Printable View
Quote:
The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.
The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary.
Taken from here. :)
There is also a problem with the United Kingdom. I read a short news in a French newspaper saying that a deputy attacks Tony Blair to have lied to the gouvernment and to the people. The deputy says that Tony Blair did a false report (it took a report of the secret services and it modified it) for that the government approves the war.
I think that the tongues will untie themselves and that the rumors just start. Wait and See. the truth is elsewhere ;)
This is only partly true. One MP has accused Tony Blair of 'lying' to the government & the people. However, this is certainly not the general consensus of opinion in the UK.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
There is also a problem with the United Kingdom. I read a short news in a French newspaper saying that a deputy attacks Tony Blair to have lied to the gouvernment and to the people. The deputy says that Tony Blair did a false report (it took a report of the secret services and it modified it) for that the government approves the war.
I think that the tongues will untie themselves and that the rumors just start. Wait and See. the truth is elsewhere ;)
All analysis of Blair's action shows him to be completely sincere over this, something that is very unusual in a politician. To suggest he deliberately modified it is ridiculous.
You are missing the real issue here, which is whether or not the intelligence itself (which France did not, and does not have access to) was interpreted correctly. There have been suggestions that, for example, the CIA exaggerated some parts to make a more compelling case.
He plagiarized a 10 years old thesis, so why not making a false report.Quote:
To suggest he deliberately modified it is ridiculous.
He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
He plagiarized a 10 years old thesis, so why not making a false report.
Obviously, this document was given more weight than it should have been.
However, this is not the same as stating he was deliberately lying.
Are you really trying to tell me that the French president checks every single document on something he is asked to approve? Thought not ...
Well, giving a report with information older than 10 years or more it's for me a deliberate lying (from Tony Blair or his friends).Quote:
He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.
Obviously, this document was given more weight than it should have been.
However, this is not the same as stating he was deliberately lying.
1 point for you :).Quote:
Are you really trying to tell me that the French president checks every single document on something he is asked to approve? Thought not ...
Just wanted to point out that this is plagiarism. If you pulled a stunt like that at uni and got busted, you'd be out of there quicker than you could say '****, that was stupid'. But like you said, it's beside the point.Quote:
He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.
So did they move the weapons? Because you know, they were watching everything going out of the country with satellites, and I haven't heard anything about that. Or did they destroy all the weapons? Because you know, there's always verifiable proof of chemical weapons being destroyed, at least that was what I was led to believe.Quote:
You are missing the real issue here, which is whether or not the intelligence itself (which France did not, and does not have access to) was interpreted correctly. There have been suggestions that, for example, the CIA exaggerated some parts to make a more compelling case.
:)
before I continue... can we all agree that Saddam is and was a murderous dictator who has on several ocassions been shown to turn on his own people with the kind of weapons that produce very painful deaths. Can we all agree that he did have prisons where his own people were sent to be tortured in ways I would personally prefer not to describe?
If we do all agree on that.... does it really matter any more if there are/were any WMD? Saddam has killed thousands of his own people and prooven himself unfit to lead a country... yes WMD may be a convenient excuse... but wasn't getting rid of him the thing that mattered? Also don't forget that he was given at least 2 opportunities to leave Iraq peacefully before the war started.
One other thing about biological weapons... you don't need much biological material to produce a weapon that is of considerable danger. A petrol tanker holding about 15000 litres of culture fluid could contain enough bacterial/virus to produce a huge amount of biological weapons.... anyone fancy trying to find something that size in a country the area of Iraq? Give the folks a chance will ya!
Incidentally I do have my own reservations and I am thinking that the WMD were an excuse however I am prepared to accept it was a justifiable excuse - after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own.
Just my 2p worth
Z
Wow an American president lied to his people and the world...this is news? Did any one on either side of the pro/anti war argument actually believe that the WMD actually existed...I know I didn't. No surprise here folks, no we shall see the real reasons, an oil payoff to Halliburton(after bush failed to deliver the Alaska reserves he needed to give them something) a route for the central Asia pipe line (Afghanistan is still to unstable), and a gift to the Saudi royalty(we can remove the troops from their country).
Something that should have been done long ago, but if they think they canQuote:
and a gift to the Saudi royalty(we can remove the troops from their country).
station them in Iraq instead, those Shi'ites may have something to say
about that. This whole operation was not well thought out. The permanent political
realities in the region are not conducive to stability.
Whether the Bush administration is cynically going after the oil or not, they are really
quite naive and over their heads, not clever conspirators. Yeah, we all knew that there were no WMD. Apparently no one cares much, but maybe the Democrats(cough) will try
to make an issue of it in the next election.
:cool:
FIrst of all, Im antiwar and never believed that Iraq had WMD. IMO, if that's the reason we went after Saddam ,then North Korea would have been a clearer, more urgent target.
And now that the combat is over, and Iraq is Under American Protectorate, and if Iraq had in fact WMD, wouldn't it make sense for The US to have already found those Weapons?
And about the claim that they may have been smuggled to Syria, I don't think it's substential. The USAF controlled the Iraqi airspace within hours of the start of the war and with the high-level of surveillance equipment available, I think it's easy to spot a cargo of chemical And biologicaql weapons.
And ZOnewalker, "after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own. ", please read Powertoad's signature.
Peace
My only problem with the War on Iraq, is the fact it is about 20 years too late. He should have been taken out of power as soon as he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands. More than 9-11 killed. We should have jumped on his evil doing ass along time ago, if we wanted to be the "Sacred Holy Police of the World".
Also, that should have been our main point. Not the WMD. Cause We know he killed all those people for sure. We know how horrible of a dictator he is. That should have been our cause. I bet the UN would have agreed to that. I mean shyt, he's killed more people than Osama Bin Laden.
This is true. But how long did he have to get them out when we were dealing with the UN? He knew we were coming, regardless. If they were ever there, he had MORE than enough time to get them out. Thanks to the UN, and everyone of those Anti-War Utopians, I mean Americans..Quote:
Originally posted here by vercetti
And about the claim that they may have been smuggled to Syria, I don't think it's substential. The USAF controlled the Iraqi airspace within hours of the start of the war.
The satellites didn't go up yesterday - regardless of what had been happening with the UN the US was no doubt watching Iraq and its borders, even more so because of the heightened chance of the weapons being removed from the country and safeguarded or distributed.Quote:
This is true. But how long did he have to get them out when we were dealing with the UN? He knew we were coming, regardless. If they were ever there, he had MORE than enough time to get them out. Thanks to the UN, and everyone of those Anti-War Utopians, I mean Americans..
You are completely wrong over this. We all know, or should know, how the UN works, and France (and possibly Russia as well) would have vetoed any decision to interevene in Iraq, because of the economic interests that both these countries had in Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted here by Dr Toker
We know how horrible of a dictator he is. That should have been our cause. I bet the UN would have agreed to that. I mean shyt, he's killed more people than Osama Bin Laden.
To accuse the US of intervening over oil (from France) seems very two faced to me.
After all, which country did the most trade with Iraq apart from Russia?
I'll give you a clue, it starts with 'F'
vercetti
I'm not quite sure I understand this comment..... I've read powertoads signature... and I agree with the sentiment expressed... it's pretty much what I've already said i.e. if it's handled correctly in the next few months i.e. the USA doesn't go and totally strip Iraq of every natural resource it has (Note: I'm not commenting upon if I think this is right or wrong!) then as I said they should end up with a country they can proudly call their own orQuote:
And ZOnewalker, "after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own. ", please read Powertoad's signature.
Peace
What did you think I was saying??Quote:
Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men. ... The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws.
z
Umm we where supporting him and supplying him with the chemicals and biologicals 20 years ago...why would we want to go after him he was our guy.Quote:
Originally posted here by Dr Toker
My only problem with the War on Iraq, is the fact it is about 20 years too late. He should have been taken out of power as soon as he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands. More than 9-11 killed. We should have jumped on his evil doing ass along time ago, if we wanted to be the "Sacred Holy Police of the World".
As for sneaking out the nonconventional weapons during the buildup for war...if you don’t think we had spy satellites and planes covering every inch of their boarder then you are far to naive to enter into a political discueesion.
Im not nieve. Thats the last thing that I am. I know what we were doing during and before the reagan administration. And Its public knowledge that we had spies, and spy satellites for a long time. I mean Colin Powell showed photos from these satellites. But that cant catch everything.
And as for the UN not going for the toppling of Saddams Regime, thats fine. I can deal with that. But, Saddam is an evil dictator should have been our just cause. He supports Terrorism...ect...not things unknown. Thats my point. We should have listed the 100 other horrible things we KNOW FOR SURE about him as justification for ending his regime. Instead of the thing we FEARED, and were uncertain about.
Zonewalker, my point was that what We are telling the Iraqi people exactly what the British told them almost a century ago, and you saw what happened: their wealth was stripped again from them, maybe to an even greater degree, they never did flourish, and I don't think the Arab Race rose again and probably never will.
First who every just hit me with the 30 point hammer, leave antipoints out of cosmos.Quote:
Originally posted here by Dr Toker
Im not nieve. Thats the last thing that I am. I know what we were doing during and before the reagan administration. And Its public knowledge that we had spies, and spy satellites for a long time. I mean Colin Powell showed photos from these satellites. But that cant catch everything.
And as for the UN not going for the toppling of Saddams Regime, thats fine. I can deal with that. But, Saddam is an evil dictator should have been our just cause. He supports Terrorism...ect...not things unknown. Thats my point. We should have listed the 100 other horrible things we KNOW FOR SURE about him as justification for ending his regime. Instead of the thing we FEARED, and were uncertain about.
So what about all of the other evil dictators we support or have supported around the world, should we go after Pakistan, they support terrorists a lot more then Iraq (facts that we are conveniently forgetting, Al Queda hated Sadam more then they hate us. The terrorist camp broken up in northern Iraq was ant-Sadam not pro and funded by Iran. Hessian tried to support Palestine terrorists but they refused his aid.). Remember Hessian was a secular ruler, all of the terrorists are fundamentalists...they hate him. So those things we "know" about him are lies...sure he gassed the Kurds...is that any different then the atrocities this country has committed? Sure he kept food from his people to make himself rich is that any different from the kuaty leaders or the Saudis. If we went to war because he is evil why are we not going into Africa there is far grater evil happening there...or in the Balkans.
Was what Sadam did in Iraq evil..yes. Is it the reason we went to war, is it even a reason to go to war...no. We waged this war to hand gifts out to some powerful groups (Halliburton, the Saudi royalty).
The economic interests? So why France was in the 1st war against Saddam in 1991? Do you really think that Iraq is the first exportation country for France ?Quote:
Darkes said
You are completely wrong over this. We all know, or should know, how the UN works, and France (and possibly Russia as well) would have vetoed any decision to interevene in Iraq, because of the economic interests that both these countries had in Iraq. ...
US have oil but for how many times? EU use 16%, US 26%. A valuation say that in the next 10 years the USA will have exhausted all their known deposits. And something like 40 years for the world wide, so in a near future a country with oil will be a king.Quote:
... To accuse the US of intervening over oil (from France) seems very two faced to me. ...
Falkland Island ? Faroe Island ? Fiji ? Finland ?Quote:
After all, which country did the most trade with Iraq apart from Russia?
I'll give you a clue, it starts with 'F'
While France and Russia did have vested economic interests in seeing Iraq stay under Hussein, The US and UK (ok mostly the US) have vested economic interests in seeing Hussein out. I wouldn't use the economic argument in this one as it is defiantly a two edged sword. I am not saying that France is clean…. just that the US isn't either...no one had very honorable goals at hart in this one.Quote:
Originally posted here by darkes
You are completely wrong over this. We all know, or should know, how the UN works, and France (and possibly Russia as well) would have vetoed any decision to interevene in Iraq, because of the economic interests that both these countries had in Iraq.
Now with all this arguing over why the war happened I haven't seen one argument about the WMD's...I guess we all agree then that the man who was going to bring "honor, integrity and honesty" back to the US presidency just lied to his country and the world. (OH ya he wasn't going to get involved in forgin matters or nation building).
vercetti... ahh I see what you're saying now... well yeah I can't argue with you on that score, the Iraqi's have been screwed over more times than I care to count..... but this is one of those few ocassions where I'm trying to be optimistic :) - you're right the Arabs haven't risen as far as they might have done in the past century... but thats no reason to not try and help them better themselves is it? Correct me if I'm wrong but America is big on individual freedom etc which I think can only be a positive influence on the Iraqi people as long as they don't get totally screwed over again... I guess what I'm trying to say is that here we have a chance to help make the world a better place - lets not fux0r it :)
Z
[edit] bballad - about WMD.... from the looks of it everyone here seems to more or less think that WMD was just an excuse... I don't think Bush (or Blair for that matter) exactly lied... but I think they probably 'massaged' the truth a bit - probably over exaggerated (god I don't know what's come over me... I'm actually being optimistic twice in one day.... this is not good!... I'm usually the one being accused of being a cynical pessimistic miserable old sod..... )
Understood Zonewalker but I'm sure that there's a better solution to the problem that military power (can't find it yet though)
I can't speak for the US, but the Iraq war is going to end up costing the UK a lot of money.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
While France and Russia did have vested economic interests in seeing Iraq stay under Hussein, The US and UK (ok mostly the US) have vested economic interests in seeing Hussein out. I wouldn't use the economic argument in this one as it is defiantly a two edged sword. I am not saying that France is clean…. just that the US isn't either...no one had very honorable goals at hart in this one.
Now with all this arguing over why the war happened I haven't seen one argument about the WMD's...I guess we all agree then that the man who was going to bring "honor, integrity and honesty" back to the US presidency just lied to his country and the world. (OH ya he wasn't going to get involved in forgin matters or nation building).
So the UK gets a few more contracts than it might have done, but there is no way that will compensate for the massive military cost.
All the signs were that Russia was prepared to compromise on the resolution that France was going to veto, as long as they had a guarantee that their debts with Iraq would be repaid, and all existing contracts were honoured.
Blair is in a slightly different position here, as he will have been relying on the intelligence documents he saw about WMD, a lot of which will have originated from the US.
I didn't vote for Blair, but on this occasion I think he is telling the truth when he says he believes the information he was given, and more importantly did not alter it. Time will tell whether or not this intelligence about WMD was correct.
Its going to cost the US taxpayers a lot of money also...but it will make bush Chaney and Halliburton (along with some other US companies) a lot of money. Bush is sacrificing US public interest for personal gain.Quote:
Originally posted here by darkes
I can't speak for the US, but the Iraq war is going to end up costing the UK a lot of money.
So the UK gets a few more contracts than it might have done, but there is no way that will compensate for the massive military cost.
bballad...
thats quite a serious allegation you're making you know.... and if true I would say its quite reasonable grounds to push for the impeachment of Bush (which I wouldn't be sorry to see... )I know I'm not in the US so my opinion counts for squat on this issue but I really don't think that a leader should put personal interest before the interests of thier own countrymen (and women).Quote:
Bush is sacrificing US public interest for personal gain.
Vercetti... well... one can only hope that a better way other than militarilistic is found - sadly I can't see it happening any time soon though - the language of force and violence is all some folks understand
Z