Shame On You America!

Rice and Powell Admitted Iraq Had No WMD in Feb. 2001!

Published on March 31, 2004 By mikimouse In Current Events

US personnel are being killed and gleefully dragged through the streets of Iraq's cities. These are civilians doing the dragging so one can't claim it's some enemy action or enemy induced. This is spontaneous reactions by Iraqi civilians who don't want the US in their country. No one ever claimed the Somalians actually welcomed the US. Why is the lie continuing about Iraq? The human cost is too much to continue like this.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/
These pawns responded to their country's call and receive nothing for their commitment and trust for their country. Some of them should never have been sent at all.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-042634-9733r
Rice and Powell admit Iraq was without WMD in Feb. 2001!
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
an excerpt: "
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
So there you have it. Will the 911 commission have the balls to ask about these statements they made in 2001 WHEN THEY WERE THE ONES IN THE KNOW AND IN CHARGE? Time will tell. I for one think it will be a very nice and smooth ride for Rice since the truth will set one free, and there's no room for freedom here anymore.

Comments (Page 3)

mikimouse

on Apr 02, 2004

On the contrary I look at the overall picture, going all the way back to the 80's and America's support for Hussein and his WMD program, all leased by the Americans. That's the whole picture. But while I respect your opinion I don't see why you can't relate the killing of the civilians to the civilians' fury against the Americans. I find that odd to believe.

psychx

on Apr 02, 2004

That's the whole picture. But while I respect your opinion I don't see why you can't relate the killing of the civilians to the civilians' fury against the Americans.

It is relative and it is unfortunate but if they want to look on the bright side they no longer have a sadistic leader who oppresses them and has tortured and killed many more of their families and people. They could embrace the Americans trying to better their way of life but they are being lead to believe that " the evil west" is trying to destroy them. You have to think of the environment Iraqis are in. What is overall better for them Saddam in power so he can keep filling mass graves or a democratic government influenced by the U.S. and for human rights. There is no going back now because if we withdrew troops and let them decide for themselves it will never happen maybe I am way too optimistic.

mikimouse

on Apr 02, 2004

"There is no going back now because if we withdrew troops and let them decide for themselves it will never happen"
Um so you mean it's going to happen no matter the cost? I take it you have no relatives in the services? The cost of your words would be paid for by them.

psychx

on Apr 02, 2004

No I mean unless there is a cost it won't happen. I don't like the fact that people are dying period but do you have relatives in the military that is actively involved with Iraq?

mikimouse

on Apr 02, 2004

Not at all. In fact I've never had anyone close to me in the military thank the lord. I don't know what I'd do if I had a real loved one over there. I'd be dragging him home or else he's in his room for an hour.

psychx

on Apr 02, 2004

Let me define exactly what it is I mean. Simply put I think the Iraqi people are much better off without Saddam, Bush might have gone in there under false pretenses (which Is not a point I want to make) but the outcome is still better than the alternative, that is at least for the Iraqi people, which is Saddam as a threat and oppressing his own people. Like I said ignorant people are easily swayed and that is why this whole thing happened. Do you know how many people Saddam has killed, look at those statistics as well and if you can honestly say that those lives that he took are meaningless then I will agree with you.

mikimouse

on Apr 02, 2004

of course they're not meaningless. But I don't like the death and destruction resulting from the lies no matter if Hussein is ousted. He's been there for over 30 years. Is is worth the thousands of dead?

psychx

on Apr 02, 2004

He has killed at least half a million people, he has had plenty of public executions including torturing thousands of people keeping them afraid and ignorant. Some statistics show Saddam killing 70 to 120 people a day while he was in power. He had to be taken down one way or another.

mikimouse

on Apr 03, 2004

true to a point psychx. You're thinking is reasonable IF you don't take into account America's support for him even though they knew even then that he was committing atrocities. That's what I mean. The US supported Hussein when they knew he was a bad guy. In fact the US even gave him the WMD they're so worried about now. So I think if the US was concerned for the Iraqi people they'd never have supported Hussein with the chemical he used to kill his own people. That's irresponsible on the US' part.

psychx

on Apr 03, 2004

You're thinking is reasonable IF you don't take into account America's support for him even though they knew even then that he was committing atrocities.

My thinking is reasonable even IF I do take America's support for him into account. Saddam out = less deaths. The U.S. clearly made a mistake with Iraq and Afghanistan but is correcting those same mistakes negative? Let me put it to you this way if it had been lets say Great Britain who ousted him on their own would your view be different. Your dislike for American action is blinding you. Don't worry it's relative to your culture i.e. not completely your fault. This is not good where we can't even use common sense because of people's differing ideals. On a personal note I prefer Saddam out that's me personally. I don't agree maybe with how it was done but either way it was for the better.

messybuu

on Apr 03, 2004

It's almost as bad as when the U.S. worked with the Soviet Union to stop Hitler. It would have been better if the U.S. waged war on the Soviet Union and Germany rather than focus on the biggest threat at hand.

mikimouse

on Apr 04, 2004

It's not a dislike for America. It's pointing out the fact that there was nothing to fear when the US GAVE Iraq their scary WMD, so there was nothing to fear now. They never had any WMD and they said so. The fact of the matter is that Iraq's denials ended up being 100% true. The reasons the US gave to invade Iraq ended up being 100% wrong. That's not good when an evil country like Iraq is telling the truth.

Solitair

on Apr 05, 2004

I totally agree that removal of Saddam was the right thing to do. Trying to fool the international community into believing it was about WMD was a mistake which has caused valuable support. The question is where to go now to stop US personel being killed.

Out isn't an option. Civil war would ensue. What may be an option is to finally realise that this should have been a peace keeping mission from the start and set it up as a UN mission. Thousands more troops are already promised from other countries for such a mission and in 1 single stroke it reduces the anti-US feeling (which is strong despite the people being better off) and increases troop presence and security. Troops from other muslim nations would in particular be welcome, and have been promised.

Paul.

mikimouse

on Apr 05, 2004

sounds too optimistic to me.

psychx

on Apr 05, 2004

Good point Solitair. The prestige of the U.S. is being challenged with this war. I agree that withdrawing now is definitely not an option not only for civil war but because it might embolden terrorists and insurgents.

You see mikimouse here is the thing, the Bush adminstration has a goal in mind. If they can implement a democratic government in Iraq that will give the muslim nations in the region the ability to see the benefits of democracy. If that happens they can keep the region somewhat stable and it would impact the whole region in a very positive way. You're right though it is optimistic.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!