[QUOTE=clairobscur]
For instance, how comes you’re still stating, years later, that Hussein was playing games with the weapon inspectors, even though these inspectors were publically reporting exactly the contrary at the time? The only explanation I can think of is that you have read/heard in medias the blatant bullshit the US administation was spreading, and that the reality, the facts weren’t reported or were under-reported.
[/QUOTE]
I’d just like to add that this wasn’t just the US media. I’m Swedish and have little exposure to US media, and at the time I thought Hussein was resisting the inspectors and I kept considering that an established fact for years afterwards, discussing with friends why the hell he would do that when he, as it turned out, didn’t have anything.
The Iraq invasion was in the Agenda – Bush’s welcomed income or not – and it WAS going to happen come hell or high-water. Shitful of sites proof that. Trust we’re beyond accepting that evidence. Too pathetic a topic otherwise.
The rest is in the details – or the pack of lies most of you fell into in ‘04 (forget the ‘00 shame if you can). The MSM musta’ been a virtual tool of the devil in the US or else how is it they were the only ones, along with their cultish viewers to get it so fuckin’ wrong*? Obviously not referring to those that cheered along for their own greed/power grab. From the Untouchables to the power-hungry, to the weak (mind or body) they all have their hands stained in blood. At minimal risk of life and limb no doubt
*Unless of course that was their goal all along – the sheer destruction of a nation and its people. Just another American Power Toy.
Guess we all seem to have different meanings for “democracy.” Sure as hell despise your current version…
Democracy does not guarantee wisdom in governance, it is simply more just.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
But what if it was a situation where we “believed/knew he had them” but we weren’t exactly sure where they were (or after the fact, where they went, for that matter)?
He DID have them, he DID use them…so where did they go?
[/QUOTE]
They were destroyed by the UN inspectors, or they went bad. These things have a limited shelf life.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
And what if our greatest fears about Saddam’s supposed arsenal proved to be true? Would we be having this conversation?
[/quote]
There was zero chance of them being true.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I am not trying to defend the current administration, I am looking for someone to PROVE that the reasons for going into Iraq in the wake of 9/11 (and yes, I know there was no Al-Queada link, so please) and the subsequent fear that Saddam, being a known hater of the USA and ISrael, and a sociopath, and the US being essentially at war with Iraq with “no fly zones” anyway, was maybe overtly concerned about a potential threat to itself (again, post 9/11) and decided to act instead of wait.
[/QUOTE]
Saddam had no interest in antagonizing, much less fighting America. He made it clear that even proposing action against America could get you executed. So no, he was no danger. And yes, anyone who was paying attention knew that before the war.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
Iraq had a nuke program that was unknown to the world largely because they were processing the uranium in the same manner as the Manhattan Project and not with centrifuges. One of Saddam’s son’s talked too much and the project became known. I believe we can agree that the project was abandoned by the time of the WMD Crisis.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly unknown, Frederick Forsyth wrote a book about Iraq building a nuke using Calutrons… It was published in 1994: The Fist of God
The Tom Clancy book with the best/middle/worst case scenario was Red Storm Rising, with the Soviets using their best case scenario to sell the idea of what turned out to be a very costly war.
I always liked the joke about how the US knew Saddam had WMD: we kept the receipts.
Thanks for all of the replies. I can appreciate the anti-Bush feelings and I’m not in total disagreement with them, but I feel that there has to be something more.
As I said, the UK, France, Israel, and many others agreed with our intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. None of those countries had a “post 9/11” mentality or had any of Bush’s alleged personal predispositions towards Iraq.
I don’t think this can all be summed up with “Bush lied, they died” or even Bush having a blatant disregard for the truth in an all-out quest to see Saddam overthrown.
I remember Democratic Senator Evan Bayh on a news program, and he said that he would bet the lives of his children that Saddam had WMDs. Now we could say he was misled by Bush’s intelligence community, but what, let’s say, did the rest of the world see?
I mean, there had to be some fire there because there was smoke everywhere.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I mean, there had to be some fire there because there was smoke everywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Wanna buy a Pet Rock?
It became fashionable to believe in Saddam’s WMD’s. Fashion is an excellent producer of smoke without fire.
Well…has anyone ever heard of or mentioned curveball yet? perhaps that might help a little bit. here’s a bit of info about him.
Basic story, he was an informat who claimed he was a chemical engineer and claimed there was a Nuclear program in Iraq. While he wasn’t the primary cause of the U.S. going to Iraq, he did help the U.S. make a case of a Nuclear weapons program. Now I don’t know if he affected the whole world or merely just the U.S., but I thought this might help answer the debate question and jtgain’s issue of how pretty much this Nuclear claim was bought worldwide.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I mean, there had to be some fire there because there was smoke everywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Please see my post above. Perhaps curveball was part of the fire, I’m not sure, I’m just trying to help answer your question.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
But we didn’t actually know that until after the fact! It wasn’t like Saddam wasn’t playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors!
This whole thing was a result of post 9/11 fear of “what next” and needing to actually peek behind Saddam’s “man behind the curtain” to see what was really there for ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
What, our chemists don’t know the shelf life of chemicals. C’mon. We were well aware that he did not have chemical plants.
Besides Rumsfield was in on the selling of the weapons to Saddam.He knew what he had given him.
[QUOTE=Crackhead06]
Well…has anyone ever heard of or mentioned curveball yet?
[/QUOTE]
Nah. 
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Thanks for all of the replies. I can appreciate the anti-Bush feelings and I’m not in total disagreement with them, but I feel that there has to be something more.
[/quote]
No, there doesn’t.
[QUOTE=Salon]
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jtgain]
As I said, the UK, France, Israel, and many others agreed with our intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. None of those countries had a “post 9/11” mentality or had any of Bush’s alleged personal predispositions towards Iraq.
I don’t think this can all be summed up with “Bush lied, they died” or even Bush having a blatant disregard for the truth in an all-out quest to see Saddam overthrown.
[/quote]
Wrong. At most, they thought he had a few aging weapons with little or no means to deliver them; they knew they stuff we were spewing was BS, as did our own intelligence services. They knew that even if he had WMD, he had fewer than any number of other countries, and no inclination to use them against us. France OPPOSED the war; remember “Freedom Fries” ? Yes, those evil, evil French - were right. Israel was perfectly happy to let us kill an enemy of theirs, especially with us taking all the risk and throwing away all the resources. The UK was just a puppet, and the Downing Street memo showed that they knew beforehand that the intelligence was bogus and that Bush never had any other intention than to attack.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I mean, there had to be some fire there because there was smoke everywhere.
[/QUOTE]
There was no smoke. No one who paid attention bought into this garbage. The world knew better.
CNN.com - Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs - Jan. 26, 2004 The intelligence was not wrong. David Kay chief of the weapons inspectors explains that it was clear there were no such weapons.
Collin Powell either lied or was completely duped. In either case his UN speech was shameful. He even used drawings of mobile weapons trucks that did not exist. The neocons were determined to go to war.
[QUOTE=Jurph]
We may have to agree to disagree on that point, …
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that post.