RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

Hmmm....

Is wanna arguing that the ends justify the means (death, destruction etc.)?

Say, how 'bout we nuke Pyongyang?

It may result in thousands, even millions of innocent life lost, but we may just get Kim and the Koreans would be sooo much better off in the long run.

That's what you sound like to me wanna. War is always a LAST resort. And as the Downing Street memos clearly show, it wasn't in regards to Iraq. We didn't go in because we HAD to, we went in because we wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the British Government

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action (memo Date: 23 July 2002), even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

---

We're not talking circumstantial evidence anymore. It is now verified fact that George Bush and Tony Blair agreed to go to war in early 2002, and that they "fixed the facts" to make the case for war.

I also hear that things are improving now and only the "liberal media" says otherwise......

Quote:

---

Report: Iraq assessment bleaker

By wire services
Published May 19, 2005


BAGHDAD - U.S. military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment of the war in Iraq on Wednesday, pulling back from recent suggestions - including by some of the same officers - that there were positive trends in Iraq that could allow a reduction in the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq late this year or early in 2006.

The New York Times quoted one unnamed senior officer as suggesting that U.S. military involvement could last many years.

At the same time, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior U.S. military official as telling reporters that the recent surge in violence in Iraq followed a meeting in Syria last month of associates of Jordanian insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi paramilitary police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to the insurgents and allow U.S. forces to reduce their role in fighting.

A senior officer in Baghdad said recent polls conducted for the U.S. military by Baghdad University have shown confidence flagging sharply, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the elections to 45 percent now.

To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and addressing popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year.

---

Someone should tell that redneck cartoon character about the electricity. He's still busy beleiveing the Administration.

By the way, it looks as if more people are wising up. FOX News' viewership dropped spectacularly and has lost almost 60% of it's viewership. I guess there's only so much "fair and balanced" one can swallow.