WMDs not the REAL reason?

[Skeptical Greg]

Come on Lamp Man! You're a bright guy. Imagine this scenario.

"Listen, Achmed, all it takes for evil Americanism to prevail is for good Muslim people to do nothing. Who's got the box cutters?"

In my "the righteous do the dividing" quote, the implication is that virtually everyone thinks that they themselves are righteous, just as virtually no one considers themselves evil.

I said it needed more disecting.. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Killing our enemies, and those who aid our enemies was the reason for war. There will be more to come.

Do you have anything to back up the asertion?

 

[renata]

What document are you refering to? I have not seen evidence that the U.S. forged any documents presented to the U.N. about WMD.

Reports about nuclear weapons were forged, but not by the US. CIA did not reckognize them as forged, though. This was discussed in these threads.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15698

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15709

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Reports about nuclear weapons were forged, but not by the US. CIA did not reckognize them as forged, though. This was discussed in these threads.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15698

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15709

Thanks Renata. Incidents like these will make the Bush administration more cautious about using information that has to be confirmed before presenting it in State of the Union Addresses or as evidence in the UN.

I welcome this error as it will cause the evidence to be more thoroughly scrutinzed. Nothing worse than complacency and putting unquestioning faith in a single source. That is something I need to work on too : )

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It seems that we cannot believe the reasons provided by Bush and Blair for their invasion of Iraq.

They said that they went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein would not disarm of WOMD. Unbelievably, despite having massive numbers of troops and special forces in Iraq for some considerable time and an extensive list of possible sites for the said WOMD they still haven't found any yet. Nevertheless they are incredibly suggesting that the UN inspectors they thwarted from doing their job should not to be allowed to continue even though it may taken an even bigger number of 'inspectors' a long time to 'find' the said WOMD. Why won't they allow the UN inspectors to do their job? How stupid do they think the rest of the world is?

We were told that the invasion was also to free the Iraqi people from a sadistic dictator. A sadistic dictator to whom the US and the UK sold WOMD incidently. Nevertheless it would be a laudable aim, if carried out under international law, but it wasn't and the Iraqi people are not going to be allowed to be free enough to choose an Islamic government if they want one nor free enough to decide not to have US military bases in their country or to be free enough not to have American purchasers of Bush taking over important positions within their business community. So the war was not to free the Iraqi people then. That chicken is already in the air unfortunately and looks like arriving at its roost in the very near future. But then Iran is only a short distance away and look what happened when America thwarted democratic institutions in that country.

We were categorically assured that the war was not fought for oil. If this was in fact the case there would be no reason to give the Oil Ministry any different treatment from any other building. I note that there are reports claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in. Presumably tha was one of the reasons UK troops were not allowed to approach Baghdad. If the war was actually fought for oil this would be entirely understandable because there would have been a fear for the loss of the important data held within the building. It takes a long time to remap underground structures from scratch and the existing maps of the oil bearing horizons would help target exploration and development activity by American companies. I note that we are not being told if the maps, seismic data and production histories contained in the building have been copied to America oil companies. This will allow them to be ahead of the game when applying for their exploration and production rights that will certainly be heading ther way in the near future.

I would suggest that if the war was not fought for oil we should also have a categorical assurance that the data within the building has not and will not be distributed as I have described. I am confident that we will never get that assurance and in its absence it is probable that the data is already in the hands of those American oil companies who bought Bush's 'presidency'.

I further note that the war wasn't fought to allow Iraqi companies to rebuild their country either, or at least until American companies have got their feet under the table. A number of the companies which bought Bush so he could 'win' the presidential election have now 'won' contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq. One 'irregular' procedure giving rise to another. Nothing if not consistent.

It therefore appears that we cannot believe the US president or the UK prime minister when they talk about their reasons for invading Iraq. It also appears that a large part of the world, including many within the US and the UK, are becoming uncertain if Bush and Blair can be trusted on other important matters such as say - the UN, or Nato or international law, or even who is going to be next. Who did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have in mind again?

 

[Supercharts]

Well there Mr. Galloway. Do you believe him?

 

[Baker]

Another long-winded post full of emotion and no facts or data to back them are you a writer E J?

RanFan has already questioned you on this same topic in the “US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN” thread and then you make almost same speech without replying to his post.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
Another long-winded post full of emotion and no facts or data to back them are you a writer E J?

RanFan has already questioned you on this same topic in the “US violates Geneva convention right of CHILDREN” thread and then you make almost same speech without replying to his post.

J?

I don't want to appear too logical but when you get all accusarial about others not posting facts it might be sensible to post some yourself or is the sauce for the goose not also sauce for the gander? I take it then that you have nothing concrete to say on your own behalf and that you need to work in pairs? When you come up with original comments of your own please let me know.

 

[Baker]

I don't want to appear too logical but when you get all accusarial about others not posting facts it might be sensible to post some yourself or is the sauce for the goose not also sauce for the gander?

Don’t worry you couldn’t appear too logical too emotional yes but not too logical.
Facts of my own I wasn’t making the claims you where.
I was mainly making a point that a long drawn out post with emotional plea’s doesn’t always mean its correct.

I take it then that you have nothing concrete to say on your own behalf and that you need to work in pairs? When you come up with original comments of your own please let me know.

He made some very good counter arguments I could probably add some of my own but I was letting you know you still have unanswered question on the topic.

 

[RandFan]

They said that they went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein would not disarm of WOMD. Unbelievably, despite having massive numbers of troops and special forces in Iraq for some considerable time and an extensive list of possible sites for the said WOMD they still haven't found any yet.

Well that proves it then doesn't it? And Saddam had 12 years to perfect his deception but you just dismiss that fact.

And it turns out that there is a reason why we have not yet found WOMD,
NY TIMES: Iraq may have destroyed weapons just days before war... *

We were told that the invasion was also to free the Iraqi people from a sadistic dictator. A sadistic dictator to whom the US and the UK sold WOMD incidently.

Oh, so selling Saddam WOMD (could you give proof) is justification not to free the people.

Nevertheless it would be a laudable aim, if carried out under international law, but it wasn't and the Iraqi people are not going to be allowed to be free enough to choose an Islamic government

Who are you talking about? The Shiite Majority? How does 60% taking away the rights of the 40% = freedom? Please explain?

When the majority forces its will on the minority that is NOT freedom. Check out the ACLU sometime.

It therefore appears that we cannot believe the US president or the UK prime minister when they talk about their reasons for invading Iraq.

We absolutely can believe them. The torturing has stopped, ALL people will be allowed to take part in the government and the US will not occupy. This because Geroge Bush is a man of honor and honesty and has done exactly as he has told the world we would do.

 

[Baker]

We were told that the invasion was also to free the Iraqi people from a sadistic dictator. A sadistic dictator to whom the US and the UK sold WOMD incidently. Nevertheless it would be a laudable aim, if carried out under international law, but it wasn't and the Iraqi people are not going to be allowed to be free enough to choose an Islamic government if they want one nor free enough to decide not to have US military bases in their country or to be free enough not to have American purchasers of Bush taking over important positions within their business community. So the war was not to free the Iraqi people then. That chicken is already in the air unfortunately and looks like arriving at its roost in the very near future. But then Iran is only a short distance away and look what happened when America thwarted democratic institutions in that country.

If the fundamentalisms Christens where the majorities in the US do you think, they should be allowed to control the government and run it under strict Christen views.

We were categorically assured that the war was not fought for oil. If this was in fact the case there would be no reason to give the Oil Ministry any different treatment from any other building. I note that there are reports claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in. Presumably tha was one of the reasons UK troops were not allowed to approach Baghdad. If the war was actually fought for oil this would be entirely understandable because there would have been a fear for the loss of the important data held within the building. It takes a long time to remap underground structures from scratch and the existing maps of the oil bearing horizons would help target exploration and development activity by American companies. I note that we are not being told if the maps, seismic data and production histories contained in the building have been copied to America oil companies. This will allow them to be ahead of the game when applying for their exploration and production rights that will certainly be heading ther way in the near future..

You claim that there where reports claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in.
Whom was it reported by?
And presumably that was one of the reasons UK troops were not allowed to approach Baghdad.
Well if you don't know for sure why say it.

I further note that the war wasn't fought to allow Iraqi companies to rebuild their country either, or at least until American companies have got their feet under the table. A number of the companies which bought Bush so he could 'win' the presidential election have now 'won' contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq. One 'irregular' procedure giving rise to another. Nothing if not consistent.

What proof do you have that they bought Bush the election and are now the same company's working in Iraq?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by BakerDon’t worry you couldn’t appear too logical too emotional yes but not too logical.

Can you substantiate that claim? Just asking? Any time will do.

Facts of my own I wasn’t making the claims you where.

Sorry - don't understand what you are talking about here. You complain about others making long winded posts without facts or data to back them up but go on to do exactly the same thing yourself? Its not what you do then Baker is it? It's what you say. Glad I got that clear. When you have something concrete to say please let me know.

I was mainly making a point that a long drawn out post with emotional plea’s doesn’t always mean its correct.

I am stunned by your logic. When you get around to actually taking one of my 'emotional plea's' and debating them and suggesting a single reason why they might not be correct please let me know. You see it's really very simple. When you acuse others of doing something it really is not very sensible to do the same thing yourself otherwise... well you know... Over here we call it crashing and burning.

He made some very good counter arguments I could probably add some of my own but I was letting you know you still have unanswered question on the topic.

I note that you've taken a couple of posts to say - well - nothing. But you are perfectly entitled to do that. Like I say, when you eventually get an original thought of your own I will be very pleased to listen.

 

[Baker]

Sorry - don't understand what you are talking about here. You complain about others making long winded posts without facts or data to back them up but go on to do exactly the same thing yourself? Its not what you do then Baker is it? It's what you say. Glad I got that clear. When you have something concrete to say please let me know.

I seemed to have hit a nerve just hold your breath and count to 10.
You seem very confused on what is a statement and what is a claim.

I am stunned by your logic. When you get around to actually taking one of my 'emotional plea's' and debating them and suggesting a single reason why they might not be correct please let me know. You see it's really very simple. When you acuse others of doing something it really is not very sensible to do the same thing yourself otherwise... well you know... Over here we call it crashing and burning.

I have responded to your post in the past including the one in question above.
Plus no one should have any problems seeing the flaws in him or her.
I'm sure this is much easier then answering the replies to the comments that you have already got on your post in question.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFanWell that proves it then doesn't it? And Saddam had 12 years to perfect his deception but you just dismiss that fact.

Deception of what exactly RandFan? Let me do some simple maths for you. Say there are only 100,000 US troops in Iraq and there are approximately 1000 sites to visit. Let us send five specialist troops to each site on one day. That appears to require only 5000 troop days. And they have been there how long? Hmmm. Let us double the number of troops and double the number of troop days. That still only makes it 20,000 troop days. Those figure don't include the fact that some specialist forces were working in Iraq before the war started and they could have been tasked with locating the WOMD Bush and Blair insist is still there and which was the primary reason quoted for going to war.

If they didn't know where the WOMD was how could they know that it hadn't been destroyed? To date all their efforts have not been able to locate that dammed elusive WOMD and the 'coalition' won't allow the UN inspectors to verify any finds that may be made. Why not?

And it turns out that there is a reason why we have not yet found WOMD

How convenient that this happened without the US detecting it with the immense amount of satellite and other reconnaisance activity taking part in Iraq immediately before the war started and how convenient that this scientist cannot be named even now. Come on - or as you say in America I believe - get real. In Northen Ireland we have another saying. I didn't come up the lough in a bucket.

If this 'scientist' knows they were destroyed then presumably he knows where they were destroyed and as no such process is 100% efficient and as such his claims can easily be verified. But it seems the 'coalition' don't want to verify them. and have in any case apparently only found precursors if these 'reports' can be believed, which I doubt given their context - not the WOMD they claimed Hussein actually had.

Oh, so selling Saddam WOMD (could you give proof) is justification not to free the people

Are you seriously suggesting that the US and the UK did not supply Hussein with biological and chemical WOMD. See www.e-thepeople.org/a-national/article/13686/view. I think it is hypocritical for the US to supply him WOMD and then claim it is because he won't give up the WOMD that the are going to replace him. Why supply it in the first place? He was a tyrant when you supplied him the stuff. Why support terror before going to war against terror? And freeing the people? Free them so the can't elect an Islamic government if that is wha the actually want. I know there were dodgy elections in Florida but ?. Free them so they must have US military bases they may not want. So they can have their ports handed over to American companies. When you say free, what you actually mean is free to do what America wants don't you?

Who are you talking about? The Shiite Majority? How does 60% taking away the rights of the 40% = freedom? Please explain?

When the majority forces its will on the minority that is NOT freedom. Check out the ACLU sometime.
?

Shome mishtake shurely. I thought that democracy was meant to be the will of the majority as represented in free and rair elections not imposed by the US and omitting representative groups the US doesn't like? What are you suggesting here? That the opinion of the majority of the people in Iraq should not prevail? I seem to remember in the US a presidential candidate was the brother of the governor of a state which was crucial in electing him to the presidency in a process where judges appointed by the candidates father refused to allow all the votes to be counted while the official 'counting' the votes was involved his electoral campaign.

If one of the aims of the invasion was to free the Iraqi people so they could choose their own style of govenment then why aren't they apparently going to be allowed to do just that?

We absolutely can believe them. The torturing has stopped, ALL people will be allowed to take part in the government and the US will not occupy. This because Geroge Bush is a man of honor and honesty and has done exactly as he has told the world we would do.

If the war was for really freedom the Iraqi people should be able to choose their own form of government without interference in that decision from the US. From the words of the US administration itself that does not seem to be going to happen so the idea that the country was freed for the Iraqi people seems to be false. Some representative groups are already being excluded from the electoral discussions currently under way.

You say that the US will not occupy yet the US wants a number of military bases in Iraq into the forseeable future. If the Iraqis ahave been freed to run their country as they see fit why have American companies been given contracts to run Umm Qsar and other massive projects when the Iraqis could do the same job themselves? Bush and Blair be judged by the facts and currently their words do not match up to the reality. Hopefully they will as soon as possible. George Bush and Tony Blair did not get the backing of the security council for the invasion of Iraq and thwarted the UN inspectors from doing their job, possibly because they knew that no WOMD would be found. If so the world is going to hold them to account.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
seemed to have hit a nerve just hold your breath and count to 10.
You seem very confused on what is a statement and what is a claim.
.

I am glad that you feel you are achieving something here Baker but unfortunately I cannot see what it is. Would you care to take anything I have said and make a comment on it?
Let me help you a little bit. When you berate people for doing something it is only sensible not to do it yourself. Hope that helps or are you just a person for whom the sauce for the goose is not the sauce for the gander - much like when Bush says he has freed the Iraqi people to run their own country what he actually means is that he has freed the Iraqi people to run their country as he and Donald Rumsfeld sees fit.

I have responded to your post in the past including the one in question above.
Plus no one should have any problems seeing the flaws in him or her.
I'm sure this is much easier then answering the replies to the comments that you have already got on your post in question..

I simply do not understand your use of english but I am happy to reiterate my invitation to you. When you have an original comment that actually adresses anything I have said then I will be very happy to respond to it but until then I am afraid that I can't help you. Do you actually have anything of any substance to say? Why not try backing up your claims?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
If the fundamentalisms Christens where the majorities in the US do you think, they should be allowed to control the government and run it under strict Christen views.

I believe in representative democracies where everyone has a vote and the party that wins the most seats controls the government. Something similar I think is tried in the US. You seem to be saying that the Iraqis won't be allowed to elect the government they want. Is that what you are trying to say. If so do you support that approach in the US?

You claim that there where reports claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in.
Whom was it reported by?
And presumably that was one of the reasons UK troops were not allowed to approach Baghdad.
Well if you don't know for sure why say it.
.

By the international media including the Guardian newspaper. I know for sure that the UK forces operated in the south near Basra. They were not tasked to enter Baghdad and I know of no significant UK force that entered Baghdad. Do you know if they did?

Do you know if there has been an assurance that the seismic data, maps and production data from oil exploration activities in Iraq have not been copied and sent out of the country? I would appreciate knowing if any such assurance has been made as I am sure that none will be despite categorical claims that the war was not for oil.

What proof do you have that they bought Bush the election and are now the same company's working in Iraq?

It seems that it is true that the US press is not giving a full picture of American activities in Iraq if you d not know what I am taling about.

The American political system is a system where money talks and where the political parties receive enormous sums of money from major companies who then get awarded favours such as the contracts given to Halliburton which was led by Dick Cheney before he joined the presidential ticket. The same company contributed some $650,000 to the Republican party in 1999-2002. See www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html for more details. It is looking like a scandal in America but even more so overseas. I sincerely hope that the morass of the American system is not foisted on Iraq and that they are left in peace to pick the system they really want otherwise there will be adverse repercussions across the world for decades afterwards.

 

[crackmonkey]

... so how much money did Halliburton give to the Democrats?

 

[RandFan]

Deception of what exactly RandFan? Let me do some simple math for you. Say there are only 100,000 US troops in Iraq and there are approximately 1000 sites to visit.

Sorry but that is all happy horse crap. George Bush is in no hurry to please E.J. Armstrong. The leader of the free world doesn't have to follow your time timetable. The troops are there to fight a war and carry out a specific agenda and not find WOMD according to YOUR math just to silence critics and please nasayers.

If they didn't know where the WOMD was how could they know that it hadn't been destroyed? To date all their efforts have not been able to locate that dammed elusive WOMD

Relax, if the US was going to fake something they would have done it by now. Thankfully all of the reports that have turned out to be false prove the US is being honest. They said it would take awhile and your "math" isn't going to change that. I like how you just ignore the evidence that much of the WOMD was moved and also destroyed. It must be nice to live in a world where you can ignore what you want.

...and the 'coalition' won't allow the UN inspectors to verify any finds that may be made.

BFD. No one but conspiracy theorists care. Like I said, if we were going to fake something we could have easily done that. Remember, chemicals that showed positive in the field showed negative in the lab.

Think about that. Why on earth would Bush allow that to happen?
Because they are going to let the chips fall where they may that is why.

Why not? How convenient that this happened without the US detecting it with the immense amount of satellite and other reconnaissance activity taking part in Iraq immediately before the war started and how convenient that this scientist cannot be named even now.

You really don't have a clue about intelligence. We can't monitor everything and Iraq had 12 years to perfect their deception. I note how you keep dodging that fact.

I don't know for a fact but I can make lots of logical guesses all plausible and relatively simple, they destroyed it in a warehouse that had special incinerators not detectable from space and transported it in non descript vehicles.

If you were being critical about this you could figure it out on your own.

I didn't come up the lough in a bucket.

Then why do I have to answer such a simple question for you?

If this 'scientist' knows they were destroyed then presumably he knows where they were destroyed and as no such process is 100% efficient and as such his claims can easily be verified.

If you had bothered reading the story the chemicals have already tested positive in the field. They are going to go through the same verification process that takes time.

Faking it is instant, the truth takes time.

If one of the aims of the invasion was to free the Iraqi people so they could choose their own style of government then why aren't they apparently going to be allowed to do just that?

Already answered. Freeing one group of people to be oppressed by another is a waste of time. We didn't go there to free the Shiites so they could oppress the Kurds, Bathists and Sunnis. I am clueless why you are so fired up for the Majority to opress the minority. Give the process a chance. Maybe we can put together a coalition government that will meet the needs of as many groups as possible and avoid the majority siezing power and extracting revenge and plunging the whole area into a theocracy. The Arabs and the west were afraid of this very thing. It was one of the reasons Bush Sr. turned his backs on the Shiites after he encouraged them to rise up against Saddam after the first Gulf War. There is no possible way that we sacrificed Americans to turn the whole region over to the Shiites.

If the war was for really freedom the Iraqi people should be able to choose their own form of government without interference in that decision from the US.

But there is already interference from Iran. Allowing the majority to oppress the minority is not what we are going to allow to happen.

From the words of the US administration itself that does not seem to be going to happen so the idea that the country was freed for the Iraqi people seems to be false.

To you maybe, wanting to keep the Kurds in the north and the Sunni and Bathists from being oppressed is a worthy goal. You obviously don't care but that is what we are going to do.

Some representative groups are already being excluded from the electoral discussions currently under way.

Oh, under your plan ALL groups but one will be excluded but you bitch about Bushs plan because some are being excluded now but you don't know to what degree they will all be included in the future. Sorry but that does not wash.

You say that the US will not occupy yet the US wants a number of military bases in Iraq into the foreseeable future.

Perhaps but it doesn't equate to occupation.

If the Iraqis ahave been freed to run their country as they see fit why have American companies been given contracts to run Umm Qsar and other massive projects when the Iraqis could do the same job themselves?

Foreign companies have always been hired to do what the Iraqis could not do. News Flash, the French, Germans and Russians had the contracts to do what the Americans are now going to do. It never was going to be the Iraqis.

Bush and Blair be judged by the facts and currently their words do not match up to the reality.

Actually they do. They looked ol' Saddam in the eye and said exactly what they were going to do. They said it might take time to find WOMD. They have not faked anything which would have been in their best interest (I know you will avoid this little fact) and they have been very honest. So there is nothing to fear. If we don't find WOMD {shrug}. We will move on. Saddam can't drag people out into the night to shoot in the back of the head.

He can't cut the ears of people (without aid of anesthesia), he can't torture he can't maim and he can't threaten his neighbors. It's a damn good day.

Hopefully they will as soon as possible.

All is well now. Some hope that all hell will break loose but it is a false hope.

George Bush and Tony Blair did not get the backing of the security council for the invasion of Iraq and thwarted the UN inspectors from doing their job, possibly because they knew that no WOMD would be found.

The UN told Saddam that if he did not comply he would face serious consequences. When Saddam did not comply The UN (thanks France) was unable to deliver on its threat. It became irrelevant. The US and the UK and 30 other countries decided that it was important to not allow Saddam to get away with what it was doing.

It is impossible to say that Bush thwarted the inspectors in light of Saddam's 12 year history of obfuscation and lies. Once before in the past the sanctions were nearly lifted.

If so the world is going to hold them to account.

Considering the pathetic track record of the world (slavery, murder, mutilation, oppression, forced marriage, castration, human rights violations, etc., etc...) I'm not overly concerned about the world. We took a 12 year diplomatic road. We went to the UN, we got the UN to threaten serious consequences when it was time to enforce its rules it backed down (thanks France). It became irrelevant. We did what was right. There is nothing to be held accountable for.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by crackmonkeyso how much money did Halliburton give to the Democrats?

THe amount they gace to the Republicans represented 95% of their political donations. The other 5% they gave to the Democrats. Both political parties benefit from the company money.

 

[RandFan]

THe amount they gace to the Republicans represented 95% of their political donations. The other 5% they gave to the Democrats. Both political parties benefit from the company money.

It's such a specific amount I have to ask for a reference. Thanks.