4 ms·

Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD, and this was merely a pretense for invasion. The United Nations weapons inspectors were in Iraq and found a

by lapcat 3y ago

Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD, and this was merely a pretense for invasion. The United Nations weapons inspectors were in Iraq and found absolutely nothing! Because of course there was nothing. The biggest idiots, as usual, were in our government. Or maybe they knew the truth too and just didn't care. You had to have known they were full of crap when Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." The last sentence would be almost hilarious if it didn't lead to so much death and devastation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arp242 3y ago
> Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD I think that's far too strong. Just because UN inspectors couldn't find anything didn't necessarily mean there wasn't anything to find. It's easy to say in hindsight "well of course there weren't any WMDs!" but with the knowledge of what was available to the public, it really wasn't that clear, and it very well could have been true. The evidence was fabricated because people thought there really were WMDs: "we know Saddam has WMDs, we just can't find good evidence for it, so we'll just have a little white lie now and find the evidence later, and it will all work out fine".
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Just because UN inspectors couldn't find anything didn't necessarily mean there wasn't anything to find. I mean... that's the best evidence for or against. Are you going to believe the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq, or are you going to believe CIA "analysts" who never met foreign interference they didn't like? The CIA is one of the least trustworthy organizations in history. > It's easy to say in hindsight "well of course there weren't any WMDs!" but with the knowledge of what was available to the public, it really wasn't that clear, and it very well could have been true. I said it with foresight. And I was far from the only one. Before the invasion there were massive anti-war protests worldwide.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Iraq is a big place; lots of locations to hide things. And we know that Saddam had and deployed WMDs before. The accusation wasn't completely out of the air. And Saddam was being less than cooperative (putting it mildly). Not everything the CIA does is bad, and it wasn't only "the CIA" in the first place – that's hugely reductionist. British Intelligence claimed they had evidence, and politicians claimed the evidence was good, etc. There have been protests to stop musicians from inserting subliminal Satanic messages in music, and protests to "stop the steal", and against some basic COVID measures. I'm just saying ... because there are protests doesn't mean anyone is correct there. At the time I was opposed to the war our of principle (who isn't a optimistic pacifist in their youth?), but it was a lot less clear to me whether Saddam did or didn't have WMDs. I think that it wasn't all that clear at the time is evidenced by the fact that many other well-intentioned reasonably informed people felt the time. Of course, you can do the smug "they were idiots and/or malicious" thing, but I don't think that's the case, and ultimately not hugely helpful.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Not everything the CIA does is bad Name one good thing. > There have been protests to stop musicians from inserting subliminal Satanic messages in music, and protests to "stop the steal", and against some basic COVID measures. I'm just saying ... because there are protests doesn't mean anyone is correct there. This is a ridiculous response. I said massive protests. The 2003 anti-war protests are actually in the Guiness Book of World Records: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/74335-largest-anti-war-rally https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/74335-lar... My point wasn't even about who was correct. My point was that not everyone believed the lies. In fact a very large number of people disbelieved the lies at the time and didn't need "hindsight".
      - arp242 3y ago
        > My point wasn't even about who was correct. My point was that not everyone believed the lies. Eh: "Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD". Anyway, this is going nowhere fast and this entire thread has been a waste of time. Good day.
- vundercind 3y ago
  The case made for it was pathetic. It was plain BS. Fuck’s sake, they were lying about Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and everyone (more or less—not me, for all the nothing that was worth) was already behind that war. People should have noticed that and be way more skeptical about Iraq. Pretending otherwise is just gonna make the next time (and there will be one) easier to sell. It was transparent crap and the American public has blood on its hands—and so do the media, and many still-active members of both major political parties. Ignorance becomes criminal at some point, and that met the mark.

by lapcat 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arp242 3y ago

> Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD I think that's far too strong. Just because UN inspectors couldn't find anything didn't necessarily mean there wasn't anything to find. It's easy to say in hindsight "well of course there weren't any WMDs!" but with the knowledge of what was available to the public, it really wasn't that clear, and it very well could have been true. The evidence was fabricated because people thought there really were WMDs: "we know Saddam has WMDs, we just can't find good evidence for it, so we'll just have a little white lie now and find the evidence later, and it will all work out fine".

lapcat 3y ago
> Just because UN inspectors couldn't find anything didn't necessarily mean there wasn't anything to find. I mean... that's the best evidence for or against. Are you going to believe the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq, or are you going to believe CIA "analysts" who never met foreign interference they didn't like? The CIA is one of the least trustworthy organizations in history. > It's easy to say in hindsight "well of course there weren't any WMDs!" but with the knowledge of what was available to the public, it really wasn't that clear, and it very well could have been true. I said it with foresight. And I was far from the only one. Before the invasion there were massive anti-war protests worldwide.
- arp242 3y ago
  Iraq is a big place; lots of locations to hide things. And we know that Saddam had and deployed WMDs before. The accusation wasn't completely out of the air. And Saddam was being less than cooperative (putting it mildly). Not everything the CIA does is bad, and it wasn't only "the CIA" in the first place – that's hugely reductionist. British Intelligence claimed they had evidence, and politicians claimed the evidence was good, etc. There have been protests to stop musicians from inserting subliminal Satanic messages in music, and protests to "stop the steal", and against some basic COVID measures. I'm just saying ... because there are protests doesn't mean anyone is correct there. At the time I was opposed to the war our of principle (who isn't a optimistic pacifist in their youth?), but it was a lot less clear to me whether Saddam did or didn't have WMDs. I think that it wasn't all that clear at the time is evidenced by the fact that many other well-intentioned reasonably informed people felt the time. Of course, you can do the smug "they were idiots and/or malicious" thing, but I don't think that's the case, and ultimately not hugely helpful.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Not everything the CIA does is bad Name one good thing. > There have been protests to stop musicians from inserting subliminal Satanic messages in music, and protests to "stop the steal", and against some basic COVID measures. I'm just saying ... because there are protests doesn't mean anyone is correct there. This is a ridiculous response. I said massive protests. The 2003 anti-war protests are actually in the Guiness Book of World Records: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/74335-largest-anti-war-rally https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/74335-lar... My point wasn't even about who was correct. My point was that not everyone believed the lies. In fact a very large number of people disbelieved the lies at the time and didn't need "hindsight".
    - arp242 3y ago
      > My point wasn't even about who was correct. My point was that not everyone believed the lies. Eh: "Everyone sane knew at the time that Iraq had no WMD". Anyway, this is going nowhere fast and this entire thread has been a waste of time. Good day.
vundercind 3y ago
The case made for it was pathetic. It was plain BS. Fuck’s sake, they were lying about Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and everyone (more or less—not me, for all the nothing that was worth) was already behind that war. People should have noticed that and be way more skeptical about Iraq. Pretending otherwise is just gonna make the next time (and there will be one) easier to sell. It was transparent crap and the American public has blood on its hands—and so do the media, and many still-active members of both major political parties. Ignorance becomes criminal at some point, and that met the mark.