Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Iraq: U.S. has no evidence < and that's the truth >. .


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:02 PM

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq lashed out against U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union message, declaring "the bottom line is you can accuse us as much as you like -- but you cannot provide one piece of evidence."

Iraq's U.N. ambassador Mohammed Aldouri said: "We call on the United Nations to shoulder its responsibilities to protect Iraq from this colonial administration which is blinded by its oil fever."

He also issued a warning to the United States as it prepares for a possible war on Iraq. "The American invasion did not succeed in Vietnam, and will never succeed in Iraq," Aldouri said.

The ambassador called sections of Tuesday's address that dealt with Iraq as "business as usual from President Bush."

He added Iraqis will reject any attempt at colonialism -- just as it did when invaded by a British general in 1917.

"We will do so whenever there's an attack on the country," he said. "Our independence is dear to us. We will spare nothing to defend it."

Aldouri also pointed to quotes from U.N. chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who have said they have so far found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs. Bush has said U.S. intelligence shows Iraq is engaging in prohibited weapons programs.

"Iraq has implemented all resolutions related to disarmament issues," Aldouri insisted, adding that "we will go a step further and proactively cooperate with inspectors to prove these allegations are nothing but fabrications."
______________________________________

US Government has always lied before starting any wars. Now the scum starts lying again.
  • 0

#2 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:16 PM

GAZA -- Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of the Islamic activist group Hamas, said on Wednesday the United States was planning war on Iraq to perpetuate Israeli control of "the Palestinian homeland".

U.S. President George W. Bush raised the prospect of war with Iraq in a State of the Union speech on Tuesday in which he said Baghdad had scorned UN disarmament demands and "crucial hours may lie ahead" as U.S. troops mass in the Persian Gulf region. "America is implementing Zionist Israeli policy to serve the Zionist project in Palestine," Yassin told Reuters at his Gaza Strip home. "The battle America is undertaking is designed to allow Israel to remain in the Palestinian homeland." Hamas, which views Washington --Israel's guardian ally -- as an enemy of Palestinian national aspirations, has been at the forefront of the 28-month-old Palestinian uprising against Israel and has killed scores of Zionists in martyr operations Yassin said Bush wanted to launch a "war of crusaders against Muslims that began in Afghanistan (after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington) and today in Iraq and tomorrow in another country."
  • 0

#3 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 January 2003 - 10:18 PM

"Zionist Israeli and Jewish policy is to strike every power emerging in the Arab and Muslim world because it would pose a danger to the existence of Israel on Muslim land," he said. "Therefore, they want to strip the Arab and Muslim world of any (real) power. Any country that develops power threatening to this entity (Israel), they want to smash it."

Yassin asked why Bush was ready for war with Iraq but not with North Korea, which has admitted having a nuclear weapons program. He complained that Israel's reputed possession of nuclear weapons was not an issue internationally but Muslim states were not allowed such arms. "Only strong people can be respected."

Palestinians have held rallies in Gaza and the West Bank to show support for Iraq, holding up posters of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who has sent millions of dollars to support the uprising.

Israel, which at Washington's request did not retaliate for the Iraqi Scud missiles fired at it in the Persian Gulf War to avoid alienating Arab support for the United States, strongly favors a U.S.-led war to topple Saddam.
  • 0

#4 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 02:13 AM

Key facts 'omitted by Blix'


LISBON:

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter yesterday accused Hans Blix, the chief of the UN weapons inspection teams in Iraq, of leaving out key facts in his briefing to the UN Security Council in order to bolster the case for a war with Baghdad.

"The report was probably the best favour he could have done to the Bush administration in order to facilitate a military strike against Iraq," he said in an interview with private radio TSF.

In a strongly worded status report submitted to the Security Council on Monday, Blix said his arms experts had found no banned weapons since they began work last November, but he also listed unanswered questions on Iraq's arms programmes from anthrax to VX nerve agents and missiles.

But Ritter said the report was "harsh and misleading" as it did not provide all of the information which Blix had at his disposal regarding these weapons.

"Regarding the anthrax, why didn't he (Blix) explain that it, especially liquid anthrax, becomes useless three years after manufacture? "It is the same with the talk of chemical weapons. Hans Blix should have taken into account that any chemical weapon that was produced between 1993 and 1998 was of such bad quality that today it would not be viable," he added. Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the UN of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.


http://www.gulf-dail...e=42801&Sn=WORL
  • 0

#5 Mae

Mae

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 08:08 AM

The real eveidence I want to see is the one that links Iraq with Al-Qaida..

Heh, that will be fun to see.
Lemme guess, USA have taped phone calls of Iraq "leaders".

HAHA, even I can fake stuff like that.

But I guess we have to wait and see
  • 0

#6 Adrian

Adrian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1895 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Mae
The real eveidence I want to see is the one that links Iraq with Al-Qaida..

Heh, that will be fun to see.
Lemme guess, USA have taped phone calls of Iraq "leaders".

HAHA, even I can fake stuff like that.

But I guess we have to wait and see



With that attitude you have, you must also admit, that even UN would find thousind nukes there, you would still dismiss the evidence as being planted evidence, rigth?

How can UN ever prove to you, that Saddam did not live up to the UN resolution?
  • 0

#7 Adrian

Adrian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1895 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Mae
The real eveidence I want to see is the one that links Iraq with Al-Qaida..



The UN resolution that Saddam has to fullfill, do not adress links to al-quaeda, but adress the issue of disarmament of WMD's.
  • 0

#8 Mae

Mae

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Adrian
With that attitude you have, you must also admit, that even UN would find thousind nukes there, you would still dismiss the evidence as being planted evidence, rigth?

How can UN ever prove to you, that Saddam did not live up to the UN resolution?



Um, Iraq doesn't have any Nukes. I said that about, the fake telephone calls USA will provide to show Iraq + Al-Qaida connection.

Blair said that they had proof with Iraq + Al-Qaida connection.
  • 0

#9 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 07:51 PM

I strongly believe that Iraq doesn't have any nuclear arms. I know there's gonna be a war against Iraq by mid of March. American government has been lying to the rest of the world not for the first time to achieve its goals.
I wished that Iraq had some nukes to use on American forces in its defence. But that is only my wishful thinking.
  • 0

#10 Adrian

Adrian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1895 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 08:01 PM

Sorry. I putted my words wrong before then. Misunderstanding.

I did NOT mean that Iraq have nukes at all. I seriously doubt they have, but I meant that EVEN IF such stuff was found, Mae would deny it ;)
  • 0

#11 Guest_CaptainAmerica_*

Guest_CaptainAmerica_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2003 - 08:31 PM

Once we (US) attack and Sadaam retaliates with WMD's, then we can say "I told ya so."

If we attack, (and appearantly we're gonna,) and he doesn't have any WMD's and he just sits there as we walk in and take him and his country, then we can say, "Oh well, but since we're here, we might as well take all this oil."

Only time will tell. But, I highly doubt that any presidential administration, democrat or republican, would put their entire credibility on the line without having some substantial evidence.

But you can bet your *** this, if Sadaam does not, in fact, have any WMD's, the political spindoctors and public relation people will make sure that the world believes that he did. Planting evidence to save face is not unheard of.

Bottom line, we don't know now, and unless he uses WMD's to defend his country, we will never know. None of us in here know. We might claim we do but we do not. We can only believe.
  • 0

#12 Guest_CaptainAmerica_*

Guest_CaptainAmerica_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2003 - 08:41 PM

No kidding. The planet might be getting very dark very soon.
  • 0

#13 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 08:48 PM

But you can bet your *** this, if Sadaam does not, in fact, have any WMD's, the political spindoctors and public relation people will make sure that the world believes that he did. Planting evidence to save face is not unheard of.
________________________________________

A big probability to happen just like that. You Capt. America sure know what you're talking about.
  • 0

#14 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:54 PM

Only time will tell. But, I highly doubt that any presidential administration, democrat or republican, would put their entire credibility on the line without having some substantial evidence.


Are you kidding? The US lied to the world in 91, lied to the UN, forced, harrased and threatned nations who did not side with it in 91 like yemen who had over half a million people deported from saudi arabia.

Lied to saudi arabia about having sat photoes of Iraqi troops preparing to attack it, when it didnt, heck not only the russians but the american media found all this out.

And you still talk about credibility? Just what insane logic are you using to consider that others are much stupider than you are?

BTW, what was the CIA doing flying US navy planes with napalm bombs in the Kuwaiti corridor a day before the invasion? huh huh huh? What were they going to set fire too?
  • 0

#15 GorillaTheater

GorillaTheater

    El Tigre

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:58 PM

But you can bet your *** this,
______________

Pravda now has an auto-censor for "***"? Hell, even the otherwise despicable abcnews.go allows that one.

How about "shit"?
  • 0

#16 GorillaTheater

GorillaTheater

    El Tigre

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:59 PM

We can say "shit" but not "***"? What the hell kind of sense does that make?
  • 0

#17 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:00 PM

'a s s' is it? I encountered that one. Had to replace it with arse. ;)
  • 0

#18 Guest_CaptainAmerica_*

Guest_CaptainAmerica_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:04 PM

Trying to plant evidence in Iraq would require a conspiracy of vast proportions.



Honestly, B-dog, I don't think it would be that difficult. All it would take, after we walked in and took over Iraq, would be for a couple of guys to stock a warehouse or two with some old weaponry akin to the type we may have given Iraq in the past, and a photographer to take the picture of the "cache" of weapons and the guys destroying the WMD's (blowing up the evidence,) and call in a few favors from the media....wallah....there ya have it. Somewhat complicated perhaps but not of vast porportions. I would imagine bigger scams have been pulled off by politicians before.

But like I said, I don't think Bush would put every ounce of credibility on the line unless he had an ace in the hole. I am very curious to see what evidence he has. Can he not just tell one, maybe two of those inspectors where to look? Sort of feed them a little bite of the evidence and let them go and discover it for themselves. Really, that would be all it would take wouldn't it?

My biggest fear is this, like Bush said, that Iraq already has a barrel or two of Sarin/Anthrax, etc., already here in the US with two dune coons just waiting for the "go ahead" to open them up.

I'm afraid we're just going to have to trust our government that they know what they are doing. What other choice do we have?

I am also curious to see how the "Iraqi oil industry" gets sliced up amongst Bush's cronies. You and I both know that that is certainly going to happen at the end of the day.
  • 0

#19 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:21 PM

Good post SmallMind !!!. I rally appreciate it. I just want you to notice there's many people on this forum who don't care what the truth is. They know exactly what has been going on and they don't give a damn. They prefer to believe what they want to believe. People with no standart , no morals and scruples rule America.
  • 0

#20 SmallMind

SmallMind

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:42 PM

In war, some facts less factual

Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

MOSCOW

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru