Originally Posted by mmarsh

Phoenix

No actually you are mistaken. The 45 min claim came from Iyad Allewi who was a CIA informant. Like many of the claims that came from Allewi, Chelbi and 'Curveball' that data proved to be bogus. Tony Blair just stupidly used it without checking his source, just like Bush did with the Niger Yellow cake. So now we are moving into the "could have been a threat". That is NOT what Bush told us. Bush repeatively told us Iraq was an "immient danger to US security". That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar. Saddam was a very evil man, but the sanctions limited his ability to threaten his neighbors. Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.

As for cheating and fooling the UN, there are several countries guilty about that including the US and Isreal (which has been in violation for 30 years with its settlements). We dont see anyone wanting to bomb them.

As for Iran

I know lots of Iranians in Paris, were educated in France, UK or the USA. The all want better ties with the west. The Problem is the government you just elected seems to want to do precisely the opposite. It has alienated traditional European allies such as France and the UK. So I am not sure you speak for the majority of Iranians. There is also the guardian consul who HATES the west. Frankly I dont see who relations can improve in such circumstances...

Good that you honestly ADMIT it was Chalabi and Allawi who had false intel. So it wasn't Bush fault. They dragged him into this and given the situation now, it is wrong to leave Iraq.

As for Iran, I have to repeat, we dont have democratic elections as you do in the west, The new president of Iran was chosen by the supreme leader of Iran in a sham election.

Iranian people had no say in electing that idiot hardliner.
I can tell I speak for majority of Iranians who want social freedom, reforms and secularism.

Originally Posted by Missileer

There you go again, breaking the rules. Flaming a country or it's leader(s) is a no-no.

Missileer

(Thank you Rich)

Please dont accuse me of breaking the rules when you clearly haven't you read them yourself.

4. Flaming, Name Calling, Country Bashing, Spamming, Hate or Racism related posts are not accepted!

No where does it say that criticing a countries leader is forbidden. Are you familiar with the trial of John Peter Zinger. His not guilty verdict was based on the following:

"A person cannot be guilty of libel if the charge made against the govonor happens to be true".

Thats the problem in this country, many Republicans simply cannot accept the slightest criticism against Bush even if the allegation is true.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Missileer

(Thank you Rich)

Please dont accuse me of breaking the rules when you clearly haven't you read them yourself.

4. Flaming, Name Calling, Country Bashing, Spamming, Hate or Racism related posts are not accepted!

No where does it say that criticing a countries leader is forbidden. Are you familiar with the trial of John Peter Zinger. His not guilty verdict was based on the following:

"A person cannot be guilty of libel if the charge made against the govonor happens to be true".

Thats the problem in this country, many Republicans simply cannot accept the slightest criticism against Bush even if the allegation is true.

Maybe he was just saying it would be better to not insult someone's leader as it does not help your argument and can lead to negative responses. Your response would have been just as good if you left out just a flat out insult. I guess thats all I interpreted it as.

Originally Posted by WARmachine88

yet when Saddam is commiting some of those crimes, U.S was supporting him (from 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war, U.S was on Saddam's side).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

I think if you read that link you might be fascinated to know that the US played both ends against the middle in the 80's. We supported Iraq and Iran because they could only weaken each other through further fighting amongst themselves. Sure, the US supported both governments in one way or another 20 years ago but we stopped selling arms to Iraq and Iran after Desert Storm and the US is not working on joint weapons research and developement with the Iranian government.

Rich and mmarsh, you may not call a national leader a "liar" without absolute and demonstrated proof. Do not assume that because you are convinced of something it is undeniable fact. Failure to change this behavior will result in disciplinary action.

Any questions or concerns about this may be taken up through PMs, any further off topic posts will be deleted.

Originally Posted by Damien435

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

I think if you read that link you might be fascinated to know that the US played both ends against the middle in the 80's. We supported Iraq and Iran because they could only weaken each other through further fighting amongst themselves. Sure, the US supported both governments in one way or another 20 years ago but we stopped selling arms to Iraq and Iran after Desert Storm and the US is not working on joint weapons research and developement with the Iranian government.

I have no doubt that the US was aiding both sides because Geopolitical interests of the US was in a stalemate between Iranians and Iraqis. That is true!

I have read many many stuff about how US 7th fleet stocks were directed to aid Iranians in terms of spare parts and missiles. (TOW, AIM54s and HAWK).

Israelis helped Iranians in the 80s too.

Want proof?
read this book:


Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988
Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop

http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php