Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
habitual_hab

Just where are those WMDs, George?

Recommended Posts

They were the reason the United States and Britain were in such a hurry to go to war, the threat the rank-and-file troops feared most.

And yet, after weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction – those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States – have still to be identified.

Many influential people – disarmament experts, present and former United Nations arms inspectors, our own Robin Cook – have begun to wonder aloud if the weapons exist at all.

The public surrender of a senior Iraqi scientist could yet backfire against the US and Britain. Lieutenant-General Amer Hammoudi al-Saadi continued to proclaim that Iraq no longer holds any chemical or biological weapons. He should know: the British-educated chemical expert headed the Iraqi delegation at weapons talks with the United Nations.

The few "discoveries" trumpeted in the media – the odd barrel here, a few dozen shells there – have not been on a scale that could reasonably justify the unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country, and in most cases have been proven to been no more than rumour, or propaganda, or a mixture of the two.

If the casus belli pleaded by George Bush and Tony Blair turns out to be entirely hollow what does it say about their motivations for going to war in the first place? How much deception was involved in talking up the Iraqi threat, and how much self-deception?

As Susan Wright, a disarmament expert at the University of Michigan, said last week: "This could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion." Even The Wall Street Journal, one of the administration's biggest cheerleaders, has warned of the "widespread scepticism" the White House can expect if it does not make significant, and undisputed, discoveries of forbidden weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shocker... it was an oil-grab pure & simple, everybody knows it.

It's the reason for the oil-grab that explains it.

The US was heavily dependant on Saudi Arabia for oil, and trouble is many terrorists come from there. The US needed to cut their reliance on Saudi oil so they could apply pressure on them to address their links to terrorism. So US needed another oil source, Iraq was right there... ready for the taking.

So they make up a reason to take over the country, use 9/11 to gain acceptance by US population, then award all oil contracts in Iraq to US companies... most with companies who US administration officials used to work for no less.

Life is good when you can invade a country for strategic & economic gain isn't it?...

Maybe Canada could send it's entire fleet of 2 choppers to take over an abandonned island in the Pacific... work our way up from there.

Baby steps people, baby steps :king:

:can:

[Edited on 27-5-03 by Habs77]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LONDON - The British government, under fire in Parliament yesterday over the reasons for war with Iraq, now faces two separate inquiries into the matter by MPs.

The powerful House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has decided to investigate claims by senior security sources that official intelligence reports were 'sub-edited', 'embellished', 'misrepresented' and 'manipulated' by the government to justify the war.

The committee of MPs will investigate in particular Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement to the House of Commons last September that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 'has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated in 45 minutes'.

Intelligence sources say they had no knowledge of such plans and claim the threat was 'concocted' and 'politically inserted' into the official dossier by government spin-doctors, to gain support for the use of British troops in the invasion of Iraq.

In an attempt to stem the tide of criticism engulfing him, Mr Blair is also authorising an investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstorie...,192927,00.html

The amazing part is the Americans aren't even trying to lie properly. Surely they could find something if they really wanted to, but they almost take enjoyment from implying, "So what if we made it up, what's anyone going to do about it?"

In some ways you can almost respect them. They made no secret, before the twin towers were bombed, of their "Project for the New American Century" with its military aiming for "full-spectrum dominance". The really annoying people are the politicians and commentators who still think the war was fought to make the world a safer place.

:puke::mad::puke::mad::puke::mad::puke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worse in Australia. We have a leader who everyone hates, and who has lied more time than Bill Clinton. About introducing taxes, sending troops to war, etc.

He says that he told the truth. However, his truth was told to him by the USA, so even if they're wrong, he's still innocent because he was 'tricked'.

sickening.

I'm not much of a political speculator, but I hope that the US smartens up (the leaders more than the people). Maybe North Korea will have to do something drastic for that to happen.

i'm not necessarily supporting a war, but if that's what it takes to straighten up the world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the US (George Dubya and his The Project for a New American Century cohorts) has the unmitigated audacity tyo ask the UN and "Old Europe" for help in Iraq. What they're really saying is this:

There's a guerilla war happening in Iraq that's killing on average of one US soldier a day. In the US that's politically unacceptable. What we (the US) need is troops from other countries' to be used as cannon fodder while we (the US) maintain political and economic control of Iraq and its oil.

:-^:devil::puke:

And, as today is the anniversary of the World Trade Towers I have this to say:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:

1945 to the Present

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_...ons_WBlumZ.html

The United States vs. Iraq --

A Study in Hypocrisy

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_...risy_WBlum.html

[Edited on 2003/9/12 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a strong sense of history, George Bush last week made the case for "a forward strategy" of idealism in American foreign policy. He dared to place his Big Idea -- what has become the central theme and purpose of his presidency -- in the direct line of aspirations expressed by three of the past century's most far-seeing and controversial U.S. presidents... "From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle," Bush said. "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time."

www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06TEXT-BUSH.html

Ummm, didn't the US partake in overthrowing an elected govt (led by Allende) in Chile and help install a brutal dictatorship?

Didn't the US install a brutal regime in South Vietnam that was responsible for hundreds of thousands of tortures and killings?

Wasn't the US most helpful in bringing Suharto to power in Indonesia - and providing Suharto's army with the names of "communist" sympathisers... so that Suharto could murder 500,000 of his political opponents?

Wasn't the US involved in Indonesia's invasion of East Timor - and was a willing supplier of the weapons used by Indonesia for this crime?

G. W. Bush and his cohorts have a very distorted sense of history. Face it, the US behaves like any other Empire has in the past: ruthlessly in the pursuit of wealth and power.

[Edited on 2003/11/13 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "intelligence" of G.W. Bush

Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful after our decision. --

June 9, 2003, remarks to reporters after Cabinet meeting.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly. Yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. -- March 19, 2003, address to the nation.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. -- March 17, 2003, address to the nation.

The dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. He has used weapons of mass destruction. He can't stand America and what we stand for. He can't stand our friends and allies. -- Jan. 22, 2003, speech in St. Louis.

Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. -- Sept. 14, 2002, radio address.

U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay says of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq was supposed to have possessed; "I don't think they existed . . . What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."

Geez, George, looks like what you did was a crime against peace -- are we going to see you together with your Dad's buddy Saddam in an ICJ courtroom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Originally posted by Habs77

What a shocker... it was an oil-grab pure & simple...

Life is good when you can invade a country for strategic & economic gain isn't it?...  

although has much to do with the US aggression against Iraq, I think that the US proclaiming its power and dominance over the region (and the world in general) is also a valid argument. Much like a mafia don stating, " mess with me and these are the consequences."

Maybe Canada could send it's entire fleet of 2 choppers to take over an abandonned island in the Pacific... work our way up from there.

Too late. Canada's already part of an empire -- we're nothing more than an economic satellite of our southern neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their were no WMD's... It was a lie...

This just further proves the point that the media in the US is so right-wing it's not even funny. Look at what they did to Clinton for merley messing around an intern? They nearly hung him. Bush lies and makes up false intelligence and the media just doesn't seem to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that Bush lied. All evidence at the time indicated that Saddam had WMDs. It was bad intelligence, not a lie by Bush. Plus I am sure he had time to somehow sneak any weapons he had out of the country. I even heard reports that France had helped Iraq acquire nuclear materials, but they downplayed that a lot. (Why would a right-wing media downlplay such an accusation?) There has also been some evidence that Al-Qaeda had contacted Iraq and were in cohorts. Anyway, it may not be better yet, but Iraq will be a better place without Saddam. He was a brutal dictator who HAS used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. Most Iraqis are happy he is gone. Those who are not are confused because they have been under his power for so long. These are the ones who are still resisting.

And about Clinton, he lied under oath. It does not matter that he lied about something trivial, he still lied. Many presidents have had affairs like him, but none lied about it under oath. Bush may have lied, but thought he was telling the truth, plus it was not under oath. There is a big difference.

And in response to some of the previous references to American History:

Wasn't it American involvement in conflict that ended Nazism, facism, and communism in numerous nations?

And is response to oil:

Has the US taken over the oil in Iraq? No, the Iraqis control their own oil. Have US gas prices dropped? No, I'm still paying about the same for gas as I did last year.

And don't you think that people such as the Kurds feel a lot safer with Saddam out of power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Course most of those WMD's were given to Iraq by the US during the Iran-Iraq war, so it seems kinda silly they'd be complaining about that. You do know the gas Hussein used to gas the Kurds was imported from the US and made by US companies? So I guess you'll have to give Ronald Regan an assist on those deaths.

Nazism? I could have sworn other nations were involved in liberating Europe, not just the US. Maybe someone else could refresh my memory cause I am forgetful.

It's hard to take Bush seriously when his family and the bin Ladens are old oil partners. It's also difficult to take him seriously when he says "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists", yet the Saudi's who suppot Al Quada get a get out of jail free card. I find that odd.

Bush should just enjoy his last few months in office. It's gonna such have John Kerry running the world. You know, it sucks having a President who doesn't lie to his own people and start wars just to finish something his daddy couldn't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nazis were controlling most of Europe when the US got involved in the war. It is possible that the Allies could have prevailed, but it was not looking good. The US entering the war was the turning point. Therefore I have to say that US involvement in the conflict helped end Nazism. I did not claim that the US did it alone, notice I worded it "American involvement in conflict."

I am aware that US materials were used to kill Kurds, but how is that Bush's fault? I am not aware of Bush being oil-partners with bin Laden. I do recall the US aiding Afgahnistan when communist Russia invaded, but I know nothing abot a relationship between Bush and bin Laden.

And about the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" statement. I agree that is sounds absurd, I think his writers just worded it poorly. The point he was trying to get across was that if you do not support a crackdown on terrorism, then that is as good as supporting terrorism. It's the same argument as if you see some bully picking on a little kid and you just walk by. You personally didn't do anything wrong, but you didn't help either.

Now that it is clear that Kerry will win the Democratic nomination, I will have to sit down and research him. I honestly do not know very much about him at this point, except that I am glad it is him and not Howard Dean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

I do not believe that Bush lied.  All evidence at the time indicated that Saddam had WMDs.  It was bad intelligence, not a lie by Bush.  Plus I am sure he had time to somehow sneak any weapons he had out of the country.  I even heard reports that France had helped Iraq acquire nuclear materials, but they downplayed that a lot.  (Why would a right-wing media downlplay such an accusation?)  There has also been some evidence that Al-Qaeda had contacted Iraq and were in cohorts.  Anyway, it may not be better yet, but Iraq will be a better place without Saddam.  He was a brutal dictator who HAS used chemical and biological weapons on his own people.  Most Iraqis are happy he is gone.  Those who are not are confused because they have been under his power for so long. These are the ones who are still resisting.

And about Clinton, he lied under oath.  It does not matter that he lied about something trivial, he still lied.  Many presidents have had affairs like him, but none lied about it under oath.  Bush may have lied, but thought he was telling the truth, plus it was not under oath.  There is a big difference.

And in response to some of the previous references to American History:

Wasn't it American involvement in conflict that ended Nazism, facism, and communism in numerous nations?

And is response to oil:

Has the US taken over the oil in Iraq?  No, the Iraqis control their own oil.  Have US gas prices dropped?  No, I'm still paying about the same for gas as I did last year.

And don't you think that people such as the Kurds feel a lot safer with Saddam out of power?

"On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council passed a resolution ending sanctions on Iraq. Significantly, the resolution gave the U.S. decisionmaking power over how the oil funds would be used with regard to relief, reconstruction and disarmament."

Looks to me like the US does have control over Iraqi oil -- and production, refinement and shipping are also ways of indirect control of Iraqi oil resources.

WMDs? Geezuz, 11 empty warheads were found. That's the damning evidence. Chemical and biological weapons? Any nation with a working hospital lab or a high school biology or chemical lab has the ability to produce chemical & biological WMDs.

US involvement in Nazism?

The Bush family ties to the Nazi party are well known. Official US documents establish that George Herbert Walker, George W. Bush's maternal great-grandfather, was one of Hitler's most important early backers. He funneled money to the rising young fascist through the Union Banking Corporation.

In 1926, Walker arranged to have his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush---father of President George Bush I, grandfather of George Bush II---hired as Vice President at W.A. Harriman and Company. Prescott became a senior partner when Harriman merged with a British-American investment company to become Brown Brothers Harriman. In 1934 Prescott Bush joined the Board of Directors of Union Banking.

The bank helped Hitler rise to power. It also helped him wage war. As late as July 31, 1941---well after the Nazi invasion of Poland.

Help from US corporate giant IBM enabled the Nazis to organise their war machine and carry through the efficient and systematic genocide of the Jews. Without this assistance, Hitler’s regime would not have been able to carry through its extermination plan with such efficiency. IBM’s machines were used at all stages of the persecution of the Jews. They collected the necessary information to identify the Nazis’ victims, first to enforce the bar on Jews working in certain academic, professional and government jobs and later to carry out mass evictions from their homes and into the ghettoes.

Hitler's seizure of power in Germany presented U.S. (and, of course, German business groups with complex opportunities and challenges. The Nazi-sponsored Aryanization campaigns, clandestine rearmament, industrial bailouts, and public-works programs created a gold rush for businesses favored by the Nazi government. The Nazis encouraged US coporations to invest in Germany when it seemed to be in their interest to do so. Soon U.S. corporate investment was expanding more rapidly in Hitler's Germany than in any other country in Europe despite the worldwide economic depression.

And although I'm no fan of Stalin and his ilk, I'd say that it was Russian involvement and sacrifice (30-million+ war dead) that won the war against Nazi Germany.

US support for any country doesn't depend on the political ideology of that particular country - it depends on whether that country obeys US orders. The US has happily supported fascist govts throughout the 3rd World because they obey US orders. Funnily enough, left wing govts that might nationalize industries, raise import tariffs, raise taxes and funnel funds towards social programs are viewed as "communist" for the following reason:

they fail to follow the US "prime directive" that US investors should be the primary beneficiaries of a country's policies - not the citizens of that country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it true that during WW2, the Americans refused to take part in the War in Europe and said "It's not our problem". Meanwhile they were busy selling nickle to the Nazi's. Yep they were sure fightning Nazism.

Take a list of what Colin Powell said Iraq had and match it up with what they've found. It's clear they were lying. Bush apprently had his mind made up pre-9/11 to go to war. He decided in Feb 2001 that Iraq was the enemy. 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to war. Gee, it really sounds like "war was the last option".

Right-wingers can say what they want. But I'd rather have a President who lies about fooling around with an intern, then a President who lies about a 3rd-world nation having nukes and going to war which results in the deaths of 10,000 of people. Including 100's of Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the US did not want to take part in the war in Europe, but when they did get involved, it turned the tide for the allies.

10,000 deaths in Iraq?

[Edited on 3-7-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem is the Americans that don't even know that Canada participated in the war. We were in both World Wars from the beginning, but it seems that a lot of Americans forget that.

I think it is Hollywood that is the main problem, always portraying the Americans as the heros and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by TheAussiePosseMaybe North Korea will have to do something drastic for that to happen.  

i'm not necessarily supporting a war, but if that's what it takes to straighten up the world...

Hey! Who do you think NK would do if they wanted to "do something drastic"?

They would nuke my ass, that's what!

Of course then you would be invaded by a wave of cute Japanese girl refugees, but they would all be radioactive.

Maybe New Zealand could go nuclear instead?

[Edited on 2004/3/9 by JeanLucPilon]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware that Canada has participated in the World Wars, but I agree most people are not aware of such things. I almost accused you of calling all Americans ignorant, good thing I reread your post, I would have felt like a real ass. The main problem is our education. I do not believe that I learned in school very much about the world. I have learned a lot on my own, just so I can be well informed. A lot of people (of any nation I am sure) do not take the time to expand their knowledge of such matters.

By the way, Americans are portrayed as the heroes in movies because the movies are made in the US, by the US, and primarily targeted for people in the US. I do not think that a movie about a Canadian hero would go over well in the US, simply because they do not think it relates to them. People want to see people of their own country as the hero. On a side note, I have never really understood why so many Americans make fun of Canada for no good reason, i.e. shows like South Park. I mean, I don't always agree with Canada's politics, I don't think in most cases that gives me the right to harass Canadians.

And I am just curious about how much Canadian schools teach about US history. I am sure you study us more than we study you, but I wonder how you view your history in relation to ours. (Just my teacher's curiosity.)

[Edited on 3-9-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People want to see people of their own country as the hero.

Oh yeah i realize that, i was just trying to understand where that mentality came from. Of course people from their own country want to see themselves as the heros, i just think that some Americans seem to forget about the other parties involved and that's the main problem.

And I am just curious about how much Canadian schools teach about US history. I am sure you study us more than we study you, but I wonder how you view your history in relation to ours. (Just my teacher's curiosity.)

Well we don't learn a ton about American history, there was a big study on the American revolution in middle school though. I think the reason Canada knows more about the U.S. than the U.S. does about Canada is because we end up watching mostly American shows, and the newspapers tend to report American news rather prominently. Not to mention that we get all the American news channels and what not. My main theory would have to be that we can easily access American media, while that is simply not true for Americans accessing Canadian media.

Anyways, i hope we can all repair the damages that were done in the recent conflict between Canada and the U.S. because it is nice to have a friendly neighbour to the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans don't give a damn about anyone else. They barley know their own history, what makes anyone think they'll wanna learn about Canada's? That is one of the big reasons they're so hated, well that and their war lovin President who has about 8 month left in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...