WoMD ... so where are they? (page 68)

searchfothetruth

Dubla.

I agree with your logic on this point, but you seem to be making a big issue of the fact that if they didn't know they were there they would have already planted these weapons. Good point. But the fact that they haven't found these weapons makes all the talk before the war even more amazing.

We were shown 'intelligence' that they told us was evidence that these weapons were in existance. The fact that they cannot find them shows how far they were willing to go to lie to us to get a war.

The fallout they are now getting will probably be passed over and ignored in a few weeks and the objective of getting Iraq has been achieved.

dubla

I agree with your logic on this point, but you seem to be making a big issue of the fact that if they didn't know they were there they would have already planted these weapons. Good point.

well, thats not exactly what i was saying, but i think you got the meat of it. at least we agree that bush thought they were there (as i did, and still do), and thats all i was getting at.

aa

searchfothetruth

I don't agree with you that Bush thought they were there.

They have admitted (Rumsfeld) that they had no new intelligence regarding the WMD before the war. The UN inspectors said that they had NO evidence that Iraq had WMD, that they had all been destroyed during the first gulf war and the consequent UN inspections.

They needed a reason to invade Iraq and the threat of WMD and the rhetoric they used pre-war was designed to frighten people into believing that Saddam was ready to strike at any time.

Wasn't it Colin Powell that said that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over Washington?

How plain was that at an attempt to put the frighteners on people when there was no evidence that Iraq had Nuclear weapons?

dubla

I don't agree with you that Bush thought they were there.

well, you said "good point", so i thought that meant you agreed.....my mistake. you were just agreeing that i have a valid point about bush thinking they were there?

aa

searchfothetruth

LOL.

I was saying it was good point because it was. I just don't agree that Bush/Blair etc thought they were going to find them when they went in.

They have admitted the intelligence was tampered with, so they also knew what the real intelligence actually said before they 'sexed' it up.

You also asked why they didn't plant weapons straight after the war. I don't know. If they were going to do it then that was the time to do it. But maybe they were just too pre-occupied with all the other things they were doing, like getting the Oil production up and running and also don't forget, even tho' Bush declared the war over, it hasn't actually stopped.

Simon

There were a lot of "what ifs" which were clearly designed to highten fear and anxiety to build support for the war that they had already decided.

Think about it. Rumpsfelds comments that they had not new intelligence since before Sept 11 really means that they must have already decided on it !

All the time given to weapons inspectors and so on were accedemic - it was clear that the date for the start of the war was decided and they did everything to speed it up, no matter what the Iraqi's did or how much they cooperated (and the inspectors ssaid they were getting real cooperation). They had their own schedule of when it needed to start and it did, right on cue.

The switch is unbelievably transparent. Once the war was underway they gradually switched to "we're liberating the people" instead of looking for WMD and now that people are asking questions the language has changed

Before the war, Blair said they would find WMD. Now, he's saying they will find evidence of programmes (a desire) to have WMD. It's not the same. If they think a few pieces of paper are a good reason to go to war then god help us all !

The lack of urgency to find the weapons if damning. If one of the reasons for invading was to prevent them falling into the hands of Al Quida then why the delay in looking for them? The obviously knew that they weren't there and only had a half-hearted search. In fact, it's only this week, months after the end of the war, that the British have a team earmarked to look for them.

No one is disputing that Saddam was a bad man and it's better he's gone but they have lied to us and it's not an irrelevant issue: with all trust gone, what if a real emergency happens and they do need our trust? They've 'played their joker' and they can't play it again. Next time the stakes could be much higher because other contries are not in the weakened state that the Iraq army was in (which even so, put up a surprising unforseen fight).

It also raises questions about the motive for doing it. Was it really for the people to save them from the regime that was previously supported for so long? Is it the oil? Will similar action be taken against other equally bad regimes? Will trade with these countries be at least halted?

One thing is certain, going to Bush and Blair for the truth is a pointless exercise.

William Penwell

Simon said;

Before the war, Blair said they would find WMD. Now, he's saying they will find evidence of programmes (a desire) to have WMD. It's not the same. If they think a few pieces of paper are a good reason to go to war then god help us all !

Don't forget last September Blair said Iraq had the capablity of a cemical strike within 45 minutes. That is a far cry from evidence of a WMD programes.

Will

searchfothetruth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html

dubla

simon-

Rumpsfelds comments that they had not new intelligence since before Sept 11 really means that they must have already decided on it !

of course it was already decided.....its only been a matter of time since 1991......even clinton bombed iraq. had bush never taken office, iraq wouldve still been invaded, at some point, by whoever was in office............saddam "decided" the fate of his regime long ago.

The switch is unbelievably transparent. Once the war was underway they gradually switched to "we're liberating the people" instead of looking for WMD

i agree...it was completely a media ploy to change the main justification immediately after the war started (or i guess right when it started, considering the name given to the operation). the fact is though, that the iraqis have a much better future ahead of them than they did under saddam.

If one of the reasons for invading was to prevent them falling into the hands of Al Quida then why the delay in looking for them?

this is a misunderstanding that youve had (im not sure why) for some time, and you seem quite attached to it. the fact is, from the time the war started until now, there has been a search ongoing.....there was ZERO delay. the number of people searching has of course continued to grow as other priorities (such as protecting the troops from incoming fire) have decreased. this is common sense, and should be easily understood by anyone not trying to twist the facts to fit their own argument.

aa

Jayson

Well,

It's nice to know that this thread did not go on just because of me. Bowing out made no difference.

btw I'm glad that as "proof" has been shown that some 16 words the presidental address was based on faulty information. Yeah those 16 words were what did it for me.(((Off With Thier Heads))) This proves that the CIA gave and the President used faulty information, but weapons that were declared but no proof of their distruction never existed? No it doesn't It also proves that there was not a weapons program? No it doesn't. It shows the problems with a preemtive invasion to remove a horried dictator of a closed society who has caused massive wars over 20 years in a world of pasifists who do not care how many ragheads or jungle bunnies are being murdered or starved as long as they have their EZ chair, beer, and TV. Oh and a computer to cry out their frustrations to other frustrated people who are "fat dumb and happy."

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this