 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
or, in list form, adding a few:
{Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt, Reagan, Grant, Nixon, Carter, Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, McKinley, Wilson, Harding, Hoover} & co. are all a pack of liars and anyone who believes them is an idiot, as amply demonstrated on this forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I still don't see how people can claim that Bush lied. In his State of the Union, he said that British Intelligence indicated that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger. British Intelligence still believes that, according to Tony Blair. Bush may have decided now that this information shouldn't have been used, but at the time he made the statement there is no reason to believe he knew it was false, especially given the fact that the agency he got the information from still believes it to be accurate.
And it's Tenet, for god's sake. Props to Imran for getting it right. |
IIRC Bush never even mentioned Niger in his speech, nor did he say that any uranium ever changed hands. He said that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. The Brits objected to our making the source of their info public (which we were doing for the U.N. presentation), so we left it out of that presentation. There is little or no proof of anything here, and the real question is, is Bush weak enough politically to be taken down a notch or two by this? I say yes he is weak enough.
WMD were not the best reason to go to war in this instance. A far better case can be made for Iraq breaking the armistace, as I have said before several times over the years on this forum. But WMD had the dual benefit (as perceived by the Administration) of cowing NK, Iran etc. and winning over the U.N.'s support. Obviously these perceived advantages did not stand up as well as hoped over time, especially once the French dagger had come home to roost in Colin Powell's spine and Bush's diplomatic skills had time to do their usual magic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
FYI- Cynicism does not equal intelligence. If it did, this forum would already have divined life on other planets.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Wasn't it said that the reason for war was the 'fact' that Iraq had breaked the armistace by having WMD?
Colin Powell came to UN, with a tablespoon of salt, said it was Anthrax, then said that Iraq had it, offered hi-quality satellite pictures of trucks as evidence, then left. And it was all the fault of the Frenchmen, we know. |
I'm sure you don't know / remember, but the only reason Powell went to the U.N. was that the French said that they would support the U.S. He talked a very reluctant Bush into letting him go and make the case, and that is when he got ambushed. This is why the U.S. is sanctioning France in general and Msr. le President in particular. Germany never claimed to support us, and we never "retaliated" against them.
As for breaking the armistace, there are a thousand instances of Iraq doing so. Harping only on the disarmament question distorted the policy to the extent that it seemed as though the U.S. reserved the right to do this to any country with WMD, armistace or no. Much more attention should have been paid to the numerous and constant violations of the armistace. Another good reason for taking this line is that the armistace was an agreement between the U.S. and Coalition partners and the Iraqis. Thus it is enforceable outside of the auspices of the U.N.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:29
|
|
I'm sure you don't know / remember, but the only reason Powell went to the U.N. was that the French said that they would support the U.S. He talked a very reluctant Bush into letting him go and make the case, and that is when he got ambushed. This is why the U.S. is sanctioning France in general and Msr. le President in particular. Germany never claimed to support us, and we never "retaliated" against them.
Later in the day, however, Britain wanted to push the issue in the UN. Spain argued vehemently against it. Bush was willing to do what was necessary for Britain, and was receptive to being argued in that direction by Powell, but the administration thought there was a low chance of success. France was really hurting Britain by its instransigence rather than the US.
I think if we had to do it again, we would support Britain on this and go to the UN on both occassions. Bush might be taking a hit on this politically throughout this, because it wasn't clean diplomacy, but you do what is necessary for your allies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
He kicked the inspectors out in 1998 because the US was using them to spy on him. He was completely justified in doing this. Blaming Saddam for US duplicity - heavens, what next? Accusing him of developing nukes?
How much more bollocks are you going to post? The facts are plainly evident, both Bush and Bliar recklessly ramped up the threat from Iraq to sway public opinion for a war that had nothing to do with WMD's, Al Quaeda, or any of the stated reasons.
Only a complete donkey couldn't see this.
Last edited by Agathon on 12-07-2003 at 23:15
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2003 08:39
|