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

[Johnny Punani2]

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.

Gee really? A Former Democrat Senator thinks it's pretty interesting. Maybe it's you who is wishing there isn't much there...

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29746

This is pretty damning.

Spin away Predicto...

[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.

Just an additional thought on the subject.

Annon and the bunky's were getting major kick backs from the oil for food program. Why would the "leadership" of the UN based on this corruption EVER vote to actions that would end the flow of money to their own purses.

[vinva]

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.

The war did not need to be further justified on legal grounds. They had more than enough legal ground to justify an invasion...it was the popular support that was needed. People are stupid and like to get behind a simple idea...getting rid of WMDs in Iraq was that idea.

[Predicto]

Gee really? A Former Democrat Senator thinks it's pretty interesting. Maybe it's you who is wishing there isn't much there...

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29746

This is pretty damning.

Spin away Predicto...

I'm sorry, but it just isn't that damning.

As I said before, if there are more documents to come out in the future with more compelling information, I am willing to reconsider my views.

[Johnny Punani2]

I'm sorry, but it just isn't that damning.

As I said before, if there are more documents to come out in the future with more compelling information, I am willing to reconsider my views.

I'm not saying this alone is justification for going to War but it does prove what was thought before about a connection between Iraq and Al_Queda was wrong and needs further investigation.

There are still tons of Iraqi documents that still need to be looked at.

[portisizzle]

I'm sorry, but it just isn't that damning.

As I said before, if there are more documents to come out in the future with more compelling information, I am willing to reconsider my views.

What could be more compelling? Information that Osama had sex with the oldest son?

Give me a break. Fact is your views are predisposed based on your political persuasion. Which in and of itself is not a bad thing. That is until your political persuasion is hammered with evidence contrary to everything you were told to believe.

[Madman_Mike]

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.

Let me repeat for the hard of hearing. It is not censorship to weed out insanity.

How do I define insanity? the inability to recognise fact from fantasy. Case in point...

Bush also suggested painting plane with UN signs and flying it over Iraq to draw fire and start war

Really? Does anyone see a problem with the logic in this statement or am I alone? Here's a hint... How high does a U2 fly and who the hell is going to see it's markings? Here's another hint... Saddams Iraq fired on UN overflights and coalition overflights all the time, why fabricate an incident? How about another one, who would we be fooling? Like the UN wouldn't know it was not one of their planes?

Folks, any news sorce that would fabricate such nonsense is not worthy of discussion and it sure as hell is not worthy of having every new "Bush is Satan" story posted here.

Crazyman is just that... crazy. He contributes nothing of value and is draging our debates into the gutter.

[Predicto]

I'm not saying this alone is justification for going to War but it does prove what was thought before about a connection between Iraq and Al_Queda was wrong and needs further investigation.

There are still tons of Iraqi documents that still need to be looked at.

Honestly , I think there are probably some small connections or communications between every dictator who hates the US and every terrorist organization that also hates the US. I bet that Al-Qaeda tried to talk to Khadaffi in Libya too, and to the Mullahs in Iran, and to Assad in Syria, and others. Whether our invasion of Iraq was justified remains the big question. Certainly our invasion of Afganistan was.

I guess we will have to wait and see what else comes out before we can resolve this for sure. For now, I am sticking to my view that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 or tied in with Al-Queda, until I see something more substantial.

[Baculus]

Portsizzle, it is disingenious to post those pictures. Before 9-11, those pictures would have made many shrug - after all, there are brutal pictures that can be posted from various conflicts around the world. Should I start to post them and start beating the drums to invade this or that country?

We know Saddam was an arsehole - that isn't the question. I remember in the 80's when the Kurds were gassed in Northern Iraq (1988?) and the criticism of our policy towards Saddam, who we continued to support even after that attack. And, keep in mind too, that while you are posting these photographs, that Saddam has a long history of association with the United States. So if Saddam is a monster, we are partially responsible for his rise to a status.

The question is, was the war justified to take out a monster considering the number of monsters in the world, and are we now going to start a crusade to start every monster? Because if we don't, then we are hypocrites. "I am sorry, but your evil leader just isn't bad enough for us to invade and overthrow."

Also, one note: Are you going to post any photos of dead and wounded from the post-invasion of Iraq?

[Baculus]

Give me a break. Fact is your views are predisposed based on your political persuasion. Which in and of itself is not a bad thing. That is until your political persuasion is hammered with evidence contrary to everything you were told to believe.

I expect this is probably true of a lot of folks, I would think.

[portisizzle]

Portsizzle, it is disingenious to post those pictures. ?

It is not disingenuous. And I will stop reading your post right there.

The fact that you do not like to see those pictures is that there is a human element to this conflict. One that compelled the US to act EVEN WHEN THE UN REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB. As am American, you should see those pictures and weep for this country. Not tell me they are disingenuous. That is poor on your part and further paints you as a political hack.

You don't like to see the pictures? Tough. Stop living in liberal social utopia where all is good and the moon is made of cheese.

[Larry]

Does anyone see a problem with the logic in this statement or am I alone? Here's a hint... How high does a U2 fly and who the hell is going to see it's markings? Here's another hint... Saddams Iraq fired on UN overflights and coalition overflights all the time, why fabricate an incident? How about another one, who would we be fooling? Like the UN wouldn't know it was not one of their planes?

Yeah, some of those objections occurred to me, too. (I'll give you some more: I think all of the U-2s have been decommissioned, except one which I believe has been sold to NASA for testing sensor rigs that NASA is thinking of orbiting. The article also mentions sending the U-2 under fighter escort, and I don't think there's a fighter that's capable of "escorting" a U-2, because I don't think there's a fighter capable of flying high enough or slow enough.)

[Larry]

It is not disingenuous. And I will stop reading your post right there.

The fact that you do not like to see those pictures is that there is a human element to this conflict. One that compelled the US to act EVEN WHEN THE UN REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB. As am American, you should see those pictures and weep for this country. Not tell me they are disingenuous. That is poor on your part and further paints you as a political hack.

You don't like to see the pictures? Tough. Stop living in liberal social utopia where all is good and the moon is made of cheese.

So, when are we invading Somalia? Or North Korea? Or China, for that matter?

And why didn't W claim from the outset that he was invading because of UN sanctions and/or human rights? (Answer: He knew it wouldn't sell.)

[vinva]

It is not disingenuous. And I will stop reading your post right there.

The fact that you do not like to see those pictures is that there is a human element to this conflict. One that compelled the US to act EVEN WHEN THE UN REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB. As am American, you should see those pictures and weep for this country. Not tell me they are disingenuous. That is poor on your part and further paints you as a political hack.

You don't like to see the pictures? Tough. Stop living in liberal social utopia where all is good and the moon is made of cheese.

But come on man, he's right. Us invading had nothing to do with those pics or anything else Saddam did to his people.

[Baculus]

It was mentioned earlier about the Food for Oil program and the U.N. corruption that is reported to have occurred. Keep in mind, too, that American companies were also involved with such programs as well.

Also, regarding the legal basis of the Iraqi invasion, some dispute that fact. According to the following article 43 Australian experts declared that the invasion was not legally justified. Of course, to those who support the action to invade Iraq, this is probably moot:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=241

[Midnight Judges]

It is not disingenuous. And I will stop reading your post right there.

The fact that you do not like to see those pictures is that there is a human element to this conflict. One that compelled the US to act EVEN WHEN THE UN REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB. As am American, you should see those pictures and weep for this country. Not tell me they are disingenuous. That is poor on your part and further paints you as a political hack.

You don't like to see the pictures? Tough. Stop living in liberal social utopia where all is good and the moon is made of cheese.

Yet you failed to post any pictures of the civilians who's corpses were charred in the shock and awe campaign. Have you seen those? There are 7,000 of them you know, and at least another 23,000 since. Fact is, Iraqi's are dying at a faster rate since our invasion. That may or may not improve but you can't call this a victory until we make Iraq better for the people there. Three years into this war there is no end in sight.

[portisizzle]

So, when are we invading Somalia? Or North Korea? Or China, for that matter?

And why didn't W claim from the outset that he was invading because of UN sanctions and/or human rights? (Answer: He knew it wouldn't sell.)

Funny, seems like this is why we have a UN. If they were doing their job would we really have these type of conflicts? Johnny's link provided all the answers you need. Sanctions do not work when the regime being "punished" does not pass aid to its people.

Just a question. How many examples of UN failure are you willing to post here? Somalia? North Korea? China? Any more you think the US should deal with?

The final question. Why have a UN if they are rendered useless in most struggles involving human rights?

[portisizzle]

But come on man, he's right. Us invading had nothing to do with those pics or anything else Saddam did to his people.

"Had nothing to do"????

Really? :doh:

[Johnny Punani2]

It was mentioned earlier about the Food for Oil program and the U.N. corruption that is reported to have occurred. Keep in mind, too, that American companies were also involved with such programs as well.

Also, regarding the legal basis of the Iraqi invasion, some dispute that fact. According to the following article 43 Australian experts declared that the invasion was not legally justified. Of course, to those who support the action to invade Iraq, this is probably moot:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=241

However, those American companies were a tiny amount of the illegal sales that went on in Iraq. It's not some strange coincidence that the major players against the war (France, Russia, and Germany) had huge illegal dealing in Iraq not to mention the UN itself. That really pisses me off. We get all kinds of **** for the sanctions and they are robbing the Iraqi people blind. I hate the UN...

[portisizzle]

It was mentioned earlier about the Food for Oil program and the U.N. corruption that is reported to have occurred. Keep in mind, too, that American companies were also involved with such programs as well.

Also, regarding the legal basis of the Iraqi invasion, some dispute that fact. According to the following article 43 Australian experts declared that the invasion was not legally justified. Of course, to those who support the action to invade Iraq, this is probably moot:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=241

What "law" did the US break? Be specific or don't suggest it.

[Midnight Judges]

Funny, seems like this is why we have a UN. If they were doing their job would we really have these type of conflicts? Johnny's link provided all the answers you need. Sanctions do not work when the regime being "punished" does not pass aid to its people.

Just a question. How many examples of UN failure are you willing to post here? Somalia? North Korea? China? Any more you think the US should deal with?

The final question. Why have a UN if they are rendered useless in most struggles involving human rights?

You say the sanctions didn't work. Let me ask you this: Did Saddam have WMD's or not?

answer: the UN successfully disarmed Saddam without having to go to war.

[Johnny Punani2]

You say the sanctions didn't work. Let me ask you this: Did Saddam have WMD's or not?

answer: the UN successfully disarmed Saddam without having to go to war.

No. He still had illegal missiles and was ready to start his weapons programs again. I don't call that successful disarmament.

[Baculus]

Give me a break, Portisizzle, and enough with the self-righteous indignation. What is ironic if that I started to post pictures of the casulties from U.S. military missions, would you have the same reaction? Would you? Yes or no? And this has nothing to do with me "liking" such pictures - after all, why would I "like" them? Death by one hand, Saddam Hussen is bad, but death by U.S. military arms is good since we are liberating them?

Incidentally, during the 80's, when I did mention and complain about our support for Saddam after our gas attack, I was told by those who support Bush I that I needed to be realistic, since Saddam opposed Iran and to quit "whining" about a few dead Kurds. And human rights groups were ignored when talking about Saddam's cruel regime - hey, he was our guy and A-OK with us!

By the way, this does not mean that war is never justifiable.

[Predicto]

It is not disingenuous. And I will stop reading your post right there.

The fact that you do not like to see those pictures is that there is a human element to this conflict. One that compelled the US to act EVEN WHEN THE UN REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB. As am American, you should see those pictures and weep for this country. Not tell me they are disingenuous. That is poor on your part and further paints you as a political hack.

You don't like to see the pictures? Tough. Stop living in liberal social utopia where all is good and the moon is made of cheese.

I could show you some awesome pictures from the Sudan, taken just recently.

And please stop directly insulting every single person you disagree with. It's getting kind of tiresome.

[portisizzle]

Yet you failed to post any pictures of the civilians who's corpses were charred in the shock and awe campaign. Have you seen those? There are 7,000 of them you know, and at least another 23,000 since. Fact is, Iraqi's are dying at a faster rate since our invasion. That may or may not improve but you can't call this a victory until we make Iraq better for the people there. Three years into this war there is no end in sight.

23,000 people died in targeted attacks? How many died by the hand of Saddam and his cronies?

Venture a guess?

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040224_mass_graves.html

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.