The president's decision to invade Iraq...

Iraq Forum

The president's decision to invade Iraq was based on credible intelligence. [Some] seem to believe that the U.S. is omniscient and knows our enemies' every move and intention. There are terrorists who wish to destroy America and all freedom-loving people. Bush acted decisively in leading our efforts to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and topple a tyrannical psychopath in Iraq. America is safer today than it was three years ago, but further struggles and sacrifices lie ahead.

exactly!!!!

thanks to Bush we haven't had another attack in the U.S. since 9/11.

EVEN if there was so evidence of WMD, he had reason to invade Iraq. Any credit/ link to where you got that from?

can you please let us know how Iraq posses a threat to the USA, if (IF) saddam has the WMD how is he getting it to reach USA, Missiles?? he dont have, Airplanes?? have to refule mid air, on the back of a donky??

Al qaeda does not possess WMD until they PURCHASE them, asantana. Also, you claim to be "grateful" to the U.S. for ousting Saddam while all the while taking every opportunity to criticize the U.S. mission. You can't have it both ways, sport, as much as you may think you can.

http://www.komo1000news.com/audio/k...heck_031003.mp3

asantana, I find your position extremely contradictory. (I am compelled to think that there is presently more going on with your personal situation that is coloring your views.) Nonetheless, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Advance
There was a program for WMD, and there were scientists researching WMD. We both passed 2nd Grade math I think, do the math.

We were told Iraq was 45 minutes from attacking UK forces in Cyprus with WMD!

Programs was not the word used at the time - "programs" was tacked on later after it started to dawn on Blair and Bush that there were no WMD - whoops! We didn't rush into Iraq because of "programs". Programs couldn't have been made into anything because of sanctions.

I don't, and you forget, after Afghanistan (which there were not that many causalities) it was a war for freedom, against terror and oppression.

We are so concerned with freedom and oppression in Afghanistan that we allowed the warlords to take over vast parts of the country. The very same warlords infact that the Taliban got rid of much to the pleasure of Afghans.

Don't act like we didn't try, and aren't trying. That is a completely different situation.

That's right, the Americans just can't seem to bring peace in Israel Funny that because it somehow made the effort to spend billions and billions of dollars and kill thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess as long as the Israelis continue to get backing from the US they've no need to worry about silly things like peace processes. I feel for Bush and how difficult it must be for him to stop giving Israel weapons and funding.

BTW - It's not a different issue because forcing peace in Isael would bring to an end the cause of 40 years of terrorism and hatred. And that is what we all want - isn't it?

One more thing, we are safer now than we would of been if we responded the way Al Gore or some other liberal would have. You attack us, you get attacked, that was for USD and Afghanistan. You hold innocent people under your rule under terror and torture when they deserve better, and you will get taken over. They deserve more, and they will get more, a better life.


---
edit
---

The US isn't some country that you can attack the way we were attacked and get away with it.

Blair has just announced that it's inevitable that the UK and US will be attacked, possilby both at the same time. So please explain to me how we are safer?

Just when I think I've seen it all, you guys continue to top yourselves. You all never cease to amaze me.

Here we have a native of Iraq expressing their position and we have those attacking them as "ingrateful" for US intervention. God forbid he/she ask the obvious questions that are visible to the naked eye. We even have some here claiming it's leftist spin.

Asantana, if you weren't warned you should have been. Sorry you had to be baptized by fire first. As you will see there are those that are completely incapable of real reason. Nothing will every shake these guy's tree no matter what you present to them.

Your questions are intelligent and warrants a intelligent response. So far, I don't think you've gotten this by the war supporters. They just simply believe for whatever reasons they do it. You've seen the many positions change by this administration here. We all see it, it came from Bush's mouth and in the absence of finding anything we hang our hats on everything, everything else that is to justify this action.

Invasion for WMD.
Invasion for humanitarian reasons.
We're not there for oil

Yet we look at what's transpiring and everything contradicts this and we get

So WMD weren't important
We invaded to free Iraqis
Oil is important to Iraqis this is why we protect it

Total denial here and we have those that still want to blame Saddam somehow for 9/11.

"The US isn't some country that you can attack the we were attacked and get away with it"

Mind boggling isn't it? There is no hope for those that seek none. You can lead a horse to water you know what I mean?

Asantana, I'm sorry you have to endure this. Dispite the fact that we do have people with closed minds there are those of us here that have open minds. What I see that has developed is not just support for the war, but a total "might makes right" mentality here and total insensitivities for anothers persecutions. How hypocritical at worse and denial at best to point out the sufferings from Saddam and dismissals of the sufferings now.

The common agendas of the US and Iraqi people were the despot Saddam. This is where the simular agendas end. Our actions and the unfolding events in Iraq are NOT one in the same. But this makes little difference to those that believe since America is mighty, we should go around kicking butt at our discretion regardless of truth or evidence.

History is being made—while you pariahs still pound sand:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....411&forumid=371

Curley if I can get a reasonable response for you. I do think your post are becoming more coherant although your point of view is still some what distorted.

What was Saddam suppose to sell to Bin Laden if didn't have anything to sell him?

Secondly, if Saddam had a hidden WMD program, what stopped him for given Bin Laden any of this stuff before we invaded. He had every opportunity to do so.

This is for any of you war supporters to answer if you can. Saying Saddam had a WMD on paper is hardly anything close to "tons of WMD" and Bush knew he couldn't invade on that ground legally.

There had to be an imminent threat and this is what Bush said existed with "clear and convincing proof".

Now that we found no WMD and is there guarding the ministry of oil building, how is it that you all can still say this wasn't about Iraq's resources and about terrorism? Last I heard Bin Laden wasn't planning on dumping "tons of oil" on the US.

All the more H@ts, that there was such a confusion during and after the US invasion, that stockpiles of weapons - cannons, missiles, .. - were left unattended in landfields all around Baghdad. This with unexploded shelves dropped by US planes were a major source of explosives for all the insurgents gathering there.

A year after the fall of Saddam and his regime and all you gentlemen can do is pound your doom-and-gloom. (I'm sure you'll still be at it a decade from now.) Today a nation reborn is on its way to a democracy unprecedented in its tortured history—with a newly signed interim constitution and a Bill of Rights for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality between men and women…and all that great stuff! Now pay attention: This is a GOOD thing for Iraq and humanity in general. Challenges will remain, of course. But this is a true ACCOMPLISHMENT. And guess who made this possible? Yes, that "evil, imperialistic empire," America (AKA the U.S.A.). Thank you very much!

Allah forbid that there be a real chance for long-term progress in Iraq! Undoubtedly, if the U.S. had no involvement in the liberation and democratization of that country then you anti-U.S.-mongers—who kneel and pray right along with the murdering jihadis (albeit to different gods) for the U.S. and the coalition to stumble and fail in their worthwhile endeavor—would be all a'tingle, cheering at each and every hard-earned victory. Instead you hover like miserable buzzards, eager to pick at and celebrate over every morsel of negativity that feeds your anti-U.S. bellies.

Now go back to pounding your spin and rhetoric.

USA1 is right:
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....7299&forumid=13

USA1 is right:
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....7299&forumid=13

USA is a crying because his feelings were hurt because people are shattering his misconcepted world of allusions. You may be next when this is all over with Curley.

I will take this rare opportunity to respond directly to you, oneofpeace. (I must be in a really good mood.) Frankly, USA1 is a much bigger American than you are right now. And he understands something that you never will: Your political spin and rhetoric is a waste of time and when the day is done amounts to not a hill of beans.

I support my President, be it Bush or any Democrat—just like I supported Clinton. I will wholeheartedly cast my vote for Bush. Yet, I will support John F. Kerry if America picks him as my next president because I support America. That's the bottom line. I have a different opinion than you about what this country stands for and strives for. I doubt that I will ever again respond to you directly, so I will now wish you more happiness and above all, excercise your right and vote for an American on Nov. 3.

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....7299&forumid=13

You guys are impossible. You are wrong, and will be proved wrong when Iraq is a free country. You will be proved wrong when terrorists are hated by the world with no place to live, just wait.

I think your thoughts about what you think are thouroughly unthoughtful, that is unless your thinking was that you would share your thinking on the condition that noone actually thinks about it... I thought I'd think about your thoughts for awhile, but it turns out I don't think I like thinking about what you think. My thoughts don't think the way you think. I think? You think?

Advance, what do you think?

I think you shouldn't drink so early in the morning Sayzak...

Just kidding buddy. This is a bit much to take in though.

I think I stayed up too late, cuz it's light again out there... Which means it's early now... So should I bother going to sleep or should I stay up?

Had a late night last night. Went to the acme comedy club, then to IHOP. After 11 p.m. it's half off. I ate the triple BLT sandwich... mmmmmmm.

I should get my second wind pretty soon, I'm going to try to tough this one out.

Oh man, a BLT at 11pm? You're braver than I am Sayzak.

Was the comedy funny? I hate going to comedy and the comedians stink.

Well mondays is open mic night, and there are about 15 people who go up there and get either 3, 5, 7, or 10 minutes. The new people obviousely get 3 minutes. Surprisingly, they were the funniest people last night besides the very last comic who had everyone laughing so hard they couldn't breath. The usual 'solid' do-pretty-gooders were really lame.

And it wasn't just a BLT, it was a TRIPLE BLT! With french fries.

Oh.. And I think our waitress got fired.

Fired? Why, what did you guys do to here?

Nothing... But I get the feeling that our original waitress was just training in...

When I ordered by BLT she asked if I wanted hashbrowns, pashed potatoes, or frenchfries...

But when the second waitress was trying to relay she message to the cook, she realized that my meal only comes with frenchfries, and that the other two are not normally an option.

Then the service became extremely slow, and we only noticed one waitress (the second one, who corrected all of our orders) waitressing the entire place.

As we were getting ready to pay, the first waitress walked by and said "Sorry, someone should be right with you, I don't know what I'm doing here."

I'm wondering if that meant she doesn't know why she was there, or if she was just clueless how to do the job...

What is a BLT ?
By the way, Sayzak, you seem to enjoy freedom fries - good point for you.
LOL - just kidding.

@ freedom fries. That was a ridiculous peace of legislation wasn't it.

But anyway, back to our digression, a BLT = Bacon Lettuce & Tomatoe sammich.

Although I don't eat bacon anymore, I use to love that sandwich.

Sayzak, maybe you should find a new IHOP. I hate bad service.

I forgot to ask for this one - sorry guys, I am a foreigner - what "IHOP" means ? Thanks in advance for the lesson.

INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES. It's the place to go for the stuff. They're all over the place.

It seems that IHOP must have bad management in my area because the servers don't seem to stay very long...

oneofpeace, are you a vegitarian? I've heard good things about that. My dad was a vegitarian for about 7 years in his 20's and 30's, and he's outlived his dad by like 12 years.

Well I guess they're not all over as their name implies since Frenchie hasn't heard of them. Maybe they should change it to NHOP

I was a veggie for some time Sayzak. Now I only eat fish and poultry. Sometimes I do go back to those days and don't eat meat for weeks.

I can honestly say though, it's an expensive lifestyle, but you will feel much better doing it. Especially if you juice your veggies and fruits. Every once in a while when I want to lean up and lose about 15 lbs, I go on a juice fast. I drop it in about 1 wk, then I start working out and changing my diet from there.

Speaking of which, it's almost that time since summer is comming. I weigh about 200lbs, but I feel more comfortable at 190. Amazing how 10 extra pounds can make you feel.

oneofpeace: finally, something i can relate to with you. i'm at 204 and would love to be back down to pre-marriage 190.

oh yeah, one more thing: BLT i'm drooling just thinking about one.

We should found the party of the 200 lbs weighing guys then - at least something everybody will agree on
Guys, I don't know about your "BLTs" - perhaps I have eaten even one of them last time I went in the US - but you won't make me renounce to french cuisine for all this world's gold. The hell could fall on our heads, at least we will still have that

Nothing beats Claimjumper's Motherload Chocolate Cake!!!

Ok now I'm hungry

I see - we can reach some common ground with gastronomy. Fine, we French have founded some universal values in this field. Don't try to understand why we are so fond of international institutions such as the UN - we have created one already !

Curley Joe

Thank you, Thank you, thank you happy now?

Some people just don't know when to quit:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....662&forumid=164

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

I heard they are planning on executiong him!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

Curley Joe,

Wasn't it fantastic seeing the new Spanish president, Zapatero, draped in a European Union flag after he'd won the Spanish election. A symbolic gesture of immeasurable importance (a classic two-fingered salute to the Bush mob if ever I saw one) - ooh what a cheeky man!

The Spanish people have dumped their former government for backing the US government in that unspeakable Iraq invasion. Now we must hope that the US and British electorate, with your help, hurl Bush and Blair into that famous rubbish bin where all the righteous fools belong.

And please stop your Hussein/Bin Laden Pantomime: its embarrassing. Hots made it perfectly clear that there were no links between Hussein and Bin Laden. You're possibly the last person on earth who still believes in such a tragic myth.

Preston the great.

Dear "Pressed-on,"

This seems tailor-written just for you:



No one likes us. And the democrats know why: the world loved us just three years ago, and then this President, cowboy arrogant and rudely unilateral, blew it. "When America was savagely attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually all the world was with us," writes Democratic elder statesman Theodore Sorensen. "But that moment of universal goodwill was squandered." He writes that in the current issue of The American Prospect, but he is speaking for just about every Democratic candidate, potentate, deep thinker and critic, and not a few foreign commentators as well. The formulation is near universal: "The president has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of Sept. 11" (Al Gore). "He has squandered the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11" (John Kerry).

The ur-text for this myth is the famous Le Monde editorial of Sept. 12, 2001, titled "We Are All Americans." But as Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami points out, not only did that very editorial speak of America's paying for its cynicism, but also, within months, that same Le Monde publisher was back with a small book ("All Americans? The World After September 11, 2001"--note the question mark) filled with the usual belligerence toward and disapproval of America.

What happened in those intervening few months? Is not the core Democratic complaint that it was overreaching in Iraq that caused the world to turn against us? And yet barely had we buried our 9/11 dead — long before we entered Baghdad — when the French, and the rest of the world, decided that they were not really Americans after all and were back to vilifying American arrogance, unilateralism, hegemony and so on.

It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.

Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism.

Moreover, it is unseemly, even pathetic, for the would-be leaders of a great power to pine for the pity gleaned on the day America lay bleeding and wounded. This is to carry into foreign policy a pathology of our domestic politics — the glorification of victimhood and the lust for its privileges, such as they are. It is not surprising that having set up at home a spoils system that encourages every ethnic group to claim even greater victimization than the next, the Democrats should lament the fact that we did not seize and institutionalize our collective victimhood of Sept. 11.

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy — remain on our knees, humble and supplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world.

This is not just degrading. It is a fool's bargain--3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The Democrats would forfeit American freedom of action and initiative in order to get back — what? Another nice French editorial? To be retracted as soon as the U.S. stops playing victim?

Sympathy is fine. But if we "squander" it when we go to war to avenge our dead and prevent the next crop of dead, then to hell with sympathy. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, our power. They hate us into incoherence. The Europeans, Ajami astutely observes, disdain us for our excessive religiosity (manifest, they imagine, by evolution being expelled from schools while prayer is ushered back in)--while the Arab world despises us as purveyors of secularism. We cannot win for losing. We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat — in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans — to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.

The search for logic in anti-Americanism is fruitless. It is in the air the world breathes. Its roots are envy and self-loathing — by peoples who, yearning for modernity but having failed at it, find their one satisfaction in despising modernity's great exemplar.

On Sept. 11, they gave it a rest for a day. Big deal.


By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Change the record, you clown. Not many people hate America, only its imperialist appetite, which is part of the cause and effect of your so-called war against an abstract noun, namely, terrorism. Look at yourself before you begin to blame others.

Preston the great

In fact, "Pressed-on," the following page was born and lives and breathes because of global U.S.-haters and propagandists like yourself. It is duly dedicated to all those like yourself who feel compelled to bash America at every turn. Enjoy it half-as-much as I have:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer

Quote Curley Joe:

"global U.S.-haters and propagandists like yourself."

"all those like yourself who feel compelled to bash America at every turn."

Notice how you flavour your statements with juvenile generalisations - totally hilarious.

Generalisation is a defensive mechanism utilised by those who are on the back foot and afraid to question their own beliefs and pre-conceptions. You see the difference between you and me is that I have the inclination to be sceptical and critical of my government (Blair's), unlike you, who is petrified of placing the microscope of analysis over your government's affairs for fear of discovering matters that may just shatter your illusions. Of course you can be forgiven for being weak and indoctrinated for your country's government's greatest enemy is free thinkers. There is a pervading sense of emotional fascism sweeping your nation eg. the fear of criticising your government for fear of being viewed as anti-patriotic. The weak surrender to this emotional pressure; the brave fight it.

My view of you could yet change if you showed a modicum of scepticism toward your government, and when you start to traffic in cause and effect (US foreign policy/Arab irritation).

There will only be one loser in the US's so called war on terror, and that will be the US. You cannot fight an abstract noun. Until the US and its people on the whole begin to ask what is it that the US is doing to annoy so many people, you will continue to live in fear.

If you care to remember, after the September 11th 2001 attacks in the US, Bin Laden made a statement, via a video tape recording, giving reasons why the US and its allies would be continually attacked: he said that until the US withdraws its countless military garrisons from Arabia, and Palestine remains undefined as a nation state, there will be attacks upon the US and its allies. Now, since when has Bush or Blair referred to these statements or reasons? Never. All Blair and Bush rant on about is Al Qaeda's desire to destroy Western civilisation. Bush and Blair want the likes of you to believe this because it justifies your reason to monopolise Arabia and the areas of strategic importance ie. areas of natural resources. Bush and Blair, like you, don't trade in cause and effect, or at least they don't want to encourage the likes of you to. They want you to cogitate in terms of good and evil, because it simplifies matters in favour of the West, the West as being good and the east as being evil.

Long live analysis, reason, cause and effect. The real enemy is superstition, simplicity, and lack of scepticism.

Be brave. Don't believe everything you say.

Preston the explorer.

That's very good points Preston. Indeed, the simplistic reductions such as good/bad, right/evil are particularly noxious to a wide understanding of the stakes.
Bin Laden, even a bastard, is clever, and he knows that if he is to reach some accomplishment in his obnoxious agenda he can't fight militarily against powerful western armies. I mean - one or two training camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan are crushable in a few minutes.
His levier is the public opinion. Terrorist attempst have no other aim than to raise hate and confrontation between millions of people, beyond the terror of these events. He uses emotion and reaction so that western people the like of Curley are ready to go there with heavy military equipment occupying whole territories - thus infuriating arab populations, and this is a vicious circle going on. We should all have in mind what is occuring in Israël - that's the perfect example, and high apartheid walls won't change a lot of things. What a deadend issue.
Right now, I am worry to state that Bush and co have followed Bin Laden's plan and have more or less fallen in the trap.
But you will keep finding delusional people to swear by might and military to crush terrorism. That's just like using a hammer to try to crush a flying fly.
The phenomenums at stake are complex ones - appropriate answers are required.

Many but not all the right-wing posters on here think understanding the history and the hows and whys of the many complicated situations that have led us to being threatened and attacked by terrorists and Iraq being invaded might turn them into what they hate most - liberals.

So despite the obvious contradictions to what they were told before the invasion, no WMD, a lack of trust towards the coalition from Iraqis, lack of security, the terrorism now rife in Iraq, no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the problem of Iraq becoming an Islamic nation, they refuse to accept that these things mean anything.

Iraq may become a demcracy. It may become a decent place for Iraqis to live. And of course this would be good, no doubt about that, and remember many liberals supported the Iraq invasion. This does not mean it is wise to ignore history and just accept the words of our present politicians. Iraq is not the cake-walk that the neocons expected or promised and Bush has plenty to prove.

As for terrorism, it is now becoming obvious that the two issues are very much seperate.

TY French,

How right you are to say the the US and Britain in particular have fallen into Bin Laden's trap by launching military attacks against certain Middle Eastern states.

It's all too predictable what is unfolding. Palestine and Israel will be a microcosm of what will happen to the world if the US continues it's heavy handed approach. There will be attacks from the US and then from the Arabs, and then from the US and then from the Arabs, ad infinitum, a la Palestine/Israel. Negotiation and self reflection is what is needed.

The US may have weapons of mass destruction equipped with all the advantages of the latest technology, however, the brains that fire them are sadly equipped with all the disadvantages of Stone-Age thinking.

Preston.

I'd rather think like a stone and see the world around me than think like something else and be blind as a bat.

Amen, Preston. I wish many people can hear us across the Atlantic and muse over that. It is impossible for me to believe that such a great country does not have a majority of sensible inhabitants able to weigh all those stakes appropriately. It is time to give up all this biased propaganda and face the reality of the situation.
We westerners have mighty means to make things change in the good direction for everybody. It is more urgent than ever to act accordingly.

You guys talk like freakin' robots. Put your pipe and thesaurus down for a second.

The world's problems are going to get worse before they get better. By ignoring a problem (like ignoring a rash) you're setting yourself up to fail. The political war in the world is a fight between those who want to lead themselves, and those who would prefer to be led. I say, split the world in half and let the people who want to be led live on one half, and let the leaders live on the other half.

After that it's up to natural selection. See who wins THAT war.

Yeah I get it.

Weapons of mass destruction
In response to Russert's questions regarding the failure to find Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Bush defended the decision to invade the oil-rich country by observing: "We remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had had weapons." No one disputes that Saddam Hussein had possessed and used chemical weapons, both against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians. These war crimes took place more than 15 years ago, however, at a time when the US - supportive of the Baghdad regime - was playing down and covering up Iraq's use of such weapons. The Bush administration has failed to provide evidence that Iraq still had chemical weapons or any other WMD during the five years prior to the 2003 US invasion.

Bush's claim that, in the months leading up to the invasion, "the international community thought he had weapons", is patently false. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had determined back in 1998, after years of inspections, that Iraq no longer had a nuclear program, and after four months of rigorous inspections just prior to the invasion, the agency gave no indication that anything had changed. UNMOVIC - though frustrated at Iraq's failure to account fully for all the proscribed materials - similarly determined that there was no evidence of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons. Rolf Ekeus, former head of UNMOVIC's predecessor agency, the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), declared that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. At the United Nations and other forums, representatives of many of the world's governments questioned US and British accusations that Iraq still had WMD.

Bush told Russert: "I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential ... that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent." And top administration officials claimed on several occasions prior to the war that Iraq's threat was already "imminent". Now that we know this was not the case, Bush is claiming: "It's too late if they become imminent." He also argued that although Saddam may not actually have possessed weapons of mass destruction, "he could have developed a nuclear weapon over time - I'm not saying immediately, but over time." But given the IAEA's findings that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely dismantled and with a strict embargo against military and dual-use technology and raw materials, it is doubtful that Baghdad could ever have produced a nuclear weapon.

Of greater concern to world peace is that, through this interview and related comments, Bush's doctrine of preemption has been expanded to include the right to invade a country if a US president determines that the government of that country poses even a hypothetical threat some time in the future. As Bush put it: "There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America," not because he actually had weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US invasion, but because "he had the capacity to make a weapon". He went on to claim that Washington's chief post-invasion weapons inspector, David Kay, reported that "Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons".

Even this assertion is questionable. Kay had actually stated that Iraq's entire infrastructure for nuclear and chemical weapons was virtually destroyed. Though Kay did believe that Iraq might have been able to produce dangerous biological agents, he felt they were far more difficult to weaponize "in a usable way". In a February 17 story, the Boston Globe quoted former Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorism chief and former National Security Council intelligence director Vincent Cannistraro as saying that the Iraqis had the "capability" of developing WMD only in the sense that they had the knowledge of how to do so, but they did not have many of the basic components to actually produce such weapons. Only by importing technology and raw materials in the 1980s from Russia, Germany, France, Britain and the US was Iraq able to develop its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs in the first place. Thus, the administration has never been able to make a credible case for Iraq reconstituting such programs, as long as sanctions curtailed the necessary inputs.

In addition to the eight or nine nations that currently have nuclear weapons, there are more than 40 other countries that are theoretically capable of developing such weapons. At least twice that many could develop chemical and biological weapons, and a couple of dozen already have. The Bush administration has failed to make a compelling case as to why Iraq - which, unlike the other nations, allowed inspectors unfettered access to the entire country to look for such weapons, weapon components, and delivery systems - was a greater threat than all the others.

source

Remember, just a thank you will do.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/kalat.asp

Asantana,

Excellent post.

I have stated many of your points on several occasions regarding Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction, however, for some incalculable reason, certain Americans will not show one iota of humility and admit that they and their government have made juvenile mistakes regarding the careless wmd allegations. Of course, the sordid American government is too weak to admit to being wrong, and has dug its own grave with arrogant assumptions and unforgivable lies. To invade a country (Iraq) on the basis of an assumption (wmd) is unpardonable and places Bush at the centre of imbecility. It is a sorry episode in American history (and British).

Let's just hope that future US governments do not support and arm dictators/psychopaths, the likes of: Pinochet, Suharto, Armas, Hussein, Bin Laden, Duvallier, Samoza, Noriega, House of Saud, Batisa, Shah Reza Pahlavi etc. Americans now must ask themselves just what part successive US governments have played in creating the current climate of resentment that certain countries now hold against the USA's foreign policies.

It is immeasurably irritating to hear certain Americans behaving as though their government and its predecessors are whiter than white. Just look at the record of Henry Kissenger former US foreign secretary for instance. His behaviour is next to criminal. In fact he is now wanted by several countries, including France, for war crimes. Do some research on the 40 Committee, a group once run by Kissenger to overrun "undesirable" states, countries that they did not fit in with the USA's grand global schemes.

If the world was to follow the USA's model of pre-emptive strikes, half the countries on the planet should now have the right to attack the USA in order to stop it producing more (GGMD) greenhouse gasses of mass destruction, the cause of global warming, which is the greatest threat the world now faces, and not so-called terrorism as the US and British governments would like us to believe (the likes of Curley Joe think that global warming is a brand of colourful Nike trainers).

Preston.

A few days after the worst terror attack in continental Europe since World War II, Spain voted to capitulate. In compliance with the demands made in an Al Qaeda videotape, the Socialist prime minister elect, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, announced yesterday that Spain would withdraw its 1,300 troops from Iraq -- unless, of course, the U.S. turns over the whole operation to the incompetent United Nations. We have seen the spectacle of nine million Spaniards, demonstrating their grief in the streets, their hands raised and painted white in a poignant gesture of mass surrender.

This quotation, to a New York Times correspondent in Madrid by "David", a 26-year-old window frame maker who would not give his surname, tells the whole story. He explained why, at the last minute, he had changed his vote from Popular to Socialist: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda will forget about Spain, so we will be less frightened."

It should be juxtaposed with this quotation from Mark Steyn, in Britain's Daily Telegraph: "So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. ... Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway."

For Al Qaeda, it is a huge victory after 30 months of continuous setbacks. They have tried a new tactic, and it works. They have shown that by massacring large numbers of innocents on the eve of a Western election, they may persuade the survivors to vote as they wish. Count on it: they will not now abandon this tactic. And they are likely to try it in the United States as well, to defeat President Bush in November, thanks to that Spanish capitulation.

How often small symbols confirm the depth of a betrayal. In Spain's case, one of the Moroccan terrorists of 3/11 has been revealed to be a member of the same cell that participated in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The Spanish Socialists exploited the shock and grief of last Thursday's murderous attacks on Madrid's transit rail system, with demonstrations on the eve of the election. The outgoing government of Prime Minister José María Aznar was accused of "lying to the Spanish people" by suggesting that the attack might have been mounted by the Basque ETA, and thus have nothing to do with Iraq. In defiance of Spanish electoral law, and disregarding the period of mourning that had been agreed by all parties, the Socialist partisans shouted that the blood of Spain was on Aznar's hands.

Let what it did stand to the eternal credit of Mr. Aznar's government. In the early morning of Sunday before the polls had yet opened, and in the full knowledge of what the consequences might be to its electoral prospects, it released information about the capture of Moroccan and Indian Jihadists, and the receipt of the videotape, that left no doubt about the authorship of the carnage.

Analysis and homily must converge in what I have to say today. There is no ambiguity in what has happened in Spain. The rotten heart of Europe has been exposed. The best comparison one can make is to Europe in 1940, when the entire continent had capitulated to Nazism and fascism, leaving Britain alone to fight. It thus came to be known as "Churchill's war", rather than "Hitler's war", only to revert when the Allies had won it, and a generation of Europeans, who had not lifted a finger, decided retrospectively that they had been in the Resistance.

The position of Tony Blair's government in Britain today is further undermined by the Spanish vote, so that it is quite possible that the British, too, may soon abandon what the Europeans now choose to call "Bush's war", rather than "Osama's war".

A good question might be asked of the Bush administration, in light of the Spanish election. It was articulated by an American friend yesterday: "Before we waste another drop of blood trying to create democracies in the Middle East, shouldn't we reflect a bit on how easily democracy in Spain was subverted by terrorists?"

One must not, under the present circumstances, sound an uncertain trumpet. All men of goodwill, regardless of nation, are fighting the Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we fought the Nazis in Italy and France; and if the Americans must fight them alone, so be it. Then as now we made a lot of blather about "democracy". But screw democracy, we are fighting an enemy of civilization, an embodiment of real evil. There is no compromise with such an enemy, no capitulation to him, no way to avoid casualties, no easy way out. We defeat him, or he defeats us.

We do not retreat because our allies are cowards. We continue to fight, for ourselves, for our children, and for the cowards' children.

— David Warren

Thank God the courageous people of Spain have abandoned the Bush ideology. This was a democratic decision by the Spanish electorate, and if certain fascist Americans (David Warren, whoever he is, and Curley Joe) cannot accept this notion then they are cowards, cowards in the sense of being afraid to try a new political approach.

If David Warren, whoever he is, had researched WW2, he would know that nearly every anti-fascist country had its resistance fighters (the French, Belgians, Dutch, Polish, Czechs etc), whose contribution greatly assisted the downfall of Hitler's Germany. To call WW2 a Churchillian war is merely cheap supposition penned by yet another ignorant and hilarious American. Just for the record, the French army was defeated by one of the greatest pincer movements of WW2 by a German army that was supreme in nearly all quarters. To say that the French capitulated is a myth. Of course, can anybody really take the lead on how to fight battles from a country that could not even overcome a third-world country, namely, Vietnam - the most laughable defeat in military history, and one which we brave Europeans shall never stop reminding certain ignorant Americans (Curley Joe and David Warren, whoever his is).

Democracy is alive and well, not in America, but in Spain. And, with luck, in Britain, too, when the British electorate finally eject Phoney Blair from power. And when Blair is voted out through a democratic decision, will certain ignorant Americans dare call the British people cowards? Let them try. They will be met by side-splitting laughter.

I suggest to David Warren (whoever he is) that until his country knows how to conduct an election (remember the abortion they called the 2000 election), then he should really keep tight lipped on the affairs of Europe. At least Spain elected and leader and not selected one - a la Bush - tut tut...

Preston.

All this talk of cowardice and appeasement is so unbelievably childish. The new Spanish PM said he would pull the troops out a long time before the Madrid bombings. Even after the election he said he would only withdraw if the UN were not brought in in a bigger role.

As you say so well Preston, Democracy is alive and well in Spain and they finally have a government that represents the people's wishes.

You Republicans think democracy around the world is all about doing what America wants. This is one of the US's major foriegn policy problems and why you are constantly intefering in the business of democracies around the world, ie Venezuela to name the most recent.

Having read Curley Joe's comments, it is so breath-takingly refreshing to learn that there are still immaculate and objective-minded individuals lurking about down the avenues of reason.

I mean, just when I was led to believe that democracy was about allowing the electorate to vote into power their favoured politician, our Curley rightly corrects me and informs me that democracy is when a leader is selected by means of nepotism and rigged elections. How silly I was be to believe otherwise.

Just when I was inclined to believe that fighting this so-called war on terror was about addressing the causes of the agitation and engaging in reasonable responses, our clever crypto-genius, Curley Joe, rightly corrects me and informs me that fighting this so-called war on terrorism is about trafficking in simple opposites "good versus evil", "right versus wrong", "western civilisation versus barbarians". Obviously when the likes of CJ adopt such golden terms one must salute his natural disposition for literary eloquence.

Just when me thought that Hussein did not have links with Bin Laden, el supremo, Curley Joe, naturally corrects me with his majesty of thought and informs me that they were bedfellows. How I pale in his shadow.

Just when yours truly carelessly thought that Hussein's army did not have WMD, our wholly politicised god, Curley Joe, positively reminds me that Hussein still has WMD. What a pitiless fool I am.

Just when I had settled on the notion that Hussein never tried to attempt to buy spent uranium from Niger for the purpose of creating a nuclear bomb, our masterful scholar, Curley Joe, categorically states that Hussein did have links with Niger. I could kick myself on failing to equal CJs inside knowledge.

Just when I believed that two-dozen Saudis crashed those aeroplanes into the Trade Centre buildings, the marvellously informed. Curley Joe. stamps on my delusions and positively insists that it was the Iraqis who inspired September 11th 2001.

Just when I was led to understand that successive US administrations have armed and supported innumerable dictators since WW2 (many of whom have turned on the US), Curley Joe neatly reassures me and states that it is the USA's democratic right to support who they want, when they want, wherever they want, whenever it suits them. Damn, how could I have overlooked the USA's right to strive for imperialism.

Just when I had the propensity to surrender to the idea that the so-called terrorists have an objective (the desire to establish a Palestinian border and the withdrawal of US military bases in the Middle East) Curley Joe imaginatively confirms that the so-called terrorists have no objective whatsoever and that they merely hate the West and want to destroy it. And I had the tenacity to think that Curley Joe's view was a myth being sordidly peddled by our trust-worthy British and American leaders. What a naughty boy I am.

Just when I considered that global warming was the greatest WMD, our honourable tutor, Curley Joe, magnificently dispels global warming as an illusion.

Just when I conjectured that the US government overlooked the gassing of the Kurds of Hullabjah in 1988 because Hussein was then a US ally, our inimitable mentor, Curley Joe, courteously re-aligns my view and claims that I am lying. Of course I apologise for being truthful.

Anyway, must go, I've got to contact Curley for more objective opinions on matters of delicate political matters.

Preston