What's new

Seriously, what?! Kerry tells Russia 'you don't invade a country on completely phony pretexts'

Sir,
The proponents of the invasion provided falsified intel on non-existent violations of existing UN resolution. That is disingenuous, especially when a blind eye was turned to very evident violations like chemical warfare. The same proponents were shaking saddam's hand at the time.
The opponents had clearly challenged the validity of the data provided by US, on which the entire premise was built on.
Prove it. Remember, a 'lie' cannot exists without a 'truth'. And here is a fact that I doubt any of you Indians in this discussion know: It was UN mandate that no UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection team leaders be Americans.

The inspection regime based their work on those UN resolutions. So if we 'lied' or 'falsified intel', whatever that mean, about those UN resolutions, then two Swedes and an Australian were 'in on it' as well.
 
.
Prove it. Remember, a 'lie' cannot exists without a 'truth'. And here is a fact that I doubt any of you Indians in this discussion know: It was UN mandate that no UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection team leaders be Americans.

The inspection regime based their work on those UN resolutions. So if we 'lied' or 'falsified intel', whatever that mean, about those UN resolutions, then two Swedes and an Australian were 'in on it' as well.
Premise was existence of WMD's wasn't it? I can't conjure linguistic histrionics as well as others.

Prove it. Remember, a 'lie' cannot exists without a 'truth'. And here is a fact that I doubt any of you Indians in this discussion know: It was UN mandate that no UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection team leaders be Americans.

The inspection regime based their work on those UN resolutions. So if we 'lied' or 'falsified intel', whatever that mean, about those UN resolutions, then two Swedes and an Australian were 'in on it' as well.

Also does, violation of UNSC resolution mandate unilateral invasions?? If such literature exist, please point me towards it.
 
Last edited:
.
Premise was existence of WMD's wasn't it? I can't conjure linguistic histrionics as well as others.
That was the presumption, and a credible one as later testified by...

The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: Mahdi Obeidi: 9780471741275: Amazon.com: Books

Mahdi Obeidi was not talking about functional weapons but a pair of centrifuges.

Also does, violation of UNSC resolution mandate unilateral invasions?? If such literature exist, please point me towards it.
You may not like the unilateral actions, but what is the point of a resolution, which is a promise of punishment, if there is not going to be the execution of said punishment?

Now...Where is the proof, or at least evidences, that the US 'lied' about WMDs in Iraq?
 
.
How can US accuse Russia of violating international law?

Dave Lindorff, Counterpunch

If you want to make moral or legal pronouncements, or to condemn bad behavior, you have to be a moral, law-abiding person yourself. It is laughable when we see someone like Rush Limbaugh criticizing drug addicts or a corrupt politician like former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) voting for more prisons, more cops, and tougher rules against appeals of sentences.

The same thing applies to nations.

And when it comes to hypocritical nations that make pious criticisms of other countries about the “rule of law” and the sanctity of “international law,” it’s hard to find a better laughing stock than the United States of America.

After invading Iraq illegally in 2003, with no sanction from the UN, and no imminent threat being posed by that country to either the US or to any of Iraq’s neighbors, after years of launching bombing raids, special forces assaults and drone-fired missile launches into countries like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, after illegally capturing and holding, without charge or trial, hundreds of people it accuses of being terrorists and illegal combatants, after torturing thousands of captives, the US now accuses Russia of violating international law by sending troops into Crimea to protect a Russian population threatened by a violently anti-Russian Ukrainian government just installed in a coup.

How many times has the US sent troops into neighboring countries based upon the claim that it had to protect American citizens during a time of turmoil? We have Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Haiti in 2003, for starters. Would the US hesitate for even a moment to send troops into Mexico if the Mexican government were overthrown in an anti-American coup, and if demonstrators who had led to that overthrow were attacking Americans? Of course not.

The Panama invasion, and the overthrow and arrest and removal to the US of Panama’s elected President Manuel Noriega, is particularly instructive, as it involved protecting a strategic US overseas base — the US Canal Zone — much as Russia is protecting its naval bases in Crimea, operated under a long-term lease from Ukraine but threatened by the recent Ukrainian coup. The US, headed at the time by President George H.W. Bush, invaded Panama under the pretext of protecting Americans in that country, but the attack (which had been planned well in advance of any threats to Americans) quickly morphed into an overthrow of the Panamanian government, the arrest of its leader, and the installation of a US puppet leader.

But the US mocking of international law goes far beyond that.

Washington is currently calling, for example, for Mexico to extradite to the US, on drug and murder charges, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the head of the Sinaloa drug cartel. But only weeks earlier, on January 23, Texas executed a Mexican citizen over the protests of the Mexican government, because his rights under international law to have had Mexican authorities notified at the time of his arrest, so that he could have been provided by Mexico with a well-funded attorney for his defense. Instead, Mexico was not notified, he got the usual over-worked, underpaid, and uninvolved public defender, lost his case, and was sentenced to death. International jurists and American legal scholars all called for his execution to be halted, but to no avail. This was not the first time the US has gone ahead with executions of foreign nationals who were not tried in accordance with international law. Such mockery of the rule of law is common in the US. Despite this outrage, the US acts piqued that Mexico is resisting handing over Guzman to US prosecutors, who will undoubtedly be seeking his execution.

Of course, we also had, last year, the outrageous case of the US pressuring European countries to bar their airspace to the official jet of the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, which was ultimately forced to land in Austria, where it was subjected, also under US pressure, to a complete search in a vain attempt to find National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. US government authorities thought Morales, who had just been on a state visit to Russia, might be flying Snowden back to Bolivia, where he had been offered political asylum.

Now this crude interference with the flight of a national head of state, not to mention the searching of his plane, was the height of illegality under international law. A presidential jet, or even limo, like a foreign embassy, is under international law considered to be part of a nation’s territory. Violating it is as much a violation of international law as would be the military invasion and occupation of a piece of a country’s territory. It is in fact an act of war. One need only imagine what would happen if Air Force One, carrying the president of the US, were diverted and forced to land by some foreign nation. Does anyone doubt that the US military would be put on full alert, and that a fleet of bombers and aircraft battle groups would be immediately dispatched to punish the offending nation?

What Russia has done, in sending troops into Crimea, is in fact a minor action in terms of international law compared to what the US has done just over the past two decades alone. It’s not as though Ukraine was a functioning nation, after all. Its elected government had just been violently overthrown, and its president hounded out of the country by demonstrations that had included the storming of the presidential palace, and the armed occupation of the parliament building. Under such circumstances, for Russia to have stood idly by while its own Russian nationals as well as ethnic Russians in Crimea, a majority Russian region that until 1954 was a part of Russia, just across the border, were threatened by what is essentially a mob-run government based in Kiev, would have been irresponsible. Moreover, the autonomous regional government in Crimea had actually apparently sought Russian protection from the central “government” in Ukraine.

Of course there’s also the matter of the US role — overt and covert — in helping to fund and organize the mobs who ousted the elected government of Ukraine. That too was a violation of international law. For years now, the US has, through its National Endowment for Democracy, US AID, and other government and quasi-government bodies, been funneling money to anti-government groups in Ukraine (as it did also in Egypt and Russia itself, and as it is doing now in Venezuela and other countries whose leaders it opposes). The leaked tape of the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing how to staff the new government of Ukraine after the anticipated collapse of the elected government shows how deeply the US was involved in the undermining of the government of Ukraine. Again, this interference in another country’s political system is a horrendous violation of international law.

Just as the same kind of interference and subversion of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro is in Venezuela, where the US decries government police actions against the street demonstrations by middle class citizens of that country, even as the US has been helping to finance those demonstrations. As I wrote earlier, there is also the hypocrisy of the US criticizing police actions against demonstrators by governments like Maduro’s, while here at home, the US has been increasingly behaving like a banana republic in crushing virtually all domestic dissent. Just look at the brutal federally-coordinated crushing, in cities across the US, of the 2011 Occupy Movement. And look, too, at the federal government’s largely successful efforts to destroy the very right to publicly protest — most recently featuring a Supreme Court ruling saying it is illegal for anti-drone-war activists to protest outside of Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, even on the side of public roads.

The US, at this point, after eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration and five years of the Obama administration, has forfeited any right to criticize any country over violations of international law, or even to criticize tyrannical regimes over their repression of their own citizens. The sad truth is that the US no longer has any moral or legal standing at all in the world. It stands these days fully exposed as a naked aggressor and trampler of international law globally and as a police state at home.

PressTV - How can US accuse Russia of violating international law?
 
. .
Well, if nothing else it benefitted China immensely. The American weapons development slowed and changed the development strategy to creating weapons that would suit a war such as a war with Iraq.

While we been focusing on development of our weapon systems on how to take on a powerful enemy.

So the US is more powerful, but isn't really prepared to face an enemy like China, but we been developing specifically with the US in mind.

Not saying the US wouldn't win in a conventional war, but the gap has narrowed considerably since the early 2000s which otherwise wouldn't have.

So good war over all, at least for us.

Good war for us? You are an inhumane asshole. A worthless piece of shit. I hope your China gets obliterated one day so that I can say it was a good war for me.
 
.
That was the presumption, and a credible one as later testified by...

The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: Mahdi Obeidi: 9780471741275: Amazon.com: Books

Mahdi Obeidi was not talking about functional weapons but a pair of centrifuges.


You may not like the unilateral actions, but what is the point of a resolution, which is a promise of punishment, if there is not going to be the execution of said punishment?

Now...Where is the proof, or at least evidences, that the US 'lied' about WMDs in Iraq?
What was recovered, nuclear warheads, chemical or biological delivery systems?

When we are on the topic of UN resolutions, let me bring your attention to another UN resolution, Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution
US's key ally obliterated the UN resolution in 65, 71 and 99? and US turned a blind eye!
 
.
The battle group arrived after Pakistani forces in the east surrendered so there was nothing to do except enjoy some Indian hospitality and discourage Indian misadventure in West. I think it worked and today India is flanked by two nuclear armed neighbors.
China was already a nuclear power, or on the verge of being one, and the events of the Indo-pak war had nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, if we hadn't cut your favorite ally into two back then, we would have been facing two nuclear Pakistans on either side today, with two conventional armies on either side of us ready to go to war at the drop of a pin. We managed to eliminate that flank forever (as a hostile entity). Today Pakistan's economic and military prowess is less than half of what it could have been, had we not cut it into two.

You chose to prop up the wrong side, when you supported the genocidal Pakistani regime. Both from an idealistic POV, as well as a selfish american POV. Today, Pakistan based forces are the biggest threat to American interests, including terrorist groups that live and train there to hit your forces in afghanistan and everywhere else. Nowhere does the star spangled banner get desecrated and burnt as much as in Pak. I wouldn't express smugness about saving West Pakistan, if I were you.
 
.
What was recovered, nuclear warheads, chemical or biological delivery systems?
You should drop that 'think tank' label because it is obviously not working.

The goal of the inspection regime was to ensure, or attempt to, ascertain the extent of Iraq's WMD programs. That is 'programs', not (yet) functional weapons.

Even to this day, the best way to see if a nuclear weapons program is successful is to perform a test detonation. That was how India and Pakistan did it with their respective clandestine nuclear weapons programs. So if the initials 'WMD' means only FUNCTIONAL devices, then what was the IAEA doing in Iraq in the first place since Iraq never test detonate? And if the initials 'WMD' means only functional devices, then the entire inspection regime was illegal from the start. It means that any country, even those who are signatory to the NPT and are not nuclear weapons states, can openly have a nuclear weapons program all the way up to assembly and test detonation stage and there would be nothing anyone can do about it. If so, then what is the point of the NPT in the first place?

Is this line of reasoning too tough to understand?

When we are on the topic of UN resolutions, let me bring your attention to another UN resolution, Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution
US's key ally obliterated the UN resolution in 65, 71 and 99? and US turned a blind eye!
Fine...Now where are the evidences that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq?
 
.
You should drop that 'think tank' label because it is obviously not working.

The goal of the inspection regime was to ensure, or attempt to, ascertain the extent of Iraq's WMD programs. That is 'programs', not (yet) functional weapons.

Even to this day, the best way to see if a nuclear weapons program is successful is to perform a test detonation. That was how India and Pakistan did it with their respective clandestine nuclear weapons programs. So if the initials 'WMD' means only FUNCTIONAL devices, then what was the IAEA doing in Iraq in the first place since Iraq never test detonate? And if the initials 'WMD' means only functional devices, then the entire inspection regime was illegal from the start. It means that any country, even those who are signatory to the NPT and are not nuclear weapons states, can openly have a nuclear weapons program all the way up to assembly and test detonation stage and there would be nothing anyone can do about it. If so, then what is the point of the NPT in the first place?

Is this line of reasoning too tough to understand?


Fine...Now where are the evidences that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq?

No need to get defensive, i am just asking questions.
Your claim was proponent of invasions backed by evidence from UN mandated investigation deemed Iraq in violation of UNSC resolutions?
Let me concede for the sake of argument that concrete evidence of WMD's exists with US.... thus you were right bout the wmd's, but does that mandate invasion of a country?
My question is why a different yardstick for Iraq? Even if it was in violation, who gave US the right to invade? Have there been other countries in violation of UNSC resolutions like pakistan and NoKo? why didn't such violations result in wrath of the US?
US 's argument was that iraq is in violation of UN sanctioned resolution then why not let UN decide the process .... If there was viable evidence that you ascertained in your posts, does no such evidence exist for north korea?

So going back to Ukraine, If russia sees it's citizens in grave threat, what stops it from taking actions to protect it's interests. Should they wait for Sevastopol to fall, should they wait for thier pearl harbor?

Fine...Now where are the evidences that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq?

Although I have no evidence that US lied on WMD's in iraq, my general perception has been built on what is available on the internet and news channels

few of them that i could find are as follows:

In February 2011, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted for the first time that he lied about his story regarding Iraq's secret biological weapons program. He also admitted to being shocked that his false story was used as a justification for the Iraq War but proud that the fabrications helped topple Saddam Hussein.
Jonathan Schwarz: Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said

MI6 and CIA heard Iraq had no active WMD capability ahead of invasion | World news | theguardian.com

'Curveball': I lied about WMD to hasten Iraq war - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs
 
Last edited:
.
No need to get defensive, i am just asking questions.
Ah...The 'just asking questions' (JAQ) style of debate. You are essentially JAQ-ing off.

Your claim was proponent of invasions backed by evidence from UN mandated investigation deemed Iraq in violation of UNSC resolutions?
Let me concede for the sake of argument that concrete evidence of WMD's exists with US.... thus you were right bout the wmd's, but does that mandate invasion of a country?
My question is why a different yardstick for Iraq? Even if it was in violation, who gave US the right to invade? Have there been other countries in violation of UNSC resolutions like pakistan and NoKo? why didn't such violations result in wrath of the US?
US 's argument was that iraq is in violation of UN sanctioned resolution then why not let UN decide the process .... If there was viable evidence that you ascertained in your posts, does no such evidence exist for north korea?
A 'different yardstick'? This implies a standard 'yardstick' easily applicable to all situations. We know that is not possible. Granted, there is a list of common decency that advises countries to adhere to in order to be good neighbors and to maintain at least regional peace, which leads to global peace. But there is no established 'yardstick' or responses that everyone can sort of 'in case of emergency break glass' kind of thing. Each country and situation must be evaluated on its own.

There is no 'right' to invasion, only necessity and as a measure of last resort, which the US did complied because we supported over a decade of an intrusive inspection regime. Am sure you did not know that Saddam Hussein attempted murders of inspectors during that time.

I never asked for any concession from anyone about functional weapons in Iraq. I only asked that they support the charge that we 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. Remember, the lie must exist in parallel with the truth. Else, it would not be a lie but only an error from assumption, or incompetence, or even ignorance. So if the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq, then so did the entire UN.

For example...

UNMOVIC - [ College of Commissioners ]

UNMOVIC was assisted by a 'College of Commissioners' whose members were chosen for their expertise. They compiled advisements and reports for the Security Council and the SecGen, not directly to the US. Note that there is only one American on the UNMOVIC panel. Yes, the panel members may vote and surely there were dissenting votes given the usual lack of concrete evidences from Iraq thanks to Saddam Hussein's intransigence. But as a body, if the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq, so did this body, which leads to the UN SecGen himself. UNMOVIC and UNSCOM advisors were disbanded. There are no established rules for other countries when they violated any UN resolutions. So just like how UNMOVIC and UNSCOM advisors were created and disbanded by necessities, so will any UN responses that accompanied UN resolutions. There is no common yardstick.

If NKR acts the way Iraq did, then the US will response unilaterally if necessary. Same for Pakistan or India or Iran. For Iran, the mullahs intends to wage a religious war and finish Hitler's work on the Jews of the ME, so if Iran goes beyond terrorism, which Israelis can handle as they have for decades, the US will response unilaterally if necessary to protect Israel.

So going back to Ukraine, If russia sees it's citizens in grave threat, what stops it from taking actions to protect it's interests. Should they wait for Sevastopol to fall, should they wait for thier pearl harbor?
The WMD argument is stronger for Iraq than what Putin cooked up for Russia. But if Putin insists that the threat to Russians in Ukraine is 'legitimate', then Putin can act unilaterally because he feels that is necessary.

Although I have no evidence that US lied on WMD's in iraq, my general perception has been built on what is available on the internet and news channels

few of them that i could find are as follows:

In February 2011, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted for the first time that he lied about his story regarding Iraq's secret biological weapons program. He also admitted to being shocked that his false story was used as a justification for the Iraq War but proud that the fabrications helped topple Saddam Hussein.
Jonathan Schwarz: Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said

MI6 and CIA heard Iraq had no active WMD capability ahead of invasion | World news | theguardian.com

'Curveball': I lied about WMD to hasten Iraq war - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs
You do not believe that the 'whitehouser' link is the official White House link, do you? :lol:

Looky here...It is clear that you are desperate when you found out facts about the WMD issue in Iraq is not to your liking, as in the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. So you trolled the Internet for news that came AFTER the invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Again...Why did the US not cooked up technical evidences of WMD that will have Iraqi signatures all over it? After all, Mahdi Obeidi was in the US, we could have hold his family hostage and forced him to contribute to those 'evidences'.
 
.
Ah...The 'just asking questions' (JAQ) style of debate. You are essentially JAQ-ing off.


A 'different yardstick'? This implies a standard 'yardstick' easily applicable to all situations. We know that is not possible. Granted, there is a list of common decency that advises countries to adhere to in order to be good neighbors and to maintain at least regional peace, which leads to global peace. But there is no established 'yardstick' or responses that everyone can sort of 'in case of emergency break glass' kind of thing. Each country and situation must be evaluated on its own.

There is no 'right' to invasion, only necessity and as a measure of last resort, which the US did complied because we supported over a decade of an intrusive inspection regime. Am sure you did not know that Saddam Hussein attempted murders of inspectors during that time.

I never asked for any concession from anyone about functional weapons in Iraq. I only asked that they support the charge that we 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. Remember, the lie must exist in parallel with the truth. Else, it would not be a lie but only an error from assumption, or incompetence, or even ignorance. So if the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq, then so did the entire UN.

For example...

UNMOVIC - [ College of Commissioners ]

UNMOVIC was assisted by a 'College of Commissioners' whose members were chosen for their expertise. They compiled advisements and reports for the Security Council and the SecGen, not directly to the US. Note that there is only one American on the UNMOVIC panel. Yes, the panel members may vote and surely there were dissenting votes given the usual lack of concrete evidences from Iraq thanks to Saddam Hussein's intransigence. But as a body, if the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq, so did this body, which leads to the UN SecGen himself. UNMOVIC and UNSCOM advisors were disbanded. There are no established rules for other countries when they violated any UN resolutions. So just like how UNMOVIC and UNSCOM advisors were created and disbanded by necessities, so will any UN responses that accompanied UN resolutions. There is no common yardstick.

If NKR acts the way Iraq did, then the US will response unilaterally if necessary. Same for Pakistan or India or Iran. For Iran, the mullahs intends to wage a religious war and finish Hitler's work on the Jews of the ME, so if Iran goes beyond terrorism, which Israelis can handle as they have for decades, the US will response unilaterally if necessary to protect Israel.


The WMD argument is stronger for Iraq than what Putin cooked up for Russia. But if Putin insists that the threat to Russians in Ukraine is 'legitimate', then Putin can act unilaterally because he feels that is necessary.


You do not believe that the 'whitehouser' link is the official White House link, do you? :lol:

Looky here...It is clear that you are desperate when you found out facts about the WMD issue in Iraq is not to your liking, as in the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. So you trolled the Internet for news that came AFTER the invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Again...Why did the US not cooked up technical evidences of WMD that will have Iraqi signatures all over it? After all, Mahdi Obeidi was in the US, we could have hold his family hostage and forced him to contribute to those 'evidences'.


I am not insinuating that US falsified the WMD, it is the gaurdian, cnn, nbc.. I do apologise for lack of my skills in diversionary histrionics which seems to the definition of good articulation these days thus let me humbly try and ask juvenile questions to cure my ignorance.


Your contention was US will act unilaterally if anyone acts like Iraq, do you recall what happened in 1999, when a nuclear armed pakistan occupied Kargil..... forget action, US aided and armed pakistan further..... So how can US on one hand claims to be the enforcer UNSC resolutions and on the other hand turn blind eye towards it's cronies?

Now I may not able to adjudicate the evidence that was brough about by britain and US to make it's case for an invasion, but when Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector say
"BLIX: Yes. I mean the most scandalous item was, of course, the alleged contract between Iraq and Niger for the import of uranium. Well, this had been forged by an Italian journalist and it was cited by President Bush in his State of the Union message in 2002. The IAEA eventually got a copy of the document and it took them less than a day to establish that this was a forgery. "

So when the president of US cites forgery to make it's case, which is later debunked by none other than "IAEA", that to seems like "Lying about WMD", but then I am not as gifted as you understand the fallacy in iterpreting it as a lie. so please do explain how to justify that.


I do understand existent WMD argument is stronger than putin's argument, as long as it is "true"

Again...Why did the US not cooked up technical evidences of WMD that will have Iraqi signatures all over it? After all, Mahdi Obeidi was in the US, we could have hold his family hostage and forced him to contribute to those 'evidences'.

I think, because the state dept is not that dumb!
 
Last edited:
.
:lol:
085641kxbl6vnzmtzvnkms.jpg.thumb.jpg
 
.
I am not insinuating that US falsified the WMD,...
Sure you are. So far it has been the US 'lied' about WMD...

...it is the gaurdian, cnn, nbc.. I do apologise for lack of my skills in diversionary histrionics which seems to the definition of good articulation these days thus let me humbly try and ask juvenile questions to cure my ignorance.
Yeah...The facts and truths do tends to distract, especially when the gullible have others, such as CNN, NBC, and The Guardian, to do their thinking for them. Am willing to bet that this is the first time in your knowledge about US and Iraq that now you learned that it is structurally near impossible for US to lie about WMD in Iraq. Did what I told you CNN, NBC, and The Guardian covered? Not likely. It is too boring and actually absolved US of the charge that we 'lied'. You have nothing to gain from the truth.

Your contention was US will act unilaterally if anyone acts like Iraq, do you recall what happened in 1999, when a nuclear armed pakistan occupied Kargil..... forget action, US aided and armed pakistan further..... So how can US on one hand claims to be the enforcer UNSC resolutions and on the other hand turn blind eye towards it's cronies?

Aaaah...We never made such claims. Regarding Iraq, yes, the US had a hand in creating those resolutions, plus Iraq invaded Kuwait, so the US have good cause to be more focused on those resolutions than the ones governing Pakistan and India, which in 1999 the US was already busy in Iraq.

Now I may not able to adjudicate the evidence that was brough about by britain and US to make it's case for an invasion, but when Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector say
"BLIX: Yes. I mean the most scandalous item was, of course, the alleged contract between Iraq and Niger for the import of uranium. Well, this had been forged by an Italian journalist and it was cited by President Bush in his State of the Union message in 2002. The IAEA eventually got a copy of the document and it took them less than a day to establish that this was a forgery. "

So when the president of US cites forgery to make it's case, which is later debunked by none other than "IAEA", that to seems like "Lying about WMD", but then I am not as gifted as you understand the fallacy in iterpreting it as a lie. so please do explain how to justify that.
Blix made that comment in 2005, that is AFTER the US made our error in 2002. Sorry, but you are still reaching. Contrary to your belief, being conned is not a crime. Is it?

Despite the fact that you have been educated on how the US could not have structurally 'lied' about Iraq's WMD programs since all information must passed through 3rd party hands, such as that of Hans Blix, you are still trying make the charge stick. And you say you are not trying to insinuate we falsified the WMD reports? :rolleyes:

I do understand existent WMD argument is stronger than putin's argument, as long as it is "true"
Good...Then you should have no problems showing evidences that the US knew that Iraq had no functional nuclear weapons and related programs but actually lied about it to the world. Is that what you mean by 'true'?

I think, because the state dept is not that dumb!
But we were dumb enough to lie about it despite the information being vetted by the UN.

Like I always said, when it comes to the US, logic and critical thinking usually goes out the window by the critics.
 
.
A 'lie' cannot exist without a 'truth', or at least a fact or a collection of facts that points to a different direction than the lie. So in order for you to prove that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq, you must prove there exists a prior truth or a parallel truth that there were no functional nuclear weapons in Iraq, that the US worked to suppress that truth, and that the US finally presented something else.

But if you bring on news articles about how we could not find any functional nuclear weapons, and the operative word here is 'functional', in post invasion Iraq, then the only thing you proved is we were wrong. Not that we lied. Think about it for a moment. Since the US is the world's premier nuclear power, why could we not rigged up something incriminating about Iraq throughout the inspection yrs?

If that is the justification for post war failure to prove Iraq as Nuclear armed, I would term it as pretty lame...

How could CIA, one of the world's premier intelligence agency probably gave inaccurate (not incorrect if positively considered your posted justification) information about nukes?? And we are not talking about Walk in the park... What we are debating is the very base of invasion on Iraq..
Unless proved with concret evidances, I wont believe US about WMD in Iraq...

MI6 and CIA heard Iraq had no active WMD capability ahead of invasion | World news | theguardian.com

Prove it. Remember, a 'lie' cannot exists without a 'truth'. And here is a fact that I doubt any of you Indians in this discussion know: It was UN mandate that no UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection team leaders be Americans.

The inspection regime based their work on those UN resolutions. So if we 'lied' or 'falsified intel', whatever that mean, about those UN resolutions, then two Swedes and an Australian were 'in on it' as well.
Thoes are inspectors are from your allied nations... What can expect??

That was the presumption, and a credible one as later testified by...

The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: Mahdi Obeidi: 9780471741275: Amazon.com: Books

Mahdi Obeidi was not talking about functional weapons but a pair of centrifuges.


You may not like the unilateral actions, but what is the point of a resolution, which is a promise of punishment, if there is not going to be the execution of said punishment?

Now...Where is the proof, or at least evidences, that the US 'lied' about WMDs in Iraq?
Its not accused who has to prove himself innocent, its the accuser who has to prove accused guilty... Prove Iraq had WMD, otherwise for us, US LIED..........
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom