By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 27 December 2009
Edit Thread
Netyaroze said:
Kasz216 said:
Netyaroze said:

@kasz216

 

Ok no proof but atleast some indication. But I still think that a government like USA shouldnt be tricked by anyone. Maybe the CIA is not as powerful as I thought. But even if he made it seem that he had Weapons of Massdestruction why the hell they just care in Iraq ? North Korea has them and nothing happens.

The USA said yes to the rules of the UN but the UN said there is not enough evidence for a war but the USA proced further. And even the US citizens think it was a mistake. And the USA is the leading Country in the world and want to stand for freedom democrazy and human rights. They are ofcourse measured completly different then a country like Iraq . They are the leader and have responsibilitys and they have to be BETTER then the rest of the world. The US superiority was always a moralic superirority atleast until the Vietnam war.


I think what vlad meant it was basically a terrorism against UK it was per definition really terrorism even if the motivation was another one.

I obviously dont agree with such a statement but i think Iraq war was a huge mistake and USA will have to pay long enough for it because it heated on terrorism and not calmed down it.





Had the US some real evidence for the war or was it just hearsay. Had they pictures from satelittes or from agents ?

And its the same you said why the hell I want a proof that bush is innocent. But the USA had no real proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They made a psyhcological profil from hitler and were able to predict some actions they made this for saddam hussein too but why the hell so they could have known he would make up such a shit to defend his country.

Now your just being ridiculious. 

It's fairly obvious you don't want an hoenst discussion and just want to believe what you want to beleive.

 

As for North Korea... they actually did care... they tried to handle things diplomatically... and look how that ended.  Where was the UN on that one.

 

I was against the war in Iraq when it was planned.  It still doesn't give people the right to make up bullshit excuses like "he made it up!" for apparently no reason.


Ok lets try to recapitulate. 
1:
Do you agree with me that Bushs decision was based on wrong Informations ?
If no explain me why.
Do you agree that the wrong informations where delievered by the CIA ?
If no explain me why
Do you agree that it was a mistake from the CIA that they delievered wrong information or from bush that he made a decison based on papers which had no real evidence.
This three things are the basic things for my argumentation everything else is opinion if such a mistake is allowed to happen in such aa delicate question which decides over thousend of lives (american and iraqi)

 

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) No.  It's the CIA's job to report everything and from where the sources came from.  (Which they did.)

4) Not quite.  The problem wasn't "hard proof".  If "hard proof" was needed it would be impossible.  Do you know how hard it would be to sneak someone into a classified nuclear base to get physical proof or copy documents?   That's ridiculious.

Bush's mistake was that other intellegence agencies in the US... and even some people in the CIA were saying "This is just one report they may or may not have anything."

However, he and the UN went to Saddam... they asked for inspectors... and Saddam... stupid as HE was... refused to let people see... nothing, since he wanted Iran to think he had Nukes.

From there, sanctions would of made sense.  However considering the North Korea mess, Bush overreacted, probably for fear that it would hurt him politically since democrats could say "He says he is big on national security but he let two of our enemies... that he called the axis of evil!  Get nukes!'

It reminds me of this upcoming healthcare bill... Obama promised healthcare, couldn't get it done in his own party... so he's passing that abomination.

 

Regardless, had the only intellegence he had said "They have weapons."  I could understand it.  (IE the NSA and FBI saying they either thought they did, or didn't know.)

Had they bombed and Saddam still refused to let people in.   I could understand that. (Since, if they were bombing and still threating invasion Saddam you'd think would give in even if he was posturing.)

 

As it was... it was a mistake.  Though not for the reasons your stating.

 

Despite the disasters and poor judgement that led to the war and even worse handling during the war and rebuilding...

It looks like somethign good will come from it.  In the long run.  Ironically this will be the "good war."

Which is more then could be said for Afghanistan... which was always a failed cause... since the US allied with the walords from the start of that war.  Even if Afghanistan doesn't fall back into the hands of the Taliban... the people who are in charge now are no better.