The First of Many?

[Ronin]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/935946.asp?vts=070820031310

[Charlito Cafe]

*cheers*

Good. This should start a chain reaction and soon the whole faulty intelligence thing will come into the spotlight, hopefully burning the shit out of Bush in 2004.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
It is good they admitted their mistake, and didnt try to cover it up.

yeah, never mind the fact that we were lied to in the first place!

[NOFXdesendents5]

I still don't give a fuck if countrys have weapons or not. Just depends if they use them or not.

I was glad about Iraq cause Saddam was killing his people.

[Charlito Cafe]

And now the new government's going to oppress and kill even more people. Trust me, Saddam's secular regime is A LOT better than an Islamic fundamentalist republic.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
And now the new government's going to oppress and kill even more people. Trust me, Saddam's secular regime is A LOT better than an Islamic fundamentalist republic.

Yeah, except, the US isn't going to let the Iraqui government get out of control. We still have troops trying to control the chaos over there, I doubt people are going to start a dictatorship very soon.

[Charlito Cafe]

Once again, assuming the Bush admin's altruistic motives. You still think they were out to liberate the Iraqi people?

NO WAY! Bush is just trying to gain control of a lucrative colony, and keep the profits for his buddies, calling it "reconstruction".

Reason#1 for attack: They pose a direct and imminent threat with their WMDs. WRONG!!! No weapons yet. Faulty intelligence or just flat-out lying. Bush is gonna fry for this.

Reason#2 for attack: Liberation. Right. Since when were we the world's police. You know who is? The UN. And we fucking ignored them. If the human rights problem was that bad, the UN would have authorized action, after analyzing GLOBAL opinion. Even if a serious violation is occuring, which granted Saddam is a monster, we have to make sure we won't make the situation worse first, which we have done by fueling the fires of a brand new generation of terrorists AND setting the place up for Islamic revolution. Once the US leaves, I give that place at the most 5 years before any form of democracy we set up collapes. Maybe the UN foresaw this and didn't authorize action after a simple cost-benefit analysis. The costs of de-stabilizing Iraq and creating more terrorists, versus the benefit of liberating oppressed citizens.

Reason#3 for attack: Lift oil sanctions because Saddam will no longer be in power, and make sure that the newly liberated nation only shares their lucrative resources with the US. BINGO!!!!!!!! To quote the Suicide Machines "It's all about money."

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Reason#3 for attack: Lift oil sanctions because Saddam will no longer be in power, and make sure that the newly liberated nation only shares their lucrative resources with the US. BINGO!!!!!!!!

I choose to agrue with only this reason cause the rest can only be desided by what you believe in. There is no way to argue with opinion really.

But here is something that can be argued:
The last time they had oil flowing in the "Oil For Food" program or whatever, Saddam used the profits to by weapons. Yeah, I am awesome.

[Charlito Cafe]

What the hell? What does that have to do with the U.S.s only motive in this war being the financial gain of Bush and Friends?

[NOFXdesendents5]

Uh, I dunno you brought it up.

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Uh, I dunno you brought it up.

No, you did. I brought up the fact that the harsh oil sanctions preventing American businesses from capitializing on Iraqi oil exports since 1992 will be gone with Saddam out of power, allowing free access to a "newly liberated" nation that will collapse into a crazy Islam nation in 5 years and not trade with us anymore. Nice plunder for Invader Bush during those 5 years or so, but not good foresight. I never mentioned Oil For Food at all. That's completley separate.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
Also in his State of the Union all Bush said was that British Intelligence showed this, so he wasn't making a false statement because thats what British Intelligience showed.

that really doesn't matter. the point is: X was given to us as justification for war. X is now revealed to be unfounded. why the fuck did we go to war? every week more people are comign forward with false info, reports that they were pressured to lie, etc. the president's case is crumbling slowly... but its happening.

and to NOFXdescendents5, the US has not done much to restore order in Iraq. the palce is a mess. peopel are dying, attacks and casualties continue on both sides, our soldiers and commanders hide behind armored cars and machien gun turrets to patrol unruly crowds often armed with rocks. they hide in the unoccupied palaces at night, away from the chaos of the people... sound familiar? oh yes, thats the style of rule we had saddm overthrown for!

iraq used to be one fo the more civilized reas in the middle east... now it is chaos and bloodshed.

we overthrew an evil man. yes we did. taht was good. but we cant keep expecting that fact to justify the war, when wmd's are unfound and the country is in chaos. we need to fix the mess we have made.

[Charlito Cafe]

Well, at what point can we officialy declare that Iraq wasn't the imposing imminent dangerous threat Bush told us it was. He said we needed to act IMMEDIETLY because he had the ability to do some harm. It looks like he was wrong.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
X has not been revealed to be unfounded. We didnt go to war just becaue British intelligence told us that Iraq was tryin to by nuc. material from africa or wherever

No, but it might be an indication that more of the intelligence that Bush based his decision on was weak.

Turns out he based that statement on a very poorly forged document. Shouldn't they have checked it out a little more, even if they got the info from someone else?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Well, at what point can we officialy declare that Iraq wasn't the imposing imminent dangerous threat Bush told us it was.

When we have all of the evidence

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
I agree it might, and it might not. Thats just one piece of info. he said during his State of the Union Address. It is what it is, i just dont agree with people coming forward and yelling that here's your proof that the war was based on false pretiences. Yes, they should have checked their info better. It turned out to be poor judgement to take the intelligence of the British on that matter. Bush never lied about that though.

This isn't conclusive proof that Bush made all of his decisions on faulty information

Just like the stuff they dug up in that scientist's backyard isn't conclusive proof that Iraq had a vast WMD program

So we're all back to square one!