world

Ex-MI5 spy chief: No link between Iraq and 9/11

132 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

132 Comments
Login to comment

Gee, thanks for that update.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Old-Europe said it since, hmmm, 2003, me think. People "around Tikrit and Baghdad" thanks you very much Donald.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A lot of intelligent people just bought the whole lie, hook line and sinker. To make up my mind, I placed personal trust in people who I thought KNEW what was going on. The accusations seemed to fit. To believe otherwise was basically to say that SHussein, who had been taunting the west and shooting at planes and snubbing embargoes was somehow uninvolved and more or less benign. Even now it is hard for some people to believe.

It turned out that just about everybody was wrong. Even people who made the right decision about Iraq mostly made their decisions for what turned out to be the wrong reasons. Everyone should have been a lot less emotional. People should have looked harder at the evidence and made more intelligent arguments and decisions. Outcomes could have been a lot better.

Most importantly, Afghanistan was left to fester for a decade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, she's like M in James Bond, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It turned out that just about everybody was wrong.

Apart from the millions who marched through the streets in opposition to the war. The people who bought the whole lie, hook line and sinker were those who for whatever reason, wanted a war and were willing to accept any half-baked justification. 'Taunting the west' is nowhere near ample justification.

A lot of intelligent people, and even some JT posters, did look harder at the evidence, did make more intelligent arguments and accurately predicted the first paragraph of this article. Pity none of them were in a position to make decisions. Those that were (eg Robin Cook) were ignored and vilified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo is 100% bang on as usual. The people in the White House pushed this illegal war through as fast as they could, and since those who decided on it WANTED it, the war came about. There were HEAPS of people speaking out against it, and the idea that 'everyone bought into it' is utterly and completely wrong. Now, there ARE those who STILL believe there are weapons of mass destruction, and that the war was just and not based on lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the American machine

Got any baggage there, lady?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: the war was just and not based on lies.

For some of us the was was about removing a genocidal dictator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of all the follies of the Bush administration, the greatest by far was starting a second war before the first (in Afghanistan) had been resolved. Since the US had ended conscription, it literally drove its volunteer armed forces into the ground. This goes against the principles of every military theorist from Sun Zi to Carl von Clausewitz, and will be remembered as the singular event that marked the turning point in the decline of U.S. as a superpower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sad thing is that she may be right about 9/11 in some respects, however, what she doesn't mention is the indirect links between Sadam and those plotting 9-11 along with previous attempts to bring down the towers. Intelligence that was presented to the public was erroneous and incomplete, but there was other intelligence that made connections to what is known, and to other information that has yet to be made public. I am sure that she is mentioning this now because she has some kind of agenda that we are not aware of. Maybe to promote a book?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Intelligence that was presented to the public was erroneous and incomplete...

No, it was all just a pack of lies.

... but there was other intelligence that made connections to what is known...

Yeah, more lies.

The quicker you realize that western leaders are a bunch of gangsters and that the role of mainstream media is to lie and deceive us, the quicker you'll understand what is going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sad thing is that she may be right about 9/11 in some respects, however, what she doesn't mention is the indirect links between Sadam and those plotting 9-11 along with previous attempts to bring down the towers.

mmmm... care to provide us your link for indirectly linking Saddam and 9/11 plotters?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no evidence that links Saddam and 9/11. There's plenty of evidence that links Saddam with genocide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad revisionists like Ms.Manningham-Buller did not have the courage to come out at the time events were occurring to express her views.

While Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 a lot of Al Qaeda were killed trying to fight the Americans in Iraq after the liberation. As a wise man once said I'd rather fight them in Iraq than at home.

I also must point out that there has not been an attack in America since 9/11 so clearly some of Bush's policies have worked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For some of us the was was about removing a genocidal dictator.

Really?! Iraqis I've spoken to seem adamant that the war just made things worse-- some in fact would have no qualm in suggesting that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was generally more secured.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She said MI5 had refused requests to supply “low-grade” intelligence for a government dossier on the case for war, a document sharply criticized in the previous inquiry.

For this, I somewhat applaud her-- but it's rather self-serving that only now did she choose to be more blunt in damning the sexed-up dossiers. Blair and Alistair Campbell both seem unswerving with their narrative of facts, so how articulate was Manningham-Buller in articulating, at the time, that invading Iraq was plain nuts?!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2010/jul/20/iraq-war-inquiry-iraq

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Manningham-Buller said those pushing the case for war in the United States gave undue prominence to scraps of inconclusive intelligence on possible links between Iraq and the 2001 attacks, singling out the then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA,” she told the inquiry. “It was not a judgment that found favor with some parts of the American machine.”

She suggested the dispute led Rumsfeld to disregard CIA intelligence in favor of work produced by his own department.

“It is why Donald Rumsfeld started an alternative intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment,” said Manningham-Buller, who was a frequent visitor to the U.S. as MI5 chief. “To my mind, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and I have never seen anything to make me change my mind.”

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/07/21/why-didnt-these-people-slam-the-iraq-war-before-it-happened/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also must point out that there has not been an attack in America since 9/11 so clearly some of Bush's policies have worked.

There was in the UK-- and just in case you're missing the point, this article is about the Chilcot Inquiry... in the UK =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also must point out that there has not been an attack in America since 9/11 so clearly some of Bush's policies have worked.

Look at al-Qaida's history and you will see that their attacks are sporadic. Just because there hasn't been a mainland attack in the past 9 years does not mean that all attempts at attacking have failed.

They are more patient than we are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gee, thanks for that update."

Exactly, exactly! Iraq was not liberated because Saddam was behind 9/11. He was not. Iraq was liberated because the U.S. president had the vision that if at least a measure of freedom and and hope could be established in Iraq, it might spread to the entire region.

The fact is, if those who were against the liberation of Iraq had their way, most likely Saddam would STILL be running the place into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst plotting to resurrect his WMD, and take back Kuwait.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and in Spain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact is, if those who were against the liberation of Iraq had their way, most likely Saddam would STILL be running the place into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst plotting to resurrect his WMD, and take back Kuwait.

Maybe. Meanwhile, the arms of AQ continue to stretches itself, deftly asserting the group's militant philosophies as an alternative to US-backed governments in the Muslim and Arab world, from Afghanistan to Yemen to Sudan.

One thing though, as the ex-MI5 chief already said, Iraq war was boon for Bin Laden and his AQ henchmen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh man. I guess I opened a can of worms.

Cleo and Smith. I thought about the protestors as I wrote my post. I hate to say it, but "No blood for oil" was a nice sentiment but it did not convince me then. That is what I mean. Although I would agree with them now, I understand why people disagreed with them then. That is what I mean when I say that the arguments should have been presented better. I wonder how they could have been, given that the administration was just out and out fabricating lies.

Just to come klein, I was taken in. There seemed to me to be too much evidence that something was up, and SHussein was not forthcoming. I was not waving the flag and shouting, but arrayed against what appeared to be facts and a pretty bad track record by Iraq were a lot of flowers and rainbows. SuperLib understands what I am talking about.

A lot of people fell for it. Just as an exercise, NOT using 20/20 hindsight and acting only on the information that was available then, WHY should we have known better? If people had not believed the lies, then more would have been created. Authority was abused, so is the only answer to distrust authority?

Yes. I was wrong to say everyone fell for it. It is true. I did not want to hit a nerve there. But I think that "no blood for oil" is like one of those broken clocks that is correct twice a day. Those protestors made the right decision, but did they do it for the right reason? I don't think they were better informed than others. They just chose to believe that Sadaam would not do something like that, apparently, which would seem to be a bad bet.

I feel bad that I was sucked in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jraustralia: One thing though, as the ex-MI5 chief already said, Iraq war was boon for Bin Laden and his AQ henchmen.

I disagree. That's an easy, knee-jerk opinion that can be easily swallowed by the masses. A more convincing case can be made that Bin Laden handed Iraq over to the US. Once the Iraqis got a whiff of Bin Laden's ways it was enough of a stink to actually have Sunnis lay down their arms and align themselves with the US to oust the Al Queda. Can you think of anything else on earth that would have convinced them to actually work with the US, the government that just removed them from power? We owe them at last a fruit basket for delivering the Sunnis to us.

There was no "boon" for AQ, just humiliation. They were given the chance to operate in an Arab country that the US had just invaded, and the Iraqs said, "No thanks" and kicked their asses to the curb. It's a monumental blow to people who claim that an invasion creates terrorists. You couldn't have a better example than Iraq and what really happened was the AQ wasn't able to do much of anything with it. They're seen as the enemy and they are being hunted by the Iraqi people. Not quite the "love fest amongst wronged Arabs" that people pretend it to be.

Recruitment? Well last I checked they had recruits before the invasion. Same with the invasion of Afghanistan. They had recruits under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. Maybe people who are convincing others to blow themselves up aren't necessarily being 100% honest in their teachings....? They'll always find a reason regardless of what the US does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: The fact is, if those who were against the liberation of Iraq had their way, most likely Saddam would STILL be running the place into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst plotting to resurrect his WMD, and take back Kuwait.

Uh, actually we'd be seeing a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran right now. Unless of course you're one to think that Iraq, fresh off of telling the UN to take a hike, would sit idly when their neighbors built their nuclear capabilities. Saddam was so paranoid about Iran that he intentionally mislead WMD experts about his capabilities to keep Iran at bay. To think he wouldn't eventually start working on his own nuclear program after seeing what Iran is getting away with is just silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you think of anything else on earth that would have convinced them to actually work with the US, the government that just removed them from power? We owe them at last a fruit basket for delivering the Sunnis to us.

Well, for the sake of the Americans, my advise is let's not count the chicks before they hatch.

I'll argue otherwise but let's leave it that way =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib seems to be saying that the Iraq war probably should have been fought anyway, but Bush deserves brickbats for lying to everyone about the reasons. It complicated things and warped the US and its policies.

I have felt like that many times. My perspective on all of it has changed quite a lot.

Short of just saying: War is bad... and going with that as a philosophy of life, I am not sure how something like this could be avoided in the future. And if one believes that, then Japan has really accomplished something in terms of public policy, hasn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

djuice at 10:50 AM JST - 21st July

I am sure that she is mentioning this now because she has some kind of agenda that we are not aware of. Maybe to promote a book?

Half way down the article, it states that the inquiry panel Manningham-Buller is on "...won’t apportion blame or assign criminal liability for mistakes made, but will issue a report later this year with recommendations for future operations and military missions."

I bet there are many people like her in formerly high positions who could have shed some truth on the situation BEFORE, but chose not to do so in fear of dismissal or stepping on other people's toes. But now that this chick is on this British inquiry panel who's objective is NOT to assign criminal liability, she's talking??? That sickens me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just as an exercise, NOT using 20/20 hindsight and acting only on the information that was available then, WHY should we have known better?

Well, a lot of people did at the time ...... it wasn't only the 'No blood for oil' slogan. Watching the comings and goings in the lead up to March 2003, it was obvious that the Bush gang and Blair were lying their heads off.

If people had not believed the lies, then more would have been created.

And more were. It was obvious from the petulant, schoolboy-caught-out-in-a-fib body language of Bush and Rumsfelt that they were ready to say anything to get their way. I recall Rumsfelt's face when the German foreign minister told him publicly, 'I don't believe it''. It was the face of a petulant little boy denied a toy, not the face of a senior statesman desperately trying to save the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtLwo--n2AA

Blair's body language showed a kind of desperation - we didn't know it then but he had already promised Bush that the UK would be in the thick of it, and he could not renege. I still think the Bush gang must have had something on him, though I'm not sure what.

Authority was abused, so is the only answer to distrust authority?

Always distrust authority until it proves itself to have integrity. Neither Bush nor Blair ever showed the kind of integrity that would persuade a little old lady to buy a used car from one of them, never mind the integrity needed to justify blindly following someone yelling 'Let's go kill lots of people'.

Uh, actually we'd be seeing a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran right now.

Uh, NK got itself a tiny nuke (maybe) and gets treated with kid gloves in spite of being one member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Iraq definitely didn't have any nukes, and got splattered by the mighty western war machine. Why do you think Iran might feel a whole lot safer with a pocketful of nukes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What people seem to forget is Iraq was severely debilitated even before the Iraq War. Iraq's military took a huge blow after the Kuwaiti invasion. The UN imposed sanctions and controlled significant no-fly zones in the north and the south, and US jets regularly flew over those zones. Its science and technology was in shambles; Saddam's ability was very limited. It's very unlike the situation with Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, NK got itself a tiny nuke (maybe) and gets treated with kid gloves in spite of being one member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Iraq definitely didn't have any nukes, and got splattered by the mighty western war machine. Why do you think Iran might feel a whole lot safer with a pocketful of nukes?

Reasonable question. But let me say before the thread gets hijacked by Iran-has-nukes folks, diplomatic solutions is the best alternative for people anxious over nuclear disarmament worldwide.

Iran had been extremely cooperative, working with other powers like Russia, China and Brazil to assert its peaceful enrichment programs. Being more transparent, for the Iranians, is highly appreciated. Again, obvious o. topic but it seems that's where this thread will be heading anyway....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo :it was obvious that the Bush gang and Blair were lying their heads off.

There were many reasons to disbelieve the evidence, but that was key. I had just such a no-good liar for a step-father growing up so I can spot them. You don't trust a man because your mom made him you dad and you don't trust a man because he lives in the White House. You look at him and you ask yourself if he is lying or telling the truth, or covering or trying to play you and everybody, especially during candid moments. If you don't you are a sucker. My step-dad also played the great moral man in public. He fooled a lot of people. But Bush was also such a phoney and its amazing how people can't even scratch past the presidential seal he stood in front of. Mind you though, I don't think he ever made a hard and fast connection between Iraq and 9/11, but he never clearly spoke against that before invading either. But that is the tip of the iceberg.

I appreciate that Klein admits he was fooled. You know what Bush said: Fool me once....(long pause)...shame on, shame on you...fool me... you can't get fooled again.

It was not his speach difficulty that made me distrust him either. Well, Klein, don't get fooled again. Anyone says WAR, be on your toes. Its probably not necessary and they probably have ulterior motives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib,

"For some of us the war was about removing a genocidal dictator."

Me and thee have argued about the Iraq invasion more times over the last 8 years than I'd care to admit, but how do you actually stand on the fact that despite the humanitarian reasons you cite, the people gunning to create this conflict at all costs, had justifications and evidence that were wishy-washy to say the least?

Doesn't this part of the invasion bother you?

What expalantions have we had here on the subject?

We have sarge willing to still lap up the childish Bush-o-vision of a democratic domino effect in the ME, painted white picket-fence's and monster truck extravaganda's....

Or we have djuice's nonesense still muttering about possible ties Saddam had with (insert cough here) 9/11....

Not one of them has the basic honest decency to admit they were hood-winked by the neo-conservatives demented policies. Or to admit the current outcome, which depsite the investment of all those dead bodies and foreign money let's face it, is far from Mission Accomplished.

Humanitarian arguments and nation-building sounds great and would make it a hell of a lot easier to forgot all the bullshit and screaming there was in relation to this war - well it would had we not seen the utter carnage touched off by the war anyway.

No one with a spine should forget that this conflict was sold as part of Bush's so-called war on terror. "Mushroom Clouds" over NYC. "Clear and present danger". The humaniatarian angle was being played out later as a back-up plan, probably around the same time as Colin Powell recanted his comical "evidence" to the UN, as he flushed his own career down the head.

Let's face the facts given as they are presented in this article.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq is one occupation army from a civil war. Still.

And as an invasion billed as fighting terror, it has done the exact opposite, and not just in Iraq or the UK, it's made a terror hike worldwide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It was not his speach difficulty that made me distrust him either."

True, but I still feel cheated Bush didn't have another stab at ennunciating "irreversible denuclearisation".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard, thanks for bringing that up. I was thinking about that song just today. I sang the whole song. There is this:

"We won't get fooled AGAIN!" but there is also "you know that the hypnotized never lie."

See, for me, it is easy to say, "Oh yeah. He's a liar. I knew it." But the stakes were pretty high. And I don't see how feelings and body language are a way to prevent these kinds of things. How can one be sure that the marchers in the street aren't "hypnotized" by their John Lennon visions of a better world? You know Hussein played on that quite a bit. And you know that the hypnotized never lie.

I was fooled by a lie, so I am not ashamed, but you can understand my frustration. It seemed to all fit together, and to find out that it was built on something that they lied about over and over again. Wow. Look at Cleo say ALWAYS DISTRUST AUTHORITY, until... Come on, really? Has it come to that? And are you really being honest when you say you based your stance on the war on body language? Granted you were right, are you really going to say that better body language assessment skills are what people needed to make the correct decision here?

Chime in people. How did you really KNOW that your stance on the war was correct? I really KNEW when someone I trusted in the intelligence community told me FOR SURE that there were WMDs. I was convinced that invasion was necessary. That is why articles like this just really get me wound up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can one be sure that the marchers in the street aren't "hypnotized" by their John Lennon visions of a better world? You know Hussein played on that quite a bit. And you know that the hypnotized never lie.

Ho hohoho

That would have been the case if the majority of anti-Iraqi protesters are hippies. They're not, some of them, believe it or not, are ardent conservatives themselves...

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

@madverts, check this out from Buchanan.org

http://buchanan.org/blog/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition-4090

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at Cleo say ALWAYS DISTRUST AUTHORITY, until... Come on, really? Has it come to that?

Yep, it has come to that. Western leaders are gangsters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: Me and thee have argued about the Iraq invasion more times over the last 8 years than I'd care to admit, but how do you actually stand on the fact that despite the humanitarian reasons you cite, the people gunning to create this conflict at all costs, had justifications and evidence that were wishy-washy to say the least?

Because despite everything that I've said about Bush and Iraq over the years, we had the same goal. You know I never voted for the guy. You know I never bought the War on Terrorism angle. The WMDs? That's a bit of a different story. I thought Saddam wasn't complying, but I never supported the claims Bush and Blair made...I just thought "non-compliance" without the extra made up bullshit was good enough.

It's always been about something bigger than Bush and Blair. It's about Saddam. The guy had to go and he should have been gone a long time before that. What our debate has really been about is whether the West should get involved or not and that pissed me off. There's a stack of hundreds of thousands of bodies, possibly millions, as evidence to remove Saddam, and meanwhile you have people pointing in the other direction claiming, "Bush lied about the links to 9/11!!!!!!" Great.

Remove the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, the rape rooms, extrajudicial killings, the invasions into multiple countries, then yeah, I'll join in the chorus of attacking Bush and Blair. But as long as those bodies are still there to me it will always just be the fat and lazy West doing our best to ignore a problem as long as it didn't affect us. One side used deception to try to justify war and the other side used a very large blind eye to try to stop it. It was basically a bunch of rich, white Western people debating over their own interests. The whole thing was gross to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And are you really being honest when you say you based your stance on the war on body language?

That was part of what indicated my stance on George Bush. But it was more than that to be sure. The things he said. The things he didn't say. Etc. I probably should analyze it and write it all down.

As for the war, I simply never saw any evidence to connect 9/11 to Iraq ever and it was just that simple. Attacking over "maybe" is folly. I did not trust George but I did trust Hans Blix. Old Hans never said Iraq did not have WMD, but that is mostly because its a logical fallacy to say so. Hans found no evidence of WMD and did not believe there was a danger and that was good enough for me. At any rate, there was no evidence Saddam had any capacity to deliver significant amounts of anything to the U.S. None of this is 20/20 hindsight. I said all this while swimming in a sea of pro-war hillbillies and they called me crazy.

Look at Cleo say ALWAYS DISTRUST AUTHORITY, until... Come on, really? Has it come to that?

Dude, its always been that way. It might not be historically accurate, but watch Troy with Brad Pitt. Pay careful attention to Agammemnon. If someone wants to go the trouble of leading, odds are his intentions are NOT pure. Name me one spotless leader and I will name you five who were not. We should always have some doubt in leadership and that goes 100x when the question is war. What could be more important not to get fooled about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi said: Yep, it has come to that. Western leaders are gangsters.

I would not got that far, but one has to be a born fool not to think most leaders have selfish reasons for leading at the very least. Leading is a pain, and the ones who do it usually want a bigger slice of the pie if not a gigantic one. You got to keep your eye on them. This why we did away with kings and queens and hereditary position. The U.S. government system was based on mistrust of authority, but don't go thinking its immune to bad leaders. Every system is full of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"mistakes made in the Iraq war"

The biggest one would be George Bush Sr's decision to let Saddam remain in power after he invaded Kuwait in the first Iraq war known as the Gulf War.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

W, Blair and Olmert lied then. Obama, Cameron and Bibi are lying now. Plus ca change.....Replace the "Q" with "N" and you get the same lies on a different day. Follow the money for oil. Of course there was NO link between 9/11 and Iraq. Same as the FBI has said there's no link with Osama bin Laden and 9/11. They lied then. they're lying now. So what are you going to DO about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"For some of us the war was about removing a genocidal dictator."

And for some, the focus of the war was about protecting the petrodollar , which Saddam DID attack -- about a week before the stolen election of 2000.

Your search for the truth about Iraq begins with a single search on Google --

Baghdad moves to euro

This story, dated Nov 1st, 2000, reveals that Saddam made an oil-for-food deal with European bankers that threatened the dollar's status as the reserve currency of the world. Saddam Hussein, head of an OPEC nation, violated an OPEC agreement to only accept oil payments in US dollars.

As long as OPEC ONLY ACCEPTED DOLLARS for oil, other countries would have to buy USD to pay for oil.

That would keep the international demand for the US dollar respectable on world currency markets.

For years, no one OPEC member dared to defy the US petrodollar agreement... until Saddam decided to tackle the enemy currency once and for all...

Lengthy, but worth it --

Google A New American Century? Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Remove the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, the rape rooms, extrajudicial killings, the invasions into multiple countries, then yeah, I'll join in the chorus of attacking Bush and Blair."

As far as I'm concerned this continues in the post-Saddam Iraq, other than the invasions into other countries I suppose.....but give that time, we've no idea what the future holds. Ok, these things perhaps are not state sanctioned, but murder misery and mayhem exist on a remarkably similar scale.

The political process seems to have wound down to bitter etthnic factions that hate each other and have done for centuries, who refuse to budge an inch.....hence them still not having agreed on a government since the March elections.

The Iraqi's are feuding as ever between them and what it really boils down to is the only remaining member of the coalition of the "willing", the instigators of this particular crusade are skint, and can no longer keep forking out to contain a situation of their own making.

No one knows the future but this has all the possibilities of going hideously pear-shaped, and we'll still be lumbered with the fuel this has injected into international terrorism....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"@madverts, check this out from Buchanan.org"

Yeah, from an engineering point of view that's far more credible than saddam's "ties" to 9/11 at least. And we know Bush Co had no problems lying bold-faced to the public, and that they not only and without a doubt used the events of 9/11 for shameless political gain, but also as per the topic, to fire up a scared and naïve American public into supporting their Iraq agenda.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush Co had no problems lying bold-faced to the public..."

Can you find some proof that Bush lied? Good luck.

"... used the events of 9/11 for shameless political gain"

He did not. Stop making stuff up and posting it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Can you find some proof that Bush lied? Good luck"

I said Bush Co. Donald Rumsfeld - "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat...."

Interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week, March 30, 2003

Or how about ole Don on "But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "

Hearing Before the House Armed Services Committee, September 10, 2002

Heh, that crank also gave birth to this blather - "The message is that there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know"

Obviously that's not particularly a lie, frankly it's the ravings of an in-coherent madman, only at the time of the invasion of Iraq this man was incredibly US Sec. of Defense.

So yeah, sarge, lies. Big fat porkies, the kind your mum would scold you for.

And that's not mentioning all the allusions Bush Co made to nuclear attacks, drones, killer plagues, incubator babies, the ants......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And for some, the focus of the war was about protecting the petrodollar , which Saddam DID**** attack -- about a week before the stolen election of 2000.

If true then Putin better watch his ass.... currencies favored by Russia right now includes the Aussie and Canadian dollars.

He did not. Stop making stuff up and posting it.

Actually there's truth to what madverts' implying-- check out the actual Blair transcripts for the Chilcot Inquiry and the ex-PM himself have hinted that the Iraq was planned one year ahead-- whilst Blixx was still in Iraq searching for wmds

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Klein2,

I knew there was no need to go to war after talking to an Intel guy on the ship I was on in the gulf. He told me the Iraqi generals were sabotaging their own communications because they knew Saddam was going to be ousted and they wanted to keep their jobs so they didn't want to upset the U.S.

What got me even hotter was 48 hours out from the first attack (which took place from my ship), Saddam agreed to leave Iraq with his sons and we attacked anyway.

But what officially made me furious was when rumsfeld said there were WMDs littered all over the place by Tikrit. It was so obviously a lie and it was equally obvious rumsfeld didn't care.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, I read your last post to Madverts three times. It moved me. I'm not kidding.

I wish I could see things your way but I can't. When you work at an Army hospital, your perspective on war and what is necessary and what isn't necessary for our troops to endure changes.

I've seen too many kids (and I do mean children) trying to piece their lives together after going somewhere they aren't wanted to do a job few care about.

Perhaps if I lived in Iraq and saw the suffering there, I would feel differently as it stands now, I just want them home as of yesterday.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... used the events of 9/11 for shameless political gain

sarge - "He did not. Stop making stuff up and posting it."

You may not appreciate the truth but I'm making nothing up. Any adult that lived through the intense build up to the ariel bombardment of Iraq

Even former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says Bush the Administration pushed to raise terror alert for re-election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"SuperLib, I read your last post to Madverts three times. It moved me. I'm not kidding."

Yeah he makes his case well although I fail to be convinced. I guess he's more or less the only credible voice that remains on JT from that era.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry sarge, You may not appreciate the truth but I'm making nothing up. Any adult that lived through the intense build up to the ariel bombardment of Iraq saw fine well how Bush Co's propaganda machine used 9/11 for shameless political gain.

Anybody remember that speech where he used the word "terra" over and over again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313,

Since you are (or were) in the military, you might want to look up what Dr. Alan Sabrosky says about what the military brass know about 9/11. Sabrosky was director of studies at the US Army War College. Check it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with SuperLib. I thought it was all a bunch of lies to justify what should have been done long ago. I didn't want Middle Eastern countries see Saddam get away with what he got away with for so long and have the future set up to be do anything and the UN will prove powerless to stop you. I was for the invasion based on this belief. I thought the Bush idiots would cut their own throats with the lies they fed us. I wish they would have just come clean and said enough is enough from Iraq, it's time to take over. Just the bravado that Hussein was showing others that might want to try it and also put some fear into Iran, just showed Iran anyway that you can get away with it for so long and I think that's what they are trying to do now. Well that is just my thoughts on it. But in short yes I think there was no link as well. It was all just misinformation to justify what they'd been wanting to do all along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, I was on JT at that time, I remember the controversy. A lot of good information came out and people chose up sides.

I am too old to be surprised that people lie. What is bitterly disappointing is that it must have been, as Mist and others have said, a cadre of people way way up the chain who put all of this together and made the lies plausible enough that I and others fell for them. The people I believed either lied to me, or they were taken in too. Fox viewers are the hypnotized who never lie these days, maybe.

It implies, of course, that not only do the most legitimate governments manipulate public opinion using the media, but they also just hijack the whole political process for whatever end they happen to favor.

That election in 2000 was so close because nobody thought it was that important. It turned out to make all the difference in the world. Quite a bit of history there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But what officially made me furious was when rumsfeld said there were WMDs littered all over the place by Tikrit. It was so obviously a lie and it was equally obvious rumsfeld didn't care.

At the time many Americans didn't care as well.... till Iraq becomes an obvious basketcase, and the war became too burdensome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought it was all a bunch of lies to justify what should have been done long ago.

Destroying America because of Bush, or Britain because of Blair, would have been equally justified, if not more.

Plus, considering that they resorted to spreading a pack of lies to invade Iraq; what makes you so sure that all the nasty things you heard about Saddam are true. What if Saddam was a sweet guy that really cared about his country; sounds silly, but what do we really know about him that we can be absolutely certain about. The liars did not start lying after 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi represents exactly what the problem is. When you can't get things done by legitimate means, what does legitimacy mean?

If I have to go through the rest of my life asking Cleo or MistWizard if someone is lying or not, I may as well just let them vote for me too. It really ticks me off that reason and process got chucked out the window and nobody ever got "caught" for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When you can't get things done by legitimate means....

...maybe that's a hint that you shouldn't be doing it at all.

The fact that I can't get the bank teller to give me a sonking big bag of money by legitimate means (using my bank book and a genuine signature or chop) doesn't mean I'm justified in hitting the teller over the head with a big stick, shooting the rest of the bank staff, trashing the bank building and making off with the contents of the vault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surely doing that you're in reality liberating that poor cash from those evil-doers at the bank, Cleo?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but what do we really know about him that we can be absolutely certain about.

That he invaded a neighboring country that is also a major oil exporter and a member of the United Nations of which came to it's rescue to liberate it. And that after that liberation he remained in power to flaunt his bravado at the UN. And it took a bunch of lies and not the UN to ensure he wasn't a danger anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, it wasn't like that. Saddam intentionally hid has WMD capabilities. Anyone who says they knew he had no WMDs before the war is lying to an extent worse than Bush.

The war mostly exposed the West as selfish. You had one side making up a bunch of bullshit hoping to convince the other side who really didn't give a crap about genocide as long as it didn't affect them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You had one side making up a bunch of bullshit hoping to convince the other side who really didn't give a crap about genocide as long as it didn't affect them.

And you have who to back this one up? CHALABI?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That he invaded a neighboring country that is also a major oil exporter and a member of the United Nations of which came to it's rescue to liberate it. And that after that liberation he remained in power to flaunt his bravado at the UN. And it took a bunch of lies and not the UN to ensure he wasn't a danger anymore.

Again, what's 9/11 got to do with IRAQ?! It seems that's what the Chilcott Inquiry is trying to answer.... not the merits of removing Saddam Hussein.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jru it was a response to sabiwabi. I already stated what I believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jru it was a response to sabiwabi. I already stated what I believe.

The most emphatic defense so far over the legality of the 2003 Iraq War was the argument that the country-- under Saddam Hussein-- did violate the resolution imposed way back during the first Gulf War.

It's rather vagrant to argue that the US invaded a country because Saddam Hussein was using the UN to 'flaunt his bravado' and because someone has to liberate the Iraqi people.

Back to the main question of the war's legality-- which I'm sure the Chilcot Inquiry is aiming to answer-- would they now admit, at least, that the process of gathering intelligence reports to support the so-called violation of UN resolutions, by Saddam, was unassailable after all?!

As for sabiwabi, I'm afraid reducing Chilcot into a pissing-contest between two opposing idiot camps is quite outlandish. In that case, then the people of Britain will never know the extent of the ineptitude of the British intelligence services =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saddam intentionally hid has WMD capabilities.

Yes, he hid them so well they still haven't found them.

You had one side making up a bunch of bullshit hoping to convince the other side who really didn't give a crap about genocide

So when I get yet another email from the widow of a Nigerian multi-millionaire who wants me to help her get his money out of her country and into mine so that she can build a Christian orphanage, and I delete it yet again, is it because I'm a heathen who doesn't give a crap about the poor orphans? Or is it just that the stench of the bovine excrement is a little overwhelming, and convincing in a way the widow doesn't intend?

Saddam was surrounded by foreign armies, he had foreign planes flying with impunity over his territory and taking pot-shots at sheep and shepherd boys on hillsides, he had weapons inspectors crawling all over his facilities. He was contained, and there was no need to drop bombs to stop any on-going genocide. If past performance still wrankled, the appropriate step would have been to take him to the Hague and try him for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, not wage shock and awe on a country where 50% of the population were children.

as long as it didn't affect them

Like the bright young things in American universities who were all in favour of sending troops to war - so long as they weren't expected to go?

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/07/23/what-young-republicans-think-about-the-iraq-war/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jraustralia: And you have who to back this one up?

Sorry, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Sadly of all the charges of genocide against the ex-dictator, only the murder of 140 Shi'ites in Dujail was found to be unassailable... and the Iraqi Tribunal that handled the trial also assigned Saddam's hanging to executioners yelling "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"! A direct reference of course to the anti-American cleric which I'm sure you're well aware of =/

On chemical and biological weapons supposedly stockpiled by Saddam, here's what the Chilcot Inquiry has to say:

“We were getting in the very final days before military action some [intelligence] on chemical and biological weapons that it was dismantled and [Iraq] might not have the munitions to deliver it.”

This was an Iraq that sanctions reduced into a deadly submission... and the fact is that the United Kingdom and her allies had to rely on “patchy”, “poor” and “limited" reports from Iraqi swindlers and defectors so that they can all go to war!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If past performance still wrankled, the appropriate step would have been to take him to the Hague and try him for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, not wage shock and awe on a country where 50% of the population were children.

You forgot about the part were they also yelled 'Muqtada' at the poor guy /sigh

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If 'flaunting his bravado' (?) was justification for war, why haven't North Korea, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia and a dozen other countries with 'uppity' leaders not been invaded yet and their people 'liberated'? If invading neighbouring countries and upsetting the oil supply is good reason for going to war, when is Russia going to be invaded to avenge Georgia and Chechnya, and for threatening gas supplies to Europe through its spats with Ukraine?

Not a single one of the arguments put forward to justify the invasion of Iraq holds any water.

Not that I'd call Saddam a 'poor guy'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: Anyone who says they knew he had no WMDs before the war is lying to an extent worse than Bush.

It would be less of a lie and more of a logic fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. You are confusing the shorthand for the actual statement, and the actual statement is: At the time I reasonably sure Iraq possessed no viable WMD or method to produce them quickly and in enough quantity to be useful in any way. Reasonably sure I say, just as I am reasonably sure of the same with Venezuela. But, oh dear! Now I have done it! I have suggested Venezuela has WMD! Now that I have said it, it has life, and irrational minds could take that anywhere, just like they took it to war with Iraq.

I am telling you, you will never solve the question of "Does Venezuela NOT possess WMD?" Never ever. Its impossible. You have to live with reasonable doubt and that is the way of the world or else the way of the world is pre-emptive strike everything that moves. I strongly suggest living with reasonable doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If invading neighbouring countries and upsetting the oil supply is good reason for going to war, when is Russia going to be invaded to avenge Georgia and Chechnya

Not gonna happen, remember the time when Lord Mandelson represented UK's energy sector in Russia like a junior officer from US State Dep't.... good grip how could you forget. He was even snapped on a superyacht owned by Russia's aluminum king.... imagine if the Prez or Mrs Clinton extent the same courtesy to BP's Tony Hayward....

Invade Russia over Ukraine or Georgia... yeah right?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*imagine if the Prez or Mrs Clinton extended* the same courtesy to BP's Tony Hayward

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anyone who says they knew he had no WMDs before the war is lying to an extent worse than Bush."

Sorry Super, that's proposterous.

Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors declared there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq, despite the un-fettered access Saddam ultimately gave them as he threw in his hand of poker due to the troops massing around his borders and in the skies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Not a single one of the arguments put foward to justify the invasion ( liberation ) of Iraq holds any water."

How about Saddam Hussein waged an 8-year war with Iran, gassed his own people, and invaded Kuwait?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jraustralia: and the fact is that the United Kingdom and her allies had to rely on “patchy”, “poor” and “limited" reports from Iraqi swindlers and defectors so that they can all go to war!

and

MistWizard: You cannot prove a negative. You have to live with reasonable doubt and that is the way of the world or else the way of the world is pre-emptive strike everything that moves.

Saddam had verified amounts of WMDs after the invasion of Kuwait. He was required to destroy all of his supplies and dismantle his WMD program, something that required verification. Saddam intentionally made verification impossible because of Iran. He wanted to do just enough to get the UN off his back but refused to be completely transparent about his capabilities because it would be showing Iran his hand.

But while I'm saying that I realize that I'm talking to people who knew about Saddam using mustard gas on innocent women and children and didn't feel like that was enough justification to remove him from power. In the end it feels a bit silly spending the time to talk about verification. I mean if you're willing to go along with genocide it's kind of pointless to talk about UN verification of WMDs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: If 'flaunting his bravado' (?) was justification for war, why haven't North Korea, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia and a dozen other countries with 'uppity' leaders not been invaded yet and their people 'liberated'?

If they were leaders of an area in Europe, for example, I dunno, the region formerly known as Yugoslavia, then you'd see war without UN approval in a second. Oh wait, that actually happened. When does that inquiry begin?

Why? It was a threat to us Western folk. Suddenly "genocide" means something when it's close to us. Far away? Eh, live and let live. No threat to me. None of my business. Who are we to get involved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anyone who says they knew he had no WMD before the war is lying"

"Sorry Super, that's ( preposterous ).

Exactly, exactly! It was obvious Saddam had no WMD. After all, that's what he was telling everybody! Plus the hapless Hans Blix Brigade couldn't find any!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about Saddam Hussein waged an 8-year war with Iran, gassed his own people, and invaded Kuwait?

Look at what you wrote, Sarge. waged. gassed. invaded. All past tense. Well in the past. No need for urgent action to get him to stop. He'd lost the Kuwait war a decade earlier, had US planes controlling his skies. As I said before, by all means take him to the Hague and get him to answer charges there for all the bad things he did. But no need to drop bombs on kids and sheep.

If they were leaders of an area in Europe, for example, I dunno, the region formerly known as Yugoslavia, then you'd see war without UN approval in a second.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit about the uppity leaders flaunting their bravado in Yugoslavia and having their country bombed back to the Stone Age on account of wars that had ended years before. I did catch the bit about the uppity leaders (some of them anyway) ending up in the Hague. Apples and oranges, Lib?

Suddenly "genocide" means something when it's close to us. Far away? Eh, live and let live. No threat to me. None of my business. Who are we to get involved.

When it's ongoing - quite a different matter to something that happened years before we decide to 'get' the bloke we don't like.

And it cannot be said often enough; the people who were most keen for 'us' to get involved all had asthma, or flat feet, or undisclosed medical problems that kept them out of the military, or simply had 'better things to do'.

Excuse me, I gotta go build me a Christian orphanage to show that I care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But while I'm saying that I realize that I'm talking to people who knew about Saddam using mustard gas on innocent women and children and didn't feel like that was enough justification to remove him from power.

Saddam was hanged-- for Dujail!

No WMDs were found, and they're still looking... Even some prominent officials (of the Blair Gov't) are remarking now that intelligence sources used were misleading and choppy.

And for your information SUPERLIB, what your saying are not justifications, they are excuses-- so the people who approved of the war-- in the UK-- based on faulty sources, would never be seen behind bars! (And they won't)

Unfortunately, Chilcot is "an establishment stitch-up" as David Cameron himself said of this tribunal... if you're looking to be exonerated for supporting (or opposing) IRAQ this is not it :(

And it cannot be said often enough; the people who were most keen for 'us' to get involved all had asthma, or flat feet, or undisclosed medical problems that kept them out of the military, or simply had 'better things to do'.

Yeah, why is that?! LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: waged. gassed. invaded. All past tense

Gross.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jraustralia: No WMDs were found, and they're still looking... Even some prominent officials (of the Blair Gov't) are remarking now that intelligence sources used were misleading and choppy.

Verification took place only after the invasion. The original point was that anyone who knew Saddam had no WMDs before that is just making stuff up.

But like I said, I'm obviously talking to someone who is more than willing to look past a war crimes legend and instead focus the UK's flawed intelligence in other areas. Genocide? Yawn... Rape? Yawn.... Murder? Yawn..... UK doctored evidence about delivering WMDs? OH MY GOD WE HAVE GOT TO STAND UP AND STOP THIS INVASION NOW! IT'S COMPLETELY BASED ON FALSE EVIDENCE!

It just seems so silly to me. Perhaps for your next project you can reopen the Al Capone tax evasion case. Maybe there are some irregularities. I'd hate to think that an innocent man was convicted for something he didn't do. Besides all the murders and stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at what you wrote, Sarge. waged. gassed. invaded. All past tense. Well in the past. No need for urgent action to get him to stop. He'd lost the Kuwait war a decade earlier, had US planes controlling his skies. As I said before, by all means take him to the Hague and get him to answer charges there for all the bad things he did. But no need to drop bombs on kids and sheep.

Is that like "by all means use legal action and don't throw glass containers containing acid at people."? I thought that's what war was all about? Using force to make things happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

O.K. Yes, to everything except thine own existance, there is doubt, we get it.

However, at the time, I would have waged a paycheck against it. Did I know for sure? Of course not. Never set foot on Iraqi dirt. I couldn't. But before the invasion, I would have bet you a paycheck on two things: 1) They weren't going to find any WMD's. 2) We were going to invade Iraq no matter what.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo: "by all means take him ( Saddam ) to the Hague"

Do ya think if they'd just asked him nicely he woulda gone? LOL.

If Cleo & Taka313 had their way, most likely Saddam or one of his winsome sons would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super, do you want to resolve this or not? I am thinking not since you drag all this silly extraneous crap in.

Saddam had verified amounts of WMDs after the invasion of Kuwait.

Yes, and that was 1990. What we are talking about here is 2003. But if you want to talk 1990, it was us of the allied countries who gave him the WMD and the tech! And it was after booting him from Kuwait that we demanded he get rid of it all, and the experts say he did (at least for the most part its quite enough). So your taking it back to 1990 is pure unadulterated manure.

He wanted to do just enough to get the UN off his back but refused to be completely transparent about his capabilities because it would be showing Iran his hand.

He was in a bind, yeah, some people took that into account, and why not? Its not like anyone prevented Kuwait getting invaded is it? Kuwait was on its own and so was Iraq. If they got blindsided by Iran, think of the damage, not the post-event U.N. clean up effort that would NOT raise the dead.

But while I'm saying that I realize that I'm talking to people who knew about Saddam using mustard gas on innocent women and children and didn't feel like that was enough justification to remove him from power.

Your memory is as short as you are totally dishonest. Now you are going back to 1988 and we have been through this on this forum. At the time of the attacks the U.S. was denying them. You KNOW this or should remember. If you want to go on a regime change mission you can't sit on your hands for 15 years after the cassus belli has passed and call that legit. And that is why were told clearly that the mission was not about regime change! Remember?

In the end it feels a bit silly spending the time to talk about verification. I mean if you're willing to go along with genocide it's kind of pointless to talk about UN verification of WMDs.

It was the U.S. gov that went along with genocide AS IT WAS OCCURRING. You cannot save one life 15 years after the event. It was over and done with by that time and no indication that it would happen again, particulary after over a decade of brutal sanctions. So the solution is NOT getting more people killed in an invasion. You drag him to the ICJ.

So what bullcrap are you going to bring up next huh? The yellowcake that was left sealed in Iraq by the IAEA that Saddam never touched all those years? Yeah, I can see you characterizing that as "But Saddam had tons of yellowcake! He was not allowed to have that!" Face it, you just wanted war and you will say anything for CYA to your violent tendencies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: Verification took place only after the invasion. The original point was that anyone who knew Saddam had no WMDs before that is just making stuff up.

No dude. Stating there were no WMDs was simple shorthand to express the extreme unliklihood that he had significant amounts of viable WMDs or ability to quickly produce them. You are STILL hung up on a logical fallacy that no one intended.

Watching TV in my Dad's shop with customers present, we saw U.S. military running around the desert with gas masks. I said something like "They sure are putting up a good show running around with those gas masks they don't need." Everyone looked at me like I was crazy. Damned hillbillies will believe anything so long as its hammered into them by enough people.

By the way everyone, WMD was found in Iraq, in short range artillery shells and so degraded as to be useless. Saddam did not even try to use them against us. He probably forgot they were even there. For this, Super justifies the deaths of how many thousands? Hard to say if he just wants to be Devil's advocate or if he really is that bloodthirsty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors declared there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq, despite the un-fettered access Saddam ultimately gave them as he threw in his hand of poker due to the troops massing around his borders and in the skies.

Hans Blix said that he thought Iraq still possessed WMDs at the start of the invasion. Saddam offered access....as he did many times before....then would yank it away or fail to cooperate. Blix said that with full cooperation it would take a matter of months to complete the verification. What Iraq did was offer yet another promise of cooperation....something it had littered the UN with for over 12 years to that point. There's more precedent to say that he was simply playing the same game rather than suddenly changing his ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mist, this isn't about 1990. That's just the time when Saddam was required to dismantle and show verification. That's to say that was the beginning of all of this.

"In February 1998 , UNSCOM unanimously determined that after seven years of attempts to establish the extent of Iraq’s chemical weapons programs, that Iraq had still not given the Commission sufficient information for them to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required by the UNSC resolutions concerning chemical weapons"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Fast forward to 2003, after 4 years of no inspections: "Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."[71] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for."

Saddam tried to pay cat and mouse. He'd take them to sites where it was obvious chemical weapons had been destroyed, but he refused to show proof of the amounts. It was always one step forward, one step back. Cooperate to get some breathing room, then stop cooperating.

You don't have to choose to believe Bush/Blair or believe Saddam. The fact is that I've pretty much laughed at everything Bush has said about Saddam, terrorism, WMDs, etc. The evidence was manipulated. But that doesn't mean I believed Saddam or that he fully complied as was his responsibility. Blix was in a similar position where he thought the US and the UK were being too selective/aggressive with their claims but he'd also say that Iraq was in fact not fully complying.

I'll ignore your statements about the US and Iraq in the 80s because they're better suited in an argument with someone who actually supported those actions. You're talking with me, not the 1980s US government. I put you in the same boat as them since you obviously had no problems at all letting Saddam stay in power and get away with his war crimes. You can't fight to keep Saddam in power while at the same time criticizing others who helped him stay in power decades before. You guys are the same to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Cleo & Taka313 had their way, most likely Saddam or one of his winsome sons would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces.

And instead we have the much more favourable situation of all the luxurious palaces being looted and trashed, together with museums full of priceless antiquities; close on 5,000 dead coalition soldiers and uncountable numbers of dead and orphaned Iraquis, not to mention the number of birth defects caused by DU; violence and back-stabbing between different Iraqi factions; no credible government in place; a secular constitution replaced by an Islamic one; and an IED on every street corner.

Please explain how that is better than leaving one more crackpot dictator in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, sure.....if we just ignore all of the rape and killing that a crackpot dictator and his sons could do over an 8 year period (and quite possibly a lot longer), then the answer is obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many years has it been since saddam was killed SuperLib?

Throwing our military into meat grinders is not a catch-all solution. It's become a huge problem in and of itself.

At what point is your cure worse than the disease?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: Well, sure.....if we just ignore all of the rape and killing

That is PRECISELY what was done when he was our ALLY. And I do mean PRECISELY, Super.

You need to wrap your head around the fact that leaving him in power is NOT equivalent to "ignoring him". There are more options than ignore and go in with guns blazing. I know conservatives have trouble seeing anything between those two options, so I will give you a third: Reasonable sanctions and international condemnation.

How many women do you reckon Saddam and sons can rape in a lifetime anyway? How many do you figure have been raped since the invasion? I know of one, a teen, raped and murdered by U.S. troops. Please don't tell me you think she was the only one!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, sure.....if we just ignore all of the rape and killing that a crackpot dictator and his sons could do...

But we do ignore it. I don't see coalition troops 'liberating' Zimbabwe, South Africa, Congo, Sudan where rape and killing are rampant. When Kim was letting North Koreans starve to death by the truckload, the country wasn't 'liberated'.

then the answer is obvious.

Only if you're numerically challenged. Shock and awe killed and maimed - and is still killing and maiming - many, many more Iraqis than ever saw the inside of Saddam's legendary rape rooms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo - You conveniently don't acknowledge any of the good that's come with the liberation of Iraq; a freely elected government that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors ( this Islamic government is better than the secular one).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge said: Cleo - You conveniently don't acknowledge any of the good that's come with the liberation of Iraq; a freely elected government that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors

That is pretty funny seeing as the primary value of Iraq to the U.S. was, not so long ago, to attack her neighbor Iran with chemical weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But like I said, I'm obviously talking to someone who is more than willing to look past a war crimes legend and instead focus the UK's flawed intelligence in other areas. Genocide? Yawn... Rape? Yawn.... Murder? Yawn..... UK doctored evidence about delivering WMDs? OH MY GOD WE HAVE GOT TO STAND UP AND STOP THIS INVASION NOW! IT'S COMPLETELY BASED ON FALSE EVIDENCE!

The unfortunate part though is that you're still insisting a particular point of view as if Chilcott is a tug-of-war between those who opposed and those who supported the war...

It isn't a tug-of-war. Chilcot is "an establishment stitch-up" as David Cameron himself said of this tribunal... if you're looking to be exonerated for supporting (or opposing) IRAQ this is not it.

People need to wrap their heads around the fact that no matter how high you piss with your dispute-- no particular camp will ever win :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But we do ignore it. I don't see coalition troops 'liberating' Zimbabwe, South Africa, Congo, Sudan where rape and killing are rampant. When Kim was letting North Koreans starve to death by the truckload, the country wasn't 'liberated'."

And this, my friends, is where the humanitarian argument implodes under it's own weight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And this, my friends, is where the humanitarian argument implodes under its own weight"

And if Madverts had his way ( no liberation of Iraq ), Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would STILL be running Iraq into the ground whilst plotting to obtain WMD from his many luxurious palaces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And if Madverts had his way ( no liberation of Iraq ), Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would STILL be running Iraq into the ground

It's like a scratched old 78.

So when are you going to liberate Zimbabwe, North Korea and Sudan, Sarge? And if not, why not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It's like a scratched old 78"

Yeah, it's a classic.

"So when are you going to liberate Zimbabwe, North Krea and Sudan"

When are YOU going to liberate them, Cleo? And if not, why not?

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Convince me first that people want to be liberated by being bombed to oblivion. And that they're happy to live with the prospect, if they do survive, of producing children with horrendous birth defects. And that it's worth throwing away thousands of young soldiers' lives to remove a government so that opposing factions can start killing each other and anyone else that gets in the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And if Madverts had his way ( no liberation of Iraq ), Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would STILL be running Iraq into the ground"

And 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi's would not have been blown to pieces/tortured/shot to death.

"whilst plotting to obtain WMD"

Please don't make things up and pass them off as fact. It only makes your debating skills seem childish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Convince me first that people want to be liberated by being bombed to oblivion. "

That's right. George W Bush ordered the bombing of Baghdad, a city of 5 million people, to "liberate" them. They reckon "Shock and Awe" did in 10,000 Iraqis right off.

Humanitarian my ass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"100,000 to 1,000,000 ( Iraqis ) would not have been blown to pieces/tortured/shot to death"

Which is it, Madverts, is it 100,000 or is it 1,000,000?

"Please don't make things up and pass them off as fact"

There aren't too many people who don't believe that Saddam & Co, if left alone, would have been plotting to re-obtain WMD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge said: Which is it, Madverts, is it 100,000 or is it 1,000,000?

The U.S. military does not do body counts. That means we only have estimates Sarge. Estimates often come with a range. Could you at least pretend you gradated jr. high?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: That is PRECISELY what was done when he was our ALLY. And I do mean PRECISELY, Super.

What on earth does that have to do with our conversation? I personally wanted Saddam removed in 2003. You personally did not want him removed in 2003. Bringing up what a government did 25+ years ago is irrelevant to a discussion between 2 people and what they personally feel. I am not lobbying for support of the US government's decisions in the 1980s. Until you understand that your references will continue to be horribly off-topic. You're just looking for a way to talk around the fact that you were fine letting a genocidal leader stay in power. I won't let you forget that no matter how much you bring up the 80s.

cleo: But we do ignore it. I don't see coalition troops 'liberating' Zimbabwe, South Africa, Congo, Sudan where rape and killing are rampant. When Kim was letting North Koreans starve to death by the truckload, the country wasn't 'liberated'.

We shouldn't ignore it. I don't know what your argument is in the end.....since we can't remove all dictators by force we should remove none of them? And don't you see what happens over time when a "crackpot dictator" is ignored, which I believe is your policy of choice? Over a long enough time line they become an exponential threat. Look at North Korea. If you want to see how a policy of containment can fail, I can't think of a better example.

Taka: At what point is your cure worse than the disease?

Tell me what the disease is. And be honest. Don't bring up the "0 dead without an invasion" vs. "X dead with an invasion" bogus comparison.

People often point to sectarian violence, but I personally feel it would have been much worse had coalition troops not been there to help keep the two sides apart and mediate. If you think that eventually Saddam would have fallen at the hands of Iraqis then you probably have to agree that a civil war would have soon followed. A real one, not the "7 shot dead last week" headlines we used to see. I'm talking about a bloodbath, one that could easily have involved Iran going into Iraq and Turkey going into Iraq as well. At this point I can only guess that your solution to this would be a perpetual dictatorship? Is that your cure?

Imagine that Saddam is in power today. And imagine Iran is still Iran next door. After getting the UN off his back do you honestly think Saddam would have continued to play nice and not attempt to restart his WMD programs? His fear of Iran was what eventually put him at the end of a rope. I don't think it's logical to assume that even if Saddam had eventually complied with the UN that he would have continued to comply after the UN removed oversight and pressure. You'd have to argue that Saddam would willfully continue his fight against Iran with one or both hands tied behind his back. My guess is that we'd see a nuclear arms race right now between Iran and Iraq. How's that for a disease?

I really don't see a cure for any of these things, including the killing and raping done by Saddam on a daily basis, in any of your posts. You're talking about a perpetual disease. And you're measuring it by 2003 standards, not thinking about 10 or 20 years in the future. You're not thinking of what the disease would or could be. Look at Iran and their nuclear program. Look at North Korea and the policy of containment. Imagine the Shiites eventually overthrowing Saddam and the number of bodies that would have produced.

Over a long enough time line, yeah, I think the cure was better than the disease. You're going to have generations of children born in Iraq with a democratic government. We're not just talking about ending Saddam's killings and invasions, we're talking about everything like raising the standard of living, education, healthcare, life expectancy, decreasing infant mortality, etc....all done over decades or even a century. Iraq had a mountain to climb, and putting it off perpetually wasn't a solution. It was just a way for the West to not get involved because they were far away and had a different culture from our own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: And 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi's would not have been blown to pieces/tortured/shot to death.

And 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqs had already been blown up under Saddam....

"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[8] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war vary from 500,000[9] to 1.5 million.[10] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

You want to talk about 100,000 dying to bring democracy to Iraq? How about 100,000 Kurds vanishing into thin air during Saddam's rule. What did they die for? So we could call ourselves humanitarian?

With or without the invasion killing was going to happen. Period. You can choose to have those people die for something or die for nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And comparing your own bodycount to that of a genocidal dictator does as little as ever for your humanitarianism......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

The disease is all that's wrong with Iraq. The kit and kaboodle.

The cure, apparently, is the U.S. military. It is not the mission of the U.S. military to build nations nor are they even a bit skilled at it.

It's had an unquestionable negative impact on our military readiness and it's destroyed countless of families who signed on to defend their nation, not build another.

Perhaps I'm callous for not wanting to do more for the Iraqis but if that's true then you are equally callous in your opinion of our military.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're going to have generations of children born in Iraq with a democratic government.

Not to mention generations of children born with multiple heads, missing limbs, extra limbs, extra digits, fused digits, congenital cardiac problems, deformed faces, brain damage.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8548961.stm

http://www.upi.com/Daily-Briefing/2010/03/04/Iraq-birth-defects/UPI-80511267712248/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-6266684-503543.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mod-asked-red-cross-to-look-into-iraq-birth-defects-1964491.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnDw1ReVhw&feature=related

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yep, Depleted Uranium, the gift that keeps on giving, and giving, and...

But it is all worth it in the end, eh? (absurd Use of SArcasm)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think Saddam's rule, then the rule most likely followed by his sons, plus the probable civil war if they ever were to fall would have been exponentially greater than the damage done by removing Saddam from power. You seem to be one of the "no invasion no blood" people who don't realize that you really have no position if you're unwilling to look at the consequences of your position.

Madverts: And comparing your own bodycount to that of a genocidal dictator does as little as ever for your humanitarianism......

I was comparing the body count of my choice to your choice. You can't pin the blood of the invasion on the people who supported it then walk away from all the blood that would have happened by following your position. There is no "don't invade and no one dies" option, although the anti-war crowd sure seems to think there is.

Taka....I understand what you're saying. In all reality what I wanted to see was a coordinate world effort to remove men like Saddam from power. Unfortunately, I just don't think that is going to happen.

What I can settle for is a realistic debate about the choices, one where the positives and negatives on both sides are explored. I think the majority of the people were against the war and the reporting was done with that in mind. The fact that Saddam's past crimes and probably future crimes is largely left off the table just doesn't seem fair to me when making a comparison. The actual article is about the evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam. It seems silly that we're debating about that. There is a much deeper flaw in the system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The actual article is about the evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam. It seems silly that we're debating about that. There is a much deeper flaw in the system.

I would have thought that the purpose of the UK Inquiry is to investigate the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein... which, as you know, had been the official reply before and during the invasion....

It seems quirky that someone would want us to stray from the aim of the Inquiry. More devious though is the fact that for some odd reason you seem too eager for this thread to be hijacked by sectarian schism now plaguing Iraq. You, in my personal opinion, don't seem to care much that Saddam was found guilty of war crimes, rather that the world's appetite to stay in Iraq had been weakened.

It's the truth... But next year US troops will have to go home somehow =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People need to wrap their heads around the fact that no matter how high you pisses with your dispute-- no particular camp will ever win :(

And US troops will have to leave Iraq by 2011-- and Iraqis need to be well-prepared for the handover!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super,

My position has always been it wasn't your choice to make, so I fail to see how there can be a bodycount of my choice, when the issue was forced upon us by the people who ordered the invasion. People who let's not forget and as per the topic, lied their asses off to start this conflict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A new book about the murder of four Iraqis by Stephen Green and his GI buddies is coming out. Of course not published in the USA. The rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and the murder of three more members of the family, one a 6 year old child, is the perfect illustration of the horror of the bush invasion of Iraq. It was all based on lies and resulted in the rape and murder of Iraq. It is a tragic failure that helped the enemies of the USA and England.

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/45-45/2508-the-blackest-hearts-war-crimes-in-iraq

The liberals on this board knew this before, during and immediately after the tragedy. Only the sops of the right wing cheered on shock and awe and repeated that WMD in Iraq would be found eventually. All lies. Those that now attempt to justify these war crimes are sadly disconnected with reality and their own humanity.

Americans who learn the truth about this faked invasion must see as well that never should the party that lead this massacre that resulted in so much death and destruction be given power again. If they get it they will do this same thing over again and murder more hundreds of thousands and run up trillions of dollars more in debt for the country. Again, probably for the oil companies that own the republican party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc I think that in the end your point will show that the media will devote more coverage to the rape and murder of one family by US soldiers than all the coverage of the rape and murder of Saddam combined. If Saddam's atrocities had received 1/10th of the same coverage he would have been removed in about 10 minutes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those that now attempt to justify these war crimes are sadly disconnected with reality and their own humanity.

The truth is that they loved every minute of it. Everyone's error is in thinking their justifications are remotely sincere. People like you and me seek to surpress the barbarism that lies in the heart of every human. People like them seek sneaky ways to enjoy their barbarism and get a little thrill out of every bombing and every civilian death, but glad they can do it from the security of a far away country. Of course a few of them actually have the courage to go enjoy the carnage up close. They know it has to wind down eventually or they will get caught.

The shame of us anti-war people is that we give the pro-war side the benefit of the doubt and actually believe they have any humanitarianism. They love this stuff, and they can't wait for the next war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well a country and its leadership has to act on what information is available. Maybe they did not investigate enough but they acted in good faith. I really have to stick up with America on this one. Being a Monday morning quarterback is not being helpful. It could tie a futures Presidents hand and they he/she could only act after the mushroom cloud And maybe not even then. We will never be 100% certain and how many years did it take to discover the "truth".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being a Monday morning quarterback is not being helpful.

Many of us here were not Monday morning quarterbacks at all. Many of us here saw through the lies as we were being lied to and opposed the invasion even as Congress voted to pass its powers and responsibility to King George. It was MONTHS after that that the invasion happened and many more of us realized the lies for what they were.

Well a country and its leadership has to act on what information is available.

And that is not at all what happened! They ignored the information they did not like while blowing other things way out of proportion! Its hard to say if the admininstation fabricated the evidence but some of what they used was fabricated. Given their other dishonesties, it is not hard to believe they fabricated it though. Like I said in my previous post, there are those who just LOVE war. And they have to lie their butts off to get it. We all need to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Look at Bush! The WAR president he called himself! He LOVED it! He imagined himself a Truman, a Lincoln, or a Washington. He is one of those war loving sick people the conservatives seem to especially have a lot of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

What bush did to Iraq in so far beyond the crimes of Saddam. Bush's actions have resulted in a the murder of at least a million Iraqis and the displacement of millions more. Bush is in the major leagues of war criminals, up there with Idi Amin and Stalin. Hussein was a bit player by comparison. And of course the rabid conservative media played up the crimes by Saddam and his family endlessly in the run up to the fake war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurconium - "The liberals on this board knew this before, during and immediately after the tragedy"

And because they knew it, they had a higher responsibility to stop it. They failed. Various administration lies/justifications do not change the fact that those who knew didn't go as far as they needed to in order to stop it from happening, but they dropped the ball.

SuperLib - "In all reality what I wanted to see was a coordinate world effort to remove men like Saddam from power. Unfortunately, I just don't think that is going to happen."

Has anyone ever stopped to think about the probability that some peoples/nations just don't function without a "strongman" in charge? They are simply too chaotic in nature to hold together without one. Democracy? Will never work for some. The 9/11 - Saddam connection was always tenuous at best, but the real issue, as you say, is deeper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It took a man like Saddam to rule a country like Iraq. Removing saddam sure had nothing to do with 9/11. I feel pity for people who believe the official story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they surveyed Iraqi's today, what percentage do you think would say that they are thankful that the US liberated them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc, it's always a pleasure for people like you to come out with some nutjob radical stance, then stand next to others who oppose my point of view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they surveyed Iraqi's today, what percentage do you think would say that they are thankful that the US liberated them?

Ask the same question to the Europeans and I'm guessing the percentage would be lower.

The fact is that there are a lot of mixed emotions about the invasion and that's to be expected. Obviously have to live with US troops on their soil and until the day comes when the US leaves they'll probably have bitter feelings. The stats I usually see paint a complex picture. They'll say that there is anger at the US and then in the next answer they'll say that they don't want the US to leave too soon. They'll say they don't necessarily approve of the invasion but they definitely don't want to go back to life under Saddam. And the answers vary vastly amongst the different ethic groups. Ask the Kurds and I think you won't necessarily like what you find. Ask the Sunnis and I think you'll know what their answer will be.

In all reality it's hard to come across public opinion in Iraq these days. Most of the stats say that things are better now and they're more hopeful about the future. Information like that is usually ignored.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tsurubushi,

there were millions of people protesting the iraqi invasion before it happened. Perhaps you were not alive then. The fact it did happen shows how democracy can be derailed by the criminal few who fool a country.

SuperLib, the truth is just so horrible for you and your kind to face. You can have you own opinion but you cannot have your own facts much as you whine about this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What facts are mine? That Saddam was a verified war criminal? I might be the only one bringing them up but I never really considered them to be exclusive. They've been out there for years....but mostly ignored as we debate just how much Saddam complied with UN resolutions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tsurubushi said: And because they knew it, they had a higher responsibility to stop it. They failed.

What the hell??? You can't just wake up one fine morning and unelect an administration and overturn an act of Congress!!! Its also not easy to change the mind of someone mentally locked into something! Its take YEARS for some people here to realize the wrongheadedness of Iraq and Afghanistan. YEARS! And that despite the moving of goalpost after goalpost! We got no magic bub.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites