Select Company Escorts
Toronto Escorts

hmmm interesting

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
scouser1 said:
can the entire world except for Britain, Australia and a few rent a countries in a loud chorus all repeat to Georgie jr and his band of neo cons WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm
That's right up there with "Amelia Earhart is missing" for news worthiness.

I think only Hans Blix would have the right to say WE TOLD YOU SO.

OTB
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Re: Re: hmmm interesting

onthebottom said:
That's right up there with "Amelia Earhart is missing" for news worthiness.

I think only Hans Blix would have the right to say WE TOLD YOU SO.

OTB
How easily everybody wants to forget previous UN resolutions on WMD's. If they weren't there after Gulf war 1, why the resolution. If my memory serves me right, the last resolution was passed three month prior to Gulf War 2, and it passed by a wide margin...
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Nobody thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Including the US.
"Frankly, sanctions have worked. Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." - Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, February 24, 2001

It was all a smokescreen. Heck, the US can't even *invent* any significant evidence now. All they can do is admit defeat on that score, and change the subject.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
here we go sigh

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

That was just too easy.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
I can only assume (since I refuse to read his rants) that OTB has posted "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq.
Funny how none of that came to light until they were interested in invading Iraq.
LOL
Funny how it was all proven a lie.

Nobody thought there were WMDs in Iraq except those that were lying, those that didn't care, or those that were misled by the lies.
It's simple, folks.

Iraq was about as much of a threat to world peace as Lithuania, and had about as much real power.
 
B

belgiumcdn

OIL is the only reason the american are in Iraq and if you think that the americans are there for Humanitarian reasons you better get the flag unwrapped from around your head.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Ranger68 said:
Iraq was about as much of a threat to world peace as Lithuania, and had about as much real power.
Lithuania had full control over its own air space.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
You did not answer my question, unless you are implying that the whole security council is a bunch of liars......wait....you might have something there.
Shit I have to agree with you again..stop it man, you killing me...
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
Ranger68 said:
Nobody thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Including the US.
"Frankly, sanctions have worked. Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." - Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, February 24, 2001

It was all a smokescreen. Heck, the US can't even *invent* any significant evidence now. All they can do is admit defeat on that score, and change the subject.
Correction: Throughout the pre-invasion debate about WMD and whether the Americans should go it alone, OTB was quite confident that WMD would be found by the invading US forces. I could be wrong but I think he's posting a lot less about Iraq these days.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Okay, why the Resolutions?
Because they'd been initiated prior to, during, and just after the first Gulf War, when Saddam DID have WMDs. When there was *reason* for the inspections.

His infrastructure to further these programs was either destroyed during the Gulf War or dismantled by him afterwards. I think this much is perfectly clear now. This is what most informed authorities believed even at the time.

But, why would you back down on a leader nobody likes, one that you have *active* Resolutions on, and is being instransigent? There is no doubt that Saddam was *mostly* complying with the UN Resolutions, but that he didn't want to be seen as cow-towing to the tool of the US. Thus, he continually ejected the inspectors, or changed the rules of the game when they were there. It was a game to him. There was no substance to it.

Up to the point where the US started beating the drums about the "Axis of Evil", both the UN *and* the US were fairly convinced that he had nothing. That's no reason not to *make sure* (and, by the way, to gather a little intelligence while you're there.)

Look, by 11/08 the US had already started beating the drums. The UN - and most of the world, I believe - was interested in *avoiding* confrontation. To try to appease the US, it began playing hardball on the Resolutions with Iraq. The outcome of the weapons inspections would, clearly, have been that nothing was found. But, the UN couldn't lose by trying to enforce these Resolutions. If WMDs are found, well that's good - we can start asking hard questions and doing something real about them - like enforcing past Resolutions threating punishment of Saddam for non-compliance. (Or, taking the leash off the US.) If WMDs aren't found, that's good too - and we've avoided a potentially long, nasty conflict.

If you recall, even after Saddam realized that the US wasn't bluffing, and he conceded to allow full access to the inspectors, the US said they were no longer interested and claimed that the inspectors *weren't capable* of finding the truth (so thoroughly had Saddam fooled them).
Do you really believe that, now? Or, is it more likely that the US *knew* there were no weapons, but concocted evidence to support their case for war?
Which do you think is more likely?
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
danmand said:
Lithuania had full control over its own air space.
I agree.
I think Lithuanians, backed by a mostly *Soviet* air force, should take Iraq's place on the Axis of Evil.
I'm sure there's *some* good reason to take them out.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
langeweile said:
You did not answer my question, unless you are implying that the whole security council is a bunch of liars......wait....you might have something there.
Shit I have to agree with you again..stop it man, you killing me...
I just finished my post in response.
I think much of the Security Council *is* liars - including, at the top of the list, the US representative.
:)
I'm glad we agree.
LOL
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
NEW YORK — U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (search) must be held accountable for mismanagement of the $64 billion Oil-for-Food program, Secretary of State Colin Powell (search) told FOX News.

But Powell said the responsibility is not just Annan's to bear. The Bush administration's top diplomat also said the entire U.N. membership — particularly the Security Council, which oversaw the day-to-day management of the program — should take on some of the responsibility.

"So, I want to wait and see the results of the Volcker investigation, as well as the investigations that are being done by the United States Congress, before we make any judgments about the overall management of this by the United Nations, or how it might effect Kofi Annan," Powell told FOX News' Sean Hannity in an interview to be broadcast Wednesday at 9 p.m. EST on the FOX News Channel.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (search) is heading up a U.N.-approved commission probing the Oil-for-Food program. Five congressional committees also are investigating the program.

Oil-for-Food ran from 1996 to 2003 as an international effort to aid the Iraqi people who were hurting under sanctions imposed after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Money from Iraq's oil sales was supposed to go toward buying food and other necessities for civilians but it was discovered that Saddam was scamming millions from the program.

Over 50 internal U.N. audits released by the Volcker commission earlier this week cited numerous examples of egregious mismanagement and lack of oversight of the program but did not specifically cite acts of corruption. The audits noted that if some of the more vital components of the program had been watched over more closely, less money could have gone down the tubes.

Powell said he has confidence in Volcker to effectively conduct the investigation and said he is a "man of great skill and competence and credibility."

"So, I'd like to wait and see for his completed work on this matter," the secretary said. "But what we have heard, so far, is that there were serious problems inside the U.N. on the management of this. We're not sure if there were criminal problems, but there were certainly management problems. "

Powell also hailed Annan as a "very distinguished gentleman" who "has served the cause of humanity well over the years," vowing to continue to work closely with the U.N. chief during the rest of his tenure in that position.

Although some U.S. lawmakers and others have gone so far as to call on Annan to resign — not just for his role as U.N. overseer during the program but also for more personal allegations involving his son's employment at Contecna (search), one of the Oil-for-Food contractors — the administration has resisted echoing that call.





While we are on the subject
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Tsunami Relief, Abbas, Iraq and Bush

On other issues, Powell said in the FOX News interview that the tsunami destruction in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, looks "as if a little nuclear weapon went off and just simply leveled half of a town. Scrapped clean houses, mosques, schools, bridges, cars, boats, vegetation. Everything just gone."

Although the destruction there isn't as bad as that in Sri Lanka or in Phuket, Thailand, he noted, "nevertheless, throughout that part of the world, this really is a tragedy and where 150,000 people lost their lives."

As for those who criticized the United States for not reacting to the disaster quickly enough, Powell said various U.S. task forces were in operation when word came of the tsunami. As casualty numbers grew on Monday, the day after the killer wave hit, the United States gave $4 million in response to a $7 million request for assistance from the International Federation of the Red Cross (search), Powell said. That represented over 50 percent of what was asked for initially. Additional installments of $15 million and $20 million were also donated.

"We said, all along, that we would add whatever funds were necessary. We weren't capping our contributions," Powell said.

"Nevertheless, people started characterizing that as stingy. And the fact of the matter is, it was not. We were there first. And even though people had been using this as a source of controversy, the nations in the region — I can tell you this, because I've been there — they are enormously grateful for our willingness to step forward, and frankly, lead the effort, the international effort, until the international community caught up."

On the recent election of the new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, Powell was asked if there was newfound optimism by the administration on Middle East peace, since President Bush has invited Abbas to the White House — an invite now deceased former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat never received.

"I believe he understands that he now has to take a strong position, an open, vocal, clear position against terrorism," Powell said. "But more than just take a position, he has to fight against those forces within the Palestinian community that still thinks there is a role for terrorism. And if he does that, then the United States will be able to support him. And he'll find that Israel can be a partner for peace with him as well."

Powell also expressed confidence that the Iraqi elections — scheduled for later this month — will indeed be held despite the ongoing violence in some regions of the country but said security must be in place.

"I think we have to have this election. An election could be a catalyzing event, to bring the Iraqi people to the realization that the enemies of Iraq are not the coalition forces that are helping," Powell said. "The enemies of Iraq are these terrorists and former regime elements."

As for what the secretary of state will next tackle in his career after he leaves the administration, Powell sad he's received some "very interesting business offers" and he'll likely make "some speeches" and "do some other things that will keep me somewhat in the public eye."

Powell spoke about what he defined as his "good relationship" with the president. "The president, I think, appreciated the fact that I would always tell him what I thought … And sometimes it was in agreement with all of my colleagues, and that was more often than not, and sometimes it was not.

"But that is what I'm supposed to do. I'm not paid to be in consensus. I'm paid to give my best judgment. And that is what I always did. And I think the president always appreciated that," he said.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
When Bush says that the whole Security Council must be held accountable, he's including his own country's representative, right?
....... Right? ......
LOL

As for the Iraqi elections, how are we ever going to know how legitimate they are? The election monitors aren't even going to be in-country, for god's sake! What an utterly predictable larf!
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Ranger68 said:
When Bush says that the whole Security Council must be held accountable, he's including his own country's representative, right?
....... Right? ......
LOL

As for the Iraqi elections, how are we ever going to know how legitimate they are? The election monitors aren't even going to be in-country, for god's sake! What an utterly predictable larf!
Interesting point? Applying your logic on elections, should the elections in Palestine be legal? The participation was around 35%, no one has ever questioned their legitimaze.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
slowpoke said:
Correction: Throughout the pre-invasion debate about WMD and whether the Americans should go it alone, OTB was quite confident that WMD would be found by the invading US forces. I could be wrong but I think he's posting a lot less about Iraq these days.
I was wrong, but at least I was in good company..... but still wrong. Does that mean I lied about it?

I don't post much about Iraq, no one has said anything new in 9 months. It's just soundling like a huge case of "did to, did not, did to, did not, did to, did not......"

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
langeweile said:
Interesting point? Applying your logic on elections, should the elections in Palestine be legal? The participation was around 35%, no one has ever questioned their legitimaze.
There were tons of monitors, on-site, including lots of Americans.
:)
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts