We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Dauphin]

What worries me about this whole affair is not that the war happened, (I still don't know if it was a good idea or not for reasons other than the original ones propounded by the orchestrators, I was and remain ambivalent), but that political leaders of the world can be so brazen and not incur even significant political backlash from the opposition, or voters for so badly misleading them.

[Straybow]

It wasn't the confirmed presence of WMDs, it was Saddam's clear intent to use what he claimed he had and what intelligence indicated he was attempting to get, and would get as soon as embargos and other punishments were lifted.

It isn't our fault that Saddam was all bluff. When people threaten that kind of stuff you take them seriously as far as intelligence can support. That's the risk Saddam took by bluffing, and I don't shed one tear over the decision.

[Tripledoc]

Shouldn't the rule other boards are using, that quoting people in pieces to rip apart their argumants with inane accusations (the French did it!) be disallowed?

Regarding constructing WMD evidence. Some would implicate the Office of Special Plans, staffed by Jews, Pentagon.

Anyway Blair was perfectly aware that Saddam had no WMD capabilty.

And why did no one listen to Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector. Why did he not get any airtime on US media.
Of course his book in which he pointed to the manipulation was reviewed here, And it got bad a review (by a Jewish journalist), claiming that it was inaccurate and false . It appears it was not.

[alva]

No, something doesn't compute. And unless you think the whole American government is made of morons

Looks like you just answered your own question there, son.

-

It wasn't the confirmed presence of WMDs, it was Saddam's clear intent to use what he claimed he had and what intelligence indicated he was attempting to get, and would get as soon as embargos and other punishments were lifted.

It isn't our fault that Saddam was all bluff. When people threaten that kind of stuff you take them seriously as far as intelligence can support. That's the risk Saddam took by bluffing, and I don't shed one tear over the decision.

You are kidding I hope.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Richelieu:
How is it tragic?

I was refering to the loss of life on both sides. That in itself is tragic, but if you add to it that there never was any real justification for that war it is not only tragic: it borders the obscene.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by alva

It wasn't the confirmed presence of WMDs, it was Saddam's clear intent to use what he claimed he had and what intelligence indicated he was attempting to get, and would get as soon as embargos and other punishments were lifted.

It isn't our fault that Saddam was all bluff. When people threaten that kind of stuff you take them seriously as far as intelligence can support. That's the risk Saddam took by bluffing, and I don't shed one tear over the decision.

You are kidding I hope.

Why do you think he's kidding?

There were 'experts' on Iraq and weapons who were convinced Saddam had or was working on ****. That Brit who committed suicide was one. If the 'experts' are saying that Saddam has them, or wants them, and base that on how Saddam is acting and on the fact that he has had them, how is some elected schmuk from Texas or Liverpool supposed to know better?

It's pretty clear that Bush and Blair used WMDs as the pretext for doing what they saw as needing to be done. The sanctions were going to end some way or another. A Saddam still in power after the sanctions and able to spit in the face of the West was not something they were willing to allow. It is their misfortune that the pretext turned out to be so apparently wrong, but they didn't just make it up over tea.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Dauphin
What worries me about this whole affair is not that the war happened, (I still don't know if it was a good idea or not for reasons other than the original ones propounded by the orchestrators, I was and remain ambivalent), but that political leaders of the world can be so brazen and not incur even significant political backlash from the opposition, or voters for so badly misleading them.

Thats what p1sses me off, they have total contempt (correctly as it turns out), for their elecorate.

Jeez, I wish I could bring myself to vote Conservative at the next election (except they'd be even further up Bush's arse given half the chance)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Regarding constructing WMD evidence. Some would implicate the Office of Special Plans, staffed by Jews, Pentagon.

Just curious about this part:

1) Some would say the OSP is staffed by Jews, or is that a statement of fact?

2) Are you among this "some"?

[Kuciwalker]

1) the latter

2) yes

(his posted answers may differ)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There was no way a person in the know would think Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, and that the WMD program was kickin'.

Really? Post-war, I've heard quite a few intelligence people express embarassment that they didn't realize that Saddam hadn't any WMD. I have heard few or none say they they didn't think there was any, despite that this would seem a convenient thing to claim today.

In short, I have very little reason not believe that most of the Western intelligence community honestly thought Saddam had illicit weapons and/or programmes. Can you point me to anything to convince me otherwise? Or am I to conclude you do not think they were "in the know"?

[Urban Ranger]

We told you so.

*gloat*

[laurentius]

Yeah but you know how all those super spies have to follow their spy instincts and cant take anything even remotely logical from civilians into account. Tihs is what you get when you rely on a bunch of delusional spies. The only thing they had was their credibility and assumed professionalism. Now its lost.

[Guynemer]

What really disturbs me is that this apparently isn't even considered major news by the American media.

You know, that vast left-wing media.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hindsight is 20/20.

That's not hindsight. Hans Blix and his boys went in Iraq a number of times and said they didn't find anything.

It's the chickenhawks who said Saddam was hiding them, because they somehow had access to better intelligence than the UN weapons inspectors.

[notyoueither]

Yeah right, UR. You forget to mention that every major intelligence agency had people saying he had to have them, and Saddam was telling Mr. Blix there were places he couldn't go. He bluffed. Is it that hard for you to see this, or are you hopeless for ever playing poker?