Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

One source has since declared they lied when they told American officials that Saddam had WMDs, and there is nothing to indicate that this was the "best evidence."



Don't be obtuse. "Erring on the side of caution" was assuming that there were WMDs, that they might be made available to bad actors who would use them in America or against Americans, and taking steps to negate that threat. No one knew at the time that ONE of the sources was lying, and dwelling on that ONE source overlooks the rest of evidence.



The question wasn't (isn't?) about whether Saddam was manageable, it was about whether or not it was wise to leave open the possibility that he might funnel WMDs to people like those in Al Qaeda, allow him to continue to violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement, or to allow him to continue to oppress minority groups in his country...among other things. The Bush Administration was all over the place on reasons to go in...someone in the communications department obviously had never heard the phrase "on message."

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

keep in mind this was right after 9/11, when we learned that some amorphous group of nobodies suddenly appear on the main stage, moving up from car bombs to airplane bombs, and we were pretty sure they weren't finished with that game.

Unfortunately, Jubber or anyone else isn't going to be able to produce the physical evidence some of you guys want. It's tightly controlled - this type of information generally is, anyways.

There was enough data in the world intelligence community to gather the forces and specialists from dozens of nations to participate in the invasion. The cables/information shared between the countries had something in it that required broad action. Since the world responded to that data I'm assuming it was more of the non-issue most would like to believe it to have been. Maybe we'll see some declassification in the coming decades which will shed more light on the behind-the-scenes motives for war.

What eturnal is trying to say is "Are you guys telling me that GW fucking BUSH fooled the world into invading Iraq?"

Didn't everyone except for England pretty much make all 500 troops they sent leave after a month or so?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

And GW fucking BUSH said God tells him to wage war and got a pretzel in his esophagus for it.

No. There were a couple countries that left in the first year (normally, after their mission was done), but most stayed through until 2008 or 2009. There was some agreement between the US and Iraq that came about during the transition of power which asked all the other countries to pull their troops out by a certain date.

Not sure about who came/left or what they sent, but the big deal(s) I remember was France and Germany wasn't interested (because they were making money off trading under the terms of the embargo) and Spain left after the country's leadership changed after an election. There were over forty other countries involved in the coalition in Iraq, that sounds like a pretty good sleight of hand for someone a lot of you paint as a complete fucking retard.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Because God doesn't like that sort of blasphemous fuckery.

Or maybe it's just that choking on shit isn't that unusual, but I like my first answer better.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

No. Erring on the side of caution would be not starting a war.

Apparently some of us haven't learned our lesson from Tonkin Gulf or Sarajevo.


Al Qaeda and Saddam were totally incompatible. Al Qaeda advocates Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was a secular authoritarian.

The Kurds didn't like the war either because it destabilized what was, for them, a perfectly fine status quo and replaced it with chaos.



He didn't fool the world...he FAILED to fool the world, so he went it alone, at gross cost.

The British sent a small contingent (which was hugely unpopular and basically ended Tony Blair's political career) and the other allies made only the most token contributions because the alternative would have been to disband NATO.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Bay of Pigs
Several hundred (failed) attempts to kill Castro
Pentagon Papers
Beirut barracks bombing
Fall of the Soviet Union (they didn't see it coming until it was on CNN)
9/11
Killing JFK after he got pissed at their shitty performance and fascist attitude and tried to pull the plug

Go read "By Way of Deception", written by a Mossad veteran. He describes the general perception of the American intelligence community as "players who don't play", as a bunch of naive oafs whom they manipulate shamelessly and keep in the dark about everything.

There is no reason to believe that they had any evidence. And why keep it secret? I mean, if that was the case - there was secret evidence - why go through the motions of making a case at all? How is it possible to have a democratic discussion framed in terms of secret information?

But it's sufficient to say that...there is absolutely no reason to believe the evidence exists.
What reason is there?

....

Eturnal, you rant and rave about the government taxes tyranny etc, but then you bend over and beg for it from behind because the GOVERNMENT, and people who weren't even elected, tell you to.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

A countries intelligence can and never will be 100% because all nations and groups, regardless of the current threat level, employ methods of counter-intelligence. Still, there was enough intel to suggest action by a multi-national coalition. (Searching for WMDs wasn't the only reason for going into Iraq, either.) I'm pretty confident the intelligence community gets it right most of the time. I'm also sure that there is a lot more that is attempted against this country than you'll ever have the pleasure of knowing... and it doesn't happen because of the intelligence community. The only shortfall, in my opinion, is how difficult it is to share data between the various agencies -- that doesn't mean data isn't shared, either.


You might get a better response from me if I weren't leaving the office in mere minutes, but I don't like the scale of the government. I don't like a lot of the things the government does, actually. What I don't have a problem with is the government trying to protect its people since that's the role of the government. The intelligence community is a necessary function in order to protect us and I recognize and accept that...

There might be other reasons why I have these opinions and knowledge of the the IC and their agencies...

Prove it.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Edit: Can't... not because I CAN'T, but because you're not allowed to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq


youre right aestu we went it alone