It is totally irrefutable.  Because it never happened.  They asked for permission to resume hostilities - an action that did not require approval, but as noted before, was done to satisfy the appeasers.

Yes, but those trying to pretend they never existed.

He never said that.  What he did say was he needed more time due to the hindrance of Saddam in conducting his investigation.  Only a fool would say such a thing when they are not allowed to check for evidence.

Yes, provided to everyone by Saddam himself, and who could be more trustworthy?

If there are similarities (and I actually agree there may be some), why dont you state them, instead of repeating lies?

Yes, selective memory is, and so are the democrats and their talking points in this.  2 years and no action.  Those clowns in Denver are not demonstrating against cheddar cheese after all.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

 

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/08/wmd-phosgene-fr.html

 

http://twinklebones.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-wmds-discovered-in-iraq-more-to.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts

You have no understanding of intelligence reports but I understand how you can misunderstand how it works you don’t have any experience with them. The way they are written is pro and con. Half of a report will give all the evidence proving a case and the other half will provide reasons against the case, this leaves the choice to the reader. The reports rarely give an answer of yes or no. It is not cherry picking it is weighing the evidence and going with what you think is best.

 

Going to war in Iraq meant looking at the evidence and then deciding

How we can best protect ourselves. Saddam destroyed most of his WMD before we attacked but did so secretly, we did not find this out until after we invaded. Had he not been so smart he could have avoided the war and death.

 

Once again you harp on getting permission to invade from the UN. This was not needed, the war started and was called the Gulf War. We stopped fighting but the war was not over.

 

We were faced with an attack on our soil and Iraq providing help to the attackers, add to that the fact that there were tons of unaccounted for WMD in Iraq and the choice was simple. Invade or wait till we get attacked again. The right choice was to invade.

 

I find it truly hysterical {as in real funny} that the lefties are willing to defend Russia and it's tactics with Georgia, while condemning America for doing the same thing. Watching lefties rally to the cry of blame America first all the while giving the rest of the world a free pass is much better than a comedy. Why do you devout lefties still live here? there are so many countries that agree with you and your blame America stance that you should feel much more comfortable anywhere but here.

I don't think moving around missiles and expanding our alliances is a bad thing, but facilitating and recognizing Kosovo's unilateral declaration of sovereignty probably is. Don't forget that is the birthplace of world conflict and the same pan nationalistic sentiments still exist in the region.

Ah, does this mean you're finally accepting that you were completely wrong when you tried to argue that the US/UK never sought such approval from the UN, and/or never obtained it? I'll spell it out for you again in case you still haven't: Britain and the US went to the UN to ask for their approval to go and invade another country. They failed to get this (with 1441 only warning of serious consequences, as opposed to all necessary measures, and with the failure to secure an additional resolution which then authorised the use of force), and then went and invaded that country anyway. Even if you believe the pre-existing resolutions gave such authorisation forever (and that's quite a big if!), it doesn't get around the fact that the US+UK wanted the UN to approve their war later on, and failed to get such approval. Hence the point that it is amusing to see the US, after failing to get such approval, then tell off Russia when it invades a country on it's own.

Oh dear, not the old 'Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together' excuse! So basically you were right to invade Iraq+remove Saddam because a terrorist organisation which had no formal links to Saddam launched an attack on you? So by that reasoning can the UK invade any country they want in response to the IRA terrorist attacks? Or maybe Spain could, in response to attacks by Eta? Here's a quick wiki link if you want (although you can find the relevant info with a quick search on most news sites anyway): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda. In fact just going to wiki's main page on the Iraq war it goes far further than what I've been saying, and the BBC also provides evidence supporting various claims made as well (both are considered reasonably impartial sources of information). Regardless this is a thread on the Georgian conflict not the Iraq war so that's the last I'll be posting on Iraq here.

 

Once again you failed to deal with the context. It is true we tried to get additional approval to restart the war. What you choose to ignore it the fact that France, Germany, and Russia opposed this move. All had veto power making it moot. You also choose to ignore the fact that the leaders of France and Germany were being paid by Iraq to oppose this move. The anti American feelings that the left screamed of and pointed to these three countries as proof that we were wrong in going into Iraq. Once those leaders were rejected by the peoples of those nations they elected pro-American leaders. This would make one believe that the people on the take were not representing their nation’s feelings but their pockets.

 The former president of France so crossed the line that he is on trial for this corruption. It is suspected that Russia was also on the take for this but since he is still in power it can’t be proved, although some documents captured in Iraq suggest this.

 

The purpose of going to the UN was for local politics not any international legal requirement. In order for your beliefs to work you need to be very selective in your fact finding, as shown in your selective use of words.

 

Yes, extremely selective in your fact finding. You left out the little fact that the UN declared Iraq in violation of the cease fire agreement, which is automatic justification for resuming the war.  

Yup, that old one. The formal ties might be the fact that AQ fighters wounded in Afghanistan were turning up in Iraq, as well as some of the leadership that were not hurt, because they were running away from the fight in Afghanistan. This was documented by AP news not the CIA and published world wide. Strange how after all these years you missed that.

Your reliance on wiki is obvious. Your understanding is obvious as well, you do know that not all the information on wiki is valid or verified? It is member supported meaning anyone can post an article on there and it does not have to be factual or correct.,

Lol, my reliance comes on my knowledge of events that happened at the time, and the bbc rather than wiki is usually my main first source on news information, because while they are not perfect, generally they're seen as one of the most impartial news agencies. Wiki meanwhile prides itself on it's generally independent nature. Yes, anyone can post information there, but on such contentious issues it will need to be supported by proper references, or else it is liable to be removed. Something as controversial as the Iraq war is therefore going to be more reliable than a small article on something no-one really cares about and hence won't be so bothered to check up on. Regardless I'm fascinated to hear that you're now disputing the various events that were mentioned in wiki, seeing as almost every major news agency also reported them (although I'm not certain that would include fox 'news')!

 

So if a terrorist from say Pakistan ends up in the UK (maybe even on the NHS!), does that mean we're formally colluding with terrorists and should prepare for an imminent US invasion?

WOW  Can you get any more biased?  HOw about using Dan Rather as  a source for your bio of Bush!

I'm not sure whether to take that as sarcasm/a joke, or a statement from someone incredibly divorced from reality. Regardless the BBC's reputation for impartiality is generally seen as better than any of the main US broadcasters, especially Fox 'news' (which tbh is a bit of an oxymoron at times!). It's not just perception though, there are clear reasons why they should be - since they're not reliant on advertising+other sources of funding, there are far fewer conflicts of interest arising with them than with other broadcasters, and they are banned from accepting money in many situations. Instead they're reliant on a licence fee (in effect a ring-marked tax) for revenue, meaning the only cause for concern would be that they are slightly biased towards the government. However governments generally know not to try and use the licence fee as a bargaining chip since it would be very unpopular with the general public, and the bbc has shown numerous times that they are prepared to attack the government and not show them any special favours compared with other news agencies (the most famous example being in their criticism of the governments case for war). In fact it's usually a good sign that you're reasonably close to impartiality when both the main political parties complain that you are biased in favour of the opponent (and even this doesn't happen that often). They're not perfect (I'd probably guage them to have an ever so slightly left wing bias), but they're still one of the most reliable of the major broadcasters out there.

maudlin -

What you say may be largely true with respect to internal British matters, but when it comes to coverage of the US, their devotion to 'impartiality' flags a bit (please pardon my poor attempt at understated British humour ).

Too true, feel sorry for those among us who have to listen to the BBCs anti-conservative propaganda day in day out, while all their friends and neighbours still believe them to be the most unbiased news source in the world.

Maudlin27: The BBC is definitely less openly biased than the American media, but that's really not saying much. The BBC blankly ignores the stories which they don't want to portray while they scare-monger about everything from the environment, to Iraq. They generally commentate in terms of Labour = God (except Brown because he is the British equivalent of George Bush in terms of competence, funnily sharing the initials).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

The above link is about a leaked outcome of an 'impartiality summit' called by the BBC itself. Some of the text reads:

"It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air."

"On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."

The BBC had a reputation of impartiality in the 1960s, the myth lives on but everybody who knows even vaguely about the British media knows that it is a left-wing propaganda machine. Seriously, you should see the coverage of the 'war on terror' in which Afghanistan is pretty much ignored and the successful troop surge in Iraq (which even Obama has admitted) is genuinely skirted around in favour of reporting on any and all deaths in Iraq. The kind of reports which open your eyes to the real Iraq are found in an equally biased news from 'Channel 4' in which they show things such as Iraqi playboys getting stopped at checkpoints because their car's so weighed down, to find out that it's weighed down by ice for a huge party he's throwing. You'd never see this on the BBC because it doesn't show Iraq as impoverished sheep-herders whose lives have been destroyed by America and Britain.

Wikipedia is completely unreliable. It's nice for basic reading and introducing yourself to a subject, but errors include Richard II losing the Battle of Bosworth to Henry VII, the city of Leeds being in the county of 'gay' and German unification occurring in 1961, along with the fact that Turkish agents continuously try to change the pages on the Armenian genocide because they wage a propaganda war to cleanse them of the guilt of mass-murder of Europeans (which is a considerable stumbling block to their entry to the EU). Those are merely the errors and flaws I remember off the top of my head.

Also, as previously shown, the BBC is about as reliable as CNN/MSNBC.

The idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked is completely laughable. The reason for war was that the Middle East is a melting point of uprisings, dictatorships and... oil. The main threat to the U.S. Is (and has been for a long time) Iran, just as Joe Biden admits. By invading Iraq, a potential puppet for Iran is taken away and (in theory) Iraq would be an oil-rich ally from which to pressure the Iranians.

 

By whom?  Those whose agenda they promote?  YOu are a funny guy.  The BBC is one of the most biased.  By any objective standard.

I would challenge that with a simple request to look at their reporting of the middle east.  Not even the moonbats at MSNBC are that biased.

Must be a nice fantasy world you're living in there! Having listened to fox news broadcasts+ones by the BBC on the same issue a few times the chasm in reporting standards was so huge it was more funny than shocking.

I'm glad they'd be prepared to interview Bin Laden if given the opportunity, as opposed to turning a blind eye to such issues and burying their heads in the sand. As for their stance on ethical/moral/religious issues they're more clearly biased+politically correct, but that has little impact on the vast majority of news items, and is usually only apparent in the non-news programs they do, hence not having a bearing on the issue at hand. Using the daily mail as a reference doesn't do your point (or the reliability of the information) any credit though.

You must have been very selective in what articles/programmes you viewed then. The BBC has reported on the success of the surge numerous times, and little prominance is given to deaths in Iraq (as with all the news organisations in the country) unless unexpectedly severe enough to generate attention. Meanwhile there have also been plenty of articles on afghanistan throughout the war, so I don't see how they're ignoring that - no doubt if they were making it front page news all the time whenever there were fatalities they'd be accused of being biased against it anyway though!