[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Wow big surprise. So pretty much what every other nation was saying when the US was so Gun-ho to run over there to start kicking ass. Let me guess, they just haven't found them yet.

I guess since they couldn't find OSB with all that money they needed to redirect the blame.

"The U.S. intelligence community was "simply wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion, according to a panel created to study those failures and recommend corrections to prevent them in the future."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/...ort/index.html

[Athens]

This was old news in 2003

[nath]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Wow big surprise. So pretty much what every other nation was saying when the US was so Gun-ho to run over there to start kicking ass. Let me guess, they just haven't found them yet.

I guess since they couldn't find OSB with all that money they needed to redirect the blame.

"The U.S. intelligence community was "simply wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion, according to a panel created to study those failures and recommend corrections to prevent them in the future."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/...ort/index.html

Kind of harsh on many of the people working at these agencies. They were effectively asked to make a case, not to report their actual findings.

[idjeff]

Doesn't someone already have the screename "Captain Obvious"?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Athens:
This was old news in 2003

That is one way to try to de-value what was said.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
That is one way to try to de-value what was said.

OH? How so....?

[nath]

One thing you can be sure of whenever there's an inquiry into 'intelligence' - President Bush is certain to be cleared.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Athens:
OH? How so....?

This is a new report not a repeat of an old one. In 2003 is was suspected now it is confirmed.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
This is a new report not a repeat of an old one. In 2003 is was suspected now it is confirmed.

\

Oh a lot of ppl like myself didnt suspect, we knew back in 2003 already before the war even started

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Athens:
\

Oh a lot of ppl like myself didnt suspect, we knew back in 2003 already before the war even started

I knew also, unfortunately we are Canadian and the Americans were rather adamant about using their guns for something.

[Zimphire]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...pf-455210.html

http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/arch...t_questio.html

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/departm...ruction-en.asp

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_iraq.htm

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_motion_iraq.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...002_1825-E.htm

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...pf-455210.html

http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/arch...t_questio.html

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/departm...ruction-en.asp

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_iraq.htm

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_motion_iraq.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...002_1825-E.htm

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...pf-455210.html

http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/arch...t_questio.html

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/departm...ruction-en.asp

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_iraq.htm

http://wildrooster.com/~pnndorg/roche_motion_iraq.htm

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/c...002_1825-E.htm

Do you really expect something better from Canadian Intelligence Services?

After all, isn't the allmighty CIA in a better position to know?

You do not make any sense.

[Zimphire]

I was just showing SWF, that it wasn't just America that thought Iraq had WMD.

Wow big surprise. So pretty much what every other nation was saying when the US was so Gun-ho to run over there to start kicking ass. Let me guess, they just haven't found them yet.

EVERY OTHER NATION CONSTANTLY FOREVER.

Well Canada thought they had them too.

Just goes to show SWF really has no clue what he is talking about.


BUNCH OF LIARS THOSE CANADIANS ARE THAT THOUGHT IRAQ HAD WMDS!!11

or not.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

<links>

That's a pretty wide variety of links you got there.

If you would, please distill this collection into a statement of opinion for the rest of us who can't seem to find a real fault with the Canada's position. All the links are pretty short and seem fairly understandable.

• Canada had concerns about the existence of WMD in Iraq and/or the resumption of WMD programs.
• Canada did not think the evidence was sufficiently proven to justify war.
• Canada recognizes the UN Security Council as the legitimate authority that can declare war on Iraq according to international law.

Consequently, Canada DID NOT JOIN the "coalition of the willing" which is the proof in the pudding of their interpretation of Iraq's WMD threat. In hindsight, we see that their failure to support the war corresponds to the truth of the situation where the US call to war was based on an egregious falsehood.

I'm not totally sure what the "point" of your links was supposed to be. But if it was something along the lines "see Canada thought so too" I would say the fact of their abstention pretty clearly highlights that their official position on the war was sharply different then the US's position. If you were implying something else ... please clarify what you meant.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was just showing SWF, that it wasn't just America that thought Iraq had WMD.



EVERY OTHER NATION CONSTANTLY FOREVER.

Well Canada thought they had them too.

Just goes to show SWF really has no clue what he is talking about.


BUNCH OF LIARS THOSE CANADIANS ARE THAT THOUGHT IRAQ HAD WMDS!!11

or not. [/B]

Well, Paul Martin was certainly not an example; better sucker than that is impossible. Chretien had balls (although his government shows pretty badly corrupted these days), considering his vast experience in Foreign policies, while Martin has pretty much been a back bencher all his life.

Also, as to the rest of the world, funny enough, Hussein was a good "friend" and "valued customer" from various war industries from around the world. That he would get WMDs was possible. That he had any of them remained to be proved.

Following 911, and a President (as well as a country) thirsty for revenge, it is clear that some thought better to follow, considering that the Hyperpower that the U.S. represents is suspected to have the best Intelligence available. The big disappointment is that most of the money went in Iraq without the shadow of a proof against Hussein while Bin Laden is running free and everything leads to him.

Go figure.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Well Canada thought they had them too.

Based on who's intelligence ? Did their intelligence agencies believe it ... or were they just going on what the US and UK told them ? Lots of people believed the WMD hoax ... which was perpetrated by US. Sounds like you are saying they are at fault for believing the pack of falsehoods that we sold them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Also, as to the rest of the world, funny enough, Hussein was a good "friend" and "valued customer" from various war industries from around the world. That he would get WMDs was possible. That he had any of them remained to be proved.

Oh, the fact Iraq had WMDs was proved. They even admitted it. The UN even tagged some.

They was told to get rid of it. And prove that they did.

The reason why a lot of people (Most of the world) still thought Iraq had WMDs is because of :

1. Their shady deals with the inspections.
2. No one knows what happened to the WMD they did have.

This is just common sense.

Following 911, and a President (as well as a country) thirsty for revenge, it is clear that some thought better to follow, considering that the Hyperpower that the U.S. represents is suspected to have the best Intelligence available. The big disappointment is that most of the money went in Iraq without the shadow of a proof against Hussein while Bin Laden is running free and everything leads to him.

Go figure.

I think you need to look up your info again. There was PLENTY of proof Iraq had dealings with Terrorists. Many were even trained in Iraq.

Again, this has been repeated 1,000 times in here before.

This wasn't just a war on those who attacked us. This was a war on terrorism, and those who supported it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Based on who's intelligence ? Did their intelligence agencies believe it ... or were they just going on what the US and UK told them ? Lots of people believed the WMD hoax ... which was perpetrated by US. Sounds like you are saying they are at fault for believing the pack of falsehoods that we sold them.

Who perpetrated the hoax Krusty?

Tell us. When was it perpetrated?

Also, a lot of countries believed Iraq had WMDs, not only because of What the US had said, but what they thought as well.

Did you read any of the articles?

[SimpleLife]

Actually, this seems like a strange coincidence: 2 years after the capture of "The Man From Tikrit", and after failure (so far) to create a structure to judge Saddam Hussein, there comes this report.

I really wonder what this means.

Pinochet-style maneuver, maybe?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Oh, the fact Iraq had WMDs was proved. They even admitted it. The UN even tagged some.

They was told to get rid of it. And prove that they did.

The reason why a lot of people (Most of the world) still thought Iraq had WMDs is because of :

1. Their shady deals with the inspections.
2. No one knows what happened to the WMD they did have.

This is just common sense.

I think you need to look up your info again. There was PLENTY of proof Iraq had dealings with Terrorists. Many were even trained in Iraq.

Again, this has been repeated 1,000 times in here before.

This wasn't just a war on those who attacked us. This was a war on terrorism, and those who supported it. [/B]

It has been quite some time since WMDs were discovered at all. Plenty of time before 9-11.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Tell us. When was it perpetrated?

Every time a representative of our government repeated the falsehood. The word perpetrator does not have to include a notion of intent. If you accidently drop a glass and it breaks, you are still the perpetrator of breaking the glass. Intent is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Who perpetrated the hoax Krusty?

Sounds like you are just trying to split a semantic hair with my use of the words "perpetrate" & "hoax". Please, feel free to break out your thesaurus and pick precisely the words that least offend your semantic sensibilities ... maybe "repeatedly disseminated false information to the world community". ? Whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Also, a lot of countries believed Iraq had WMDs, not only because of What the US had said, but what they thought as well.

None of your links support this statement. There is nothing in those articles that specifies that the source of Canada's intelligence was natively collected vs. just assumed based on what someone else said. Your very first article describes how France and Germany were accusing US/UK of "fudging" evidence before the war ever started. Sounds like "a lot" of countries called Bullsh!t on WMD too. Who turned out being factually correct on that one ??

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Did you read any of the articles?

I read all of them. Did you read them yourself ? Just how do you interpret statements like this (from your links)

That the Senate notes the crisis between the United States and Iraq, and affirms the urgent need for Canada to uphold international law under which, absent an attack or imminent threat of attack, only the United Nations Security Council has the authority to determine compliance with its resolutions and sanction military action.

(i) the increased momentum of the U.S. Administration in its calls for a pre-emptive attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein without evidence that Iraq possesses or is acquiring weapons of mass destruction ;

Here is a list of the coalition of the willing. How many of the countries listed do you figure have reliable, independent intelligence capability ? 4 ... maybe 5 of them ?? You reckon' Honduras, Palau and Eritrea had the inside scoop on Iraq or do you think maybe they were just taking our word for it ? You own links refute your position as much as they support it.

The crux of your arguments are pretty much in the same theme that they have been for the last year. Since the WMD "threat" peddled by the US turned out to be false ... now its all about making sure nobody can pin "intent" on anyone in the Bush administration. Nothing can be called a "lie" or a "hoax" lest it unfairly attribute intent where it is unknown whether or not such intent exists. While your crusade for semantic accuracy is surely a noble cause, what you seem perpetually loathe to do it explain the significance of that stance. I'm guessing the answer must be really really big and important because you seem to collapse back on some form of that argument almost reflexively any time the issue comes up. For practical purposes, what out there in the real world hinges upon the answer ? Would fewer people be dead based on the answer, would less money have been spent based on the answer ? Is ignorance of the answer somehow preferred to definitively knowing the answer one way or another? Dig a little deeper, Zimph ... can you articulate what is really at stake here?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Every time a representative of our government repeated the falsehood. The word perpetrator does not have to include a notion of intent. If you accidently drop a glass and it breaks, you are still the perpetrator of breaking the glass. Intent is irrelevant.

Wow that is a broad generalization.

Sounds like you are just trying to split a semantic hair with my use of the words "perpetrate" & "hoax". Please, feel free to break out your thesaurus and pick precisely the words that least offend your semantic sensibilities ... maybe "repeatedly disseminated false information to the world community". ? Whatever floats your boat.

No, I want to know who did this, who planned this hoax.

None of your links support this statement. There is nothing in those articles that specifies that the source of Canada's intelligence was natively collected vs. just assumed based on what someone else said. Your very first article describes how France and Germany were accusing US/UK of "fudging" evidence before the war ever started. Sounds like "a lot" of countries called Bullsh!t on WMD too. Who turned out being factually correct on that one ??

Me. SWF claimed everyone else But the US thought this.

I read all of them. Did you read them yourself ? Just how do you interpret statements like this (from your links)


Here is a list of the coalition of the willing. How many of the countries listed do you figure have reliable, independent intelligence capability ? 4 ... maybe 5 of them ?? You reckon' Honduras, Palau and Eritrea had the inside scoop on Iraq or do you think maybe they were just taking our word for it ? You own links refute your position as much as they support it.

The crux of your arguments are pretty much in the same theme that they have been for the last year. Since the WMD "threat" peddled by the US turned out to be false ... now its all about making sure nobody can pin "intent" on anyone in the Bush administration. Nothing can be called a "lie" or a "hoax" lest it unfairly attribute intent where it is unknown whether or not such intent exists. While your crusade for semantic accuracy is surely a noble cause, what you seem perpetually loathe to do it explain the significance of that stance. I'm guessing the answer must be really really big and important because you seem to collapse back on some form of that argument almost reflexively any time the issue comes up. For practical purposes, what out there in the real world hinges upon the answer ? Would fewer people be dead based on the answer, would less money have been spent based on the answer ? Is ignorance of the answer somehow preferred to definitively knowing the answer one way or another? Dig a little deeper, Zimph ... can you articulate what is really at stake here?

Not talking about the coalition of the willing strawman. I am talking about the people who actually thought Iraq had WMD.

My point was to show it was a lot more than just USA, and I showed that. I wont even go into the fact that said idea didn't even START with this administration. Some of you fellows act like it was made up by the Bush administration to fool America and the rest of the world!@1

Which is simply nonsense. Heck even Bill Clinton doesn't believe that.

But I am sure you know better.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

just before bush was elected in 2000 there were reports on how iraq did not have any WMD or the means to make any.

So can anyone show me a pic of a WMD that they found in iraq?

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Some of you fellows act like it was made up by the Bush administration to fool America and the rest of the world!@1
[/B]

Wasn't the purpose of Secretary Powell's big presentation to the UN to convince the world (using mostly US-sourced intelligence) that Saddam Hussein constituted a threat? You do remember that, right? For example, I don't recall the ambassador from Mexico jumping to his feet to declare that he had intelligence that corroborated US claims. Or anyone else for that matter, apart from poor old Jack Straw.

I remember Powell had some really cool Powerpoint shows, which the UNSC proceeded to roll their eyes at, for the most part. I'm sure Colin Powell remembers it well even if you don't, as that presentation and the response it got that day represented the end of his career and credibility in the wider world.

I remember how silly he looked then, and there are echoes in your current silliness of trying to shore up the argument. Your bottom line seems to be that President Bush didn't deliberately mislead you, America and the world. OK. While that's a defensible position, it leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that the governments of those countries who didn't believe the hype are more astute judges of the reliability of US intelligence than your own president. :-(

Of course only a idiot would strip out the caveats from raw intelligence before presenting it to the world. Words like 'could', 'maybe' and 'this information is single-sourced' would have changed the meaning of all of those reports substantially. So while it's possible to defend the position 'the President didn't intentionally mislead America and the world', it's also possible to defend the position 'the President intentionally misled the world by misrepresenting the intelligence in his possession'.

Either way, he (and you) are on extremely dodgy ground. I'm not surprised he doesn't talk about Iraq much any more. But it's pretty funny that his interweb mongs still feel honour-bound to defend him.

[ryaxnb]

Let's face it, we went over there 'cause we wanted to. Rationalizing it was clearly second, as evidenced by changing stories, missing evidence, false promises, and horrible $ estimates. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.

[Athens]

its all about oil. The US is the most dependent country in the world of imported oil, and Iraq provides a secure source, making it into a US friendly state.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Wow that is a broad generalization.
[/b]
No, I want to know who did this, who planned this hoax.
. [/B]

Doomf, he just told you in the first two lines of his post.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
just before bush was elected in 2000 there were reports on how iraq did not have any WMD or the means to make any.

Can you show us said reports? Why was the UN still looking for them then?

So can anyone show me a pic of a WMD that they found in iraq?

Ask the UN.They are the ones that tagged them. Unless you are calling the UN liars.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Athens:
its all about oil. The US is the most dependent country in the world of imported oil, and Iraq provides a secure source, making it into a US friendly state.

I can't believe people are still using this sad sad dodge.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


I can't believe people are still using this sad sad dodge.

Its not a dodge, I truly belive it to be the case. The US for the most part only spends money and resources when it serves the US's interest. The only self interest reason I can see out of a War with Iraq is to protect oil reserves. Washington surely didnt do it just to spend billions, it surely didnt do it to reduce numbers in the forces, it didn't do it for the people of Iraq, time and time again the US only shows it cares about Americans only. It didn't do it to distabalize the area, it didn't do it to create more terrorists, and North Korea is a much bigger threat then Iraq ever was, but Iraq has oil, North Korea dosent. And Iraq was already weakend from several wars and sanctions.

So yes i believe it

[Zimphire]

Athens tell me, if it was about the oil, why didn't we just take it in 91.

Why don't we just take it now?

[Athens]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Athens tell me, if it was about the oil, why didn't we just take it in 91.

Why don't we just take it now?

It was about the oil in 91, in this case Kuwaits. Saddam was thinking of using Euros for oil, vs US dollars which is bad for the US, second Saddam was planning on only giving oil to Europe and Asia as well. And the demand for oil is larger now then it was in 91 and the US sees it needs to secure a supply.


The US cant just take it because the world would see the US as a invading country no better then Iraq was when they invaded Kuwiat. So instead Washington makes it look like a rescue of the people and used WOMD as a reason to invade.

I wish I wasent so tired so I could make better sense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Athens:
It was about the oil in 91, in this case Kuwaits. Saddam was thinking of using Euros for oil, vs US dollars which is bad for the US, second Saddam was planning on only giving oil to Europe and Asia as well. And the demand for oil is larger now then it was in 91 and the US sees it needs to secure a supply.

I am sure it had nothing to do with Iraq attacking Kuwait. And that wasn't so much about the oil. And we had the same need for oil back in 91 as we do now.

The US cant just take it because the world would see the US as a invading country no better then Iraq was when they invaded Kuwiat. So instead Washington makes it look like a rescue of the people and used WOMD as a reason to invade.

I wish I wasent so tired so I could make better sense.

Yeah I've read that conspiracy theory. If you go about on the net, you'd see it has been debunked many times.

But hey, I can see how a lot of people would think it. Enough people are trying to say it's true. It's simply not.

Even some of the most die hard "It was for teh oil" people are even no longer saying it.