WoMD ... so where are they? (page 84)

dubla

abaddon-

No, you're just staring at this particular event and refusing to really consider that - yet again - the public have been played for fool, the same way they were previously played.

i guess im confused here. bush said months ago that there were no wmds. now there is a report out saying the exact same thing....what am i refusing to consider? that bush, cheney, kerry, edwards, etc. intentionally decieved the world? i think the immediate threat was exaggerated in order to justify the attack....but i also think that all four of those men truly believed saddam still possessed wmds. you do not have the same opinion on the matter....but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

.....is a good way of describing the basic approach by Bush and Blair to dealing with invading on trumped-up pretexts - now that they are definatively trumped-up.

well, its nice that you are admitting you were dead wrong on kay, but how about responding to what he said? he said this report gives us NO NEW info......again, theres nothing new here.

And the pro-war crowd will be ignoring how they've been ridden like a bitch and called sweetheart - and how they liked it.

ooooh la-la, dont get me hot here.

Elsewhere in the thread you admit terrorism in Iraq is worse than before the invasion because of the invasion.

its worse short-term in iraq, because there are u.s. soldiers in an unstable situation, and its a easy way, location wise, to attack the u.s. long term the war isnt going to create more terrorists....oh, they might use the war as the lastest excuse to sign up, but there will always be reasons. al qaeda has a stated goal of wiping the earth clean of infidels...theres no fuel needed for that fire, itll burn nicely on its own.

You know terrorism is worse as a result of a badly supported, badly planned invasion carried out under pretexts, and find it neccesary to make weak sarcastic comments to defend yourself?

im not defending myself, and i dont think terrorism is worse as a result of the war....its just increased in one location on a short-term basis. i certainly dont think theres a greater chance for an attack on u.s. soil now than there was before the war....obviously al qaeda didnt need a war to use as an excuse for 9-11.

Is it just another way of ignoring you were decieved?

how was i decieved? my beliefs about saddam were never based on anything from the current administration, and obviously i have to keep repeating that like a broken record (take off the earmuffs this time!). if i was "decieved", then i was decieved by clinton, the u.n., and saddam himself (hes the one that admitted to having these stockpiles, and couldnt prove he destroyed them).....so that particular argument against me, however popular it is with you and simon, has little to no basis.

aa

Abaddon

dubla

what am i refusing to consider? that bush, cheney, kerry, edwards, etc. intentionally decieved the world? i think the immediate threat was exaggerated in order to justify the attack....but i also think that all four of those men truly believed saddam still possessed wmds. you do not have the same opinion on the matter....but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

I'm glad you feel there was deception (you might prefer exaggeration; fair enough, let's not get bogged down by semantics.

It's then down to whether they intentionally deceived, or if you prefer, exaggerated something they believed sincerely. Not neccesarily you (fair point), but the general populace.

Well, do you think that each time this has happened (exaggeration of threats to garner public support for extra-territorial conflict) it has been exaggerated because they believed sincerely?

If so there has been a remarkable sequence of ill-advised scare-mongers with poor judgement in control of your country. Nice.

Are you sure you wouldn't rather they didn't do it deliberately? At least it would mean they weren't incompetent.

It's the fact it's the same-old-story, again, that makes it hard for me to believe they did not cross the line in deception from "exaggerated because they believed sincerely", to, "I know, if we say this everyone will let us do what the hell we like".

And if the most powerful country is run by people who are arguably handling foreign affairs incompetently (i.e. they are sincere in their beliefs), or at the very least doing just as much bad as they do good, and possibly more bad than good long term due to long-term resentments (over the US's foreign policy over decades) that are not being addressed. Well, that's scarey too.

I prefer the hair-cut to the monkey. You probably disagree. I think we might both wish that there were a better choice. If we can't agree on other things, just maybe we can drink on that one.

Francois

Patience, patience. Saddam and company had 12 years in which to play hide 'n' seek with the WMD. And what if they're never found?

Ah, it's like a devout Catholic on their knees at some wall that looks a bit like the Virgin Mary, whilst the Priest reflects on how the cut-backs on maintenance due to poor attendence has made the Church awfully damp...

Don't hold your breath...

Are you gonna insist we find Saddam and give him back his country so he can recommence torturing and killing his people again?

No, no one is. No one has. Can you only make an argument by attributing things that were never said by the opposite side to them?

Simon

Finally, they have admitted the inevitable and what most sensible people have known for a long time. There were no WoMDs !!

Now, if they have given up the search for Iraq WoMDs then this means that:

a. They now realise that they never existed and the whole thing was a bogus invention to justify an illegal invasion.

b. They are happy to have rogue WoMDs "on the lose" ... and they want us to trust our security in them?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

JH

All these lives for nothing

Golf

xenawarrior

Now, if they have given up the search for Iraq WoMDs then this means that:
a. They now realise that they never existed and the whole thing was a bogus invention to justify an illegal invasion.

It might mean that to you but it's not a conclusion that everyone comes to.

hawkaw

Respectfully Simon the Inspection team found (what the UN considers) some 52 WMD ordinance including but not limited to the binary sarin gas shell. That weapon alone could have killed a few thousand people. The CIA report by the Inspection Team also found what could be considered one stockpile of WMDs (I think in part 3 go to pages 29 and 30 if memory serves).

Clearly I think what you meant to say is that the intelligence group has not found "stockpiles" of WMDs. At least that is how the press moved the goal posts in this "optic" war or words. Then the press slips up, as it does in Canada, and just states there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Clearly, the USA intelligence should have done a better job but this war was more than just WMDs as anyone in the know will tell you. For starters Iraq was in clear violation of UN resolution 1441 and many others. Its conduct to Kuwait and other counties was a serious concern for the USA and lets face it - when one starts knocking down American buildings and the leader of Iraq is cheering about it - Iraq was just asking for it. It's too bad Powel, Bush and others didn't do more to sell the invasion. It was much like how Clinton tried to sell a war with Iraq back in 1998 but also failed due to his Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I think people should have done a better job in explaining how the French, Russians and others at the UN were being bribed by the Iraqi government through the oil for food scandal. If we didn't have that scandal, I think the security council's reaction would have been much different in February 2003.

I think there are people in this world like you who feel that the Iraq war was unjust while no doubt you feel the halfganistan conflict was just (or maybe you don't). I now feel both wars were just and in the long term will create a very healthy and safe middle east. I now see what our exit strategy is and the long term.

Remember war is hell and very violent. Fact is we are in it whether we like it or not and thus we need to support our troops (who volunteered to join the military) and their mission.

See you later.

hawk

Thunder Rider

Where's the freakin Tequila?????

William Penwell

Hell no we need that oil for our gas guzzling SUV's.

As the situation day by day in Iraq is getting out of hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145585.stm

Will

Simon

I hate to say "I told you so" but this week was pretty amazing. After Bush (we're on to Jeb now) made a pigs ear of answering a simple and expected question about the Iraq war we saw every other REPUBLICAN candidate admitting the war was a complete mistake. How things have changed - now to be taken seriously as a candidate you have to voice opposition to the war and distance yourself from G.W.Bush.

So I wonder, are there any of the people who originally cheer-led the invasion still so absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do?

I now feel both wars were just and in the long term will create a very healthy and safe middle east.

Oh dear. Does anyone think it has? We seemed to have replaced a poor regime with an absolute nightmare regime. In fact, is there anyone who wouldn't prefer to have Saddam back in Iraq running things?

Is this just the benefit of hindsight or the did some of us see what was happening and call it out ahead of time?

The convenient truth being promoted by today's politicians is that the intelligence was wrong. We know that is not the truth. They knew there was no threat from Iraq or involvement in 9/11 - they wanted the war for their own political reshaping of the middle east which has been the biggest mistake in all of recent American history.

Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz and crew should all be in prison, not retired and enjoying the fruits of their investments in misery for millions.

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this