4 ms·

You're definitely repeating some of the misinformation in the form of reductionism. The situation with WMDs in Iraq was definitely wrong, but doesn't rise to li

by _ktx2 5y ago

You're definitely repeating some of the misinformation in the form of reductionism. The situation with WMDs in Iraq was definitely wrong, but doesn't rise to lies. Two different countries were saying that they suspected these weapons were in Iraq, where Al Qaeda was heavily present, and often protected. The cherry on top was that in the 1980s Saddam had not only manufactured chemical weapons but he used them as well. Saddam refused to allow UN investigators in, and thus we had the Iraq war. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des... One of the things I also remember from this time period was about why 9/11 happened even though some individual agencies had bits of information. It was discovered these agencies didn't share information so as to protect it. FISA and The Dept of Homeland Security are direct reflections of their own internal criticism. I was raised never to trust the government. I served in Afghanistan under two different presidents and I definitely get what it's like to witness lies and misinformation spewed across TV stations while your reality on the ground is very different. These days I have a healthy distrust for government still, however, I expect to see reports and trajectories change when those institutions mess things up. This is what composes "trust" for me now. That's the best I feel that I can expect from any large bureaucratic organization government or otherwise.

antisol 5y ago
> but doesn't rise to lies Those schematics of the WMD-factory-trucks that I remember seeing on TV and the assertion that saddam had a bunch of them churning out WMDs sure seem a hell of a lot like lies. Maybe someone can explain to me how they weren't. > I was raised never to trust the government. I served in Afghanistan under two different presidents These two statements would seem to contradict each other.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Don't get drawn into this garbage. It is an argumentative technique to obscure the facts they refused to acknowledge or refute.
  - kodah 5y ago
    I'm not employing any "technique" just saying things I know and things I can verify, just like everyone else.
- kodah 5y ago
  > Those schematics of the WMD-factory-trucks that I remember seeing on TV and the assertion that saddam had a bunch of them churning out WMDs sure seem a hell of a lot like lies. Maybe someone can explain to me how they weren't. Those pictures come from somewhere and I believe the Wikipedia article touches on it. The Intel community testified that while this intelligence was provided, it wasn't necessarily an indicator that they were being produced. > I was raised never to trust the government. I served in Afghanistan under two different presidents 2008/9 was an economic crisis and I lost the job that allowed me to pay for college. I did what paid the bills and what allowed me to live a life with credit defaults.
  - antisol 5y ago
    > Those pictures come from somewhere and I believe the Wikipedia article touches on it. The Intel community testified that while this intelligence was provided, it wasn't necessarily an indicator that they were being produced. If the intel community didn't say that saddam had those trucks, then Colin Powell must have lied when he presented those schematics to the UN as something that saddam totally had... right? > I did what paid the bills and what allowed me to live a life with credit defaults. Makes sense, I understand and apologise for my snark. That must have sucked :)

by _ktx2 5y ago

antisol 5y ago

> but doesn't rise to lies Those schematics of the WMD-factory-trucks that I remember seeing on TV and the assertion that saddam had a bunch of them churning out WMDs sure seem a hell of a lot like lies. Maybe someone can explain to me how they weren't. > I was raised never to trust the government. I served in Afghanistan under two different presidents These two statements would seem to contradict each other.

datavirtue 5y ago
Don't get drawn into this garbage. It is an argumentative technique to obscure the facts they refused to acknowledge or refute.
- kodah 5y ago
  I'm not employing any "technique" just saying things I know and things I can verify, just like everyone else.
kodah 5y ago
> Those schematics of the WMD-factory-trucks that I remember seeing on TV and the assertion that saddam had a bunch of them churning out WMDs sure seem a hell of a lot like lies. Maybe someone can explain to me how they weren't. Those pictures come from somewhere and I believe the Wikipedia article touches on it. The Intel community testified that while this intelligence was provided, it wasn't necessarily an indicator that they were being produced. > I was raised never to trust the government. I served in Afghanistan under two different presidents 2008/9 was an economic crisis and I lost the job that allowed me to pay for college. I did what paid the bills and what allowed me to live a life with credit defaults.
- antisol 5y ago
  > Those pictures come from somewhere and I believe the Wikipedia article touches on it. The Intel community testified that while this intelligence was provided, it wasn't necessarily an indicator that they were being produced. If the intel community didn't say that saddam had those trucks, then Colin Powell must have lied when he presented those schematics to the UN as something that saddam totally had... right? > I did what paid the bills and what allowed me to live a life with credit defaults. Makes sense, I understand and apologise for my snark. That must have sucked :)