Deceived? Part 2.
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Try again...</div> OK, second attempt. Keep in mind folks, the one and only question of this thread is whether the governments of the Coalition decieved their publics with their claims precessing the war.
The discussions of the justificability, the real intent behind the war, or the existence of 'good' reasons not published are <b>not</b> to be discussed in here; for now, assume that the topic at hand can be valued ambivalently towards any of these - whether we were decieved or not does not necessarily have to change ones opinion about the war itself.
Now, some informations on which to base the discussion:
<li><a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/hutton' target='_blank'>The Observer coverage of the Hutton commision which is to investigate the suicide of arms specialist Dr. Kelly.</a>
<li><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stm' target='_blank'>BBC coverage of the Kelly affair.</a> (Possibly biased as BBC takes a part in the story itself; still good for an overview, though.)
<li><a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html' target='_blank'>CNN coverage of the forgery of documents said to prove the smuggling of Uranium from Nigeria into the Iraq.</a>
I'm sure you'll find more in your newssource of choice.
The discussions of the justificability, the real intent behind the war, or the existence of 'good' reasons not published are <b>not</b> to be discussed in here; for now, assume that the topic at hand can be valued ambivalently towards any of these - whether we were decieved or not does not necessarily have to change ones opinion about the war itself.
Now, some informations on which to base the discussion:
<li><a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/hutton' target='_blank'>The Observer coverage of the Hutton commision which is to investigate the suicide of arms specialist Dr. Kelly.</a>
<li><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stm' target='_blank'>BBC coverage of the Kelly affair.</a> (Possibly biased as BBC takes a part in the story itself; still good for an overview, though.)
<li><a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html' target='_blank'>CNN coverage of the forgery of documents said to prove the smuggling of Uranium from Nigeria into the Iraq.</a>
I'm sure you'll find more in your newssource of choice.
Comments
It is easy to look back at something and say what should have happened, it is a lot harder to look forward and decide what needs to happen.
On the other hand, many of the forgeries were more than obvious - the documents 'proving' the Nigerian connection were signed by a foreign minister not even in office at the alleged time of signing. Does this kind of obvious 'mistake' not show that the Coalition was literally going for anything affording them foundation for their curse of action?
And if so, does this careless use of information not constitute a form of deceit?
EDIT: The plot thickens in Britain: <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7109323%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...3%255E2,00.html</a>
Tony Blair's top aide steps down. As a focal figure in the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death this adds fuel to a growing fire of controvesy.
Come on, now it's a matter of the degree of lying? Lying is lying, whether I personally or anyone else feels decieved when it is done is different. And as you said we all know politicians bend the truth and I do not feel decieved because I was aware that they were doing so as they did it.
And if you don't believe me Vietnam comes to mind. The goverment was almost infallible before this time people wholeheartadly believed in it and had no doubts its actions were justified. Twenty-years of a war that no one wanted and achieved nothing proves that there is a difference between "The Goverment Decieving the People" and shakey evidence turning out to be false.
And those estimates were based on projections on past experiences with Iraq's weapon capabilities and weapons programs, so basically they were saying in 1993 they had these many weapons and this kinda of weapons programs so in 2003 "They can launch WMD within 45 minutes of ordering a strike". See how it works?
Nem: you assume I think our goverment is right. I said this is what it does. Whether it is right or not....I can start another thread about America's Imperialistic tendancies and the negative effect they have on the entire world if you'd like.
This is different to a pessimistic estimate.
[edit]Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.[/edit]
Did he need to go? Yes.
Did we need to be the ones to remove him? Not really.
Weapons of Mass destruction were not the reason the US started this war. WMD was the excuse we used to try to get support from other nations, to join us in going to war. So this leaves the question:
Why did we get involved in this war? If not WMD, for what?
That, to me, is deceit.
Did he need to go? Yes.
Did we need to be the ones to remove him? Not really.
Weapons of Mass destruction were not the reason the US started this war. WMD was the excuse we used to try to get support from other nations, to join us in going to war. So this leaves the question:
Why did we get involved in this war? If not WMD, for what?
That, to me, is deceit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Agrees*
<span style='color:white'>Jeez, CWAG, which part of "The discussions of the justificability, <b>the real intent behind the war</b>, or the existence of 'good' reasons not published <b>are not to be discussed in here</b>" did you not understand?
Please open a seperate thread for that.</span>
On topic...
Saddam probably refused to cooperate with UN inspectors and eventually kicked them out because although he had nothing to hide, he liked losing billions in oil revenue every year.
I don't think we were decieved so much as there was a lot of bad information. A recent report suggests saddam had fake leaks to convince the US to go to war as to embarass the Bush administration. It seems credible, considering Saddam realized the war was political from the start. Anyway, some counter links to Nem's 'lying' ones.
<a href='http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html' target='_blank'> CIA reports the WMDs were smuggled to syria.</a>
<a href='http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/220/nation/Regime_ordered_chemical_attack_investigator_says+.shtml' target='_blank'> Saddam Ordered Chemical attack</a>
<a href='http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=533' target='_blank'>Kay describes current finds in Iraq</a>
EDIT
Communist: its right no body likes the the truth. Don't mistake people no liking any idea for the truth though. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Am I the only won who still beleives in the nobility of America?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you may be part of a shrinking minority. Riding roughshod over other leading nations who saw no reason to invade Iraq wasn't a good start. And when I look at Camp X-Ray, I can't see anything noble there.
[edit]Jammer, going through your sources:
Number one pretty much states that there was a massive transaction between Syria and Iraq in 2003. It also notes that the black market relationships between Syria and Iraq smuggling mainly oil were an open secret. It seems rather obscure to me of Hussein to smuggle what can be described as his only chance of success in a war he knew was coming and not comparable to Kuweit out of his country. I mean, risking his own life and power - arguably the only two things he placed real value on - just to deface Bush? A little risky, don't you think?
Number two is an excellent article - I've bookmarked the Globe, it shows a balanced coverage not usual anymore.
This, however, also means that it barely works as fundation of the WMD claim - it basically says that even the US administrations own investigator, who's in much controversy regarding his personal qualification, can only be sure of the existence of intercepted communication ordering the Republican Guards to use chemical weapons. He himself admits that this could just as well be a bluff, and more importantly, the article quotes a critic with ''Most of us believe that there was some program and some weapons hidden [...] but the debate wasn't over weapons, it was over war. In four months, not a gram of anthrax has been found, not an ounce of mustard gas. Was the threat so great we had to go to war? The question for Kay is not was there mustard gas, but was there a substantial amount of mustard gas? If this is all he has -- if he has it -- this just isn't enough.''
There were specific claims about an immediate threat to pretty much all of the western world, which would require proof of massive stockpiles, of weaponry strong enough to create a significant first strike capability.
Source three, now. Oh boy.
First of all, describing all war critics as 'anti-American' would earn them a nuke on here. It's just an insult to the veterans organisations, conservatives, and right-wing religious groups (such as the biggest part of the Methodist Church) opposing the war.
Second, this article contradicts with the Globe article in one very important point: While the Globe states that "Kay said he would unveil his findings publicly within six months, officials said.", the DEBKA states that he's already released information about three batches of information and went into details about what they are to contain. So much for "We do not want to go forward with partial information that we have to retract afterwards."
Third, the forgery of the forgery of the Nigerian connection: This is <i>so</i> Berlusconi. I do not doubt that DEBKA recieved that information from a source near the Italian Prime Minister - a man who defends himself against strong claims of him having cooperated with the Mafia with the statements that all Italian judges are communists and conspiring to get him would surely not have much problems excusing a mistake from his people by creating yet another conspiracy, this time within the Italian intelligence. Saying that "DEBKA-Net-Weekly?s intelligence sources reveal that the agents who falsified the intelligence documents were also involved in staging the mass anti-war demonstrations that swept across Europe ahead of the American invasion of Iraq and accompanied the UN Security Council war debate." discredits themselves, however. So now, I'm part of a massive anti-American conspiracy staged by European intelligence officers? Sorry Jammer, but had I quoted something similiarily far-off left field, you'd be humming the X-Files theme while painting me 'cracked'.[/edit]
grrr
The coalition has no doubt been lying to us on why they went into iraq and for the reasons they did it etc, the bush administration is looking for a reason to go in and clear the place out and it doesn't matter only as long as they can finger something that stands up long enough to send in the troops, the fact of that matter is that now this is the past and we can't change it but we can speculate on the how and why the coalition stretched the truth
I think Hussein knew that using those weapons removed any chance he would have to win the war, since it would bring the entire world down on him. He would be better off trying to get back into power after the fact then to try to actually win the war with those weapons. What I personally think happened is that Hussein, knowing that UN resolution required him to dispose of his weapons, decided to hedge his bets and sell them instead. Though the resolution required him to show evidence of the manner in which they were destroyed, he probably figured that the absence of any physical evidence of them would placate the world, and he could do whatever once the storm settled.
of course we get lied to, i think anyone who expects accurate (read truthful) information from their governments, especially concerning information about matters of economic gain and nation security is being way too naive imho.
on the subject of the hutton enquirey, this is a different matter, because its not the people who got lied to (although it was also aimed at the public) it was put forward in the houses of parliment, the government had essentially started lying to itself.
empires begin the slide into decline when governments begin to believe their own propaganda.
Will I beleive my government deceived me? yeah, but I highly doubt that when all is said and done, we still won't have the WMDs.
I reserve gloating rights this September. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT
Other countries don't have America's best interest at heart. Foreign oppositon doesn't mean we're wrong and they're right. On the contrary.
<b>Moultano:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think Hussein knew that using those weapons removed any chance he would have to win the war, since it would bring the entire world down on him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This brings us back to the big split-point of this topic. If Hussein had a weapon program enabling him to create, say, 'only' enough chemical weapons to destroy one corps, your statement would be correct - such an attack would be answered remorselesly by the whole of the world, which is why Hussein wouldn't do it.
The Coalition did however not talk about such quantities. They claimed the existence of a first strike potential - of enough WMD weaponry to successfully attack the US, GB, or any other Coalition country with a strike devastating enough to cripple the response capabilities severely. Had Hussein been able to point that kind of gun at the world, would <i>anyone</i> have dared to try take it out of his fingers?
One could argue that him smuggling / selling his WMD out of the country was - if it happened - the indirect proof that the Coalitions claims were wrong. Had he had that calibre of weaponry, he'd been able to successfully threaten the attackers into submission once they had 'called his bluff'.
Also, we shouldn't overestimate the man, either. Do you really think he could've forseen the happenings up to this point well enough to develop a strategy that's largely based on him losing his closest helpers during the time he lost power to later stage a comeback? Do you really think any person could've calculated that risk and the logistics involved in such a plan eight months ago?
<b>Jammer:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Debka is a pretty biased source. Still, its showing some opposing views.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No discussion <i>there</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Will I beleive my government deceived me? yeah, but I highly doubt that when all is said and done, we still won't have the WMDs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I already said, this isn't soley about "the WMDs". Without of wanting to harp too much on it, your government could've proved the existence of Iraqi anthrax with copies of the reciepts.
The question asked in here is whether the atmosphere of an immediate threat as Bush, Blair & co. created with the '45 minutes', the claim of nuclear capabilities, or the citing of whole giant production facilities for chemical weaponry, was plausible at any point. A 'smoking gun' proof would hardly suffice to support such a claim - you'd better search for a smoking rocket launcher <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Many people I know feel that the world is better off without Saddam, and we should simply leave it at that. I have an <i>enormous</i> problem with that attitude-- we went in there for a reason, and it wasn't the one that our government supplied to us. Regardless of politics, we can't let <i>any</i> administration get away with the 'ends justifies the means' defense.
It just sets a dangerous precedent-- "So, if we can fish a little silver lining out of any military action, you guys will be ok with it?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(sorry if this is derailing).
<span style='color:white'>It is.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Other countries don't have America's best interest at heart. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
why should they? America doesnt look out for them. the world doesnt revolve around america. there are other places!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Other countries don't have America's best interest at heart. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
why should they? America doesnt look out for them. the world doesnt revolve around america. there are other places!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe that to be true. The entire world pretty much depends on America. You can be stubborn and deny it but it is true. And America does look out for other countries. America may not always be right, but it usually has good intentions.
Whats that famous road to hell paved with again? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
America doesn't help other nations because they're "the good guys" or "they're nice". The actions of every nation are determined by what is in it's national interest. Nations don't go out of their way to help someone unless they're getting something in return. The world doesn't "depend" on America, but America does play a large role in international relations. It's in it's national interest to be involved seeing as it has numerous overseas territorial possessions and alliances.
But Bosnian we're not here to debate right and wrong. We're here to ask whether or not we were decieved. If by you saying "We went in for the wrong reasons" you believe you were decieved by your government then we have a viable reply. Otherwise please clarify.