New Memo - Iraq invasion was on, WMD or not.

a_unique_person · 30th March 2006, 04:22 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700879,00.html

Quote:

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
....

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

....

The whole WMD issue was irrelevant. The reasons for the invasion were nothing to do with WMD, and the decision to invade was already taken well before the invasion. While the Australian PM maintained the fiction, too, that if only Saddam would tell the truth about WMDs, etc, the reality was the invasion was under way no matter what.

The possibility of internal warfare was considered 'highly unlikely'.

Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?

Mephisto · 30th March 2006, 06:14 AM

I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal?

Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo.

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

That's just the opinion of one newspaper.

You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote!

Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is?

So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power?
_________

Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda."

Melendwyr · 30th March 2006, 06:17 AM

Now it is time to sing the "Doom!" song.

Just kidding. It's been time to sing the "Doom!" song for years.

hammegk · 30th March 2006, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

... Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?

Who knows, and at this point in time, who cares?

Don't you have some AussieNut problems closer to home that should be worrying you?

Mark · 30th March 2006, 07:16 AM

There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?"

So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care.

hammegk · 30th March 2006, 09:31 AM

Given facts rather than conjecture, impeachment is available. Given unreasoning hatred, you should relax, take a pill, smoke something, chill out ... before you give yourself a heart attack/aneurism/etcetc.

Kodiak · 30th March 2006, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?"

So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care.

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Belz... · 30th March 2006, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

Not sure the current situation is much better, though.

ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.

Mark · 30th March 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved.

Uh...what was it again?

Mephisto · 30th March 2006, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion.

. . . and your justification is?

Kodiak · 30th March 2006, 09:52 AM

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

Anti_Hypeman · 30th March 2006, 09:55 AM

Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom?

North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff.

Kodiak · 30th March 2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved.

Uh...what was it again?

IMO, the allied (mostly U.S.) forces many achievments have occured in spite of, and not because of, President Bush. While I still consider Bush better than the available alternatives at the time, there are still many issues where this libertarian/conservative and President disagree.

hammegk · 30th March 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff.

They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities.

Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so.

Mark · 30th March 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

.

Btw, for those of you who actually believe that (and you know who you are), I remind you that they had their teeth pulled in the first Gulf War.

Mark · 30th March 2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities.

Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so.

Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent.

Grammatron · 30th March 2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent.

That's funny coming from you.

Lurker · 30th March 2006, 10:37 AM

Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam. But Iraq we could more easily kick around.

Lurker

hammegk · 30th March 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Lurker

Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam.

Agreed, but a much tougher sell, then.

Quote:

But Iraq we could more easily kick around.

In terms of war, no contest again. In terms of resultant insurgencies, only Allah knows.

My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues.

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues.

What will ensue is that Iran will make things much worse in Iraq. At the moment they are just playing about. Bomb them and they will fund and support the insurgency full-time. Watcha gonna do about that?

Mephisto · 30th March 2006, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

Should I search under "Civil War" or "Apologist?"

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077

Quote:

Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Read about Blix's report here

Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far?

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:51 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077

Quote:

Originally posted by armageddonman
Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?

Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger.

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:53 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077

Quote:

Again, who here has disputed anything the inspectors have said???

Do I trust inspections to work??

They've had 12 years and they haven't worked yet...

What's changed??

9-11

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:54 AM

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 11:56 AM

This is a good one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077

Quote:

After 9-11 the US rightly decided to wage a war against terrorism. Part of that is no longer waiting for an attack to come and then responding to it. The destruction of the twin towers and the resultant loss of life showed us the folly in that. Thus, the US is no longer content to sit back and watch the Iraqi regime play a "shell game" with the UN inspectors.

And all this just from ONE thread!

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Just to clarify:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1517

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Can we afford [to fight] this war?

{Kodiak} Can we afford not to??

{scotth} My thoughts exactly.

How would the costs of this potential war stack up against any of the following scenarios?

1) Any moderately successful bio attack.
2) Any moderately successful radiological attack.
............................
I have to disagree here. I do believe that if Sadaam thought he could get away with passing off something nasty to a willing agent without getting caught, he would do so.

Also, it would be trivial to smuggle in bio weapons.
.............................

Jon_in_london · 30th March 2006, 12:17 PM

So when you talk about "Several of us" this excludes yourself and whom exactly?

Upchurch · 30th March 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

ouchie.

HarryKeogh · 30th March 2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature. That's not being very skeptical. Nice work, Jon in London.

a_unique_person · 30th March 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal?

Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo.

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

That's just the opinion of one newspaper.

You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote!

Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is?

So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power?
_________

Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda."

I heard Saddam was a nice guy and loving family man.

Mycroft · 30th March 2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Emphasis mine.

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.

Upchurch · 30th March 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.

What other reasons do you see Kodiak alluding to in those old quotes?

Zep · 30th March 2006, 03:01 PM

Frankly, if this memo is real (and we have little reason to suspect otherwise, even if it IS reported by The Guardian) then it merely confirms a number of others sources that were available at the time to the same effect. Namely, that the invasion WAS on, come hell or high water.

It's not news.

DavidJames · 30th March 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.

What is the meaning of is the?

keep 'a' spinning

Mycroft · 30th March 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What other reasons do you see Kodiak alluding to in those old quotes?

I assume Kodiak said many things in addition to what Jon linked to. Since those threads were about WMDs, it would not be surprising if other reasons for the war were not discussed.

Kevin_Lowe · 30th March 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by HarryKeogh

When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature. That's not being very skeptical. Nice work, Jon in London.

Seconded.

What a cheeky bugger.

Upchurch · 30th March 2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I assume Kodiak said many things in addition to what Jon linked to. Since those threads were about WMDs, it would not be surprising if other reasons for the war were not discussed.

Why merely assume? If you could back up the claim with a quote, you'd have a much stronger case.

as Kodiak said, it is all "...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search..."

WildCat · 30th March 2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

This doesn't make any sense.

WildCat · 30th March 2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not sure the current situation is much better, though.

ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.

Oh, we could easily control them also, if we used the Saddam method. Destroy any village (and I mean bomb it w/o warning until the entire thing is a smoking crater) an IED is found near, for example. Who's up for that? No one would be shouting "Abu Ghraib!" after that....

30th March 2006, 04:22 AM	#1
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	New Memo - Iraq invasion was on, WMD or not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700879,00.html Quote: Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. "The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam". The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals: · Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]". .... · Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book. .... The whole WMD issue was irrelevant. The reasons for the invasion were nothing to do with WMD, and the decision to invade was already taken well before the invasion. While the Australian PM maintained the fiction, too, that if only Saddam would tell the truth about WMDs, etc, the reality was the invasion was under way no matter what. The possibility of internal warfare was considered 'highly unlikely'. Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

30th March 2006, 06:14 AM	#2
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal? Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo. So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know. That's just the opinion of one newspaper. You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote! Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is? So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power? _________ Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda."
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

30th March 2006, 06:17 AM	#3
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Now it is time to sing the "Doom!" song. Just kidding. It's been time to sing the "Doom!" song for years.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

30th March 2006, 06:38 AM	#4
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by a_unique_person ... Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion? Who knows, and at this point in time, who cares? Don't you have some AussieNut problems closer to home that should be worrying you?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

30th March 2006, 07:16 AM	#5
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?" So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

30th March 2006, 09:31 AM	#6
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Given facts rather than conjecture, impeachment is available. Given unreasoning hatred, you should relax, take a pill, smoke something, chill out ... before you give yourself a heart attack/aneurism/etcetc.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

30th March 2006, 09:32 AM	#7
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Originally Posted by Mark There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?" So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care. Yawn... Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

30th March 2006, 09:37 AM	#8
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,516	Originally Posted by Mephisto So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know. Not sure the current situation is much better, though. ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

30th March 2006, 09:38 AM	#9
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by Kodiak Yawn... Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search... Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved. Uh...what was it again?
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

30th March 2006, 09:44 AM	#10
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Kodiak Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. . . . and your justification is?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

30th March 2006, 09:52 AM	#11
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

30th March 2006, 09:55 AM	#12
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom? North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff.

30th March 2006, 10:03 AM	#13
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Originally Posted by Mark Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved. Uh...what was it again? IMO, the allied (mostly U.S.) forces many achievments have occured in spite of, and not because of, President Bush. While I still consider Bush better than the available alternatives at the time, there are still many issues where this libertarian/conservative and President disagree.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

30th March 2006, 10:08 AM	#14
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff. They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities. Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

30th March 2006, 10:16 AM	#15
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom? Oh, yeah, I forgot. . Btw, for those of you who actually believe that (and you know who you are), I remind you that they had their teeth pulled in the first Gulf War.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

30th March 2006, 10:17 AM	#16
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by hammegk They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities. Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so. Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

30th March 2006, 10:33 AM	#17
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Originally Posted by Mark Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent. That's funny coming from you.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

30th March 2006, 10:37 AM	#18
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187	Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam. But Iraq we could more easily kick around. Lurker
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187

30th March 2006, 10:49 AM	#19
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Lurker Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam. Agreed, but a much tougher sell, then. Quote: But Iraq we could more easily kick around. In terms of war, no contest again. In terms of resultant insurgencies, only Allah knows. My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

30th March 2006, 11:29 AM	#20
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Originally Posted by hammegk My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues. What will ensue is that Iran will make things much worse in Iraq. At the moment they are just playing about. Bomb them and they will fund and support the insurgency full-time. Watcha gonna do about that?
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 11:35 AM	#21
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Kodiak ...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search... Should I search under "Civil War" or "Apologist?"
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

30th March 2006, 11:41 AM	#22
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Originally Posted by Kodiak ...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077 Quote: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq Read about Blix's report here Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far? I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein? Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 11:51 AM	#23
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077 Quote: Originally posted by armageddonman Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on? Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger.
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 11:53 AM	#24
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077 Quote: Again, who here has disputed anything the inspectors have said??? Do I trust inspections to work?? They've had 12 years and they haven't worked yet... What's changed?? 9-11
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 11:54 AM	#25
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives... Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 11:56 AM	#26
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	This is a good one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077 Quote: After 9-11 the US rightly decided to wage a war against terrorism. Part of that is no longer waiting for an attack to come and then responding to it. The destruction of the twin towers and the resultant loss of life showed us the folly in that. Thus, the US is no longer content to sit back and watch the Iraqi regime play a "shell game" with the UN inspectors. And all this just from ONE thread!
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 12:15 PM	#27
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Originally Posted by Kodiak Yawn... Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search... Just to clarify: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1517 Quote: Originally posted by Tmy Can we afford [to fight] this war? {Kodiak} Can we afford not to?? {scotth} My thoughts exactly. How would the costs of this potential war stack up against any of the following scenarios? 1) Any moderately successful bio attack. 2) Any moderately successful radiological attack. ............................ I have to disagree here. I do believe that if Sadaam thought he could get away with passing off something nasty to a willing agent without getting caught, he would do so. Also, it would be trivial to smuggle in bio weapons. .............................
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 12:17 PM	#28
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	So when you talk about "Several of us" this excludes yourself and whom exactly?
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th March 2006, 01:00 PM	#29
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by Kodiak Yawn... Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search... ouchie.

30th March 2006, 01:09 PM	#30
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	Originally Posted by Jon_in_london Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives... Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on? When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature. That's not being very skeptical. Nice work, Jon in London.

30th March 2006, 02:33 PM	#31
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Originally Posted by Mephisto I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal? Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo. So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know. That's just the opinion of one newspaper. You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote! Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is? So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power? _________ Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda." I heard Saddam was a nice guy and loving family man.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

30th March 2006, 02:45 PM	#32
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	Originally Posted by Kodiak Yawn... Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, *the* justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search... Emphasis mine. Originally Posted by Jon_in_london Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives... Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on? I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

30th March 2006, 02:53 PM	#33
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by Mycroft I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war. What other reasons do you see Kodiak alluding to in those old quotes?

30th March 2006, 03:01 PM	#34
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Frankly, if this memo is real (and we have little reason to suspect otherwise, even if it IS reported by The Guardian) then it merely confirms a number of others sources that were available at the time to the same effect. Namely, that the invasion WAS on, come hell or high water. It's not news.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

30th March 2006, 03:04 PM	#35
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by Mycroft I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war. What is the meaning of is the? keep 'a' spinning
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.