Were we lied to ?

Exception was taken to an earlier comment so ive taken the invitation up to create a thread to look into this.

What were the pretexes of invading a sovereign nation ?

WMD , strung us all along with that one.Hounded out the UN inspecters when they tried to tell us there were no WMD.
Yep..the big non existent mushroom cloud bushes administration were so keen to tell us about.

9-11 , neither Iraq nor Saddam had anything to do with it , no offence but a survey/poll taken showed most Americans believed they were fighting in Iraq as a payback for 9-11

Powers that be couldnt get us into Iraq quick enough , now the "oh we actually went in to topple a bad guy " thats ridiculous , theres no shortage of bad guys equally deserving or more so , Saddam was an allie and a buddy til he reckoned he would sell oil in euros.

 

I wonder why nobody want to remember that after his capture Saddam himself said that while he didn't have WMD's he wanted the world to think he did for fear of an Iranian Invasion as payback against the Iran-Iraq war. The threat of him having them was equal in his mind to actually possesing them. He also said he believed that at worse he would be bombed only, which was the reason for his blatent disregard for international law. No that would give a slight amount of credability to such an evil man as Bush. A reason it is not highly reported.

And as to another comment you made in another thread. The US did not kill Saddam, Iraq did.

 

Blatent disregard of international law ? Defying the UN and Geneva convention springs to mind..Oh that was Bush wasnt it.

Whipping the country up to a bloodthirsty frenzy...Bush again

Its pretty cute saying the US didnt kill Saddam , they sure put him in the hands of those who were guarenteed to kill him.The trial judge was replaced when the slightest notion things were not going to plan.

Like it or not mate , we were lied to plain and simple to get troops in there.

 

1) The NATO powers (and Isreal) believed that Saddam had WMD's, it wasn't just the US.

2) Saddam wanted everyone to believe that he had WMD's. He believed pretending really well would deter an invasion. He believed Clinton was a paper tiger and was bargaining that Bush 43 would also be too. Bush 41 was a statesman and he was hoping-like father, like son. It backfired on him.

3) The WMD's did exist at one time (thousands of gassed Iraqui's were proof). The WMD's were either buried in the desert or quietly spirited to Syria.

4) After Iraq was invaded, there were spots found that had once housed weapons (now missing). Carlos the Jackal, hunted for decades, was found. Idi Amin had also taken refuge in Iraq. There was anecdotal proof that, at least, Osama Bin Laden, had briefly been in Iraq.

Were we lied to? By Saddam, yes. By Bush, no. Was Bush so eager to invade that he didn't consider all angles? Yes. Was Bush as much an idiot, like LBJ, to think that Rumsfeld knew what he was doing? Yes.

Bush's biggest screwup-Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was an arrogant ignorant has been who had no business as S.O.D. Rumsfeld continually ran off those who knew better and surrounded himself with those too frightened to tell him just how wrong he was. I voted for Bush as Prez and Govenor, but his defense of Rumsfeld should have had him censured, and Rumsfeld tried for malfeasance.

 

) The NATO powers (and Isreal) believed that Saddam had WMD's, it wasn't just the US.

Doesnt excuse the fact it was highly promoted Iraq had WMD and were ready to use them , all speculation.

2) Saddam wanted everyone to believe that he had WMD's. He believed pretending really well would deter an invasion. He believed Clinton was a paper tiger and was bargaining that Bush 43 would also be too. Bush 41 was a statesman and he was hoping-like father, like son. It backfired on him.

Speculation again Bush 41 had already fought Saddam , Bush43 went back to finish the job..hardly paper tigers.

3) The WMD's did exist at one time (thousands of gassed Iraqui's were proof). The WMD's were either buried in the desert or quietly spirited to Syria.

I believe he was charged with the death of 140 , WMD'S were not used , more likely old mustard gas or similar , and mysterious dissappearances are more akin to conspiracy theory than fact

4) After Iraq was invaded, there were spots found that had once housed weapons (now missing). Carlos the Jackal, hunted for decades, was found. Idi Amin had also taken refuge in Iraq. There was anecdotal proof that, at least, Osama Bin Laden, had briefly been in Iraq.

Ahh..missing weapons..right Idi Amin fled to Libya and died in Saudi 2003 , where do you get the idea he took refuge in Iraq?
Carlos the jackel was taken from Sudan to france for trial..where do you get your ideas mate? Maybe they found the yeti there too ?

Were we lied to? By Saddam, yes. By Bush, no. Was Bush so eager to invade that he didn't consider all angles? Yes. Was Bush as much an idiot, like LBJ, to think that Rumsfeld knew what he was doing? Yes.

I dont remember Saddam on the news at 5 telling us he had WMD'S

Bush's biggest screwup-Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was an arrogant ignorant has been who had no business as S.O.D. Rumsfeld continually ran off those who knew better and surrounded himself with those too frightened to tell him just how wrong he was. I voted for Bush as Prez and Govenor, but his defense of Rumsfeld should have had him censured, and Rumsfeld tried for malfeasance

In their business passing the buck doesnt escuse them for decisions made.

 

James,

It's obvious you have your mind made up and no matter what anyone says, you're going to either try to discredit them, or just argue with them.

What is your endgame here? What point are you trying to make? What good is it going to do when it's obvious you just want to argue?

Do you want to be like one of those folks standing on 6th street in Dallas handing out leaflets that you know the real proof of the JFK assassination that no one else does?

Walk east till your hat floats.

 

LCP , because your ludicrous post was ridiculed its no need for personal attacks , do your research before posting such rubbish mate.

I made the thread at invitation , if you dont wish to participate i for one would be grateful , perhaps you can use the time to revisit your post about England and its WW2 hangover ?

 

I thought Iraq was always about oil and nothing more.

 

Not so many years ago people were harrassed and even banned from US based forums for suggesting such a thing Vet , no matter how true it was and is.

 

So by your reasoning the 2003 leaders of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia, Poland, Denmark and the UK should all be tried for the same war crimes your advocating, correct?

 

James,

Odd how you remember everything so much differently than those who disagree with you.

I remember that the UN inspectors kept looking and saying there could be WMD in Iraq. They even found parts of equipment which could only be used in refining weapons grade fissionable materials under some rosebushes in an Iraqi scientists garden. Saddam himself refused to certify that all his WMD's had been destroyed, and I recall the intelligence services were saying that they were probably still there. Yeah, there were a few who said they probably weren't, but no one was willing to flat out and say Saddam absolutely didn't have WMD.

But WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, you just talk that up because the intel, and Bush, and everyone else, was wrong on that. Saddam was also refusing to abide by the Gulf War peace terms and continually targeting the US air missions that patrolled the UN ceasefire lines. This alone was sufficient provocation to topple him.

Maybe so, but who cares what a public opinion poll shows when the public has been fed a steady diet of lies by the media? I don't remember Bush claiming it was payback for 911, that's an invention of the Leftist media. What Bush did say was that Saddam was training terrorists and that was true. You have conveniently forgtten about the terrorists training camps that US forces found and destroyed early in the Iraqi invasion. There was plenty of evidence that they enrolled terrorists of many different persuasions and trained them how to attack civilian airliners and perform other kinds of terrorists acts

Makes no difference whether Saddam was a former ally or not, he was still a brutal dictator, who seriously needed being terminated at the earliest possible moment. Just because there are a lot of bad guys doesn't mean it's wrong to take one of them out when we can. I guess by your reasoning it's Ok for a Democratic president to lie to us, claiming genocide in Kosovo, when there wasn't any, and go to war against a sovereign country that isn't doing anything to threaten the US, but it's bad and wrong for a Republican president to go to war to topple a dictator who is shooting at our troops, maybe has WMD, is training terrorists, and is threatening another war in the Mid-east.

Sorry James, but your Leftist bias is showing, and it's destroying any slight credibility you might have.

 

Firstly , the thread isnt telling you that you were lied to , its asking. I appreciate the timely reminder to keep it civil and debate worthy Slipdigit and ill assure you im capable and happy to do so.

The WMD thing , on one hand we agree that yes he was responsible for the deaths of at least 140 people all gassed apparantly.
Theres a far cry from that to what was being described here , everybody was tripping over themselves of the imminent great mushroom cloud , they could hardly wait to use the same term , over and over.

To the commen man a mushroom cloud means one thing , nukes.They were not telling us he had a few old barrels of mustard gas.

In the UK we were told he did have these weapons capable of launch within 45 minutes.

So he had been defeated and was thumbing his nose ? The UN were dealing with matters and yet were defied and Bush had his conflict.
The key thing is he had been defeated earlier , he didnt have WMD then or he'd have used them.
It must have been pretty clear to the UN he didnt have WMD's and indeed it was as they had inspectors in there who were vetoed out , if anyone ever was railroaded it was Saddam.

Mike , when you put it that way i guess they all bear responsibility to some degree.I dont believe that any member of the coalition would have singularly instigate an invasion the way the US did.

As a matter of personal interest when exactly was war declared ? Its refered to as a war ..or the war on terror ..but as far as i knew its a conflict , not a war.

 

Havnt time for your snide remarks mate , i wouldnt wish credability with a fool so im ok there.
You claim i remember it differently , ill refer you to Hans Blix ..name of the UN inspector , tell ya what , look him up.
Labeling someone a leftist who doesnt even know what a leftist is is pretty funny tho.
You talked a lot brushing over the intel , bush , and everybody else got it wrong but havnt came close to answering the simple question.
Were they lieing to get us into Iraq..simple

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm



"I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren't any," Mr Blix said. "He might be able to reveal when they were done away with. I am inclined to think it was early in 1991 or 1992."

 

Former Australian Prime Minister John Winston Howard getting up in Parliament and blatantly lied to Parliament and to the Australian people that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that President George Walker Bush's administration had credited irrefutable intelligence supplied by America to lead Prime Minister John Winston Howard to send troops to Iraq based on lies, and now they give the bastard awards, go figure.

v.R

 

James, It was far more than 140 people that he had killed. It is a common tactic to only try someone for a portion of crimes, just in case they weasal out of it. Had he been found not-guilty, he would have been tried for other mass murders. He could have just as easily been tried for warcrimes in the Iran-Iraq war where he murdered between 3500-5000 and injured another 10000 Iranians with Mustard gas, VX, sarin, soman, and tabun nerve agents.


To answer your final question, No it is not an "Offical" war as it was not Congress who declared it. However it was congress who gave Bush the authorization to invade.

Also The invasion was in no way a response for 9/11. Bush stated before that horrific day that he wanted to overthrow Saddam's rule

 

Thanks Mike i wondered about when it became a war , wasnt so long ago we seen Bush aboard ship in uniform declaring it over : ) .. oh wait a minute..its been ages.

Getting back to Saddam , a lot of his atrocities were commited when he was a strong US allie , he wasnt persecuted then.

 

Everything will be all better now.
Obama wants another bail-out before he takes office ... so he'll look better (I can't say good). AIG wants more too.
GM wants some now, as do other car makers (who predicted this? ... )
If I was Bush, I'd pretend my hearing-aid needed new batteries.
Let Nancy & Harry & Barney swim in their own pool.
anyway help is coming, and courage is his name.

 

I'm sorry if you feel my remarks were "snide", it certainly wasn't my intention; I actually went back and changed some of my wording trying to soften the impact. But I guess when you can't really make a rational response, that's the way any commentary would appear.

The answer to your question is no, they weren't lying to us in the sense that they knew positively one way or another whether Saddam had WMD or was in the process of attempting to develop them. Of course, that's how the media and Bush's enemies portrayed it later, and some people will swear that Bush deliberately lied to justify an attack on Iraq.

BTW, your link doesn't work.

As foir Blix, I think he had his own agenda, I know he changed his story over time, but even at that, even he can't say that he was absolutely certain whether Saddam still had WMD. Remember that Saddam did have WMD in the form of chemical weapons and used them repeatedly. Then when asked to certify, and prove, that they had been destroyed, he refused to do so. You contention that only atomic weapons should be considered WMD is not viable; Bush never claimed Saddam had nuclear weapons, only that he probably had WMD, meaning atomic, biological, or chemical weapons. And we know that he did have chemical weapons for certain and that he refused to prove, as required by the UN, that he had destroyed them.