Cassapolis
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
aquapub said:Bush was set on war with Iraq...Any sensible person should have been after eight years of Bill Clinton.
Gibberish said:Who gave the US the power to decide the fate of other countries?
Cassapolis said:By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...tml?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=slogin
GySgt said:..........so?
And by the way, the emboldened selection of words is untrue. Do you remember when U.S. Marines discovered those underground bunkers the size of football fields last year.........?
Cassapolis said:Did you read the article or just the last paragraph? What you highlighted as being wrong was supposedly a fact that Bush and Blair conceded to before the invasion. When this memo was written they hadn't found any unconventional weapons.
GySgt said:Yeah, I read this dribble. What is fact today is BS tomorrow and what is BS today is fact tomorrow. I said....meh.
Cassapolis said:Well if you read the whole thing why did you say that was wrong? If they said they hadn't found anything how can something being found 2 years later make the origional statement false?
GySgt said:Because they are untrue. Any statement made abut not finding anything before they were searched for is rediculous. The entire memo is senseless.
Cassapolis said:Perhaps they were talking about what the U.N was doing there? Remember the U.N was looking for WMD's in Iraq prior to our invasion and as far as we know they hadn't found anything. But I guess you would know more about this situation then Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor wouldn't you?
GySgt said:I know more than you think.
Besides that, who cares what the UN found? Considering that the protection of oil scandals was the agenda in focus for the UN, how hard did they actually look? Especially, considering what we know now.
It's a pointless memo.
Originally Posted by GySgt
The entire memo is senseless...It's a pointless memo.
This massive discovery you're talking about........did it contain any of the WMD that we claimed they had? If not, what's your point? At the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons. Hells bells........we let al Sadar and all his merry men go, with all their weapons, just so we could claim Najaf.GySgt said:..........so?
And by the way, the emboldened selection of words is untrue. Do you remember when U.S. Marines discovered those underground bunkers the size of football fields last year.........?
Cassapolis said:Enlighten us then. And it's pretty obvious that Bush and Blair don't care about what the UN think. What exactly do we know now?
BodiSatva said:Senseless? Pointless?
I am sure that you are in the thick of things and are privy to all sorts of top secret information...and THAT (even if it is true), is beside the point. The memo points to motives and state of mind prior to the invasion. You may choose to dismiss all of them and others may choose to embrace all of them...the point is that this memo has a point...it has many points in fact.
lily said:This massive discovery you're talking about........did it contain any of the WMD that we claimed they had? If not, what's your point? At the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons. Hells bells........we let al Sadar and all his merry men go, with all their weapons, just so we could claim Najaf.
BodiSatva said:Nothing new now...
But again this goes to state of mind prior to the invasion.
It is something that revisionists can use and conspiracy junkies can grasp.
True, we are there now and that is all that really matters...lets move forward.
GySgt said:It was reported that tons of ammunition and weapons were found. It ommitted equipment of "other sorts" and documents implicating two other countries - one, European.
lily said:Then your answer is no. It didn't contain any WMD. You were using your statment to defend the WMD argument, were you not?
Any country with an army.......and Iraq had an army is going to have conventional weapons....and they are going to be hidden in underground bunkers. I would venture to guess, that the US has such sites. I don't think it would be a good strategy to keep all your weapons in one place.
lily said:You're confusing me. Then these football fields were full of un-conventional weapons????
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?