What are you going to say now?

[Juan Carlos Rey]

from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....intelligence/

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

[CORONA BEER]

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Juan Carlos Rey
from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....intelligence/

Oh, nobody admits to mistakes, when the US president himself doesn't Sometimes I really think it' one whole arrogant nation. And why some people fail to see it as a mistake still eludes me. The case for war was based on a massive WMD pileup in Iraq that presented an immediate danger to the US. All the excuses being put up about Saddam being a cruel dictator or trying to throw away the UN sanctions are merely cover up for the invasion when the earlier excuses failed.

It's interesting to see how a whole nation (and other smaller and weaker ones) will perish for one person's personal agenda.

.

[yrwyddfa]

Indeed. Regime-change is illegal so no-one would admit to that.

[demotivater]

Whole nation perish. LOL
I think not.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It may not be a bad idea, though. Why should Iraq continue as Iraq? Those folks hate each other pretty well, why not divide it into three parts: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds.

Ok, I realize that Turkey would have a big problem with that last one.

[nemaroller]

I am against the war, because hey, why the hell should we fight for the underpowered and abused all the time... lose lives of our young, and pay for it in taxes and reduced services. (serbia finally turned out ok eh?)

What... just so snobby nations on the other side of the Atlantic can sporadically ***** and moan about how horrible we are... all the while secretly clamoring to get a piece of the prize (big middle finger to the French military industry)

Look, we all know Sadaam was a twit... no one I know of feels sad he is gone except maybe some Iraqis desperate for stability. In the meantime, all the loose cannons migrate to Iraq to fight the US military, making for one big nest of insurgents to irradicate.

The Saudi's still keep control of their oil - with watchful eye by the Western powers (even the snobby ones) - in exchange for keeping the lifeblood of the world economy flowing.

Alas, Asian banks are happy because they have a solid investment that won't go belly up because of an energy crisis.

Oh, but please, let's stick to this clamor of illegal regime change. It can't be about stability in the Middle East. Perhaps you should ask any Saudi royal next time you visit the French Riviera.

[yrwyddfa]

First: WMD
Second Regime Change
Third: Stability

. . . which one do you expect to be achieved then?

[nemaroller]

I pick number 3, so when Iran finally is capable of reaching Eastern Europe with nuclear warheads... we'll have a base in the region. Oh wait, they just got there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3716490.stm

[yrwyddfa]

Is the current situation in Iraq synonomous with stability then?

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by nemaroller
I pick number 3, so when Iran finally is capable of reaching Eastern Europe with nuclear warheads... we'll have a base in the region. Oh wait, they just got there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3716490.stm

I hardly think Eastern Europe is high on their list of potential targets.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Is the current situation in Iraq synonomous with stability then?

I love it how people think you can convert a 30 year dictatorship into a stable democracy overnight

What kind of magical fantasy land are you living in? You expected there to be no problems? Looking at history its so easy to see the process for a free and democratic Iraq is going to be a long and hard process. But this news shouldn’t be new as Bush and Blair have stated this on numerous occasions.

X

[yrwyddfa]

Hey X; been a little while . . .

The purpose of the war was to disarm Saddam: there was a clear and present danger (sorry cliche!) of WMD of which UN sanctions and resolutions had failed to resolve. Serious consequences (y'know what I mean) meant war should Saddam not comply with 1441.

It now turns out Saddam was not anywhere near a threat. The pro-war lobby are now happily bleating about regime change, and democracy, and the end of Saddam's rule.

Both Bush and Blair sold the war on the failure of the final resolution. Of which (and I paraphrase Blair) We don't need to go to war if Saddam complies.

I can find your pre-war posts if you want Xanith; but I would prefer it if you could just say thank-you and be on your way.

[Xanith]

Hey X; been a little while . . .

The purpose of the war was to disarm Saddam: there was a clear and present danger (sorry cliche!) of WMD of which UN sanctions and resolutions had failed to resolve. Serious consequences (y'know what I mean) meant war should Saddam not comply with 1441.

That was one reason yes. The failure of Iraq to abide by the cease-fire and subsequent resolutions. While no WMD stockpiles were found as previously thought there were violations of the cease-fire found and plans in place to resume WMD production after sanctions were lifted.

It now turns out Saddam was not anywhere near a threat. The pro-war lobby are now happily bleating about regime change, and democracy, and the end of Saddam's rule.

Hindsight is wonderful. According to the world (in this case the UN) there was no real dispute as to whether or not Saddam had WMD before the war. If you remember the debate was on how to deal with that threat, after all why would further inspections be needed if it was known Saddam didn’t process WMD? The fact remains that all intelligence agencies (even those countries intelligence agencies apposed to the war like France, Russia, and even the UN) had stated that Saddam still possessed WMD (see all the UN resolutions).

If you remember regime change was all part of the plan from the beginning. I don’t remember ever reading or hearing that the coalition was going to go into Iraq, disarm them, then leave the country with Saddam back in charge. I suppose with the media was harping on the whole WMD for so long maybe you actually forgot the other goals of the invasion. Which doesn’t really surprise me if you only read the BBC or the New York Times you would get that impression.

Both Bush and Blair sold the war on the failure of the final resolution. Of which (and I paraphrase Blair) We don't need to go to war if Saddam complies.

I can find your pre-war posts if you want Xanith; but I would prefer it if you could just say thank-you and be on your way.

Any why would I ever thank your Neville Chamberlain-istic view of the world? I think history has already proven just how dangerous signing peace treaties with dictators and thugs, all the while claiming “peace in our time”, can be. Sorry I will never understand the peace at any cost crowd and why they cannot learn from the lessons of history.

X

[CORONA BEER]

I will never fight for the interests of Israel.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith

Hindsight is wonderful. According to the world (in this case the UN) there was no real dispute as to whether or not Saddam had WMD before the war. If you remember the debate was on how to deal with that threat, after all why would further inspections be needed if it was known Saddam didn’t process WMD? The fact remains that all intelligence agencies (even those countries intelligence agencies apposed to the war like France, Russia, and even the UN) had stated that Saddam still possessed WMD (see all the UN resolutions).

If you remember regime change was all part of the plan from the beginning. I don’t remember ever reading or hearing that the coalition was going to go into Iraq, disarm them, then leave the country with Saddam back in charge. I suppose with the media was harping on the whole WMD for so long maybe you actually forgot the other goals of the invasion. Which doesn’t really surprise me if you only read the BBC or the New York Times you would get that impression.

Er, okay, you can stop re-writing history now. Numerous people (myself included) continually stated that there weren't any WMD. It is simple logic which has since been backed up. If Iraq did have WMD and they were caught with them they'd get bombed off the face of the planet (which happened anyway), if they proved beyond all doubt that they didn't have them Iran would have stomped all over them.... it was bloody obvious to the rest of us, but the pro-war crowd continually stated as fact that there were weapons of mass destruction. Fine, everyone's allowed a view point. But please don't start re-writing history as if everyone was as mistaken as you were. It simply isn't true. We were all pretty certain it was a bogus reason to go in.

As for regime change it was stated that it wasn't a good enough reason to go to war.... that fact that it is an obvious goal of the war is a different thing altogether.

Originally posted by Xanith
Any why would I ever thank your Neville Chamberlain-istic view of the world? I think history has already proven just how dangerous signing peace treaties with dictators and thugs, all the while claiming “peace in our time”, can be. Sorry I will never understand the peace at any cost crowd and why they cannot learn from the lessons of history.

X

Okay if you want to start likening people to early 20th century politicians, lets liken Bush to Hitler. Who are you comparing to Neville Chamberlain??? Remember you are from the country that remained Neutral for most of WWII while the rest of the world fought the good fight? And you lecture us about not standing up to bad guys, or learning lessons from history. (Saddam is in very few ways comparable to Hitler apart from the fact that they were both evil. He lacked the relative strength and tecnological advantage that Hitler had). Well matey, here's a more applicable lesson from history, Northern Ireland - using a military to fight indigenous terrorists.... it's a hopeless battle because the more you "succeed" in suppressing the terrorists, the more sympathisers the terrorists garner.

Now, I do agree, I will also never understand the "peace at any cost" crowd either, but that's also irrelevant, because although it may give you a modicom of satisfaction to think of the people who were anti-Iraq invasion as being like this, I have never seen anyone on this website who was "Peace at any cost". Hell, I enjoy a good war as much as the next guy, but this was always going to increase the world threat and help Osama Bin Laden.... remember him? That was why I was against the war (and I have stated it here many times before the war). It was a stupid move that helped Osama swell his organisation and prove him with an excuse for his attacks on the West. You gave him what he wanted most, and to boot you kicked out one of the middle-eastern regimes that was his sworn enemy. Now you have the balls to come in here and say that we're all just anti-war peaceniks. Oh, it's not like me to get mad at a post, but it annoys me to see otherwise smart people re-writting history.

I wish the world was as airy fairy black and white as you seem to think it is, with good guys on one side and bad guys (dressed in black hats) on the other. But it isn't, and the sooner you wake up and realise that, the safer this world will be. I would tell you to go on living in your dream world, but the unfortunate fact is that it's my kids who are going to have to clean up your mess. That's why at this stage I want you guys to re-elect Bush (at least that way he will continuing doing such a good job at keeping other countries out of it). Hell, next time someone kills your children you can congratulate yourselves on voting for an idiot who strengthens their hand and brags "bring it on..."

Oh, thanks for listening, I feel better after that rant.

[Ex-FB]

Okay, I've calmed down a little now. But just to back up my previous posts, here's some posts from a few years back (or at least the start of the war). There were plenty of others stating that he didn't have WMD as well, but I'll let you view the threads for yourself.

Originally posted by Xanith
Well because Saddam himself admitted to having them and they are still unaccounted for I think its safe to say that it is a fact he had WMD's.

Originally posted by Xanith

I honestly don’t believe that anyone can still think Iraq was not hiding or manufacturing WMD. Its still only a matter of time before more and more evidence is uncovered. This will include documents and eyewitness accounts by Iraqi officials and scientists themselves. So be patient. You naysayers and doubting Thomas's will have your proof soon enough.

X

Originally posted by Xanith

It’s all a circle. When the pressures on he makes token concessions to avert any serious action against him, then when the pressures off he continues to develop his WMD programs and weapons that violate the past 17 resolutions and the Gulf War Treaty he signed. He’s done it in the past and he’s doing it again. The US and a lot of other nations are tired of Saddam’s games. Its now his very last chance to disarm peacefully I hope he takes that chance so that many innocent people don’t have to die. But it’s on Saddam’s head now, and a test for the UN to prove that they are not just a debate society putting out worthless resolutions with harsh language and no consequences.

Originally posted by Xanith
What Powel presented to the UN is just the tip of the iceberg of what kind of intelligence information that the US has on Iraq. And what was presented was enough to convince me that inspections are worthless. Iraq will continue to defy the UN and hide their WMD's. I needed some reassurance before the US went into Iraq and I think Powel presented a very compelling case and I am fully convinced of what was suspected all along.

As for people like you HB I don't think there will ever be enough evidence. You asked for evidence and you got it. Now your saying its not enough? Well when the US goes in and films all the weapons hes been hiding maybe then you will be convinced. Because its time for Saddam to go. Hes been given enough time and chances all of which he didnt take.

Originally posted by Xanith

Satellite photos don’t lie. And I listened to the words of high-ranking officials in the Iraqi army with my own ears. Powel didn’t have to say a word. The evidence spoke for itself.

and my response

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
I saw trucks and bunkers on the satelite images. hardly "proof" that they still contain chemical weapons.

As for listening to the "Iraqi Generals", I listened to. It sounded like some foreign language to me... bloody Iraqi's don't even have the decency to speak english on the phone Luckily they had an american interpreter telling me what they said

As one of the American pro-war correspondents on last nights news said, every single peice of evidence presented by Colin Powell was circumstancial and would never have stood up in a court of law. For example, they've bought these Aluminum Pipes, which might be used in a reactor (but he didn't mentioned that there are also thousands of peaceful uses for alumium pipe), and here are some trucks driving along a road, from this bunker that we think has chemical weapons, therefore the trucks probably have chemical weapons.... come on. Anyone with a grasp of supositions knows that is a fragile case. When the anchor asked the correspondent (who is very pro-war with Iraq) what evidence it would take to justify sending in the troops, he said the same as it has always been. The weapons inspectors need to find sufficient evidence. Not go on the hearsay of a country which has obviously been hankering for war and is desperate to draw attention away from it's home problems.

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Oh, I lied, we do have a new one.

Screw the UN..they wanted to wait until we were all blown up before they would do anything. Whether or not they have WMD isn't the point, the point is that they kept leading us to believe they did, so IMHO they got what they deserved.

Apparently those wiley Iraqi's tricked the US and UK into believing they had WMD so we would attack.......

Originally posted by Futt Bucker on 21st Jan 2003
I think people who argue that Saddam will use WMD are missing a vital point.

Why?

If he ever used them, his country would be bombed back to the stone age.

If he is proved not to have them, Iran is going to arse rape Iraq in revenge for the last war.

So, he's damned if you do, damned if you don't. He's walking the only line he can, which is saying he doesn't have them, but leaving an element of doubt to keep Iran out of his country.

[nemaroller]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I hardly think Eastern Europe is high on their list of potential targets.

I doubt it too, I would most likely think Iraq and Israel are their main threats. But certainly in negotiating international affairs it helps having nuclear weapons in the backyard, let's not deny that. Makes every neighbor of that country suddenly become internationally aware.

Bush wasn't the majority elected, he stole the election, everyone knows it. But the Supreme court stepped in to end what otherwise would have been an endless recount of voting. So you can thank slightly less than one half of America for voting in an idiot.

I was against the war from the start... as a young boy, I cared more for what happened in the world. Nowadays, I could care less what happens in the Gulf states or most of Europe for that matter. Go ahead, call me arrogant... I don't care what happens in California or Florida either. The whole of the western world is run by special interests.... Washington and New York have more international interest groups that you can imagine. All with resources and funding for political agendas not even related to my country or its interests.

So when someone denounces the war in Iraq, I agree with them, but at the same time, I ask myself, what have they personally contributed to making a stand either way. Almost all of the soldiers would rather not be there that's for damn sure... hell, some of them even refused to take orders and were dishonorably discharged.

Its a world of philosophy and political ideology meshing with the world of human reality that gets ugly. Yes, I would prefer Iraqi's have the right to an honest vote, and at the same time I would prefer none of them died for that right, and certainly not people from my hometown.

What are you going to say... but more importantly, what are you going to do?

[yrwyddfa]

Thanks FB - you saved me the effort of digging out those Xanith posts . . . .

[mendhak]

You can go on and on giving reasons as to why the war in Iraq is justified. If one gets disproven, there will always be more reasons to make. And there will be people who will pick up those reasons and accept it. This of course, comes under the guise of patriotism and national pride. I don't believe in patriotism, I feel it has been defined anew and been forced upon people as a tool of control or distraction. I also feel that I am right about this. The next time your country is at war or a conflict or is facing a lot of fire from others in the world's political arena, take a look at how the emotions and those of the others around you are swayed suddenly. How everything suddenly seems "correct", "right" and "justified." Look at your newspapers. Look at how you start making assumptions about people in other places. It's plain to see in this forum, and I've seen it during the Gulf War, the India-Pakistan conflict, the attack on Afghanistan and so on.

I see people debating the Iraq issue all the time. They feel very strongly about it. Very often they have a brother or sister who have joined the forces. They get emotional about it, they have every right to. It's a family member who could get hurt or killed at any time. But does that automatically set their POV on the war? Why is that? How about considering that joining the armed forces was more of a forced choice due to a shaky economy which was caused by the war(s) itself?! Of course, that is just one possibility. I cannot claim to have true knowledge of it.

I know this post is weakly linked to the actual topic but hey, it's still linked isn't it?