 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
SAVA, If the intelligence that the pres based his info on was falsified, but the president did not know it, then the president is not a liar. If, however, the intelligence was "best guess" and the president painted a picture that the "guess" was fact, then, yes, he could be labelled a liar.
"I did not have sex with that woman."
Then we can truly say, that Bush is jusl like other presidents, can we not?
Remember our little discussion on the Spanish-American war. The pretext for the invasion of Cuba was the Maine. We found out later - eighty years later - that the Maine disaster probably was an accident. But did the pres know this at the time?
Regardless, the real reason for invading Spanish Cuba was its liberation from a brutal regime. That was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
(I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating something..)
If there were no WMDs to discover - not just that they were destroyed or hidden or moved in the days before the war, but that that they were destroyed a long time ago - Iraq could have and should have shown evidence of it to the inspectors a long time ago. Their noncompliance (with something they agreed to and should have done twelve years ago, but never did) was the casus beli for war. If they had destroyed the weapons, it was enormously stupid not to show that to the UN. And while people might say that you can't prove a negative, South Africa disarmed to the UN's satisfaction - Iraq did not, and fought tooth and nail to give as little compliance as possible while continuing to work on new weapons in the decade following the gulf war. As a beaurocratic state, they would have evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and there is no logical reason that a country that was trying it's best to keep as many WMDs as it could would destroy them in secret without collecting evidence instead of destroying them with the inspectors as witnesses - unless they did so in the days just before the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vandal-1
1)I stand corrected on the assertion that the US "installed "Saddam more accurately we just armed him against the Iranians during the 1st Reagan term.
|
Yes, we did, but a lot less then some other countries...
quote:
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 percent of Iraq's arms, France 13 percent, China 12 percent, Brazil 2 percent . . . Brazil? Hang on, where's Washington? Where's London? Well, it turns out Brazil supplied more arms to Iraq than America and Britain combined. London and Washington between them account for less than 2 percent of the Iraqi dictatorship's weapons; the parties that met on Friday account for three-quarters.
|
http://www.suntimes.com/output/stey...dt-steyn13.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
raghar
|
|
I wish somewhere else.
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Nobody with brain would believe to inteligence service.
This means... I listened in Kenedy's dead body wasn't breain. They said it was stolen.  If B. would believe his inteligence service we should say his head is somewhat resistant to bulet's penetreation.
Conspiracy? IIRC Things on alt conspiration said he was moron and dumb , so no need for conspiracy.
Yes there was forget document, if you'd believed Iraq you'd know it was forget from start. And if responsible persons would use brain or eyes they could find it by themselves.
^_^
Last edited by raghar on 12-05-2003 at 05:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
To me, a country that fails to abide by the conditions of a cease-fire agreement agreed to by both sides is a reason to war. (Not necessarily always a good one, but a reason)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
anyways, Ned, I also saw the photos of supposed "chemical weapons facilities" that looked like normal buildings with "chemical weapons" put in with photoshop...
|
You think if the CIA is gunna make up falsified sattelite photos, they're gunn ause photoshop so you can tell? 
quote:
. God knows the US has had a bazillion fricking satelites on Iraq, but yet all of a sudden, we can't find these weapons facilities? in the real world, this is what's known as BULLSH1T... |
No, that is what is known as 20+ years of experience on the part of the Iraqis to hide this stuff so they don't have the same thing that happened the last time they openly displayed the stuff for all to see.
Thats why, after the first Gulf War, inspectors found three times as many weapons sites than they had originally suspected of being, and continued to find a lot more stuff after they thought they had uncovered nearly everything.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2003 22:18
(Assuming that there was intelligence that was false) They could have had:
I was talking about the governments between the end of the U.S.' last occupation and his coup. Also I don't even think they were 'good'; I said 'relatively decent', which means preferable to Spanish and U.S. military occupations, and preferable to many of the other Latin American regimes at the time.
That's the case I wish they would have made all along, but we both know the American people wouldn't have supported a war unless they were convinced there was some sort of threat.
|