Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

I distinctly remember in November of 2002 while I was visiting London I saw a book in a bookstore written by a former iraq weapons inspector making the case that Iraq no longer had the capacity for WMD production and that an invasion would destabalize the region.

 

[quaere]

Intellectually dishonest.

Hussein was effectively on probation for his aggression against Kuwait and subsequent mass firing of SCUDs at his enemies.

If he had possessed WMDs in his arsenal as the gathered intelligence supported, and as the American people and the Legislative Branch were told, then this war would be completely just.

How were we all to have this magical foresight that the intelligence reports given to the public and used as justification were faulty?

:lol It's already been said a couple times in this thread, but this is so ridiculous I have to post as well.

No one knew just how wrong the presented evidence would be. I even half expected some WMDs to be found (although not to the extent that was claimed).

But anyone paying even a bit of attention during the run up to war saw that the Bush administration was planning to go to war no matter what the UN said, no matter what was or wasn't found in Iraq, and would do ANYTHING to twist whatever available evidence there was to support their goals. When you plan a conclusion and then fit the evidence around it, that's just a recipe for disaster - and everyone that wasn't buying into the blind patriotism knew it.

 

[JayDubya]

You guys are soooo right, I mean, that's why the House and Senate voted the way they did, it was obviously clear as day that the evidence was false and / or trumped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please. All this hindsight and hyperbole. Some people were extremely skeptical, and they had their skepticism confirmed in the end as being right, but that does not mean that their skepticism was the only logical viewpoint.

Essentially, "Okay, you were right. Want a cookie?"

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

You guys are soooo right, I mean, that's why the House and Senate voted the way they did, it was obviously clear as day that the evidence was false and / or trumped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please. All this hindsight and hyperbole. Some people were extremely skeptical, and they had their skepticism confirmed in the end as being right, but that does not mean that their skepticism was the only logical viewpoint.

Essentially, "Okay, you were right. Want a cookie?"

Well, I'm still waiting for that lemon cake.....Damn you former Ambassador Joe Wilson. I heard Hussien paid for it, there was a receipt. Cheney was dying for a slice to, he made several visits to the CIA accusing agents of eating all of it. So out of anger Bush declared war on Hussein, for getting German chocolate cake.....go figure.

 

[Pimpwerx]

You guys are soooo right, I mean, that's why the House and Senate voted the way they did, it was obviously clear as day that the evidence was false and / or trumped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please. All this hindsight and hyperbole. Some people were extremely skeptical, and they had their skepticism confirmed in the end as being right, but that does not mean that their skepticism was the only logical viewpoint.

Essentially, "Okay, you were right. Want a cookie?"

I distinctly remember being extremely pissed at the cowardice and spinelessness displayed by the Republican-lite party. I believe that's when I first started referring to the Dems as such. Supporting the war was a safe bet at that time b/c of what we see today. The blame can be placed anywhere. Plausible deniability. Listen to Lil Miss Clinton babbling on about how she was misled and blah blah bullshit. She was covering her ass is what she was doing. Going against the war was dangerous at the time, seeing as how about 2/3 of the country was experiencing propoganda-induced bloodlust. At just look at it now. Most people who supported it in Congress have escaped unscathed...even the conservatives. The only ones that haven't were the ones who just get a hard-on from war (like John McCain). PEACE.

 

[BocoDragon]

Essentially, "Okay, you were right. Want a cookie?"

Actually that's all we wanted :lol

 

[genjiZERO]

I distinctly remember in November of 2002 while I was visiting London I saw a book in a bookstore written by a former iraq weapons inspector making the case that Iraq no longer had the capacity for WMD production and that an invasion would destabalize the region.

I've always argued that this was the entire point of the war. The idea behind a destabilisation policy is that it keeps a region weak and in check (like what the US has done historically to South America or what China did, back in the day, to the Mongols and Jurchens). Usually they occur because previous stabilisation policies (what the West's previous policy was in reference to the Mid East; "keep is safe and weak") start to fail and a power shift is about to occur (read Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. But destabilisation policies never work in the end and always erode the power of the group attempting the destabilisation.

For the record I was opposed to the war from the beginning - even if Iraq had WMDs - because I oppose destabilisation policies. I also predicted that if Bush was elected president that within two years of his election he would get the US involved in a quagmire in Iraq (and also that gas prices would sky-rocket).