Top 40 Myths (or lies) about War and Terrorism

[Ted Striker]

Well said Sikander, couldn't have said it better.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sikander
I knew you were the same person! A very well done DL nonetheless.

I'm no DL! I've been here since 2000.

[Spiffor]

Sikander:

I am not a 'conspiracy theorist', except if the thought that Bush lied to his population to manipulate it into supporting the war would qualify.

My scenario is that everybody believed there were still some chemical or biological weapons, at least those which weren't accounted for. These chemicals were only a danger to the Iraqi population because of Iraq's unability to launch them more than 180 km away.

The threat these chemicals posed were way blown out of proportion by the admin, in order to instill fear in the American population, as well as giving a good excuse to the UN. The supposed ties with Al Qaeda and the speculation that Al Qaeda terrorists would attack NY with these chems helped.
I distinctly remember PrinceBimz, for example, who explained us that waiting too long would result in NY being nuked. I distinctly remember many American posters thinking that pro-peace stance was appeasement, i.e caused by fear of the Iraqi threat.

I think the Bush admin intended to find these mostly harmless WMD after the invasion, and then explain to the world the apocalypse they could have brought. Again, they'd have blown the threat way out of proportion to show to the public how right they were, and that time was tight.

I'm not sure the chemical weapons aren't there. It is possible some reserves have been discovered but are being kept secret for them to be used at the right moment. I say these 'WMD' will be surprisingly revealed to the public during the presidential campaign, which will offer 3 advantages:

- GulfWar2 will have stopped being big news by then, and economic issues are likely to dictate the news. A big news item like this will bring focus on the 'successful' foreign policy.

- The democrats will stop saying Bush was a liar. Moreover, they'll be discriminated because they "didn't trust our troops". Many disgruntled Republicans will stop think "they have lied to me !"

- The Republicans will be able to flaunt the clairvoyance and wiseness of Bush, and will explain that Bush has avoided an even worse Sept. 11.

BTW, I don't think these chemicals will be directly planted by the US intelligence, because this would be a really major scandal if it was known. However, a few barrels of chemicals presented as the new apocalypse may do the trick.

[Velociryx]

Rev, I think it all comes down to priorities, tho.

True, we're spending more right now than we were keeping his butt contained, however, we were also damaging our reputation in the region with the whole Saudi base thing (which is a major bone of contention in the ME....leave the bases, we take away one of the bigger reasons for attacks against us.

Right now, we're blowing even that, however. For that dividend to pay off, we need a clear, rapid-reconstruction plan to rid Iraq of Saddam (done), get them back on a paying basis, make a deal for a base in Iraq (somewhere nice and low profile, so it don't raise any hackles like the bases in Saudi), and then back the hell away!

Nonetheless, the logic behind the move was sound. Spend more up front in the short term to end Saddam, fix the Saudi problem by doing so, and gain a dividend from it. The alternative would have been to "contain" the little monster for the rest of his natural life, and quite possibly for the life of whichever of his sons came after him. Not a billion a week, but in all, (especially factoring in the potential costs of additional attacks aimed at forcing us out of Saudi) probably a much more costly affair in total.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Great, remove regimes you don't like...

...what a great way to screw up the international order.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin


I'm no DL! I've been here since 2000.

Maybe I'm the DL! AAiiiigh!!!!!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sikander:

I am not a 'conspiracy theorist', except if the thought that Bush lied to his population to manipulate it into supporting the war would qualify.

My scenario is that everybody believed there were still some chemical or biological weapons, at least those which weren't accounted for. These chemicals were only a danger to the Iraqi population because of Iraq's unability to launch them more than 180 km away.

The threat these chemicals posed were way blown out of proportion by the admin, in order to instill fear in the American population, as well as giving a good excuse to the UN. The supposed ties with Al Qaeda and the speculation that Al Qaeda terrorists would attack NY with these chems helped.
I distinctly remember PrinceBimz, for example, who explained us that waiting too long would result in NY being nuked. I distinctly remember many American posters thinking that pro-peace stance was appeasement, i.e caused by fear of the Iraqi threat.

I think the Bush admin intended to find these mostly harmless WMD after the invasion, and then explain to the world the apocalypse they could have brought. Again, they'd have blown the threat way out of proportion to show to the public how right they were, and that time was tight.

I'm not sure the chemical weapons aren't there. It is possible some reserves have been discovered but are being kept secret for them to be used at the right moment. I say these 'WMD' will be surprisingly revealed to the public during the presidential campaign, which will offer 3 advantages:

- GulfWar2 will have stopped being big news by then, and economic issues are likely to dictate the news. A big news item like this will bring focus on the 'successful' foreign policy.

- The democrats will stop saying Bush was a liar. Moreover, they'll be discriminated because they "didn't trust our troops". Many disgruntled Republicans will stop think "they have lied to me !"

- The Republicans will be able to flaunt the clairvoyance and wiseness of Bush, and will explain that Bush has avoided an even worse Sept. 11.

BTW, I don't think these chemicals will be directly planted by the US intelligence, because this would be a really major scandal if it was known. However, a few barrels of chemicals presented as the new apocalypse may do the trick.

I think this would be far too risky politically, though I have seen this idea floated publicly on political talk shows, so you are not alone in your idea. If they do pull something like this it could be the end of this administration. Their credibility is very poor as it is, but to manipulate this for the election and to take the chance that one of the fairly large number of people who would have to know about it might come forward... After seeing Saddam's performance my faith in people doing the logical thing has been lessened. Of course in Iraq Saddam's word was law. In America there are likely to be "idealists" who will only take loyalty to Bush so far.

Honestly, I think if they had WMD they wouldn't be taking the beating that they are right now. Nor would they sell Tony Blair down the river like they are. And if British Intelligence found out that they were holding back you can bet that it would come out at a bad time for Bush, and in the worst possible light.