By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 06 November 2012
Edit Thread
binary solo said:
Kasz216 said:
binary solo said:

 


It's not like i'm defending the war.   Hell... even if the WMD information was correct that wasn't justification for the war.   Some bombing and commando raids?  Sure why not... but all out nation building?

 

Also, i'm not argueing that they took the story they wanted because they wanted it.  I'm argueing that they had conflicting intellegence, and their predisposed inclination to invade convinced them to take the weaker intellegence story.

It's really not that uncommon a thing.  You see people do that shit all the time.

Your going way out of your way to come up with a more elaborate explination when there is a much more simple, and easy explination.

It's easier to just label someone evil or something... but it isn't constructive or helpful, and will only lead to people making the same mistakes over and over again.

Conflicting intelligence? really? You write as if the information was equally credible on both sides.

The IAEA was quite clear: there was no credible evidence of an active WMD programme or the existence of WMDs in Iraq, and there was no evidence of any plans to resurrect any WMD programme. The best they could come up with was missiles that had a slightly longer range that what the UN allowed Saddam to have after he lost Gulf War 1. That's not even enough justification for bombing raids.

But Bush et al decided to go with the unsubstantiated claims of some dude who the CIA had tagged as lacking credibility.

There's no conflicting intelligence in any meaningful or substantial sense.
Christ, i don't even know where to begin... I really don't want to get into a huge long thing here... so i'll keep it short and just ask you to do some actual independent research on the Iraq war and what led up to it.

Christ, i don't even know whwere to start....  All i'd ask is that you do some more independent research.

I guess the best place to start is...  The IAEA doesn't make general WMD reports.

The IAEA stands for the International Atomic Energy Agency.   The only WMD they pay any attention to is Nuclear weapons.  So the IAEA had nothing to say about the possibility of mobile chemical weapons labs or about anything related to chemical weapons.

If I had to guess... I would guess you are talking about Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC reports.  Which didn't state "They definitly don't have weapons of mass destruction."


The UNMOVIC reports stated  "There is no smoking guns that they have these weapons, there explinations for various things like aluminium tubes make sense... so they probably don't have these programs... however.  Direct quote coming.

"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

So at best the reports at the time were saying "They probably aren't developing new WMDs but they still probably secretly posses a lot of anthrax and other such chemical WMDs they're trying to hide... and in general are being deceptive."

As for the mobile weapons labratories?  He said he didn't come across any proof they existed.  Yet he didn't say they didn't exist. 

 

At that point it's all a matter of whether you think war needs a smoking gun, or whether preemptive strikes when a nation is being knowingly deceptive is a proper justification.   Bush and Co clearly believed the later.

Essentially it's if you believe in what's known in the gambling world as "Pot odds."

 

 

 

Secondly...reports generally show that any doubts about "Curveball" were never fowarded up the chain of command.  So, Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and the rest didn't know said doubts existed.

 

Nothing else you said is actually relevent except as an attempt to play on emotions.

 

if you want to make an arguement on facts... try using some facts.