Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

[RGBVideo]

The fact is Saddam WANTEDus to think he had WMD and was feeding false information. He just didn't want us to be able to prove it. But you can only be ambigious for so long before someone misinterprets your lies. Should we be pissed of about the mistake.

Wtf?

By denying that he had them, offering to co-operate, and allowing WMD inspectors unlimited access to the whole nation? And don't try to feed me that "but the inspectors said that Iraqi goverment hadn't been co-operating with us 100%!" -bull, Hans Blix has been furious after the invasion, saying that everything was proceeding smoothly, but US officials pressured him to exaggarate the threat.

Bottom line, when everything is done the world will benefit form the Iraq invasion.

We shall see.
US has a notorious reputation from cold war with situations like this, so I'm not hopeful.

They are just out of work acotrs students with nothing better to do

If someone thinks or does something, he's automatically a no-gooder teen scumbag with nothing better to do. Brilliant.

Heh, hippie retards protesting FOR a dictator who kills tens of thousands a year.

And now I want a source.

No, seriously, I've been fed up with the phrase "everybody knows that Saddam is an evil mass-murderer/rapist/tyrant/bastard/messenger of Satan who sets up deathcamps where he personally brutally murders his own citizens/american babies/cute little defenseless women which we could go'n'****", I want some information. How did this dictator of yours kill tens of thousands a year?

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Agathon
You can't enforce democracy. You need a tradition of civil society and a strong middle class. Moreover, you can't be engaging in economic rape of the country at the same time.

Enforce, no. Encourage yes. I agree that in Iraq, democracy cannot be imposed. There need to be some other kind of solution and then over a period of time, encourage democracy to take root via the people themselves instead of from the top.

And what economic rape?

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I can see Powell serving to the end of his term, and then saying to Bush, thank you for the opportunity, but I have had enough. I have fulfilled my duty, and you can ask nothing more.

Powell is a honorable man. He's probably the only Republican I would elect for the presidency. Unfortunately he has said that he is not interested.

He wasn't too happy with the Administration. He'd say this and that then next day the Administration or Rumfield would contradict his statements. Powell has declared that should Bush run again and win, he will not serve in the second administration. I believe this says alot about Powell's character. We need more people like him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
We were utterly and completely right, weren't we?

Not really. Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

[SpencerH]

As has been suggested, Hussein was pretending to have stockpiles of WMD for some reason. Kay commented before congress that even his division commanders believed it was true. You have to ask yourself why did Hussein not come clean about the absence of WMD stockpiles? It would have saved him from being ousted as dictator (at least at that time).

I believe that the answer is simply that he didnt expect the USA to be capable of sustaining a successful attack in the face of antagonistic world opinion. He was wrong. The fallout from the decimation of the Iraqi army and government in a matter of weeks will benefit the west in terms of political stability. 'Rogue' states will now think twice about their actions against the USA. We saw the same effect with the US attack on Khadafi and the Brits reclamation of the Falklands (the comment in Janes after that one was that if the Soviets had mounted such a succesful military operation that NATO would be shaking in its boots).

The lesson to be learned. America and its ally (UK) will act unilaterally and there is no conventional army controlled by enemies of the west that can withstand their attack for more than a few weeks.

[The diplomat]

No stockpile has been found but:
1) We have proven that Saddam had the production means to build a stockpile.
2) We have found evidence of WMD in small quantitities.
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

So, the justifications for going to war were by and large accurate.

[Barinthus]

It has been suggested that Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. People under him were lying to Saddam and falsified evidence so Saddam wouldn't execute them for not making the progress he wanted.

Also after the war, in interviews with former Iraqi commanders especially those assigned to defending Bagadad, a common story emerged - they would say that they didn't have any WMDs attached to their units but they heard that units on their left and right had WMDs.

In a way the system was fooling itself and looked at what happened.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The diplomat
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

Eh?

[oedo]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No stockpile has been found but:
1) We have proven that Saddam had the production means to build a stockpile.
2) We have found evidence of WMD in small quantitities.
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

So, the justifications for going to war were by and large accurate.

1) no
2) no
3) no

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not really. Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

The U.N. would only have given the go-ahead if they really thought it was a good idea though, wouldn't they? And they'd have only thought it was a good idea if we were living in some parallel universe where Iraq had WMD's and the inspectors thought they did.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, the French sure don't tolerate Chirac Pick up a newspaper.

Nothing on Chirac on the front pages today, but what about this:

"Une parole d''outrage'" à Nicolas Sarkozy vaut un mois de prison ferme".

An "outrageous" word to [police minister] Nicolas Sarkozy is worth one month in Prison, as a reference to one person who insulted him when he was visiting Strasbourg (the newspaper clearly mentions the guy was on the verge to start a new job).

This is from Le Monde, who is the most neutral of our newspapers.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As has been suggested, Hussein was pretending to have stockpiles of WMD for some reason. Kay commented before congress that even his division commanders believed it was true. You have to ask yourself why did Hussein not come clean about the absence of WMD stockpiles? It would have saved him from being ousted as dictator (at least at that time).

I believe that the answer is simply that he didnt expect the USA to be capable of sustaining a successful attack in the face of antagonistic world opinion. He was wrong.

Saddam had to know that non-compliance would mean a war and his destruction. Their no way in the world that Saddam could have been that clueless! Why in the world would he risk utter destruction for a lie when coming clean would have so easily saved his regime? It does not make sense.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by oedo

1) no
2) no
3) no

1 and 2 are proven in the Kay Report. And letters found with Saddam prove 3.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
It has been suggested that Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. People under him were lying to Saddam and falsified evidence so Saddam wouldn't execute them for not making the progress he wanted.

Also after the war, in interviews with former Iraqi commanders especially those assigned to defending Bagadad, a common story emerged - they would say that they didn't have any WMDs attached to their units but they heard that units on their left and right had WMDs.

In a way the system was fooling itself and looked at what happened.

Yeah, thats what Kay said. It would explain the bizarre turn of events.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The diplomat

Saddam had to know that non-compliance would mean a war and his destruction. Their no way in the world that Saddam could have been that clueless! Why in the world would he risk utter destruction for a lie when coming clean would have so easily saved his regime? It does not make sense.

The Argentine Junta believed that Britain would not defend its colony and that even if it did, they believed could defeat a Brit army based 10K miles away. They were wrong.

Khadafi did not believe that Reagan and Thatcher would take action. After all he had been dealing with carter for 4 years and doing whatever he wanted. He was wrong.