Proof Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what...

www.nytimes.com...

Paint a plane to look like the U.N. spy plane, have Iraq shoot it down, justifies going to war.

But they never had to do that because they fooled us into thinking WMD's were there.

Spread the word.

I would say unbelievable, but it really isn't.

It would be nice if they released this memo, although given the number of reputable agencies that have claimed to have seen it, I have little doubt it exists.

Even if they did release it, it would probably go the path of the Downing Street memo, which is to say, few people's minds would be changed at this point. Neither would any lives be brought back out of the tens of thousands dead by now, or Iraq placed on a path that looks less like civil war, or the world made any safer from terror.

Amazing and sad that we've started a war which we only afterwards examine the intelligence for, both from the Iraqi side and the domestic side.

And they ask why Bush should be impeached...

[edit on 27-3-2006 by koji_K]

The whole world knew there where no WMD's in Iraq (except perhaps america).

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.

Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colours of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire

What, was september 11th not enough of a black op false flag?

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
The whole world knew there where no WMD's in Iraq (except perhaps america).

You mean the hundred or so anthrax shells where not weapons of mass destruction?
Not enough to warrant an invasion I agree but enough to warrant concern , yes no?

The Whole World Knew?

Ask Syria if they knew, k?
Ask Libya if they knew?
Ask Iran if they knew?
Ask Saudia Arabia if they knew?
Ask Jordan if they knew?

The whole world is an absolute blanket statement meaning "all."
Apparently, a number of nations did not get that memo, Syrian Sister, eh?
If you have ready access to it, please feel free to produce it, and when you do, make sure it is not the contested version.





seekerof

Got a source for this anthrax shells claim? - all I've heard of were some old Mustard Gas mortar shells - hardly enough justification for a war with 50K+ dead.

Incursions into airspace are standard US tactics - Ike sending waves of bombers over the Soviet border, Gary Powers, spy planes flying into Chinese airspace recently etc etc

Originally posted by Strangerous
Got a source for this anthrax shells claim? - all I've heard of were some old Mustard Gas mortar shells - hardly enough justification for a war with 50K+ dead.

I may have been mistaken about the type of chemical but it was in the UN report that 100 odd and several rocket weapons went "missing".

Incursions into airspace are standard US tactics - Ike sending waves of bombers over the Soviet border, Gary Powers, spy planes flying into Chinese airspace recently etc etc

Spy planes and strike planes are 2 diffrent types, one is armed the other is not.

spy planes flying into Chinese airspace recently etc etc

Source please.

It is meant to be the representitive of the world yes.

And it did not belive there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hence i can safely say, the world knew that there where no WMD's In Iraq.

I can even safely bet, that the US and UK governments also knew that Iraq had no WMD's otherwise they wouldn't have thought it safe to attack Iraq.

The majority of the US and UK people didn't belive Iraq had WMD's that's why they protested the war.

The only person in this whole world that was actually belived there where WMD's in iraq was Billy BOB country hick from texas who likes to kill A-rabs and vote republican in the hope that they will fry some black people in an electric chair.

-----------


BUSH = HITLER
9/11 = REICHSTAG FIRE

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Syrian Sister]

SS, in hindsite we all (or at least most of us) realize that we were duped into believing that noise. After we watched 9/11 unfold on live tv, we were scared #less. All it took was a whole bunch of people screaming about that evil dictator having WMD's to scare us into playing ball. Now, we are realizing all the ulterior motives, all the botched/purposely altered intelligence, all the profiteers, etc...we Americans are standing up.

We dont want to make enemies on the other side of the planet. We dont want to worry about any more death. We have been lied to, and I think a lot of us are embarassed that we were so easily mislead.

Atleast your smart enough to realise it, and honourable enough to admit it.

Now lets see if you are righteous enough to attempt to stop the continuation of this mistake and attempt to end the war.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
BUSH = HITLER

Thats a bit drastic dont you think?

9/11 = REICHSTAG FIRE
[edit on 28-3-2006 by Syrian Sister]

Funny last time I checked the senate still had power.

Here's one of my favorite quotes around, from Robert Goodwin's book "Remembering America" (1988). Robert Goodwin served as speech writer for both John F. Kennedy and President Johnson.

And then there were only a few: Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, and Dean Rusk, later supplemented by Walt Rostow and, of course, the Pentagon generals. These were neither the best nor the brightest. They were technicians, managers; men whose skill lay in their ability to carry out decisions, lacking the broader virtues of historical perspective, understanding of the legitimate forces of American democracy, knowledge even of Southeast Asia. "You Know, Dick," McNamara said to me in 1966, "it might be a good idea if we had someone at these meetings" (i.e, the meetings where decisions were made) "who understood Vietnamese culture and politics." I was appaled at the implicit indication that no such person had participated; that we were fighting a war in a country we did not know against an enemy we did not understand. To me it was a moment of revelation, which on reflection-then and in the years to come-demonstrated the danger of policies conceived and carried out by small groups of men in virtual secrecy. They begin by lying to Congress and the public, all for the best of reasons; in this case the felt neccesity of "containing" communism in South Vietnam. Next they lie to each other, concealing information and even private opinions that might introduce a note of discordant doubt. And finally they lie to themselves - having become so profoundly, psychically committed to the wisdom of their actions, having raised the stakes so high, that any admission of error would be a failure of unacceptable dimensions

That's all you have to read. I'm sure you can derive as much meaning, if not more, on your own than through my personal interpretation of it.


I don't know if Robert Goodwin knew his words would resound down through the years like they have in this regard. The secrecy, lying, and wielding of power are similiar to the years preceeding and during the Vietnam War. One difference between the major players, Johnson and Bush, is the way the obtained and used their power.

Johnson was a master of playing senators against each other and persuading them to vote one way or the other, which is how he came to occupy the top chair in the Senate during his time there. When he became President, Johnson used his skills to push forward a number of reforms collectively labeled as The Great Society. Johsnon was also secretive and paranoid, and only truuly listened to a few of his closest advisors. Together, they planned the war in Vietnam.

Bush has gained power by selling himself out. There's no two ways about it. Major companies (which, to note, are treated as individuals under U.S. tax laws) bankrolled his presidential campaign, helping him to win the office. As is such, they came around knocking again when they needed favors. In order to pass items through Congress, lobbyists representing different industries were sent out among the senators (Think Abramoff).

So, where am I going with this? To a small group of leaders, there was every reason to go to war in Iraq. Every short term goal was positive- Topple a violent tyrant and restore freedom to a country, gain stability in a volatile region, gain an ally down the road in the same area and , most importantly, secure a much-needed economic partner. No doubt they saw themselves as the veritable angel of light and hope, who could do no wrong. The evidence points to this, and is mounting up.

Obviously, they were terribly mistaken. Instead of seperating a huge brush pile into smaller piles and burning them safely, they went ahead and tossed a match to the whole thing. While the result is the same, it may do much more damage than seperate, smaller fires. That's my personal opinion, you don't even have to read it if you'd like. If not the same, I believe that many Americans (a true majority this time-no pun intended) are coming around to a similiar viewpoint. Bush will never admit his faults, and pull out all stops to reach the end of his term.

That said, We cannot cut and run. We must see this through to the end, if only for the sake of the Iraqi people. We must do it for that reason. If I could ask one thing of the President, it would be the following speech:

My fellow Americans, and to those around the world. &*() everything else. #*&^ the oil, and Halliburton, too. !@*# the propaganda, I'm cutting the &*# with the war on terror. #&$% the insurgents, they want to throw Iraq back into a dictatorship or theocracy. We #*@&'d up, and got the Iraqi people into this big mess. From this day forward, we will not fight for our own interests, we will fight to bring stability and a normal life to those war-ravaged people. We have a responsiblity, and I'm the one for bringing it upon my fellow citizens. I'm sorry. We have to do this.

-Cue the domino scene from "V for Vendetta"

And see the above quote for why this won't happen. Too many top players are involved, and they aren't doing it by the rules.

(Sorry for the gratuitious use of symbols)

[edit on 28-3-2006 by TheGoodDoctorFunk]

This info was released a few weeks ago in the UK by Channel 4. It's called the Whitehouse Memo.

"Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force. "

Watch the news reports here:

www.channel4.com...

Originally posted by devilwasp

been mistaken about the type of chemical but it was in the UN report that 100 odd and several rocket weapons went "missing".

Spy planes and strike planes are 2 diffrent types, one is armed the other is not.

So 'no' then, you have no proof of anthrax weapons? Just more spin.

Yes I'm aware of the difference, my point was that incursions of sovreign airspace to provoke reactions was, and is, a standard US political / military tactic to provoke a reaction.

US then bleats about aggression and bombs people.

Originally posted by Strangerous
So 'no' then, you have no proof of anthrax weapons? Just more spin.

Spin?
Your now saying that because I said the wrong chemical its spin? No its called a mistake. The fact is hundreds of 155mm shells where "missing" not enough in my mind to warrant an invasion but enough to be worried yes no?

550 155mm shells filled with mustard had been lost shortly after the Gulf war,

www.fas.org...

Yes I'm aware of the difference, my point was that incursions of sovreign airspace to provoke reactions was, and is, a standard US political / military tactic to provoke a reaction.

If they wanted to provoke a reaction of sizable proportion they would have just needed to fly an awacs plane over, dont get that big a target on your radar screens often.

US then bleats about aggression and bombs people.

And what country hasnt?

I didn't accuse you of spinning just that it's part of the spin.

There's a big big difference between Mustard and anthrax (that's why the journo-friendly WMD is used - is it CS or a thermonuclear weapon? It's all WMD so let's bomb them.)

No reason at all why any sovreign country shouldn't have mustard gas, especially a country recently involved in a bloody chemical war. There's a worldwide treaty on not using land-mines yet the US chooses to not be a signatory and still has land-mines.

Exactly the same situation. Is that a reason to invade the US?

Originally posted by Strangerous
I didn't accuse you of spinning just that it's part of the spin.

There's a big big difference between Mustard and anthrax (that's why the journo-friendly WMD is used - is it CS or a thermonuclear weapon? It's all WMD so let's bomb them.)

Both are chemical weapons , I count both as dangerous as the other IMO.

No reason at all why any sovreign country shouldn't have mustard gas, especially a country recently involved in a bloody chemical war.

??
www.opcw.org...
Why should they have em?

There's a worldwide treaty on not using land-mines yet the US chooses to not be a signatory and still has land-mines.

So? Many countries have chemical weapons yet havnt joined the CWC.

Exactly the same situation. Is that a reason to invade the US?

Land mines versus chemical wepaons, hmmm which one can go mobile and kill thousands with one shot?
A mine is a one hit wounder or killer, a checmical weapon is a mass murderer.
Both are sick weapons I dont like either but frankly we're stuck with them.

It will be interesting to see how/if this story continues.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Hence i can safely say, the world knew that there where no WMD's In Iraq.

The “UN” leadership was in bed with Saddam and is corrupt and defunct as any ‘governing’ body possibly can be. The US intelligence was not the only agency to produce findings: The BND to Italy produced similar findings at the time.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
The only person in this whole world that was actually belived there where WMD's in iraq was Billy BOB country hick from texas who likes to kill A-rabs and vote republican in the hope that they will fry some black people in an electric chair.

I am from Texas and live in Texas. We are not “Billy BOB country” hicks. Do not assume Texas is a “hick’ state full of “hicks” nor where the only people to believe in Iraqi WMD reside. I also do not recall any Texans as Texans going specifically out of their way to kill so called “A-rabs” nor do we spend time whiling away the day hoping to “fry some black people”.

Let’s get some items strait (just a few):

Texas is the home of the largest medical center in the world, often called the medical capital of the world. Texas has two colleges and universities in the national top ten scholastic rankings, one internationally. Texas is home to the sixth busiest port in the world, second in the United States and all combined port capabilities dwarf the next nation in line. If Texas was a sovereign nation it would have the eighth largest economy in the world:

The Texas economy is more than three times the size of the Russian economy, and is larger than the GNP of countries such as Canada, Brazil, Korea and Argentina.
Source

mg

Originally posted by devilwasp

Both are chemical weapons , I count both as dangerous as the other IMO.

Then you don't know much about either - one is a minor inconvenience to a modern army, the other ruins the earth for a generation

??
www.opcw.org...
Why should they have em?

Why not? They have a neighbour that has used chem against them recently.

So? Many countries have chemical weapons yet havnt joined the CWC.

Land mines versus chemical wepaons, hmmm which one can go mobile and kill thousands with one shot?
A mine is a one hit wounder or killer, a checmical weapon is a mass murderer.
Both are sick weapons I dont like either but frankly we're stuck with them.

So you seem to agree that NBC is a reasonable and legal part of a country's armoury if they choose not to sign a convention saying they won't possess.

Why then was it 'justification' for invading Iraq and killing 30,000+ people?