obama - business as usual, the end of the dream

Not true.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the U.N. to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.[3]
By March 2003 Blix had not found any stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament, noting that Iraq’s cooperation had been "active" and "proactive," though not always "immediate" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “not years, not weeks, but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.

 

I'm old enough to remember what the world was like prior to the mad obsession with Iraq. The aggressive newsmedia campaign targeting Iraq was initiated sometime around the early 1990s; in fact, it may have started prior to that time, but the truth is that you hardly ever heard anything about Iraq until sometime in the early 1980s, or about the same time that Israel launched a jet fighter attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. If you start running your timeline in the year 1982, you will discover that the destruction of Iraq was actually a very slow and a methodical process which has been going on for approximately 25 years.

If you're only 28, then you probably aren't old enough to recall that the opening salvo was fired by Israel. The real opening salvo could have been fired many years prior to that, or even many centuries prior to that, but like you I have no recollection of events that went on before my time. In any event, it should be obvious that Israel was behind the whole thing from start to finish. Israel bombed Osirak in 1982 because they didn't want Iraq to develop any nuclear weapons, and then some years later Israel used its clout at the UN to impose WMD inspections on Iraq. It's a matter of public record that Israel exerts an enormous amount of power in foreign governments, but I never would have known just HOW MUCH power it wields had it not been for the fact that I was able to witness the unfolding of these events "right before my very eyes" and through the rose-colored lens of a newsmedia which btw is totally biased in favor of Israel.

In summary, the world was pretty much unconcerned with Iraq until sometime around the early 1980s, but then all of a sudden everything changed: Israel was paranoid, and so they decided to launch a surprise bombing mission against Iraq's Osirak plant. Israel engineered a casus belli for Gulf War I by getting their puppet to invade Kuwait, and then they used their leverage in world politics once again by imposing economic sanctions against Iraq, and this led to the deaths of untold Iraqi civilians.

All of this occurred prior to the second US-led invasion of Iraq (circa 2003).

It's very strange that the UN isn't conducting WMD inspections in Israel. Do you suppose that this could be yet one more example of life in a world-gone-mad, in which Israel stages the mass murder of people in the surrounding region, while avoiding the very same rules that it sets down for everybody else to follow ?

 

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

 

I've read up on a little of the history.
The point was, if WMD had been completely removed from Iraq, prior invasion. Was it? I think not.

I do not think Israel is party to the NPT.

 

matthew/odon

wouldn't go to war for his beliefs

he wouldn't even go on holiday for his beliefs

yet still he keeps telling people his beliefs after putting so little into his beliefs.

the religious war still rages, america is still in iraq and afghanistan

the plan for the middle east for the americans is whatever their handlers decide is good policy this week.

as a consequence any rational conclusion about what their plans are change from week to week.

 

You don't know my beliefs, Guy.
Not going through that again.

?

This is my point, Guy. You DO think we are in a holy war but refuse to put it in to any kind of real context.

Empty pointless words, Guy. Try responding to what has been said, just for once. Thanks.

 

I don't believe that we're involved in a "holy war" that pits Christians against Moslems and Sunnis against Shiites, or vice versa, even if that's how it's being portrayed in the newsmedia propaganda.

The Iraq fiasco was deliberately misrepresented and its true objectives were deliberately skewed right from the outset. The true nature of this so-called "war" is totally different from the manner in which it's being portrayed.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying, that "the first casualty of war is the truth."

 

How can you possibly know if they had WMDs or not ?

The UN isn't going to hold Israel's feet to the fire, as it did in the case of Iraq, and this is solely on account of some silly treaty ?

 

Because they admitted they had them. Helped find, locate and clarify where a majority of them were. They did not account for them all, though.
Mainly because they had burned a lot of their records. And:

"clear and flagrant violation"

UNSCR 687 and related resolutions 707, 715, and 1051 stipulate that Iraq must provide full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile weapons programs; allow unconditional inspection access by international monitors; cease any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy any material or equipment related to these programs; and cooperate with UN monitoring of relevant Iraqi facilities and trade activities

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2000/iraq99.htm

Yep.

 

It isn't being potrayed that way by the media. Just by crackpots.
Although, obviously, Sunni and Shia have had the opportunity to air some of their differences in the last half decade. OBL (grand crackpot), also would like to make this a "Holy War". So, in some respects it is, but not really. If that makes any sense.

It has been misrepresented. I agree. In what way would you say it has be misrepresented?

I have.

 

hey odon

you'll be glad to hear 2 israeli spys have been let off from spying on america.

go look it up in the news

 

Time for a fucking revolution.

 

Shut up, dude. If you have some genuine reason why I am some kinda Israeli lover...please be direct and do not make snide comments, thanks.

 

odon

i just naturally assumed that you are somesort of low level israeli operative on these forums shouting down dissent or at the very least part of the mob of the great brainwashed that have destroyed western civilization. i just assumed that since you won't go to war to prove your loyalites to your beliefs that you had some sort of ulterior motives to be here.

 

Lol. Idiot. I'm a young lad from Leicester, England.
I'm not shouting down dissent.
You just post garbage and I respond to that (probably should not), that's all.
If you think you do not post garbage, stick around and post responses to people and prove me wrong. Valid responses by the way.
Not just come here every once in a while to say the same thing.
It really does get boring.

 

snap


you rely on the bbc and itv to give you your news and opinion. this is the problem, you've swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. don't be embarrassed you are not alone, a lot of people in britain have swallowed the lies and its got them into a heap of problems. assuming your background is relatively straightforward.

 

No I do not and Have not. It is a such a cliche thing to say.
Shame on you.
What next: I need my eyes opening...?
Good grief, man. Be a little original.

 

I doubt that there's any real substance to these allegations.

Let's assume for a moment that Iraq did possess WMDs as it was so aggressively alleged. If that were indeed the case, then they almost certainly would have been deployed. Iraq did manage to launch a few "scud missile" attacks into Israel during the early stages of Gulf War I, and this fact alone would tend to suggest that the Iraqi leadership was willing to deploy long range weapons. The question is why they DID NOT launch any missile attacks in the period following the end of Gulf War I. The fact remains that Iraq never deployed any WMDs while they were being bombed and starved and mass murdered by Israel's proxy mercenary force (a.k.a. The US Army) during subsequent years. IMO, the fact that Iraq never deployed any of their alleged WMDs when to have done so could have saved them from being conquered and annihilated by a proxy mercenary force, would seem to indicate that they never had any WMDs in the first place.

Iraq probably never had any WMDs at all. "WMD" was essentially a propaganda ploy that was used by Israel in order to bring about a foreign military invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

 

The situation is being portrayed as a war that pits "Islamic terrorism" against Christian Civilization.

The concept of "war against terrorism" is actually the brainchild of Binyamin Netanyahu, but we are supposed to remain ignorant of its origins.

I stand corrected.

The oft-repeated pattern is that a bomb will go off somewhere, it will destroy a Shiite or a Sunni Mosque (or perhaps even a crowded marketplace that's overflowing with non-jews), but there's never any real investigation into who it was that actually set off the bomb. The newsmedia report that it was the handiwork of a mysterious "suicide bomber" and we are supposed to accept that explanation without ever questioning it (because if you dare to question the crap that's being fed to you, they will label you as a "nut job"). So everybody just assumes that it was carried out by a fictional organization known as "al Qaeda," or that maybe it's the latest in a series of atrocities in a make-believe war between Sunnis and Shiites. But nobody ever suspects that it might be the work of undercover zionists who are operating inside Iraq.

 

It is a fact, sir. The head of inspections for the IAEA has said as much himself. They all could have been destroyed or there could have been less than was thought. Infact Saddam could have had non at all.
This is not the point. His government was aksed to account for ALL he had documented. He had over a decade to comply. It just did not tally up at the end of the day.
He was brought down by his poor records and basic lies.
It is a shame whole countries are invaded because of paperwork...but, we have gone to war for less.

It seems you are assuming the UN thought he had weapons all over the place. Not so. They wanted him to account for the weapons (or programs) he had already admited having. Not exclusively secret weapons (or programs) he was wishing to use at to god only knows who.

Why didn't he fire any - he had time on his hands and sanctions to be lifted.

Defectors and other Iraqi sources nearly all agreed on his WMD program.
It was the actions of Saddam's government - fending off United Nations weapons inspectors, hiding evidence that prevented opportunities to have the economic sanctions lifted.

At a certain point, Saddam's charade became self-defeating.
Continueing economic sanctions that deprived him of billions of dollars a year, debilitated his economic base.

His governments disingenuousness spurred his removal from power, the execution of his sons, and his own capture and demise.

Biased much? Crikey!
As I said it wasn't the point he had anything he had to account for them or prove he had nothing. He failed. It is simple really.