We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You support all the motions against Israel? I think the evidence is pretty clear who is supporting these motions, and why they are doing so.

Since the US has vetoing power in the UNSC, any resolution in the UNSC against Israel is scrutinised and deemed acceptable. So I have no idea where you are coming from.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Please tell me how I could define the following statement in a fashion that doesn't indicate that the threat is immediate, and that the American people are threatened. "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." (D. Rumsfeld)
I am curious about what I missed in that statement.


The question is: paid by whom? If these people were paid by the US government, their expertise sure won't weight much against my accusation of a Bushie-orchestrated lie. If the people are paid by the UN (like the Blix mission), they happen not to have concluded on Iraq being an immediate threat.

David Kelly was a British civil servant. Maybe you want to insinuate that the entire British civil service is in Bush's pocket? Is it possible for people to differ with you without being bought by someone? Incidently, Kelly was involved with weapons inspections.

Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security'.

Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Can you point me to a smoking gun?

ANY hard proof WHATSOEVER?

Colin Powell slides showing fictional drawings of things that don't exist don't count.


Thanks.

I can't take you seriously enough to educate you about what the difference between lying and being mistaken might be. Now run along.

Thanks

[Ted Striker]

Still none of those hypothetical reasons have justified an invasion.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
David Kelly was a British civil servant. Maybe you want to insinuate that the entire British civil service is in Bush's pocket? Is it possible for people to differ with you without being bought by someone? Incidently, Kelly was involved with weapons inspections.

And incidentally, Kelly believed the program was small, even though he reckoned it was bigger than what Blix said.

Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security'

And Saddam would have done that, because?
And for that matter, why would Saddam be more threatening to security than its neighbours, considering that Iraq's neighbours are considerably better armed than Iraq?

Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program?

So, the "immediate threat" to the American people now boils down with Saddam buying a cheap popularity for himself by sponsoring the families of terrorists?

Again, it is clear that Saddam was a bad guy. But your argument that he was an immediate threat for the region and for Israel is really unconvincing, considering the sorry state of his military in comparison to SA and Israel.

If the US were going after actual threats, they would have gone After North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (considering it's their only leverage), and which has the ability to wipe out Seoul with conventional weapons. Or the US would have gone after Iran, which has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iraq.

But no, they kept repeating that Iraq was the real one menace (before North Korea even!). I am still trying to figure out how one could honestly think that.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I can't take you seriously enough to educate you about what the difference between lying and being mistaken might be.

Naive statement of the year. They knew exactly what they were doing.

And so do you. You know inside the difference, even if you are not ready to admit it to yourself.

So cut the crap.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
One more time... David Kelly.

We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs.

If David Kelly believed that Saddam had BCN weapons, that didn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that everybody else or even a minority in the intelligence community believed it. You need more than one single datum.

The fact that the CIA had serious doubts with regards to this issue is a good counterpoint.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And incidentally, Kelly believed the program was small, even though he reckoned it was bigger than what Blix said.

Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security'

And Saddam would have done that, because?
And for that matter, why would Saddam be more threatening to security than its neighbours, considering that Iraq's neighbours are considerably better armed than Iraq?

Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program?

So, the "immediate threat" to the American people now boils down with Saddam buying a cheap popularity for himself by sponsoring the families of terrorists?

Again, it is clear that Saddam was a bad guy. But your argument that he was an immediate threat for the region and for Israel is really unconvincing, considering the sorry state of his military in comparison to SA and Israel.

If the US were going after actual threats, they would have gone After North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (considering it's their only leverage), and which has the ability to wipe out Seoul with conventional weapons. Or the US would have gone after Iran, which has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iraq.

But no, they kept repeating that Iraq was the real one menace (before North Korea even!). I am still trying to figure out how one could honestly think that.

You don't go after NK without going to war with the PRC. Iraq was possible, NK is not. Why do people insist on repeating this nonsense?

Saddam started two wars against neighbours, yet you are content to believe that he could never, ever, have gotten up to any mischief, ever again. On which side of the argument do past actions fall?

Sanctions were going to stop at some time, and so were the efforts of the US and British to protect Iraqis in the North and South from Saddam's revenge. It couldn't go on forever.

'Immediate' threat was the pretext. Bush wanted Saddam gone, and whatever else he wanted (like bases or whatnot). 'Immediate' was hyperbole based on what some in intelligence thought at the time. We can argue about 'immediate' and 'pretexts', and 'threats', but you are being disingenuous when you claim on hindsight that mistaken was lying.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If David Kelly believed that Saddam had BCN weapons, that didn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that everybody else or even a minority in the intelligence community believed it. You need more than one single datum.

And being mistaken does not make a lie.

We know more about him than any other, because of the attention he gained due to his unfortunate end. Do you suppose that he was alone, and it was on he and he alone that Blair agreed to go along with Bush?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This is mildly amusing. Israel has been ignoring a bunch of UN resolutions, but rightwingers don't have a problem with that.

None of which were under article 7.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And being mistaken does not make a lie.

We know more about him than any other, because of the attention he gained due to his unfortunate end. Do you suppose that he was alone, and it was on he and he alone that Blair agreed to go along with Bush?

You seem to be making quite a case for that actually.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
None of which were under article 7.

The UNSC is not under article 7?

[Agathon]

Why can't you righties just admit that you got well and truly *****slapped by us lefties over the justification for the war?

The general position of the Apolyton left was that if in the unlikely event Saddam had WMDs, they would be in small amounts and be things like chemical shells, which aren't weapons of mass destruction except in name.

The "proof" before the war consisted of misleading photographs, plagiarized material from the early nineties and various other lies and distortions. Each new "fact" that Bush and Blair came up with was quickly shot down in flames by alert journalists.

You were told by us, on this forum and in great detail, exactly why the case for war was flimsy at best. You can't change the past and pretend that Bush and co were fooled. They deliberately exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein (which was virtually nil as it turned out) and there is plenty of video and print material testifying to their dishonesty.

I see that the current trend is to adopt a usual right wing strategy - try to claim that people didn't mean what they said, or were misinterpreted or were somehow otherwise not culpable. The problem with that is that, although it is a remote possibility given the evidence we have, it involves ignoring the obvious - Bush and company said what they meant and were quite clear about it. One would have to be a conspiracy theorist to say otherwise.

The end result is that you've been thoroughly pwned, and it is only good manners (and Ming) that stops Poly's anti-war brigade from posting ten new gloat threads on how badly you got pwned about almost everything to do with the war.

I can't believe you are still defending Bush. Do you seriously want to shed the last vestiges of credibility you have on this issue? The truth is that you didn't know what you were talking about, got duped by slick politicians, and overlooked the obvious (to a five year old) evidence about the case for the war being a load of crap.

Now you have the temerity to defend torturers and war criminals, which were some of the accusations hurled at Saddam. How low can you go?

Bush and Blair are by any reasonable understanding of the term, war criminals. They knowingly conducted an aggressive war against a defenceless foe that met none of the standard justifications for such a war. Not only is it the case that there were no WMDs or at least none to pose a serious threat, but also that Blair and Bush knew this and lied. To believe otherwise involves a conspiracy theory of immense proportions about how dumb they were.

Bush and co had a long standing hard-on for war with Iraq, and Blair got involved for reasons of political expediency. The good news is that they are young men, and maybe a couple of decades down the track they will pay for their crimes.

[notyoueither]

Alert journalists like who work for the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/23_09_02.txt

CORBIN: The regime of Saddam Hussein is in the firing line and Britain waits to
hear the evidence to be put before Parliament tomorrow. Will it make the case for
confronting a man who has menaced his people and his region for a quarter of a
century? Over nearly two decades Panorama has revealed how Saddam Hussein
caught, stole, smuggled and copied western technology in a bid to develop weapons
of mass destruction.

[Ted Striker]

Well done Agathon.

Deliberately exaggerated is the key phrase