American Amnesia

Now that Iraq has nailed America’s lie that its soldiers were not captured by showing them on TV, Rumsfeld and company have all of a sudden remembered the UN and the Geneva Convention.

Obviously, the TV pictures have refreshed their memory and helped them out of their amnesia. There are other things they have to be reminded of. The war is without UN approval and therefore illegal. UN conventions do not apply in this case. The people who bypassed the UN were none other than Bush and Blair and their cronies. Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors, and thus showing respect for the UN and the civilized world. That makes his cause and approach legitimate.

The invading countries are not the only ones exposed by the war. Their well-oiled propaganda machines like the BBC, CNN and other channels have been as much exposed. In contrast, most of the claims that Iraq made, and the Anglo-American axis denied, proved to be true in the end.

The propaganda machines have been twisting language too. What could be put simply, as “around 10 soldiers have been captured or missing,” is being expressed as “fewer than 10 soldiers captured or missing”. And when Iraq shows captured US soldiers, it is said, they “appeared to be US soldiers”.

In all probability, the Anglo-American forces will succeed in killing Iraqi civilians and winning the war. Yet what little the Iraqi Army did to their tall claims could spell the beginning of the end for America’s supremacy.

It does not appear invincible anymore.

Originally posted by Helen
American Amnesia

Now that Iraq has nailed America’s lie that its soldiers were not captured by showing them on TV, Rumsfeld and company have all of a sudden remembered the UN and the Geneva Convention.
Helen, I can have a little of understanding (searching deep in my conscience), for
your bias tantrum. But lies shouldn’t be a part of your rhetoric and propagandistic crusade.

Quote: “Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors, and thus showing respect for the UN and the civilized world”

That’s a total lie and since you are considering your self well informed, it is on your part a total and intentional lie. Regardless on views on just or unjust war in Iraq, no country has claimed that Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors “fully” as clearly demanded by all UN resolution on this subject.

Can you once at least avoid hiding from the truth and tell us what country are you referring to?

The closest you ever got to that was “Iraq is providing some cooperation as indicated by UN inspectors”
:rolleyes:

Whether you like it or not, Iraq was fully cooperating with the U.N.

Listening to the crap on the CNN or FOX NEWS is another matter.

Originally posted by Helen
Whether you like it or not, Iraq was fully cooperating with the U.N.

Listening to the crap on the CNN or FOX NEWS is another matter. No, don’t twist the subject! I’m not referring to CNN nor to FOX-N,
I am clearly referring to the frequent comments of UN inspectors and you still haven justified your LIE!
:rolleyes:

Iraq was fully cooperating with the UN inspectors, but it wasn't fully cooperating with resolution 1441.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Iraq was fully cooperating with the UN inspectors, but it wasn't fully cooperating with resolution 1441. You are sounding like an Iraqi, at least you’re using same analogy.
How do you coincide that ?

Iraq was fully cooperating, there was NO complain from the UN inspectors, in fact, they asked for more time.

Initially Iraq was being evasive and a little uncooperative, but at the time the war was started the inspectors were satisfied with the cooperarion. And it didn't matter to the US whether or not Iraq cooperated, their goal was to manufacture a legal reason to attack Iraq, and to try to pull the wool over the worlds eyes. But the world wasn't as stupid as they hoped, so they whinned and hissed, and they finally gave the world the finger and attacked. Now america is trying to insult everyone who they couldn't fool before. But a little mud isn't going to cloud the worlds vision either, and america will find themselves quite alone when they look out at the mess they've made.

It doesn't matter if Iraq was "fully" co-operating or not, they were still co-operating. And the war is not sanctioned by the UN, and the purpose of it is to effect regime change, which is also illegal.

Originally posted by Nightpoet
It doesn't matter if Iraq was "fully" co-operating or not, they were still co-operating. And the war is not sanctioned by the UN, and the purpose of it is to effect regime change, which is also illegal. My heart is pumping purple piss for the Useless Nations. They didn't sanction the war in the Balkans either and no one complained. Oh wait, a Democrat was president...

Jerrek-that has what to do with Iraq?

Originally posted by Nightpoet
Jerrek-that has what to do with Iraq? Why does the world suddenly need U.N. consent for a war with Iraq but less than a decade ago no one called for U.N. approval when the United States made war in the Balkans?

Well, the UN is supposed to be involved in such decisions, and this particular problem had been brought to the UN first. Bush and Blair decided to abandon the UN and go in on their own.
And it still doesn't change the fact that this war is all about enforcing regime change which is illegal.

Originally posted by Nightpoet
Well, the UN is supposed to be involved in such decisions, and this particular problem had been brought to the UN first. Bush and Blair decided to abandon the UN and go in on their own.
And it still doesn't change the fact that this war is all about enforcing regime change which is illegal. First, so you're saying it would have been better if the United States and Britain decided NOT to bring it up in the U.N. and straightaway invaded right?

And what about all the illegal regime changes in Africa France has been committing without consent of the U.N.? If you want to hold the United States and its allies up for an illegal war for regime change, then you should put France on the stand too, right?

First, so you're saying it would have been better if the United States and Britain decided NOT to bring it up in the U.N. and straightaway invaded right?
LoL, I'm thinking this is going to be futile, and you're going to twist everything I say, but what the hell.
No, I think it would have been better if Britain and the US would have let the UN do its job. If the rest of the world was against invasion, then why not work for a diplomatic solution? If countries can decide to just ignore the UN or pull out of a decision that might be made by the UN just cause they don't like it, then what's the point of having the UN? I guess there really is no point to have the UN, we should just let hte US take over. Would that make you happy?
And what about all the illegal regime changes in Africa France has been committing without consent of the U.N.? If you want to hold the United States and its allies up for an illegal war for regime change, then you should put France on the stand too, right?
Yup, put France on trial too. A war crime is a war crime, no matter who commits it.

C'est vrait.

Well, Nightpoet, at least you remain consistent in the fact that you're willing to put France up on the stand too.

For now, you prefer the U.N. way, and I don't. Us on the right think of the U.N. as a useless organization that is morally corrupt and is going the way of the dodo. You probably don't agree with me, and for now I will agree to disagree with you on that since it is unlikely that we would be able to convince each other. :)

Useless politicians got this world into this mess and it will take a miracle to keep the US and its allies from fracturing the global alliance in the next 20 years. It is in no ones best interest to see the world go to hell like it would if there way a three way slit between us eu and prc(people's republic of china).

Us on the right think of the U.N. as a useless organization that is morally corrupt and is going the way of the dodo
I think its proving itself to be useless. It doesn't have to be, but it doesn't help when member nations decide to ignore it ;)
But regardless of what we think about it, it doesn't change the fact that the US is a member nation and therefore bound by the charter.

Iraq is also a member of the United Nations. He is murdering his own people. What gives him the right to violate the U.N. as he pleases but not the United States?

Jerrek,

I would reply to Helen and such but you are doing such an exellent job that I will leave this string to you and find me another one.;)
Keep up the good work.
:D

Thanks. I'm just trying to um, "rightify" this forum a bit. It seems to be overrun with useful idiots (*grin* no offense to anyone :p).

Originally posted by Jerrek
Thanks. I'm just trying to um, "rightify" this forum a bit. It seems to be overrun with useful idiots (*grin* no offense to anyone :p).

The 3 BIG LIES About Iraq

by John Pilger

http://www.rense.com/general27/3big.htm

1 – Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq — the threat of its “weapons of mass destruction”.

Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq’s arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.”

As for Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear threat,” the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance.

Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that “the weapons inspectors are allowed back”. Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

2 – Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11.

There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, [2002] a New York Times investigation concluded:

“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.”

3 – Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, “is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq.” (British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain).

The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.

I AM JUST WONDERING WHY THERE IS NO UN INSPECTORS IN THE UNITED SNAKES OF SHITE AND TERRORISM OR IN NAZI TERRORIST ISRAEL ??????????????????

http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/graphics1/AmericaNaziFlag.gif

There are weapons inspectors in the United States. They are from Canada. So *please*, like I've said before repeatedly, if you want to lie and present it as facts, try to do it convincingly. All you're managed to do is make yourself look like an idiot.

Nightpoet
No, I think it would have been better if Britain and the US would have let the UN do its job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It had 12 years & failed,how many more years do you think it should have??
The UN gave Iraq 14 ultimatums including 1441 how many more ultimatums do you think they should have given them??
:rolleyes:

Jerrek-I never said Iraq had the right to violate the UN charter either. No-one does, but it happens.

odin-would you disarm if you knew that a country was going to invade you no matter what you did?

odin-would you disarm if you knew that a country was going to invade you no matter what you did?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate,I don't usually stoop to this,but thats CRAP where do you get this cheap CRAP from??

& how about you answer my questions.

Hey, I'm just sayin...

To answer your questions, I don't really think there was much that Iraq could do but comply with the UN. So a year or two more maybe. I dunno, my fortune-telling skills aren't quite up to par.

So a year or two more maybe.
---------------------------------------------------------
thats what they said 12 years ago.

Didnt we send food and aid to Iraq and they just sold it for more weapons?

Originally posted by Jerrek
There are weapons inspectors in the United States. They are from Canada. So *please*, like I've said before repeatedly, if you want to lie and present it as facts, try to do it convincingly. All you're managed to do is make yourself look like an idiot.

What are you are playing? Who do you like to lie? It seems to me that americans think they are so bright that every wording/legal games are too complicated for others and therefore they (americans) can proof everything what they need for their business to . I quoted your post for an example: Yes there are some persons from Canada who want to control some places in US aimed the presentation of US skills in WMD, but are they "Inspectors" in common meanning? - No why?
Did they appointed by international organization, which is able to appoint them? - No
Did their "Mission" approved by US govrnment? - NO
Did they got any confidential US gov documents about WMD? - NO
Did they got any entrance to the places they wishes to visit? - NO
Are they Inspectors? - NO. Who they are? - They are tourists.

What I wrote above is perfectly known everywhere, so Mr. Jerrek it obvious that the only liar in this discussion is you. To be honest I'm sick when I see similar wording game made by governments to clear-up their dirty politics at their nations. But Jerrek please tell me: do you apply the same aproach to true and lie with your family and friends or this is approach anly for this forum needs?

Regards
Chris

Originally posted by Jerrek
There are weapons inspectors in the United States. They are from Canada. So *please*, like I've said before repeatedly, if you want to lie and present it as facts, try to do it convincingly. All you're managed to do is make yourself look like an idiot.

Your lies and absurdity indicates COMMON SHEER AMERICAN IDIOCY.

http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/graphics1/AmericaNaziFlag.gif

Originally posted by Chris63
Yes there are some persons from Canada who want to control some places in US aimed the presentation of US skills in WMD,Good. You at least recognize that part.

but are they "Inspectors" in common meanning? - No why?
Did they appointed by international organization, which is able to appoint them? - No
I fail to see why an international organization needs to appoint them. I really do.

Did their "Mission" approved by US govrnment? - NO So you can only be a weapons inspector if your mission is approved by the U.S. government?

Did they got any confidential US gov documents about WMD? - NO
Damn, are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? If everyone can see a confidential document then it isn't confidential anymore is it? I'm sure they saw some documents.


Did they got any entrance to the places they wishes to visit? - NO Hmm, citation please.


Are they Inspectors? - NO. Who they are? - They are tourists. You mean tourists like Blix?

What I wrote above is perfectly known everywhere, Really? Then you wouldn't mind giving citations for all of these obvious facts right?

do you apply the same aproach to true and lie with your family and friends or this is approach anly for this forum needs?

Regards
Chris Well that is one way to support your case... :rolleyes:

Your lies and absurdity indicates COMMON SHEER AMERICAN IDIOCY. Do you want a cookie?