-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Election is over; hunt for WMD ends
- Thread starter MIMIC
- Start date
- Status
videogamer
Banned
JoshuaJSlone
Member
They said that when Iraq gained sovereignty back, the US (errr. THE COALITION) went from being an occupying force to being there by invitation of the Iraqi government.Socreges said:
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
this doesn't surprise me at all - i remember hearing them ramping up talks about iraq and 'wmd's' - and the first thing i asked myself was why (and how) a phony war was being started there when as far as we have been told, those responsible for 9/11 were from saudi arabia - not iraq.
as the months went by, they kept selling this ridiculous war , repeating the same half (and un) truths to the point where half of the US population clearly thought saddam was behind 9/11. it's like someone said earlier - keep repeating the same lie, and it becomes truth to the public after a while.
as the months went by, they kept selling this ridiculous war , repeating the same half (and un) truths to the point where half of the US population clearly thought saddam was behind 9/11. it's like someone said earlier - keep repeating the same lie, and it becomes truth to the public after a while.
It's scary to see how easily this gets accepted. It should cause mayor uproar, but it doesn't. People don't seem to care anymore. Bush could've easily send out Jack Bauer to plant some WMDs, invite CNN over and dig 'm up and tell everybody he was right afterall. But he doesn't because nobody cares.Scary stuff.
MIMIC said:
Serious as a heart attack. At the time, it was plainly obvious to anyone with a brain, that the entire world though he had WMD. Even Hans Blix, the guy that tried to sabotage the inspections thought there were WMD.
Given that (if anyone's still reading this), it would've been irresponsible of us to not go in there and take him out given his confirmed connection to Al Queda and the danger that posed to the United States and the world.
Granted, we've not found any, so the question becomes, what did he do with the ones we knew he had?
If you continue to think he was no danger to the civilized nations of the world, then, sadly, you're just deluding yourself.
Crow357 said:
Yes, but it *wasn't our responsibility* to take out Saddam in a time where the terrorists who attacked the US came from OTHER COUNTRIES. Saddam wasn't a great guy. We know that. We accept that. But this was not the time or place to take him out. After things had settled down a few years down the road and we'd caught bin Laden, etc. - fine, let's go get him (well, as best as you can without violating international law....), but we diverted our primary focus form a target who did seem to be an immenent threat (al-Qaeda) to one who was just merely a bad guy with the potential for harm, but who did not attack the United States (Saddam).
Either way, it was not our responsibility and now we've diverted our goals and now we're spreading our military too thin and its going all to hell. Had we "stayed the course" to use one of Bush's own favorite sayings, we might've gotten through this whole terrorism thing by now. But we didn't "stay the course." We deviated for idiotic, uninformed reasons and *now* we're paying for it. NOW we realize that our goals for going in there were never met. We wasted a hell of a lot of time, but we're stuck in Iraq for awhile now because Bush had to go poking his nose where it didn't belong.
Belfast said:
Hmm, interesting. I disagree however. We're still looking for Bin Laden. Sadam is gone. Afghan is free. I think things are looking up for the oppressed peoples of the middle east and for the United States.
As to your assertion that terrorism would be gone by now if we'd just "stayed the course", I can't believe that you think getting BL will end terrorism.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Crow357 said:
confirmed?
I remember during the first gulf war and that even then we couldn't find where they were launching their SCUD missiles from. There were cartoonish, parody t-shirts that had Sadam launching SCUDS out of the throat of a Camel by pounding on its balls.
And you know what? I'm a little tired of this idea that Clinton's policy of sticking his thumb in the air and seeing which the way the wind blows is better than Bush's head on tactics. "Well at least Clinton listened" Really? He was just inactive. Inactive in dealing with Rwanda, because the American public didn't notice so why bother? Clinton and Bush are both douches and just found different ways to screw up. I guess some here(and I just mean some, not most) weren't political during those years and think the Clinton hate is purely sexual.
And you know what? I'm a little tired of this idea that Clinton's policy of sticking his thumb in the air and seeing which the way the wind blows is better than Bush's head on tactics. "Well at least Clinton listened" Really? He was just inactive. Inactive in dealing with Rwanda, because the American public didn't notice so why bother? Clinton and Bush are both douches and just found different ways to screw up. I guess some here(and I just mean some, not most) weren't political during those years and think the Clinton hate is purely sexual.
But all of this was based on fucking "intentions and capabilities". Whereas you've got the Bush administration with supposed evidence (such as maps) doing their damndest to breed certainty. They took suspicion and presented it as intelligence. Why? Not because they were determined to rid the world of a supposed imminent threat. Not because Saddam was somehow connected to terrorism (the Bush administration KNEW that Americans were feeling vulnerable after 9/11 and would back the war if they thought it would fight "terror"). And certainly not because they were determined to "free" the Iraqi people.Crow357 said:
Well, at best, those were supplementary. This was an opportunity for America to flex its military muscle. For one, because it had been dormant for so long and needed to be aroused. Secondly, simply as a sobering statement of their power. In addition, there was HUGE investment to be made (read DC's link) and oil to be reaped (the celebrities were actually right!).
Given WHAT? Nothing was confirmed. There was NO responsibility to do ANYTHING.
Confirmed connection to Al Qaeda? In terms of what?
As for the danger posed to the world, it was not significant OR imminent, and certainly such drastic measures weren't necessary as a solution.
"We" didn't "know" anything.
Does a mentally retarded person have the authority to tell another person that they are likewise? I don't think so.
Without a doubt, having Saddam out of power is a wonderful thing. But consider this situation in terms of cost/benefit.
Benefit: No more Saddam. Potentially free Iraqis. Potentially a breeding ground for democracy.
Cost: Hundreds of billions of dollars. ~100k Iraqis dead and hundreds of thousands more injured. +~1k US soldiers dead, thousands more injured. Further disintegration of the international community (re: unjust war). Potentially INCREASED terrorism. A largely crippled infrastructure in Iraq. And an increasingly strong chance that the insurgents will prevent any values that are associated with democracy and "freedom" from taking root: the Iraqi govn't could be overthrown, civil war could transpire, or the gov't itself could just regress into despotism.
How fortunate for hindsight, but it remains that they should have known how incredibly difficult it would be for this plan to go well. Cheney even said during the first Gulf War that they didn't go in because an occupation/installation would be impossible.
Socreges said:
Well, there are so many incorrect "facts" in your statement it's hard to know where to start. Hundreds of billions of dollars? Hardly. Hasn't even come close to that. 87 billion the 1st year, I forget what it was the 2nd year. It might come to that by the time we're all done, but we're not up to "hundreds" yet. 100k Iragis dead. Yeah, soldiers. That happens in a war. We did know about the WMD, CNN documented it all. Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, I could go on, but it wouldn't make any difference.
Crow357 said:
Oh Ok I guess I'll just take your word for it and not the 9/11 Commission's.
Just for shits and giggles, a fun Google search.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Socreges said:
absolutely. anyone who thinks (now that we KNOW there aren't any WMD's - though many - including me -assumed this all along) that they invaded iraq out of purely altruistic motives is a moron.
as for trusting that fuckwit george bush and his cronies - when they can flat out LIE to create a war in which thousands of people are killed (and cheney's halliburton reaps the rewards), where do you draw the line? what else have they lied about? how does anyone believe anything they say- and why aren't they being held accountable? i think that's the most confusing thing to me - it does seem like noone really gives a shit anymore.
There we go, stop wasting your breath. Obviously I'm speaking in terms of 'over the course' and not any one individual year (why would I?). No "might" about it, though. It WILL cost that much.Crow357 said:
Btw, what about the "so many incorrect 'facts'"? Did you get so confused over where to start that you forgot to even address them?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study.
I don't know what that means.
Nice cop out.
MrPing1000
Member
:lol crow mr denial.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Hamfam said:
Since Bush is still in office what do you win?
Well, I don't have that horrible feeling that I'm not gullible enough to be so easilly misled on such obvious issues. (I mean, at the time, I was absolutely flabbergasted that so many people could believe Saddam was developing these huge WMD programmes with giant invisible factories)
But then, I had a significant advantange in that I live in the UK, where the debate about the issue was slightly more open.
But then, I had a significant advantange in that I live in the UK, where the debate about the issue was slightly more open.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Hamfam said:
Since Bush is still in office what do you win?
Crow357 said:
Umm no... we are NOT looking for Bin Laden.
A brief tour of Bush on Osama Bin Laden:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
And are things looking up for the opressed/poor people of the US?
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
RiZ III said:
All thanks to Fox News.
I watched a fascinating documentary the other day called Outfoxed; Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Shocking. Very shocking.
I recommend it highly.
heavy liquid said:
If they didn't stop looking, they certainly stopped caring.
Hollywood said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Guileless said:
Based on the administration's flimsy evidence, intelligence from other countries, and the administration's overwrought and barely contained zeal to drop bombs over Baghdad? Well, let's just say I didn't see much reason to believe they had active weapons that possessed an imminent danger, which is what the administration was claiming. I never completely dismissed the possibility, but the US had nothing to launch a war of any legitimacy. Obviously they thought different (or didn't give a shit).
Fresh Prince said:
:lol Good question...
xsarien said:
On point.
Hammy said:
:lol :lol :lol
etiolate said:
With the nonsense that's going on in Sudan without US intervention, Bush has his own Rwanada going on. Not that I disagree with your basic premise mind you...I think Clinton's presidency is vastly overrated, mainly because it's being compared to one of the worst presidential jobs in history.
Other then that, the apathy and lack of caring in North America is pretty sad. Canadians have no reason to feel smug about the ignorance of Americans, considering we re-elected a government during the middle of a serious financial scandal (to be fair the other choices didn't look like great alternatives, but neither did John Kerry).
Ukraine had a corrupt election just a few months ago...did those people stay on their couches with their thumbs up their ass, sighing whistfully to the heavens and saying "oh well"? Nope...they protested in mass, and kept going at it until the country had no choice but to revisit the process. People can still have that power in North America, but alas we simply refuse to use it.
Funny thing is that the US might've even used bullshit evidence to get the Persian Gulf war underway. I'll post something about that when I get home later. But really, the more things change in regard to these clowns, the more they stay the same.
BTW, being right about this mess is nothing to feel smug about. A five year old could've known this would've been the result. It's just pathetic that we've come to this point. And like Tommy said, Bush won the Goddamn election anyway, so WTF did the people who were right really win anyway?
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Hamfam said:
Since Bush is still in office what do you win?
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Tommie Hu$tle said:
the chance to not have to read the same post 3 times in this thread?
brooklyngooner
Member
Crow357 said:
Do you masturbate to pictures of Karl Rove?
scola said:
What I meant was that we'd be through the meat of it. You can't destroy terrorism entirely. Its always been around in one form or another and it always will, but its a possibilty that we could've taken down al-Qaeda by breaking down its core structure by now.
Crow, quit juxtaposing things that should remain separate.
"We are still looking for bin Laden, but we have Saddam."
OK, well, who attacked the US? We haven't even taken care of our original problem without starting new shit in other countries! We knew where Saddam was, it wouldn't have been hard to find him if we wanted to take him out in the future. The fact that we still do not have bin Laden is sad and we diverted our efforts to capture him by going after Saddam.
"Afghanistan is free."
Yes. Who here has debated the Afghan War? Ever? Did anyone say this was an unjust war? No. Its cool Afghan is free, but we're over there to eliminate al-Qaeda and other threatening terrorists, not to liberate the entire middle east. That should be a goal for the future, if anything, but not NOW.
Crow357 said:
What sabotage?
Granted, even if Iraq DID have WMD, the weapons inspectors were there to 1) verify that Iraq destroyed what they allegedly had, and 2) destroy all remaining WMD.
Even as they cited progress, Bush didn't want to listen. No WMD = no war. And that just didn't sit right with Georgie.
1. There was no Iraq/al-Qaeda connection.
2. He posed no danger to the world...you know, with him having on WMDs and all.
D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-E-D.
No WMD + imposed sanctions = danger?
That's retarded.
Crow357 said:
Click this:
http://costofwar.com/
Then kindly STFU. I wonder what your response will be in March when the Bush Administration asks for ANOTHER 100 billion dollars to fund this war of theirs.
Tool.
Xenon
Member
So I guess Saddam gets the benefit of the doubt from you =P It would have been nice to have proof of this.
No retarded is leaving the sanctions in place. They only hurt the people of Iraq and not its leader. I love how people think things were fine because Iraq's dictator was caged.
"apologize to France"
for what? FREEDOM FRIES! They were acting in their own interest. If anything they should apologize for all they have done in that region.
Anybody who thinks there is a moral high ground in the Iraq situation is kidding themself.
I'm interested to see what Shinobi has to post about the first golf war.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Incognito said:
Which is par the course for him. *ouch*
Xenon said:
How ironic. You didn't need proof from Bush, but you ask of it from me.
Weird.
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.
"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.
The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."
USA Today
That wasn't one of the reasons given to justify the war, but it's just "convenient" to bring up now, ever since Plan A (WMD) and Plan B (al-Qaeda connection) flopped.
Xenon
Member
For me finishing up what we started was reason #1 Don't confuse the US media with me.
I never agreed with how Bush sold this war or how he handled foreign relations. But, I have a major problem with the motivation of the other people involved. France, Germany, and Russia have all been making money with the Food for Oil program. Its funny how those three were the main objectors to the war. As far as the other countries in the middle east, most would rather see every Iraqi dead before having the US's(Israel) presence strengthened in that region.
Not from you, but Saddam. Even Blix even said they were missing evidence for the destruction of the chemical weapons.
I never agreed with how Bush sold this war or how he handled foreign relations. But, I have a major problem with the motivation of the other people involved. France, Germany, and Russia have all been making money with the Food for Oil program. Its funny how those three were the main objectors to the war. As far as the other countries in the middle east, most would rather see every Iraqi dead before having the US's(Israel) presence strengthened in that region.
Not from you, but Saddam. Even Blix even said they were missing evidence for the destruction of the chemical weapons.
Hamfam said:
Some of us thought it highly likely that he did, but didn't feel the assumptions were justified by what was being given as justification. The whole thing was an exercise in playing on emotion, whether you believed they had them or not. That does not justify the presumption of guilt.
If ever there was a grand scale example of the underlying logic of "on the balance of probability," let alone "innocent until proven guilty," at the national level, the second Iraq war is it.
We save them pussies, France, TWICE and they say the hell with us. I don't blame them since they were trading military aircrafts with Iraq.
Does anyone see a double standard when it comes to terrorism on america's part? Hello people, israel and palestine? Al Qaeda known to be behind such attacks in Ridylah?
edit-I'm not sure if it's the same topic, but Al Qaeda is working with the Sunnis to establish an Islamic Republic right now in Iraq. Also, blame Clinton on not taking about Bin Laden in the 90s. If he did, then 9/11 and all this other crap wouldn't have happened........or maybe so. =\
Does anyone see a double standard when it comes to terrorism on america's part? Hello people, israel and palestine? Al Qaeda known to be behind such attacks in Ridylah?
edit-I'm not sure if it's the same topic, but Al Qaeda is working with the Sunnis to establish an Islamic Republic right now in Iraq. Also, blame Clinton on not taking about Bin Laden in the 90s. If he did, then 9/11 and all this other crap wouldn't have happened........or maybe so. =\
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked