Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
That's not a valid argument because what capacity Iraq had simply wasn't known to the Allies at the time. All they could go on was what was known, and Iraq didn't comply with 1441 which everybody knew was the last chance saloon, including Saddam himself presumably.
Blix reported there were no stockpiles of WMDs. What don't you understand about that? He also said Iraq's cooperation was proactive if not immediate. He needed 'a few months' to resolve the issue. Parsing the difference between 'proactive' and 'immediate' will go down in history as the most lame causi belli of all time.
Thats incorrect - once again you are simplifying the issue. He said he didn't find any, and that there were problems with how Iraq was conducting itself - I posted links to articles where he stated that at the time so you don't have to take my word for it. 
quote:
quote:
It was well known what would happen if 1441 wasn't abided by. There was dark comments about "consequences" if the resolution wasn't abided by with "immediate" effect.
Obviously, the 'consequences' resided only in the Bush Brain, not in the Security Council.
If it was all in Bush's mind, how do you think that the text was a particularly harsh one with a starkly worded choice of immediate compliance or "consequences" then?
quote:
quote:
It certainly does appear that Blair and Bush lied or exaggerated to sell the war back home. Yet you play up the conspiracy theories - there were even anthrax scares in Ireland which is neutral FFS. I can't see how the failure at Tora Bora was Bush's fault either.
Ohhh, anthrax scares in Ireland. . . . while in the States:
The anthrax attacks came in two waves. The first set of anthrax letters had a Trenton, New Jersey postmark dated September 18, 2001. Five letters are believed to have been mailed at this time to: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all located in New York City and to the National Enquirer at American Media, Inc. (AMI) in Boca Raton, Florida.[15]
[SNIP]
Stop shillying around and tell me what your point is? Are you suggesting it was all a conspiracy? Are you also a 9/11 Troofer?
quote:
quote:
I find it interesting that you place no blame on Iran and Syria
I find it laughable and naive that you and George would expect Iran to acquiese to the American invasion of its neighbor after the American president had named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as a new Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union speech, and when earlier Bush had characterized his intended response to 9/11 as a 'crusade.'
President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
So fucking what if he named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil? Had Iran not called the US the "Great Satan" and other pleasantries since Islamist Iran became a reality in 1979?
Do you know Iran was behind numerous terrorist attacks on the US at a prior stage. It was behind the killing of hundreds of American soldiers in Lebanon in 1983. I know you'll spount on about the Iranian passenger plane that was downed in the 90's but the point is that Iran would have targeted the US no matter the fuck what. Get a reality check bud.
Oh so its me and George now is it? Get a fucking grip!  The whole clash of civilisations paradigm is an ancient one, do you really expect Dumbo Bush to have developed it?
quote:
quote:
ROFL its complete bollocks to say Saddam should have resisted! All the inspectors wanted was full and complete access. It had nothing to do with his conventional army that would have fought Iran and/or the Kurds.
Let Saddam speak for himself since you are clearly uninformed:
Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran,
[SNIP]
"Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.
"The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq."
I find that explanation a little far-fetched but if Saddam was speaking the truth then it was stupidity on his part, odd considering he was actually supposed to be a rather smart individual. Why would he truly be more worried about Iran? Clinton launched protracted strikes against Iraq in the 90's, and difficult sanctions. The US, a nation with a 100x more powerful army than Iran, signalled its clear intent to go to war. And he was playing silly-bastard with 12,000 page copy and paste jobs to the Security Council? Jeez!
quote:
quote:
LOL calm down. Again I disagreed with the war and still do today. I just don't see this issue in your cartoonish way of viewing reality. Its a lot more complex I'm afraid.
You might profit by turning off your pro-Zionist filter and have a look at the humanity of the Islamic world and its rebellion against a century or more of Western dominance and colonization. Perhaps then you would not take the despicable posture of giving George Bush a pass on responsibility for so many deaths in Iraq.
Have a good day, Anax.
Its actually your pro-Mullah filter that is giving Iran a pass, and simplifying the reality into a silly leftist caricature. Go write a Marxist interpretation of Middle Eastern history and in the meantime, maybe you should be partaking of Ermoods Muhammadian Kool Aid? I'm sure it'll taste really nice!
< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 10/20/2012 6:26:09 AM >
_____________________________
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)
|
RE: Iran VS Israel - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread