The War In Iraq Is Over!

From Bush's speech to the UN in 2002

The goal of diplomacy in the UN was WMD and enforcing ALL the UN resolutions on Iraq. The goal of the invasion was ALWAYS from the very beginning, removing saddam.

 

Sorry, SS, once either a person, an employer, a friend, partner, or in this case, a group of elites have been shown to lie to us, cheat us, and steal from us, time and again, I reach the point that if they told me the time, I would check my watch. Indeed, so large are their lies, so deep is their corruption, that it would be fair for someone to dismiss anything they claim.

I also have to disagree that you have to accept or speculate, as if automatic acceptance of what these criminal mafia say is the best idea, all round.

Simply because one may not have all of the answers today, should be no reason to fill the unknown with that which has been shown to lack any hard proof. And, I am going to be honest here, SS, all these pages in, and I have yet to see any hard proof that Bin Laden masterminded 911, and the action was (to use Dixons model), carried out using relatively crude equiipment, possibly a cheap laptop, by a group of around 19 men.

I am not saying it would be impossible for it to have been that way, just that I have seen no compelling evidence.

And without compelling evidence, it would be a fatal mistake to just accept, if that had been done throughout science, for example, it would be a mess today!

 

We should end the War on Drugs on general principle.

 

It is actually better to sometimes say that you are not sure, than to assume a position, esp when evidence is thin on the ground.

Indeed, I believe this to be the proper way.

I know that many people lost their lives.

I know that someone, or rather some group of people, were responsible.

I just do not have enough evidence to fairly say who that was.

I prefer that to accepting what I am told by the state, as the state have proven unreliable.

I prefer that to accepting what i am told in the media, as the media are unreliable.

 

You're dancing by the edge of the cliff. Don't become a truther.

 

Well said.

All of it.

 

A truther?

 

He already is. Just doesnt go over the cliff because then he would have to defend his assertions.

 

Why don't you stop speaking to Albert, speak to me, since it is about me, and while you are at it, speak plainly, rather than in metaphors?

Thanks

 

And, Albert, I can see you are a man of at least some intelligence, so please, use that intelligence, and afford me the respect of not using the tired of false dichotomy, 'you must hate Americans', as you did on another thread.

I realise that parroting this has proven a successful brew to serve up to the stupid, who fall for it, but I have faith that there are sufficient numbers of intelligent and reasonable Americans who can clearly see that using the logical fallacy of 'you hate Americans', is right up there with 'you must hate the troops', and that old favourite 'you must be an anti semite'.

These false dichotomies only put you in a bad light, as they show you to be deploying basically flawed debating methods, as anyone fair will tell you.

I am not going to give you a long list of why I DON'T 'hate Americans'.

Why should I, it is simply stupid to suggest that I, an intelligent person myself, could hate 300 million people.

To criticise your Goverment's foreign policy is not to hate Americans.

Did you learn this trick from Israel, or they from you?

Compare these two statements that I have had to make, in the past 24 hours.


'To criticise your Goverment's foreign policy is not to hate Americans'

And..

'To be robustly critical of Israel, is not to hate Jews'.

Do you see the link?

Funny, huh?

And I am not alone in seeing that, Albert.

 

Yes, of course the 'goal' was regime change but it is illegal under the auspices of the UN Charter which is why their justifications constantly shifted no sooner had the previous ones became untenable. Following 12 years of UN sanctions from 1990, Iraq was a broken country that posed no threat. Don't take my word for it, take the words of both Powell and Rice who openly and publicly stated as much. For once, they were telling the truth, which directly contradicted the lies of Bush.

 

Not a new thing;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

 

Jack, imo you love Americans who agree with you and don't like Americans who are interested in thwarting your objectives.

I really don't care about anyone in the Middle East. However, I am all about thwarting the post-modern dream of a just international order based on Western Enlightenment values.

Why? Vengeance. That explains much of what happens in the world.

 

Jack, here's a piece that will haunt the apologists for the illegal attack on Iraq forever:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuuWAmB_GFk&NR=1"]Proof that Powell and Rice lied about WMD on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

For someone to feel 'haunted', they must first of all possess a sense of human empathy, at what has been done in their name.

I really believe that the US people, and many in Europe, but not so much, have been socially engineered, carefully, and over a prolonged period of time. They have cultivated the masses, as one would with crops.

Gradually, they have appealed to the worse excesses of human behaviour, slowly, they have tried to desensitise people to what we should really find an affront to our species.

Like the sodomy of Col Gadaffi, by NATO backed rebels. Then the gruesome images of it all.

And the psychopathic reaction of Hillary Clinton, among others, again, this is all indicative of these people slowly letting their mask down on purpose, they are no longer pretending to be civlised and fair, they are saying, we will kill who we want, as many as we want, and when we want, and there is not a thing you can do about it, America.

That is what these so called elected representatives are doing, and every American and European should wake up to that fact, and oppose it.

 

See, Zulu, in order to carry out acts that are evil and terrible, you must first trick the masses into thinking they are something other than evil and terrible.

You must desensitise them, as humans.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...celebrating-brutal-deaths-qaddafi-saddam.html

 

Yeah, klipkap is confused.

 

Already did, in the other post.

 

Where did you get that quote from zulu1? The link takes you to the post above which doesnt contain what youve written.

 

I agree. This notion of tricking the masses ties into our rulers persuading some of us that Western liberal democracy is the only game in town and those who decide to adopt an alternative approach which contradicts their interests and the notion of democracy that this implies, are fair game for invasion. So an enemy or demon has to be created as their justification for pushing this agenda. We saw this with communism prior to the collapse of the Berlin wall and we are now witnessing it in relation to muslims and the Arab world. Remember, the neo-con agenda 'The Project For The New American Century', which continues under Obama, involves the US attempt at what they have termed 'Full Spectrum Dominance'. This is the absolute control of land, air, sea and space.

The control of the Middle-East and the African continent is part and parcel of this agenda. Their preferred epithet was initially 'the axis of evil' comprising Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Three of those five have now been accomplished. The de facto conquest of Libya by the US and its imperial partners heralds a modern version of the "Scramble for Africa" at the end of the 19th century. Like in the "victory" in Iraq, journalists have played a critical role in distinguishing between worthy and unworthy Libyan victims. A recent Guardian front page carried a photograph of a terrified "pro-Gaddafi" fighter and his wild-eyed captors who, the caption said, "celebrate". According to General Petraeus, there are now wars "of perception . . . conducted continuously through the news media".

For more than a decade, the US has tried to establish a command on the African continent, AFRICOM, but has been rebuffed by governments fearful of the regional tensions this would cause. Libya, and now Uganda, South Sudan and Congo, provide the main chance. As WikiLeaks cables and the US National Strategy for Counter-terrorism show, American plans for Africa are part of a global design in which 60,000 special forces, including death squads, operate in 75 countries. As the then defence secretary Dick Cheney pointed out in the 1990s, America simply wants to rule the world.

 

As I said, Dixon, you would find references to the need for regime change. But that was not what you asked the UN's approval for. As I wrote, you can find that touted by almost every one of the Neocons as well as Dubya. So your quote brings nothing new. I was referring to what was legal. You continue to ignore that. That is the essence - 'Murka doing just the (*)(*)(*)(*) what it wanted and screw the rest. Was that the mission?

So you have to revert to using clever weasel words like "The goal of diplomacy in the UN was ....". I repeat, that was not what the US asked approval for. So it lied to the world. Was tha your mission? A huge dangerous lie?

Oh (*)(*)(*)(*), I forgot, if the US stuck by its actual word (as opposed to its intended "diplomacy goal") then it would not have had any right to get its hands on the Iraqi oil production or to put favoured contractors into lucrative non-tendered jobs using US debt money borrowed from China. That was clearly not what the "diplomacy goals" of Cheney and the Neocons had in mind.

I don't give a fig what Dubya and Cheney wanted. Only red-neck 'Murkans still try to pretend that that was any kind of acceptable justification at all. Their personal wished are worth crap in terms of international law and responsible behaviour. You acted illegally, lied to the world, didn't do what you said you would do, killed more than 30 times as many Iraqis that Americans who died in 911, continuously bleated about Sadam's violation of human rights while bombing civilian markets, perpetrating the disgusting events at Falujah, lying to your invasion allies about your own use of WMDs in Iraq, a quite nauseating case of utter 'Murkan hypocrisy if ever there was one, and swelling the ranks of willing recruiters to Al Queda and other terrorist organisations by the uncontrolled, illegal and highly visible violations of human rights and the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, thereby making my life distinctly less safe.

Mission accomplished?? My foot!! You expect us to swallow that the above was your mission? The entire invasion and occupation by 'Murka was one illegality after another.

So I would be careful to post this kind of nonsense for fear of further posts exposing the 'Murkan irresponsibilities and gross illegalities in complete disdain for the rest of the world.

The Mission was only accomplished when you take as the goal only the Neocon objectives for which 'Murka had zero approval and only minor international support. In other words it was a very selfish goal. As Alan Greenspan admitted "It was all about oil". Obviously I was referring to the mission that you presented to the world; the one for which 'Murka pretended to seek approval; the one that caused 'Murka to call France and Germany "old Europe" because they did not believe the existance of WMDs; the one that cause the renaming to "Freedom Fries". Remember now? No confusion whatsoever about that Zulu and Dixon ... crystal clear. It was that up-front mission that I claim was never accomplished.

So if you want to be proud about what you did by having lied to your people and the world, by having swelled Al Queda recruitment, and by having used this as a major opportunity for illegal gain using US debt, then by all means trumpet "Mission Accomplished".

But the rest of us know the real truth about US ethics and its hegemony, which you so clearly support.

 

America was defeated in Iraq. Isn't that what the International Left wanted?

Didn't you want to teach America a lesson? Didn't you succeed?

So why are you so vociferous? Why can't you be gracious and simply accept your victory?

Thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars taught America the lesson you wanted to impress upon it. So what's the problem?

 

I quoted his speech that proves my point

 

Aren't you leftists rejoicing at America's defeat in Iraq? Aren't you about to rejoice over America's impending defeat in Afghanistan? Don't you seek American defeat everywhere?

 

It was a point that didn't need to be made.
We all know that 'Murka wanted to get into Iraq's pants for a long time and to do so it needed Saddam out of the way.

I notice that there was no comment on the fact that the tyrant was your buddy in 1983, but without changing any of his spots one iota, was the big baddy in 2002/2003. But we all know the answer ... 'Murka doing what she feels like and screw the norms and ethics.

But I am pleased that you don't refute that the reason that Dubya and Scape-Goat Powell presented to the UN, Blair, the UK, Spain and the World, was never accomplished. Only the selfish under-the-table one was.

It is a question of what the real mission was, and this debate serves to highlight beautifully the hypocrisy of the US and its unabashed drive to achieve what is best for it ... and screw the rest, and turn friends into enemies. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!