Iraq Chilcot Inquiry

Remove this Banner Ad

Kidd Vicious said:
Everyone was just swept up in a haze of official misinformation and a compliant media.

Very few people, and even fewer in power, stopped to ask what Iraq had to do do with a terrorist attack committed mainly by Saudis operating under the directions of a Saudi being harboured by Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Lies is a better word. I'm glad you mentioned the compliant media, as they are as complicit as the Governments. Almost all media channels swallowed and regurgitated the government lies without question, with the various tentacles of Spew Corp being the main cheer leaders for the war. I only remember a few articles being critical of going to war, some in the Fairfax press and some by the ABC. All the other mainstream media outlets were all ra, ra, ra for the war. Bearing that in mind, it will be interesting to see how the media portray the Chilcot report.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Present Not Past said:
Saddam Hussein was a flog and got what he deserved.
You say 250,000 people rallied in Melbourne? Well that is the minimum number of Iraqis that Saddam was responsible for killing in Iraq up until he and his murderous gang of thugs were toppled.
Click to expand...
So the million+ people that have died since he was toppled? If it was about toppling a bad person why haven't they toppled a dozen other leaders aroudn the world? Why did they make stories up about WMD?
 
I know a bloke killed in a car accident in the middle of the night returning home from a five hundred k round trip to a rally in Adelaide against the Iraq war. They said then the WMD was a lie and we were after the resources. They say now the WMD was a lie and we were after the resources.

Millions dead millions of refugees later and noone has been held accountable and still the liberals and the media lie.
 
Present Not Past said:
Saddam Hussein was a flog and got what he deserved.
You say 250,000 people rallied in Melbourne? Well that is the minimum number of Iraqis that Saddam was responsible for killing in Iraq up until he and his murderous gang of thugs were toppled.
Click to expand...

cretin
 
Happy Mastenator said:
So the million+ people that have died since he was toppled? If it was about toppling a bad person why haven't they toppled a dozen other leaders aroudn the world? Why did they make stories up about WMD?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to spend much of my time here arguing about why one leader is toppled and another isn't. All I'm going to say is that Saddam was toppled because he refused to adhere to the UN Resolutions placed on his regime since the end of the First Gulf War and that he in fact thumbed his nose at them and accererated his murder of Iraqi citizens as well as using his military to threaten his neighbours and refusing to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti's.
If Saddam had stood down from the Presidency at any time then there wouldn't have been any intervention.
I know this opinion is not popular on this site but I don't care :p
 
Present Not Past said:
I'm not going to spend much of my time here arguing about why one leader is toppled and another isn't. All I'm going to say is that Saddam was toppled because he refused to adhere to the UN Resolutions placed on his regime since the end of the First Gulf War and that he in fact thumbed his nose at them and accererated his murder of Iraqi citizens as well as using his military to threaten his neighbours and refusing to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti's.
If Saddam had stood down from the Presidency at any time then there wouldn't have been any intervention.
I know this opinion is not popular on this site but I don't care :p
Click to expand...
These views arent popular because they were clearly bullshit in 2003, and the passage of time and knowledge makes them appear almost genocidal in 2016.
 
Gough said:
Bishop, the dog, still defending Australia's role in it. That war got me back into politics, post Apartheid I'd gotten pretty cruisy in my 20s, but when this came along you couldn't sit back, and watch something so obviously wrong happen.
Click to expand...
The Iraq war turned my politics around. Until then I had been a right wing nutter.

It made me completely reconsider my political views. For the better I must say.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Present Not Past said:
I'm not going to spend much of my time here arguing about why one leader is toppled and another isn't. All I'm going to say is that Saddam was toppled because he refused to adhere to the UN Resolutions placed on his regime since the end of the First Gulf War and that he in fact thumbed his nose at them and accererated his murder of Iraqi citizens as well as using his military to threaten his neighbours and refusing to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti's.
If Saddam had stood down from the Presidency at any time then there wouldn't have been any intervention.
I know this opinion is not popular on this site but I don't care :p
Click to expand...
The only way I would agree that there was any justification for western intervention in Iraq, is if there was an overwhelming plea from the Iraqi people to help overthrow Saddam's regime.

To my understanding, there wasn't.

The people responsible for this atrocity need to be held to account.
 
Present Not Past said:
I'm not going to spend much of my time here arguing about why one leader is toppled and another isn't. All I'm going to say is that Saddam was toppled because he refused to adhere to the UN Resolutions placed on his regime since the end of the First Gulf War and that he in fact thumbed his nose at them and accererated his murder of Iraqi citizens as well as using his military to threaten his neighbours and refusing to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti's.
If Saddam had stood down from the Presidency at any time then there wouldn't have been any intervention.
I know this opinion is not popular on this site but I don't care :p
Click to expand...

I don't really buy that at all. The plan for Saddams removal (the dubya one) was planned in the late 90s, the UN resolution non adherence was a supposed PR and legal reason to remove him, most likely some personal vendettas as well. Countries usually use much more diplomatic methods than shock and awe to resolve UN resolution conflicts.

Don't get me wrong Saddam was a campaigner, an absolute piece of s**t that took delight in torturing his people however the the invasion was the completely wrong way to go about it, I mean they had no plan for government, infrastructure, public services, social services after the onslaught and in Iraqs burning remnants rose a bunch of vey pissed off and targeted (by both Shia regime and western troops) Sunnis comprising of elite republican guards that knew how to wage urban guerilla warfare and create utmost fear, they are now known as Islamic State.
 
We have cheaper fuel and The Military Complex have what they want,a war without end in sight.
 
Present Not Past said:
I'm not going to spend much of my time here arguing about why one leader is toppled and another isn't. All I'm going to say is that Saddam was toppled because he refused to adhere to the UN Resolutions placed on his regime since the end of the First Gulf War and that he in fact thumbed his nose at them and accererated his murder of Iraqi citizens as well as using his military to threaten his neighbours and refusing to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti's.
If Saddam had stood down from the Presidency at any time then there wouldn't have been any intervention.
I know this opinion is not popular on this site but I don't care :p
Click to expand...
Iraq 1
The Kuwaiti's owed Saddam money,when he asked for it,he was told to gagf,so he invaded.
Iraq 2
Oil and continuous war.
 
Gough said:
If you read Dick Clarke's book, he says they were talking about invading Iraq as the WTC was still smoldering, despite evidence that Sadaam had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
It was in planning well before that.

Of course those that were planning the Iraq War in the 90s have all turned into Hillary backers, the presidential candidate that is a big fan of regime change.

Expect more wars.
 
Gough said:
If you read Dick Clarke's book, he says they were talking about invading Iraq as the WTC was still smoldering, despite evidence that Sadaam had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Iraq was the 1st of 7 nations the neo-conservatives wanted to topple in 5 years along with the likes of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. They actively funded/cultivated unrest amongst the local population and rebel groups which the US and west are now having to deal with.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-...q-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.

AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top