The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
[…]
[Edited out of copyright concerns. Quit posting entire copyrighted articles; post links or brief excerpts only, or you will be banned. --Gaudere]
I cannot help but notice that, almost without exception, EVERY politician, newspaper columnist, journalist, talking head, Doper, and just about anyone else who assured one and all that Iraq definitely had a whole mess of WMDs has just stopped talking about it, and is now pretending the war was originally justified as being about “liberation.”
Innsanah, hun, I actually defended you in your other misguided thread. I dunno. I hoped that with some tolerance, you could both share your [obviously unique] perspective and learn that life isn’t as black and white as you see it. But you can’t even follow the freaking rules after they were explained to you multiple time, nor can you state your position in your own words. Gerroff, already.
Some of us have been saying that we should go in and take out Saddam for years. Your small-minded overgeneralization of the issue is no more accurate than pro-war types saying that those against the war are traitors.
insanah - your position is very valid, and there are many here who would sympathise or agree with part or all of it, however you are doing yourself no favours by breaking the rules.
I recommend you email a mod or admin and have them edit your post. It’s not permitted to post entire articles here because of copyright regulations. You are allowed to quote part of it (eg three paragraphs) and provide a link to the rest.
There are very few posters in this part of the world, and it would be a shame to lose you. But please try to abide by the rules. If your english isn’t very strong don’t worry, because people here will be sympathetic to someone with english as a second language. But it’s better to hear more of your voice and opinion, than just quoted articles by someone else.
IT’S PERMITTED IN OUR COUNTRY TO POST ARTICALS EVEN ITS NOT MINE …IF I SUPPLY THE SOURCE … AS I DID AT THE TOP…
Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies
Intelligence agencies accuse Bush and Blair of
distorting and fabricating evidence in rush to war
By
Raymond Whitaker
27 April 2003 http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=400805
Inssanah, dear, some of us have tried to hold a conversation with you—you know, you ask a question or make a statement; we reply; you respond to that reply . . . But you don’t seem to want to do that. All you want to do is scream at us and not actually communicate. So, yes, after a short time people will tune you out and not take you seriously.
OK, another question for you, if you are still reading this: you’re obviously anti-war, anti-violence. Did you also protest Saddam Hussein’s massacres of his own people? Or the killings of Israeli civilians by Palestinians? Why or why not?
ONE more 1984 reference, just one more, and I flip. They stopped being witty about 22 years ago, and now serve no purpose, other than to grate on my soul.
How does it feel to be condemning the US Government while your own government refuses to let women drive, women to walk without males and other basic things due to the insanity of the Wahabbi sect of Islam.
That’s just dandy. But as you may have noticed, this message board ain’t your country. Apparently you’ve been told this at least once before.
Your country may also encourage you to urinate on your host’s shoes as a sign of fellowship, but don’t exercise your bladder when you visit me unless you know ahead of time I want you to pee on my feet.
