Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Evidently someone who knew a lot more about it than you didn't agree with you.

Have you ever heard of not being able to see the forest for the trees?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Errr...no.

That's not all that is "needed"

Legal technicalities should not be the basis for going to war.

Just because a leader has some sort of international cover for invading another country doesn't mean he should. I would think that most Americans would be interested in knowing whether Bush was interested in CNB threats as an excuse or a reason.

Uhmm, this wasn't out of the blue.

The US and UK were paying to enforce sanctions. Aircraft, aircrew, and sorties are not free.

Not to mention an act of Congress mandating Saddam be gone.

This was far from just 'a leader'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Have you ever heard of not being able to see the forest for the trees?

Have you ever been aquainted with the basic facts on a complex topic? Far more than you ever will be with regard to Iraq?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Uhmm, this wasn't out of the blue.

The US and UK were paying to enforce sanctions. Aircraft, aircrew, and sorties are not free.

Not to mention an act of Congress mandating Saddam be gone.

This was far from just 'a leader'.

If Iran's Parliament had voted a an act mandating Saddam be gone, would it be a justification for an Iranian invasion on Iraq?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Uhmm, this wasn't out of the blue.

The US and UK were paying to enforce sanctions. Aircraft, aircrew, and sorties are not free.

Not to mention an act of Congress mandating Saddam be gone.

This was far from just 'a leader'.

The "paying to enforce sanctions" line is pretty funny when you ask yourself what an actual war costs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If Iran's Parliament had voted a an act mandating Saddam be gone, would it be a justification for an Iranian invasion on Iraq?

It doesn't matter. They could or could not as it suits them.

Fact is, Iraq was not just Bush.

The American Congress had voted regime change. Other countries went along with regime change.

Now that it's going to crap Bush is a convenient target, but don't fool yourself. This man did not come out of a vacuum and lead the US to a war that nobody knew was going to happen and that there was no possible justification for.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Have you ever been aquainted with the basic facts on a complex topic? Far more than you ever will be with regard to Iraq?

Huh? Just because somebody understands more of the specifics than I do does not mean that he understands the situation better than I do. In fact, this is a prime example of a case when a knowledge of every possibility when combined with an inability to properly assign probabilities can lead to a ridiculous conclusion. He had 10 tons of nerve gas in 91. He destroyed 9 tons of it in front of our eyes. Therefore he has 1 ton of nerve gas left.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Huh? Just because somebody understands more of the specifics than I do does not mean that he understands the situation better than I do. In fact, this is a prime example of a case when a knowledge of every possibility when combined with an inability to properly assign probabilities can lead to a ridiculous conclusion. He had 10 tons of nerve gas in 91. He destroyed 9 tons of it in front of our eyes. Therefore he has 1 ton of nerve gas left.

And how much more could he have made with billions from secret pipelines and corrupted UN programmes?

[notyoueither]

How ****ing willfully blind do you want to be?

Is Darfur just an internal reorganisation?

How blind? How long?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It doesn't matter. They could or could not as it suits them.

Fact is, Iraq was not just Bush.

The American Congress had voted regime change. Other countries went along with regime change.

Now that it's going to crap Bush is a convenient target, but don't fool yourself. This man did not come out of a vacuum and lead the US to a war that nobody knew was going to happen and that there was no possible justification for.

If your point is that Bush wasn't the only reason for the invasion, then sure. Duh.

If your point is that the 2003 invasion had any sort of legality (the legality of a war is defined by international law, not domestic law), then no.

[KrazyHorse]

They could or could not as it suits them.

?

Countries' leaderships can always do as it suits them, dude.

International law isn't international, and it doesn't have the force of law. Justification does not wisdom make.

Was the US going to war with Iraq some sort of horrible wrong; an injustice the likes of which the world has never before seen? Of course not. Was it a bad idea? I think so. Furthermore, I'm damn sure that the closest you could have come to making a good case for the invasion was not because of some trumped-up fears about CNB threats. That was garbage analysis. I saw right through it, and so should everybody else. It's sort of sad that they didn't.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And how much more could he have made with billions from secret pipelines and corrupted UN programmes?

At the very most, not enough to be found in 4 years of searching.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And how much more could he have made with billions from secret pipelines and corrupted UN programmes?

Not much.

[notyoueither]

I think there's a reason the UK honestly thought Saddam had or could construst weapons.

What is never reported in these **** fests that Oerdin likes to post, is that the UK and the US were most likely very well aware how successful sanctions were, and were not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I saw right through it, and so should everybody else. It's sort of sad that they didn't.

To be fair, a great many people did. IT was mainly the Yanks who didn't.