I doubt they lied. They must have believed that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq because they look like fools now that they haven't found any. If they lied then they would go all the way and develop some sort of (fake) evidence. I believe they were wrong for telling us that Iraq was a threat because they obviously had no conclusive evidence. They were arrogant. If they just told us that Iraq's liberation is crucial in the peace of the entire middle east and that it's the right thing to do then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now
Something has been bothering me for some time now. North Korea most vocally has nuclear weapons, yet it has not been attacked. Seeing as it's part of the "Axis of Evil" and not exactly in the US's good books, the only thing holding the US back seems to be North Korea's WMD capabilities. Now Iraq claimed to have no WMD and was invaded anyway. But if the reason North Korea hasn't been attacked is that they have WMD, why would the US attack Iraq if it was worried about WMD retaliation. It may be that the US knew Iraq had no WMD, and that's why they weren't worried about invading.
<!--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-->If they just told us that Iraq's liberation is crucial in the peace of the entire middle east and that it's the right thing to do then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because it never would have happened. The support that did exist for the war was based soley around Iraq's perceived WMD threat. Flowery phrases like "creating peace" and "it's the right thing to do" don't hold water in international politics or even national politics. A lot of American support would have dried up for such an action and Blair would have been lucky if he was merely booted out of Whitehall for supporting such an action. "It's the right thing to do" is not only subject to personal opinion but is not a legitimate reason for waging war upon another nation.
Btw the middle east looks real peaceful now that Iraq has been taken care of. Terrorist attacks all through Iraq and Saudi Arabia, suicide bombings in Israel, Israeli invasions of Palistine and Iran pushing their nuclear program even faster. Yep, invading Iraq stabilized the whole region, gg US!
I do not feel decieved by the government in any way. The government saw a real threat in Iraq, and if they had to do a little dirty work to do the right thing, so much the better. The world is a better place without Sadaam or his regime. Anyway, if they forged or falsified intelligence intentionally to oust that regime, I do not feel decieved or ashamed in any way.
See thats what I don't understand! I'm firmly with Nem on this one: governments don't have the right to lie or decieve us. Yet people seem perfectly willing to accept that even if they were, it's fine! Zazi, might I suggest that if there was a genuine threat, there would be no need for deception? The fact that you seem perfectly fine with your government falisifying information in order to start a war amazes me! <span style='color:white'>Cut back on the Nazi references, Ryo. They tend to be taken as insults.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Aug 31 2003, 12:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 31 2003, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes because it never would have happened. The support that did exist for the war was based soley around Iraq's perceived WMD threat. Flowery phrases like "creating peace" and "it's the right thing to do" don't hold water in international politics or even national politics. A lot of American support would have dried up for such an action and Blair would have been lucky if he was merely booted out of Whitehall for supporting such an action. "It's the right thing to do" is not only subject to personal opinion but is not a legitimate reason for waging war upon another nation.
Btw the middle east looks real peaceful now that Iraq has been taken care of. Terrorist attacks all through Iraq and Saudi Arabia, suicide bombings in Israel, Israeli invasions of Palistine and Iran pushing their nuclear program even faster. Yep, invading Iraq stabilized the whole region, gg US! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Bush administration wants to stabilize the middle east by democracy. The Bush administration follows Paul Wolfowitz's ideas on the middle east. Basically what Paul Wolfowitz believes is that he majority of the middle eastern states are corrupt and that they support terrorism, and the only way that can be fixed is by bringing democracy to the more corrupt states (forcefully) and that democracy in the rest of the middle east would follow. And he has been preaching this before 9/11. An article to read about Paul Wolfowitz - <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/117227/' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/117227/</a> You should probably find some more on him with google.
The Bush administration probably feared that it wouldn't get the support it needed to attack Iraq so it fell back on what it can (suspicion of Iraq owning WMD).
Honestly, I don't believe it really matters. We have past weapons inspections reporting thousands of gallons of Anthrax etc that we did not force them to get rid of in the past, and suddenely, even those have disappeared....
I don't understand why its so hard to put two and two together. If you knew your country was to be under attack, partly because of wmd, would you not move out the wmd to win a proaganda war?
I don't mean to drag this off topic, but there are many, MANY people who are ignorant towards the fact that at a time during the late nineties, Iraq was PROVEN to have many of these WMD, yet some people continually insist that they didn't have any and say the war was unjustfied.
I'm sorry, I know many of you are smarter than that, and if you were against the war, it was probably for other reasons, but I just felt the need to point out that it was PROVEN that Saddam had WMD.
Anyways, I too, supported the war for many reasons, if not for regieme change alone, and do not really think its matters if we were wrong on a few aspects. If we were to point out some of the things that Roosevelt thought about Hitler that later turned out to be false, I'm sure some of you may be upset with him. It all depends on who's in the office, and what the media thinks of that said person.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Aug 29 2003, 02:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 29 2003, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In politics lying isn't lying. Politicians say things like "Our analysis predicts a 10% increase in commercial growth for the year 2003", when the actual truth is that this was their best case scenario. Now what they said was the truth: One of their analysis' did predict 10% growth. But it wasn't the whole truth. Now when a government says "Iraq can launch WMD within 45 minutes of ordering a strike", and not one part of that statement can be shown to be true, it is a lie. Until any part of the above statement is validified, it must be assumed that we were lied to, and hence decieved. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats where your wrong, look for past weapons inspections and you'll see that it WAS possible, but Iraq knew that if were to find none now, that it would hurt the US in the publics eyes by those ignorant towards such past reports.
I'm not trying to be rude, but the truth is right in front of peoples faces. Iraq DID have WMD, and I don't think they just suddenely got rid of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Aug 29 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Aug 29 2003, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Am I the only won who still beleives in the nobility of America? All this talk of oil, secret deals... I'm a conservative and I support Bush's foreign policy... but not for those reasons. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> I don't think its true... I hope it isn't.
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...I.... think I'm in love.
Bosnian, Xilzen, please read my answers to the points you raised (they can be found TWO FREAKIN PAGES ago), while I try to get that pulsating vene on my forehead back under control...
For the last time:
<li> This is <i><b>not</b></i> a thread discussing whether the war on Iraq was justified. <li> The question whether Hussein owned WMD is <i><b>not</b></i> debated. The question is how much, how lethal, and, most of all, how well useable.
Nem, I even let people know I WAS going off topic, and I also stated that the wmd were deadly, I don't think its hard for anyone to realize that Anthrax is not a kids toy :-\
Comments
<!--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-->If they just told us that Iraq's liberation is crucial in the peace of the entire middle east and that it's the right thing to do then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because it never would have happened. The support that did exist for the war was based soley around Iraq's perceived WMD threat. Flowery phrases like "creating peace" and "it's the right thing to do" don't hold water in international politics or even national politics. A lot of American support would have dried up for such an action and Blair would have been lucky if he was merely booted out of Whitehall for supporting such an action. "It's the right thing to do" is not only subject to personal opinion but is not a legitimate reason for waging war upon another nation.
Btw the middle east looks real peaceful now that Iraq has been taken care of. Terrorist attacks all through Iraq and Saudi Arabia, suicide bombings in Israel, Israeli invasions of Palistine and Iran pushing their nuclear program even faster. Yep, invading Iraq stabilized the whole region, gg US!
Btw the middle east looks real peaceful now that Iraq has been taken care of. Terrorist attacks all through Iraq and Saudi Arabia, suicide bombings in Israel, Israeli invasions of Palistine and Iran pushing their nuclear program even faster. Yep, invading Iraq stabilized the whole region, gg US! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bush administration wants to stabilize the middle east by democracy. The Bush administration follows Paul Wolfowitz's ideas on the middle east. Basically what Paul Wolfowitz believes is that he majority of the middle eastern states are corrupt and that they support terrorism, and the only way that can be fixed is by bringing democracy to the more corrupt states (forcefully) and that democracy in the rest of the middle east would follow. And he has been preaching this before 9/11. An article to read about Paul Wolfowitz - <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/117227/' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/117227/</a> You should probably find some more on him with google.
The Bush administration probably feared that it wouldn't get the support it needed to attack Iraq so it fell back on what it can (suspicion of Iraq owning WMD).
I don't understand why its so hard to put two and two together. If you knew your country was to be under attack, partly because of wmd, would you not move out the wmd to win a proaganda war?
I don't mean to drag this off topic, but there are many, MANY people who are ignorant towards the fact that at a time during the late nineties, Iraq was PROVEN to have many of these WMD, yet some people continually insist that they didn't have any and say the war was unjustfied.
I'm sorry, I know many of you are smarter than that, and if you were against the war, it was probably for other reasons, but I just felt the need to point out that it was PROVEN that Saddam had WMD.
Anyways, I too, supported the war for many reasons, if not for regieme change alone, and do not really think its matters if we were wrong on a few aspects. If we were to point out some of the things that Roosevelt thought about Hitler that later turned out to be false, I'm sure some of you may be upset with him. It all depends on who's in the office, and what the media thinks of that said person.
Anyways, sorry for sort of going off topic.
Thats where your wrong, look for past weapons inspections and you'll see that it WAS possible, but Iraq knew that if were to find none now, that it would hurt the US in the publics eyes by those ignorant towards such past reports.
I'm not trying to be rude, but the truth is right in front of peoples faces. Iraq DID have WMD, and I don't think they just suddenely got rid of them.
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...I.... think I'm in love.
For the last time:
<li> This is <i><b>not</b></i> a thread discussing whether the war on Iraq was justified.
<li> The question whether Hussein owned WMD is <i><b>not</b></i> debated. The question is how much, how lethal, and, most of all, how well useable.
Sorry non-the less though :-\