Lynndie England

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Or maybe you work for Fox News!

---

How many Fox News journalists attend EL games? :rolleyes: Seriously, is that the best you can come up with as a response???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

if you think the US invaded to save the poor Iraqis from this nasty man, you're taking in far too much of their propoganda. Apart from bankrolling him to power in the first place, they openly supported him for years while he was off killing all these people and never made a move to remove him. The reason most are against the war is because they recognise that the world simply can't go on allowing the US to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

---

They supported him until he went into Kuwait. After liberating Kuwait, they turned against him. So what if they bankrolled him for some time, how is that relevant? Other dictators are torturing, and killing their citizens around the world. But you have to prioritise. Are the likes of Mugabe, Castro, or Lukashenko sponsoring international terrorism? Do they currently possess, or may they possess WMD in the future? Do their regimes pose a threat to the International community? No.

Saddam was a vicious thug, who was getting worse, and had to be dealt with at some point. After ignoring many UN Resolutions including 1441, the Americans went in to clean him out, and free the Iraqi people. As the USA has the most powerful military force in the world, it is entitled to protect itself from threats to their own country when the need arises, and by extension, from threats to the International community.

You can be sure also, that the situations in Syria, Iran, and N. Korea are being carefully monitored and action will be taken against those countries if necessary, should their situations deteriorate, oil or no oil.

"the Americans went in to clean him out, and free the Iraqi people"

Yep, that's right! Totally honourable intentions. Don't forget Saddam was connected to 9/11, Fox News keep saying that so that must be true too. And of course Halliburton and friends are in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. COME ON. The Iraqi people are free now aren't they. How many dead in the last week? 400. How many maimed for life? Don't worry about that missing leg, Mohammed, YOU'RE FREE. Ali, what's a couple of missing eyes? YOU'RE FREE - sure you can smell the freedom.


" As the USA has the most powerful military force in the world, it is entitled to protect itself from threats to their own country when the need arises, and by extension, from threats to the International community. "


There was NO THREAT from Iraq -Powell and Rice said that on TV in 2001 and 2002 and then lied to the UN to justify war. A complete volte face.

"You can be sure also, that the situations in Syria, Iran, and N. Korea are being carefully monitored and action will be taken against those countries if necessary, should their situations deteriorate, oil or no oil.[/QUOTE]"

Where are they gonna get the soldiers and BILLIONS of dollars to do this. Where are they gonna get multinational support?
Oil or no oil? You must be kidding.
HOW DARE any country, I don't care how mighty they may be, adopt the right to shape, control, rule this world. HOW DARE any bunch of neocons - most of the them army dodgers in their time - send soldiers to their deaths and the deaths of thousands of innocents - on behalf of a country.

The UN is flawed, (thanks mostly to years of US antipathy - ask Mary Robinson )- should be improved to deal with emergencies in the hotspots of the world. Who the hell wants a super power running the world? Look at the mess the British, Belgium,. Spanish etc empires left behind. Now we want another one? With Bush in charge?


I said it on another post, the Republican attitude will eventually trickle over here and become part of the political discourse/norm. After years of throwing off the crap of conservatism, now it's seeping back in again under the floorboards. I hear it every day on RTE - it's like listening to US TV.

Justin Barrett for President, anyone. It'll happen if the above pro neocon attitude takes hold.

I can't believe I read those opinions above. I find them utterly depressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

How many Fox News journalists attend EL games? :rolleyes: Seriously, is that the best you can come up with as a response???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

---

:rolleyes:

My comment was what is known in common parlance as a joke.

It clearly isn't the best I could come up with given the fact that I went on for another couple of paragraphs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

So what if they bankrolled him for some time, how is that relevant?

---

How is it relevant?! How could it not be relevant?! Do you honestly think the hood old US of A suddenly turned around and said "My my, what have we been doing all these years, bankrolling a guy who was murdering millions under our own noses? Well, let's all reform straight away and change that!" The utter hypocrisy of the US is what gets at everyone - they'll publicly turn against the likes of Hussein when it suits them, all the while quietly supporting some other threat to world peace elsewhere in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Are the likes of Mugabe, Castro, or Lukashenko sponsoring international terrorism? Do they currently possess, or may they possess WMD in the future? Do their regimes pose a threat to the International community? No.

---

You have to be joking here! Did Hussein sponsor international terrorism? No! The US said as much previously, and any links to Bin Laden are refuted by the numerous reports that he can't stand the guy! Did Hussein possess WMD? No! He said as much, the weapons inspectors said as much, he'd destroyed his weapons in previous years!

But let's have a look at your questions again, because they are interesting in a way. Does Bush/the US administration sponsor international terrorism? Yes - in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, Chile, Argentina, etc., etc. Does the US currently possess WMD? Hell yes! More than the rest of the world put together! Do their regimes pose a threat to the international community? Ask Iraqis, Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc., etc.

And let's have a look at your questions again. The Saudis sponsored world terrorism - that's where the WTC attacks originated. Are they a threat to the international community? Quite obviously - they attacked the WTC. Has the US invaded? No. In fact, the same people are some of Bush's closest business friends. Has the US any intention of invading? No! Why? Because as long as the Saudis play to the US's tune, they can do whatever they like without redress from the Yanks. That's where the problem lies. That's why the US can't be trusted to wield its power whenever it wants. That's why they must be made go through the UN. And that's why the war in Iraq is illegal. Simple as that...

AND Pinapple Stu, the Saudis and Chinese have so much money invested in the US economy, if they pulled out - economic catastrophe. If they even threatened to pull, dollar down the plughole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

My comment was what is known in common parlance as a joke.

---

Maybe, but that's the third time that I have posted about this issue, that I have been accused of working for Fox News, just because my opinion is different to most other posters. The "joke" is wearing thin by now! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Did Hussein possess WMD? No! He said as much, the weapons inspectors said as much, he'd destroyed his weapons in previous years!

---

You believed Hussein!! :eek: Who the hell would believe a word he said? He was a dictator, everything he said was propaganda. Just because he had destroyed weapons previously, doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of developing more in the future. With his previous record, anything was possible. Blix stated that his regime wasn't fully complying with UN Resolution 1441, which warned of the consequences for the Iraqi regime for non-compliance, which duly materialised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Does Bush/the US administration sponsor international terrorism? Yes - in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, etc., etc. Do their regimes pose a threat to the international community? Ask Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc.

---

As I said before, you must PRIORITISE. There are some dictatorship regimes who pose a threat to the International community, and there are others that don't. Those that do pose a threat will be dealt with. Where is the terrorism, in countries declared safe to visit such as Bulgaria, and Argentina? Bulgaria is an EU candidate country, FFS. How could they enter the EU, with a government whose "regime" poses a threat to the International Community? As for Haiti, US troops were merely sent there to stabilize the tense political situation in the country, following the recent developments there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Halliburton and friends are in Iraq for the good of the Iraqis. COME ON. The Iraqi people are free now aren't they. How many dead in the last week? 400. How many maimed for life? Don't worry about that missing leg, Mohammed, YOU'RE FREE. Ali, what's a couple of missing eyes? YOU'RE FREE - sure you can smell the freedom.

---

It may come as a surprise to you, but they (and their allies) are actually there for the good of the Iraqis. They had no future under Saddam's regime, only death, routine torture, and hopelessness. War is not pretty, people do actually die, that's war. Like I said before, away from the headlines from Iraq, daily life is slowly improving. The country despite it's problems, is free. The Iraqi people have voted in a government who they believe is best equipped to guide their country through this difficult period. They had no such rights under the old regime, and their neighbours don't have that right at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

There was NO THREAT from Iraq -Powell and Rice said that on TV in 2001 and 2002 and then lied to the UN to justify war.

---

Saddam may, and probably would have, given his record, developed WMD soon afterwards, if left to his own devices, thereby posing a threat to the International community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

HOW DARE any country, I don't care how mighty they may be, adopt the right to shape, control, rule this world. HOW DARE any bunch of neocons, send soldiers to their deaths and the deaths of thousands of innocents - on behalf of a country. I can't believe I read those opinions above. I find them utterly depressing.

---

Then don't write them!! :rolleyes:

Like it or lump it, America is the biggest country, with the biggest budget, and has the greatest military might in the free world. Because of that, it is entitled to defend itself against any perceived threat to their country, when the need arises. Regarding soldiers, a soldier's job in war is to kill, or be killed, and unfortunately, some soldiers do die in combat. But in Iraq, their actions helped to bring some sense of freedom and opportunity to the people of countries who for so long had neither of either, so they could have the chance to make a better life for themselves in the future. Something it would seem that those who were "anti-war", were desperate to deny them of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You believed Hussein!! :eek: Who the hell would believe a word he said? He was a dictator, everything he said was propaganda.

---

Hey, guess what - he wasn't lying! Unlike Bush and Blair, who lied about having proof of WMD. Lied to start a war! Do you condone this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

As I said before, you must PRIORITISE. There are some dictatorship regimes who pose a threat to the International community, and there are others that don't. Those that do pose a threat will be dealt with.

---

Really? North Korea keeps actively threatening the US and is quite open about its nuclear capabilities. Don't see them getting dealt with, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Where is the terrorism, in countries declared safe to visit such as Bulgaria, and Argentina? Bulgaria is an EU candidate country, FFS. How could they enter the EU, with a government whose "regime" poses a threat to the International Community?

---

You're not even bothering to read my posts now. Read it again -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Do their regimes (the US) pose a threat to the international community? Ask Venezuelans, Bulgarians, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, etc.

---

I said the US was posing a threat to these countries - nothing to do with the countries being a threat themselves. Bulgaria was bombed by "smart" American bombs in the Yugoslavia affair. As you rightly point out, Bulgaria is a safe country. Which is why the US bombing it - accidentally or not - certainly means they're (the US, just to be ultra-clear here) is a threat to the international community. US interference in the other countries I mentioned backs this up as well.

With all due respect, mypost, your knowledge of American activities in the world today and in the past 50 years appears to contain gaps far too large for this thread. May I suggest you do some background reading in the meantime? I'd point you towards Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Why Do People Hate America by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies or the Michael Moore books among others. Among other things, you'll learn just what the US has done to destabilise world peace since the last World War and also why it is absolutely wrong that the US should be allowed to wield its power as it chooses (I would have thought the fact that they have been proven to lie about its evidence to start a war in a conveniently oil-rich country which they are now looting would have been evidence enough, but seemingly not). I think this knowledge is vital to have before discussing the US's role in the world.

[QUOTE=mypost]It may come as a surprise to you, but they (and their allies) are actually there for the good of the Iraqis. They had no future under Saddam's regime, only death, routine torture, and hopelessness. War is not pretty, people do actually die, that's war. Like I said before, away from the headlines from Iraq, daily life is slowly improving. The country despite it's problems, is free. The Iraqi people have voted in a government who they believe is best equipped to guide their country through this difficult period. They had no such rights under the old regime, and their neighbours don't have that right at the moment.


The only thing that surprises me is how naieve your opinion on this is. Sorry if that's rude and hurtful. No future? Lets look at today. Iraqi government is basically functioning within the green zone under 24/7 protection. Chaos everywhere else. That is not democracy.
Torture? Saddam era. agreed eg Abu Gharib. Today?..er....Abu Gharib.
Life is improving? Let's see
Oil exports : DOWN ..on Saddam era
Oil facilities : BOMBED daily
Employment : DOWN on Saddam era.
Electricity: Levels DOWN on Saddam era - infrequent at best. Power cuts daily occurence.
Sewage treatment : Bombed by US firstly and virtually non existent.
Clean Water: Bottled water sold at huge prices. If you can't afford it, don't wait by the tap, because it's not coming and even if it did, poisioned.
Emigration : UP -illegal and legal
Transport system: What transport system?
Television: Al Jazeera banned along with others. Of course, Fox "News" say they're in league with the terrorists. US financed channels always there to listen or watch if you want their truth. That's of course if you have electricity or can afford batteries to watch/listen.
Wages: Mininimal if you have a job and if you work for the "government", if you have a life. Massive unemployment.
I could go on and on and on.
By the way, you can verify the above on numerous websites ie UN - that's a start.

My post - that's not freedom. COME ON??

When you hear anti-Saddam Iraqis on TV saying that life was better under the old regime, then you know, as an US admistration, you've got a real credibility problem. Sure, Saddam was a vicious, incompetent ba......rd but who put him there and backed him up in the first place? Anyone see Rumsfeldt these days?

Saddam may, and probably would have, given his record, developed WMD soon afterwards, if left to his own devices, thereby posing a threat to the International community.



International law, the UN - whatever its limitations, Human rights are NOT based on COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA, PROBABLY, IF etc as Jude Judy says. (Yeh, I deserved to be slagged for watching that - feel free :D )
Hans Blix's investigations clearly showed that Iraq couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag by 2003. Its military infrastructure was in a mess.
Why would the US not give him a few more months? Easy. They'd have no excuses to wage war.
I repeat my points that you ignored: why did Rice and Powell reverse what they stated ON TV/LIVE about having Saddam boxed in, under control etc. within a matter of months. If they were so sure about him, where did all the evidence suddenly appear when Powell addresses the UN. As was blatantly obvious, it was contrived.

Then don't write them!! :rolleyes:

What's that supposed to mean?? Don't write what? I never mentioned anything in that paragraph about writing. Oh yeh, that's supposed to be sarcastic. Jesus, my post, you can do better than that.





Like it or lump it, America is the biggest country, with the biggest budget, and has the greatest military might in the free world. Because of that, it is entitled to defend itself against any perceived threat to their country, when the need arises. Regarding soldiers, a soldier's job in war is to kill, or be killed, and unfortunately, some soldiers do die in combat. But in Iraq, their actions helped to bring some sense of freedom and opportunity to the people of countries who for so long had neither of either, so they could have the chance to make a better life for themselves in the future. Something it would seem that those who were "anti-war", were desperate to deny them of.[/QUOTE]


So MIGHT IS RIGHT? And you're advocating democracy? Saddam was not a perceived threat, he had no part in 9/11. Period. You get slagged about Fox, my post, but they keep linking Saddam and 9/11. Coincidence?

Sense of freedom. See my above posts. Enough said.

I respect your points of view, my post. In fact, I really wanted to believe that the reasons for invading Iraq were genuine - I really did which is why I hate to disagree with your pro US views. Saddam was a monster, a vicious horrible cnut and I would love to have seen him kicked the siht out of in public by say, one of his victim. But life is not like the WWF so we must face reality and observe laws.
However, you really should be embarrassed by the comment that the anti-war movement were desperate to deny Iraqis freedom. Again, straight out of the Hannity/O'Reilly/Mike Savage/William Kristol/Krauthammer/Fred Barnes/John Gibson etc etc handbook. I've heard them say this again and again. It's a neocon mantra and basically utter and absolute hyprocritical BS.
The anti-war movement was against an ILLEGAL war. The anti-war movement knew - as anyone who lives on planet earth knows - that the invasion of Iraq would would make matters WORSE, not better. They were right. It's hard to believe that things could be worse after Saddam but I'm afraid that's what's happened. That does not mean that the anti-war movement was pro-Saddam by implication and anti freedom.

Iraq is now a magnet for every nutcase and anti-West looper and for generations we will suffer the consequences.

I honestly do not know what would have happened had Blix been given more time. I don't do COULD, WOULDA, SHOULDA so I do not know if Saddam would still be in power. I can GUESS that he would have been assasinated by elements within Iraq, aided by US, Saudi Arabian and Western agencies. Who knows? We could talk forever about the legality of that too!

By the way, I watch Faux "News" and read the various right wing websites such as Media Research Council, Drudge Report AS WELL as Newshounds, Media Matters , Michael Moore.com.
Yeh, I listen to Air America also. The difference between Fox "News" and Air America is that latter says what is does on the tin, Fox pretends to be "fair and balanced". I listen to both knowing they both have their agendas but at least Air America admits to being pro Democrat, anti neocon. What's Fox's excuse. Yeh right, "fair and balanced" For fcuks sake!!
Watching them all and questioning them all, right and left - that's how I form my opinions not by absorbing and regurgitating from one of them only as you are coming dangerously close to doing my post.


Finally, I will say to you, my post. I hope I'm totally wrong and that Iraq becomes genuinely free and its people have a future. Sadly, a dishonest war by a dishonest administration usually only has one outcome - chaos. History is worth studying for that reason alone but Bush and co don't do history.

See the yanks are all over the place giving out by the Uzbekistan and threatening to invade the country to give the people freedom.... Either that or they're staying silent on the issue....

Yeh, Macy, isn't that the country where the security services "bathe" anti government people in acid along with other delightful torture methods. But, of course, they're on the right side in the so called war on terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Hey, guess what - he wasn't lying! Unlike Bush and Blair, who lied about having proof of WMD. Lied to start a war!

---

Lied? Excuse me, but there was not one, not two, not three, but 4 separate Independent Inquiries about the Iraq war in Britain last year, which, ALL, acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Really? North Korea keeps actively threatening the US and is quite open about its nuclear capabilities. Don't see them getting dealt with, do you?

---

The North Korea situation hasn't reached the point where military action is required, - yet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I said the US was posing a threat to these countries - nothing to do with the countries being a threat themselves. Bulgaria was bombed by "smart" American bombs in the Yugoslavia affair. Which is why the US bombing it - accidentally or not - certainly means they're (the US, just to be ultra-clear here) is a threat to the international community. US interference in the other countries I mentioned backs this up as well. With all due respect, mypost, your knowledge of American activities in the world today and in the past 50 years appears to contain gaps far too large for this thread. May I suggest you do some background reading in the meantime? I'd point you towards Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Why Do People Hate America by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies or the Michael Moore books among others. Among other things, you'll learn just what the US has done to destabilise world peace since the last World War and also why it is absolutely wrong that the US should be allowed to wield its power as it chooses. I think this knowledge is vital to have before discussing the US's role in the world.

---

With respect, what America has/hasn't done since WWII is not relevant here. That's a debate for another time. The American military's actions are not always perfect, and they have accidently bombed other countries on the odd occasion, but that doesn't automatically implicate that it is a threat to the world at large. Their military is the best that there is around at the moment, and will only engage in military conflict as a last resort measure, when all other alternative options have been exhausted. This thread is about the actions of a convicted US soldier, and by extension, the Iraq conflict. So, I will only talk about that here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Why would the US not give him a few more months? Easy. They'd have no excuses to wage war.

---

The International Community gave Saddam 12 years, almost 20 UN Resolutions, and 4 more months, to comply with the world's demands. How much more time did he need? He had enough time. As he failed to comply, he faced the consequences.

Freedom has many difficulties, and democracy is not perfect, but the Iraqi people will discover soon, that after 24 years of hell, it is the only way forward for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Freedom has many difficulties, and democracy is not perfect, but the Iraqi people will discover soon

---

What about the Uzbeks? Will they discover freedom and democracy soon? Or will the yanks stay silent, or continue to tell both sides to dispurse? Mind you, we wouldn't want to deny the CIA access to all the info they get from the torture methods, or the Bush supporting American Companies from their oil contracts....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The International Community gave Saddam 12 years, almost 20 UN Resolutions, and 4 more months, to comply with the world's demands. How much more time did he need? He had enough time. As he failed to comply, he faced the consequences.

---

failed to comply with what exactly? to step down? he must have been pretty miffed as to why the US was picking on him again and not on another of the 'regimes' they've set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.

---

over exaggerating isnt lying? great. well then, im off to far away climes to sample some fine native cusine*

[SIZE=1]*downstairs for coco-pops[/SIZE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Lied? Excuse me, but there was not one, not two, not three, but 4 separate Independent Inquiries about the Iraq war in Britain last year, which, ALL, acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.

---

So where are the WMD? Maybe Saddam magicked them away, eh? If he could use then in 45 minutes, why didn't he? Even you admitted in this very thread that he didn't have any.

He lied, end of story. The inquiries were a joke which caused people in the BBC to fall on their sword by virtue of their responsibilities arising from their position at the top, but which allowed Blair to get away with it because he wasn't expected to have time to read everything. Utter joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The North Korea situation hasn't reached the point where military action is required, - yet!

---

Eh? They're actively threatening the US. They're waving their nuclear weapons programme in the US's face! Iraq never did anything like that. How can the Iraq situation be seen as more dangerous than North Korea?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

With respect, what America has/hasn't done since WWII is not relevant here.

---

Rubbish. It most certainly is relevant. You have to have background on the US's previous actions in order to understand what they're likely to do this time around. If you ignore their past, they can hoodwink you every time with rhetoric about freedom, etc. Anybody who was aware of their past knew from the off exactly what was going to happen here. And has been able to predict it fairly well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

[The US military] will only engage in military conflict as a last resort measure, when all other alternative options have been exhausted.

---

If you honestly believe that, you're beyond all hope. The weapons inspectors weren't finished in Iraq by the time Bush ordered the invasion. There's your point in shreds already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

This thread is about the actions of a convicted US soldier, and by extension, the Iraq conflict. So, I will only talk about that here.

---

Oh how convenient. All this is about Lynndie England, and nothing else matters. Rubbish. Your first post in this thread argued that the entire war was legal. You can't go backing out of the argument now to narrow it down to one person.

You evidently seem not to have taken on board my comments with regards reading up on this topic. Until you have, I'm not going to contribute any further in this thread. If you still believe the US is the world's guardian angel who wants the best for everyone, you're in for a hell of an eye-opener when you do start reading around the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

He lied, end of story. The inquiries were a joke which caused people in the BBC to fall on their sword by virtue of their responsibilities arising from their position at the top, but which allowed Blair to get away with it because he wasn't expected to have time to read everything. Utter joke.

---

To accuse the British PM, of lieing to the British parliament and public, is a very serious accusation, without proof. Where is the proof that he lied? I remind you, that 4 lengthy, public, Independent Inquiries in Britain all cleared him of lieing to his government and people, regarding Britain's involvement in the Iraq conflict. No, the Inquiries were not a joke. You think they were a joke, because the findings of the Inquiries were not to your satisfaction. Blair stated publicly, that he would resign as British PM, IF the findings of the Inquiries implicated that he lied to his parliament, and public about the issue. Instead, heads rolled at the BBC after the Hutton Inquiry's findings, which also stated that WMD may be found in Iraq in the future. A few months later, the chemical weapon Sarin, was discovered by British troops in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The weapons inspectors weren't finished in Iraq by the time Bush ordered the invasion.

---

They weren't finished, eh? They were originally given 2 months to conduct their inspections, and were then given two more. So they had 4 months to conduct their inspections, and if they couldn't finish them in that time, when were they going to finish them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

All this is about Lynndie England, and nothing else matters. Your first post in this thread argued that the entire war was legal. You can't go backing out of the argument now to narrow it down to one person.

---

You either didn't read, didn't understand, or both, about what I posted. I am not narrowing the argument down to one person. In fact, I have never commented on the conviction of that US soldier at all. It doesn't concern me what the US military's record in previous conflicts is. What matters here is what they have done about Iraq, and that's what I'm posting about. If you want to talk about what the US and/or other countries' military record was in the past, that's another debate entirely.

Good arguements mypost but to be fair, the Hutton Enquiry had such narrow terms of reference that there could only be one outcome, Blair not lying. I mean, he didn't even know the difference between battlefield weapons and WMDs regarding his 45 minute attack warning. Come on, man. The other enquiries were also a joke.