|
On December 14 2010 09:44 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:
This thread is unnecessary on so many levels, the title is wrong and it misinforms. The OP clearly takes it out of context and states unreasonable unassumptions like
This is freaking huge. If it was not for the invasion, Iraq would be a nuclear power with Suddam at the helm."
Points to consider
1.
Having yellowcake doesn't mean Iraq was pursuing WMD, it just means they want to start a nuclear program. The program isn't even necessarily active
Yeah, since Suddam Hussein was a totally nice and swell fellow who was only looking to start an energy program.
I'm not a conservative by any means, I despise them. However, this is pretty obvious.
|
|
|
This was in wired a couple of months ago. To me it never seemed like they actually found evidence of new weapons being made like Bush implied. There were some leftovers from an earlier era butn nothing major.
edit: Antisocialmonkey posted while I was rereading the wired article (note: read then post don't start a post then read)
|
Degraded materials and remnants of the dismantled stockpiles of Saddams chemical weapons programme does not equal they were actively pursuing WMDs or had plans to do so. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and that article does not prove anything other than we already know - that it had already been dismantled, as confirmed by thorough inspections prior to the invasion.
|
I don't understand why we are supposed to take everything leaked as gospel. Assuming everything wikileaks releases is actually what they claim it is, people bullshit or are just plain wrong in memos/reports/etc all the time.
We are getting what the ambassador from blah blah really thinks about something but it is still just his opinion... or more accurately the opinion he is presenting to his boss.
This has been irritating me since the original dump on Afghanistan. Everyone (the media, etc) is acting like we know the "real" story just because it the information was restricted and has now been leaked.
It would be sort of like assuming you would get the "real story" about TL if only you could read the moderator forums or something... it's just another perspective.
|
On December 14 2010 09:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:34 Grumbels wrote:
Weapons of mass destruction is just a propaganda phrase. You can deal damage with anything if you're resourceful enough, Iraq was always a threat in that regard. Just because they're a threat, it doesn't mean the invasion was justified. One of the awful things about the WMD debate was that it should have been irrelevant. It was just one more argument the Bush administration used - who knows what the actual reasons were - , so discrediting it shouldn't have meant you won the debate. Detractors of his policy always left themselves up for a fall if some chemical weapons or whatever were found. The same thing now happens with Iran, if you accept the premise that WMD -> invasion necessary, then if Iran ever is close to aquiring nuclear weapons, we should attack them. I find that ludicrous however, just to compare, the United States has enough weaponry to destroy the world 7 times over, yet it finds the time to lecture other nations about such things? I hate to say, you seem an awful lot like someone who's conceited from the personalities of these people and take for granted the country you live in. The US doesn't want to destroy the world 7 times over. Saddam Hussein was a fascist religious nut who wanted the end of the world to come. Iran as well wants this.
That's a nice basis for international law: the US can do such things because they're good, other countries can't, however.
|
This may not be what it appears to be. We need to see the actual text in context. If the Bush administration had a smoking gun why didn't they simply show us?
|
On December 14 2010 09:44 rsol wrote:
How are you morons buying this? It's a goddamn opinion piece about gas weaponry left over from the gulf war and yellowcake. Neither of those things were ever contested, and neither of those things were ever used as the justification for the iraq war. This is just glenn beck nonsense
Seems like you already know within your post...
|
Q: how do you make news in America?
A: reprint old news from 2008
|
|
|
On December 14 2010 09:30 NoobieOne wrote:
now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence.
that's exactly what i'm pondering.
Iraq was a massive PR failure, if they did in fact find evidence of WMDs, i fail to see why they would not present it to the public as a vindication of their invasion. hmmph.
very interesting indeed.
On December 14 2010 09:52 zeru wrote:
How about links to wikileak sources instead. Or is this all just made up bs.
i agree, sources are needed to confirm this. it just doesn't make sense otherwise
|
On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote:
wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least
No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims.
I can't believe people would even say this, omg.
|
So I have read all of Bob Woodwords books on the Iraq war as well as a couple others so I think I am in quite a good position to comment on this. It is no secret that US troops found chemical weapons labs or labs that could have been used to make WMDs or could have been used to make soap. Soldiers captured insurgents with chemical weapons knowledge so what that doesnt change anything and it makes sense since all the scientists with the expertise would have been high level bathists and might have just been listed as insurgents when captured. You cant question a civilian in a military prison after all. They havnt found any WMDs I dont care what that article says I would like to see more than one opinion piece stating that they have before I change my opinion.
What he might be confusing it with is that they did find the prerequisites for creating biological and chemical weapons but no actual fully assembled weapons that could be fired. Instead Sadam had the capability for a rapid production of WMD since it didnt have the resources to actually keep them but the system was obviously taken by suprise by how agressive America was. If Iran has put weapons into Iraq after the war how is that relevant to the reasons for attacking Iraq?
They had yellowcake but no means to produce a nuclear weapon for I think I read three years and that is the most extreme estimate, some put it at a decade. The CIA saw that the Iraqis has procured something like 60,000 aluminium tubes which my have been used as centrifuges in the production of a nuclear missile but the real reason was the terrible state of the Iraqi bureaucracy. I cant remember exactly the details but one of Sadam's sons owned the factory that produced rockets but they were shitty quality. So instead of embarrassing Sadams son and risking death they just spent the extra money and covered up the mistake. This is not a government that was capable of creating a nuclear missile and in fact wasnt even trying to before or during the war.
TLDR: This changes nothing and is just an attention grabbing headline at best or a terribly researched article at worst.
|
On December 14 2010 09:53 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:30 NoobieOne wrote:
now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence. that's exactly what i'm pondering. Iraq was a massive PR failure, if they did in fact find evidence of WMDs, i fail to see why they would not present it to the public as a vindication of their invasion. hmmph. very interesting indeed.
Because it's all stuff that was widely known (note the OP's 2nd source is an article from 2008), remnants of old dismantled programs, and absolutely nothing that showed pursuing it in modern times.
Doesn't anyone read the thread?
This is the problem with having a disingenuous OP.
|
can we get the OP updated so we don't mislead people to think this is new news or even relevant
|
|
|
On December 14 2010 09:47 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:42 Roe wrote:On December 14 2010 09:34 Grumbels wrote:
Weapons of mass destruction is just a propaganda phrase. You can deal damage with anything if you're resourceful enough, Iraq was always a threat in that regard. Just because they're a threat, it doesn't mean the invasion was justified. One of the awful things about the WMD debate was that it should have been irrelevant. It was just one more argument the Bush administration used - who knows what the actual reasons were - , so discrediting it shouldn't have meant you won the debate. Detractors of his policy always left themselves up for a fall if some chemical weapons or whatever were found. The same thing now happens with Iran, if you accept the premise that WMD -> invasion necessary, then if Iran ever is close to aquiring nuclear weapons, we should attack them. I find that ludicrous however, just to compare, the United States has enough weaponry to destroy the world 7 times over, yet it finds the time to lecture other nations about such things? I hate to say, you seem an awful lot like someone who's conceited from the personalities of these people and take for granted the country you live in. The US doesn't want to destroy the world 7 times over. Saddam Hussein was a fascist religious nut who wanted the end of the world to come. Iran as well wants this. That's a nice basis for international law: the US can do such things because they're good, other countries can't, however.
Do you know the conditions for which a country may be invaded stated by the UN?
|
I had to read the OP thrice to make sure I didn't miss out on anything. The OP still doesn't make sense.
|
I am going to go ahead and say that while I didn't care much for Bush Jr., I do think he feels he was justified in going to war with Iraq at the time, however I think he allowed D.Cheney and others to take advantage of him for their own personal gain. I just wish Nigeria would have the guts to call for Chaneys extradition for his bribery involvement but thats not going to happen.
|
Wow...to think what would have possibly happened if the heat WAS let off of saddam's crew....jesus
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
