Enquiries about the Iraq war
- Thread starter keeno_uk
- 54 comments
- 1,680 views
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
What I'm saying is not that the nomination process didn't happen that way. I'm saying that the popular vote elected a middling Democratic candidate over a supposedly-unassailable Republcan incumbent.
This proves that the Iraqi situation will most definitely be remembered next November.
This proves that the Iraqi situation will most definitely be remembered next November.
- 4,036
Oh, of course. Allow me to rephrase that: It may not be a lie, just a mistake.
Umm - didn't Bush Sr get rolled on the back of the '91 recession? I thought his losing had nothing to do with the Gulf War. I seem to recall his popularity sliding pretty spectacularly throughout '91 and '92 as the economy struggled.
In Bush jr's case the US economy is probably past its low point and is (gradually) recovering, or at least will be by the time the presidential elections roll around again.
In Bush jr's case the US economy is probably past its low point and is (gradually) recovering, or at least will be by the time the presidential elections roll around again.
- 10,081
- WFG9
"Retracted Report
On Saturday, London's Guardian newspaper published a full retraction of an earlier report that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had said the war with Iraq was about oil. What Wolfowitz said was that because Iraq "floats on a sea of oil," it was less economically vulnerable than North Korea. But the Guardian's correction did not stop the Charleston, W.Va., Gazette from basing an entire editorial on the erroneous quote on Monday. The Gazette corrected itself this morning, but onetime Watergate figure John Dean, who has used the bogus quote to argue that President's Bush's conduct on Iraq was worse than Watergate, has yet to correct himself." http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89105,00.html
Grapevine story was from the 10th, I think.
On Saturday, London's Guardian newspaper published a full retraction of an earlier report that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had said the war with Iraq was about oil. What Wolfowitz said was that because Iraq "floats on a sea of oil," it was less economically vulnerable than North Korea. But the Guardian's correction did not stop the Charleston, W.Va., Gazette from basing an entire editorial on the erroneous quote on Monday. The Gazette corrected itself this morning, but onetime Watergate figure John Dean, who has used the bogus quote to argue that President's Bush's conduct on Iraq was worse than Watergate, has yet to correct himself." http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89105,00.html
Grapevine story was from the 10th, I think.
- 560
Nice one.
- 2,281
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the BBC apologised to the govt for its handling of the Kelly affair and a few management heads rolled.
the enquiry into the war went belly up and scape goats were identified left right and centre and the govt came out smelling like a bed of roses...
everyone is happy....apparently.
i blame Satan...after all he gets blamed for lots of ****...he doesnt care..
the enquiry into the war went belly up and scape goats were identified left right and centre and the govt came out smelling like a bed of roses...
everyone is happy....apparently.
i blame Satan...after all he gets blamed for lots of ****...he doesnt care..
- 1,157
- London
Ha we burned that enquiry document because we know it was a load of bollucks from the begining. It was so obvious that the government wasnt gonna get caught out because Tony Blair appointed that geezer (forgotten his name 
) to do the enquiry.
BTW it is my theory that Dr. David Kelly was assinated by the S.A.S. cause he knew to much (or maybe its my MGS paranioa)
) to do the enquiry.BTW it is my theory that Dr. David Kelly was assinated by the S.A.S. cause he knew to much (or maybe its my MGS paranioa)
- 2,281
suicide i think...the SAS would have made a much neater job of it...
it would have been better if the govt approached him and gave him a false passport to bermuda and faked his death....or maybe, just maybe that what they did..
i still cant believe that the dossier and the enquiry was handled in such a way as to make the govt look like the innocent parties?? that baffles me...
If anything else, I would have seemed to have lost my humanity after this one. But above all else, this is realistically speaking:
I heard/read that quote somewhere but I forget where (I think it was an argument on whether we should sympathize for the emperor's cause in 'Hero').
Anyways, we captured Saddam because we obviously disagree with that quote.
But the same could be said for any other world power. Regardless of "whomever", would killing thousands of people be justified?
Honestly though, why should the US, as an international actor, even care if Saddam kills his own people???
If we were really on a morally righteous path, why didn't we help out in Sudan earlier on, now that peace is coming after leaving 300,000 people dead and 2.4 million people in exile? http://www.sudantribune.com/article...d_article=10358
Honestly, in the international system, why do we give a damn whether we set up a democracy in Iraq? Morally, it's the right thing to do. But morality has nothing to do in the international system. Hell, we only went into Germany after millions of Jews were killed. We only cared for Cuba after the missile crisis and that we lost business' to Cuba after they nationalized them. So why did we go into Iraq in the first place? WMDs? And if we ever did find those WMDs, so what? They couldn't be armed on ICBMs (and Iraq doesn't have the capability to posess and launch an ICBM) so there was no direct threat to the US. If they threatened Israel, let Israel fight their own battle, we arm them anyways.
To say that we went into Iraq to set up a democracy and find WMDs has no value to the US as actors in the international realm. Actually, the only value was to mask the real purpose of the invasion and to feed the publics fear on WMDs in order to get more support for the aquisition of oil.
I just want to hear that the US went into Iraq for oil and not for good samaritan purposes. And that if we were to be prepared for war against North Korea, it would be for the sole purpose of protecting our overseas US commercial interests.
And if you say it wasn't oil, then what was it? WMDs? Setting up a democracy? Capture an criminal committing crimes in his own country? Or establish US bases in the region so it's easier to launch an overwhelming aquisition of oil from the surrounding nations in the region?
Supporters of the war, a war that is still raging on despite official statements, will argue the notion that we wanted to help the people of Iraq & rid Saddam's WMDs.
Setting up a democracy should be an internal issue and be none of our business. If there's a majority in Iraq who have the passion to overthrow the government, they'll do it. If the majority doesn't exist, that means major doo-doo, I mean insurgency, against any foreign presence trying to mark an impression.
Iraq's WMDs posed no direct threat to the US, if any.
I heard/read that quote somewhere but I forget where (I think it was an argument on whether we should sympathize for the emperor's cause in 'Hero').
Anyways, we captured Saddam because we obviously disagree with that quote.
But the same could be said for any other world power. Regardless of "whomever", would killing thousands of people be justified?
Honestly though, why should the US, as an international actor, even care if Saddam kills his own people???
If we were really on a morally righteous path, why didn't we help out in Sudan earlier on, now that peace is coming after leaving 300,000 people dead and 2.4 million people in exile? http://www.sudantribune.com/article...d_article=10358
Honestly, in the international system, why do we give a damn whether we set up a democracy in Iraq? Morally, it's the right thing to do. But morality has nothing to do in the international system. Hell, we only went into Germany after millions of Jews were killed. We only cared for Cuba after the missile crisis and that we lost business' to Cuba after they nationalized them. So why did we go into Iraq in the first place? WMDs? And if we ever did find those WMDs, so what? They couldn't be armed on ICBMs (and Iraq doesn't have the capability to posess and launch an ICBM) so there was no direct threat to the US. If they threatened Israel, let Israel fight their own battle, we arm them anyways.
To say that we went into Iraq to set up a democracy and find WMDs has no value to the US as actors in the international realm. Actually, the only value was to mask the real purpose of the invasion and to feed the publics fear on WMDs in order to get more support for the aquisition of oil.
I just want to hear that the US went into Iraq for oil and not for good samaritan purposes. And that if we were to be prepared for war against North Korea, it would be for the sole purpose of protecting our overseas US commercial interests.
And if you say it wasn't oil, then what was it? WMDs? Setting up a democracy? Capture an criminal committing crimes in his own country? Or establish US bases in the region so it's easier to launch an overwhelming aquisition of oil from the surrounding nations in the region?
Supporters of the war, a war that is still raging on despite official statements, will argue the notion that we wanted to help the people of Iraq & rid Saddam's WMDs.
Setting up a democracy should be an internal issue and be none of our business. If there's a majority in Iraq who have the passion to overthrow the government, they'll do it. If the majority doesn't exist, that means major doo-doo, I mean insurgency, against any foreign presence trying to mark an impression.
Iraq's WMDs posed no direct threat to the US, if any.
- 3,425
Tell the pilots policing the " no fly zone " After saddam lost his war in Kuwait that Iraq was not a threat . Even though he continued to shoot missles at them . Along with the 10 years of crap he pulled ...etc. etc. ...this is pointless He's gone his supporters are pissed and want to get back in power so they can continue to rape and pilliage ...the other crazys want to kill whomever dont aggree with their brand of insanity ..and the beat go's on .
you want to stop the killing ? Surrender to the nuts and let them rule the region . you think you have enough space for the graves when they are done dealing with the place ?
Until you can answer that why bother ?
you want to stop the killing ? Surrender to the nuts and let them rule the region . you think you have enough space for the graves when they are done dealing with the place ?
Until you can answer that why bother ?
