People who hate America are claiming the war to liberate Iraq was really about oil

[TastesLikeChicken]

What does "failed to properly comply" mean, anyway? Hans Blix claimed they were complying, prior to being ordered out, and We never did find those mythical WMD's, either.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-06/...chief-weapons-inspector-hans-blix?_s=PM:WORLD

Also speaking to reporters in Downing Street, Blix said he was unsatisfied with all Iraq's responses on the weapons it possesses.

And he warned said a swifter, hard-line U.S. agenda to resolve the Iraqi crisis could take precedence if U.N. diplomacy fails.

"There are two clocks ... Washington time and this is U.N. time," Blix said aboard his plane en route to London. "I, of course, am operating under a resolution from 1999 that tells me I have to give a quarterly report to the Security Council the first of March."

"It's certainly very important, desirable that the facts be on the table," Blix said. "Of course, one would have to scrutinise this as well."
U.N. resolutions also call for another report on Iraqi compliance later in the month, he said.

"That clock is still ticking, but it may be the other watch will take over," said Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

Up until the very end Blix never claimed Iraq was complying.

Too bad for Saddam. If he simply would have been honest and open instead of being an asshole for years the invasion never would have happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-06/...chief-weapons-inspector-hans-blix?_s=PM:WORLD


Up until the very end Blix never claimed Iraq was complying.

Too bad for Saddam. If he simply would have been honest and open instead of being an asshole for years the invasion never would have happened.

It must have been past your bedtime when you posted that, because I'm sure you're fully aware that by March of 2003 Blix indicated that Iraqi cooperation was entirely satisfactory, and that his job would be completed in a matter of months.

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January...

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months...

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

You already knew that, I'm sure, but revisionist history must march on if the actions of the Bush Admin are to be justified, which is what you're doing, along with a lot of others.

I've seen your style before, in the pronouncements of corporate mouthpieces sent out to obfuscate the truth, not to tell it. They know the truth, as do you, which is why they're good at what they do. I understand their motivation- it's for the money. What's yours?

 

[Gintaras]

The military's role is to fight a war. That's exactly what they did and they did that very well, very quickly, and very efficiently.

Military's role to fight a war...
War of aggression or war of defense?
When US have been attacked by Iraq?

 

[Gintaras]

So, if it wasn't for the oil.... Then why did we go?

One of reasons - to protect $ bills converting into worthless paper.
All Oil transactions in The World are made in US dollars. If someone would change that, US$ bills automatically can become worthless.
Federal Reserve have printed so much $ bills not covered by goods that US$ now actually can be worth as much as Zimbabwean dollar.

There are 2 options for US - either one day go down to drains or start large scale WWIII which already started on 9/11/2001 and started the same way as WWII on 9/1/1939...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It must have been past your bedtime when you posted that, because I'm sure you're fully aware that by March of 2003 Blix indicated that Iraqi cooperation was entirely satisfactory, and that his job would be completed in a matter of months.



http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

You already knew that, I'm sure, but revisionist history must march on if the actions of the Bush Admin are to be justified, which is what you're doing, along with a lot of others.

I've seen your style before, in the pronouncements of corporate mouthpieces sent out to obfuscate the truth, not to tell it. They know the truth, as do you, which is why they're good at what they do. I understand their motivation- it's for the money. What's yours?

You been hitting the bong lately or something? Selectively quoting your own link does you no favors, Jhhnn. Nothing you provided disagreed with what I said.

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

iow, the Iraqis were providing some somewhat reluctant cooperation, but still were not fully complying, and every report previous to this one also stated the same thing, in far sterner terms. The only reason this report used a bit lighter language is because Blix knew the US was very close to going to war with Iraq so he tried to soft peddle his statements. iow, Blix allowed his own personal political views to creep into his professional work.

Nice try, Jhhnn, but your little revisionist softshoe just doesn't cut the mustard under even the least bit of scrutiny.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Military's role to fight a war...
War of aggression or war of defense?
When US have been attacked by Iraq?

When were we attacked by the British in the Revolutionary war? When was the US attacked by Germany. When did North Korea attack us? How about Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama?

You make a very poor assumption - That we only involve ourselves in war when we are attacked. The simple fact is that is rarely ever the case.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

One of reasons - to protect $ bills converting into worthless paper.
All Oil transactions in The World are made in US dollars. If someone would change that, US$ bills automatically can become worthless.
Federal Reserve have printed so much $ bills not covered by goods that US$ now actually can be worth as much as Zimbabwean dollar.

There are 2 options for US - either one day go down to drains or start large scale WWIII which already started on 9/11/2001 and started the same way as WWII on 9/1/1939...

Ugh. This load of crapola has been beat down in here so many times it's not even funny. Oil "valuation" is made in US dollars purely out of long-standing tradition. Actual transactions can be made in any valid currency. That's why there's this thing called the "exchange rate" that values currencies against all other currencies.

 

[Jhhnn]

iow, the Iraqis were providing some somewhat reluctant cooperation, but still were not fully complying, and every report previous to this one also stated the same thing, in far sterner terms. The only reason this report used a bit lighter language is because Blix knew the US was very close to going to war with Iraq so he tried to soft peddle his statements. iow, Blix allowed his own personal political views to creep into his professional work.

Nice try, Jhhnn, but your little revisionist softshoe just doesn't cut the mustard under even the least bit of scrutiny.

IOW, you can project your own innuendo onto what Blix actually said, right? Which is basically what you've done throughout this thread. It isn't about what was actually said or done, but what sort of spin you can put on it.

When were we attacked by the British in the Revolutionary war? When was the US attacked by Germany. When did North Korea attack us? How about Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama?

Your ignorance of history is astounding. The British placed Boston under repressive military authority in 1768, massacred people in Boston in 1770, marched on Lexington in 1775, and attempted to move on to Concord, but were beaten back. The British started the shooting.

Germany declared unlimited submarine warfare in january 1917, and proceeded to sink American ships in British waters, provoking the declaration of war by the US. They declared war on the US again on Dec 11, 1941.

The Spanish American War was based on the idea that the Spanish had sunk the Maine in Havana harbor, and Johnson used the excuse of N Vietnamese attack in the gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate in Vietnam, alleging that they had attacked us.

North Korea attacked S Korean forces in 1950, who were then aided almost immediately by UN forces, the US having an enormous presence in nearby Japan. N Korea initiated hostilities.

We've invaded Panama so many times that I can't remember under the Monroe doctrine, with Grenada being more of the same. Neither populace was or is hostile to us, with many actually greeting us as liberators, unlike the hokey claims made by Neocons wrt Iraq. We'd beat down the population of Iraq with 12 years of brutal sanctions, other than the Kurds, and they weren't at all happy to see us arrive in force.

Iraq was different, a pre-emptive war, the rationale having been gained from the dear Israeli friends of the Neocons. Most of what Americans think we know about the Mideast has been filtered through an Israeli lens, so it's no wonder we found a way to mire ourselves in an unnecessary conflict and occupation. It serves Israeli purposes beautifully, however.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

IOW, you can project your own innuendo onto what Blix actually said, right? Which is basically what you've done throughout this thread. It isn't about what was actually said or done, but what sort of spin you can put on it.

lol @ Jhhnn going off on someone about "spin." Blix NEVER said Iraq was fully complying. Saddam was always in the process of hiding something or other and not being open in the inspection process. There is no way to spin that Jhhnn. Citing what could have been doesn't mean squat because coulda, shoulda, woulda went on for years and years under Saddam and nothing ever got completely resolved.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. The British placed Boston under repressive military authority in 1768, massacred people in Boston in 1770, marched on Lexington in 1775, and attempted to move on to Concord, but were beaten back. The British started the shooting.

Germany declared unlimited submarine warfare in january 1917, and proceeded to sink American ships in British waters, provoking the declaration of war by the US. They declared war on the US again on Dec 11, 1941.

The Spanish American War was based on the idea that the Spanish had sunk the Maine in Havana harbor, and Johnson used the excuse of N Vietnamese attack in the gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate in Vietnam, alleging that they had attacked us.

North Korea attacked S Korean forces in 1950, who were then aided almost immediately by UN forces, the US having an enormous presence in nearby Japan. N Korea initiated hostilities.

We've invaded Panama so many times that I can't remember under the Monroe doctrine, with Grenada being more of the same. Neither populace was or is hostile to us, with many actually greeting us as liberators, unlike the hokey claims made by Neocons wrt Iraq. We'd beat down the population of Iraq with 12 years of brutal sanctions, other than the Kurds, and they weren't at all happy to see us arrive in force.

Iraq was different, a pre-emptive war, the rationale having been gained from the dear Israeli friends of the Neocons. Most of what Americans think we know about the Mideast has been filtered through an Israeli lens, so it's no wonder we found a way to mire ourselves in an unnecessary conflict and occupation. It serves Israeli purposes beautifully, however.

iow, each comitted action that could be considered acts of war, though they really didn't attack the US on our own soil, which is really what the idiots citing the "defense" baloney are getting at. For Iraq we could cite plenty of reasons they didn't live up to their cease fire and for which we could declare war. But you would rather be selective and claim, 'Well, such and such doesn't really count.'

Give it up already Jhhnn.