Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda unravelling?

The latest CIA report casts serious doubts on whether there was ever any real link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/

This makes Cheney et al.'s statements regarding this link, as well as Powell's speech to the UN, seem even more problematic. Along with the obvious falsity of the claim that Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs and that he tried to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa, yet another pillar of the Bushites case for war against Iraq seems to be crumbling.

I don't think anybody thought they where linked. It was a sort of the emperor has no clothes situation.

I have heard that AQ tried to kill Saddam in the past. Is this true?

He has helped terrorists in the past. Such as a the Iranian embessary hostage takers.

i have never heard or seen definitive proof between iraq and al quaeda. so this is a non-issue.

so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

i have never heard or seen definitive proof between iraq and al quaeda. so this is a non-issue.

so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

---

Before or after the invasion of Iraq by the United States?

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSN article

The CIA declined to comment on the draft report. But officials tell NEWSWEEK that Zarqawi probably did travel to the Iraqi capital in the spring of 2002 for medical treatment. And, of course, there is no question that he is in Iraq now—orchestrating many of the deadly suicide bombings and attacks on American soldiers.

---

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?
He isn't an Iraqi is he , note the word in the article "probably" , a few other quotes from the article on the subject
No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence
most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war.
Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?
He isn't an Iraqi is he , note the word in the article "probably" , a few other quotes from the article on the subject

---

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard - if I have to explain it to you - it wouldn't be very amusing for me. How many of Zarqawi are foreign to Iraq and how many are Iraqi - I will give you a clue - no one outside of Zarqawi's network knows the answer to that. A little common sense about how covert or in this case terrorist cells operate could provide you with a clue. (That shouldn't be hard for you to think about now will it.) Like I said earlier think about the answer very carefully, the answer just might surprise you.

Quote:

---

No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence
most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war.
Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

---

Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.

Quote:

---

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?

---

Hmm. Let's think about this a bit. it shouldn't take longer than 1/7825 of a second to come to the right conclusion:
He's a terrorist, claiming allegiance to Al Queda, and he's in Iraq orchestrating terrorist attacks.

Quote:

---

Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

---

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg, and how are you so well informed of his current health?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hmm. Let's think about this a bit. it shouldn't take longer than 1/7825 of a second to come to the right conclusion:
He's a terrorist, claiming allegiance to Al Queda, and he's in Iraq orchestrating terrorist attacks.

---

You only got part of the answer correct - he is from a different country so he is not Iraqi. However your headed in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg, and how are you so well informed of his current health?

Crazed Rabbit

---

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.
Yeah must be my drink addled faulty memory , it means I cannot remember what government , military and intelligence people spoke publicly about a couple of years ago on numerous occasions .
So the "article" you refer to is public statements by your government , not media stories .
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.
Of course when they are showing live coverage of people making these false statements the media is only making it up right ~:rolleyes:

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard
Since the article is about false claims from before the invasion then what is the relevance of events after the invasion ?
Its like slashing someones tyres and telling them that they had always been flat .
Besides which there was Al-qaida in Iraq before the invasion , but it was in the area run by Kurdish terrorists and protected by Britain and America .

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg
Come on Rabbit , surely you can remember a failure of intelligence of that magnitude , it was only when the bastard starting releasing videos that they realised that they were not looking for a one legged terrorist .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.
Yeah must be my drink addled faulty memory , it means I cannot remember what government , military and intelligence people spoke publicly about a couple of years ago on numerous occasions .
So the "article" you refer to is public statements by your government , not media stories .

---

LOL - your reaching - article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news. But nice try there. So yep the achocal has indeed effected your ability to reason.

Quote:

---

Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.
Of course when they are showing live coverage of people making these false statements the media is only making it up right ~:rolleyes:

---

Oh so you didn't like your little game being played back at you. Tsk tsk.. ~:joker: Try again. The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability - you must be on the sauce tonight more then usual.

Quote:

---

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard
Since the article is about false claims from before the invasion then what is the relevance of events after the invasion ?
Its like slashing someones tyres and telling them that they had always been flat .
Besides which there was Al-qaida in Iraq before the invasion , but it was in the area run by Kurdish terrorists and protected by Britain and America .

---

And since I was responding to Solypsist's post you will have to do better then that for a counter. Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also. Remember [b]Solypsists initial comment was
so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

But your not even close to what I initially meet - so try again if you can. Here is another clue - how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?


Ah the persecution complex must be in over-drive tonight since you missed the orginial intent so completly.

~:eek: ~D ~:joker:

The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability
Well when you only put out rubbish is it worth the effort , like.....
Of course the media never reports the truth
Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news.
So any statement by anyone becomes false the moment the media repeat it .
Though in this case the statement was false even if it hadn't been repeated , just like most of the statements made about Iraq before the invasion .

Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also.
So that means that Britain and America were linked to Al-Qaida rather than Saddams Iraq as in 2001 when Ansar al Islam set up there Saddam was not in control of the area , foriegn backed terrorists were (almost said western backed there , but of course there are many backers of the various groups), under the protection of the western military , BTW you might want to insert the word "some" into that statement as many of the Kurds in N.Iraq are not Iraqi citizens .

how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?

The best way is to have the population so shit scared of you that they don't turn you in , so does that mean that the population are "operatives" ?

Wait a second, I appear to have all the picture wrong in my head:
1- Bush admited that they didn't found any connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists organizations, right after the attack (when actions seemed justified btw). And that they attacked with little solid proof of it.
2- Later someone of his administration did the same with the weapons of mass destruction.
3- Bush and his administration admitted later that they invented all this false founds, only to jutify the attack. Not to mention that the enemy was created previously, and also that the supposed all armed emperor uncle Saddam was disarmed after the war in the '90.

So why is that this is discussed even now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability
Well when you only put out rubbish is it worth the effort , like.....
Of course the media never reports the truth
Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

---

LOL

Quote:

---

article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news.
So any statement by anyone becomes false the moment the media repeat it .
Though in this case the statement was false even if it hadn't been repeated , just like most of the statements made about Iraq before the invasion .

---

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Quote:

---

Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also.
So that means that Britain and America were linked to Al-Qaida rather than Saddams Iraq as in 2001 when Ansar al Islam set up there Saddam was not in control of the area , foriegn backed terrorists were (almost said western backed there , but of course there are many backers of the various groups), under the protection of the western military , BTW you might want to insert the word "some" into that statement as many of the Kurds in N.Iraq are not Iraqi citizens .

---

Getting warm, yes indeed a decent part of the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq come from another country or two - but a significant portion are indeed also Iraqi citizens.

Quote:

---

how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?

The best way is to have the population so shit scared of you that they don't turn you in , so does that mean that the population are "operatives" ?

---

Ah your getting very close - but no cigar yet. And to answer your queston - no that is not what it means.

There clearly was a link, we were told. Have some of that you liberal wussies!

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Don't be silly Red ...Its plain what you said and it is rubbish
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up
If it never reports the truth then everything it reports must be false .......So any statement by anyone is false the moment the media report it , or if it is true it isn't reported .

Hence......Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

But anyway those claims of links appear on official documents as well as in the media . They were untrue at the time and still are , that is the topic at hand .


So why is that this is discussed even now?
I think it might be because of the mid-term elections coming up ,some people are trying to remind voters that the Administration are a bunch of decietful fools who got them into an expensive quagmire over a pile of bullshit .
Expect plenty more of it to be filling the airwaves in the coming months .There is certainly no shortage of material to use .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Don't be silly Red ...Its plain what you said and it is rubbish
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up
If it never reports the truth then everything it reports must be false .......So any statement by anyone is false the moment the media report it , or if it is true it isn't reported .

---

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right - your confusing yourself about what i meant by truth in the statement. The media can and will report facts in such a way that spins the information to make a story that sells papers. Again that is what bull is - spin. Now try again - you have been rather amusing so far.

Quote:

---

Hence......Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

But anyway those claims of links appear on official documents as well as in the media . They were untrue at the time and still are , that is the topic at hand .

---

LOL - you missed it again

Quote:

---

So why is that this is discussed even now?
I think it might be because of the mid-term elections coming up ,some people are trying to remind voters that the Administration are a bunch of decietful fools who got them into an expensive quagmire over a pile of bullshit .
Expect plenty more of it to be filling the airwaves in the coming months .There is certainly no shortage of material to use .

---

LOL - we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right
Speak English Red , there is only one meaning for "never reports the truth" .

we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.
never ever underestimatethe stupidityof the electorate
There , just to help you out I bolded the important words , would you like to look up their meaning ?~;)

So to redo your original statement as it should read
Of course the GOVERNMENT never reports the truth just bull to drive up the SUPOORT FOR THE WAR and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information THAT THEIR GOVERENMENT PUTS FORWARD.

On the plus side, The Guardian reported that links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgencey are starting to break down due to Al-Qaeda constantly targeting Iraqi civilians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

On the plus side, The Guardian reported that links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgencey are starting to break down due to Al-Qaeda constantly targeting Iraqi civilians...

---

Which, according to the amazing documantary 'Power of nightmares' , is where Muslim extremists went wrong previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right
Speak English Red , there is only one meaning for "never reports the truth" .

---

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

Quote:

---

we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.
never ever underestimatethe stupidityof the electorate
There , just to help you out I bolded the important words , would you like to look up their meaning ?~;)

---

Naw - no bolding necessary - that saying is older then you. You however might want to take notes for your rantings later on.

Quote:

---

So to redo your original statement as it should read
Of course the GOVERNMENT never reports the truth just bull to drive up the SUPOORT FOR THE WAR and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information THAT THEIR GOVERENMENT PUTS FORWARD.

---

Nice try - but try again. Your getting warm - but not there yet.

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

There is only one meaning for those words , so perhaps you are using the wrong words .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

There is only one meaning for those words , so perhaps you are using the wrong words .

---

Lets see

From Websters the meaning of truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webster's

Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

---

So for truth it looks like four definations are placed for consideration.

Now for Bull

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webster's

Main Entry: 1bull
Pronunciation: 'bul, 'b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bule, from Old English bula; akin to Old Norse boli bull
1 a : a male bovine; especially : an adult uncastrated male ox b : a usually adult male of various large animals (as elephants, whales, or seals)
2 : one who buys securities or commodities in expectation of a price rise or who acts to effect such a rise -- compare BEAR
3 : one that resembles a bull (as in brawny physique)
4 : BULLDOG
5 slang : POLICE OFFICER, DETECTIVE
6 capitalized : TAURUS

---

Care to try again....~:joker:

Maybe you should subcribe to this outfit - they bring a whole new meaning to the concept of "truth in media" :wacko: :smartass:

Quote:

---

If there were always the truth in media, there would be no need for the Truth in Media

Ever had a friend or a neighbor who waxed nostalgic about the "good old days" when "the world seemed so simple?" Who lamented the time when media always told the truth, at least as most readers thought? Who missed the days when patriotism, national pride or "motherhood and apple pie" weren't cynically snickered at by the "cool" liberal-globalists as old-fashioned ideas whose time has passed? Or who just thought that "life was more fun" back then?

Well, if you're like the millions of Americans who feel that way today; who resent being ruled by the big business elites; who have lost trust in our once democratic institutions; who want to feel proud of their country again - wax nostalgic no more! Join the readers whom Bob Djurdjevic's editorials and columns have been enchanting and often moving to action. From business leaders to academics; from homemakers to economists; from clergymen to college students; from artists to soldiers - Djurdjevic's pieces have drawn a worldwide following and support.

---

http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/index.html

Edit: to add the truth in media link - to bad I could not find a smart alec smilie to go along with the sight at first - but here is one for now.

Care to try again....~D ~D ~D ~D
Come on Red get out your online dictionary and look up the word never

So much for your no bolding necessary as obviously bolding isn't enough .
Would you like it in really big easy to see letters , perhaps in a rather fetching colour ?
NEVER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Care to try again....~D ~D ~D ~D
Come on Red get out your online dictionary and look up the word never

---

You might want to try it some time - never actually has two definitions that are similiar - but if I wanted to nickpick like you do - I could point that out - with two the word never has more then one meaning. Oh wait I just did your type of nickpicking someone's statement - rather amusing isn't. ~:joker: ~:eek:

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word. Very good. You really are rather amusing - must be the persecution complex beginning to show its ugly side. Just go drown yourself in some more achocal - your ability to rationalize might become a little better.

Quote:

---

So much for your no bolding necessary as obviously bolding isn't enough .
Would you like it in really big easy to see letters , perhaps in a rather fetching colour ?
NEVER

---

[/quote]

Not even close - to bad you like to nickpick and use sarcasm - I might attempt an honest exchange with you. But never-the-less I am rather amused with this exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So for truth it looks like four definations are placed for consideration.

---

You should get into politics, Red.

Arguing that by using the word "truth," you weren't actually referring to a thing that was "true?"

Puh-leaze...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You should get into politics, Red.

Arguing that by using the word "truth," you weren't actually referring to a thing that was "true?"

Puh-leaze...

---

LOL - I am way to honest for politics.

Tribesman and yourself would probably do well in politics. ~:joker:

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word
Yes Red , an adverb that is absolute in its meaning , the use of which absolutely governs the sentance it contains and the meaning of the words in the sentance
Therefore your statement was absolute rubbish .
So pile on as many petty attempts at insults as you like , you cannot change that fact .

never actually has two definitions that are similiar
with two the word never has more then one meaning
That is a really lame attempt , care to tell us the definitions ?
Or how they change the meaning of the word ?
This should be fun , come on , do tell , I am absolutely fascinated with what you are going to come up with as two meanings for the word .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word
Yes Red , an adverb that is absolute in its meaning , the use of which absolutely governs the sentance it contains and the meaning of the words in the sentance
Therefore your statement was absolute rubbish .
So pile on as many petty attempts at insults as you like , you cannot change that fact .

---

No word is absolute in its meaning - as you have demonstrated amble times.

Again it seems that you can't seem to get past nickpicking other peoples posts to find some type of fault in their opinion. As for petty insults you are far more verbose in that area then I. Whats wrong Tribesman like to dish out the petty insults hiding them behind sarcasm - but don't like them direct at yourself?

I am so amused ~:joker:

[quote]

Quote:

---

never actually has two definitions that are similiar
with two the word never has more then one meaning
That is a really lame attempt , care to tell us the definitions ?
Or how they change the meaning of the word ?
This should be fun , come on , do tell , I am absolutely fascinated with what you are going to come up with as two meanings for the word .

---

Actually I have already explained it to you - but in your achocal induced lack of reasoning you missed the word that is even highlighted in your bolded type. Must be hard to want to prove people wrong all the time - especially when they just want to screw with you because of your nature. Its been rather amusing for me. Now off to work I go.

~:eek:

No word is absolute in its meaning
Then you should have no trouble finding an alternative definition of the word then , come on Red you have shown your ability to post directly from a dictionary , so please enlighten me , what is the alternative use of the word never?

Would you like to learn some some other words that can only ever have one meaning ? There are a hell of a lot of them .

Actually I have already explained it to you
Where ?????? I don't see it , is it in invisible writing ?

Oh but of course you cannot explain it can you as there is no alternative meaning , it is an absolute definitive word and as such it makes a statement absolute with no leeway for alternative interpretation .
So in this case your statement was absolute rubbish .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No word is absolute in its meaning
Then you should have no trouble finding an alternative definition of the word then , come on Red you have shown your ability to post directly from a dictionary , so please enlighten me , what is the alternative use of the word never?

---

No need - the point has been made - it seems you have a problem and you just don't realize it.

~:eek:

Quote:

---

Would you like to learn some some other words that can only ever have one meaning ? There are a hell of a lot of them .

---

You will be surprised how many words in the English Language have more then one definition.

~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Actually I have already explained it to you
Where ?????? I don't see it , is it in invisible writing ?

---

Not in invisible writing its a single word also with several different meanings in its definition and they are all similar also. ~D

Quote:

---

Oh but of course you cannot explain it can you as there is no alternative meaning , it is an absolute definitive word and as such it makes a statement absolute with no leeway for alternative interpretation .
So in this case your statement was absolute rubbish .

---

It seems you are never the wiser from understanding when someone is screwing with you - just like you like to screw with other people.

Oh well - must be the alcohol effecting the higher cognitive skills.

~:joker: ~;)

Oh well - must be the alcohol effecting the higher cognitive skills.


Yes Red you must be thourougly drunk .
Not in invisible writing its a single word also with several different meanings in its definition
For example ...... oh no you cannot give one can you .
It seems you are never the wiser from understanding when someone is screwing with you - just like you like to screw with other people.

Ahhhhh the never word again .
Now this time do you mean never or never or perhaps even never ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh well - must be the alcohol effecting the higher cognitive skills.


Yes Red you must be thourougly drunk .
Not in invisible writing its a single word also with several different meanings in its definition
For example ...... oh no you cannot give one can you .
It seems you are never the wiser from understanding when someone is screwing with you - just like you like to screw with other people.

Ahhhhh the never word again .
Now this time do you mean never or never or perhaps even never ?

---

Poor poor Tribesman can't seem to get the better of me today. Have a good weekend - time to do play totalwar.

When you get your wit back - your welcome to try again.

~:joker:

your welcome to try again.

Hmmmmm ........still no answer then ? still no example ? still no definition ?



So back to the original subject
Nearly everything that was put forward as a justification for the war has turned out to be false , just about every reason the governments involved cited are turning out to be incorrrect .
So how do those people who supported the war feel about the fact that they supported an action based upon a pile if crap ?
Do they feel happy at being taken for a mug by a bunch of incompetants ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So back to the original subject (..)

---

Yes, please.

Quote:

---

So how do those people who supported the war feel about the fact that they supported an action based upon a pile if crap?

---

I remember you claiming recently, in another thread, that most people are plain stupid, Mr President, so they couldn't tell the difference anyway. I happen to disagree.

I think that many people did not really care one way or t'other as long as their personal lives remained untouched by the policy decisions involved. They implicitly trusted their governments not to make too much of a mess of the situation.

Those who were thought to support the war and subscribe to the reasons given for it because of the way they voted in opinion polls and focus groups may have held completely different views (or no particular views at all) in private. I have a personal suspicion that many people who openly supported the invasion in Iraq had different reasons for it than the ones given by the U.S. and UK governments. They probably thought it was a good thing to crush an Arab dictatorship that had been the linchpin in many detrimental developments in the Gulf region and the Middle East at large for several decades. And they probably thought it was a good thing if western powers continued to control the flow of oil around the world, even if it meant sidestepping the United Nations and invading an Arab country. But I can not prove it.

All we know is that a majority of voters in both the United States and Great Britain voted the 'liars' back into office after the fact, so those leaders must have done something right. I think that as opponents of this war we should deal with that fact, not be content to call the other side stupid and walk away from the real issue. The real issue being that there has been no concerted opposition to this war because there has been (and still is) no viable alternative view of geostrategic issues.

And there is something else to this issue. Everybody lies. So do all politicians. But there are things in this life that are worth lying for, and things that are not worth lying for.

I have nothing but contempt for American Democrats who treat the indictment of Mr Libby -- whether guilty or innocent, I couldn't care less -- as a substitute victory over the neocons and the present Republican administration. At least the neocons have a world view and some ideals to work for and, yes, to lie for. The Democrats have nothing of the kind. Their last notable political lie was over a cigar and an intern. That is because they had no foreign policy during eight years of Clinton. They had nothing worth lying for.

The same goes for the anti-war activists in the UK who, these days, cheer every new sign that the invasion in Iraq has gone wrong and has become a dead end. The alternatives that they propose are inane and merely show that they have reached a dead end themselves. Their lies aren't even worth considering.

That is the real dilemma.

I can't believe there are still people who don't see the link. It's been established with irrefutable evidence long ago. And I have proof:


http://home.ca.inter.net/~navaros/al...connection.bmp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

your welcome to try again.

Hmmmmm ........still no answer then ? still no example ? still no definition ?

---

Well considering the number of times you have refused to answer - refused to clarify and provide exambles - you should be used to the situation.

Quote:

---

So back to the original subject
Nearly everything that was put forward as a justification for the war has turned out to be false , just about every reason the governments involved cited are turning out to be incorrrect .

---

Just a statement consisting of information based upon media reports - go back to the reasons stated by President Bush in several speeches. Two reasons - Links to Al-Qaeda and the extent of the WMD programs have proven to be incorrect. However with this statement you seem to be ignoring the Duefler Report which shows that Saddam and the Iraq regime had wanted to show that the programs were still there. And you seem to be ignoring all of them but the two the leaders decided to focus on and what the media mainly reported.

Quote:

---

So how do those people who supported the war feel about the fact that they supported an action based upon a pile if crap ?

---

the pile of crap is not what you think it is ~:joker:


Now to answer your question with a question - because I doubt you will be civil if I give you a real answer - your looking for an heated and inflammatory exchange just in the nature of your questions.

How do you feel about the failure of the United Nations to enforce the 12 years and 14 resolutions levied against Saddam? How do you feel about the several thousand Kuwaiti citizens taken by Saddam's regime as captives - and never returned to their homes after Desert Storm?

Oh a couple of others that you seem to be forgetting or ignoring because of the "crap" that you seem to have wanted to believe from a government

Quote:

---

Do they feel happy at being taken for a mug by a bunch of incompetants ?

---

Been like that since before I was born - politicians are what they are. But don't let that get in the way of your politics now. Its like paying taxes - you get screwed everytime you believe its an honest system.

How do you feel about the failure of the United Nations to enforce the 12 years and 14 resolutions levied against Saddam?
Simple , reform the UN , openly condemn (or punish if it is possible) every nation , especially those permanent members of the security council , who failed to enforce the resolutions , and abused the sanctions and resolutions for their own means .

How do you feel about the several thousand Kuwaiti citizens taken by Saddam's regime as captives - and never returned to their homes after Desert Storm?

That unfortunately is war , many thousands disappear in conflict , how many have dissapeared in this latest conflict . Decades or even centuries later you will not be able to account for them .

Just a statement consisting of information based upon media reports
~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
Really , that is rather a large assumption you are making there Red .
Would you like to place a bet on that , I will offer you very generous odds .

go back to the reasons stated by President Bush in several speeches.
Two reasons - Links to Al-Qaeda and the extent of the WMD programs have proven to be incorrect.
Two reasons ~:confused: , would you like to post any of the Presidents speeches and try and show only two reasons that have shown to be incorrect . Or perhaps you might want to learn to count .:stupido2:
Oh but make sure you post them directly from the administration as if they are just transcripts published in the media they cannot be true as ......
" the media never reports the truth " .~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TribesmanTwo reasons ~:confused: , would you like to post any of the Presidents speeches and try and show only two reasons that have shown to be incorrect . Or perhaps you might want to learn to count .:stupido2:
Oh but make sure you post them directly from the administration as if they are just transcripts published in the media they cannot be true as ......
" the media [B

never[/B] reports the truth " .~;)

---

Been posted before Tribesman Maybe you should attempt to read them some time verus attempting to play the sarcastic fool. ~:eek:

Just like I thought - your attempt here is to do nothing else but attempt to get into a inflammatory exchange - you must try again, not going to play your stupid little game today.

You might want to read again the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig - it truely applies to you in your current state of mind.~:rolleyes:

You might want to read again the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig - it truely applies to you in your current state of mind.
Ah poor little Red , once again you show a failure to grasp the meaning of words , what doesnothing mean eh ?
So how does that apply .
Deary me you are making rather silly assumptions arn't you .

not going to play your stupid little game today.

Oh hes getting all upset .~:mecry:
If you don't want answers then don't ask questions .

Been posted before Tribesman
Then you should know full well that there are more than two reasons used to justify the war that came straight from your Presidents mouth which are completely false .
So can you count further than two or is your mind addled ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I am not going to play your stupid little game today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So can you count further than two or is your mind addled?

---

http://216.118.118.21/dbbp/mg/lh.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You might want to read again the Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig - it truely applies to you in your current state of mind.
Ah poor little Red , once again you show a failure to grasp the meaning of words , what doesnothing mean eh ?
So how does that apply .
Deary me you are making rather silly assumptions arn't you .

---

Not at all - it seems you have a problem and still don't realize it. Like before Try again - you failed in understanding what Thomas Jefferson meant by the quote - not I.

No silly assumptions have been made yet except by yourself. ~:eek:

Quote:

---

not going to play your stupid little game today.

Oh hes getting all upset .~:mecry:
If you don't want answers then don't ask questions .

---

Nice attempt there - but that was not what the statement was directed at. The stupid use of sarcasm, and the desire to nickpick peoples posts was what I was directing the comment at. A game you like to play, but it seems you have a problem and refuse to recoginize it. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Been posted before Tribesman
Then you should know full well that there are more than two reasons used to justify the war that came straight from your Presidents mouth which are completely false .

---

Did I say they have been proven correct or proven false? All I said is there were more then two reasons given, and that two reasons have been proven to be incorrect. Did you read into the statement the word only - then that would be a false assumption on your part - since I did not use the word in the sentence. Looks like someone has a problem grasping the meaning of words - and it isn't me. ~:handball:

The other reasons well as for there being proven false - you have shown that two of them were actually true in your answer. So no response was necessary. So of the reasons listed we have discussed 4 - two having been proved incorrect and two having been proven to be at least accurate in content.

So like I said read the orginial reasons again - they have been posted and linked in earlier threads. You can answer the questions as well as I, so you can go find the answers yourself and let us all know. ~:joker:

Like before try again - sarcasm doesn't make for an answer now does it.

Quote:

---

So can you count further than two or is your mind addled ?

---

I wonder if your boozed soaked mind can understand more then a count greater then two. ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

http://216.118.118.21/dbbp/mg/lh.gif

---

Very good Adrian - You are of course correct. ~D

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Do de do de do ......nope nothing in that quote has any relevance whatsoever .
Is today a new day and you are going to play again Red , have you got over it ?

I wonder if your boozed soaked mind
oh no still the same old petty insults , I am soooooo upset ~:mecry:

two having been proven to be at least accurate in content.

False ,since it is impossible to account for all missing persons , then you cannot really justify that as a true reason , as if something is impossible it cannot be complied with .
As for failure to follow the sanctions and resolutions , since America herself (as well as other members) was violating them then there is no onus on Iraq to comply with them either , and for America to use that as an excuse is gross hypocracy .
So no , not even accurate in content .

One question Red , an honest answer if you can .
Since you know that politicians are incompetant and liars , why on earth did you sign up for the military and put your life in the hands of those idiots to do with as they wished ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Do de do de do ......nope nothing in that quote has any relevance whatsoever .
Is today a new day and you are going to play again Red , have you got over it ?

---

Was nothing to get over - it seems you haven't yet though. Again you began with a nickpick - and you still don't seem to get the point of what Thomas Jefferson's quote means.

Quote:

---

I wonder if your boozed soaked mind
oh no still the same old petty insults , I am soooooo upset ~:mecry:

---

Good you recognize it as petty - now take a good look at what you have stated in the regards of petty insults.

Quote:

---

two having been proven to be at least accurate in content.

False ,since it is impossible to account for all missing persons , then you cannot really justify that as a true reason , as if something is impossible it cannot be complied with .

---

Ah but those missing persons were seen being loaded into trucks driven by Iraq soldiers. Those individuals were not causalities of a fight - but of something else.

Quote:

---

As for failure to follow the sanctions and resolutions , since America herself (as well as other members) was violating them then there is no onus on Iraq to comply with them either , and for America to use that as an excuse is gross hypocracy .
So no , not even accurate in content .

---

Yes indeed it was accurate in content - it might have been hypocracy - but the onus was on Iraq to complie by the conditions of the cease fire treaty and the United Nations resolutions. Good try however - but not good enough.

Quote:

---

One question Red , an honest answer if you can .
Since you know that politicians are incompetant and liars , why on earth did you sign up for the military and put your life in the hands of those idiots to do with as they wished ?

---

I doubt you will understand the terms used - but I will give you a simple one - what I know now was different then what I knew 22 years ago.

Why I joined the military - is long and boring - but deals with the fact I had been working on farms and in heavy construction running dozers, backhoes, scrappers, and welding since I was 12 years old. That I desired to pay my own way through school - working 40 hours a week plus joining the Guard and ROTC to help pay for my education. Then there was the desire to serve the nation that means so much to me - regardless of the corrupt politicans that run the government. And then when you get into the military the people you serve with is why you stay in - not the idiots that run the nation.

Probably other concepts and reasons you like to ridicule because you don't want to understand them. But feel free to ridicule my reasons for having been in the military - it just makes you less of a person, not a better one.

Probably other concepts and reasons you like to ridicule because you don't want to understand them.
But feel free to ridicule my reasons for having been in the military
Now who has a presecution complex ?~D ~D ~D
I asked as I was curious , thanks for the answer .
Then there was the desire to serve the nation that means so much to me
Well you know my personal views on patriotism and "loyalty" don't you . But those are my views , I don't expect others to share them .

Now back to normal .
Ah but those missing persons were seen being loaded into trucks driven by Iraq soldiers.
Yeah , they were suspected illegal combatants , and being driven around in trucks when an airforce is bombing everything that moves can lead to dissapearances .
Though 332 so far have been identified as executed by the regime . On what real or false charges has not yet been specified as far as I have been able to find .
but the onus was on Iraq to complie by the conditions of the cease fire treaty and the United Nations resolutions.
Nope , since the cease fire and some resolutions were violated by both sides they are null and void .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but those missing persons were seen being loaded into trucks driven by Iraq soldiers.
Yeah , they were suspected illegal combatants , and being driven around in trucks when an airforce is bombing everything that moves can lead to dissapearances .
Though 332 so far have been identified as executed by the regime . On what real or false charges has not yet been specified as far as I have been able to find .

---

Yes 332 so far - more are still unaccounted for. One of the conditions of the ceasefire and the subsequent UN resolution was for Saddam's Regime to account for all of them. Iraq made no effort - therefor the status of that reason as stated in the initial case for war with Iraq is still valid and even correct in its context.

Quote:

---

but the onus was on Iraq to complie by the conditions of the cease fire treaty and the United Nations resolutions.
Nope , since the cease fire and some resolutions were violated by both sides they are null and void .

---

You might want to review the Hague Treaty of 1907 - you might find a little surprise in a couple of articles. Null and void as you just stated allows the parties to initiate hostiles once again - your proving the point very well for me.

Edit this paragraph is new: For the cease fire conditions to be declared null and void an action that one side decides warrants the resumption of hostilities is needed - you can not make that call as a neutral party of the conflict - only those who were involved in the conflict can decide what hostiles a violation of the cease fire that warrants an resumption of hostiles. A simple null and void declaration of the declaration allows for the resumption of hostiles at the discretion (SP) of either party. The United States as a member of the coalition that brought about the Mar 1991 cease fire agreement has the ability to decide which violations by the opposing side warrants an resumption of hostiles - just like Iraq also had the right to decide which violations by the opposing side warranted a return to hostiles between the nations. The resolutions that followed in April 1991 does not remove this ability, and it would take a better international lawyer then you or I - to prove which one of us is right especially since the he United Nations does not supersede the sovereignty of any nation, nor can it prevent any nation from deciding what course of action it will take.

So like before we have two reasons that have been shown to be incorrect. And two reasons that in context of the reasons stated for going to war are either correct or at worst still not proven to be false. Now there were about 6 other reasons stated for going to war with Iraq - care to run them all down with the same type of analysis? Be my guess if you so desire - but list them and show where they were proven to be false - not going to do the work for you on this - the reasons are easily found on the web in many sites.

Remove threat to neighbours , false on many levels .
Tear down the apparatus of terror , false .
End execution of dissidents , false.
End torture , false .
End appeasment of dictators, false
Diminish the threat of terrorism , false .
Bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people , false so far .
Bring stability to the region , false .
End the proliferation of WMDs and related technology , false .
Diminish the threat to America and the world, false .

Oh and.......
To unite the Iraqi people in democracy ~D ~D ~D ~D Yeah well ,what can you say about that one ?~;)

Null and void as you just stated allows the parties to initiate hostilies once again - your proving the point very well for me.
Nope , since America agreed to the UN ceasefire after the one it signed so the UN ceasefire supercedes the earlier one nullifying it , so it had to be the UN reinitiating hostilities .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Remove threat to neighbours , false on many levels .

---

You might want to check out some of the deployments of the 1st Cavalry Division to Kuwait during the 1990.

http://www.geocities.com/jumpingmust...thcavhood.html, from a unit website -

Quote:

---

Series of actions in Kuwait over several years, kept the 1st Cavalry Division busy on overseas deployments back to the desert. On 22 August 1995, the MUSTANGS were part of such an operation, sharpening their skills in the techniques of desert warfare.

---

The threat President Bush was talking about primarily to Kuwait and Saudia Arabia - again not completely false now is it?

Quote:

---

Tear down the apparatus of terror , false .

---

A work in progress - can not be determined as a failure at this time. Nor are you defining it correctly. One must look at what apparatus was of terror was being detailed in the reasons for war by President Bush?

Quote:

---

End execution of dissidents

---

Again a misdefining the definition that was used by President Bush. Now think about it for a second - are dissidents still being executed by Saddam's regime in Iraq? Are dissidents being executed by the current government of Iraq?

Quote:

---

End torture , false

---

Again this refers to Saddam's Regime - is Saddam's regime conducting torture?

Quote:

---

End appeasment of dictators, false

---

Going to have to agree with you here.

Quote:

---

Diminish the threat of terrorism , false .

---

Well from a US prespective - it might be considered true since no attacks have happened in the United States since 9/11. This might be because of pure luck - or it could be from something else. Again since the operation is still ongoing - the exercise not complete - a false conclusion is still to early.

Quote:

---

Bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people , false so far

---

Then its not false now is it - your admitting with the so far that the operation is not complete. Inconclusive would be the answer I would use currently.

Quote:

---

Bring stability to the region , false

---

I will agree with this one - the stability reason was always questionable in my mind.

Quote:

---

End the proliferation of WMDs and related technology

---

Again one must look at in the way in which it was stated - was President Bush talking in terms of only Iraq or of the world?

Quote:

---

.
Diminish the threat to America and the world, false .

---

Ah one must wait until the conclusion of the occupation to reach a conclusion on this one also.

Quote:

---

To unite the Iraqi people in democracy ~D ~D ~D ~D Yeah well ,what can you say about that one ?~;)

---

That it is still a work in progress.

Quote:

---

Null and void as you just stated allows the parties to initiate hostilies once again - your proving the point very well for me.
Nope , since America agreed to the UN ceasefire after the one it signed so the UN ceasefire supercedes the earlier one nullifying it , so it had to be the UN reinitiating hostilities .

---

And you would be incorrect in my opinion and several treaties like the Hague Treaty of 1907 do indeed support my stance. Like I said it would take an international lawyer, several in fact, to prove which one of us is right and which one is wrong. The United Nations again does not supersede the sovereignty of any nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Remove threat to neighbours , false on many levels .
Tear down the apparatus of terror , false .
End execution of dissidents , false.
End torture , false .
End appeasment of dictators, false
Diminish the threat of terrorism , false .
Bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people , false so far .
Bring stability to the region , false .
End the proliferation of WMDs and related technology , false .
Diminish the threat to America and the world, false .

Oh and.......
To unite the Iraqi people in democracy ~D ~D ~D ~D Yeah well ,what can you say about that one ?~;)

Null and void as you just stated allows the parties to initiate hostilies once again - your proving the point very well for me.
Nope , since America agreed to the UN ceasefire after the one it signed so the UN ceasefire supercedes the earlier one nullifying it , so it had to be the UN reinitiating hostilities .

---

Pray tell, why are we in Iraq then?

Are we there to blood another generation of troops to keep their skills up?

Perhaps we sought to conquer Iraq and rape its oil?

You seem to leave few alternatives. Any "noble effort" on the part of the USA is a base lie according to your summary.

Therefore, all of my political leaders are dastards, all of our military efforts mis-guided and/or viscious, and any effort to influence events on foreign shores an inherently inappropriate move by the USA, no?

Sum up what we are really doing, if you would be so kind. A real statement of what you believe the USA to be doing and why, please.

Pray tell, why are we in Iraq then?

Because some idiots thought it would be easy , because some idiots believed all the crap the Iranian agents fed them , because they were able to due to the public unity (well mainly united) after 9/11 , because someone who hadn't given it even the most cursory glance at the situation in Iraq (and the wider region) thought it would be a shining example to the rest of the world .
It is a shining example , an example of how not to do things .

The idea was to get rid of an unstable State to bring some regional stability , the outcome is likely to be 3 unstable states and wider more polarised instabilty .
So while getting rid of Saddam is indeed a "noble effort" the manner in which it was implemented was an ignoble ballsup .
By presenting made up evidence , most of which was in complete contradiction of known facts at the time , they failed to gather the neccasary international consensus , in doing so they aligned themselves with some rather murderous terrorists which in turn further eroded any consensus and of course makes a mockery of the whole war on terror line .
Saddams removal could have waited , nothing was done at all when he was slaughtering thousands of people so why rush in ?
Doing a proper job in Afghanistan and finishing the job should have taken priority , but there again the quick fix option was taken , aligning with some murderous bastards , drug barons and very brutal dictators .
Quick fixes do not work , they are now spending time and effort repatching the quick fix while the rest of the structure falls apart .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Pray tell, why are we in Iraq then?

Because some idiots thought it would be easy , because some idiots believed all the crap the Iranian agents fed them , because they were able to due to the public unity (well mainly united) after 9/11 , because someone who hadn't given it even the most cursory glance at the situation in Iraq (and the wider region) thought it would be a shining example to the rest of the world .
It is a shining example , an example of how not to do things .

The idea was to get rid of an unstable State to bring some regional stability , the outcome is likely to be 3 unstable states and wider more polarised instabilty .
So while getting rid of Saddam is indeed a "noble effort" the manner in which it was implemented was an ignoble ballsup .
By presenting made up evidence , most of which was in complete contradiction of known facts at the time , they failed to gather the neccasary international consensus , in doing so they aligned themselves with some rather murderous terrorists which in turn further eroded any consensus and of course makes a mockery of the whole war on terror line .
Saddams removal could have waited , nothing was done at all when he was slaughtering thousands of people so why rush in ?
Doing a proper job in Afghanistan and finishing the job should have taken priority , but there again the quick fix option was taken , aligning with some murderous bastards , drug barons and very brutal dictators .
Quick fixes do not work , they are now spending time and effort repatching the quick fix while the rest of the structure falls apart .

---

Good heavens, you actually are making sense here. I actually think that we'll pull it off (barely) and avoid the three-way civil war, but I won't argue that things might have been better timed, better planned, and less "quick fix" in implementation. Just when I was ready to flame you, you had to go and actually provide a decent answer. Now what'll I do....

The United Nations again does not supersede the sovereignty of any nation.
If that were true Red then as Iraq was a soveriegn nation it didn't have to comply with UN resolutions did it .
Several times in your reply you say misdefinition , yet Bush clearly stated that once Saddam was removed those things would stop in Iraq , Saddam has been removed yet they still continue .
So therefore they are still false .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The United Nations again does not supersede the sovereignty of any nation.
If that were true Red then as Iraq was a soveriegn nation it didn't have to comply with UN resolutions did it .

---

Well since Iraq did not complie - your arguement about the United Nations having the only authority to authorize an attack now becomes false even more. - In trying to be clever you have shown why the United States has legal right under international law to return to a state of armed conflict. You might want to read the Hague Convention of 1907 once again - you know the internationally recongized document considered the Rules of War.

Quote:

---

Several times in your reply you say misdefinition , yet Bush clearly stated that once Saddam was removed those things would stop in Iraq , Saddam has been removed yet they still continue .

---

What continues being sponsored by Saddam's Regime? What acts are being done by Saddam's Regime?

:hide:

That is the smart ass response to your comments. Its all in the matter of semtics - and how one wants to view the conflict. Again you say all the reasons have been shown as false - my rebuttal only shows that there is a different arguement concerning those conditions having not been shown to be false. The wording that President Bush used all refered to Saddams Regime in regards to many of those areas, and those areas were not the reasons for returning to a state of war with Iraq.

The speech with the reasons for returning to a state of war with Iraq from the State of the Union Speech 2003. It can be found at both the whitehouse web site or any media site if one wishes to find it. My comments are in blue - just to make the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by State of the Union Speech 2003 the portion concerning Iraq

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. A true statement

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. A true statement

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. A true statement

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. A statement that can be interpated either way depending on view point


The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. A statement that can be interpated either way depending on view point

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. A true statement

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

statements all proven to be not correct - but intelligence reports like the Duefler report draw a conclusion that there was an effort to give the impression that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Proven to be an incorrect statement

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Proven to be an incorrect statement

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. A true statement

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
A true statement

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. A true statement

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. A true statement

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. A true statement, but misleading in the context used in my opinion

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? A true statement

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. A true statement

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. A true statement

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. A true statement

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by United Nations Speech September 2002

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. A statement that has been proven to be incorrect in part - its interesting to note that the missles found exceeding the range limits imposed on Iraq as part of the Ceasefire were found after this speech was given at the UN


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. A true statement, since Saddam had promised money to sucide bombers in Palenstine, but extremely misleading in its presentation given the evidence that has come forward during the occupation and the subsequent investigations like the Duelfer Report


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement


If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. A true statement


If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

---

So like I stated earlier mis-defined and inaccurate in the reasons for returning to a state of armed conflict with Iraq.

Quote:

---

So therefore they are still false .

---

Only in the narrow short term in which you are looking at. Again has the United States left its occupation duties and requirements behind?

Typical lets rush to the conclusion without giving the time necessary to complete the task, and then changing what was actually stated to attempt to make a point that is not completely truthful. Kind of what many would accuse the Bush Adminstration of. It seems you got more in common with President Bush then you would care to have. ~:joker:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. A true statement

Oh come off it Red , how the hell can that be a true statement . There was nothing at all in the provisions for the conduct of those operationsto make Saddam a casualty , let alone the last casualty (which would be an impossibility anyhow) there were no provisions to occupt Iraq or change the regime . That is just Bush being a drama queen .
Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. A true statement

A false statement , sanctions , inspections plus his stopping the programs restrained him from persuing these weapons .
It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. A true statement

Since it didn't really have any how could it lay them before the world ?
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
A true statement

Since he didn't have anything to disarm then how is that true ?
Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. A true statement

Speculation , since the witnesses would also be Iraqi officials and how would you know that the officials job is to intimidate other officials ?
And how can a country with no active airforce and an airdefence system that is bombed any time it gets turned on able to block U-2 flights . Besides which , as you are knowledgable on military systems , what is the side scanning range of an up to date U2 (depending on altitude) , and all of that ignores the fact that U-2 flight were taking place , as was satellite surveilance , why was this not given to the UN under the obligations to the UN of a security council member that was supposed to be enforcing and monitoring the sanctions and resolutions ? Is it because that when they finally did issue some data , the data was not what they claimed it was , neither was the time frame .
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? A true statement

If that is a true statement then where are the WMDs he was building and keeping ?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. A true statement

That was a long bit so I only quote the end . Speculation , not truth
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. A true statement, since Saddam had promised money to sucide bombers in Palenstine, but extremely misleading in its presentation given the evidence that has come forward during the occupation and the subsequent investigations like the Duelfer Report

Extremely misleading indeed if that were true then the US would be guilty as it supports terrorism , even more misleading if you look at this weeks UN resolution against Syria and the words concerning terrorism that had to be removed from it .
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement

Ah but what if that civilian population was engaged in domestic terrorism against the state , or heaven forbid , foriegn backed terrorism against the State , or take both of the above and apply them to terrorism against the civilian population .
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement

Some truth in there , but as I mentioned earlier some impossibilities as well .

You might want to read the Hague Convention of 1907 once again - you know the internationally recongized document considered the Rules of War.

Considered some of the rules of war Red , it only addresses some issues , others are from earlier Hauge conventions and others are Geneva conventions , interesting to note that certain countries have not ratified the Geneva conventions from the 1970s I wonder which countries they could be ~;) Then of course theres Mr. Cornflakes conventions .
BTW isn't the coilition violating those conventions under its obligations as the occupying power ~:eek:

What continues being sponsored by Saddam's Regime? What acts are being done by Saddam's Regime?

Well Bush should have chosen his words better at the Rose Hall then as he stipulated many things , but he didn't stipulate that they were OK as long as it wasn't Saddam doing it he said it wouldn't happen in a free Iraq , Iraq is free isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. A true statement

Oh come off it Red , how the hell can that be a true statement . There was nothing at all in the provisions for the conduct of those operationsto make Saddam a casualty , let alone the last casualty (which would be an impossibility anyhow) there were no provisions to occupt Iraq or change the regime . That is just Bush being a drama queen .

---

Drama Queen or not - Saddam agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction - again a true statement.

Quote:

---

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. A true statement

A false statement , sanctions , inspections plus his stopping the programs restrained him from persuing these weapons .

---

So explain how missles that exceed the range limitations came to be built?

Quote:

---

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. A true statement

Since it didn't really have any how could it lay them before the world ?

---

Maybe you should read about the 1995 and 1998 inspections a little more. Then you might want to read the Duefler report some more. Some nice little revelations in the report that supports this claim.

Quote:

---

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
A true statement

Since he didn't have anything to disarm then how is that true ?

---

Again read the Duelfer Report it has some good information on this. Then one might want to read about how the 1998 inspections went.

Quote:

---

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. A true statement

Speculation , since the witnesses would also be Iraqi officials and how would you know that the officials job is to intimidate other officials ?
And how can a country with no active airforce and an airdefence system that is bombed any time it gets turned on able to block U-2 flights . Besides which , as you are knowledgable on military systems , what is the side scanning range of an up to date U2 (depending on altitude) , and all of that ignores the fact that U-2 flight were taking place , as was satellite surveilance , why was this not given to the UN under the obligations to the UN of a security council member that was supposed to be enforcing and monitoring the sanctions and resolutions ? Is it because that when they finally did issue some data , the data was not what they claimed it was , neither was the time frame .

---

Again its a true statement - if the official did exactly what you claimed it fits within the statement.

Quote:

---

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? A true statement

If that is a true statement then where are the WMDs he was building and keeping ?

---

Well lets see missles that exceed the range limitations that were hid is one examble of such, then there are the out of date nerve agent artillery shells, and then there was the hocus pocus routines during the 1998 inspections. Like it states elaborate lengths, enormous sums, and great risks taken - now while its not complete correct - neither is it the lie some would like to believe it is.

Quote:

---

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. A true statement

That was a long bit so I only quote the end . Speculation , not truth

---

Speculations does not make a lie either - in the context of what President Bush was stating the statement is true - or at worst it is not a lie.

Quote:

---

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. A true statement, since Saddam had promised money to sucide bombers in Palenstine, but extremely misleading in its presentation given the evidence that has come forward during the occupation and the subsequent investigations like the Duelfer Report

Extremely misleading indeed if that were true then the US would be guilty as it supports terrorism , even more misleading if you look at this weeks UN resolution against Syria and the words concerning terrorism that had to be removed from it .

---

You can't use hypocrisy as a defense in saying that its a false statement. It is either true but misleading or false and misleading.

Quote:

---

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement

Ah but what if that civilian population was engaged in domestic terrorism against the state , or heaven forbid , foriegn backed terrorism against the State , or take both of the above and apply them to terrorism against the civilian population .

---

Good question - but that was not the context of what was stated - so are you now going to attempt to defend Saddam's use of posion gas to subdue the rebellion against his government? The statement is true regardless of the validity of your question.

[quote]
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement

Some truth in there , but as I mentioned earlier some impossibilities as well . The impossilities could be explained if the Iraq regime was forthcoming with what information was in their poccession. Iraq had the obligation to be forthcoming with that information - they were not. One individual I spoke to first hand reported that they watched Iraq soldier annotate who was being loaded into the trucks and driven off. The validity of that report is questionable - but was the Iraqi Regimes obligation to be forthcoming with all available information.

Quote:

---

You might want to read the Hague Convention of 1907 once again - you know the internationally recongized document considered the Rules of War.

Considered some of the rules of war Red , it only addresses some issues , others are from earlier Hauge conventions and others are Geneva conventions , interesting to note that certain countries have not ratified the Geneva conventions from the 1970s I wonder which countries they could be ~;)

---

You would be incorrect the Hague Conventions of 1907 are the Rules of War - the Geneva Conventions are the agreements for how prisoners of war and civilians are to be treated. Semtics I know - but you like to play that game - do you not?

Lots of countries haven't ratified the 4th Geneva Conventions to include the United States.

Quote:

---

Then of course theres Mr. Cornflakes conventions .
BTW isn't the coilition violating those conventions under its obligations as the occupying power ~:eek:

---

Several violations of the Hague Conventions have been reported in the news - along with possible violations of the Geneva Conventions - be more specfic verus attempting to be clever.

Quote:

---

What continues being sponsored by Saddam's Regime? What acts are being done by Saddam's Regime?

Well Bush should have chosen his words better at the Rose Hall then as he stipulated many things , but he didn't stipulate that they were OK as long as it wasn't Saddam doing it he said it wouldn't happen in a free Iraq , Iraq is free isn't it ?

---

Iraq is not free yet - its still in the middle of an occupation. A free Iraq happens when all conditions for the withdraw of occupation forces have been meant and the Iraq people decide on how they want theire country to be run.

You would be incorrect the Hague Conventions of 1907 are the Rules of War
No they are new additions to the earlier Hague conventions which still apply .
Some times I wonder if you think you are the only person who can read .~:confused:

Drama Queen or not - Saddam agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction - again a true statement.

And he had no WMDs so he had disarmed , several times you mention the missiles , missiles are not WMDs unless they are fitted with WMD warheads . a computer simulation "proved" that they could exceed the specified range which is seperate from the WMD issue , a computer simulation is not proof , regardless of which , once that "proof" was put forward the missiles were tagged and destroyed in compliance with the resolutions .

in the context of what President Bush was stating the statement is true
To quote Rummy "viewed through a prism" , by distorting something to give the required result is a distortion of what is truly there , a distortion of the truth is a lie .

Good question - but that was not the context of what was stated - so are you now going to attempt to defend Saddam's use of posion gas to subdue the rebellion against his government? The statement is true regardless of the validity of your question.

No mention of the use of poison gas in the original statement was there Red , if you want to examine the use of the gas let me point out that it was when he was a western ally , fighting against the Wests enemy and he attacked an area that aligned with "evil" Iran , not to mention the fact that the West tried to blame the Iranians for the gas attack .
Then again attacking civilian areas and the use of chemical weapons is covered by several conventions is it not , why was nothing done about it then ?

Lots of countries haven't ratified the 4th Geneva Conventions
Errr ....1970s .

Pray tell then Tribesman Which Laws of War, or Rules of Warfare, or which Hague Conventions are you speaking of. Here is a decent link that has them all.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

Now the wording of the Hague Convention of 1907 (Hague IV) is pretty clear in regards to the rules of land warfare. I bolded the sentences that directly seem to contradict the point in which you are seeming to attempt to make.

Quote:

---

Article 1.
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.

Art. 2.
The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 3.
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

Art. 4.
The present Convention, duly ratified, shall as between the Contracting Powers, be substituted for the Convention of 29 July 1899, respecting the laws and customs of war on land.

The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it, and which do not also ratify the present Convention.

Art. 5.
The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherlands Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relative to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherlands Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have adhered to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph the said Government shall at the same time inform them of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 6.
Non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Convention.

The Power which desires to adhere notifies in writing its intention to the Netherlands Government, forwarding to it the act of adhesion, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

This Government shall at once transmit to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of adhesion, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

---

Now what part of the statement that I made do you disagree with You would be incorrect the Hague Conventions of 1907 are the Rules of War

Again show me the new editions to the Hague Convention which supercede the 1907 dated convention. The language in the document is pretty clear to me.


Some times I wonder if you think you are the only person who can read .

Not at all - however without your making your point very clear - I wonder if you understand the document and what it states.

The missiles demonstrate that Saddam and his regime were not in complaince with the Ceasefire conditions - it does not matter to me that they were not equipped with a chemical or nuclear warhead since those missles had the capablity to be equipped with them. The mere existance of the missles were inviolation of the requirements of the cease fire. Hence Saddam agreed to disarm and destroy - and violated the conditions - which makes the statement true in the context in which it was stated.


If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. A true statement

Again what distortion what lie - your claiming this statement is a lie - but again Saddams actions in the the past demonstrate something else.


No mention of the use of poison gas in the original statement was there Red , if you want to examine the use of the gas let me point out that it was when he was a western ally , fighting against the Wests enemy and he attacked an area that aligned with "evil" Iran , not to mention the fact that the West tried to blame the Iranians for the gas attack .
Then again attacking civilian areas and the use of chemical weapons is covered by several conventions is it not , why was nothing done about it then ?

Nice attempt at redirection - but you have avoided the statement I made in doing so. Now again here is the statement.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. A true statement

Again the statement was not false in the context of what was stated by President Bush - ir-regardless of the failure of the Western nations to do anything in the late 1980s and again in 1992.

Lots of countries haven't ratified the 4th Geneva Conventions
Errr ....1970s .

and your point is?

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

---

Now do you know what that preamble statement means.

Especially given your earlier statement of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No they are new additions to the earlier Hague conventions which still apply

---

THe Preamble passage that you just quoted from the Hague Conventions of 1907 is not consistent with your other statement,~:eek: now is it?
:knight:

I don't like all this fact vs fact and evidence vs evidence argument crap, guys, what this thread needs is some good old hyperbole.

THe Preamble passage that you just quoted from the Hague Conventions of 1907 is not consistent with your other statement, now is it?

Yes it is , as is article 4 . and the Cornflake pact surerceded the 1907 convention , but they ran into a few problems when they tried to use it at Nuremburg didn't they .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

THe Preamble passage that you just quoted from the Hague Conventions of 1907 is not consistent with your other statement, now is it?

Yes it is , as is article 4 . and the Cornflake pact surerceded the 1907 convention , but they ran into a few problems when they tried to use it at Nuremburg didn't they .

---

You really need to call it under its right name - attempts at such sarcasm detracts from honest discourse.

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else. And that is why it ran into trouble when they attempted to use it at Nuremburg that and the bolded text portion gave them a problem also. Edit: I refer you to the second post where I linked a writing by Dr. Noel Cox which explains how the two treaties are related to each other - and why Kellogg-Briand Paxt of 1928 does not supercede the Hague Conventions of 1907.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Text of Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928

ARTICLE I
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

ARTICLE III
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.

This Treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at Washington and the Treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as; between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto.

It shall be the duty of the Government of the United States to furnish each Government named in the Preamble and every Government subsequently adhering to this Treaty with a certified copy of the Treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of the United States telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence.

IN FAITH WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty in the French and English languages both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals.

DONE at Paris, the twenty seventh day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.

---

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm

It declares that war will not be used as a national policy - so no it did not supercede the Hague Conventions of 1907 which govern the conduct of war. And one could argue that WW2 did indeed in effect null and voided this threaty. Edit: If you see the link to Dr. Cox below you will find out why such an arguement would have difficultly getting by.

Nice attempt but it just does not fly in the way your attempting to intermix the two.

Here is a better write-up of what the different treaties actually mean then what I could attempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Noel Cox

The scope of the law of war

Not every exercise of military force is lawful. Indeed, the tendency over the past few centuries has been to limit the freedom of sovereign states to levy war.(21) The instigation and conduct of war has since the very earliest times been subject to some degree of regulation or control. In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas wrote that, ‘in order that a war may be just three things are necessary. In the first place, the authority of the prince, by whose order the war is undertaken ... ‘(22) His second and third requirements for a just war, like those of his predecessor St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, were a just cause, and right intent. Indeed, USA action could well be said to have qualified as a just war under Thomas Aquinas’ criteria, as it was waged by a sovereign state, in a just cause, and with right intent.(23)

However, the law of war has advanced much since St Thomas lived, and ironically, the UN Charter, designed to promote peace, enshrines a growing tendency to prohibit all wars not waged in self-defence,(24) though it does allow collective self-defence,(25) and the restoration of international peace.(26) This left little room for the ‘just war’, a concept which has nevertheless increasingly once again reared its head in the law of war.(27)

Traditionally the law of war was concerned with the regulation of warfare;(28) usually, though not exclusively, interstate warfare.(29) Additionally, since the 19th century there has been significant growth in the laws of humanity, or human rights.(30) It has been said that these two strands have joined.(31) There has been much concentration on humanitarian law, and especially the punishment of war criminals.(32) But the basic question of when it is lawful to start an offensive war had been examined relatively little.(33) For most purposes, the law of war may be divided into two parts: the legitimacy of the resort to force, and the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, often called jus ad bellum and jus in bello respectively. Both changed markedly in the course of the twentieth century.(34) It is with jus ad bellum with which this article is concerned.

The basic sources of the law of armed conflict are written and unwritten rules, treaties, agreements, and customary law. A treaty is an agreement between entities, both or all of which are subjects of international law possessed of international personality and treaty-making capacity.(35) All sovereign states enjoy the right to make treaties. Some self-governing colonies, protectorates, and international organisations have the capacity to enter into agreements, though their right to do so is usually limited.(36)

Custom is general state practice accepted as law. The elements of custom are a generalised repetition of similar acts by competent state authorities and a sentiment that such acts are juridically necessary to maintain and develop international relations.(37) The existence of custom, unlike treaty-law, depends upon general agreement, not unanimous agreement.(38)

It is now generally recognised that the law of armed conflict applies in all international armed conflicts, regardless of their legality.(39) They have now been extended to the modern phenomenon known as wars of national liberation. These revolutions are defined as armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the UN and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the UN.(40)

There have long been efforts to codify the rules of war, generally those relating to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), but also those dealing with the legality of the use of force (jus ad bellum).(41) One early modern attempt was by Francis Lieber, whose Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, was promulgated by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.(42) But articles of war, governing the conduct of national armies in the field, had been issued since early times, and reached their culmination in England in the 17th century.(43)

The first major international attempt at codification was the Hague Peace Conference in 1899, where a number of conventions on the law of war were adopted.(44) Then in 1907, another conference at The Hague revised the rules and made them more detailed. It also gave greater emphasis to the legality of the use of force – rather than being simply confined to questions of the legality of actions on the battlefield. The resulting Law of The Hague recognised that the total avoidance of war should be the ultimate goal. But it recognised that war is sometimes unavoidable, and was to this extent a legitimate means of settling disputes between nations.(45)

The Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 (Pact of Paris) codified the customary law of war with respect to jus ad bellum. It was signed by 65 countries, including the USA,(46) who all thereby renounced aggressive war as an instrument of national policy.(47) In Article 1, ‘the high contracting parties condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another’.(48) The Treaty had the effect of outlawing war as an instrument of national policy (with respect to the signatories), and advanced the concept of aggressive war as being contrary to international law(49) – though it did not give rise to it – as this could be traced to Thomas Aquinas if not earlier.(50)

In 1945 and the years that followed, almost all nations signed the UN Charter, thereby promising to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN’.(51) Hence, aggressive war, as such, had been eliminated from among the lawful means of conducting international relations. Yet, the use of armed force has not ceased.(52) International law has recognised this. In particular, the jus in bello part of the law of armed conflict applies not only to situations of declared war, but to any situation of international armed conflict and, to a more limited degree, armed conflicts which are not of an international character. Furthermore, armed force may be used pursuant to a decision or recommendation of the UN, in accordance with Article 42 of its Charter, and yet is not ‘war’ in the strict technical sense.

---

The whole write-up can be found here - an interesting read by the way. Edit to add: Dr. Cox argues against the legality of the Iraq invasion by the United States but has an interesting ending statement that I thought I would share with everyone that might still be reading our little exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Cox

In his State of the Union address in 2002 President Bush announced that the USA would use military force against any state the administration perceived to be hostile.(187) This is at odds with the UN Charter, and poses difficulties for determining the future of the world legal order. But it is a difficulty which must be addressed, for the UN Charter is not, nor can be, the last word in public international law.

---

http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Iraq.htm

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else.
Yes it does , it is , as was needed under the Hague treaty , a more complete code of the laws of war , in fact it is the complete code .
Don't do it , simple complete definitive .



Again what distortion what lie - your claiming this statement is a lie - but again Saddams actions in the the past demonstrate something else.

Red ....That was a long bit so I only quote the end .look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 does not cover the Laws of War but something else.
Yes it does , it is , as was needed under the Hague treaty , a more complete code of the laws of war , in fact it is the complete code .
Don't do it , simple complete definitive .

---

Well I defer to Dr Cox's explantion again because the Kellogg-Braid Pact is not a more complete code of laws of war - but code of international relationship and policy concerning the use of warfare to solve problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Cox

There have long been efforts to codify the rules of war, generally those relating to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), but also those dealing with the legality of the use of force (jus ad bellum)

---

As he stated above the Kellogg-Briand pact was dealing with the legality of the use of force.

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare (hostilities).

Quote:

---

Again what distortion what lie - your claiming this statement is a lie - but again Saddams actions in the the past demonstrate something else.

Red ....That was a long bit so I only quote the end .look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

---

Assumptions that turn out to be false are not lies, they are incorrect assumptions. Again you have not shown the statement I highlighted to be a lie nor is it false in the context of how President Bush used it. Again the statement was

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Again the statement was

No Red the Statement was......
"The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "a true statement
You posted the whole thing and called it a true statement , it is not a true statement
So look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare.

Until a more complete rule is drawn up , after the disaster that later became known as WW1 a complete rule was drawn up .
If for example there were some rules governing the consumption of alcohol , dealing with details like , age limits , measures , taxation , regulation , licensing , availability . Then there were rules drawn up that said no alcohol consumption at all . Which is the more complete ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Again the statement was




No Red the Statement was......

---

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing - now that is funny since I did it for the paragraph that i placed the statement. Oh well I should of stated that.

Quote:

---

"The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

---

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true.

Quote:

---

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

---

An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

Quote:

---

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

---

A misleading statement based upon using the Al Qaida arguement - but not a false statement either.

Quote:

---

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

---

Misleading - yep got to agree with that one

Quote:

---

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

---

An assumption and a scare tactic to gather support - misleading maybe - a false statement nope since its clearly meant to be a possible scenerio - not an actual scenerio.

Quote:

---

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

---

A true statement -

Quote:

---

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

---

Not a false statement now is it?

[quote]
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "a true statement

Quote:

---

You posted the whole thing and called it a true statement , it is not a true statement
So look at the whole statement which you posted as true , it contains many falsehoods , many assumptions that turned out to be false , much misleading information and much speculation , how on earth can it be a true statement ?

---

See above - nothing in the whole statement is really a falsehood now is it.

Quote:

---

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are the rules for the conduct of warfare.

Until a more complete rule is drawn up , after the disaster that later became known as WW1 a complete rule was drawn up .
If for example there were some rules governing the consumption of alcohol , dealing with details like , age limits , measures , taxation , regulation , licensing , availability . Then there were rules drawn up that said no alcohol consumption at all . Which is the more complete ?

---

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare - Dr. Cox explains it very well - and I again refer to his document and link.

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true
No as he didn't have the weapons .
An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

But he didn't have the weapons and in the past when he did have the weapons he still got his arse handed to him on a plate , twice . Though of course if he did have the weapons that he didn't have he could have caused havoc until he once again got thrashed . So an assumption , not a true statement
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Speculation .

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing
I thought that was why you posted the whole thing and put true at the end of it .~;)

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare
Yes there is , don't conduct warfare , complete , absolute and definitive .
In fact you cannot get more complete than that can you ?
Way to go Mr. Cornflake ,~:cheers: pity it turned out to be a pile of crap .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And that is what he did in the past with the weapons he had - so this statement is true
No as he didn't have the weapons .
An assumption based on past behavior - one that I happen to agree with completely.

But he didn't have the weapons and in the past when he did have the weapons he still got his arse handed to him on a plate , twice . Though of course if he did have the weapons that he didn't have he could have caused havoc until he once again got thrashed . So an assumption , not a true statement

---

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Quote:

---

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Speculation .

---

Yes indeed it can be considered speculation by some - and a valid assumption based upon past behavior by others.

Quote:

---

Oh you thought I meant the whole thing
I thought that was why you posted the whole thing and put true at the end of it .~;)

---

Quote:

---

And again there is not more complete set of rules drawn up for the conduct of warfare
Yes there is , don't conduct warfare , complete , absolute and definitive .
In fact you cannot get more complete than that can you ?
Way to go Mr. Cornflake ,~:cheers: pity it turned out to be a pile of crap .:shrug:

---

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Not at all , as the first is to the assumption that he had the weapons at the time the statement was made .

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.
Not until you can find a more complete law on war than no war . It is the most complete law you could possibly have .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You realize of course that you just contradicted yourself in the above statements.

Not at all , as the first is to the assumption that he had the weapons at the time the statement was made .

---

Nice save

Quote:

---

Like before that is not exactly what it states - but its obvious we won't agree.
Not until you can find a more complete law on war than no war . It is the most complete law you could possibly have .

---

And you believe that Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 accomplishes that - well and fine - but we won't agree at all. Kellogg-Briand did not pass muster when it was attempted to be used in an international tribunal for war crimes, now did it?

Interesting discussion never the less.

Kellogg-Briand did not pass muster when it was attempted to be used in an international tribunal for war crimes, now did it?

Yeah its a bit of a bugger when the prosecution cannot lay charges as they are also guilty .

Returning to the topic at hand... ~:)

An Italian senator has just reported that the Italians told the US goverment that the documents were forgeries around the time of the infamous 'sixteen words':

Quote:

---

Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries

Updated: 1:46 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005
ROME - Italian secret services warned the United States months before it invaded Iraq that a dossier about a purported Saddam Hussein effort to buy uranium in Africa was fake, a lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by the nation's intelligence chief.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they (Italy's SISMI secret services) said that the dossier doesn't correspond to the truth," Sen. Massimo Brutti told journalists after the parliamentary commission was briefed.

Brutti said the warning was given in January 2003, but he did not know whether it was made before or after President Bush's speech.


The United States and Britain used the claim that Saddam was seeking to buy uranium in Niger to bolster their case for the war.

The intelligence supporting the claim later was deemed unreliable.

Italian lawmakers questioned Premier Silvio Berlusconi's top aide and an intelligence chief Thursday about allegations that Italy knowingly gave the United States and Britain forged documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.

Berlusconi, in an interview with the conservative daily newspaper Libero published Thursday, said Italy had not passed any documents on the Niger affair to the United States. He added that La Repubblica's allegations were dangerous for Italy because "if they were believed, we would be considered the instigator" of the Iraq war.

The Niger claim also is at the center of a CIA leak scandal that has shaken the Bush administration, leading to last week's indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

Libby was charged with lying to investigators about leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Wilson accused the administration of covering up his inquiry into whether Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger after he found the claim had no substance.

&#169; 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

---

And now the same senator is backtracking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4402594.stm

FYI