[quote]ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein’s regime and were given oil contracts as a result.
All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003. They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations’ oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods.
Iraq has WMD
Iraq will sell WMD to terrorists
Iraq is actively developing WMD
Iraq seeks WMD
Iraq has a WMD program
And finally:
Next thing you know the present that sketch of a rocket we have seen here before as evidence to support the WMD argument (which was the one and only argument which made this war possible).
Guess loudmouth Dr. ‘we-will-soon-make-some suprising-annoucements’ Kay has finally seen the light which lit up already when the UN inspectors found nothing based on the US’ “best intelligence” …
NOT just US intelligence but the British, French, German, Russian, Chinese and Israeli among others as well.
Also, he may not have had the weapons but he too apparently believed that he did, which also proves that he did want to develop and use them. So ultimately it was a question of intent and we were right to get rid of him and things are going swimmingly well by all accounts. Not to say things could not take a turn for the worse but right now Iraq is booming.
Is it therefore the fault of the US that we believed that he had wmds when apparently Saddam himself believed that he did? But it still boils down to intent and he did intend to develop and use them if necessary. Good riddance to bad baggage and yes, Rascal, we won big time. Down to 90K troops now. Yippee ki yeah.
I think I did say before I somewhat include the Brits in that, in particular the 45 minute claim. However the US led the war, so it has to take most of the ‘bashing’ (and saves me some typing).
That said I have also provided you earlier with lot’s of statements from intelligence organisations all over the world, including your very own, which before the war doubted that Iraq poses a danger and had WMD - pretty much opposing your “executive summary” above.
And that were sources/links you have admitted to being credible.
Of course I can quote them again if you like, I keep such things handy. Just for you.
BUT when I say Germans and French I mean the government and official intelligence agencies. Various private parties can say whatever they want but when Schroeder and Chirac say that he did well that means to me that the official position of those governments is that he had them. That said, I still do not care because wmds was only part of the overall picture for me and that was REGIME CHANGE.
I guess you have repeated that a hundred times now and there is nothing to argue with that - it’s your opinion and so be it, I accept that.
As such I am arguing against the USG which started this war based on the “Iraq has WMD” argument, not on regime change, Saddam being a brutal dictator or whatever other reasons they have given.
If the USG would not have mentioned WMD this war would never have been possible - and I am certain Bush & Co. knew that very well.
Since you are into guesses, assumptions and worst case scenarios just fill in the blanks yourself.
The US govt mentioned wmds as one of the reasons and it became the primary reason only because it was the one harped upon by the media. The other ones were there as you very well know so do not play stupid. Now, if the media wants to make this an issue and constantly harps on the government to respond, naturally, it becomes an issue and eventually in this case became the primary one. BUT please do not pretend that this was the administration’s only issue and that it somehow latched onto this issue with the intention of exclude all these other issues PRIOR to the conflict. All these issues were there, but it was the media which chose to go solely after the wmd argument. I think this is also because the UN was involved and its primary role in the whole process was the wmd inspections not concern over (ironic laugh here) international law or humanitarian issues.
I will leave Rscaru’s comments as they stand. They are a perfect indictment of the braindead Left. Bravo Rscaru. I could not have caricaturized the positions you hold better than you have. More please.
The US govt mentioned wmds as one of the reasons and it became the primary reason only because it was the one harped upon by the media. The other ones were there as you very well know so do not play stupid. Now, if the media wants to make this an issue and constantly harps on the government to respond, naturally, it becomes an issue and eventually in this case became the primary one. BUT please do not pretend that this was the administration’s only issue and that it somehow latched onto this issue with the intention of exclude all these other issues PRIOR to the conflict. All these issues were there, but it was the media which chose to go solely after the wmd argument. I think this is also because the UN was involved and its primary role in the whole process was the wmd inspections not concern over (ironic laugh here) international law or humanitarian issues.[/quote]
I disagree strongly: all your arguments about peace in the ME and security threats to the US or their interests tie more or less to the WMD argument and that’s what the USG put on top of the list, see Rummy’s comment. That’s what the USG used to convince others to join them, it was not the media’s fault.
None of the other reason nor all of them combined would have made this war possible without the WMD claim.
I do not pretented it was the only reason given, but it was the only one which could have justified this war (from a legal point of view).
Law? Oh back to that again are we? Okay, what was lawful about Kosovo and Bosnia? And where were the wmds there? Just curious. As for me, it has always been about regime change. The reasons were many, the outcome was one. Now don’t forget fredfest II is coming up. Answer your private mail.
That’s not quite as good rscaru but I love the intensity. Can’t you go back to talking about evil US strategies again. I thought that was a much more effective way for you to prove my point. How about it?
The US army apologized Wednesday for killing an Iraqi child.
Colonel William Mayville acknowledged that his forces were responsible Tuesday for mortar fire that killed an Iraqi boy as his family picnicked in the northern city of Kirkuk.
Mayville told a meeting with local government officials that he had ordered an investigation into the incident that also wounded the boy’s mother and two brothers.
He said his soldiers had opened fire because they suspected resistance fighters were in the area.
Mayville added that he ordered the payment of 2,500 dollars in compensation for the family of the nine-year-old boy, Basssam Sami Awwad, and 1,500 dollars for each of the three injured.
I know all about economies of scale, but this seems like a pretty paltry sum. I wonder how much the family of a US soldier killed gets.
But, I wonder how much Saddam paid the families of his victims?[/quote]
Uh, what kind of comment is that? With the sentence in bold you make it sound sarcarstic by comparing to Saddam and putting a price on a human life.
Because who gives a **** if and what Saddam paid - or are you saying if he had paid it wouldn’t be as bad? How much should he have paid, more or less than what the US offered?
We all know pretty well what he did and NOTHING can excuse or compensate for that, so your comparision is meaningless - unless you really do not care for the civilian victims and think it’s entirely ok to shoot them as long as someone pays for it.
The US is not perfect therefore it is just as evil as the most evil of dictatorships. Hence the fact that this child was murdered not killed accidentally (of course this must be true since an American soldier was involved and who are we to be in Iraq anyway?!) and the cost must be in the trillions of dollars. Only this will bankrupt the US and ensure that we are no longer No. 1. Then other nations such as Germany and France will not longer need feel jealous and we can all go back to being friends again. Of course we will be sinking to the lowest common denominator but think of how much better for the rainforests and whales this will be. Eventually, it is hoped that we will all revert to slime and go back to our amoebic form. Look given the fact that half the nation is ready to vote for Hillary Clinton, I would say that we are nearly there.
I was waiting for this argument, from Tigerman though: Unfortunately he (Tigerman) made a reference to the compensation (read: $$$) when comparing to Saddam, his argument was not that the child got killed accidently and Saddam killed intentionally.
Nice attempt to bring Germany and France into the discussion - wanna try again?
But, I wonder how much Saddam paid the families of his victims?[/quote]
No, Rascal. My remark wasn’t sarcastic at all. It was meant to draw attention to the fact that while yes, innocent civilian deaths and suffering during war are horrible and tragic, the fact is that this war, even with its horrible and tragic moments, is making life better for most of the Iraqi people. My remark was also meant to point out that most nations do not pay compensation for war victims, casualties of accidents, unless they are the defeated party. The US is not the defeated party yet it is paying compensation for accidental casualties. Does France pay any compensation to innocent victims of its military activities in Africa?
Did I, or did I not, state that these instances were “horrible and tragic”? You do know what those two words mean, don’t you?
*In any event, if I “really didn’t care for the civilian victims”, I would have argued, like you, that Saddam Hussein should remain in power in Iraq with his bootheel firmly stomped on the collective necks of the innocent Iraqi civilians.
Absolutely not. I don’t think any amount of compensation can bring back people killed and thus the compensation is largely symbolic. And please, the way you characterize what happened is … well, you think of the right word. The US soldiers did not “shoot at” what the thought were innocent civilians. The US is not saying that its OK to shoot at people so long as you pay compensation to their remaining family members.
I guess its really easy to act morally superior when you fabricate events.
*See… I can act morally superior too, all I need to do is to misrepresent your position.
How is paying compensation for someone shot making life better to them (the relatives)? I really have problems to follow your line or reasoning …
Life would be better if no one get’s killed, accidently or intentionally. Well, ask the parents if their life is better after receiving USD2500 - then we can talk again.
No, your point was a comparision to Saddam, not other nations - and we know he didn’t kill accidently.
Again you are attempting to make the US look humanitarian and better - just because you are paying USD2500. That comes very close to saying if Saddam had paid (more) it would have been sufficient compensation for the relatives.
What is this with France (or Germany) always? You compared the US to Saddam, so stick with your own line of argumentation or just say you made a mistake.
Did I, or did I not, state that the statement on it’s own would have been entirely appropiate but that you spoiled it by adding the 2nd sentence, making it sound sarcastic?
I very well understand the two words, but you obviously didn’t understand the words I said (wrote).
I did not characterize or comment on what happened, I commented on your statements. And since you ripped the sentence apart it get’s a different meaning, because:
As said I have not commented at all on (or argued against as you imply) the US soldiers, the incident itself or implied that the US would have such a view, I questioned your statement.
Your original post is quoted correctly, no fabrication there.
