NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by zappafan1

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.

Wrong. As an American citizen, I absolutely have that right.

As well as the right to criticize it for its occasional foolish policies...

I'd suggest you read the constitution.

Geez.... I just checked, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that anyone has the "right" to live here.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The American public simply would not put up with some sort of blatent exploitation of Iraq. They would insist on dealing fairly with the country once everything settles more or less back to normal.

I find that comment very amusing considering our long history in our own country of slavery, native American annihilation, Japanese internment, and government sanctioned prejudice well into the 20th century....

Do you think the public has really changed all that much in the last 40 or so years?

[edit on 9-12-2005 by loam]

Slavary.... which the "evil american white man" put an end to. Is that the slavery you're mentioning?

someone was going to take control of North America...... Britain; France...

Records show that the Japanese had a very large and well organized intelligence group here. Interrment was the only course of action.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

Whoah, hold the phone there, that constitutes a connection?

The New Yorker magazine, in its December 13 edition set to hit US newsstands on Monday, reported that according a longtime acquaintance from his native Saudi Arabia, bin Laden made at least one trip to the United States, in about 1978, with his wife and oldest son, who needed medical treatment.

Bin Laden Visted US For Medical Treatment

Wouldn't a Bin Laden connection trump an al-Libi connection any day? Well according to some decks of cards it does.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.

That required a second resolution remember? Thats what the Blair camp was vying for as it would sure up the legal right to invade. That never eventuated, the UN did not approve and hence it was never legal.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd like to point out that when the US saved Europe's ASS years ago (they would likely all be speaking German and wearing swastikas if it weren't for the US) we stayed; and in fact, we are still there (by invitation). We'll be in Iraq for many years to come. I'm willing to bet that Syria and Iran are next to go in the next 10 years.

Flash back to grade 2

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Lighten up FOOLS!! You have the ability and the freedom to criticize all you want largely because of US policy.

I'd rather hold onto the view that we have the freedom to criticize INSPITE of recent US policy.

It appears that the title "expert" has gone to your head. Freedom-for-sum is correct.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Because it is not the UNs job,

Really?? Then how do you explain the arm of this UN organization?



[edit on 12-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by thermopolis
(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............
Now picture saddam today on trial in Iraq................
Democracy in action people....................get it?]

your right, how could we miss those important facts

defying the UN? ... didnt the US just do that inorder to INVADE?
breaking 17resolutions?... Iraq turned out not to have 1 single WMD... not 1..
he wasnt building them, supplying them or nothing. back in gw1 i agree he did.
But the 5yrs prior to the iraq invasion , saddam was no more a threat to the western world than france was..
shooting at aircraft?... every country has the RIGHT to a defence, and to stop other countries interfering. The no fly zones was not a WORLD saftey thing, it wasnt a UN imposed restriction. It was the USA and BRITAN imposing its own rules and regulations. THE US doesnt OWN Iraq, they didnt CONTROL it.
They had no right to say we are going to fly planes over your territory as we please...

If we did that to china?.. would you really expect them not to shoot us down?
HELL, if CHINA did it to the USA, would the US NOT SHOOT THEM DOWN ?

People in woodchippers...
What about the people in falluja?
Or the people in Abu Grahib
Or the tortured people found in the prison 2weeks back?
what about the mothers of dead sons?
the fathers of dead daughters?
the babies of murdered families?
what about the parents back home in the US thinking of there murdered son?

saddam killed people with an even method, it makes no different if the us kills people quickly or in the same methods.
You dont kill innocent people and try to justify it in any way.

Saddam on trial today, I agree the man should be held accountable,
but under no circumstances should any contry feel they have the right to invade, and hold the countries leader on trial for crimes he commited years nad years and years ago.. its UNETHICAL and UNJUSTIFIED
What is the difference in saddam ordering his henchman to kill 144people in a town that tried to assinate him.... then bush sitting in his leather arm chair ordered helicopters to destroy houses, media networks, schools, weddings, so forth and so forth.

Democracy barely works in your own country at the moment, how the hell are you going to make it work in the middle of the fricken hostile arab lands.

You've done no research to back up what you wrote, or most of it wouldn't have been written. Also... spelling, punctuation, etc, etc is a good indication of ones reading abilities, and therefore the ability to aquire a viewpoint facts.

Originally posted by Qoelet

Originally posted by thermopolis


OK (big gulp) please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.

Well I think that ethics-wise, the US has a very 'distinct' moral and ethical outlook, especially when it comes to social welfare and wellbeing... I think N Europe particularly has the edge there (esp. the UK and the Scania countries)...

as for history of saving us all mere mortals from our 'stupidity'... well I find that a *little* patronising seeing as US isolationism and UK appeasment actually helped the 2nd WW on it's way (I assume you're bleating on about the war.. right?) so it was stupidity all round for that one.. I'll have my portion with freedom fries please...

or d'ya mean the Cold War? You made loads of nuclear weapons... well done... fight stupidity with stupidity... great stuff...

the best was saving us from Iran by arming a chap called Saddam... oh wait...

".... social welfare and well-being" It's not governments job to provide the individual those things; at least not according to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. European social programs are akin to a form of Socialism and Marxism, at least in part, and it's bankrupting those countries. If that's what you call an "edge'" they can have it.

".....US isolationism" Yeah....... we should stop feeding 1/3rd of the world, and giving billions of dollars to countries in need. Is that the isolationism you speak of?

".... loads of nuclear weapons..." It worked!



[edit on 12-12-2005 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's been proven that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, receiving medical treatment. There's your Al Qaeida connection.

You guys seem to forget (or probably never knew) that this war is a legal continuation of the first Gulf war.

Here, here, people we have found another justification to the war in Iraq.

Is because Its a continuation of the first Gulf war

Occurs 10 years later.

Do you think Bush will buy your idea?

Do the research.... Bush 1 agreed to a UN proposed cease-fire, which makes this action a continuation.

Do a Google for "mother of all connections" and read it... it'll take you a while.

Originally posted by BlackThought
I find it ironic that some of these people who support the president ignore common facts to keep from answering real questions like.

Where are the WMD, Mobile chemical Labs, and Yellow cake from Niger, and Links to Al-Qaeda.

None of that was proven. The biggest laugh was when the bush Administration tried to portray 911 done by Iraq. LOL Most of the republican leadership is in some type of corruption trouble yet that did not stop them from illegally invading (UN Said) another sovereign country BTW a country the United States help setup. The 800lb gorilla is now ten 1-ton Gorillas in tutus dancing the 1812 overture.

You've only read that which supports your viewpoint.
WMD's?.... in Syria.
YellowCake? came from the Congo, not Niger.
The UN is a bad joke; who cares what they say.
Most of the prsidents administration? How many negative posts did you make when Clinton was in office?
Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by thermopolis
Nixon had enough intergity to step down.

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing enough to respond to this statement... every time I try... well...

--whew--

You can look elsewhere for deflection from the real issue as much as you like. In the end, a war was started that killed our soldiers and countless innocents based on data that is increasingly laced with lies and deception. Debating past issues has no relation to this very important current issue.

No.... you don't have the information to disprove what Thermopolis wrote, and you wouldn't believe it if it was handed to you.

"......laced with lies and deception"......?

"In a startling revelation, Sunday’s New York Times bit the bullet, swallowed its tongue and reported that in 2003, just as the US was invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein had WMDs; consisting of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction as well as the equipment to manufacture nuclear weapons. The Times reported that these were moved, by Hussein, “to a neighboring country”. Hmmm. Seems as if we’ve heard this before. Could it have been…Syria?

Further, and despite its mouthpieces’ protestations to the contrary, the UN was, also, apparently aware of them. The Times reported that UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) was cognizant of the weapons and equipment dismantling and moves to another country. As many of us (conservative writers) have been opining for well over a year, the WMDs had been moved. Note: My personal opinion was that they had been moved to the Bekaa Valley. What makes this particularly sweet is that this information was printed in one of the largest leftist newspapers in the world! Further, we conservatives knew that President Bush was telling the truth; even as the less-than-close-to-intelligent liberals, leftists and anarchists repeated their mantra “Bush lied!” Suffice it to say, as has become the norm, President Bush told the truth. No surprise to me.

This extraordinary news comes at a time when President Bush’s desired spread of democracy (“The Bush Plan”) is not only working in the world but, is causing whole populations to rise up and demand for liberty and free elections. Monday’s pro-Lebanon/anti-Syria rally in Beirut is now approximated at 1MM participants and rumblings have already begun in Syria and Iran".

Originally posted by zappafan1

Geez.... I just checked, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that anyone has the "right" to live here.

Are you actually claiming that the entirety of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights?

Are you actually claiming that our rights are limited ONLY to those that are listed in the Bill of Rights?

Amendment IX-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Are you actually claiming that the point of the Constitution is to list our "rights?"

Seriously?

The Constitution is a list of the offices of the federal government, the qualifications necessary to hold those offices, the manner in which those offices are to be filled, and the VERY SPECIFIC powers that are to be granted to those office holders.

Nowhere in the Constitution is any officeholder of any branch of the government granted the power to exile an American citizen.

Amendment X-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the federal government is not granted the power to exile an American citizen, nor are any states, then American citizens DO indeed have the "right" to continue to live in the United States, if they might so choose.

However, that viewpoint relies on a misperception of the nature of the Constitution, since its focus is NOT our "rights," but rather the government's powers.


And of course, the entire argument is moot. The problem with your assertion that anyone who feels that the US government might legitimately be criticized should, rather than offering that criticism, leave this country, is your frightening intolerance and your complete and utter failure to understand that the right to hold dissenting views is exactly what separates this nation from many others, and is the source of much of its strength.

And again-- it seems obvious to me that since you are so completely unable to tolerate dissent, YOU are the one, if anyone, who should move to another country. There are many nations in the world that share your opinion that dissent is not to be tolerated, but the United States, thankfully, is not one of them.

Originally posted by zappafan1

Also... spelling, punctuation, etc, etc is a good indication of ones reading abilities, and therefore the ability to aquire a viewpoint facts.

You're absolutely right.

"...aquire a viewpoint facts."

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
You're absolutely right.

"...aquire a viewpoint facts."

Dude, seriously, I nearly stopped breathing laughing at that

I noticed an extreme amount of what a reasonable person would consider to be trolling in this thread. I wonder why? Is there something about the Emperor running around starkers that people try to poo-poo?

[edit on 13/12/05 by subz]

Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.

Could you explain this please?

The Iraqi STATE was recognized by the UN, and its leaders were Iraqis operating under a constitution ratified by the people.

What makes it un-sovereign?

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.

Could you explain this please?

The Iraqi STATE was recognized by the UN, and its leaders were Iraqis operating under a constitution ratified by the people.

What makes it un-sovereign?

I agree, I'd like to know how that one is explained. I'd also like to know how you explain the follow too:

Originally posted by zappafan1
YellowCake? came from the Congo, not Niger.

Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"? Or is it now "Congolese Yellowcake"? Such vitriole would be best assisted with atleast being accurate.

Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"? Or is it now "Congolese Yellowcake"? Such vitriole would be best assisted with atleast being accurate.

The yellow cake they found came from Iraq.

Iraq has several large yellow cake mines.

The first time I heard about the supposed yellow cake from Niger I nearly fell down laughing.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by zappafan1

Geez.... I just checked, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that anyone has the "right" to live here.

Are you actually claiming that the entirety of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights?

Are you actually claiming that our rights are limited ONLY to those that are listed in the Bill of Rights?

Amendment IX-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Are you actually claiming that the point of the Constitution is to list our "rights?"

Seriously?

The Constitution is a list of the offices of the federal government, the qualifications necessary to hold those offices, the manner in which those offices are to be filled, and the VERY SPECIFIC powers that are to be granted to those office holders.

Nowhere in the Constitution is any officeholder of any branch of the government granted the power to exile an American citizen.

Amendment X-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the federal government is not granted the power to exile an American citizen, nor are any states, then American citizens DO indeed have the "right" to continue to live in the United States, if they might so choose.

However, that viewpoint relies on a misperception of the nature of the Constitution, since its focus is NOT our "rights," but rather the government's powers.


And of course, the entire argument is moot. The problem with your assertion that anyone who feels that the US government might legitimately be criticized should, rather than offering that criticism, leave this country, is your frightening intolerance and your complete and utter failure to understand that the right to hold dissenting views is exactly what separates this nation from many others, and is the source of much of its strength.

And again-- it seems obvious to me that since you are so completely unable to tolerate dissent, YOU are the one, if anyone, who should move to another country. There are many nations in the world that share your opinion that dissent is not to be tolerated, but the United States, thankfully, is not one of them.

True, the Constitution details powers given to government by the document itself, or by "the people". The Bill of Rights are those rights given to "the people" by the Creator.... not man. It is, indeed, a list of the only rights we are guaranteed. Hence, there is no "right" to live here. We can refuse anyone immigration.
"Tolerate" is not the correct word, 'nor is dissent. A well-reasoned difference of opinion is welcome, but most of what I read does not fall into that category.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Iraq was most certainly NOT a sovereign country.

Could you explain this please?

The Iraqi STATE was recognized by the UN, and its leaders were Iraqis operating under a constitution ratified by the people.

What makes it un-sovereign?

I agree, I'd like to know how that one is explained. I'd also like to know how you explain the follow too:

Originally posted by zappafan1
YellowCake? came from the Congo, not Niger.

Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"? Or is it now "Congolese Yellowcake"? Such vitriole would be best assisted with atleast being accurate.

When the country is run by a dictator, who's opponents were imprisoned or shot, and the people are not free to believe what they want, then it is not a sovereign nation.
"....Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellowcake"?
That's the entire point; The CIA knew for five years that Saddam did not look to Niger for yellowcake, so why did they send Wilson to Niger? Plamegate is a large red herring, aspecially since she was already "outed", and her status was not covert. What should be investigated is who sent Wilson, and why.
The idea of sending someone on this type of mission, who was not a CIA employee and had no experience in this type of intelligence gathering, is rather curious. You should read his entire report, as it shows Saddam did, indeed, make connections in his search for yellowcake.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Why do you suppose then that the UN isn't persuing the US for war crimes?

Because it is not the UNs job, and because the US has a UN veto.

If any nation were to bring a resolution before the Security Council that we did not favor it would be vetoed.

And since the US has not agreed to join the International Criminal Court how could they do anything?

No entity has the power to demand Bush, and any other warcriminals present themselves for trial.

The acceptence of the International Criminal Court by any country allows their laws and rights to be circumvented by those of the I.C.C., which is why America did not, and will never, agree to it.
Read the I.C.C. specifics, and see how little "rights" you have, such as no right to a speedy trial, and the fact that your defense attorney has no right to even view the charges and evidence held against you. The I.C.C. is part of what one might call the "new world order".
Here's an interesting thought: in any country that agreed to the I.C.C., a representative (policeman) from that body could enter that country and arrest anyone it felt they had charges against, and the government could not stop it, since they agreed to be bound by the terms of the I.C.C.
Any wonder why we didn't sign on to it?

zappafan1, just a friendly suggestion. You might want to edit out your nested quotes. You are liable to be given an ATS point fine for it if a mod sees it

Originally posted by zappafan1
When the country is run by a dictator, who's opponents were imprisoned or shot, and the people are not free to believe what they want, then it is not a sovereign nation.

Grab a dictionary if you must, you are way off the mark on what constitutes a sovereign nation.

sovereign: Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state

Unless Saddam Hussein's Iraq was part of a larger country, it was a sovereign nation. It had its own leader and no other country ran its affairs.

Originally posted by zappafan1
"....Does the whole Plamegate not surround "Nigerian Yellow cake"?
That's the entire point; The CIA knew for five years that Saddam did not look to Niger for yellow cake, so why did they send Wilson to Niger?

The British government provided the United States with forged documents supposedly showing sales of Nigerian yellow cake to Iraq. The CIA sent a former U.S Diplomat to both Iraq and North Africa to investigate the claim because they had no other assets in place.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Plamegate is a large red herring, aspecially since she was already "outed", and her status was not covert. What should be investigated is who sent Wilson, and why.

She was not outed before Wilson was sent to Nigeria. That is an established fact and Fitzgerald would not be investigating anything if what you said was true, would he?

Originally posted by zappafan1
The idea of sending someone on this type of mission, who was not a CIA employee and had no experience in this type of intelligence gathering, is rather curious.

He was a U.S Diplomat for crying out loud. They are usually Chief of Mission for the entire US spying activity in the country they work in. He had experience and contacts in both North Africa and Iraq. What more do you want?

Originally posted by zappafan1
You should read his entire report, as it shows Saddam did, indeed, make connections in his search for yellow cake.

So what? You were saying Nigeria had nothing to do with the whole case for the Iraq invasion. That isn't true.

[edit on 13/12/05 by subz]

Plame outed herself on her second date with her husband;
She outed herself, and the (then) covert company she worked for when she voted for Algore in the elections;
The Russians outed her at least ten years before;
Wilson introduced her at at least two parties as his "CIA wife".
No charges of outing her were made because she was not covert for at least five years; she had a desk job;
The woman who wrote the law said she was not outed, and the law was not broken. There's a big difference between being "classified" and "covert". The people who clean the floors there are "classified".
The CIA admitted that he had no training, connections or exceptional qualifications to do that type of underground investigation.

The Congo connection:
www.americanthinker.com...



[edit on 13-12-2005 by zappafan1]