Does anyone remember a country called Iraq? There was a slam dunk case for it possessing WMDs. At the same time, UN inspectors (who were actually in Iraq) had a different view.
I’m sure we all know what happened.
Let’s fast forward to today and move slightly to the right (politically or geographically, your call).
Bush and his monkeys lied to us in the run-up to invading Iraq.
Now they are lying to us about Iran.
Deja vu anyone?
No disrespect, but recall Iran was under an August 31 deadline to comply with international demands. Our Aug. 23 distortion is merely a Papal Bull from an administration with little regard for the UN, its populace or the world at large.
“Different View”? :dubious: 
*Blix * thought there were WMD in Iraq. And Blix also said that Iraq was not cooperating as they were required. “The United States and United Kingdom argue that Iraq is not cooperating and thus inspections have run their course. Blix helped that case by saying the cooperation has not been “immediate and unconditional,” as called for in Resolution 1441, and that there are many questions regarding the fate of weapons Iraq was known to have at the end of the Gulf War, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, and that it is not known if Iraq resumed weapons programs after inspectors left at the end of 1998.” Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. That’s because Iraq did have thousands of tonnes of them. True, most of these were destroyed under UN auspices after Operation Desert Storm (the rest went missing, and we still don’t know what happened to them, a few pitiful remains were found after this recent invasion, but they were so old they fell more into “HAZMAT” than “WMD”). Now sure, Blix had doubts about nuclear WMD “The action came following the latest reports to the council from chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Iraq was being more cooperative, if not fully cooperative, and that they had not unearthed evidence that Iraq had a functioning nuclear weapons program.” But even there, the general consenus amoung even doubters was that even though Iraq did not have a “functioning nuclear weapons program” Saddam was working on one. It now appears Saddam was bluffing.
Sure, that doesn’t mean that Iraq was a “clear and present danger” to the USA as Bush claimed (I’ll concede that Saddam was a “clear and present danger” to the Kurds, however), and it doesn’t mean that Blix and co shouldn’t have been given the chance to finish the job they started. A job that they were only able to even get a start on becuase of threats of US Military action. Thus, GWB’s *threats * were valid and nessesary to get Blix into Iraq, and further *threats * were likely nessesary to get Blix the “immediate and unconditional,” cooperation that was required and nessesary. But there doesn’t seem to have been any justification for GWB to elevate the threats to actual full-out invasion.
But Saddam did have WMD- at least at one point in time, and everyone- even Blix- thought he still had 'em. It’s just that Blix said they he could find them through further inspections, and Bush got impatient.
I agree with you, but I fear that the brainless american opinion once again will be fooled by Bush and co
that’s new to me
where did you hear that ???
You’re on to something here, I think.
I admit that I bought the Iraq/WMD story hook, line and sinker. Now I’m being told that Iran is working on them? How am I supposed to take this at face value, even though the rest of the world believes it as well?
You can only cry wolf once. After that nobody with any sort of sense believes you. How can that be considered effective governance? I’m genuinely stunned at how poorly the government has handled things these past 5 years. This is indicative of what I mean. Who believes anymore? Why would anybody believe anymore?
It’s a damn tragedy, that’s what it is. We may be unable to do something worth doing because we threw that ability away on something crazy.
The thing is, the rest of the world doesn’t believe it (as far as I can tell) the best guess is that Iran really, really wants to build a nuclear bomb, but is really, really far from doing so. Personally, I believe what the inspectors who are actually in Iran say rather than a bunch of politicians in Washington.
But even if we’re not fooled if the current administration is convinced that Iran has WMDs and decides to act on it what power do we, the people, have to stop them from whatever they might be considering.
Would American opinion that there were no WMDs have kept us out of Iraq? I doubt it.
I don’t see the government giving a shit what I or anyone else thinks. It’s more like “if we want your opinion we’ll give you one”.
You know what? You’re an idiot. Fuck you. You have not fucking clue how the American political process works.
Do you think Bush can just bomb or invade Iran on a fucking whim?
In summary, Fuck you.
Wow, I really didn’t expect to get slammed like that. It was an honest question from a citizen of the US who feels out of touch with a government that doesn’t seem to be completely honest with its constituency.
But you know what? I am an idiot. I’m an idiot for posting in this pit thread. I really have nothing to offer here.
Read the cite.
Heres’ more:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-19-blix-iraqreport_x.htm
"Blix noted inconsistencies in Iraq’s biological declaration, noting that the latest report did not include a table that had been provided in 1999 on Baghdad’s purchase of material that it used to grow biological warfare agents including anthrax.
This omission “needs to be explained,” Blix told the council, according to his briefing notes.
Also, he said Iraq was using chemical equipment destroyed by inspectors before they left in December 1998 and was developing a missile known as the Al Samoud with a range, in 13 flight tests, that exceeded the range permitted under U.N. resolutions.
ElBaradei said Iraq needed to provide answers and evidence regarding Iraq’s recent purchase of aluminum tubes. The top U.N. nuclear inspector also found little new in the 12,000-page declaration. "
Incidentally, the Al Samoud missles were found, and were illegal. Whetehr or not the missles themslves are “WMD” is a matter of differing definition, and they were more the carrier for MWD. However, even if one decides Al Samoud missles weren’t WMD, they were still illegal.
"BRUSSELS, Belgium – U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said today that *Iraq had clearly violated a U.N. arms ban * by importing illegal material that could be used to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Speaking after briefing senior EU officials, Blix said: “We have found things that have been illegally imported, even in 2001 and 2002. The question of whether they relate to weapons of mass destruction requires further inspection.”
Blix, due to brief French President Jacques Chirac and British premier Tony Blair Friday before traveling to Baghdad, said the message he was taking to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was that the situation is “very tense and very dangerous.”
On the eve of the 12th anniversary of the Gulf War that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the United States has sent more than 100,000 troops to the region and Washington has made it abundantly clear it intends to use them if Baghdad does not comply with U.N. calls to disarm.
Blix said patience with Iraq was running out and that the oil-rich country had to decide whether to cooperate more proactively with weapons inspectors or face the threat of a U.S.-led war.
“We feel Iraq must do more than it has so far in order to make inspections a credible avenue. The other major avenue is in the form of armed action against Iraq,” he said. “We are trying our best to make inspections effective so we can have a peaceful solution.”"
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030215/main1.htm
"United Nations, February 14
UN weapons inspectors have not found any arms of mass destruction in Iraq, but UN chief inspector Hans Blix said many forbidden materials remain unaccounted for.
Inspectors have “not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed,” Blix said.
“Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction.” If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented, he said.
Blix also reported findings by a panel of experts that one of Iraq’s new missile systems exceeded the range limit set by the UN Security Council resolutions. “The experts concluded that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 km in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq,” Blix said. "
Note that as Blix got further and further into his Inspections, he clearly started to doubt material amounts of WMD more and more. And, I agree Blix shoudl have been given more time. But when Blix first went in, he clearly thought he’d find something, and had clearly stated Iraq was in violation.
Have you been paying attention to what is happening in your country latelyLemur? Because Bush did invade Iraq on a whim. He started by lying to the people and when some disagreed with his lies he called them unpatriotic and in league with the terrorists.
Those illegal wiretappings, do you think most Americans agree with them? But Bush did them because he felt like it. Torturing? Who gives a fuck what the populace thinks of it? Certainly not Bush. He can torture on a whim. Because he’s The Decider. Hold people in jail for years because, um, just because? Do most Americans think this is a good idea? Did Bush do it?
Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants on whatever whim comes out of his ass, laws and the electorate be damned. You are the fool he needs to be fucked if you don’t see that.
Thank you for that response.
Stop that.
I said stop that. 
I have no idea where Lemur’s coming from. I thought your point was that in 2003 we (you and I) were pretty powerless when it came to stopping the majority of our fellow citizens who were itching to go to war in Iraq, WMDs or no WMDs. (Of course, the informationbleed has clouded the water a bit, with the majority now saying “Saddam might not have possessed WMDs, but he had the capacity!”, so it’s a whole different story.)
Anyway, those people are fewer when it comes to invading Iran, but they’re still the majority.
What’s the hubbub, Lemur?
No, Bush did not invade Iraq against the will of the American people.
Maybe you’ve forgotten, but Congress approved it and the American people SUPPORTED it. Yeah, Bush lied, yadda yadda yadda. All that would be moot if only we had succeeded, installed an Iraqi government that could keep a lid on the country, and been able to go home.
The reason everybody’s against the Iraq War NOW is that we’re losing. So of course everyone hates it. America loves a winner and cannot abide a loser.
George Bush is not a dictator, and anyone who says he is is an idiot. Bush gets away with his bullshit, because people AGREE WITH IT. Torture of suspected terrorists is POPULAR.
If you think Bush is a dictator, that nothing the American people do matters, then you deserve to live under a dictatorship. All you have to do to stop the Bush dictatorship is work to get a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. And then, with the republican rubber-stamp congress gone, why, suddenly Bush’s “dictatorial” power will vanish. Because he doesn’t rule by fiat, he rules with the consent of Congress and the American people.
The American citizenry approved of the attack on Iraq. We then attacked Iraq. The American citizenry certainly isn’t going to approve of an attack on Iran. How much do you want to bet that therefore we aren’t going to attack Iran?
Simple math.
I hope you realize that GWB *did * get Congressional approval of that “whim”.
Well, that’s true about anything, not just this particular issue. Do you think the majority of the citizens are itching to invade Iran now and that Congress would approve an authorization for Bush to do it? Hint: The answers are “no” and “no”.
Yeah, this story is troubling if Bush is up to those games again. But we’re not going to invade Iran, and if anyone thinks we are then I have a standing offer to put some action on that. Does anyone want to take the bet now?
The Mace Munchkins trudge through the blinding blizzard, thier little feet wrapped in week-old newspapers, their Star Wars lunch boxes filled with lard sandwhiches and off-brand “Kewl-Aid” salvaged from a Wal-Mart dumpster…
“Daddy’s gambling problem teh suxxor!”…
I know how it’s supposed to work, and I know how it’s been working lately. They frequently don’t equate.
Let’s say Bush signs off on a plan to bomb Iran, relying on his authority as ‘unitary executive.’ Who exactly is supposed to stop it from happening, and how?
The question of invading is fortunately moot, since we don’t have any troops to spare. But he can certainly have Special Forces units operating in Iran on a whim, just as he had Special Forces operating in Iraq a year before we invaded, without anyone’s say-so. (Off topic: those were the ones who were supposed to be tracking down bin Laden, btw - the ones who were trained to speak the Farsi and Pashtun tongues, skills that proved really useful in Iraq.)
And a cheery ‘up yours’ in return.
Of course he did. By lying. Like it looks like he’s doing now with Iran. He felt a whim to attack Iraq, lied about intelligence and called anyone who questioned him in league with the terrorists.
It was his whim to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and he used 9/11 to fulfill this whim. Unlike velvetjones, I don’t think the American people will be stupid enough to fall for it a second time.