Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

LOL dari, you're such a damn militant it's funny. How old are you? Just curious.. I'm 33...

How about we change it to a more politcally correct "I hope a child molesting conviction sticks on him and he becomes a prison bitch"?

There'd be nothing wrong with that.

I'd probably get flamed to hell if I said "I don't like Bush, I wish he'd put a bullet in his own head" though.

So I won't say it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'll just say this: I don't know if there were WMD's, and I don't know whether, if they had them, Saddam Hussein planned to somehow use them against the US. With that, I have to also admit, I don't know if Iraq was in any way a threat to the US, at least not directly.

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years. He tortured people for having opinions that didn't support the regime. He threw CHILDREN in prison for not joining the Baath party. He murdered people for whatever reasons he or his sons and their agents chose. Since the start of the occupation there have been nearly half a *million* bodies found in mass graves-bodies of Iraqi people killed in the last several years.

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*. I personally never did care whether there were WMD's and I think Bush was a fool to predicate the war on such premises. If he had simply stated that the war was being fought in order to bring freedom to Iraq's oppressed people, what could the rest of the world have said? "We don't care if they have freedom!" (Or in the case of France, Germany, China and Russia, "Wait! They still owe us money for stuff we sold the regime! Don't overthrow them yet, screw the people, we want our cash!")

Why there is an argument about the rest is beyond me; as far as I'm concerned it's utterly irrelevant.

Jason

If you feel the war was justified because the people were oppressed and brutalized, that's cool. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just remember not everyone shares the same opinion.

I think, imo , that some who say "I don't care about WMDs" (like yourself), also seem to think that it's also a non-issue if our president lied/mislead us about WMDs. Contrary to what some think, they are 2 seperate issues.

1)WMDs were needed to justify the war.
2)Bush lied/mislead the country (world) in order to garner support for the war.

Some on this board are of the mindset that whether or not our president lied to us or not doesn't matter because good came of the war. (Saddam is out). For some (like me), it's not ok for my president to do that. The question isn't whether you think he lied or not, but if you think it's ok.

Why can't the question be
"Did the CIA intelligence really suck that bad", or did he just ignore their footnotes saying
*this may or may not be true. We don't really know. But we are required to give an assessment

I'm not quite sure why the libs (and conservatives to some extend) aren't in a twitter over that one. Bush will go away someday. The CIA won't.

 

[outriding]

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*.

So is Saddam the worst ruler in the world ?

If he is not then why didn't we go after that leader ?

What would you have thought of another country if they invaded the US when the military was doing chemical
testing on its people without their knowledge ? That is pretty low just as low as Saddam killing its own people.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: outriding

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*.

So is Saddam the worst ruler in the world ?

If he is not then why didn't we go after that leader ?

What would you have thought of another country if they invaded the US when the military was doing chemical
testing on its people without their knowledge ? That is pretty low just as low as Saddam killing its own people.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about whether Saddam was the "worst ruler in the world," it's a nonsense argument and you damned well know it. I'm fully behind the idea of overthrowing EVERY oppressive dictator, but I'm also aware that, logistically, it can't be done in a quick sweep like that because there are still far more of them than there are of us.

As to your assertions about our military doing chemical testing on people, I've heard that in the usual X-Files mindset forums and news places, but as far as I know it has never been conclusively proven. I have a number of friends who served in the military, and none have complained about being tested upon, so I don't see any reason to grant any validity at all to your conspiracy-theorist notion.

Jason

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: outriding

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*.

So is Saddam the worst ruler in the world ?

If he is not then why didn't we go after that leader ?

What would you have thought of another country if they invaded the US when the military was doing chemical
testing on its people without their knowledge ? That is pretty low just as low as Saddam killing its own people.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about whether Saddam was the "worst ruler in the world," it's a nonsense argument and you damned well know it. I'm fully behind the idea of overthrowing EVERY oppressive dictator, but I'm also aware that, logistically, it can't be done in a quick sweep like that because there are still far more of them than there are of us.

As to your assertions about our military doing chemical testing on people, I've heard that in the usual X-Files mindset forums and news places, but as far as I know it has never been conclusively proven. I have a number of friends who served in the military, and none have complained about being tested upon, so I don't see any reason to grant any validity at all to your conspiracy-theorist notion.

Jason

Well the people took the military to court over it and the judge ruled that the military can do anything it wants to do in name of national security.


washington post

more here

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Your Washington post article says this was something that happened in 1961 and that "Most of the men involved were aware they were taking part in the tests, but that some may not have been fully aware."

It doesn't say a word about a court's decision, though I have to doubt that they said the military can do "whatever it wants" even in the name of national security.

Certainly such acts are deplorable and should never be performed on American troops (that's what you have Kurds for, just ask Saddam but I hardly think this compares with the murder, torture and imprisonment of civilians, over matters of personal judgment and opinion, on a consistent basis for more than 20 years. Yeah, it was wrong, but you really can't compare this to Saddam's regime effectively.

Jason

 

[outriding]

Ok this link is better...

goverment website

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

it's still 1960's stuff, though. Not to say that makes it OK, it doesn't, but I'd like to see chemical experiments on TODAY'S Americans.

Wait a second, that didn't sound right...

Jason

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'll just say this: I don't know if there were WMD's, and I don't know whether, if they had them, Saddam Hussein planned to somehow use them against the US. With that, I have to also admit, I don't know if Iraq was in any way a threat to the US, at least not directly.

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years. He tortured people for having opinions that didn't support the regime. He threw CHILDREN in prison for not joining the Baath party. He murdered people for whatever reasons he or his sons and their agents chose. Since the start of the occupation there have been nearly half a *million* bodies found in mass graves-bodies of Iraqi people killed in the last several years.

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*. I personally never did care whether there were WMD's and I think Bush was a fool to predicate the war on such premises. If he had simply stated that the war was being fought in order to bring freedom to Iraq's oppressed people, what could the rest of the world have said? "We don't care if they have freedom!" (Or in the case of France, Germany, China and Russia, "Wait! They still owe us money for stuff we sold the regime! Don't overthrow them yet, screw the people, we want our cash!")

Why there is an argument about the rest is beyond me; as far as I'm concerned it's utterly irrelevant.

Jason

If you feel the war was justified because the people were oppressed and brutalized, that's cool. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just remember not everyone shares the same opinion.

I think, imo , that some who say "I don't care about WMDs" (like yourself), also seem to think that it's also a non-issue if our president lied/mislead us about WMDs. Contrary to what some think, they are 2 seperate issues.

1)WMDs were needed to justify the war.
2)Bush lied/mislead the country (world) in order to garner support for the war.

Some on this board are of the mindset that whether or not our president lied to us or not doesn't matter because good came of the war. (Saddam is out). For some (like me), it's not ok for my president to do that. The question isn't whether you think he lied or not, but if you think it's ok.

Why can't the question be
"Did the CIA intelligence really suck that bad", or did he just ignore their footnotes saying
*this may or may not be true. We don't really know. But we are required to give an assessment

I'm not quite sure why the libs (and conservatives to some extend) aren't in a twitter over that one. Bush will go away someday. The CIA won't.

I thought it was shown that the White House manipulated intelligence to match its agenda. Didn't Cheney and Rumsfeld personally interfere? Didn't analysts go public with complaints?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

<---- really hopes someone asks Dari to show where the UN charter says what he says it does.

I guess I should say it louder this time....


<----really hope someone asks Dari to show where the UN charter says what he says it does.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess I should say it louder this time....

<----really hope someone asks Dari to show where the UN charter says what he says it does.

Ol' Dari simply interprets UN Resolutions the way he wants to interpret them. Same with some other people around here that I won't mention. Sadly, it's not up to Dari, or the United States for that matter, to interpret UN Resolutions. It's up to the UN. Makes sense too, considering they generate the damn things -- they should be the ones to explain how they do or don't work. And quite surprisingly they did explain that NO UN Resolution authorized the use of force against Iraq. Only the UNSC retains the right to authorize force under Int'l Law.

Geeze, sounds like a broken record around here sometimes. The same neo-con commanders citing UN Resolutions to invade Iraq when no such authorization exists. Bo-ring. Wake me up when they come up with something that actually makes sense.

 

[Gaard]

Except that Dari isn't talking about the resolutions. He's talking about the charter itself. He's saying that if the UN passes a resolution, any UNSC member has an automatic green light to use force to enforce the resolution. So, technically, if the US hadn't wanted a war, but say France did, it would've been ok for France to wage war against Iraq...even if the rest of the UNSC memebers didn 't want it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess I should say it louder this time....

<----really hope someone asks Dari to show where the UN charter says what he says it does.

Ol' Dari simply interprets UN Resolutions the way he wants to interpret them. Same with some other people around here that I won't mention. Sadly, it's not up to Dari, or the United States for that matter, to interpret UN Resolutions. It's up to the UN. Makes sense too, considering they generate the damn things -- they should be the ones to explain how they do or don't work. And quite surprisingly they did explain that NO UN Resolution authorized the use of force against Iraq. Only the UNSC retains the right to authorize force under Int'l Law.

Geeze, sounds like a broken record around here sometimes. The same neo-con commanders citing UN Resolutions to invade Iraq when no such authorization exists. Bo-ring. Wake me up when they come up with something that actually makes sense.

Your statement shows how little you understand the UN. First off, it is common knowledge that Article VII resolutions authorize force. If you don't believe me, head to the damn UN yourself and ask. I live within the vicinity of the UN and I talk to these people all the time. Not to mention that I took a course in international law in college. Like I said countless times before, diplomats never speak explicitly. They talk to reach agreement. Hence, the document will be somewhat vague. However, there is always an underlying understanding.

BTW, the UN is nothing without its members. No diplomat really works for the United Nations. They work for the member states. They are represented within the UN. Hence, it is up to nation-states, not the UN, that are left to interpret and enforce these international resolutions.

The UN is nothing without its members. It doesn't agree to its budget without members agreeing. It doesn't have a standing army unless members agree. In short, the UN is a coalition of nations, not a full-blown corporate creature. Get that straight.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Except that Dari isn't talking about the resolutions. He's talking about the charter itself. He's saying that if the UN passes a resolution, any UNSC member has an automatic green light to use force to enforce the resolution. So, technically, if the US hadn't wanted a war, but say France did, it would've been ok for France to wage war against Iraq...even if the rest of the UNSC memebers didn 't want it.

That's total and utter BS. If that's what Dari believes, he's completely delusional. EDIT: If that was that case (which it's clearly not), why even bother having a Security Council?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard
Except that Dari isn't talking about the resolutions. He's talking about the charter itself. He's saying that if the UN passes a resolution, any UNSC member has an automatic green light to use force to enforce the resolution. So, technically, if the US hadn't wanted a war, but say France did, it would've been ok for France to wage war against Iraq...even if the rest of the UNSC memebers didn 't want it.

That's total and utter BS. If that's what Dari believes, he's completely delusional. EDIT: If that was that case (which it's clearly not), why even bother having a Security Council?

It's not BS because the UN is a members organization. If the UNSC agrees to pass an Article VII resolution, then it is up to the members to carry it out. Imagine how terrible the world would be if laws were passed and there was no one to enforce them. In the case of Iraq, Article VII resoultions authorize force. If Iraq's resolutions was passed under Article VI, neither the US or anyone else could lay a finger on Iraq without breaking international law.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'll just say this: I don't know if there were WMD's, and I don't know whether, if they had them, Saddam Hussein planned to somehow use them against the US. With that, I have to also admit, I don't know if Iraq was in any way a threat to the US, at least not directly.

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years. He tortured people for having opinions that didn't support the regime. He threw CHILDREN in prison for not joining the Baath party. He murdered people for whatever reasons he or his sons and their agents chose. Since the start of the occupation there have been nearly half a *million* bodies found in mass graves-bodies of Iraqi people killed in the last several years.

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone

Why there is an argument about the rest is beyond me; as far as I'm concerned it's utterly irrelevant.

Jason

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

 

[alchemize]

still waiting for this to appear in some news source besides "the india times"...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

Liberty? Liberty for who, the Iraqi's. Let them die for their own liberty, not our boys. Fsck them, they were dancing in the streets when the planes flew in to the WTC and the Pentagon.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

Except liberty was just an eventuality. Right Dari? It wasn't given as a reason for going to war. Right Dari?

It's kind of comical that those who say the war was justified for reason A never here from those who say the war was justified for reason B. It's like as long as they both support the war (irregardless of why), it's not kosher to disagree with each other. It shouldn't be pro-war vs con-war in these debates. It should be ReasonA vs ReasonB vs ReasonC vs Antiwar....yet it never is. Take for this for instance.

leeboy, my condolences.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

Dishonor! That takes the cake! I am in no mood to agrue with a screen name on the internet right now but will tell you this in closing and will say no more:

You have no such knowledge that this war was NOT predicated on lies. Dying for you country is noble, but just becuase you are in the army, over in some foreign country, and die does not mean that you died for Liberty as you put it.

My God are you so in love with Bush that you can not see that?

Liberty my a$$. Who have we liberated? Why did we have to "Liberate" that country? Why was it our job? Why did we have to do it WHEN we did it? Why, when the rest of the world said, Sorry USA, we are not going to back you on this, did we continue to spin away that WMDs were ready to be launched at any time against us and our interests?

Get off your high horse and quit wrapping yourself in the flag to deflect the truth. The presidents rush to jump the gun has cost me and many like me a child or a brother or a Dad or Mom. I don't know a one that I have communicated with since this occured who feels their child, dad, mom, etc died for Liberty as you put it. My child's death has made you no safer when you go to sleep at night. It may have made the mother or a father of a child in Mosul feel a little safer to know that another of the Americans were dead though. And you know what in all honesty, I could care less at this point in my life about the landscape and the political climate of Iraq. We have enough problems over here in THIS country thank you very much.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Sorry but people like you and those that think like you will never win me over to your side of this argument. Saddams removal and our occupation of this country was not worth my child's life. My son decided to serve his country like his old man did and was willing to die for what he believed in. However, the last communication I got from him prior to finding out about his death indicated that he was scared, had no idea what they were doing over there, and had no faith in the person in charge any more (he was a big bush supporter). He died not on the battlefield, not rescuing children from their oppressors, no... he died guarding an Iraqi gas station. How noble and how proud his mother and I were to hear that our son had been shot in the back of the neck and leg by one of the people we are over their helping.

Nah, so I don't think you will ever convince me that predicating this whole attack on lies about WMD's is an excusable offence by the Bush administration. Our sons and daughters continue to die over there every day. And in the end, our country and our way of life has been made no safer.

If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

tell me, which comes first, laws or morals?

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Gaard
leeboy, my condolences.

Thank you very much. I think he would want me to get on with my life so... I will never bring him up here again.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard
Except that Dari isn't talking about the resolutions. He's talking about the charter itself. He's saying that if the UN passes a resolution, any UNSC member has an automatic green light to use force to enforce the resolution. So, technically, if the US hadn't wanted a war, but say France did, it would've been ok for France to wage war against Iraq...even if the rest of the UNSC memebers didn 't want it.

That's total and utter BS. If that's what Dari believes, he's completely delusional. EDIT: If that was that case (which it's clearly not), why even bother having a Security Council?

It's not BS because the UN is a members organization. If the UNSC agrees to pass an Article VII resolution, then it is up to the members to carry it out. Imagine how terrible the world would be if laws were passed and there was no one to enforce them. In the case of Iraq, Article VII resoultions authorize force. If Iraq's resolutions was passed under Article VI, neither the US or anyone else could lay a finger on Iraq without breaking international law.

The operative word being "members" (plural) -- meaning, the members of the UN Security Council must agree on the use of force for the force to be authorized. So, NO that does not mean 1 single member of the UNSC gets to enforce what they feel like enforcing and then using the cover of the UN for their actions. I call BS.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: Gaard
leeboy, my condolences.

Thank you very much. I think he would want me to get on with my life so... I will never bring him up here again.

I am deeply sorry you lost your son!