= Finally: Americans Admit: We Are Lying =

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Proud_Syrian, May 5, 2003.

  1. US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'
    By Neil Mackay

    05/04/03: ( Sunday Herald) The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.
    Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be 'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq.
    According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq.

    Ironically, the claims came as US President George Bush yesterday repeatedly justified the war as necessary to remove Iraq's chemical and biological arms which posed a direct threat to America.

    Bush claimed: 'Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We will find them.'

    The comments from within the administration will add further weight to attacks on the Blair government by Labour backbenchers that there is no 'smoking gun' and that the war against Iraq -- which centred on claims that Saddam was a risk to Britain, America and the Middle East because of unconventional weapons -- was unjustified.

    The senior US official added that America never expected to find a huge arsenal, arguing that the administration was more concerned about the ability of Saddam's scientists -- which he labelled the 'nuclear mujahidin' -- to develop WMDs when the crisis passed.

    This represents a clearly dramatic shift in the definition of the Bush doctrine's central tenet -- the pre-emptive strike. Previously, according to Washington, a pre-emptive war could be waged against a hostile country with WMDs in order to protect American security.

    Now, however, according to the US official, pre-emptive action is justified against a nation which simply has the ability to develop unconventional weapons.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. airavata portentous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,352
    i came across something interesting. after this much of searching no WMD's have been found. and bush dosen't want to say 'we need more time', because that was exactly what the UN inspectors said. i just wonder what'll be bush's next move.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    An other interesting fact : they will not say "We won the war !" because, following the Geneva convention, if they do it, they will not be able to look for Saddam anymore. They would have to stop to pusue Iraqis and they would have to free their prisoners

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
  8. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
  9. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Because catching number 54 on a prioritised list of 55 is going to help much more than catching Aziz or higher-ranked cohorts...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Sparks: so then you are saying that the prioritization was accurately done, and was based exclusively on information obtainable on WMD's?
     
  11. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Isn’t the WMD issue irrelevant? It was a joke to begin with. If not found, even if Bush himself admits it was just for pretext, the US will keep a vice grip on Iraq until the wells are dry. The US administration would just make up something else to rationalize the oppression and most Americans would embrace it in a fleeting moment of interest before moving on to the next story.
     
  12. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Hmm...if anyone's still interested, we can check your prediction years from now and see if it was accurate or just hot air.
     
  13. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    OK. Interesting that most are so sure Iraq will be roses and honey even as Afghanistan is re-run by warlords obeisant to Bush.
     
  14. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Get your facts straight. It's Hamid Karzai who caters to Bush. The warlords are the ones they have the problem with. Besides, I don't think anyone thinks Iraq is going to be roses and honey...or easy in any way, shape or form.
     
  15. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    The facts are, warlords report to Karzai, who reports to Bush, who decides whether Afghanistan gets democracy. He chose brutal dictatorship with himself as dictator. Hmm, I wonder what he’ll choose for Iraq?
     
  16. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    alanH,
    Karzai was a warlord...
     
  17. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Sparks: so why would anyone think his former rivals would cooperate with him any more than they were forced to?
     
  18. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    That's not the point of the argument alanH, and you know it damn well. Stop being disingenous.
     
  19. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Sparks: then what is the point of the argument, and if you're so hot to stay on point, why would you point out that Karzai is a warlord?
     
  20. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Be nice if you read the posts before arguing alanH...
     
  21. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Sparks: I can read that now as I read it the first time and have no reason to assume it's Karzai we're talking about, particularly considering the use of the plural.
     
  22. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    The phrase you're looking for alanH, is "Karzai et al"
    Do a google news search for "afghanistan"
     
  23. alanH Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    523
    Hey, I'm not looking for any phrase...I'm just reading what's here.
     

Share This Page