WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[blue1]

Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.

I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.

We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.


It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.

Now that really p****S me off.

[blue1]

Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.

I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.

We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.


It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.

Now that really p****S me off.

[crowMAW]

Blue1...was that deja vu or a glitch in the Matrix?

[GRUNHERZ]

But youre cahnging the subject yet again dead, your assertion that the USA only attacks when there is no WMD threat is plainly wrong....

[Arfann]

I don't want to be the one to say I told ya so, but . . . . . . . . . . .























































I TOLD YOU SO!!!

[blue1]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Blue1...was that deja vu or a glitch in the Matrix?

I just had to make my point, make my point, make my point.

It must be a glitch in the matrix. I have to relog to the board when posting on this PC several times. So I multiple click to post anything. Now I can't get rid of them aaaaaaahh! I managed to delete two but the others will have to stay.

The thirty second rule should have stopped that happening.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But youre cahnging the subject yet again dead, your assertion that the USA only attacks when there is no WMD threat is plainly wrong....

Nope - I'm saying there was an extremely low risk (to the point of it being worth the tiny risk) in war 1, and IMO absolutely no risk in war 2. I am also implying that any prudent army would not invade a country armed with WMDs and I'm guilty of assuming that the US army and leadership are prudent - you appear to be arguing that the US army/government are foolhardy and reckless gamblers. Shome mishtake shurely?
WMDs are a significant deterrent to any invasion: it's part of their job. Or do you reckon the doctrine of WMD deterrence is fundamentally flawed? In which case why did the US, USSR etc etc. bother with all those expensive and dangerous nuclear biological and chemical weapons? If the US doesn't care about the presence of WMDs why didn't the US invade Eastern Europe and Russia? Why the fuss over the Cuban missiles? And why not invade Cuba? Why opt for a cold war all those years - just couldn't be bothered to invade? And if memories serves over all the years since ww2, and all the invasions, incursions and whatnot the US has staged, only Iraq has had a hint of WMDs, and I posit - war 1 posed a tiny "calculated" risk, war 2 none whatsoever.
Furthermore - if your position is correct and Iraq really did have credible, deployable WMDs, then you have to live with the notion of Bush being a totally reckless and/or stupid almost to the point of brain death president who's willing to gamble the lives of thousands or millions of US/UK soldiers and innocent civilians - not to mention all the serious diplomatic fallout - on the vague hope that a mad evil dictator who's used WMDs before on his own people and his enemies will not use them on an enormous invading army who's expressed intent is to get rid of said mad dictator and which will definitely win if he doesn't use the WMDs. Pretty high stakes on very bad odds - and to achieve ... what? I'm sure you don't buy any of the oil stuff or any of the other sane but cynical reasons for invading - Do you buy the "to secure the poor Iraqis' freedom from a nasty man (that the US propped up for over 20 years)" line, or do you subscribe to the "to stop a guy we can't find from selling some weapons we can't find to another guy we can't find who recently proved in no uncertain terms that he doesn't need them" spin? I'm surprised Bush isn't frothing or drooling at the mouth most of the time if your version is true.
You also have a question that begs an answer - why didn't Hussein - the madman who is such a threat that the US had to invade right away - use them?

My scenario does require some politicians to lie to the electorate, manipulate the media and invade a country that they know poses little to no risk to their armies for cynical, self-serving, materialistic reasons: economic and political gain. I realise all that's pretty far-fetched stuff on planet Grunherz, but it also requires the US government, president and military to be much much saner and more intelligent than your version.

[GRUNHERZ]

So your agument is based on appeasing threating dictators and not confronting them because if we did then they could kill pour soldiers - why didnt you say so in the begining?

[blue1]

Gruny, you're getting like Bagdhad Ali, unable to face the truth. Perhaps you should get like Nuke and Lazs and retreat in the face of the overwhelming forces of reality.

Appeasing dictators is a long standing US policy, nay Western and European policy.

If war was about doing the right thing, Mugabe would be facing the final assault on Harare by the Marines by now. You don't appease dictators you supply them with weapons.

Saddam didn't play the game, he wanted to play Stalin. If he had tried to be a Hitler he would still be in power.  

You understand?

[Yeager]

Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
=====
Amazing.  You people must be too young to see how regular all this political crap is.......

  If you believe there are no WMDs now then you never believed it in the first place which in and of itself draw serious red flags all about your smug mugs.  You are obviously Clinton (sic) people.

At this stage of the game, like Toad (and just about anyone with any decent, workable state of mind) said, its way too early to draw a no WMD conlusion and will be for at least a year and arguing with you dolts is a waste of life energy.  

Also, if you think an investigation demonstrates some sort of (perverted) success then you really are just a bunch of saddomites.

In the end summary:  Just a bunch of Clinton dead head retreads.   Like AGWs MG, no doubt just hoping for american failures because you hate the CiC.  Plain and simple.....tards and dolts all gathered in the 10bears hall of shame thread.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by blue1
What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.
 

Heh, you dont think that has more to do with the fact that most of us cant be bothered to wade through yet another "oh the war was so wrong"-BS thread?

I mean STFU already and stop squeaking. No one cares about all your pet theories on Iraq and WMDs. As far as I'm concerned the WMDs already recovered from Iraq was reason enough to go in.

[weazel]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No one cares about all your pet theories on Iraq and WMDs. As far as I'm concerned the WMDs already recovered from Iraq was reason enough to go in.

Excerpt:
 
Enough already. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Rumsfeld appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations last Tuesday and, during the question-answer period,  made the usual excuses for why his team of biochem-weapon hunters hasn't yet found any. "We've only been there seven weeks," he exclaimed. "It's a country the size of California -�it's not as though we've managed to look everywhere," he added.
 

Horsetoejam!

When the Bush Junta had their war hard-on raging, they said they knew exactly where they were.

They said they were in Tikrit and Baghdad, and that they had pictures, remember?

And the whole reason we couldn't wait another 30 days is because Saddam was poised to strike.

Not all of us have short term memory loss.  

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
Grun, this is getting ridicolus, or rather you are. Blue1 makes perfect sense.

No it doesnt - it only makes sense if you are into appeasement.  For gods sake look at what he wrote - he baiscally says that in the future we must never attack any country that can put up a fight and actually kill our soldiers.  He is advocating appaeasement plain and simple.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by blue1
Gruny, you're getting like Bagdhad Ali, unable to face the truth. Perhaps you should get like Nuke and Lazs and retreat in the face of the overwhelming forces of reality.

Appeasing dictators is a long standing US policy, nay Western and European policy.

If war was about doing the right thing, Mugabe would be facing the final assault on Harare by the Marines by now. You don't appease dictators you supply them with weapons.

Saddam didn't play the game, he wanted to play Stalin. If he had tried to be a Hitler he would still be in power.  

You understand?

So we are now finding the exact sort of mobile labs Powell described at the UN and thats the reality..

Stalin was much more careful than Hitler and he never faced the sort of international challenges as Hitler.  Although Stalin was his idol saddams position was much more like Hitlers - trying to build and maintain certain armed forces despite international restricions imposed by a cease fire after a defeat.  He lost.

[Nash]

Which mobile labs Hort and Grun.... These?

"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the discovery last month of two tractor-trailers -- fitted for high tech laboratory work -- proved they could be used to produce illicit weapons for germ warfare. No such products were found in the trucks."