Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jetmech Jr. on November 11, 2005, 09:03:26 pm
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-12T010812Z_01_RID122734_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-IRAQ.xml
I dunno, Dubyah, your intelligence seems pretty ****ty to me, and I ain't just talking about your WMD information.
-
ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it
-
Erm, maybe it's a problem with the new boards, but the link doesn't display correctly with Firefox.
-
ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it
Sorry? I'm not quite following that.
-
Well Sadam was a complete idiot in the process (kicking out the inspectors when we were trying to make a case that he had something to hide was not a good choice, for one) and there was the same general stuff that ended up getting used to justify the war in the first place, but most of it was, AFAIK, highly inspecific, somewhat out of date, not totally reliable, and contradicted by other evidence. The issue is not "did [insert political figure here] make up the intelligence", it's "did [said political figure] come to a conclusion based on evidence, or find evidence to fit a foregone conclusion". Or at least, that's what the question should be.
-
oh, you know it... all your fault, yeah! :D
but seriously, there was coroborateing sources, I would consiter that a valid excuse for civilians who went along with Bush, but just because other nations think something doesn't mean it's corect, Bush was in charge, he made the choices, he was responcable, you say he was given bad intel? well it was his responcibility to make sure our inteligence services were accurate. I remember hearing a lot about people in the military and CIA who were saying that Sadam didn't have a drop of banned weapons, they were all sumaraly silenced and ridiculed as being clinton appointie anti-american political opertunist liberals.
-
Actually, in the UK the issue is - did we know it was illegal and Tony had the legal advice toned down? ;)
-
This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.
-
So who's the one rewriting history?
2003: It's about WMDS! Defend America from Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons!
2005: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about WMDs. It's about freeing the Iraqis! Spreading democracy!
2006: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about 'freeing the Iraqis.' It's about the Global War on Terror(tm)!
-
ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it
The French, to their credit, didn't believe the US. They had no such intelligence.
As for british "intelligence", don't forget about the Downing Street memo. It states pretty clearly that evidence was being "fixed".
-
This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.
I would agree were it not for the comments of John Kerry and Mr. Kennedy. Politicians in general = ick.
-
This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.
I would agree were it not for the comments of John Kerry and Mr. Kennedy. Politicians in general = ick.
I will take your derail bait and ask you: what kind of comments? Not that it matters anyway.
-
The issue is not "did [insert political figure here] make up the intelligence", it's "did [said political figure] come to a conclusion based on evidence, or find evidence to fit a foregone conclusion". Or at least, that's what the question should be.
There should be a third: "Did [insert intelligence agency here] become so obsessed with looking for such information that they actually found it, regardless of its real existence?"
Because intelligence is like that. If you look hard enough you'll find something, whether it's really there or not. And some people have accused CIA of getting fixated on the subject all on their own. (Of course, that doesn't let the adminstration off the hook necessarily, since they are not the only agency concerned with intelligence in the US.)
-
Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?
-
So who's the one rewriting history?
2003: It's about WMDS! Defend America from Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons!
2005: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about WMDs. It's about freeing the Iraqis! Spreading democracy!
2006: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about 'freeing the Iraqis.' It's about the Global War on Terror(tm)!
More like:
2001 - DEATH TO THE SAND-NIGGERS!
2002 - Iraq funded the 11/9 attacks!.......No?
2003 - Iraq has NUKES and ANTHRAX!
2004 - Meh, he was a dick anyway.
2005 - Iran is funding the Iraqi insurgents!!
-
Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?
Yes. There was an extensive Frontline documentary about that very question.
-
This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.
-
Meh..
People wanting to re-write history? What else is new...happens all the time.
-
Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?
Yeah... something about an old family grudge...
-
Basically Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Snr and Junior wanted a reason to invade.
Pretty sad really. 2000 dead Americans simply to avenge one American who didn't even die.
-
Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41? I was referring to the lack of conclusion to the Gulf War... the fact that the US didn't actually invade Iraq and that Dubya sorta felt that he ought to in order to finish what his dad had started and settle the grudge between the Bush and Hussein families.
-
Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41?
Depends on who you believe. Bush Jnr certainly seems to believe it but others think it's about as valid as the WMD claim.
April 13, 1993: Sixteen suspected terrorists, allegedly under the control of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was defused when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins. Bush had left office in January 1993.
That's the wikipedia entry BTW.
-
Interesting. I'd never heard that one.
-
ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it
I believe MI6 was responsible for the forged (incredibly badly forged) Niger Yellowcake uranium documents, but I'm pretty sure they also told the PM they were bollocks at some point and they were still used.
There's evidence the little evidence there was, was 'sexed up' (see http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/14/butler.blair/, also http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html and of course the Hutton affair). Most of this can be put down to the PM wanting to support the Americans (due to the 'special relationship' type affair, which presumably means we get to send target practice for National Guard A-10s.....), and needing to create the correct political context. which he never acheived, of course; about 70-77% were against war without a firm UN resolution approving it at the time it started.
Of course, let's not forget that there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq before the war; the US, UK and other nations had an opportunity and indeed a responsibility to provide intelligence that would allow the location of such weapons by UNMOVIC. So either they (UK, US) had no intelligence to give, or they purposely withheld it to provide a context for war. (indeed, some of the intelligence presented by Powell to the UN proved to be wrong; offhand, a site claimed to be a chemical weapons factory from sat photos was visited and verified to only contain water tankers, etc, and also the claimed 'mobile CBW labs' were found post war and determined to be - as the Iraqis had claimed - for filling hydrogen air baloons.)
The WMD and terrorism 'reasons' have been pretty much shown to be nonsense reasons given by a US government hungry for either revenge (nee finishing Daddys' work), oil or a new strategic base outside Saudi Arabia. In fact, Iraq has unquestionably worsened terrorism; it's provided a focal point for Islamic fundamentalists to recruit both for regional and international terrorism, given a pretext to terrorist actions such as the July 7th bombings, and is even threatening to become a regional base for 'exporting' terrorism. Not to mention that as it stands the Iraqi Shia government will be very friendly to Iran, which is even worse for the US' plans for that region.
-
I believe MI6 was responsible for the forged (incredibly badly forged) Niger Yellowcake uranium documents,
Kind of makes you wonder what has become of the legendary British intelligence apparatus. :D
-
It got privatised ;)
-
and then outsourced ;)
-
and then outsourced ;)
much like interrogations
WHHHOOOPASS BADAM BURRRRN ZING