Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iraq: No Weapons, More Questions

Iraq: No Weapons, More Questions
Thread Tools
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 08:13 AM
 
Bush challenged over Iraq weapons
Three dead in Baghdad violence
Iraq weapons: Where does the buck stop?


The issue doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Has anyone changed their opinion on the matter?
     
mathew_m
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 11:09 AM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Bush challenged over Iraq weapons
Three dead in Baghdad violence
Iraq weapons: Where does the buck stop?


The issue doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Has anyone changed their opinion on the matter?
No. If you read a little deeper you'll know that Hussein has harbored weapons in the past and we gave him plenty of time to destroy the ones he had before we invaded.

These attacks on the U.S. military are ex-factions of Hussein's govt. and 'messengers' from neighboring Islamic nations.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 11:23 AM
 
yeah, it's time for America to stop the charade, withdraw from Iraq, and implement the reinstatement of Saddam's regime.

we made a mistake and we're terribly sorry.
     
mathew_m
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 12:01 PM
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 12:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yeah, it's time for America to stop the charade, withdraw from Iraq, and implement the reinstatement of Saddam's regime.

we made a mistake and we're terribly sorry.
You don't get it.
Facts have been warped for political purposes. The CIA et al are not institutions that should supply `suitable' but rather accurate information. If someone needs CIA counsel, then (s)he needs accurate information and extrapolations of that security agency. That information doesn't have to be necessarily convenient.

Just take a look at Britain ?- the British report copied a twelve-year old scientific paper, including typos, etc. I wouldn't call that up to date, useful information.

If you want to make decisions, those `tweaked' reports pose a serious danger. Wrong decisions may result.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by mathew_m:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Forget about Iraq's WMD's....
What on earth does Iran have to do with wheteher or not there's WMD in Iraq?

Are you trying to say the Iranian tar baby might eclipe Iraq as a problem?

I think invading Iran would be a tad on the ill-advised side, myself.

CV

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
clod
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 02:20 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You don't get it.
Facts have been warped for political purposes. The CIA et al are not institutions that should supply `suitable' but rather accurate information. If someone needs CIA counsel, then (s)he needs accurate information and extrapolations of that security agency. That information doesn't have to be necessarily convenient.

Just take a look at Britain ?- the British report copied a twelve-year old scientific paper, including typos, etc. I wouldn't call that up to date, useful information.

If you want to make decisions, those `tweaked' reports pose a serious danger. Wrong decisions may result.
You don't need the CIA or any other intelligence agency to justify this war. We know for a fact that they had WMD, we know that there is no evidence that they were destroyed. If there are no WMD, then Saddam Hussein made one of the stupidest decisions ever. If they destroyed the WMD, then why did they not provide evidence? They knew what would happen if they didn't. You don't need an intelligence agency to tell you that if somebody has something and doesn't get rid of it, they still have it.
     
adamk
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: atx, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 02:52 PM
 
Originally posted by clod:
If they destroyed the WMD, then why did they not provide evidence? They knew what would happen if they didn't.
one reason i can think of is simple pride. i doubt iraq liked having weapons inspectors running around their country. if a resolution were passed against the US, do you think they would be happy to reveal all their secret military programs? this is my speculation.


You don't need an intelligence agency to tell you that if somebody has something and doesn't get rid of it, they still have it.
your logic, as stated above, is good. you can make statements like that all you want. but those statements are not required to be based in fact. you can have a trusty aide tell you those sorts of things.

what the intelligence agency would be good for is to a) confirm the "and doesn't get rid of it" part and b) to find out where "they still have it". if the evidence was hard and believed to be to the scale presented, these questions should be easily resolved.

adam
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" begins with yrself.

"He that fights for Allah's cause fights for himself. Allah does not need His creatures' help." -koran, the spider, 29:7
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 02:55 PM
 
As usual, the debate about WMD misses the point entirely. The real issue is the US/UK's break with their allies after UN 1441 on the grounds of what Blair called "a clear and present danger".

For a perfect summation of the criticism levied against Bush/Blair, you need look no further than Robin Cook's resignation speech and his recent criticisms.

If Iraq presented no credible immediate threat (like everyone except Bush/Blair said all along), then there was plenty of time for the diplomatic effort to move forward. War still might have been necessary in the end, but staying the diplomatic course for just a little longer would have meant the support of the UN, the Security Council and NATO.

Bush/Blair sacrificed solidarity, goodwill, and diplomacy in the name of answering a threat that has already been proven to not have existed. They risked their credibility on it and they've already lost.

Whether or not we find something buried somewhere a month or a year from now doesn't change the fact that the insistance that an aggressive military solution could not be delayed has already been shown to be entirely and utterly unjustified.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 04:39 PM
 
Originally posted by clod:
You don't need the CIA or any other intelligence agency to justify this war. We know for a fact that they had WMD, we know that there is no evidence that they were destroyed. If there are no WMD, then Saddam Hussein made one of the stupidest decisions ever. If they destroyed the WMD, then why did they not provide evidence? They knew what would happen if they didn't. You don't need an intelligence agency to tell you that if somebody has something and doesn't get rid of it, they still have it.
We know that he once had WMD (because we sold them ourselves to him). But we do not know that he had them right before the invasion. If we would have known, we would have found some by now (at least the disposed rests, destroying WMD would surely be as apparent as making them).

If you think that the CIA wasn't needed to justify this war, your argumentation is wrong again, because fact is they did. Fact is that this was done to convince inconclusive Americans and foreign governments to join the boat.

So it doesn't matter if you think the CIA was or wasn't needed. Fact is that it was used to `back up' the US Administration's (and Britain's) claims on this matter.

You should be very careful with fraud information, because they are good as long as the direction they were pointing to is in accordance with your (political) points of views. But for one, this is not everyone's point of view, and #2, if an Administration uses the same tactics that you politically don't agree with, you will be pjssed of as I am. Because they have tried to deceive you.

This is a matter that has nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq is just one example of that tactic at work. I am arguing against that tactic, not the Iraq issue (we have done that already).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
eklipse  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 08:00 PM
 
Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified is a seperate issue. The fact is, the war on Iraq was sold to the public on the basis that Saddam Hussein was ready and willing to deploy weapons of mass destruction against foreign populations, namely the US and the UK.

Currently, both the readiness and willingness appear to have been lacking - as has the evidence to support these claims.

To suggest that it is okay for a government to exaggerate evidence in order to provoke a war is to accept that people are there to be manipulated and governments exist to manipulate them.

Is everyone happy living with this?
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2003, 09:12 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:


Is everyone happy living with this?
Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

CV

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 05:46 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:


The issue doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Has anyone changed their opinion on the matter?
Geez, I guess it must be in someone's political best interests to keep hyping this question. Now that the Congress has taken up the torches and pitchforks, folks should relax. After all, if anyone knows about lying and misleading people on a professional level, it's the ranking Democrats in Congress.

Some of the Congresscritters who are bitching and moaning and calling for "investigation" had access to EXACTLY THE SAME DATA that Colin Powell did. Just like they did with 9/11, when they TRIED to ask "what did he know and when did he know it?" Flop.

This is a big deal because next year is an election year -- no other reason.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 05:54 PM
 
Originally posted by finboy:

This is a big deal because next year is an election year -- no other reason.
Well, there are certain Democratic presidential candidates for whom your criticism is dead on. *cough*kerry*cough*

OTOH, there are plenty of credible and sincere concerned critics from both parties that want to get to the bottom of it. Not because it's an election year, but because thousands of people died and it may cost us trillions of dollars.

As usual, your cynicism seems to stop at the party line. There are just as many democrats who would love for this "scandal" to go away because they were just as hawkish as the white house.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
eklipse  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 06:22 PM
 
Originally posted by finboy:
Geez, I guess it must be in someone's political best interests to keep hyping this question. Now that the Congress has taken up the torches and pitchforks, folks should relax. After all, if anyone knows about lying and misleading people on a professional level, it's the ranking Democrats in Congress.

Some of the Congresscritters who are bitching and moaning and calling for "investigation" had access to EXACTLY THE SAME DATA that Colin Powell did. Just like they did with 9/11, when they TRIED to ask "what did he know and when did he know it?" Flop.

This is a big deal because next year is an election year -- no other reason.
Politicians will always exploit a potential scandal for their own partisan gains - it doesn't matter whether it is election year or not.

I don't particular care about the partisan politics, what I do care about is the likelihood that a government (any government) manipulated the public with false or exaggerated evidence for war and, perhaps more seriously, not many members of the public seem bothered by this.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 09:59 PM
 
I have a hard time believing that anyone fabricated or exaggerated evidence BUT I do believe that people in the Administration heard only what they wanted to hear from intelligence reports.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Hugi
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 10:38 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As usual, the debate about WMD misses the point entirely. The real issue is the US/UK's break with their allies after UN 1441 on the grounds of what Blair called "a clear and present danger".

(snipped rest of great post for brevity only)
Amen.

Seems like Bush and Blair were running around with crap in their pants. They just recanted the WMD mantra as often as they could, despite having no evidence for WMD existence. (suspicious looking cars don't cut it as reasons for war in my opinion).

I have always said: I am not against the war against Saddam per se, I am against the way that the US and UK crapped all over their (previous?) allies, creating this mess of a war.

But, according to some of you, lying to the public is allright, if the government knows better. The ends justify the means, right?
( Last edited by Hugi; Jun 20, 2003 at 10:44 PM. )
     
planetpetey
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: london, berlin , perth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2003, 10:44 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As usual, the debate about WMD misses the point entirely. The real issue is the US/UK's break with their allies after UN 1441 on the grounds of what Blair called "a clear and present danger".

For a perfect summation of the criticism levied against Bush/Blair, you need look no further than Robin Cook's resignation speech and his recent criticisms.

If Iraq presented no credible immediate threat (like everyone except Bush/Blair said all along), then there was plenty of time for the diplomatic effort to move forward. War still might have been necessary in the end, but staying the diplomatic course for just a little longer would have meant the support of the UN, the Security Council and NATO.

Bush/Blair sacrificed solidarity, goodwill, and diplomacy in the name of answering a threat that has already been proven to not have existed. They risked their credibility on it and they've already lost.

Whether or not we find something buried somewhere a month or a year from now doesn't change the fact that the insistance that an aggressive military solution could not be delayed has already been shown to be entirely and utterly unjustified.
Great post. Spot on.
Sadly however, here we are now, the world's attention still being diverted by the "where are those weapons?" propaganda, and no one is really tackling the multitude of real reasons behind the RUSH into war.

For the US it's partly about an excuse to spend even more on making deadlier weapons and using up aging arsenals, sneaking in anti civil rights legislation (patriot act), pleasing corporate pals of the President with lucrative deals in rebuilding Iraq, and perhaps even a lack of penis size in the Presidential underpants.

Blair seized the opportunity to get into the hsitory books, and divert attention from the dire situation at home..the crumbling infrastructure of the NHS, Railways, education, and his complete lack of answers as to how to fix them.

Australia's John Howard ignored the 85% of his people who vehemntly opposed war, in order to get huge amounts of intelligence information on nearby Asian nations from the CIA, and to get a few minutes of exposure on the world scene.

These issues and a lot more are what we should really be frightened about. The whole Iraq issue has been used as a "weapon of mass CONFUSION"
sometimes the machine that goes "ping"
can go "boing" instead
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:38 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Bush challenged over Iraq weapons
Three dead in Baghdad violence
Iraq weapons: Where does the buck stop?


The issue doesn't appear to be going away any time soon.

Has anyone changed their opinion on the matter?
I have. I gave the US Administration (consequently my government, the Howard government) the benefit of my doubt. I feel betrayed. I've supported so many of howard government's policies, their stance on refugees, 'anti-reconcilliation' (In other words, I feel that giving the Aborigines stacks of land and money, 'reconcilling' with them' will go nowhere. Plus, many 'masscres' people recite are actually a distortion of history), economic and fiscal policy etc. However launching a war, based on flimsy evidence, which he sold to me as solid, really, really has betrayed me.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:41 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You don't get it.
Facts have been warped for political purposes. The CIA et al are not institutions that should supply `suitable' but rather accurate information. If someone needs CIA counsel, then (s)he needs accurate information and extrapolations of that security agency. That information doesn't have to be necessarily convenient.

Just take a look at Britain ?- the British report copied a twelve-year old scientific paper, including typos, etc. I wouldn't call that up to date, useful information.

If you want to make decisions, those `tweaked' reports pose a serious danger. Wrong decisions may result.
exactly. I'm perfectly aware of horrors of Saddam's regime, which was partly why I 'supported' the war, at least wasn't a vocal critic of it, in the first place. However, the governments sold me this war based on their intelligence regarding their WMD programs. I hear more and more about this being stretched, twisted and distorted to fit George Bush's political agenda.

It's difficult for me, being as right wing as I am.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2003, 10:49 PM
 
Originally posted by planetpetey:

Australia's John Howard ignored the 85% of his people who vehemntly opposed war, in order to get huge amounts of intelligence information on nearby Asian nations from the CIA, and to get a few minutes of exposure on the world scene.
Not making this post indicative of my stance, but that statistic is blown completely out of proportion.

The majority of Australians did support the war (before it began, something like 55%), and recent Newspoll suggests that I think it was 62% support it now. Those exact numbers are questionable, since I'm pulling them out of the top of my head, but you get the general idea given to you by Newspoll (which gets published in the Australian Newspaper and quoted by many other papers).
In vino veritas.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 04:07 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
exactly. I'm perfectly aware of horrors of Saddam's regime, which was partly why I 'supported' the war, at least wasn't a vocal critic of it, in the first place. However, the governments sold me this war based on their intelligence regarding their WMD programs. I hear more and more about this being stretched, twisted and distorted to fit George Bush's political agenda.

It's difficult for me, being as right wing as I am.
Bingo.
Too many Bush supporters don't seem to mind that. But if this was a different government using the same tactics, there would be a giant uproar. Some don't even seem to remember that Iraq was really sold with the WMD issue.

A government shouldn't deceive people into something. Be it Republican or Democrat or whatever.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Jacket
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Outside of Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 11:13 AM
 
Originally posted by adamk:
one reason i can think of is simple pride. i doubt iraq liked having weapons inspectors running around their country. if a resolution were passed against the US, do you think they would be happy to reveal all their secret military programs? this is my speculation.

Is "pride" worth the risk of invasion? I mean seriously... Saddam wanted to stay in power, he wouldn't have compromised his power because of "pride"
Another PC to PB17 Switcher
Became the proud new owner of a PB17 on 03/22/03
http://www.mattmargolis.com (Part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy)
     
eklipse  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 12:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Jacket:
Is "pride" worth the risk of invasion? I mean seriously... Saddam wanted to stay in power, he wouldn't have compromised his power because of "pride"
You don't seem to understand the notion of 'pride' as it applies to this case. As adamk suggested, try to imagine the Iraq-US roles reversed.

Pride is not something that can be forfeited, to do so would be to negate its existence in the first place. People who care about such things are generally willing to go to extremes to preserve them.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2003, 07:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Hugi:
But, according to some of you, lying to the public is allright, if the government knows better. The ends justify the means, right?
1400 professionals just arrived in Iraq to help the search (entering week 8). Only 300 of approximately 1000 sites have been inspected.

Before you go and accuse the US of 'lying', perhaps you should simply give the US the same amount of time that the UN inspectors had (the recent 6 month period - not the longer 12 year period).

As for your WMD non-existence theory, it's delusional and unrealistic. I mean, where the hell have you been for the last decade?????

When ALL the leaders and representatives of the world, numerous intelligence agencies, and the UN itself says that Iraq has WMD, it probably did.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,