President Trump 'to pull thousands of troops' from Afghanistan

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,033
Australia
Even as late as 2010, under oath to the House of Commons, Tony Blair was asked:

"Had you reached the point where you regarded … removing Saddam's regime … as a valid objective for the government's policy?”

Tony Blair responded: "The absolutely key issue was the WMD issue”.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,970
here
Even as late as 2010, under oath to the House of Commons, Tony Blair was asked:

"Had you reached the point where you regarded … removing Saddam's regime … as a valid objective for the government's policy?”

Tony Blair responded: "The absolutely key issue was the WMD issue”.
So what? That doesn't change anything that I've been saying. That's a SINGLE sentence from ONE guy. That's not definitive.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,033
Australia
We know that the real reason for the invasion was regime change, but we were were told in England and Australia that regime change was NOT an objective. It couldn't be. Blair said at the time that it would be illegal to invade Iraq on the premise of regime change without a UN mandate. His solution was to pretend that Iraq had WMDs so he could invade under a UN mandate that was still in place after the first Gulf War. If Blair didn't accuse Iraq of having WMDs then the invasion was illegal and the instigators could be accused of committing war crimes.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,884
Portugal
Here's a speech from BEFORE:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Full text: Bush's speech

It's clear that regime change was at least one of the reasons (made prior to the invasion) for the invasion.

Tulius, I've already posted a link showing that there were WMDs. Now support your claim that there weren't.
Here is the 7 October 2002, Cincinnati speech: George W. Bush: Address in Cincinnati on the Case for War on Iraq, even if there were huge rumour before, I think it was the first time that Bush talked about it in public. This was probably the kick out speech to prepare the USA public opinion and the international public opinion. As you can notice, the narrative focus is different.

About the events in 2015 related with CIA… I recall to read about them in the media. You notice that there is a 12 year gap… and that the CIA is a secret agency. I mean even recently the Portuguese Military Judiciary Police, that is not the CIA, recovered war material stolen from the military stores. That it blow up… the civil Judiciary Police discovered that it was all staged. Now the Military Judiciary Police officers are facing judicial consequences. In short, in this case, it was the CIA pushing the casus belli in 2003, and that doesn’t make it a reliable source in 2015, to tell the true sequence of the events. That they had weapons, everybody new, they had been used with Iran and agains the Kurds. Thus the UN inspections after the first war. Anyway, from your own source: “These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion”.

Recall the speech:

“It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” – No it didn’t produced in 2002. No it wasn’t seeking nuclear weapons in 2002.

See: UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Note that I am not saying that the dictator was an Angel. Dictators aren't Angels. What I am saying, as many said at the time in the international community was that for “unclear” reasons the Bush administration pushed the USA and the world to that war. And today we still live with the consequences of that invasion. Is the world safer today after the removal of an already weakened dictator? Had the USA in 2003 decided to invade North Korea (that was already a world threat) and I would personally buy a T-Shirt with the USA flag.
 
May 2017
1,201
Syria
Gee, is that what passes for wit amongst Assad cronies?
Maybe? I wouldn't know - "Assad crony" is a rather new identifier for me. It's usually something more bizarre like "propagandist" or "Russian agent". Blah.
I guess it's probably smart not to try to get clever or the secret police might knock on your door late one night :rolleyes:
It tells us a lot about how serious you are in discussions when you're immediately establishing that someone's opinion is not built on belief nor is a based stance but rather a fear that they'll end up in prison. Find another tactic.
“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions,” Mattis said. "
Yes, he's looking for evidence of it - where is it? And why didn't the US wait for said "evidence" but acted upon it immediately, attacking Syria backed with no evidence? Let the fact that the US took the words of the extremist Islamist militias present in Douma that a chemical attack happened (in a city the militant groups decided to evacuate from literally one week after the day of the so-called chemical attack) sink in.

And I'm still waiting for a logical and convincing reasoning of why a government would use chemical weapons, worsening their reputation in the international community and giving major countries a reason to attack, but clearly you're not going to provide that without an unconvincing and predictably caricatured demonization of president Assad.
Denial and deceit. Yeah, that sounds like your hero alright.
The US is one to talk.
Oh, you mean a Russian puppet deeply indebted to Iran and Hezbollah for propping you up? Yeah, that sounds real likely.
Yes, how terrible is it that he's allied to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, who number among the west's favorite boogeymen. That's his biggest 'crime' clearly.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
48
Chicago
Maybe? I wouldn't know - "Assad crony" is a rather new identifier for me. It's usually something more bizarre like "propagandist" or "Russian agent". Blah.

It tells us a lot about how serious you are in discussions when you're immediately establishing that someone's opinion is not built on belief nor is a based stance but rather a fear that they'll end up in prison. Find another tactic.

Yes, he's looking for evidence of it - where is it? And why didn't the US wait for said "evidence" but acted upon it immediately, attacking Syria backed with no evidence? Let the fact that the US took the words of the extremist Islamist militias present in Douma that a chemical attack happened (in a city the militant groups decided to evacuate from literally one week after the day of the so-called chemical attack) sink in.

And I'm still waiting for a logical and convincing reasoning of why a government would use chemical weapons, worsening their reputation in the international community and giving major countries a reason to attack, but clearly you're not going to provide that without an unconvincing and predictably caricatured demonization of president Assad.

The US is one to talk.

Yes, how terrible is it that he's allied to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, who number among the west's favorite boogeymen. That's his biggest 'crime' clearly.
Yep, I just bet you find it “blah” to be called out on your crap.

Pointing out the fact that your leader has a habit of tossing anyone who doesn’t mindlessly support him into jail—- or outright murdering them—- is a rather important factor to consider when dealing with sniveling apologists for mass murderers...... like Assad.

Yes, I know you are upset your hero had to face repercussions for gassing his own people. Considering that the US hasn’t invaded and tossed Assad out of power......you lot are quite lucky.

And by the way, nobody’s buying your fairy tales, so I suggest you stop peddling the latest excuses Assad dreamed up to try and excuse his attacks.

Gee, again, it’s almost like Assad, a brutal tyrant, prioritized slaughtering people who opposed him......as usual.

And considering the fact that he danced over the line in the sand before likely thought he could get away with it again.

Oh really? Please provide your source of the US ever launching massive bombing raids on its own people or using chemical weapons on them. I’ll wait.

And yes, actively aiding and abetting vicious terrorists and brutal tyrants does say a lot about your hero.
 
Oct 2015
192
Singapore
Yep, I just bet you find it “blah” to be called out on your crap.

Oh really? Please provide your source of the US ever launching massive bombing raids on its own people or using chemical weapons on them. I’ll wait.

And yes, actively aiding and abetting vicious terrorists and brutal tyrants does say a lot about your hero.
Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia