the vicious circle?

There are MANY powerful interests that require the war in Iraq to be prosecuted to further their goals, usually financial goals. The smoke screens of WMDs, and the like are just comfortable blankets to wrap our ill feeling up in.

On another note:
Hussein was a PIG and an ANIMAL, no doubt he was a sadistic sick freak who absolutely needed to be executed and the world rid of him for his own people's sake. This could've been done with a good Delta operation. The problem with that is the next in line would've taken over and we'd have been shooting a new bastard every day for years to come...

The people of Iraq ultimately were the ones who had to stand up and rid themselves of Hussein, but they couldn't/wouldn't.

Now they have a chance to get control of their country, by revolution if we are truly there for nefarious reasons, or by working with our troops and LEARNING what needs to be done if what we are there for allows them to have their own country in reality.

Will they be able to get along with each other well enough to do this? I doubt it. These people show a remarkable LACK of the instinct for fighting like hell against the oppressor... Looking throughout history at the European nations, there is a STARK difference between the Euro response to people like Hussein and the Arab response.

I don't know why but it's historically accurate. It could be that they see things totally differently than we do and prefer a dictatorship over the ensuing chaos of open revolution. I don't know...

Springer...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Do you wish global terror to win this war? Is radical Islamic rule more "ethical" when it murders.

Why does my critique of the ethics of the U.S. government result in your assumptions that I might prefer the means of our enemies? This is an insultingly incorrect conclusion jump on your part.

With all due repect how can you be insulated by the asking of a question?

No assumtions or conclusions just a question.

Yes, history is full of footsteps toward terror and ethics issues.

Clinton and Carter have had a direct affect on terrorisim.

Carter in many ways assisted in Irans overthrow and specifically gutting the CIA. He also stopped construction of nuke plants which has helped place us under the control of oil rich nations.

Clinton let terror attacks go with minimal action. He ran away from Somalia. He passed on OBL's capture. He put Kofi Annan in place at the UN. The list is endless here.

Nixon had enough intergity to step down. How does that compare to Clinton?

Although Bush isn't who I voted for he has at least recognized the danger and started doing something about it.

When the world needed to take down Hitler the invation of France and Italy needed to happen first. Similar issues to Afganistan and Iraq. The world needed a beach head before taking down the real source of world terror IRAN.

All men are less than perfect, but those with real morals must take down those without......................

Originally posted by thermopolis
Nixon had enough intergity to step down.

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing enough to respond to this statement... every time I try... well...

--whew--

You can look elsewhere for deflection from the real issue as much as you like. In the end, a war was started that killed our soldiers and countless innocents based on data that is increasingly laced with lies and deception. Debating past issues has no relation to this very important current issue.

It seem like the only war Thermopolis deals with differences is by bombing and attacking other countries. It is possible to get a dialog with a country we do not like. Clinton illegally went into the Balkans; He also let a democratic country like Somalia get over ran with warlords, He also put the most people in Jail beside Regan in his 8 years. And you remember the branch Dividians They kind of Burned up in an unknown fire nobody knows who started it. And survivors swear it was not them. When it comes to honesty and moral high ground the democrats nor the republicans have it. Let us think how much money has defense contractors made since the invasions, How much Muslim lives have been lost maimed or permanently broken by the US actions. What do you think is going to come out of this? Democracy and Freedom. LOL The media is to the point where when you do find the truth then it does not matter.

GW bush has did exactly what Hitler did… He took a whole group of people Classified by religion (Muslims) and said their existence is a danger to the way western people live. So much of dangers that you should not let any of their practices develop in the western world. And the people got behind Hitler on it. Sounds Familiar… And the people got behind Hitler on it like they are with Bush. Now when you talk to German they do not know how he was able to take people out of their homes and put them in camps later killing them. Same with Guantanamo And Abu G

Would you want to fight the terrorist here or there? I choose there…. GW Bush

So kill’em all and let god sort‘em out.

I have friends and family who are Muslim and in their everyday living I never see the things these right wing fanatic say consumes their everyday thoughts.

If the media did show the death toll (because we proudly said we do not count the civilian dead) things might be different. The targeting of Journalist from other countries because they are broadcasting live. The cost of lives and the over flow of our own troops who come back with mental illness and can never seems to get back into society. These people should know better… One of my fathers good friends was a Vietnam vet the stories and the actions I have seen over his lifetime lets me know that if I want a war it better be for the G-Dang right reasons. This one is so full of hole anyone with half a brain should know that we should have never attempted to crusade to Iraq.


[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN,

He was answering every demand the UN made.

PLEASE explain what it was he did not do?

breaking 17 resoultions,

There were no WMD in Iraq.

They were in full compliance with all UN Resolutions at the time US invaded.

shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft,

THE NO FLY ZONES WERE NOT AUTORIZED BY THE UN

Iraq was well within their international rights to shoot at warplanes violating their airspace.

putting people in wood chippers............

The story turned out to be a hoax.

The supposed priest that made the claim disappeared, the Angelican Church says they never heard of him, all the employees at the prison said they never heard of such a thing, and no shredders were found.

Now picture saddam today on trial in Iraq................

Democracy in action people....................get it?

On trial in court formed by occupiers as an indepenent entity within the Iraqi government that nether the Iraqi Government, courts, or the Iraqi people have any power over, and that is above all law.

A court that appointed FORIGN JUDGES that hide behind masks.

A court that created new laws that apply backwards in time against previous Iraqi laws.

The court is illegitimate, and so are the charges against Saddam.

Please don't get me wrong, I wish justice on Saddam, but this is not justice.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

What else is new?!?!?!?! Honestly if you actually thought that we went into Iraq to with good intentions then I have some land to sell you on the moon. I really don’t care about what justifications we used to get us into war. It too late for the brainwashed media and masses to be nit picking at the excuses we used. Were over their and now we have to figure out how to get the hell out and not have another fundamentalist government take over.

However they way things look that is exactly what is going to happen. As soon as we leave, no matter when that place is going to erupt into chaos and civil war. Bush doesn’t give two **edit** because it’s his last term. And if most of us were in his position we would probably oust a dictator that tried to kill our father. This is reality people deal with it!!!!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by thermopolis
Nixon had enough intergity to step down.

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing enough to respond to this statement... every time I try... well...

--whew--

I got the same reaction

Since when we are now rewriting history? I thought that Nixon step down because he was forced to step down or else.

I am missing something here.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Clinton and Carter have had a direct affect on terrorisim.

Carter in many ways assisted in Irans overthrow and specifically gutting the CIA. He also stopped construction of nuke plants which has helped place us under the control of oil rich nations.

Clinton let terror attacks go with minimal action. He ran away from Somalia. He passed on OBL's capture. He put Kofi Annan in place at the UN. The list is endless here.

Nixon had enough intergity to step down. How does that compare to Clinton?

So you're still in the realm of partisan politics eh? Once you realize that they are both one and the same and controlled by the same people you might stop watching the puppet show.

Originally posted by thermopolis
When the world needed to take down Hitler the invation of France and Italy needed to happen first. Similar issues to Afganistan and Iraq. The world needed a beach head before taking down the real source of world terror IRAN.

Thats not the stated objective of Paladin Bush though. He is meant to be spreading democracy and freedom to the Middle East, not creating a clandestine beachhead for invading the wider Middle East. Do you think he has the right to do so? Even to the extent that he is justified in blatently lying to the American people and the World at large?

Originally posted by thermopolis
All men are less than perfect, but those with real morals must take down those without......................

Lying is moralistic behaviour now? Creating false pretexts for war, a war in which thousands of American service men and women have died, is moralistic? I agree, there should be new leaders with morals to bring these less than perfect leaders down.

[edit on 10/12/05 by subz]

Originally posted by zappafan1

Rendition was started by Clinton.

So? Is there a point here, or is this just a diversion?

U.S. "policy" is to remove tyrants and dictators and oppressors, so that the people in other countries can choose for themselves how they want to be governed; how they want to live.

In 1953, the Iranian people had "chosen for themselves how they wanted to be governed." They had freely and democratically elected a leftist government that had proposed nationalizing oil production. In response, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew that freely elected government and installed the Shah-- an oppressive dictator that held office, despite the opposition of the people of Iran, and with direct US military support, until he was in turn overthrown by a popular uprising led by the Islamic fundamentalist forces of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Similarly, in 1963, the CIA backed another coup and overthrew another legitimate government-- this time in Iraq. They installed the (then, nominally) pro-US Ba'athist party, setting the stage for the rise to power of a CIA trained failed assassin named... Saddam Hussein.

The US has a long and shameful history of overthrowing freely elected governments and of supporting brutal dictators. The truth is that the nature of the ruler doesn't matter and the will of the people doesn't matter-- the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not the ruler in question supports the desires of the US powers-that-be.

Bush Sr.s mistake was to agree to the cease fire in Iraq, which was started by (who else?) the U.N. This war is not "another" war... it is the continuation of the same war.

At the close of the first Gulf War, the Kurds in Northern Iraq were prepared to fight to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and the US had pledged their support to them. Literally at the 11th hour, the US backed down, and left the Kurds to be rounded up and gassed by Saddam's forces. If the US really was so interested in fostering freedom in Iraq, then why did we abandon people who were ready and willing to actually fight for their own freedom?

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from.

And again-- the government of the United States was deliberately set up in such a way that the actions of our leaders and the policies and laws that resulted from those actions would be, at least to some degree, representative of the will of the people. We were granted the right to hold dissenting opinions specifically so that we could, if necessary and desired, affect change in the government of this nation. Those who hold and express dissenting views are therefore engaging in a process that is at the heart of America's strength as a nation.

It would appear to me that if anyone should go live in another country, it should be you. Since you so obviously flatly cannot tolerate dissent, you should go find another country that similarly does not tolerate dissent. It's a shame that the USSR collapsed-- that would've been perfect for you.


Frank Zappa is no doubt spinning in his grave. I can't even imagine how grossly offended he'd be that you're using his name to promote your rigid, narrow-minded, anti-freedom spew. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what freedom really is.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

Originally posted by subz
Whoah, hold the phone there, that constitutes a connection?

Absolutely!! He was receiving treatment AFTER Al Qaeida's declaration of Jihad against America. Iraq allowed an Al Qaeida terrorist inside its borders.

Originally posted by subz
The New Yorker magazine, in its December 13 edition set to hit US newsstands on Monday, reported that according a longtime acquaintance from his native Saudi Arabia, bin Laden made at least one trip to the United States, in about 1978, with his wife and oldest son, who needed medical treatment. url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051204/pl_afp/usattacksbinladen_051204214832]Bin Laden Visted US For Medical Treatment[/url]

Subz; this is a pathetic argument. First, the article says he may have visited the US. If he did, it happened long ago when the world was vastly different in terms of international terroism.

Originally posted by subz
That required a second resolution remember? Thats what the Blair camp was vying for as it would sure up the legal right to invade. That never eventuated, the UN did not approve and hence it was never legal.

Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes? The fact is that despite France's, Germany's, and other's objections, this IS a legal war.

So I'd like to pose a few questions to those extremly critical of the US's decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein:

Regardles of whether or not WMD has been or will be found; independent intelligence sources (including Germany and the UK) along with the CIA all believed Iraq had WMD and that he therefore posed a threat. Let's assume for a moment Bush decided not to invade Iraq and that Iraq subsequently provided radioactive or chemical material to Al Qaeida who used them against Europe or the US. Would you call for an immediate impeachment of Bush for being derelict in his dities to protect the US? How about Blair?

Do you perceive Islamofascim (extreme Islamic fundalmentalism) a threat?

If so; how would you, as a leader responsible for the protection of your nation and her people, respond to attacks made by Islamofascists?

Editted for quotation structure


[edit on 12-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes?

Because it is not the UNs job, and because the US has a UN veto.

If any nation were to bring a resolution before the Security Council that we did not favor it would be vetoed.

And since the US has not agreed to join the International Criminal Court how could they do anything?

No entity has the power to demand Bush, and any other warcriminals present themselves for trial.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by zappafan1

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.

Hum, does this comment sounds like "Post electections ATS"?

Very soon the anti patriotic and traitor comments will be back again.

Saddam was not treat to the US, but he was to the American oil barons.

You have no clue as to the mechanics and economics of oil purchase and dustribution. I'm still waiting for pictures of American oil company tankers in Iraqs ports.