Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

WHAT!!! - it can't be!

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the US went to war against Saddam Hussein in March.

:crazyeyes :eek2: :crazyeyes

So we went to war why?
«13

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we went to war why?

    To stop the rape of women and the torture of men, women and children? Naw. Why would the peace movement care about that?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tuesday 18th march 2003 George Bush -

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"

    !!! NO DOUBT?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    To stop the rape of women and the torture of men, women and children? Naw. Why would the peace movement care about that?

    Now you KNOW that aint the whole truth!! :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    To stop the rape of women and the torture of men, women and children? Naw. Why would the peace movement care about that?



    wow i guess the US will be busy then huh? because Iraq aint the worst place that those things you speak of take place
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny
    Tuesday 18th march 2003 George Bush -

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"

    !!! NO DOUBT?


    Meant to add....Should they perhaps be talking to eachother before making statements to the press?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now you KNOW that aint the whole truth!!

    Oh, I know BYNY. And I think the peace people on the site and everywhere do care about people. But it's hard to figure out all of the consequences of actions. And the fact is that if the UN was still just trying to impose sanctions on Saddam...people would still be being tortured. And at least the war did stop that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Byny, the money which Saddams son cashed out before the war, was that to start a new organisation feeding the hungry children in his country?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Oh, I know BYNY. And I think the peace people on the site and everywhere do care about people. But it's hard to figure out all of the consequences of actions. And the fact is that if the UN was still just trying to impose sanctions on Saddam...people would still be being tortured. And at least the war did stop that.

    And thousands of people would still be alive, we have done this weighing before, it is impossible..........:(
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed, about 2,000 civilians and up to 100,000 soldiers (most of them conscripts), who were 'liberated' by the Allies during the war.

    That's at least 20 years worth of hard killing by Saddam. But hey, we now have total control of the oil, so what are 100,000 lives? Plenty more where they came from!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    100,000?

    That seems somewhat exxagerated, I thought the figure was about 5,000!

    Where did you hear that?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed, about 2,000 civilians and up to 100,000 soldiers (most of them conscripts), who were 'liberated' by the Allies during the war.

    War sucks. I agree.
    Tyranny does too.

    100,000 may be a bit high...maybe. But on US news stations they did report on kill zones. For instance, in a desert in south central Iraq, the US military tried to get Iraqis to surrender, they wouldn't, so the military mapped out this area for a plane nick-named the wharthog to fly over. It's wings have a type of automatic weapon every few feet. (Maybe one meter apart.) It sprays bullets over an entire area every few inches. Every Iraqi soldier in that kill zone was killed. And in minutes.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And surely you must realise that is at least as and possibly worse than the stories you tell us about rape and torture, there is no clear decsion on which is preferable as some seem to think........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is - if you are going to declare war on another country then you need to get your reasons clear to start with rather than back peddling and adding all the crap about liberating the poor thousands when the real motives begin to be exposed. You still don't tell us why on the one hand the US and UK invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and on the other they had all been destroyed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just an aside. I've almost have never heard Rumsfield speak. My dad always grabs the remote and says: I hate that guy. And off goes the sound.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    byny, do you have a link to any source for this recent claim by Rumsfeld?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was reported in the Evening Standard. You might be able to find the story in its piss-poor website: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's the credibility of that publication?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I heard him say it on CNN at a friend's house. (Cause like I've said, God knows I'll never hear his voice as long as my dad has the remote.) But the way he said it was as a possibility. Maybe we won't find any, maybe this or that will happen.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Part of the Daily Mail group. :rolleyes:

    It says Rumsfield was speaking at a foreign affairs think-tank in New York when he came up with it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    saw rumsfeld on the telly at least half a dozen times today saying there are now no W.M.D. tony blair is saying the opposite. trying to save his little ass.
    even now it's obvious... thre were no WMD...pnj ...you are still supporting bush! he fucking lied and lied and lied to you ...we kept telling you ...but a dictator has fallen so it doesn't matter you were ripped off ...for fucks sake how much more is he ripping you off? when will you stop buying off a dealer who is selling you shit?
    the next kind of country we should save is one thats building death chambers in prison camps where soldiers and farmers and taxi drivers are being executed without trial. without legal representation. without jury. against international law. against ...the ...law! so who's up for invading america then?
    pnj ...your president may want to attack another country soon ...
    are you now going to question the 'facts' or continue blindly along?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, couldn't resist. Hate to say I told you so!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As do I, unfortunately the spin drenched remain intrenchedly so and merely willfully and conveniently forget all the preliminary arguments and justifications put forth by Bush/Blair and co because to do otherwise would force them to confront their own gullibility.

    Far easier for them to simply slide on into the myopic belief that some substantial victory has been achieved over the vague notion of global evil, further ignoring the numerous other equally heinous (if not worse) evils being perpetrated directly or supported indirectly abroad by those same leaders.

    Exercising their civic duty to hold such leaders accountable requires too much effort for the average flag waving "patriot" who is by and large politically apathetic at best. Equally as easy to subsequently villify or label as treasonous those few who do demand greater public oversight of the actions of those elected to serve the public interest.

    And of course don't think for a second that such myopia isnt both welcomed and to a greater extent promoted by an increasingly elitest class of career politicians and their corporate bedfellows.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I imagine when (yes that was when it WILL happen. Of course) I become a politician i'll love having a group of appathetic flag-wavers under me - would makje it easier to pursue my scary radical policies!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny how there was a little disbelief about the statement I posted!! incidentally it WAS all over the news today, AND on the BBC News website. ...As was the earlier quote from Bush which was part of his Pre-war speech.

    I saw a good discussion with a bloke on TV earlier who said that the person who is going to be most shamed by this inability to discover Weapons is Blair as he led soldiers into this war telling them that their mission was to find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction. I am sure that many of those men who went out to do this will want an explanation!

    He also said that the American public won't let this inconsistency bother them as they are happy to swallow the torture chambers and mass graves discovered retrospectively (but which were created beforehand) as enough of a justification for the war, despite the fact that these things were never really up there at the top of the list of reasons for 'liberation'
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Robin Cook MP was on Newsnight earlier and highlighted the obvious (although still not obvious for some): how Rumsfield, Bush and poodle Blair had insisted that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of WMDs- "ready for launching at 45 minutes notice", the poodle told us. And how they had insisted that the UN inspector teams pulled out in view of their apparent inefficiency at finding all those weapons. And how the whole illegality and pre-emptiveness of the attack could be justified because we had to neutralise the danger Saddam posed to others.

    Now we have had Jack Straw first saying that WMDs "probably won't be found, but it doesn't really matter" and Rumsfiled now stating that "we might never find WMDs, perhaps because Saddam destroyed them before the war."

    So there you have it. A totally illegal, unjustified pre-emptive attack based on lies and deception. With the only objective of installing a puppet regime in Iraq and controlling its oil revenues.

    Can people see now why the mad murdering Texan and his pathetic poodle were so anxious to get the UN inspectors out? The reason inspectors found no weapons in the time they spent there is because there were fuck all weapons. And had they been allowed to carry their job in full, they would have stated that Iraq was now free of WMDs, thus eliminating the last excuse for this war of conquest and imperialism.

    Like Simbelyne, I can't resist either to tell you: I told you so. We told you so!

    I hope the warmongers do the decent thing now and finally confront the war criminals who started all this.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also considering that many of those fallback justifications were originally made possible by both the US and UK whose companies were given the green light by our then right wing leaders decades ago to sell billions in both military hardware and chemical/biological precursors and the technological knowhow to weaponise them knowing full well that they would be used to further our interests in the region.

    Complicity doesn't even enter into the all but braindead thought processes of the typical flag waving dolt. If it did by some miracle, Rumsfeld and Cheney (for starters) wouldn't even have time to pack their bags before the axe fell!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All those arguments I hear about it being ok because we still got rid of a dictator, will never wash because he was doing that when he was our ally. Especially when you consider some of the regimes we still tolerate, ignore, support or have done in the past.

    As an 'anti-war liberal' I dont feel any triumph in hearing there are no wmd's only sadness and anger. I just wish I had protested more.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    byny, do you have a link to any source for this recent claim by Rumsfeld?
    It's all over the news, particularly the BBC, whose newscasters are contrasting Blair's certainty of finding WOMD eventually with Rumsfeld's very different opinion (hey, I thought the Beeb were supposed to be in Tony's pocket? And what's the world coming to when you can't retroactively justify an invasion with unsubstantiated rumours??)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I simply wish these increasing revelations were having a similar impact on the Bush camp as they are on Blair. It's high time the entire Bush team, himself included, were dragged before a gauntlet of televised congressional and senate committees and forced to come clean before the nation.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why are there no calls for Blair to be brought before Parliament because he lied to the House? I read an interesting article in Time yesterday by an Iranian exile who has turned her time in Iran into a comic book called Persepolis, I forgot her name but on American foreign policy she said (words to the effect of) "I wish the Americans would just come clean and say we are swallowing you because we are the lions of the jungle... all this talk of liberation and 'we love you' makes me sick." Truer words were never spoken.
Sign In or Register to comment.