Intelligence Malfunction (USA)

[Arsisis]

Well, you need to remember that some weapons of mass destruction can be very small and fit into the pockets and purses of who may seem to be innocent Iraqi citizens. Iraq is not a dumb country and they could easily have what may be called a "secret service". Like soldiers who are undercover in normal clothes and store the weapons in their houses or whatever. Just because no evidence was found, doesn't mean they don't exist but we may have been worng about the weapon ordeal. 

 

I don't know why someone would want to keep a wmd in their pocket, sounds like asking for death, if one would even fit in a pocket. And i know Iraq still may have weapons, but isn't intel saying we had no reason to believe they had them in the first place? Not to be cruel, but it sounds like you have been watching fox too much (see evil biased news-station).

 

I think it's just another way for us to get oil, and the american people wouldnt agree to get the oil if there wasnt a threat over there, so good ol' bush and company made one up. It's a nice thing to do in theory, but we have to spend so much to reuild Iraq, and the people didn't have much a say in it.

[Luxar]

Well, you need to remember that some weapons of mass destruction can be very small and fit into the pockets and purses of who may seem to be innocent Iraqi citizens. Iraq is not a dumb country and they could easily have what may be called a "secret service". Like soldiers who are undercover in normal clothes and store the weapons in their houses or whatever. Just because no evidence was found, doesn't mean they don't exist but we may have been worng about the weapon ordeal.

 

When people refer to weapons of mass destruction, i usually think of ICBM's with nuclear tips, which i'm pretty certain don't fit into the pocket of the average Iraqi citizen. I don't doubt that they had a "secret police" of some kind; since Saddam was a dictator, i'm certain he did have one. But could these people hide such weapons when the UN weapons inspectors are crawling over the country.

 

The first thing to realize here is that just because you THINK only ICBM's are WMD doesn't make it so. A small(pocket-sized) vial of anthrax/smallpox/ebola/plague/whathaveyou can be just as devastating, and we have even less tools to prevent them from damaging our society. They are the real danger, and there is a very real possibility that Saddam was working on creating methods of unleashing them.

 

Yet people neglect to remeber that we gave Saddam a good deal of his Weapons of Mass Destruction, and then turned a blind eye to him using them against the Kurds.

 

Yes, we did give him scud technology and such to use against Iran, who had just taken the entire U.S. embassy hostage. When Saddam started using those same weapons against Kurds, the United States DID realize their mistake, hence the Persian Gulf War(did you completely forget that that happened!?)

[TheDeadTree]

Well see heres the problem, Luxar, he gassed the Kurds in 1988.

 

The US did not begin their air attack untill 1990 when Iraq had begun to invade Kuwait.

 

And yes, we did aid Saddam with weapons against their war with Iran who had taken American hostages. Yet at the same time the goverment also broke their own foreign policy by trading weapons for hostages with the Iranian goverment.

[Pack Rat]

I think it's a well known fact that this was just another kapitalist war that had nothing to do with mass-destruction weapons.

 

the U.S.A problably has more massdestruction weapons then any other nation in the world, a bit hypocritical, isnt it?

[Breton Thief Oriana]

I think it's a well known fact that this was just another Capitalist war that had nothing to do with mass-destruction weapons.

 

the U.S.A problably has more massdestruction weapons then any other nation in the world, a bit hypocritical, isnt it?

yeah, maybe, but at least we won't be tempted to use ours until push comes to shove. also, one atomic bomb would be enough for a global war to breakout. With that said, every powerful nation has weapons of mass destruction, minus iraq, because we alredy proved that. We know that both india and pakistan have the bomb, and they are fighting over a tiny strip of land, no bigger than my state in sq. km. If they use theirs, it will be over nothing.

 

Note: Changed your Kapitalist to Capitalist when quoting you.

[loveme4whoiam]

With that said, every powerful nation has weapons of mass destruction, minus iraq, because we alredy proved that. We know that both india and pakistan have the bomb, and they are fighting over a tiny strip of land, no bigger than my state in sq. km. If they use theirs, it will be over nothing.

 

Yes, thats the scary thing. The policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction; nice little acronym isn't it <_< ) was one of the worst things mankind ever thought up, and now every major country has it.

 

I haven't seen much of the news but the lst i heard was that India and Pakistan are testing their missle systems into the Indian Ocean. This, more than the Americans (hard as it is to believe, i don't think even Bush would do that, unless forced to) and the Chinese, the Koreans, and the French. These people are angry enough and desperate enough to actually use them, which spells big bad news for the whole world.

 

Funny, isn't it, that the whole MAD policy was developed for use primarily against (if thats the right word) Russia and the USSR, and yet i didn't include them in that list. Hmm...

[Dark0ne]

Are there weapons of mass-destruction or not? Who gives a damn? Saddam was evil, he needed to go. I stand by that. Do I care that our governments (as this is just as, if not more controversial in England than it is in the US) lied to us? No, because all these people who have been lied to should have been clever enough to see through the reasons anyway.

 

If there are weapons of mass destruction; great...we just eliminated a threat to freedom. If there aren't; great, we just eliminated a threat to freedom.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't oil prices going up in the US due to lack of oil? Does this not counter the fact that this war was about oil, seeing how ALOT less oil is being imported into the US now rather than 5 years ago?

[Peregrine]

Yes, Saddam was evil, and I doubt you'll find many people who would disagree with this fact. But the problem is, our president forced a war on us with reasons that were questionable at best, and lies at worst. It's not the fact that we got rid of Saddam that bothers me, it's my government's dishonesty in doing it. Especially when we ignored our "allies" opinions, and acted without their support. I don't like the idea of a president that ignores the law to get what he wants.

 

Yes, Saddam needed to go, but it should have been done honestly and by the laws.

 

Do I care that our governments (as this is just as, if not more controversial in England than it is in the US) lied to us? No, because all these people who have been lied to should have been clever enough to see through the reasons anyway.

 

You might have seen through it. But many people didn't. And in this country, politics is a popularity contest. Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he did not have the support of the majority of the voters. If it was 90% opposed, it would be political suicide. So he got the support he needed by lies. Now we're stuck with a president who clearly considers his own goals more important than the will of the people.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't oil prices going up in the US due to lack of oil? Does this not counter the fact that this war was about oil, seeing how ALOT less oil is being imported into the US now rather than 5 years ago?

 

Maybe right now, but look who's now in control of Iraq's oil. I'm sure they'd be willing to take immediate losses in exchange for future gains. And remember, the benefits of a war for oil are not the average citizen. What matters is if large oil companies profit, since they were behind the war.

 

Note: I don't necessarily believe this, I'm just pointing out their arguments. I doubt the war was entirely about oil... it might have been a factor, but if oil is all they want, this was far from the best way to get it.

[Dark0ne]

You might have seen through it. But many people didn't. And in this country, politics is a popularity contest. Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he did not have the support of the majority of the voters. If it was 90% opposed, it would be political suicide. So he got the support he needed by lies. Now we're stuck with a president who clearly considers his own goals more important than the will of the people.

 

Of course, I wouldn't expect a large majority of people in the US to see through it when a large amount of people can't mark ballot papers properly, and an even larger amount don't even care that the whole election system hence after that was rigged. Hence why I can't understand why so many people care about Bush lying to them when he isn't even meant to be where he is now - his whole presendency is a lie.

[Peregrine]

You might have missed this over in England, but when Bush got "elected," it was far from "nobody cared." It was months (if not longer) until the attacks on his legitimacy finally disappeared. But the problem is, there's absolutely nothing that could be done. Every bit of it was done according to the laws (flawed laws, but still laws), the highest court in the country had already made their decision, and Bush's party controlled enough of Congress that impeachment wouldn't be possible. The only way to get rid of Bush would have been revolution by force, which would be absolute suicide.

 

I agree, a large percentage of my country is made up of idiots. But even idiots occasionally see wisdom.