Were we lied to ?

Nobodys arguing mate , the thread is specifically here for this subject.


Totally have to agree Vet , corruption seems rife in politics , lies are all part and parcel.

 

If people can be mature adults then it does not hurt to discuss these matters. What good are forums without discussion? There are people here who complain when something is brought up they have already discussed. With time new things and information pop up. Besides, maybe some of us who haven't discussed these matters would like to. People do not have to view that particular subject if they do not want to.

 

No, it's only factual, and you want to hear that big old mean Mr. Bush lied and lied, and tricked us into supporting a war in Iraq. Sorry, but no matter how much you want it to be true, that just isn't what happened. I have never claimed there was proof of nukes in Iraq, but there was proof that Saddam had WMD's and we KNOW he used them. He also refused to certify, and prove, as required by the UN, that he had destroyed them. Intel, and not just American intel, said it was likely that Iraq was hiding WMD's. Bush had to decide one way or the other, and in the event he went the wrong way. But WMD's weren't the only reason we went o war and you can't seem to understand that simple little concept.

And yes, it did matter that Saddam used his WMD's againt Iran, and the Kurds, but we couldn't do much about it at the time, except denounce it. But when Saddam started threatening another war, shooting at US planes, training terrorists, and refusing to abide by the UN agreements, that gave us plenty of reason to invade Iraq and topple him.

Now, you can get over your petty little dislike of Bush, and accept tha facts or continue believing the Leftist fairy tale that you've bought into...it's up to you.

 

Lets keep it civil devilsadvocate please , heres some reading material i was perusing , whats your thoughts?

The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim:

On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. In a February 2004 speech at Georgetown University, CIA Director Tenet revealed that CIA "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

In terms of the administration claims it never said or suggested an imminent threat, below are a sample of such comments:

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02)

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”

In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.”

In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”

 

I never said the matter shouldn't be discussed, I'm simply making a point that there are only a few thousand other forums and discussion groups on this particular subject matter. I was merely making an observation of those who choose to continue rehashing the same things I've heard for the past 5 1/2 years. My opinion, no more no less.

 

Was it not yourself who invited me to open a thread for this very purpose ?

 

You are addressing Slipdigit, correct?

 

You know im not addressing you , if slipdigit wants to delete the thread so be it , it was after all his idea to have the thread in the first place.
We've kept it fairly civil and it has provoked some ideas not to mention posts , but i guess if you dont like what you see then destroy it , even if you dont have to read it , destroy it lest others do.

 

I clearly remember at the time on the aftermath supporting the invasion of Afgahnistan as a direct consequence of a number of reasons, the most visible of them being the Sept 11th 2001 atack. That day I was in the office, was called to a meeting room where we had a tv set, and I came in time to watch the 2nd airliner slam.

I did not agree at the time with the invasion of Iraq, mostly because the Afg operation was running and it would be a mess to open a second front. That was my single objection. The United Nations had passed a number of resolutions (I read 14 in this thread) and Saddam just thumbed his nose at them; the WMD inspectors were the victims of a hide and seek game, the airplanes patrolling the aerial exclusion zone were taken potshots at - with remarkably bad returns, normally the radar that turned on took a HARM in it's dish within minutes; there was the historical use of a variety of chemical weapons already spoken of here; and worst of all there was this unrepentant Saddam playing his games and blackmailing all and sundry.

Saddam played a monstrous bluff. Was he scared of Iran who were looking forward to skin him and so anted to keep a trump up his sleeve? Was he simply so bloodyminded that he just played this game just for the hell of it? Was he so self deluded while he played cat and mouse within his small empire with his monstrous court including his two pretty sons Uday and Qusay? Had he been encouraged by the fact that he could laugh at the UN sanctions and resolutions while things just carried on as they were, no price to pay? Quite the opposite, he and his awful clique were pocketing away the Oil for Food money while the people ate sh!t. Was he also encouraged by the stream of international a$$holes that kept pacing Saddam International to pay him homage?

It was number of reasons, making up a complex dish like my baked beans. I don't know which was foremost, but his arrogance and the mirth he got from being able to hoodwink and manipulate everyone certainly blinded him: the world was not made up of paper tigers only. Saddam set a trap then jumped in it both feet. His fault.

The Coalition of the Willing made a bad job of it? Sure, they could have done a lot better. Did this nullify their reasons? No. Was it worth it? Yes.

 

Why couldn't we do much about it? We are the U.S. of A. We do whatever we want anyways. Well, at least Bush did. Maybe Obama will respect the constitution and I'm a Republican.

 

Sorry, Saddam used gas, which well (well, the US) sold him against Iran and the Kurds. The only WMD's we have found so far that I know of were buried in the desert, this is one of several methods by which they could be 'disposed of.'

That said, my main argument against Iraq is probably much simpler than that, no one planned what to do after the war. It is only in the last few years that strategies are being developed to deal with the situation and if you look at the way things have gone, well, it beggars belief! From a doctrinal point of view, we are currently facing serious difficulties in the rear, close and deep battles, we are starting to gain ground but not enough to make much of a difference. Under Saddam Al Quaeda were unable to operate in Iraq, he kept them at bay and they opposed him as a very secular ruler. Now they are all over the shop, that is just one of the ways things have got worse since the invasion.

So what are we going to do? The situation is unwinnable, we can't keep going, my money says we pull out and leave the Iraqis to do their own thing. Of course their military won't deal with the insurgents because frankly if they couldn't do it with our help how are they going to do it on their tod? Al Queada will grow in strength in Iraq and we will have just built ourselves another training ground for our enemies. After that? Well how long do you think it'll take before a radical gets into power?

So, back to working on Afghanistan, lets face it, Afghanistan is unwinnable too, the best we can do isquiet things down, hide the evidence and then when the ANA etc are a little bigger and stronger, pull out and leave them to it.

 

The only reason why I not closing this thread right now is because slipdigit and Stefan were here before I did and slip is still considering the matter, but since things seem to be leading nowhere once again something tells me it is not going to last long ....

 

That picture was taken in the 70's, long before he made it know to the world that he was going to slaughter anyone he could.

Well Said.

James, I think you are perceving an attack against you by DA that is in fact not there. All he is doing is pointing out facts to countradict your opinion. In your post of Bush quotes, I don't see any refrences to Nukes, only weapons of mass destruction/death. If you need a cloud, just look into the Halabja massacre where witnesses reported smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet.

I've never been a Bush supporter, but lets get one thing straight. Bush is a fool, always has been a fool, and will always be a fool. What we don't need is a biased media making him look worse just because he is not popular. Bush can make himself look very bad on his own, without the help of the media.

 

Skipper, I think Vet was being ironic

 

Run for President Za, we can say almost anything about your origin and people will have to accept it as true (th) enough.
Even hear about the book Saddam's father wrote? You're correct about the scare, bluff, violence (for power) & commitment to foolishness.
The book ... "Three things God should've never created ... Iranians-J_ws-& Flies". The man was topped-off with hate for most things in his tiny world. I'm sure none of that rubbed off on his son though.
Everything/anything could/could've been done better. Those who dwell in the past (only) to find something to cry about are ignoring the present, where they can do something. Yet that wont fit their "motif" of always having something to cry about later.
You seem to understand this, which puts you (at least) one foot in front.

 

Hi Stefan, my sentence was not adressed to any member in particular. I edited my post and took away the quote with Vets sentence . No offense Vet. Cheers

 

No worries, missunderstanding, sorry.