mikimouse mikimouse

Shame On You America!

▼

Shame On You America!

Rice and Powell Admitted Iraq Had No WMD in Feb. 2001!

from JoeUser Forums
US personnel are being killed and gleefully dragged through the streets of Iraq's cities. These are civilians doing the dragging so one can't claim it's some enemy action or enemy induced. This is spontaneous reactions by Iraqi civilians who don't want the US in their country. No one ever claimed the Somalians actually welcomed the US. Why is the lie continuing about Iraq? The human cost is too much to continue like this.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/
These pawns responded to their country's call and receive nothing for their commitment and trust for their country. Some of them should never have been sent at all.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-042634-9733r
Rice and Powell admit Iraq was without WMD in Feb. 2001!
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
an excerpt: "
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
So there you have it. Will the 911 commission have the balls to ask about these statements they made in 2001 WHEN THEY WERE THE ONES IN THE KNOW AND IN CHARGE? Time will tell. I for one think it will be a very nice and smooth ride for Rice since the truth will set one free, and there's no room for freedom here anymore.
5,597 views 46 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
They were doing just fine under the Baathist rule as Shites and Kurds were being ground under foot. I bet former Nazi's in Germany would have liked the US to leave too in 1945


Is it wrong to try and change a country for the better? Can anyone honestly say that changing the barbaric way of life they have been subjected to under Saddam's leadership is negative? Mikimouse do you think Germany France or even Japan would be better of today if the U.S. did not interfere during world war II? It's difficult to say what is right or wrong so how can you say it is definitely wrong and then back it up with only the facts that support your point ignoring other facts that contradict your point. Isn't that just standing on one side without taking into account both sides of the argument or like Brad said being biased? I hope things end up alright too because of the negative effects it has had on the U.S..



Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hope things end up alright too, of course. But with the constant references in the media about progress, and about how well the effort is going in Iraq I think it's all becoming clear that that is simply not the case. Look at what these people did to the dead bodies! Insane. That's hate in its purest form, and these are people who know it's against Muslim law to be doing that kind of stuff. They hate America so much they do it anyways, Muslim law be damned. Anyways they likely think they're doing 'allah' proud or something. As for what you said, I should refer you to my other thread but you can go to www.thememoryhole.org and find all you need to know about the US's support for Sadaam Hussein's ruthless policies. That's all the facts one needs to see any duplicity. Thanks for your comment as it was all true, per se.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's hate in its purest form, and these are people who know it's against Muslim law to be doing that kind of stuff. They hate America so much they do it anyways,


Ignorant people can be swayed to do anything and if ignorance breeds ignorance or in simpler words if they have known only one way of life and all their environment tells them that this one way is the only way to live how can they know if it is right or wrong. I don't think the Iraqi people really know what would be better for themselves. About the U.S. support from Saddam I have read up on it and have heard many extremists refer to it. It still doesn't change the fact that Saddam is better out of power.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
extremists? Meaning the logical thinkers who believe actions today have a direct corelation to the events of yesterday? And I think it's strange how you say the Iraqi people don't know what's best for them. I say that in light of the fact the US servicemen slaughtered like 18 of the residents 2 weeks after the war was over. One could argue that those few scared rattled GI's set the stage for the anger and hatred which erupted in Fallujah.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say that in light of the fact the US servicemen slaughtered like 18 of the residents 2 weeks after the war was over


My choice of using extemists was a little patronizing and I apologize but have you ever been to an under-developed country, educations is terrible they (potential terrorists) take these highly impressionable young men and brainwash them into believing that when they commit these acts they are fighting for their God. Mobs are easy to control and in Iraq they have been oppressed for a long time. I am more interested in fixing the situation now that Saddam is gone than to point fingers of what could have been done in the past. As far as U.S. service men slaughtered 18 that is nothing compared to the crimes commited by Saddam. I am not condoning what happened but I am looking at the overall picture for what is best for these people who have been oppressed for years. You like to manipulate statistics but you fail to look at the overall picture.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the contrary I look at the overall picture, going all the way back to the 80's and America's support for Hussein and his WMD program, all leased by the Americans. That's the whole picture. But while I respect your opinion I don't see why you can't relate the killing of the civilians to the civilians' fury against the Americans. I find that odd to believe.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's the whole picture. But while I respect your opinion I don't see why you can't relate the killing of the civilians to the civilians' fury against the Americans.


It is relative and it is unfortunate but if they want to look on the bright side they no longer have a sadistic leader who oppresses them and has tortured and killed many more of their families and people. They could embrace the Americans trying to better their way of life but they are being lead to believe that " the evil west" is trying to destroy them. You have to think of the environment Iraqis are in. What is overall better for them Saddam in power so he can keep filling mass graves or a democratic government influenced by the U.S. and for human rights. There is no going back now because if we withdrew troops and let them decide for themselves it will never happen maybe I am way too optimistic.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There is no going back now because if we withdrew troops and let them decide for themselves it will never happen"
Um so you mean it's going to happen no matter the cost? I take it you have no relatives in the services? The cost of your words would be paid for by them.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I mean unless there is a cost it won't happen. I don't like the fact that people are dying period but do you have relatives in the military that is actively involved with Iraq?
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not at all. In fact I've never had anyone close to me in the military thank the lord. I don't know what I'd do if I had a real loved one over there. I'd be dragging him home or else he's in his room for an hour. :)
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let me define exactly what it is I mean. Simply put I think the Iraqi people are much better off without Saddam, Bush might have gone in there under false pretenses (which Is not a point I want to make) but the outcome is still better than the alternative, that is at least for the Iraqi people, which is Saddam as a threat and oppressing his own people. Like I said ignorant people are easily swayed and that is why this whole thing happened. Do you know how many people Saddam has killed, look at those statistics as well and if you can honestly say that those lives that he took are meaningless then I will agree with you.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
of course they're not meaningless. But I don't like the death and destruction resulting from the lies no matter if Hussein is ousted. He's been there for over 30 years. Is is worth the thousands of dead?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
He has killed at least half a million people, he has had plenty of public executions including torturing thousands of people keeping them afraid and ignorant. Some statistics show Saddam killing 70 to 120 people a day while he was in power. He had to be taken down one way or another.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
true to a point psychx. You're thinking is reasonable IF you don't take into account America's support for him even though they knew even then that he was committing atrocities. That's what I mean. The US supported Hussein when they knew he was a bad guy. In fact the US even gave him the WMD they're so worried about now. So I think if the US was concerned for the Iraqi people they'd never have supported Hussein with the chemical he used to kill his own people. That's irresponsible on the US' part.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're thinking is reasonable IF you don't take into account America's support for him even though they knew even then that he was committing atrocities.


My thinking is reasonable even IF I do take America's support for him into account. Saddam out = less deaths. The U.S. clearly made a mistake with Iraq and Afghanistan but is correcting those same mistakes negative? Let me put it to you this way if it had been lets say Great Britain who ousted him on their own would your view be different. Your dislike for American action is blinding you. Don't worry it's relative to your culture i.e. not completely your fault. This is not good where we can't even use common sense because of people's differing ideals. On a personal note I prefer Saddam out that's me personally. I don't agree maybe with how it was done but either way it was for the better.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's almost as bad as when the U.S. worked with the Soviet Union to stop Hitler. It would have been better if the U.S. waged war on the Soviet Union and Germany rather than focus on the biggest threat at hand.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not a dislike for America. It's pointing out the fact that there was nothing to fear when the US GAVE Iraq their scary WMD, so there was nothing to fear now. They never had any WMD and they said so. The fact of the matter is that Iraq's denials ended up being 100% true. The reasons the US gave to invade Iraq ended up being 100% wrong. That's not good when an evil country like Iraq is telling the truth.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
I totally agree that removal of Saddam was the right thing to do. Trying to fool the international community into believing it was about WMD was a mistake which has caused valuable support. The question is where to go now to stop US personel being killed.

Out isn't an option. Civil war would ensue. What may be an option is to finally realise that this should have been a peace keeping mission from the start and set it up as a UN mission. Thousands more troops are already promised from other countries for such a mission and in 1 single stroke it reduces the anti-US feeling (which is strong despite the people being better off) and increases troop presence and security. Troops from other muslim nations would in particular be welcome, and have been promised.

Paul.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good point Solitair. The prestige of the U.S. is being challenged with this war. I agree that withdrawing now is definitely not an option not only for civil war but because it might embolden terrorists and insurgents.

You see mikimouse here is the thing, the Bush adminstration has a goal in mind. If they can implement a democratic government in Iraq that will give the muslim nations in the region the ability to see the benefits of democracy. If that happens they can keep the region somewhat stable and it would impact the whole region in a very positive way. You're right though it is optimistic.