Excerp: Truth of War - Page 4

Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

http://okcitykid.bravejournal.com/entry/12288

This is a great article from The Nation. I've been tempted to let my subscription laps - most of their articles I didn't find that encouraging. But their May second issue was a duzzie. It got my blood boiling.

This article is from this issue and it's about what's happening in Iraq.

"Iraqi press under attack from authorities in Iraq"

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/iraq/11545887
.htm

This is a theme that has been concerning me since, specifically, the beggining of the war, from our embedded journalists, the journalist hotel that was shelled, the recent dispute over the Italian journalist, to even reports of specific arrests and confiscations in America of reporters in protests, specifically since 9/11 at events like RNC and the inauguration.

Please understand, if the media is intimidated or controlled, so are we.

Rep. calls for deeper inquiry into secret Iraq attack plan

Raw Story | May 4 2005

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

"support the war on terror and our troops!"

To do this one must get at the source of the terror, but unfortunately you would probably rather bomb poor people than the governments creating, funding, and training people like Osama and Saddam, which America is guilty of.

Support a real solution, don't be a mouthpiece for ignorance. Random statements with no supporting information is fairly useless.

its hard to support a war you dont belive in......

"i know more then you do about it."

"you do not know what i know and therefore you need stop thinking you know more then i"

I see hypocricy is a natural gift for you as well.

"you assume you know something about my post and the reasoning behind what i posted"

Wow, not only did I not do any such thing, you are the one making assumptions of me. My comments on your possible opinion are derived from your attitude and statements from other threads. I said we need to know who the terrorists are in order to fight them, alluding to the importance of knowing who funds and trains these people.

I have no idea what you know about anything, because you have not bothered to share anything but only to bitch and make statements.

"i stand by my information and do not need to prove or debate it with you. deal with it."

Sure, first, I'll repeat that you have given no information, and so no debate is even necessary past opinion, which is pointless without knowing what people think they know, and second, if you don't plan on defending your statements or furnishing any evidence let alone conversing in a reasonable fashion, then don't expect anyone to give a fuck what you say.

Or as you put it.

"i do not care what rhetoric you spew"

Past that, hopefully you understand there to be a big difference between supporting troops and supporting war.

"war is not something anyone really wants (except terrorists)"

I disagree, people who profit from war want war.

"but when the time comes it needs to be done. this should be clear enough for you to understand. right?"

What was clear about a need for war in Iraq?

"... they fight for our 'freedom'. period."

I agree mostly, but that's just the romantic spin on it, the truth is they follow orders, and hope they are being led justly, so as to protect freedom (or whatever system the individual soldier associates his/her self.).

"war makes money for all involved not just the USA so don't blame our country for profits generated by war... america was built on the industrialized war machine as far back as time and so were other countries... no one country is innocent."

So no country is innocent by your statement, yet nothing should be done? I'm concerned about all the corrupt countries, its just in America that I find everyone defending America as if its not guilty of any wrongs. That becomes more important when you remember that we are the one's invading countries. Which is further explained here...

"saddam was a brutal monster that needed to go. besides he killed and gassed his own people... i think that's a good enough reason. "

Yes, and so were his helping hands. There's a couple of good ways to put this, one is just by pointing out that he was helped into power by the CIA (who apparently gave lists of names of Political opposistion to handle which is nothing new), then sold him (along with a few countries) the chemicals he used to gas people.

We accuse others of placing puppet regimes, and skoff at the notion of us doing it, that is hypocricy and the only reason people think we are innocent is because we get lied to.

How you can trust so blindly a government of this and worse backround, regardless of other nations acts (which we like others were probably involved in), is beyond me.

"saddam was a brutal monster that needed to go. besides he killed and gassed his own people... i think that's a good enough reason."

Then so to do his masters or helpers. The other point was that if the defense of those being past mistakes by an old administration and cannot be held to the new admin, I will gladly laugh, because this is probably a record breaker for being the most recycled administration ever and that these same people were indeed involved with placing and arming of Saddam as with now taking him out.

A situation made more disturbing by the fact that more than once I've heard of these particular people as having been distanced by the Reagan admin as they were called the "Crazies", who are now called Neo-Cons and run our government.

This is a problem with figureheads, people can't remember or learn of all players in history either, like a movie, you know the story and the main characters, but behind the scenes people go unnoticed.

"i think it's more like taking the fight to them before they bring it here... "

Yes because thats what you were told.

"we're talking america here and american values and protecting our country."

yes, which is completely ignoring internal corruption source of motives let alone recent and long since past historical accouts and documents that imply and or prove a very different reality to this situation than is presented by those constantly repeating...

"we're talking america here and american values and protecting our country."

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/suez.ram

Documentary: The Other Side of Suez

Just watch the intro if nothing else.

Audits find flaws in U.S. handling of Iraq deals Wed May 4, 5:18 PM ET



The United States has carelessly, and possibly fraudulently, handled some Iraqi money meant for rebuilding and poorly managed billions of dollars of U.S.-funded contracts, said U.S. audits released on Wednesday.

In one area of Iraq alone, nearly $100 million in cash used for rebuilding was unaccounted for. Incompetence by U.S. procurement staff ranged from contractors being paid twice to files being misplaced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050504/pl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc&printer=
1