Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
To address your bolded points.
NO-ONE knew beforehand that they had WMD's. Including the British and Americans. I laugh at people that swallowed the whole WMD line, hook, line and sinker.
What IS known now is that (to quote Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s MI6) following a meeting in Washington is that: (Bolded for effect). "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle535913.ece
Basically ... if the head of MI6 who was in direct meetings with the head of the CIA is quoted as stating that the facts were being "fixed" what more conspiracy do you want?
Disagree and ... self praise is no praise. |
If you laugh at people that swallowed the WMD issue, then you sir should be laughed at. The US intelligence has officially apologized for being incorrect about the WMDs. If you think for a second there was some conspiracy, you are wrong. The administration certainly said a lot of stuff as part of their propaganda blitz, but that info is certainly not what justified war. THey did use that information though to try to get the public behind them. You can listen to all the left wing loonies you want, but please seperate the propaganda to what their intelligence was telling them.
The conjuction of terrorism and WMDs was the propaganda, don't get sucked into the rhetorical debates.
This does not change what my point was...what if WMDs were found? Simple...the side that was correct would 'laugh' at the side that did not believe it. It is really stupid to even be arguing this. If the US knew there were no WMDs, why did they even look?
Does North Korea have them? Are they a risk to us? How the hell do I know if what I am seeing is falsified news on tv. Many appear to claim to somehow have an inside scoop that allowed them to know something was fake regarding the Iraqi invasion.
If nothing was done to Iraq in the early 90's, where would we be today? The CIA I am sure tries to determine a nation's risk, some countries they can ignore, some countries they feel should be dealt with. If you think Iraq did not need to be dealt with, then say so. Was it correct in the 90's? Was it wrong in the later instance? What about Iran now? Jolly for you that you now have the ability to second guess everything Bush did.
To me, Iraq was like a loaded gun laying on the ground in the park. At some point, something very bad was going to happen unless someone did something about it. Doing nothing would only lead to another nuclear power, except one that has a deathwish.