Add Reply
Related Information to Post War IraqPost War Iraq - Page 89 of 171
The mainstream media continues to play an - Page 89 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 22nd Mar, 2006 - 4:11am
Posts: 1362 - Views: 101356
versus 
So, now that the USA left Iraq can the country rebuild herself and become stable? Related Information to Post War IraqPost Date: 2nd Mar, 2006 - 11:00am / Post ID: #
Post War Iraq - Page 89
While this is certainly very interesting news, its not surprising. Not one of the other people associated with Saddam has ever said anything about WMD's. But they find his number 2 in command, and Saddam is on trial, and he tells them something that makes them look good. Anything to save your own behind and make your captors happy. One person says we moved said weapons of mass destruction, you were right, and suddenly the Bush administration is vindicated. Convenient, but not proof, and looks very suspicious. Had this been something backed up by others early on, I would have thought differently, but not this late in the game and by one person.
Sponsored Links:
Iraq War Post
I made an error in how I put the url in the message.
Here is the corrected URL.
https://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/02/neo...th-neocons.html
arvhic, I disagree with all that you have said. I would like to point out that what you claim to be facts are only opinion.
Konquererz, there have been many reports, from various international intelligence agencies, from the first days of the war, that huge convoys of suspicious trucks moved rapidly into Syria. There were also reports from the first days, of suspicious airplane flights.
Finally, the weapons inspectors from the first acknowledged that Hussein HAD WMDs. The only question is, what happened to them? The inspectors never found any proof that they had been destroyed, but were instead led on wild goose chases to keep them away from something. What were they kept away from? I don't know, but I strongly suspect the international media that keeps insisting that WMDs really were no concern at all before March 2003 (despite the assurances of such luminaries as Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, the British, French, German, Russian, and all sorts of other intelligence agencies that Hussein's WMDs were the biggest threat possible to the entire world).
Yep. It is ALL the deranged dreams of neocons that has brought us to this point. Hussein was a saint, and the neocons were/are the Great Satan for thinking that he was any sort of threat to anyone outside of his own people. Of course, moonbat conspiracy theories are FAR more representative of reality than those reports from before March 2003.
Thanks for enlightening me folks. 
Edited: Nighthawk on 2nd Mar, 2006 - 2:41pm
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 
85.4%
Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics
| QUOTE |
| arvhic, I disagree with all that you have said. I would like to point out that what you claim to be facts are only opinion. |
Well if that is the case, then Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and teams of weapons experts, hand picked by the US administration post-Saddam, must share this opinion. The previous weapons inspection teams say that Iraq was 95 per cent disassembled from its original arsenal of WMDs, most of which were supplied by countries like the US, Britain, Russia etc. Let's not loose sight of the fact that the US turned a blind eye when Saddam was at his most evil and threatening. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who tried to blame the Iranians for some of Saddam's atrocities against Kurds? This is not my opinion, it is fact.
Your government waged this invasion with the blind support of the UK, Australia, Poland and a few other token offers of support. Most countries became involved, not to remove Saddam or because they felt he was a threat, but because they could negotiate aid, or some other sweetener from the US. Australia's reward for invading Iraq was a lucrative free-trade agreement with the US. Most people in the US probably don't know that.
| QUOTE |
| Konquererz, there have been many reports, from various international intelligence agencies, from the first days of the war, that huge convoys of suspicious trucks moved rapidly into Syria. There were also reports from the first days, of suspicious airplane flights. |
Where are these intelligence reports, who are they produced by and how reliable are they? Why weren't they produced or revealed before the war, when it could have prevented the invasion? Where they the same Tonka trucks Colin Powell showed pictures of at a UN address? Why was this intelligence conveniently concocted after the deed was done and when the occupying force was in damage control? I"m presuming this intelligence was gathered before the invasion, so why wasn't it revealed before to prove to the world Saddam didn't have these weapons?
| QUOTE |
| Finally, the weapons inspectors from the first acknowledged that Hussein HAD WMDs. The only question is, what happened to them? The inspectors never found any proof that they had been destroyed, but were instead led on wild goose chases to keep them away from something. What were they kept away from? |
This is a lie. The original weapons inspection team led by Richard Butler destroyed most of these weapons in the late 90s. They were pulled out of the country, not because Iraq wasn't cooperating, but because Clinton was about to launch Operation Desert Fox.
The recent weapons inspection team led by Hans Blix never said they were being led on a wild goose chase. They wanted to continue their inspections but were forced to leave because Bush was about to launch Operation Shock and Awe. You will notice a pattern emerging here. The last team of weapons inspectors, hand picked by the Bush Administration found nothing after months of searching.
| QUOTE |
| I don't know, but I strongly suspect the international media that keeps insisting that WMDs really were no concern at all before March 2003 (despite the assurances of such luminaries as Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, the British, French, German, Russian, and all sorts of other intelligence agencies that Hussein's WMDs were the biggest threat possible to the entire world). |
Only months before the decision to go to war, Condi Rice and Colin Powell told US TV that Iraq was not a threat and the sanctions had been working. Amazingly, they did a huge backflip after the decision to go to war had been made. It is amazing what a difference a couple of months can make to a threat. And, if the French, Germans and Russians were seriously concerned about Saddam, why did they all promise to veto any security council resolution to go to war?
Bill Clinton thought Iraq was a big threat once the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke out. Never heard him say much about it before then.
| QUOTE |
| Yep. It is ALL the deranged dreams of neocons that has brought us to this point. Hussein was a saint, and the neocons were/are the Great Satan for thinking that he was any sort of threat to anyone outside of his own people. |
Nobody here is suggesting Saddam is a saint. But questions have to be asked about this invasion, which by all accounts is an absolute disaster. The reality is the Bush Administration and coalition partners lied to their own people and the world about this dirty invasion. They have not come clean on the real reasons, instead using "democracy" as their latest excuse.
It's amazing that this debate is so centred around WMDs. This is old news and has already be proven a lie and irrelevant.
What about the Iraqi people? What about the hundreds of citizens who are now murdered each week by death squads within the Iraqi security forces? Our countries fund and effectively control those forces and don't seem to be doing a thing about all this carnage, except blame the unsubstantiated Al-Qaeda, the mysterious Al-Zarqarwi or a sectarian uprising. What about the 100,000 plus people, a conservative estimate, who have died as a result of this invasion? Let's not forget, it's the Iraqi people who pay the ultimate price to fulfil a dream of the West. Is one man, Saddam, worth 100,000 people? I wouldn't think he is worth a bar of soap.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Page 89 Iraq War Post
one has to wonder if things could get any worse in Iraq. Look at this headline:
| QUOTE (Yahoo News) |
| Iraq Edges Closer to Open Civil Warfare BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses - men shot to death execution-style, Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad. Ref. https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq |
Also in the report is a foiled plan by Al-quiada to bomb a series of US / UK targets using more than 100 men. Maybe this was the 'attack' that was voiced earlier in another thread.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
Post Date: 19th Mar, 2006 - 5:01pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq
ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS CONDEMN THE INVASION OF IRAQ ACROSS CANADA AND THE WORLD
More than 1,000 anti-war protesters marched through the streets of downtown Toronto Saturday, joining worldwide demonstrations marking the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ests060318.html
Post Date: 21st Mar, 2006 - 12:37pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Post War Iraq - Page 89
THE WILD WILD WEST? PENTAGON PROBES ALLEGED MARINE 'RAMPAGE' IN IRAQ
The Pentagon has begun a criminal investigation after graphic videotape surfaced suggesting U.S. marines killed at least 15 unarmed civilians in November in the Iraqi town of Haditha.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...iraq060320.html GUNMEN STORM IRAQI POLICE STATION
Suspected insurgents killed at least 17 police officers and freed 33 prisoners during a daybreak attack on a police station in Iraq on Tuesday, police said.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...on-assault.html
Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 89
The mainstream media continues to play an important role in the war on Iraq. There have been previous posts on this thread that accuse the US media of being anti-Bush, left-wing, or even opposed to the war.
But I don't believe this is the case at all. And, nor does Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper, the Independent.
In his latest article, he highlights the blind support and lack of questioning about Iraq that should be alarming to those who live in the US. Most journalists in Baghdad won't even leave their hotels. Fair enough, when you consider the risks involved, but why should the public accept everything that the US, British and Coalition governments spoon feed them?
I have posted this in the Iraq thread because it clearly shows how poor reporting standards are distorting the truth and allowing governments to act without any accountability.
Robert Fisk's article in full
Here are some excerpts:
| QUOTE |
| In post-invasion, post-Judith Miller mode, the American press is supposed to be challenging the lies of this war. So the Los Angeles Times story beneath the headline "In a Battle of Wits, Iraq's Insurgency Mastermind Stays a Step Ahead of US" deserves to be read. Or does it? Datelined Washington - an odd city in which to learn about Iraq, you might think - its opening paragraph reads: "Despite the recent arrest of one of his would-be suicide bombers in Jordan and some top aides in Iraq, insurgency mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi has eluded capture, US authorities say, because his network has a much better intelligence-gathering operation than they do." Now quite apart from the fact that many Iraqis - along, I have to admit, with myself - have grave doubts about whether Zarqawi exists, and that al-Qai'da's Zarqawi, if he does exist, does not merit the title of "insurgency mastermind", the words that caught my eye were "US authorities say". ...as I read through the report, I note how the Los Angeles Times sources this extraordinary tale. I thought American reporters no longer trusted the US administration, not after the mythical weapons of mass destruction and the equally mythical connections between Saddam and the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. Of course, I was wrong. Here are the sources - on pages one and 10 for the yarn spun by reporters Josh Meyer and Mark Mazzetti: "US officials said", "said one US Justice Department counter-terrorism official", "Officials ... said", "those officials said", "the officials confirmed", "American officials complained", "the US officials stressed", "US authorities believe", "said one senior US intelligence official", "US officials said", "Jordanian officials ... said" - here, at least is some light relief - "several US officials said", "the US officials said", "American officials said", "officials say", "say US officials", "US officials said", "one US counter-terrorism official said". I do truly treasure this story. It proves my point that the Los Angeles Times - along with the big east coast dailies - should all be called US OFFICIALS SAY. But it's not just this fawning on political power that makes me despair. |
Fisk continues by highlighting another example of terrible reporting by the Associated Press on the court case of US Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jnr.
| QUOTE |
| Mr Welshofer, it transpired in court, had stuffed the Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush head-first into a sleeping bag and sat on his chest, an action which - not surprisingly - caused the general to expire. The military jury ordered - reader, hold your breath - a reprimand for Mr Welshofer, the forfeiting of $6,000 of his salary and confinement to barracks for 60 days. But what caught my eye was the sympathetic detail. Welshofer's wife's Barbara, the AP told us, "testified that she was worried about providing for their three children if her husband was sentenced to prison. 'I love him more for fighting this,' she said, tears welling up in her eyes. 'He's always said that you need to do the right thing, and sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing to do'". |
Despite highlighting, and not question, one of the most lenient manslaughter rulings I have ever heard of in the West, this article makes no attempt to humanise the dead Iraqi or his family. This has the effect of desensitising the plight of the Iraqi people. They are just dead bodies, not human beings. This war is about Bush's dreams of "democracy" in the Middle East and perceptions of terrorism, not millions of Iraqis who battle through hardships Bush, Blair or Howard will never know.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
TOPIC: Post War Iraq