The world we live in is a crazy place. People kill each other for cutting them off on the freeway here at home. Gangs and criminals roam our streets. In my opinion, there are evil scumbags all over this world. Until good people fight back... until we get a sack of nuts to combat this....we get what we deserve. Some day we'll have to realize that being nice won't work
I'm neither for the war nor against the war. I find extreme viewpoints on either side of this issue to be fallible. I tend to argue against the "war was necessary" camp and the "war was a total mistake" people. I believe that there were good reasons why war was considered a viable option, but I don't feel that the repercussions were weighed appropriately. I wish people had spent more time thinking about our choices, before we chose one, and I wish that we had more support from the international commuity. Ultimately, however, I see little purpose in second-guessing the choices that were made and concocting conspiracy theories about it. Sadly, in this and other areas of my life, everyone seems to think I have strong opinions contrary to theirs. Not because I have strong opinions on any one side, but because "the middle ground" always looks like the opposite side to people at either extreme.
Because in that case, Saddam might use the WMDs against us. Bush would only consider this "false flag" operation if he knew that these weapons did not exist.
I don't understand the way you're thinking about this at all. Bush is having a hard time convincing the UN that Iraq is a threat. Weapons inspectors are unable to do their job. Bush thinks that there are WMDs, but fears that weapons inspectors won't be able to find them in time. He toyed with the idea of sending a reconnaissance plane in UN colors to demonstrate Iraq's bad faith. Why on earth would that be "madness"?
It's pretty clear that they believed the threat was real? I must respectfully disagree. Bush considered painting an airplane in U.N. colors to fly over Baghdad, hoping to provoke an attack by Hussein. If Bush REALLY believed in these WMD, that would have been madness. There's plenty more evidence that Bush & Co. never believed in any kind of serious threat from Saddam. Might I suggest you read Bugliosi's new book?
hmm, drow sorry to say that I had you more pinned as a total anti-Iraq invasion guy, regardless of where you stand on the war today. whether we should be there or not.Good point abou the WMDs indeed! If it was such a conspiracy US certainly would have just had them planted them there.
But the US wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors, they are the ones that withdrew them. Because they didnt find anything. -And it would have been HIGHLY impractical to go planting them, because everybody involved in the planting would have been exposed, and if it was revealed that the weapons were planted,then the scandal would have brought down the US government. So they simply assumed that if he DID have WMD then he STILL HAS THEM. But they found nothing. Then so they tried to label nuclear waste as weapons, and say they have been hidden or in Al Q'aida's hands... because a threat
They knew for a fact that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction in the past, and there was ongoing intelligence indicating that it was possible that they still did. Iraq was violating the treaty they signed after the first war in the gulf, by refusing to allow weapons inspectors to examine factories which were consuming chemical reagents with potential use in WMDs, but which were not producing any manufactured goods that utilize those reagents. The real villain, Saddam Hussein, is publicly applauding the terrorists for attacking the United States and promising them safety within the borders of Iraq.Sure. In retrospect there were no WMDs. If it was a real conspiracy, however, they would have PLANTED chemical weapons in Iraq. Not finding WMDs was the worst possible outcome for the war in Iraq. Regardless of WMDs, however, Iraq needed to be dealt with. War? I'm not confident that it was a good move, but I don't see that there are a lot of diplomatic options, when the leader of a country who recently lost a war against you is publicly saying that he will support any terrorist who performs an act of murder and destruction against your country.Yes, WMD was a bad platform to defend an attack. But it's pretty clear that they believed the threat was real. There were obviously other ways to justify the attack. In fact, there are obvious ways to have justified the platform they chose, if they were inherently dishonest.
Two scenarios here: --They lied to bring a war for their own reasons, knowing what would happen-Or they, with all of the top CIA and FBI analysts and the biggest, most expensive intelligence networks the world has ever seen (the US Government have something like 16 military, espionage and criminal intelligence agencies), knew less than me, who had only part time internet access, and could predict that the Iraq war would not go well, Iraq would descend into a quagmire, civil war would ensue, and no weapons of mass destruction would be found (and if they were found, it would be too late, because they would have been used against American soldiers and Iraqi civilians)
The world we live in is a crazy place. People kill each other for cutting them off on the freeway here at home. Gangs and criminals roam our streets. In my opinion, there are evil scumbags all over this world. Until good people fight back... until we get a sack of nuts to combat this....we get what we deserve. Some day we'll have to realize that being nice won't work
I'm neither for the war nor against the war. I find extreme viewpoints on either side of this issue to be fallible. I tend to argue against the "war was necessary" camp and the "war was a total mistake" people. I believe that there were good reasons why war was considered a viable option, but I don't feel that the repercussions were weighed appropriately. I wish people had spent more time thinking about our choices, before we chose one, and I wish that we had more support from the international commuity. Ultimately, however, I see little purpose in second-guessing the choices that were made and concocting conspiracy theories about it. Sadly, in this and other areas of my life, everyone seems to think I have strong opinions contrary to theirs. Not because I have strong opinions on any one side, but because "the middle ground" always looks like the opposite side to people at either extreme.
Because in that case, Saddam might use the WMDs against us. Bush would only consider this "false flag" operation if he knew that these weapons did not exist.
I don't understand the way you're thinking about this at all. Bush is having a hard time convincing the UN that Iraq is a threat. Weapons inspectors are unable to do their job. Bush thinks that there are WMDs, but fears that weapons inspectors won't be able to find them in time. He toyed with the idea of sending a reconnaissance plane in UN colors to demonstrate Iraq's bad faith. Why on earth would that be "madness"?
It's pretty clear that they believed the threat was real? I must respectfully disagree. Bush considered painting an airplane in U.N. colors to fly over Baghdad, hoping to provoke an attack by Hussein. If Bush REALLY believed in these WMD, that would have been madness. There's plenty more evidence that Bush & Co. never believed in any kind of serious threat from Saddam. Might I suggest you read Bugliosi's new book?
hmm, drow sorry to say that I had you more pinned as a total anti-Iraq invasion guy, regardless of where you stand on the war today. whether we should be there or not.Good point abou the WMDs indeed! If it was such a conspiracy US certainly would have just had them planted them there.
But the US wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors, they are the ones that withdrew them. Because they didnt find anything. -And it would have been HIGHLY impractical to go planting them, because everybody involved in the planting would have been exposed, and if it was revealed that the weapons were planted,then the scandal would have brought down the US government. So they simply assumed that if he DID have WMD then he STILL HAS THEM. But they found nothing. Then so they tried to label nuclear waste as weapons, and say they have been hidden or in Al Q'aida's hands... because a threat
They knew for a fact that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction in the past, and there was ongoing intelligence indicating that it was possible that they still did. Iraq was violating the treaty they signed after the first war in the gulf, by refusing to allow weapons inspectors to examine factories which were consuming chemical reagents with potential use in WMDs, but which were not producing any manufactured goods that utilize those reagents. The real villain, Saddam Hussein, is publicly applauding the terrorists for attacking the United States and promising them safety within the borders of Iraq.Sure. In retrospect there were no WMDs. If it was a real conspiracy, however, they would have PLANTED chemical weapons in Iraq. Not finding WMDs was the worst possible outcome for the war in Iraq. Regardless of WMDs, however, Iraq needed to be dealt with. War? I'm not confident that it was a good move, but I don't see that there are a lot of diplomatic options, when the leader of a country who recently lost a war against you is publicly saying that he will support any terrorist who performs an act of murder and destruction against your country.Yes, WMD was a bad platform to defend an attack. But it's pretty clear that they believed the threat was real. There were obviously other ways to justify the attack. In fact, there are obvious ways to have justified the platform they chose, if they were inherently dishonest.
Two scenarios here: --They lied to bring a war for their own reasons, knowing what would happen-Or they, with all of the top CIA and FBI analysts and the biggest, most expensive intelligence networks the world has ever seen (the US Government have something like 16 military, espionage and criminal intelligence agencies), knew less than me, who had only part time internet access, and could predict that the Iraq war would not go well, Iraq would descend into a quagmire, civil war would ensue, and no weapons of mass destruction would be found (and if they were found, it would be too late, because they would have been used against American soldiers and Iraqi civilians)