Bush and Blair agree to attack Iraq without UN, even if no WMD found

[portisizzle]

You have to remember that the reason that Iraq was invaded that Saddam was implicitly involved with 9-11

The reason given was we were enforcing UN resolutions that were continually being broken by Hussein.

[Johnny Punani2]

BTW, I found this great little article...

http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm

Heck, they even say the US isn't invading Iraq because we are evil and want arms sales. You can never win with the left...That's why they are full of ****!

[Larry]

It's the same "Downing Street Memo" from last year. Now the New York Times has decided it's news because the New York Times has read the entire thing.

The article, written by Don Van Natta Jr., addresses the Jan. 31, 2003 memorandum which was leaked to a British author and referenced in February of this year. The New York Times was able to obtain a copy of the secret memo, and confirms most of the reports.

Looks to me like it's a new memo.

I haven't checked the dates, and I'll admit that it's entirely concievable that this is simply a second memo written about the same meeting that "The Downing Street Memo" referenced.

But I think you might want some evidence before simply declaring that they're the same.

(I'd also point out: Doesn't it seem a teensy bit hypocritical to be claiming "old news" when referring to something that "your side" still won't even acknowledge as being factual? How can something possibly be false and "old news" at the same time?)

[Midnight Judges]

The reason given was we were enforcing UN resolutions that were continually being broken by Hussein.

That would be illegal according to the UN resolutions. The UN resolutions clearly state that the only body with the authority to enforce those resolutions is the UN security council.

[portisizzle]

BTW, I found this great little article...

http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm

Heck, they even say the US isn't invading Iraq because we are evil and want arms sales. You can never win with the left...That's why they are full of ****!

Well found. Another reason why liberal kiss ass diplomacy does nothing to solve problems.

Make love not war duuuuuuude. Feels good to say this until you realize that evil does not negotiate.

Make love not war duuuuuude.

[Predicto]

. However, I dunno about you but being guilty of conspiracy with the terrorist org that killed 3,000 americans against the US is enough for me to invade. I would bet the vast majority of american would feel the sameway.

But the evidence of this is woefully, ridiculously inadequate.

[portisizzle]

That would be illegal accoding to the UN resolutions. The UN resolutions clearly state that the only body with the authority to enforce those reolutions is the UN security council.

We ARE the UN. We proved this with the invasion of Iraq.

Care to list the nations on the human rights commissions prior to the invasion? lol

Resist the urge to be a tool of some liberal social utopia drive. We had a job to do and did it.

[Johnny Punani2]

But the evidence of this is woefully, ridiculously inadequate.

Predicto,

Have you been reading the news? I know it's a hassle because it's stuffed in the back pages but there is some big stuff that has been breaking about Saddam's links with Al-Queda. Offical Iraqi documents detailing the coop..

[Larry]

Does this post add anything?

no.

Not exactly true, my young padwa.

His post does have the disctinction, as the 14th post in this thread, of being the first post in the thread which actually discusses the subject of the thread, as opposed to attacking the messenger and calling for his censorship.

[Johnny Punani2]

...If you prefer to call the facts "your side" go ahead because that appears to be the case. Try reading this slowly, maybe it will sink in the second time through: The....9/11 commission.......said......there........WERE.........connections........between.........Saddam.......and Al Qaida.

oh......really......?????

What.....is.......this......then.....???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

[portisizzle]

Not exactly true, my young padwa.

His post does have the disctinction, as the 14th post in this thread, of being the first post in the thread which actually discusses the subject of the thread, as opposed to attacking the messenger and calling for his censorship.

What is a padwa?

And how can we possibly have positive discussion on a topic with no credible subject? That is why the swarm.

[Larry]

We ARE the UN. We proved this with the invasion of Iraq.

But wait a minute.

• Us = Good Guys
  
• UN = Bad Guys
  
• Us = UN
  

Aflac.

[portisizzle]

oh......really......?????

What.....is.......this......then.....???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

And the microchasm of the liberal logic is thus defined on a single post. :laugh:

[Baculus]

I agree the main reason for invasion was WMD which every single country in the World thought Iraq had. However, I dunno about you but being guilty of conspiracy with the terrorist org that killed 3,000 americans against the US is enough for me to invade. I would bet the vast majority of american would feel the sameway.

Immediately after 9-11, I would agree. Now? No, because it is not rationale - that is mere bloodlust. (And remember, there are those who said that 9-11 was an act of revenge for past US actions, so does it become a tit-for-tat revenge cycle?) After all, I don't think 2,000 plus dead Americans and thousands of dead Afghanis and Iraqis brought back any of the dead from 9-11-2001. And if Bin Laden is indeed the man responsible for such planning, as has been suggested by the US government and according to the convetionally offered explanation, then we still have not caught the main person responsible for 9-11.

And there is no proof of a conspiracy between Saddam and Bin Laden, at least for this exact act. There is less proof then any of the conspiracies that I had discussed last week, in fact. I don't even think there is enough specific proof to convict either Saddam, or Bin Laden for that matter, for 9-11 if the case was brought to court. So, as far as I am concerned, we are swinging in the dark.

After all, this is a discussion about Saddam, and now we are talking about 9-11, once again, when there is still no provable ties between Iraq and 9-11. We have shifted away from Bin Laden and now to Saddam. And if we wanted mere revenge, it was odd that Bush said that he didn't know where Bin Laden was and didn't care since it was not important. In fact, there are more possible ties, using the conventionally offered explanation for 9-11, between Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden.

So argument to invade Iraq over 9-11 is not strong enough, at least not enough to justify thousands of dead and billions of spent US dollars.

[Predicto]

Predicto,

Have you been reading the news? I know it's a hassle because it's stuffed in the back pages but there is some big stuff that has been breaking about Saddam's links with Al-Queda. Offical Iraqi documents detailing the coop..

I have been reading everything, I think. It is not "big stuff." It is tiny stuff, maybe no stuff.

Maybe there is big stuff out there, but we haven't seen it yet.

[Johnny Punani2]

But wait a minute.

• Us = Good Guys
  
• UN = Bad Guys
  
• Us = UN
  

Aflac.

no it's

• UN/Left = US evil for Iraqi Sanctions/not invading
  
• UN/Left = US evil for invading Iraq because sanctions were working
  
• US = confused/pissed UN/Left = Food for Oil = Major *******s
  

Lithium

[portisizzle]

But wait a minute.

• Us = Good Guys
  
• UN = Bad Guys
  
• Us = UN
  

Aflac.

US = Good Guys

UN = Tools being made feel good by the US

US = Good Guys

Aflac? No. Why are we wasting our time with a body of nations built on corruption and a history of inaction and failure. (Oil for food)

[Johnny Punani2]

I have been reading everything, I think. It is not "big stuff." It is tiny stuff, maybe no stuff.

Maybe there is big stuff out there, but we haven't seen it yet.

You wish it was tiny stuff. So does all of your ilk in the media. They don't want this to get major coverage. It would be very bad for their agendas.

[Midnight Judges]

oh......really......?????

What.....is.......this......then.....???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

Wait a minute, you mean the reports that Saddam's people met with Al Qaida is not "new news?!?!" :laugh:

You really don't get it, do you. This is in reference to the attacks in 9/11-no links that show Saddam to have aided Al Qaida in that effort. That's not to say Saddam never spoke with Al Qaida. Hell, the USA has spoken with N. Korea, that is a far cry from aiding them with an operational relationship.

[nelms]

But wait a minute.

• Us = Good Guys
  
• UN = Bad Guys
  
• Us = UN
  

Aflac.

You know, the whole "Aflac" thing has gotten a little old. Time to move on to something a little more "clever".

[Johnny Punani2]

I have to say those articles are in contradiction to my interpretation of the 9/11 commission report. The report clearly stated that there was anecdotal evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaida.

That is not really evidence. It's just hearsay or rumors.

[Johnny Punani2]

Wait a minute, you mean the reports that Saddam's people met with Al Qaida is not "new news?!?!" :laugh:

:doh:

What has been in the news lately is actual Iraqi documentation detailing the co-op between Saddam and Al-Queda.

What you quoted even said it wasn't real proof.

[Predicto]

You wish it was tiny stuff. So does all of your ilk in the media. They don't want this to get major coverage. It would be very bad for their agendas.

There is another thread where we discussed these amazing revelations in detail. Several people have debunked the claim that these documents are any sort of vindication. I'm not going to go over it all again here, because you don't want to hear it.

Simple fact: if you are a true believer in this Administration, then these documents probably look a lot more compelling than they do to those of us who are not. For the rest of us, there's simply ain't much there, at least not so far.

[Baculus]

The reason given was we were enforcing UN resolutions that were continually being broken by Hussein.

Well, if you are going to bring in the subject of the U.N., then it would be irony to mention that fact that the U.S. defied the U.N., but only to support it? That just seems odd and a bit unbelievable. And that is why the Downing Street Memo (and the article which started this thread) is brought up as a point of contention, because it asserts that the Bush administration knew that the facts had to be "fixed" to convince the U.N., the American and British public, that the war was justified on legal grounds. And that is why Colin Powell thought the presentation that he had to give to the U.N. was "bull****" (which were reportedly his words), and the reason why he left the administration.

[portisizzle]

Well, if you are going to bring in the subject of the U.N., then it would be irony to mention that fact that the U.S. defied the U.N., but only to support it? That just seems odd and a bit unbelievable. And that is why the Downing Street Memo (and the article which started this thread) is brought up as a point of contention, because it asserts that the Bush administration knew that the facts had to be "fixed" to convince the U.N., the American and British public, that the war was justified on legal grounds. And that is why Colin Powell thought the presentation that he had to give to the U.N. was "bull****" (which were reportedly his words), and the reason why he left the administration.

There is nothing odd about mentioning UN 44 C, the fact that Iraq was in clear and consistent violation, and that the UN failed to act according to its own resolution.

What the US did, and what the US needed to do, was see to it the the resolution be enforced. Else, why have a resolution? Again I say kiss ass diplomacy does not work. Johnnie posted a very relevant article about the violations and the hardship it put on the people of his country.

So, if resolutions did not work and in fact hurt the population what are we left with?

The removal of Hussein. Here are a couple of pictures to remind you WHY we went to Iraq.....

[/img] [/img] [/img] [/img] [/img]

The fact that liberals ignor reality is to say that the opposition to our efforts have been PURELY POLITICAL. No reasonable American would dare oppose the effort America is going through to rid the world of terrorists and leaders who support terrorists from the face of the earth.