Cheney and His Ilk Wrong on Iraq

First topic message reminder :

[img][/img]

gerber wrote:Question for the panel..............

Will we and the US return to support if the President removes himself ?

Evening Gerber.

If it's left to that old war-monger Duncan Smith then probably.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-will-help-us-with-air-strikes-on-iraq-1-3452940

Irn Bru wrote:

gerber wrote:Question for the panel..............

Will we and the US return to support if the President removes himself ?

Evening Gerber.

If it's left to that old war-monger Duncan Smith then probably.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-will-help-us-with-air-strikes-on-iraq-1-3452940

And a very good evening to yourself.

Having removed the police and army from positions of strength initially, and then having removed all support re boots on the ground.................  leaving the country almost to a lawless state without a second thought on tribal, religious differences, maybe we should reconsider our position as should the US and France.

The normal Iraqis deserve better but so did the Syrians whom we failed abysmally at the start.  Begged for help and it was denied.  Now look..............  Every freedom fighter whatever the religion is gunhoing it to martyrdom.

Ben, there were no al q in Iraq before the bush/Blair war.






And The al q who did arrive after were driven out by the Iraqi people. They didn't like them and didn't want them.

scrat wrote:So basically you're a conspiracy theorist who has come to the conclusion that Saddam would not have used the nuclear fissile material, despite all the evidence to the contrary.,,,,,

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown

Thank goodness the great minds of the time did not listen to the likes of yourself, history teaches us that in certain situations it is better to act quickly in order to save millions of lives, millions of life's that you would have risked through the appeasement of a ruthless dictator with a passion for WMDs.

Whether you call it a conspiracy or an administration policy is largely a matter of semantics. The administration in power at the time deliberately lied in order to ease the criticism...from the people, and thus from Congress.

Thank goodness that people in agreement with me are in power right now. Too bad "...the great minds of the time did not listen to the likes of.." me when they were in power. We would have 4,500 more alive today, and some $17-trillion more in money. But that's Tories...penny-wise and pound-foolish.

History teaches us not to be impetuous fools. In this case it cost us the longest war in the US history. In the next one--unless we prevent it--we could end up speaking a foreign language.

Tommy Monk wrote:Ben, there were no al q in Iraq before the bush/Blair war.






And The al q who did arrive after were driven out by the Iraqi people. They didn't like them and didn't want them.

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you ever look up what bin Laden had to say about Saddam?

AQ considered Saddam a secular socialist, they would more readily have been done with him than the U.S. (most of them). Look it up and get back to me, and for fuck's sake, stop posting about things until you have a modicum of understanding about them ...

Here's a hint -- AQ viewed Saddam as an obstacle to a new "Islamic" (read -- fundamentalist, the worst things you've ever heard about Sharia) state in that region. Christ, at least get it right.

Saddam stood in the way of both Kurdistan and the Caliphate that al Qaeda envisioned in their wettest of dreams. I can't believe there are people more than a decade after the U.S./coalition of the "willing" invasion who don't know at least that much ...

gerber wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Evening Gerber.

If it's left to that old war-monger Duncan Smith then probably.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-will-help-us-with-air-strikes-on-iraq-1-3452940

And a very good evening to yourself.

Having removed the police and army from positions of strength initially, and then having removed all support re boots on the ground.................  leaving the country almost to a lawless state without a second thought on tribal, religious differences, maybe we should reconsider our position as should the US and France.

The normal Iraqis deserve better but so did the Syrians whom we failed abysmally at the start.  Begged for help and it was denied.  Now look..............  Every freedom fighter whatever the religion is gunhoing it to martyrdom.

What would be the purpose of any involvement by the west?  We've known that a Middle East civil war was coming for a decade, and we knew that Iraq was right in the middle of it.  Our (US) only purpose for the past 5-years has been to get out of the way.  We have nothing to accomplish there...just a place to spend money and test drones.  In a CBS/NYT poll yesterday, only 18% of the people said the Bush/Cheney war was worth it.  A PPP Survey last Tuesday says that 74% of the people think we should not get physically involved today.  If ever there was a place to steer clear of, Iraq is it.

The US also has a safeguard that prevents us from getting involved.  The Constitution mandates that only Congress can declare war.  Congress has steadfastly refused to take any action during the tenure of an African American President, particularly if it costs money.  Moreover, the President has openly announced he will take no unilateral action to get us in a war; Congress must act on its own.  Methinks that the President would veto a declaration of war anyway.  With so many obstacles, it would take Mr. Hulot's holiday to get us involved.

And trust me, Britain will not go it alone, even if the government goes completely Tory.  Finally, Europe is already pissing its pants with the events in Ukraine.  None of you guys are built for it.

If Iraq (Sunni or Shiite) wants to start the civil war, either one is on its own.  Well...I'll give Iran 6-months to get into the fray.  And I'll give anybody even side-money that Israel ends it all.  Get good seats, order popcorn and a beer, and sit back and watch the fun. We'll be in the audience for this one.

You need to look it up....
You have already tried to tell me about Assad using chemical weapons , which I easily blew out the water, now you are trying to tell me that al q were in Iraq before bush/Blair war...????
Listen son.... you believe too much of what you read in your American bullshit papers....
There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war, and those who came in after are well known to have caused trouble for the locals and were driven out.
This IS common knowledge for most people.....
Have a little 'look see' and then tell me I'm wrong.....
I only speak the truth, like it or not, you should know that by now....

I see you've taken to calling "bullshit" as "common knowlege" ...

Need to get out of your bubble a bit more, Lil'Tommy

Tommy Monk wrote:You need to look it up....
You have already tried to tell me about Assad using chemical weapons , which I easily blew out the water, now you are trying to tell me that al q were in Iraq before bush/Blair war...????
Listen son.... you believe too much of what you read in your American bullshit papers....
There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war, and those who came in after are well known to have caused trouble for the locals and were driven out.
This IS common knowledge for most people.....
Have a little 'look see' and then tell me I'm wrong.....
I only speak the truth, like it or not, you should know that by now....

Matt, dude...you are all about declaring yourself the winner so much, that you forgot to make your argument. Give us a little history of al Qaeda in Iraq...make your point.

Yeah, and explain why Saddam was so reviled by them if they had no presence in Iraq while you're at it ... it's true, they sent more of their lackeys into Iraq after the invasion, figuring that any of them who survived combat against the Americans coalition would be one bad motor scooter who'd be worth keeping around, but they were definitely present.

In fact -- in a hilarious irony -- here is a right-wing American organization taking a liberal working in the U.S. to task for the exact same assertion you are making:

Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC.com executive editor Richard Wolffe mocked former Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent criticism of President Obama, and inaccurately claimed that "there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq" before Cheney "led the decision to invade Iraq."

After dismissing Cheney as being in his "last throes," Wolffe recalled: "Let's just revisit a little bit of history. Before Dick Cheney led the decision to invade Iraq, and led the disastrous occupation of Iraq, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He allowed Al-Qaeda to get a foothold in Iraq."

But, as previously documented by NewsBusters , during several years dating back even before the Iraq invasion, there were media reports from various sources of former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's connections to Osama bin Laden, and his use of Iraq as a base to plot terror attacks against other countries before the war.

In fact, on March 2, 2008, the NBC Nightly News claimed not only that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion, busy plotting attacks against Europe, but that the Bush administration intentionally "passed up several opportunities" to attack terrorist bases in Iraq "long before the war" in 2002 because of fear it would "undercut its case" for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2014/06/19/msnbcs-wolffe-contradicted-nbc-he-wrongly-claims-no-al-qaeda-iraq-inv

So stop being a leftist pansy and admit that AQ was in Iraq before the invasion     

There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war.
They arrived much after, and the locals largelycheck drove them out.
This is not about declaring myself a winner, just statement of fact....
Should be easy for you to prove me wrong if I'm talking shit.....
I'm waiting.....

The bubble is all yours Benny bullshit.....
And you call yourself a serious journalist when all you know is propaganda...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war.
They arrived much after, and the locals largelycheck drove them out.
This is not about declaring myself a winner, just statement of fact....
Should be easy for you to prove me wrong if I'm talking shit.....
I'm waiting.....

The bubble is all yours Benny bullshit.....
And you call yourself a serious journalist when all you know is propaganda...!?

Just read up on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

NewsBusters wrote: Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC.com executive editor Richard Wolffe mocked former Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent criticism of President Obama, and inaccurately claimed that "there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq" before Cheney "led the decision to invade Iraq."

After dismissing Cheney as being in his "last throes," Wolffe recalled: "Let's just revisit a little bit of history. Before Dick Cheney led the decision to invade Iraq, and led the disastrous occupation of Iraq, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He allowed Al-Qaeda to get a foothold in Iraq."

But, as previously documented by NewsBusters , during several years dating back even before the Iraq invasion, there were media reports from various sources of former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's connections to Osama bin Laden, and his use of Iraq as a base to plot terror attacks against other countries before the war.

In fact, on March 2, 2008, the NBC Nightly News claimed not only that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion, busy plotting attacks against Europe, but that the Bush administration intentionally "passed up several opportunities" to attack terrorist bases in Iraq "long before the war" in 2002 because of fear it would "undercut its case" for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2014/06/19/msnbcs-wolffe-contradicted-nbc-he-wrongly-claims-no-al-qaeda-iraq-inv

Hate to quote a fascist publication, but it's true.

Try a legitimate source.....




There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war, they only arrived much later and the locals fought them after they arrived and drove them out.


This was part of the well known problems long after the invasion.



Instead of desperately searching for a bit of bullshit to try to prove me wrong, just read the wealth of evidence that supports exactly what I'm saying as true.



I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't true.



What have I got to gain either way...????

Tommy Monk wrote:Try a legitimate source.....

There was no al q in Iraq before bush Blair war, they only arrived much later and the locals fought them after they arrived and drove them out.

This was part of the well known problems long after the invasion.

Instead of desperately searching for a bit of bullshit to try to prove me wrong, just read the wealth of evidence that supports exactly what I'm saying as true.

I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't true.

What have I got to gain either way...????

I'm afraid the evidence is against you, Matt. The evidence of al-Zarqawi's presence before the invasion is too well known.

I don't like quoting a RW source either, but there is just too much out that to deny it.

Try a reliable source.....


Newsbusters blog just isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid.....




I know you Americans are enveloped in a world of waffle through your media and news outlets, but please try to reach out to some reality outside of this bullshit.....

I think it does in this case, Matt. It's all over, regardless of the source.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:So basically you're a conspiracy theorist who has come to the conclusion that Saddam would not have used the nuclear fissile material, despite all the evidence to the contrary.,,,,,

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown

Thank goodness the great minds of the time did not listen to the likes of yourself, history teaches us that in certain situations it is better to act quickly in order to save millions of lives, millions of life's that you would have risked through the appeasement of a ruthless dictator with a passion for WMDs.

Whether you call it a conspiracy or an administration policy is largely a matter of semantics.  The administration in power at the time deliberately lied in order to ease the criticism...from the people, and thus from Congress.

Thank goodness that people in agreement with me are in power right now.  Too bad "...the great minds of the time did not listen to the likes of.." me when they were in power.  We would have 4,500 more alive today, and some $17-trillion more in money.  But that's Tories...penny-wise and pound-foolish.

History teaches us not to be impetuous fools.  In this case it cost us the longest war in the US history.  In the next one--unless we prevent it--we could end up speaking a foreign language.

Hardly Semantics!,,,You've accused the American government, including democrats like John Kerry of murdering thousands of American and British troops and perhaps 100s of thousands of Iraqi citizens,,,,,,for what reason?

The great minds of this time certainly do not agree with you!, they'd view you as  simply one of many conspiracy nuts who would appease violent megalomaniacs,,,,, no chap, the great minds of this time have passed judgement and they have established that there was enough evidence, legally and more importantly and appropriately morally justifiable reasons to take the chap out.

Your reasoning that Saddam would not have pressed the button does not bare contemplation.

Logic dictates it's simply the lesser of two weevils.