Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Last Conformist
    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"?
    The Blix inspections found no evidence of an existing WMD programme, or of existing stockpiles. The only "evidence" that was used in the case against Iraq was 12 year old, back when Iraq was indeed having all of that.

    Most of the western intelligence community seems to have believed Saddam had kept a discreet WMD programme, IIRC (which is why there were so many inspections) and Saddam's behaviour favoured such belief. But there was no indication that the programme was intense enough to provide an "imminent threat", which was the American justification to explain that war was defensive "pre-emptive".
    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

    Comment


    • What I found absolutely amazing and very distressing is that a President could lead the nation to war based on a pretext (pretexts, actually, if you include the alleged A.Q. link) which turned out to be false prior to the next election, and then get re-elected to "finish the job he started." *

      It is my belief that leadership that lies and/or is so clearly wrong on such an important decision MUST be punished by the electorate. Our failure to do so simply reinforces the idea that our leaders are not actually accountable to the public. Because the public is dumb.

      -Arrian

      * - edit: When did it become widely known that the Lusitania was actually carrying contraband?
      Last edited by Arrian; January 13, 2005, 10:46.
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Arrian
        It is my belief that leadership that lies and/or is so clearly wrong on such an important decision MUST be punished by the electorate. Our failure to do so simply reinforces the idea that our leaders are not actually accountable to the public. Because the public is dumb.
        At the contrary, your election proved that the leaders are accountable to the public. And that the public accepts being lied to.

        Maybe Bush wasn't the President the American people deserved in 2000. But in 2004, Bush is undoubtedly the President that mirrors the American people
        "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
        "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
        "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

        Comment


        • **** you, Spiffor. Goddamn Frog.

          You have a point, however - yes, the leaders are accountable to the public in a sense, but it's so easy to mislead the public that that accountability is rendered nearly meaningless.

          Anyway, I felt we had a duty to throw Bush & Co. out on their asses, and we failed to do so.

          -Arrian
          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by notyoueither

            Of course they were wrong, now. What did everyone think two years ago? Not the same as today, yes?
            We thought differently, on account of we were told differently. The administration is the one with the foreign intel, not joe six-pack. And a lot of people rested their support on Saddam being an "immenient threat", not because he was a dictator.

            I'm not sorry to see Saddam go. I am sorry to see the lying used to legitimize the war, the halfassed methods used to contain the peace, and what looks to be the inevitable conclusion- another dictator in Saddam's place, or a ruthless president.
            I'm consitently stupid- Japher
            I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

            Comment


            • I thought the same 2 years ago as I do now. No immediate threat, no evidence of WMDs, no right to invade anyway, and if we did it'd be a disaster after Saddam was gone.
              Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
              Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
              We've got both kinds

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                The French was quite set against an invasion, and so was Russia. Thus, it can be logically concluded that their intelligence agencies didn't think much about Saddam's alleged BCN weapons and programmes.
                Define "think much". Clearly, they didn't think Saddam had possession of weapons meriting invasion. Considering that illicit weapons that have not been considered grounds for invasion wrt other countries have included everything up to nukes, that's not saying much.
                Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Spiffor
                  Most of the western intelligence community seems to have believed Saddam had kept a discreet WMD programme, IIRC (which is why there were so many inspections) and Saddam's behaviour favoured such belief.
                  I'll take that as concession.
                  But there was no indication that the programme was intense enough to provide an "imminent threat", which was the American justification to explain that war was defensive "pre-emptive".
                  Which relates to anything I said how?
                  Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                  It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                  The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Last Conformist
                    Which relates to anything I said how?
                    This is the bit you replied to:
                    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'.


                    I chose my words, as I didn't mean the intelligence people were sure that Saddam's WMD programme did't exist at all, but to mean they knew it posed no immediate threat. And the immediate threat thingy was instrumental in justifying war as a response, rather than continued inspections.
                    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                    Comment


                    • even if its true, i still dont care.

                      that attitude is rampant in the U.S.
                      "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                      'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Last Conformist
                        Define "think much".
                        That Hans Blix had been right, if not entirely, then for the most part.
                        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spiffor


                          This is the bit you replied to:
                          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'.


                          I chose my words, as I didn't mean the intelligence people were sure that Saddam's WMD programme did't exist at all, but to mean they knew it posed no immediate threat. And the immediate threat thingy was instrumental in justifying war as a response, rather than continued inspections.
                          Ah. I guess I mentally filtered out the "immediate threat to the US" bit.

                          I quite agree that nobody with a clue thought that Saddam's chemical and biological weapons at any point represented an immediate threat to the US.
                          Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                          It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                          The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Last Conformist
                            I quite agree that nobody with a clue thought that Saddam's chemical and biological weapons at any point represented an immediate threat to the US.
                            You wouldn't believe how many ordinary people (included on this very forum) were clueless then
                            "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                            "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                            "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                            Comment


                            • I would. Cluelessness is kind of the default human condition.
                              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                              It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                              The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                              Comment


                              • 1)
                                Originally posted by Spiffor
                                From France, undubitably bypassing the embargo by selling oil.

                                Froö France, specifically. My, my country must be the heart of evil
                                2)
                                despite the American demand being close to technically impossible in the small time granted.


                                In the interest of fairness wrt 1), France was one of the main countries presuring to relax/do away with the containment of Iraq. They only backed off that quest due to intense American pressure before the war started in an attempt to head it off.

                                WRT 2): He'd been granted over a decade. How much longer would you have given him?
                                I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                                For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X