Were We Decieved?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Did our leaders lie to us over Iraq?</div> Sooner or later this one was going to come up. It affects quite a few of the posters on these boards (American, British, Australian) and I think it is a topic worthy of discussion.
Prior to the war against Iraq the leaders of the United States, Great Britian and Australia told their citizens that Iraq was a great threat. We were told that it had weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups who would use them against us. We were told that unless we went in there, we would very soon be the victims of Iraqi biotoxins, nerve agents, or nuclear weapons.
Now the war went ahead and the dust has settled for some time now. With George Bush delcaring major combat over months ago, US inspection teams have been combing Iraq for the weapons we were assured were there. To date, nothing.
People have already started to ask questions, and we have recieved a few answers. The information regarding Iraq's nuclear program it seems was false. The mobile bio-weapon laboratories turned up no bio-agents or traces of production. Governments in the US, Britian and Australia were forced to make embarrasing withdrawls. Now the question that is being asked by the citizens of all three countries is: were we decieved?
Now this is not a discussion about the morality of the Iraq war, why it was fought or even if it should have been fought for reasons other than those given here. If people wish to discuss that, start another topic. This is asking posters to answer a simple question: do you think that your government decieved you on the issue of Iraq?
Note: I would ask the moderators to keep a close eye on this topic, as it could very easily get out of hand. I do have confindence though that we are all mature enough to debate the question posed in a civil and disiplined manner.
Prior to the war against Iraq the leaders of the United States, Great Britian and Australia told their citizens that Iraq was a great threat. We were told that it had weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups who would use them against us. We were told that unless we went in there, we would very soon be the victims of Iraqi biotoxins, nerve agents, or nuclear weapons.
Now the war went ahead and the dust has settled for some time now. With George Bush delcaring major combat over months ago, US inspection teams have been combing Iraq for the weapons we were assured were there. To date, nothing.
People have already started to ask questions, and we have recieved a few answers. The information regarding Iraq's nuclear program it seems was false. The mobile bio-weapon laboratories turned up no bio-agents or traces of production. Governments in the US, Britian and Australia were forced to make embarrasing withdrawls. Now the question that is being asked by the citizens of all three countries is: were we decieved?
Now this is not a discussion about the morality of the Iraq war, why it was fought or even if it should have been fought for reasons other than those given here. If people wish to discuss that, start another topic. This is asking posters to answer a simple question: do you think that your government decieved you on the issue of Iraq?
Note: I would ask the moderators to keep a close eye on this topic, as it could very easily get out of hand. I do have confindence though that we are all mature enough to debate the question posed in a civil and disiplined manner.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The MI-6 is no more responsible then our FBI was. It was BUSH'S fault the information regarding uranium yellowcake made it's way into the speech. He reviews the speech before he says words that make you nod your head. He didn't question the information. He didn't do anything. Tenet was acting out of good faith. Bush let Tenet take the fall for the false information, feisting all the problems off on him.
Furthermore, it was Bush's zeal to go to war with Iraq that I'm almost positive that he didn't care if the information was correct or not: He just saw it as a reason to go to war.
No country is going to turn around and say "We had a war for the hell of it, teach them a lesson not to mess with us.". However this may seem to be apparent with some countries. On the other hand, it seems to be slightly stupid, to me, to declare nationwide that there's a great nuclear threat, that creates nothing but paranoia, panic and unjust hatred. Take the cold war for example, fuelled by nothing but paranoia and racism.
<i>"Looks like they're blaming it on faulty intelligence again."</i>
<i>"Maybe they should stop calling it 'intelligence'."</i>
<i>- Bizarro</i>
<i>"Looks like they're blaming it on faulty intelligence again."</i>
<i>"Maybe they should stop calling it 'intelligence'."</i>
<i>- Bizarro</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with acquiring sources is that with an issue such as this (The government telling the whole truth.) is that there are no sources. Any document detailing a country's intelligence that is of the sensitive nature will find you imprisoned, and any document that apparently tells "the whole truth" you can't be sure if the government actually told everything.
This may, however, be total BS, but i'm paranoid as hell half the time, but i'm no conspiracy nut. I know it all sounds a bit like a cheap cop-out, but to me, this is how i see it.
But like I've said in the past the proclaimation of WMD was used mostly as a way to get UN support and get the legal end of the war going. I was content with them going in solely under the premis of regime change and<span style='color:white'>...
This topic was started on a specific issue, <i>not</i> a general discussion of the wars merit. Please respect this.</span>
WE DID NOT GO OVER THERE TO LIBERATE A PEOPLE.
no one declairs war on another country for the sake of that countries people. its a line thats as old as the hills, and is blatantly and mockingly a lie.
unpossible!!!
blame these people:
<a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html' target='_blank'>http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/n.../neocon101.html</a>
On a sidenote having qualms with spefic people in the administration and their actions isn't the same as having problems with the US military and it's actiosn. The war was a seperate entity from the administration's other agendas. I personally can differentiate my feelings, so just because I supported the war in Iraq doesn't mean I support many of the administartions homeland policies or any of their other foreign policies, in fact I have problems with many of them.
Dr. D This isn't meant as a flame but you aren't a moderator, let them take care of it. Constantly posting the "its getting out of hand" topics has been getting a little annoying. Especially when such topics aren't exactly getting out of hand. I trust people here are mature enough not to overreact to the things Teflon said. On top of that as well, he has a right to his opinion! Hes not saying anything like "so and so sucks" or "I hate <insert racial minority>".
On to the topic at hand.
I don't really know what to thing, there are definately things being kept from the public regarding this war. What it is we don't know, its doubtful we'll ever know. Military secrets are usually protected for a very long time. I do find it convienient that the oil is now considerered ours and that one of Bush's buddies got the 750 million dollar contract to rebuild Iraq's central infastructure. (Forget the name)
hang on getting info on it.
I don't think any law can justify on the spot executions of people and I don't think rape and torture is an acceptible punishment for any crime.
But to respond directly to the thread question of was I decieved? No I can't say I was because I didn't take the effort to go out and do research on the subject, I didnt' take time out of my day to read reports on Iraq and see if they were accurate, and I didn't put forth the effort to do anything if I found the evidence to be faulty. If you had kudos.
I'll play a bit of devils advocate here.
Oil is soon becoming a very very limited substance, we are using it at a very fast rate. If the US government could secure a large supply of oil for the US and increase its stockpile I could definately see them doing that. Its a definate possiblity because the money won't neccesarily be seen in the next few years, but in the next 50. Not that I would agree with that, would definately rather see them putting it towards alternative fuels.
Due to being raised in your culture, you think that. However, they are in a completely different culture. They may see on-the-spot executions, rape, and torture as the "norm" for criminals. (If their laws say that you're not allowed to talk badly of the leader, and you talk badly of the leader, that makes you a criminal.) Technically, the US tortures it's criminals. Think about it: They're locked in a tiny cell all day, except when herded in groups to a cafeteria where they are served substandard food, or when herded outside to work, or exercise. Now, repeat that process every day for anywhere from a year, to the rest of your life. That's enough to drive ANYONE mad. Even the legal process is torture. You're in a cell, doing that same process until your trial. At your trial, you have a judge that IS against you. (NOBODY is EVER impartial.) If your verdict is guilty, it pains you to hear it announced to an entire courtroom. That's humiliating. Sometimes it's even national TV. That hurts even more.
One more thing... I seriously doubt that it's as terrible as all the TV networks say. People aren't so stupid as to commit crimes if they are punished so badly. In fact, I bet the US is worse on the amount of murders every year.
Think of it as a box. You have a flashlight. You can shine the light on one side of the box. That side is illuminated, but there are 5 more sides that are still dark.
[EDIT: Fixed my box problem. Thanks, DHP!]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite true Torak however there is an issue with the Iraq information. Governments don't, and shouldn't, reveal information about secret operations or intelligance gathering etc but the public is entitled to believe that what the government chooses to tell them is the truth. The US, British and Australian governments chose to tell their people that Iraq was a threat and had WMD. Now if a government gives information to the public, should not that information be correct and true? Especially when it pertains to armed conflict wherein a nation's citizens can be killed. A government doesn't have to come clean as to how it obtained such information but if they lie to their citizens there can be hell to pay. Look at the Clinton scandels: if it was proven that for example Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq then it puts his entire credebility in disarray and sets the scene for a possible impeachment.
firstly: is it just me or does a box have 6! sides not 4....other than that CForrester it's a good - and commenly used - term.
EDIT: or maybe you meant that you held a corner towards the flashlight so it illimunates 3 sides....
well i dont think the US took Iraq for mere oil, the only reason i currently see is actually to free Iraq, if that is then going to be used as a Base of Operations to "liberate"(" " because if the going for oil theory and simililar) other countries as well, i dont know..
This thread is not about whether the war was justified. It is about whether false facts were put forward to justify it - whether 'we' were decieved. Keep the pro-/anti-war badges out of here or I'll have to lock and / or look into some other measures.
and also it's pretty millitary'ish to hide the truth, since the most important is to save lives and get the objective done, and if the public knows it can create a scandal that will make their work harder than it already has become since the "accident"...
of course this doesnt descibe wether or not the US used False infomation to get the war going, and more important what info? - but as i've said i didnt follow it so closely.
hope this helps getting it back on-topic...
And yeah Potter one of Britian's intelligance officers committed suicide over the Iraq affair (at least I think he was intel...someone got some more info here?). If someone from Britian could post something here it would be most appreciated <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
and also it's pretty millitary'ish to hide the truth, since the most important is to save lives and get the objective done, and if the public knows it can create a scandal that will make their work harder than it already has become since the "accident"...
of course this doesnt descibe wether or not the US used False infomation to get the war going, and more important what info? - but as i've said i didnt follow it so closely.
hope this helps getting it back on-topic... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
His name was Dr.Kelly and yes he commited suicide after someone revealed he said the 45 minute attacks was an exaggeration.
I'm a firm believer that all 3 Governments lied to their citizens, es there were other reasons for war but the Governments still lied, theres been no sign of WMD, none. At all. But what're ya gonna do? Put a step out of line and you'll have the military accusing you of terrorism (Gotta love that Patriotic Act.).
Like I said I can't claim to be decieved because I was fine with them going under the mere idea of regime change. It is also my opinion that others can't feel decieved unless they took the effort to fully understand the laws, reports, and actions taking during this time. There is nothing that says your goverment is obligated to tell you all of it's plans and deliever them in a nice package for you on CNN and some of you post with such moral outrage but I'm not moved to believe you would do much about it.
/EDIT Wouldn't it be ironic if UN forces invaded our country and said they were helping us? Last I remember we still have a tremendous nuclear stockpile....
You'll see Iraq had MANY weapons of chemical, and biological potenence. We can't seem to find those weapons anymore. Why? Because Saddam hid them away, smuggled them out of his country to give the US a bad reputation because many people wouldn't look back and see that Iraq DID possess such weapons, and it would stir up anomisty against the United States.