Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Do you even read newspapers? I think to comment on most things in this part of the forum u should at least read the news every now and then..
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
John Howard misleads public? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tennille
- Start date
Yes i read the newspaper, i read that the US stated they didnt find any WMDs and wont, this doesnt mean that Saddam didnt sell them prior to being caught, why else would he have so much cash when he was found, it would have been better in an offshore account, or in a anti-US banking system, if the money was not from a recent dealNot-That-Bright said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I seriously doubt that there were ANY wmd's in iraq by the time they invaded.. it's possible he got rid of them while they were debating in the UN but this is unlikely.
He had alot of money on him because he was very rich, think about it.. he was a dictator.
He had alot of money on him because he was very rich, think about it.. he was a dictator.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
He needed CASH on him to get around... he had US dollars on him i believe.
The presumption is that he planned to flee to some neighbouring country, live in exile for the rest of his life.
The presumption is that he planned to flee to some neighbouring country, live in exile for the rest of his life.
The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.
Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be “amazed” if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq.
THE NEW REPORT from the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt what most people have assumed for the past year: At the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and most of its programs to produce them were dormant.
In more than a year of investigation, the survey group found "no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart" the Iraqi nuclear weapons program that had been halted in 1991; there were "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions" after 1991; and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological weapons] program."
As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power and refused to cooperate fully with the United Nations, there could have been no certainty about his weapons. Mr. Bush had to decide whether the risks of invading outweighed those of standing pat without knowing for sure what U.S. forces would find in Iraq or what would happen once they were there.
Here the new report suggests some answers. Saddam Hussein, it says, was focused on ending international sanctions, which were crumbling before the crisis began. Had he succeeded, he would have resumed production of chemical weapons and probably a nuclear program as well. Mr. Kerry suggested recently that Saddam Hussein's regime would have collapsed under the inspectors' pressure. That is one possibility; another is that it would have reemerged as a significant power in the Middle East, and as a de facto or real ally of the Islamic extremist forces with which the United States is at war.
At the same time, he said, President Bush stands by the decision to invade Iraq.
"We had a regime that had a history of using weapons of mass destruction and had a history of defying the international community and had a history of ties to terrorist organizations in Iraq," he said. "We had the attacks on September 11 [2001], that taught us we must confront threats before it's too late.
The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. (Full story)
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said.
Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.
The preliminary report indicated that Saddam hoped to restart his weapons programs primarily for defense against Iran.
It doesnt say that without a doubt there where no WMDs, so there is reasonable doubt. How can u say that Iraq should have not been invaded, Saddam needed to go, and he would not have got overthrown without US helping
Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be “amazed” if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq.
THE NEW REPORT from the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt what most people have assumed for the past year: At the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and most of its programs to produce them were dormant.
In more than a year of investigation, the survey group found "no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart" the Iraqi nuclear weapons program that had been halted in 1991; there were "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions" after 1991; and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological weapons] program."
As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power and refused to cooperate fully with the United Nations, there could have been no certainty about his weapons. Mr. Bush had to decide whether the risks of invading outweighed those of standing pat without knowing for sure what U.S. forces would find in Iraq or what would happen once they were there.
Here the new report suggests some answers. Saddam Hussein, it says, was focused on ending international sanctions, which were crumbling before the crisis began. Had he succeeded, he would have resumed production of chemical weapons and probably a nuclear program as well. Mr. Kerry suggested recently that Saddam Hussein's regime would have collapsed under the inspectors' pressure. That is one possibility; another is that it would have reemerged as a significant power in the Middle East, and as a de facto or real ally of the Islamic extremist forces with which the United States is at war.
At the same time, he said, President Bush stands by the decision to invade Iraq.
"We had a regime that had a history of using weapons of mass destruction and had a history of defying the international community and had a history of ties to terrorist organizations in Iraq," he said. "We had the attacks on September 11 [2001], that taught us we must confront threats before it's too late.
The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. (Full story)
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said.
Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.
The preliminary report indicated that Saddam hoped to restart his weapons programs primarily for defense against Iran.
It doesnt say that without a doubt there where no WMDs, so there is reasonable doubt. How can u say that Iraq should have not been invaded, Saddam needed to go, and he would not have got overthrown without US helping
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
He had to get into the country, buy stuff... etc... cash isn't traceable...
noel_gallagher
Member
Let it be known ....
I HATE JOHN HOWARD
I HATE JOHN HOWARD
noel_gallagher
Member
Korn said:
You got a problem with that?
noel_gallagher
Member
good. ......
How's this for a stirring article....
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Miranda-...ng-Iraq-to-fail/2005/02/23/1109046990700.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Miranda-...ng-Iraq-to-fail/2005/02/23/1109046990700.html
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
There's alot of that sorta stuff i've read at www.rightwingnews.com
I agree. I think that while she has a point in that anti-war people are not doing any greater good for Iraq in forever condemning that conflict ever began, she is likewise only having a go at them for serve her ego and people who agree with her. Although left-wingers do the same. Everyone always stretches the argument to suit their own benefitAsquithian said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
While they're not doing anything for the war, and just quietly i think alot on the left hope that it turns out even worse than it currently is. You can't make them be supportive of a war they don't agree with, and it's hard to support the troops and not support the war.. If the war fails, the troops die.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Exactly. The truth is, both sides quietly wish that shit things would happen to the other side which hurts also the country... It's not nice, but it's just what happens in partisan politics.
samuelblayden
Newcstle Knights 2006
Ye he is a lying itdiot when I vote he is out