2kturkey

Well I give this thread around an hour before it disappears but here goes.

Why is it that we are all lying down and acting mute after the blatant display of lies and fear mongering that was an excuse for why the Iraq invasion should proceed?

It seems it's Ok for Donald Rumdrinker, Colon Powell and Jack the Strawman to now come out and admit it was all big con. Is it any wonder that we become more cynical by the day of politician's words - shades of "children overboard" again.

I'm disgusted, especially at all of those who were too gullible (or biased) to see this coming and tried to use it to justify the pro-war position.

AusS2000

You don't do your argument any justice by the petty name calling, no matter how valid your point.

I am pretty amazed that WMD's (or at least irrefutable evidence of) have not been found. But then again, nor have Saddam Uday and Qusay. Be on the look out for 3 dusky men with large suitcases with Bio- and Radiation-Hazard stickers on them.

Sorry if you're disgusted. But I then I suppose the pro-war people might have had a few words to you when we saw scenes of Iraqi's welcoming the US into Baghdad. It seems the Alliance of the Willing included many Iraqi citizens.

naishou

I wouldn't start crowing yet. Maybe they will find something they will label "WMD", maybe they won't. The argument of those who opposed the war (that the so called "WMD" were not the real reason for the war) remains unchanged. Whether they actually find any is irrelevant. As Wolfowitz has already admitted, it was just an excuse to pursue more sinister motives.

slick

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2kturkey
[B]Well I give this thread around an hour before it disappears but here goes.

AusS2000

I think the Hill Song thread opened the doors for the nutters.

PRESENT!

naishou

Maybe you and I don't follow the same media. I thought it was now general knowledge that the Iraqis shown welcoming US troops were members of the Iraqi National Congress (the Americans' favoured group to form a new gov't) and had been bused in by the US troops themselves. They were, in short, planted. Others were the now infamous looters, who were happy for obvious reasons. The scene of the statue coming down was shown through a telephoto lens, and for good reason. There were a few tens of people in the square, which was surrounded by US tanks and largely empty. Almost all of those people were INC members. The Americans needed images of "liberated" Iraqis for domestic TV, and they got them. Doesn't mean squat. I suggest watching some of the excellent documentataries and news reports on SBS, some of them from PBS, to get a more accurate picture of what Iraqis from all levels of society really think of being invaded and occupied by foreign powers, especially now the real meaning of their "liberation" is becoming clear.

AusS2000

And one of the arguments of those pro the war has been proved. The people of Iraq wanted Saddam removed. Those that are opposed to this action would deny the Iraqi people the freedom they evidently craved and now have a chance at.

AusS2000

So in your media the people all love Saddam and want him back?

[QUOTE][B]I thought it was now general knowledge that the Iraqis shown welcoming US troops were members of the Iraqi National Congress (the Americans' favoured group to form a new gov't) and had been bused in by the US troops themselves.

naishou

It's undeniable that some Iraqis wanted Saddam gone. Probably most. I can empathise with this. I have a lot of relatives who are living under a similar regime in Zimbabwe. Sadly George Bush doesn't seem to want to help them. I also feel, and the Iraqis I have seen interviewed appear to agree, that being "liberated" by a foreign oppressor who kills your countrymen in vast numbers with impunity is worse than no liberation at all. The important point is not that there has been some positive outcome for some people (mostly wealthy former exiles), but that the stated and debated reasons for the action were the true ones. This is not just for legalistic reasons. If the real motives were as sinister as it seems then the ends most certainly don't justify the means. Speaking for myself, my oposition to the war was primarily because I did not accept that our leaders were being honest. That position has not changed. If they had said from the beginning, in the UN, that they wanted to free Iraqis from Saddam, and they had debated the process by which that had to be done, and obtained approval from the Security Council, then there would be no debate from me. What I simply can't accept is that the people who were behind the war wanted it out of a pure sense of altruism and goodwill for the people of Iraq. Their past, present and future actions will demonstrate that they in fact don't give a damn.

naishou

Certainly not. They just preferred what they had before to what they have now. What they want now is the Americans out.
It's a shame that looking for the truth can get one labelled paranoid or a conspiracist. What's most distressing is that the truth really is that shocking.