NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=508178

Blair told US was targeting Saddam 'just days after 9/11'

George Bush asked for Tony Blair's backing to remove Saddam Hussein from power just nine days after the 11 September attacks, over a private dinner at the White House, a US magazine reported last night.

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, was at the dinner table as Mr Blair replied that he would rather concentrate on ousting the Taliban and restoring peace in Afghanistan.

In a 25,000-word article in this month's American edition of Vanity Fair, Sir Christopher recounts Mr Bush as responding: "I agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." Mr Blair, Sir Christopher writes, "said nothing to demur" at the prospect.

Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11 September.

Sir Christopher's article comes as the new head of British and American arms inspectors in Iraq is under fire for refusing to acknowledge that the programme has all but ground to a halt.

After his first progress report to the US Congress last week, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), was accused of stalling until the presidential election in November is out of the way.

"One ISG member told me that, since last year, the inspectors have been kept in Iraq to save political face rather than to find weapons," said Dr Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge University expert on the WMD issue.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush have all but admitted that the WMD claims which were used to justify war in Iraq were exaggerated or wrong, and have launched inquiries to determine whether there were failures by their intelligence services. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted last week that the "most dramatic" claim in his speech to the UN Security Council weeks before the war * that Iraq had mobile biological laboratories * appeared to have been based on faulty information.

One of the main reasons the US and Britain have been forced to climb down was the stark announcement by Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who quit in December, that there were no illicit weapons to be found. But in his little-noticed progress report, Mr Duelfer ignored the views of Mr Kay, stating that "the ISG continues to look for weapons of mass destruction". He stressed that the WMD search was difficult and time-consuming.

"We regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about concealed caches [of weapons]," Mr Duelfer insisted.

Dr Rangwala, who has visited Iraq to study the ISG's work, called the report misleading. "Shortly before he quit, Mr Kay cut back site visits," he said. "The inspectors have virtually given up looking for WMD."

WTF is wrong with Dubya? He is obsessed with Iraq and Saddam for two reasons: Oil & his Daddy who was almost assassinated (i.e. payback).

Instead of going after al-Qaida, the ones that actually did the attacks, he wanted to go after Saddam who hated al-Qaida and al-Qaida who hated him. Now, they gave al-Qaida two good things: the removal of a secularist and another place in which to kill Americans.

He has done a spectacular job at getting the "terrorists"!

And not only that, then we have the WMD claims which are now turning out to be false, even Powell has admitted it today.

Would this surprise anyone?

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

Would this surprise anyone?

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

I don't think so.

Us smart people (read: mostly leftist) know the truth already.

The stupid people (read: mostly the right) know the truth but don't care and are happy to see that thousands have died, tens of thousands have lost legs, arms, etc. and are happy to kill and maim more for oil.

Bush did a good job of convincing his people that Saddam was best buddies with Osama, and therefore he still gets support even when his excuses for going to war proove unfounded.

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Yes. He is an idiot.

Kidding about this stuff where people are dying every day for no reason. What an idiot.

"Compassionate Conservative" yeah right.

well ya know what..who cares!,Saddam is gone..Iraq is free,Afghanistan is free,OPEC is nervous,Osama's in hiding,Al Queda is in Ruins,Libya is cooperating,the world is safer..so who really cares? 8)

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Yes. He is an idiot.

Kidding about this stuff where people are dying every day for no reason. What an idiot.

"Compassionate Conservative" yeah right.I know, it's liek he just doesn't get it. This is one time I wish Al Gore was President.

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Yes. He is an idiot.

Kidding about this stuff where people are dying every day for no reason. What an idiot.

"Compassionate Conservative" yeah right.
AT LEAST THE OIL....errmm...IRAQ HAS BEEN LIBERATED YOU LIBERAL, ATHEIST, TREE HUGGING, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST. SURE AMERICA HELPED SADDAM TO POWER!!!! BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT!!! CAUSE THIS TIME HE WASN'T SERVING US INTERESTS!!!!!!

well ya know what..who cares!,Saddam is gone..Iraq is free,Afghanistan is free,OPEC is nervous,Osama's in hiding,Al Queda is in Ruins,Libya is cooperating,the world is safer..so who really cares? 8)Al Queda isn't in ruins, it's just pissed off. If it was in ruins it couldn't have pulled off the Bali Bombins or attack in Spain.

well ya know what..who cares!,Saddam is gone..Iraq is free,Afghanistan is free,OPEC is nervous,Osama's in hiding,Al Queda is in Ruins,Libya is cooperating,the world is safer..so who really cares? 8)

Uh, lets see.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

2. Iraq is not free. Now its under occupation by the US who imposes censorship and brutual policies on those that want to be free of occupation.

3. Afghanistan is not "free". The Taliban and al-Qaida roam the countryside and have control over places in Zabul province and the Pashtun south.

4. Osama isn't 'hiding'. This is the way he always lived.

5. al-Qaida isn't in ruins. al-Qaida is more powerful than ever. He is now the most popular person in the Muslim world.

6. Libya was cooperating for a long time before. It had nothing to do with al-Qaida or Saddam.

7. Prove to me how the world is "safer".

Instead of invading Iraq, you should be spending the $87 billion and the billions of money spent on troops and bombs and the such in getting al-Qaida and rebuilding AFGHANISTAN, a really improverished and repressed nation not Iraq.

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Yes. He is an idiot.

Kidding about this stuff where people are dying every day for no reason. What an idiot.

"Compassionate Conservative" yeah right.
AT LEAST THE OIL....errmm...IRAQ HAS BEEN LIBERATED YOU LIBERAL, ATHEIST, TREE HUGGING, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST. SURE AMERICA HELPED SADDAM TO POWER!!!! BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT!!! CAUSE THIS TIME HE WASN'T SERVING US INTERESTS!!!!!!

Liberated? I do not consider US occupation, censorship, and murder "liberation".

Yes, I'm a Communist, atheist, semi-tree hugger.

7. Prove to me how the world is "safer".


GEORGE DOUBLEYOU IS IN CHARGE NOW!!! HOW CAN THE WORLD NOT BE SAFER????
HE WOULD DECLARE WAR ON ANYONE WHO HIDES OIL FROM AMERICA!!! CHEAP FUEL IS STILL GARANTEED!!!

7. Prove to me how the world is "safer".


GEORGE DOUBLEYOU IS IN CHARGE NOW!!! HOW CAN THE WORLD NOT BE SAFER????
HE WOULD DECLARE WAR ON ANYONE WHO HIDES OIL FROM AMERICA!!! CHEAP FUEL IS STILL GARANTEED!!!

For a moment I thought you were serious. :lol:

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Did anyone see GW joking about there being no weaposn on TV the other day?

Yes. He is an idiot.

Kidding about this stuff where people are dying every day for no reason. What an idiot.

"Compassionate Conservative" yeah right.
AT LEAST THE OIL....errmm...IRAQ HAS BEEN LIBERATED YOU LIBERAL, ATHEIST, TREE HUGGING, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST. SURE AMERICA HELPED SADDAM TO POWER!!!! BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT!!! CAUSE THIS TIME HE WASN'T SERVING US INTERESTS!!!!!!

Liberated? I do not consider US occupation, censorship, and murder "liberation".

Yes, I'm a Communist, atheist, semi-tree hugger.
YES!!! LIBERATED!!!! THE US COULDN'T GET OIL...uh...DEMOCRAZY THIS CHEAP FROM.......QUIKLY TO THE IRAQI'S WITH EVIL SADDAM STILL IN CHARGE!!!!!!!

7. Prove to me how the world is "safer".


GEORGE DOUBLEYOU IS IN CHARGE NOW!!! HOW CAN THE WORLD NOT BE SAFER????
HE WOULD DECLARE WAR ON ANYONE WHO HIDES OIL FROM AMERICA!!! CHEAP FUEL IS STILL GARANTEED!!!

For a moment I thought you were serious. :lol:
I just got back from an evening of drinking and whoring. Well, mostly drinking. :wink:

well ya know what..who cares!,Saddam is gone..Iraq is free,Afghanistan is free,OPEC is nervous,Osama's in hiding,Al Queda is in Ruins,Libya is cooperating,the world is safer..so who really cares? 8)

Uh, lets see.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

2. Iraq is not free. Now its under occupation by the US who imposes censorship and brutual policies on those that want to be free of occupation.

3. Afghanistan is not "free". The Taliban and al-Qaida roam the countryside and have control over places in Zabul province and the Pashtun south.

4. Osama isn't 'hiding'. This is the way he always lived.

5. al-Qaida isn't in ruins. al-Qaida is more powerful than ever. He is now the most popular person in the Muslim world.

6. Libya was cooperating for a long time before. It had nothing to do with al-Qaida or Saddam.

7. Prove to me how the world is "safer".

Instead of invading Iraq, you should be spending the $87 billion and the billions of money spent on troops and bombs and the such in getting al-Qaida and rebuilding AFGHANISTAN, a really improverished and repressed nation not Iraq.

well...
1)are you high?.."nothing was wrong with saddam",even if it turns out he didn't have WMD (which he himself claimed to have),the guy was a brutal an sadistic mass murderer

2)Iraq just installed their goverment an soon the US will be leaving,we censor little an if by arresting terrorists ok then we are just the meanest MOFO's in the valley,Iraq citizens are freer than they have been in over 30 years

3)they control nothing but a bunch of caves an maybe a sheep or 2,they don't roam the countryside they are being hunted day an night 24/7 like the dogs they are!

4)Osama used to send messages to his adoring public (people like you) to play on the Terrorist network (al jezzar (sp?)),he hasn't been heard from in a long time an even for a coward like him thats unusual..he is dead or dying is the accepted reason

5)he is not popular,even muslims fear him.His group would kill fellow muslims for no reason as quick as he would americans,he brings pain an suffering to those who support him..oh yaeh i want that joke associated with me loads

6)Just recently Libya was removed from the US hit list

7)Terrorists are in hiding afraid to be found..as long as they are hiding they aren't bombing innocent victims now are they

well ya know what..who cares!,Saddam is gone..
Saddam may be gone which is a good thing on one hand and bad on the other. The bad of course that the US bombed Iraq and its' citizens illegally.
Iraq is free,
And hates America more than ever.

Afghanistan is free,
Latest reports is that the insurgents are rising up in areas outside of the capital (Kabul).
Osama's in hiding,Al Queda is in Ruins,
Perhaps Bin Laden would have been captured by now, if the US put the $86 Billion into those efforts instead of an illegal invasion of Iraq?

Libya is cooperating
As a result of a court order to settle the Lockerbie incident.

the world is safer..so who really cares? 8)
Perhaps you should read the news more often. Terrorism is on the INCREASE again.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

Japan is 100% different than Iraq.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.

well then i guess iraq will have a ruling council so all 3 can rule

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.

You DO realize that there is something wrong with him killing thousands upon thousands of people. Right?

Or ...should we ship you to go live with the people he used to rule?

well then i guess iraq will have a ruling council so all 3 can rule

Yeah, like that's going to work. :roll:

If the Sunni and Shi'ites agree on something that may be in their best interests but not in the Kurdish interests. You think that that the Kurds are just going to go along? They always rise up when they don't like something.

Besides, such a council will be really powerless and will fall anyway. It's not like the people will accept any government that the US creates. They will overthrow it and make their own.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

Japan is 100% different than Iraq.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.
Just drop a couple of nukes on Basra and Bagdad. The next day they will be begging for democrazy like the Japanese did. Theres your logic.

well then i guess iraq will have a ruling council so all 3 can rule

Yeah, like that's going to work. :roll:

If the Sunni and Shi'ites agree on something that may be in their best interests but not in the Kurdish interests. You think that that the Kurds are just going to go along? They always rise up when they don't like something.

Besides, such a council will be really powerless and will fall anyway. It's not like the people will accept any government that the US creates. They will overthrow it and make their own.

hey a ruling council was just an idea to keep Iraq together..i have long thought it would be better for all concerned if the Kurds an Shittes had their own countries..unfortunatly Turkey would have a heart attack if the kurds became independant

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

Japan is 100% different than Iraq.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.
Just drop a couple of nukes on Basra and Bagdad. The next day they will be begging for democrazy like the Japanese did. Theres your logic.

Nukes are used only by criminal and rogue nations. :)

well just goes to show that even the all powerfull US and GB are just a bunch of blithering idiots too... basicly D. Kay gave up and his succsesor is scared of losing his job so he continues to search, But in reality when Bush is defeated in November, he will lose his job anyway so he might as well just come clean and admit the truth like a decent human being.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

Japan is 100% different than Iraq.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.

Ah I see, so the more proper comparison might be made to India. Worlds largest democracy, tons of ethnic groups and religions, no problems it seems to me.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.

Well, considering that it's either rule like Saddam or be overthrown/kicked out, there's nothing wrong with his way of ruling. Democracy cannot be put into Iraq, especially not by a rifle butt.
Thats what they said about the Japanese after World War Two as well.

Japan is 100% different than Iraq.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.

Ah I see, so the more proper comparison might be made to India. Worlds largest democracy, tons of ethnic groups and religions, no problems it seems to me.

Uh, well. Let's see..

Pakistan broke away. So did nations to the eastern and northern side of the country.

The people of Kashmir have attack the Indians that control them because they want to be seperated from the Indian government...

Bad example. :P

Ah I see, so the more proper comparison might be made to India. Worlds largest democracy, tons of ethnic groups and religions, no problems it seems to me.
Aside from social, ethnic and religouse tensions it's all just peachy.

Uh, well. Let's see..

Pakistan broke away. So did nations to the eastern and northern side of the country.
Wrong. Britain patritioned them that way.

The people of Kashmir have attack the Indians that control them because they want to be seperated from the Indian government...
Wrong again, Pakistani terrorists are the ones by in large commiting the attacks.

Aside from social, ethnic and religouse tensions it's all just peachy.
Indeed there are tensions, yet democracy is still there. So, seems OK to me.

well just goes to show that even the all powerfull US and GB are just a bunch of blithering idiots too... basicly D. Kay gave up and his succsesor is scared of losing his job so he continues to search, But in reality when Bush is defeated in November, he will lose his job anyway so he might as well just come clean and admit the truth like a decent human being.

Bush will be around for at least 4 1/2 yrs bud..get used to the idea :wink:

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.
How about this solution?:

The UN would have to look at the possibilty of redifining the boundaries of Iraq. The interests of Kurds are now best served by their support of secular Shiite or even Sunni leaders who will respect Kurdish autonomy within a federal Iraq.

Perhaps there will have to be division between the Shiites and the Sunnis, much like there is in Cyprus. Proceeds from the oil profits could be shared jointly to build a healthy environment for the people.

I didn't write that

Aside from social, ethnic and religouse tensions it's all just peachy.
Indeed there are tensions, yet democracy is still there. So, seems OK to me.
I think, considering their population size, it's the cast system thats keeping them in place. Though from what I understand that is slowly disappearing too.

Iraq is so diverse a nation that it is impossible to implement "democracy" simply because they all want to control the nation. The Kurds will never ever accept a Sunni or Shi'ite President/leader. The Sunnis will never ever accept a Shi'ite or Kurd President/Leader. Etc. etc. It is simple logic.
How about this solution?:

The UN would have to look at the possibilty of redifining the boundaries of Iraq. The interests of Kurds are now best served by their support of secular Shiite or even Sunni leaders who will respect Kurdish autonomy within a federal Iraq.

Perhaps there will have to be division between the Shiites and the Sunnis, much like there is in Cyprus. Proceeds from the oil profits could be shared jointly to build a healthy environment for the people.

I think it's stupid to have any autonomous area within a country. The Kurds are apart of Iraq. Simple. They should behave within the country and perhaps they would actually be put into the government rather than be despised because of their tendenacy to take up arms and betray their country.

I think, considering their population size, it's the cast system thats keeping them in place. Though from what I understand that is slowly disappearing too.

The caste system was formally outlawed a long time ago, IIRC. At least government-wise.

I think, considering their population size, it's the cast system thats keeping them in place. Though from what I understand that is slowly disappearing too.

The caste system was formally outlawed a long time ago, IIRC. At least government-wise.
So what it was "Formally outlawed". Like that means anything. They also are "formally" required to go to school until they are at least 12.

Indeed but there's more things to safeguard the anti-caste laws. For example, they have big affirmative action plans for the former untouchables, they get automatically a large chunk of government jobs and representation set aside for them alone - more than their actual numbers should allow, IIRC.

Much of the anti-caste sentiment was created by Mohandas Gandhi, which is why its not all as common as it used to be.

Indeed but there's more things to safeguard the anti-caste laws. For example, they have big affirmative action plans for the former untouchables, they get automatically a large chunk of government jobs and representation set aside for them alone - more than their actual numbers should allow, IIRC.

Much of the anti-caste sentiment was created by Mohandas Gandhi, which is why its not all as common as it used to be.
And yet again. That doesn't mean sh*t. In the '60's theres was also a big 2 children are enough family planning campaign. And still some 40 years later they have almost 4 times as many people as back then. The traditional culture is still very much a part of everyday live there. And just because the government has other plans that doesn't mean thet will abandon all of that.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.Oh come on, there are worse leaders than Suddam. And he was no more a threat when Iraq was invaded then for the past decade.

It dosen't. There's still racists in the USA too, even though in the 60's there was a big campaign against it. That was very much a part of Southern culture, for over 300 years. Its not nearly as big a part of it now as it was back in 1950, though.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.Oh come on, there are worse leaders than Suddam. And he was no more a threat when Iraq was invaded then for the past decade.

Just because there are worse leaders dosen't mean that there's nothing wrong with him. If you think it does, you have perverse logic.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.Oh come on, there are worse leaders than Suddam. And he was no more a threat when Iraq was invaded then for the past decade.

Just because there are worse leaders dosen't mean that there's nothing wrong with him. If you think it does, you have perverse logic.No, however it does bring to reason why Iraq was choosen over the many more corrupt nations commiting worse offences that actually pose an international threat.

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.Oh come on, there are worse leaders than Suddam. And he was no more a threat when Iraq was invaded then for the past decade.

Just because there are worse leaders dosen't mean that there's nothing wrong with him. If you think it does, you have perverse logic.No, however it does bring to reason why Iraq was choosen over the many more corrupt nations commiting worse offences that actually pose an international threat.
If you are looking for a reason, that is easy: O I L

1. There was nothing majorily wrong with Saddam in the first place.

Please. Stop posting. Now.Oh come on, there are worse leaders than Suddam. And he was no more a threat when Iraq was invaded then for the past decade.

Just because there are worse leaders dosen't mean that there's nothing wrong with him. If you think it does, you have perverse logic.No, however it does bring to reason why Iraq was choosen over the many more corrupt nations commiting worse offences that actually pose an international threat.
If you are looking for a reason, that is easy: O I L I thought it was because Saddam tried to kill his father.