4 ms·

Iraq War: Gordon Brown Says UK 'misled' Over WMDs

13 points by farseer 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pcrh 9y ago
That's a bit revisionist. Millions of people were out demonstrating against this war. My own realization that people were being mislead was Colin Powell's speech at the UN. The evidence he presented for WMD was so flimsy it was laughable. I'm sure both Blair and Brown saw the same speech.
mikeash 9y ago
Hilariously ambiguous title. I assumed it meant that the UK misled people. But no, it says they themselves were misled by the US. All I can say to that is: lolwut. If it was obvious to me that the WMD story was nonsense, surely the top minds of the United Kingdom could have figured it out.
- wybiral 9y ago
  > All I can say to that is: lolwut. If it was obvious to me that the WMD story was nonsense, surely the top minds of the United Kingdom could have figured it out. I think it was slightly more complex because Iraq was refusing UN inspections and because they did have a history of using illegal chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Interviews with Hussein (after he knew he was facing death) revealed that they refused UN inspections because he was more concerned that Iran (their neighbor and enemy) would see their vulnerabilities, which he perceived as a more immediate threat than the US. I don't know why the US was convinced that he had WMD in the first place though. Hopefully there was more to it than just out of control hype that was fed by Iraq refusing inspections.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The situation was complex but the conclusion was ultimately pretty easy. It was obvious that Bush et al were completely making stuff up. Note that Iraq did resist inspections and didn't fully cooperate, but inspectors did get in and inspected a lot, and this was ongoing when the Bush administration brought it to a halt with the invasion.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      > The situation was complex but the conclusion was ultimately pretty easy. It was obvious that Bush et al were completely making stuff up. It seems obvious that they were motivated to make a case for invading Iraq. But that doesn't make it immediately obvious to me that they completely made it up or that they weren't acting off of other intelligence. Since we're on the subject of speculation, if I had to put my tin foil hat on today I'd say that the invasion of Iraq had more to do with Iran (and their allies) than Hussein.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    > they did have a history of using illegal chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War It's a but mirky there. The use of those weapons in an international conflict against Iran was illegal under the Geneva Protocol, but not the possession thereof. In fact Iraq bought the precursors on the commercial market, mostly from the Netherlands. And even more murkily, their use in internal operations was not illegal at that time ( prior to the Chemical Weapons Convention ).
benevol 9y ago
Not only is this yet another cheap lie. The next war is also being sold already to US|UK|alliance citizens: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41878123 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41878123
Parcissons 9y ago
I just watched a documentary on the roman empire. And you know what- it was the same thing there. There leaders invented attack be foreign forces to justify there campaigns, which was basically taking a massive warmachine to pillage and enslave medieval countrys. And it was all in the name of self-defense. To protect civilisation. To keep the life-style going. Every roman citizen participating got his own little bribe as a soldier, or simply by feeling better then the outsiders. This guy should be send to Den Haag. So that this idea of universal justice for once gets justice. Not just for those defeated. And there should be something honor reducing to convicted warcriminals. Anyone related bearing the family name of a convicted warcriminal should be forced to wear a black shawl in public.

13 points by farseer 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pcrh 9y ago

That's a bit revisionist. Millions of people were out demonstrating against this war. My own realization that people were being mislead was Colin Powell's speech at the UN. The evidence he presented for WMD was so flimsy it was laughable. I'm sure both Blair and Brown saw the same speech.

mikeash 9y ago

Hilariously ambiguous title. I assumed it meant that the UK misled people. But no, it says they themselves were misled by the US. All I can say to that is: lolwut. If it was obvious to me that the WMD story was nonsense, surely the top minds of the United Kingdom could have figured it out.

wybiral 9y ago
> All I can say to that is: lolwut. If it was obvious to me that the WMD story was nonsense, surely the top minds of the United Kingdom could have figured it out. I think it was slightly more complex because Iraq was refusing UN inspections and because they did have a history of using illegal chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Interviews with Hussein (after he knew he was facing death) revealed that they refused UN inspections because he was more concerned that Iran (their neighbor and enemy) would see their vulnerabilities, which he perceived as a more immediate threat than the US. I don't know why the US was convinced that he had WMD in the first place though. Hopefully there was more to it than just out of control hype that was fed by Iraq refusing inspections.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The situation was complex but the conclusion was ultimately pretty easy. It was obvious that Bush et al were completely making stuff up. Note that Iraq did resist inspections and didn't fully cooperate, but inspectors did get in and inspected a lot, and this was ongoing when the Bush administration brought it to a halt with the invasion.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    > The situation was complex but the conclusion was ultimately pretty easy. It was obvious that Bush et al were completely making stuff up. It seems obvious that they were motivated to make a case for invading Iraq. But that doesn't make it immediately obvious to me that they completely made it up or that they weren't acting off of other intelligence. Since we're on the subject of speculation, if I had to put my tin foil hat on today I'd say that the invasion of Iraq had more to do with Iran (and their allies) than Hussein.
- dingaling 9y ago
  > they did have a history of using illegal chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War It's a but mirky there. The use of those weapons in an international conflict against Iran was illegal under the Geneva Protocol, but not the possession thereof. In fact Iraq bought the precursors on the commercial market, mostly from the Netherlands. And even more murkily, their use in internal operations was not illegal at that time ( prior to the Chemical Weapons Convention ).

benevol 9y ago

Not only is this yet another cheap lie. The next war is also being sold already to US|UK|alliance citizens: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41878123 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41878123

Parcissons 9y ago

I just watched a documentary on the roman empire. And you know what- it was the same thing there. There leaders invented attack be foreign forces to justify there campaigns, which was basically taking a massive warmachine to pillage and enslave medieval countrys. And it was all in the name of self-defense. To protect civilisation. To keep the life-style going. Every roman citizen participating got his own little bribe as a soldier, or simply by feeling better then the outsiders. This guy should be send to Den Haag. So that this idea of universal justice for once gets justice. Not just for those defeated. And there should be something honor reducing to convicted warcriminals. Anyone related bearing the family name of a convicted warcriminal should be forced to wear a black shawl in public.