Post by Odracir on Feb 13, 2004 16:16:09 GMT -5
EU-topia said:
ok, ok, I misread your question, but turns out it was even easier to get sources on this:
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
middleeastinfo.org/article3281.html
www.peripatetic.com/archives/000267.html
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/140278_misledxed.html
They didn't say Saddam was personally responsible. They said he was personally involved. And those articles also state that Bush and his administration said they had no evidence of it.
not euthamise over 15,000 deaths by calling it "collateral damage", it shows a complete lack of respect. These are not numbers, they are mothers, fathers, bothers, sisters and children. I'm sure you never reffered to the 9/11 victums this way, so don't do it to these 15,000 innocents.
The 9/11 victims were victims of an act of cold-blooded murder and terrorism. Not accidental collateral damage. I'm not saying their deaths are right. I'm saying that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war. The deaths are regretable.
You are calling this incredibly highly ranked official a liar?
He had 2 years of fame in his government position before he resigned and was well known for being outspoken.
He had 2 years of fame in his government position before he resigned and was well known for being outspoken.
Yes I am calling him a liar. Was he even on the National Security Council? I'd have to check. What does treasury have to do with national security?
You have no right to overthrow a sovereign nations government, hence why the WMD lie was brought in. So you cannot use it as an excuse.
I'm not using it as an excuse. You are now putting words in my mouth. I said that the WMDs were not the ONLY reason for the war. And in his speech earlier this week, Bush backed up the evidence that Iraq had WMD. And a report was recently released that dates to before the war saying that the Bush administration knew it would be hard to find the weapons, but Tenet still feels confident that they will be found. Just because they haven't been found yet doesn't mean they don't exist.
Billions of Euros is not a slap on the wrist, it is an attempt to completely crash the economy as a warning to other nations. America cannot do this to everybody or it would crash their own. They did it to Germany because it will make the Germans, a permanent member of the council, agree with them in future.
You fail to counter my example of Mexico. And no, it was not an attempt to crash the economy. And that newspaper could be called a tabloid almost. That was the most biased piece of news writing I have ever read. Those "anonymous sources" probably don't exist. Also, it said the move COULD[/i] cost Germany millions of Euros. Oh, and Germany isn't a permanent member of the security council. The only five are the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia. Their term is up at the end of the year. So it was not to make them agree in the future.
www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html
Those countries didn’t send troops because they are already occupied by American forces. And Libya is changing, changing out of fear from America, this is where American puppetry comes in.
Having military bases in a country is different from occupying it. Give me a break. What? If they sent troops the US troops would come out of the US bases and conquer the country? Please. And Lybia is changing on its own accord. The US doesn't even have diplomatic ties with Lybia.
Glad you agree that the invasion was a complete failure, all they did was destroy the government and plunge the country into civil war.
Again you put words in my mouth. Don't take quotes out of context. You said that the US controls Afghanistan and Iraq. I prove you wrong with Afghanistan, and state that Iraq is controlled by no one, but that there may be elections as early as June 30. Nothing about civil war. And destroying the government was a goal of the campaign. The US wanted to do that. It was on purpose.
Yes, sounds ludicrous, so I’m certainly glad that you brought it up and not me. I’ll say it again, America controls through economic and military power, not “James Bond” as you keep trying to insinuate.
It is very ridiculous. James Bond is an exaggeration*sp of you saying that the US has a covert imperialist network. Assuming it did, you can't build that in 3 years. Clinton would have had to have aided its progress along as well. The whole idea is ridiculous. The US controls no one.