U.s. Changes Reason For Invading Iraq
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Jul 10, 2003 @ 1:19pm |
 Coolness: 121630 | CHRISTINE BOYD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail The U.S. administration has abruptly revised its explanation for invading Iraq, as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted that a changed perspective after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — not fresh evidence of banned weapons — provoked the war. "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Mr. Rumsfeld testified yesterday before the Senate armed services committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light, through the prism of our experience on 9/11." It was an about-face from a man who confidently proclaimed in January: "There's no doubt in my mind but that they [the Iraqi government] currently have chemical and biological weapons." (He was seconded in March by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.") And in London Thursday, the BBC reported senior British government sources saying that Whitehall had virtually ruled out finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which they now believe were destroyed or hidden permanently before the war began. Mr. Rumsfeld's reversal came as the administration scrambled to defend itself from accusations that it deliberately used false or misleading information to bolster one of its primary justifications for the war. On Monday, the White House acknowledged that U.S. President George W. Bush was wrong when he said in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had recently tried to purchase large quantities of uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons. He cited British intelligence reports of documents that purported to show an Iraqi attempt to buy a form of raw uranium known as yellowcake. The documents were later discredited as forgeries. While the White House justified the invasion to topple Mr. Hussein on the ground that his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons posed a threat, no such arms have been uncovered in the 10 weeks since the war ended. Mr. Bush unapologetically defended the war while in the middle of his five-day, visit to Africa. "Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power," he said yesterday at a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki. Questioned for the first time about the uranium, he said: "There's going to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history. But I am absolutely confident in the decision I made." White House officials said information that the documents may have been forged had not reached top-level policymakers before the public statements. Mr. Rumsfeld said he found out "within recent days" that the information had been discredited, but he defended the U.S. intelligence throughout the Iraq conflict as "quite good" and said Iraq "had 12 years to conceal" weapons programs. "Uncovering those programs will take time," he said. Several Democrats heightened calls for a full-scale investigation on whether intelligence was manipulated. "It's bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the President's case for war," Senator Edward Kennedy said. "It's far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception. ... We cannot risk American lives based on shoddy intelligence or outright lies." With U.S. and British forces facing almost daily assaults, he and other senators grilled Mr. Rumsfeld on whether more troops were needed in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld told the committee that talks were under way to increase NATO involvement in Iraq peacekeeping efforts. He maintained that most of Iraq is safe after the war, with most of the recent attacks against U.S. and British forces concentrated in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Mr. Kennedy expressed skepticism, saying he was "concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery." With reports from the Guardian, Reuters |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flatlinedive replied on Thu Jul 10, 2003 @ 2:36pm |
 Coolness: 64620 | everyone cover your ears while i scream
*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* WHEN WILL THE STUPIDITY END????? when will the lies and bullshit stop? when will the americans see that their leader is a nincompoop? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Neon_Golden replied on Thu Jul 10, 2003 @ 7:07pm |
| Coolness: 39375 | i think when the world stops turning.
GGGRRRR!!! Roar! Roar! (lets stop beating around the "BUSH") |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kitkat replied on Thu Jul 10, 2003 @ 8:16pm |
 Coolness: 71965 | yeah lets beat the bush instead ;) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Thu Jul 10, 2003 @ 11:44pm |
| Coolness: 67230 | A HA! I WAS PARTIALLY RIGHT!
Who ever said this was over WMD, oil, or peace are WRONG: "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Mr. Rumsfeld testified yesterday before the Senate armed services committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light, through the prism of our experience on 9/11." Voila, they needed a position in the middle east in which to operate from. Untill this point, they had no such position. But now they have easy access to all of the middle east, where as we all know is the root of most anti-US terrorism. At first I figured this was over anti-american attitudes, but thats not my idea anymore. Its about getting a base of operations in the middle east. Thats it, thats all. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 2:23am |
 Coolness: 201940 | The USA already has a base of operations in the middle east.
It's called "Israel". |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Neon_Golden replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 3:24am |
| Coolness: 39375 | Its gotta be the oil.
take over control of the world's largest petroleum producer, the middle east. -Then, drive domestic gas prices to a record low. -Boosting the failing U.S economy. -With enough gas & oil to keep their jet fighters & tanks fully operational for, god knows how long. - enabaling a single Country(or army) to dictate & re-create the world. ...As they please. "Grey skies bring tears" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 3:28am |
| Coolness: 201940 | I find it funny in a sick way that al quaeda can manage to systematical blow up the world trade towers and part of the pentagon while Bush and his enormous resources can't manage to capture Osama OR Saddam, or at least confirm their deaths. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Neon_Golden replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 3:42am |
| Coolness: 39375 | Funny?? Very. Intentional? most likely.
why capture them? They(U.S & Britan) have been bullshiting the public for quite some time now. They now have a un-acomplished mission.right? Its open ended.(war on terrorism) They could easily use these 2 well known characters to manipulate the public in believeing that "Any war is a good war" ...so long as osama or Sadam are the targets. Hopefully im completly wrong. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 4:11am |
 Coolness: 340380 | it's hard to tell if you've killed someone in particular when you drop cluster bombs and throw ICBMs at a country thousands of miles away and kill thousands at a time.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 10:47am |
| Coolness: 67230 | Its gotta be the oil.
take over control of the world's largest petroleum producer, the middle east. -Then, drive domestic gas prices to a record low. -Boosting the failing U.S economy. -With enough gas & oil to keep their jet fighters & tanks fully operational for, god knows how long. - enabaling a single Country(or army) to dictate & re-create the world. ...As they please. "Grey skies bring tears" It's impossible to lower domestic prices without lowering world prices. Oil goes into the world supply no matter what. It's economicly unfeasable to launch a $100 billion war over oil. And Israel was never a base of operations in the middle east. Israel is an independant country, using allies when needed. The US has no troops positioned at Israel, has little political influence in Israel that would spread beyond its borders. Iraq however is a different story. Providing easy access to Iran, Syria, ect, the US can easily launch military campaigns, intelligence gathering, and use an iraqi puppet government to spread political influence across the middle east in an effort to fight off terrorism. They now have a un-acomplished mission.right? Its open ended.(war on terrorism)
They could easily use these 2 well known characters to manipulate the public in believeing that "Any war is a good war" ...so long as osama or Sadam are the targets. Hopefully im completly wrong. Welcome to 1984 |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 12:05pm |
| Coolness: 340380 | well they did get into iraq by going through turkey no? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 1:00pm |
| Coolness: 67230 | no
they left Iraq from Kuwait and invaded the north with paratroopers. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 1:19pm |
| Coolness: 340380 | er.. but they had to take off from somewhere..
i believe i read that the US upgraded one of turkeys air ports in exchange for military use of it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 5:59pm |
| Coolness: 67230 | Turkey voted against having US troops using their airspace/land/bases for the war in Iraq because Turkey has its own agenda with Iraq: Killing the kurds.
So the US launched everything from the gulf and Kuwait. They first bombed as much as they could, eliminating any potential threat of air defense and trying to bomb bases in an attempt to wipe out Iraqi's military. Then as they were storming in from the south, taking over city by city, they dropped in paratroopers and special forces in the north of Iraq, which is controlled by the Kurds, and from there the US and the Kurds started taking over the north untill finally they surrounded baghdad. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Neon_Golden replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 6:44pm |
| Coolness: 39375 | true. turkey wasnt involved. but nothing justifies war. we're supposed to be an advanced civilization with morals, values, and standards. where was the diplomacy?? nowhere. just ultimatums from the start.
If its not oil & tactical strategy? what(non-imperialist) use can Iraq be? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 6:53pm |
| Coolness: 67230 | there are justifications for war
Bosnia was one such incident, diplomacy was tried for half a year before the bombs fell.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 8:02pm |
 Coolness: 194740 | fuck oil
everyone should just switch to nuclear power and use old nuclear warheads as spare fuel oh gawd im turning into a hippy :lol |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Fri Jul 11, 2003 @ 8:12pm |
| Coolness: 201940 | Nuclear power is fine as long as the country has the resources to maintain it properly, otherwise you end up with some pretty terrible consequences. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Neon_Golden replied on Sat Jul 12, 2003 @ 3:58am |
| Coolness: 39375 | 5-legged,golw in the dark goats??? |
U.s. Changes Reason For Invading Iraq
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
