War on terror - 19 years on

[Hugo]

The "war on terror" was begun by the GW Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The human cost of this war has been immense - Brown university released a paper this week that estimated that approximately 37 million people had been displaced (refugees, lost their homes) as a consequence of post 9/11 military interventions.

The exact number of people who have died in the "war on terror" is hard to accurately gauge but I believe the report cited a stat of 800,000 people who died as a consequence of specifically the Iraq war.

At the time of 9/11 Islamic terrorism had occured on western soil but not to the degree and extent that it has since then. Since 9/11 there have major terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Manchester and Brussels. There have also been dozens of minor incidents such as the murder of Lee Rigby and many times the people committing these crimes are identified as being on terrorist watch lists and such.

Is it time to admit that this so called "war on terror" has been a failure, a waste of resources and has in fact exacerbated the problem of Islamic terrorism rather than curtailed it? Moreover is it time to acknowledge that traumatising and disrupting the lives of tens of millions of people was not a proportionate response to a single terrorist attack which claimed the lives of 3,000 people?

Lastly, should those who conceived and implemented this counterproductive action be held accountable for the suffering they have caused?

[Enzedder]

I wonder who was accountable though

1) Osama started it (and was held accountable)
2) The country that harboured him
3) Bush and Blair for (your term) over-reacting
4) Their advisers. (I would love to know exactly what they were told)

[Uncle fester]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

[Enzedder]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Agree - his nickname on PR was Bliar for that reason

[stemoc]

War on Terror? u mean a "War by Terrorists" 19 years later and ppl still believe Osama did it....wow talk about disinformation.

[Enzedder]

War on Terror? u mean a "War by Terrorists" 19 years later and ppl still believe Osama did it....wow talk about disinformation.

Those bloody propaganda wallahs were good though - hell, even Osama believed he did it.

[Tichtheid]

The thing is, and this is only to add context rather than defend what happened, if you read contemporary reports from soldiers on the ground after the first Iraq war, you would read of frankly horrific daily behaviour from the Republican Guard. The Iraqi regime was condemned by Amnesty International, they did use illegal chemical weapons against their own citizens, primarily the Marsh Arabs - the destruction of their homelands was apparently visible from space.

The routine torture, rape and murder of citizens by a Stasi-like paramilitary police was the reality of everyday Iraq.

Against this background it was plausible that Saddam had WMD.

Again, this is not to defend the West's actions, but if you are against Fascism, and I mean real Fascism, you would have been in favour of the removal of Saddam Hussain.

The way it was done and the aftermath was a horrific mess, no doubt.

[stemoc]

War on Terror? u mean a "War by Terrorists" 19 years later and ppl still believe Osama did it....wow talk about disinformation.

Those bloody propaganda wallahs were good though - hell, even Osama believed he did it.

Osama was an 'ally' to the US, he was told if he says he did it, he would get some reward or something later ....only later did he find out he got escapegoated by the US..mind you, not a SINGLE terrorist on those planes that hit the towers were from Al Qaeda, each and everyone of them were from the 2 muslim countries Saudi arabia and UAE, both American allied countries with 3 others from Lebanon and egypt, neither of them were from Afghanistan, iraq, iran or pakistan, the home of al-qaeda......Americans are dumb and can be easily manipulated and confused, we saw it during the 2016 presidential elections, that is why they used the word "muslim terrorists" since 2001 to confuse the Americans cause they didn't know and to this day don't know the difference between a Persian and an arab or an iraqi or iranian.... lol just found out i got banned on facebook for 3 days for pointing out that US killed more refugees than they saved during the height of the Iraq war... which hilariously is another joke, the 2003 attack on Afghanistan was just a way for the US to get into Iraq, the country they "actually" wanted to invade.

[Un Pilier]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

[Sandstorm]

The thing is, and this is only to add context rather than defend what happened, if you read contemporary reports from soldiers on the ground after the first Iraq war, you would read of frankly horrific daily behaviour from the Republican Guard. The Iraqi regime was condemned by Amnesty International, they did use illegal chemical weapons against their own citizens, primarily the Marsh Arabs - the destruction of their homelands was apparently visible from space.

The routine torture, rape and murder of citizens by a Stasi-like paramilitary police was the reality of everyday Iraq.

Against this background it was plausible that Saddam had WMD.

Again, this is not to defend the West's actions, but if you are against Fascism, and I mean real Fascism, you would have been in favour of the removal of Saddam Hussain.

The way it was done and the aftermath was a horrific mess, no doubt.

Saddam had chemical weapons in the mid 90s. However he wasn’t dumb and knew the only reason the US would invade was if he kept them. So he dumped them years before 2002. Sadly mass hysteria in the West still didn’t help.

The US excuse for the invasion was based on a lie that only fools believed was true.

[Tichtheid]

The thing is, and this is only to add context rather than defend what happened, if you read contemporary reports from soldiers on the ground after the first Iraq war, you would read of frankly horrific daily behaviour from the Republican Guard. The Iraqi regime was condemned by Amnesty International, they did use illegal chemical weapons against their own citizens, primarily the Marsh Arabs - the destruction of their homelands was apparently visible from space.

The routine torture, rape and murder of citizens by a Stasi-like paramilitary police was the reality of everyday Iraq.

Against this background it was plausible that Saddam had WMD.

Again, this is not to defend the West's actions, but if you are against Fascism, and I mean real Fascism, you would have been in favour of the removal of Saddam Hussain.

The way it was done and the aftermath was a horrific mess, no doubt.

Saddam had chemical weapons in the mid 90s. However he wasn’t dumb and knew the only reason the US would invade was if he kept them. So he dumped them years before 2002. Sadly mass hysteria in the West still didn’t help.

The US excuse for the invasion was based on a lie that only fools believed was true.

See, this use of the word "fools" bothers me.

There was ample evidence of the use of chemical weapons, Chemical Ali wasn't named for fun.

There was obfuscation on the part of the Iraqi regime, I say obfuscation, but it was a total non-compliance with inspectors before the invasion, and it turns out they had their reasons. They were never going to reveal to Iran that they didn't possess a formidable arsenal, and in fact if you look at the detail from the time, there is an intervention from Iran in all of this, it's been ten years since I read it, I forget his name, but there was one big time Iranian player behind the scenes and the whole thing reads as one great big stitch up by Iran - who would gain most from the downfall of Saddam?
It wouldn't really be the USA, the windfall of corporate greed in the "rebuilding" and "security" contracts was a by the by, there was one country that really benefitted from it, and it wasn't the USA.

[stemoc]

uhm america killed more "innocent" people in iraq than saddam would have ever killed in his lifetime had he not been killed........america's policy is that

"We will liberate you from dictators but in doing so, we might end up killing you, no personal feelings but your country will be much better once the dictator is gone" ...... oh and p.s, we will be taking your oil with us... kthxbai"

[Chrysoprase]

Osama was an 'ally' to the US, he was told if he says he did it, he would get some reward or something later ....only later did he find out he got escapegoated by the US..mind you, not a SINGLE terrorist on those planes that hit the towers were from Al Qaeda, each and everyone of them were from the 2 muslim countries Saudi arabia and UAE, both American allied countries with 3 others from Lebanon and egypt, neither of them were from Afghanistan, iraq, iran or pakistan, the home of al-qaeda......Americans are dumb and can be easily manipulated and confused, we saw it during the 2016 presidential elections, that is why they used the word "muslim terrorists" since 2001 to confuse the Americans cause they didn't know and to this day don't know the difference between a Persian and an arab or an iraqi or iranian.... lol just found out i got banned on facebook for 3 days for pointing out that US killed more refugees than they saved during the height of the Iraq war... which hilariously is another joke, the 2003 attack on Afghanistan was just a way for the US to get into Iraq, the country they "actually" wanted to invade

That is some outstanding conspiracy theory "thinking" right there. Bravo sir, I say again, bravo!

[Hugo]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

In my humble opinion it was fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense and a healthy amount of cynicism. Hindsight not needed.

The French knew the whole thing was bogus hence why they didn't give it the green light in the security council.

Saddam played no role in the 9/11 attacks and was in no way affiliated with AQ or Osama. I think he's not even the same sect of Islam - AQ were Sunni iirc whereas Saddam was Shia. The terrorists that pulled it off were mostly Saudi nationals.

In fact the biggest causes of 9/11 really boiled down to a) lax immigration - many of the terrorists entered the US legally but overstayed their visas and had not either identified or deported and b) poor airline security whereby they were able to bring weapons on the airplane and gain access to cockpit. Throw in a third problem - US intelligence agencies did not know about the planned attacks.

Invading Iraq does nothing to address those problems or any of the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism.

[Tichtheid]

uhm america killed more "innocent" people in iraq than saddam would have ever killed in his lifetime had he not been killed........america's policy is that

"We will liberate you from dictators but in doing so, we might end up killing you, no personal feelings but your country will be much better once the dictator is gone" ...... oh and p.s, we will be taking your oil with us... kthxbai"

I hope you can separate the criticism of the Iraqi regime under Hussein and the USA invasion.

Saddam was a brutal dictator on a par with the worst of the last century. I won't go into the details of what daily life was like under his regime, but the testimonies from people who suffered it are out there.

The oil thing is not true, the Iraqi government held control of the oil after the war, and still does.

[Jb1981]

Osama was an 'ally' to the US, he was told if he says he did it, he would get some reward or something later ....only later did he find out he got escapegoated by the US..mind you, not a SINGLE terrorist on those planes that hit the towers were from Al Qaeda, each and everyone of them were from the 2 muslim countries Saudi arabia and UAE, both American allied countries with 3 others from Lebanon and egypt, neither of them were from Afghanistan, iraq, iran or pakistan, the home of al-qaeda......Americans are dumb and can be easily manipulated and confused, we saw it during the 2016 presidential elections, that is why they used the word "muslim terrorists" since 2001 to confuse the Americans cause they didn't know and to this day don't know the difference between a Persian and an arab or an iraqi or iranian.... lol just found out i got banned on facebook for 3 days for pointing out that US killed more refugees than they saved during the height of the Iraq war... which hilariously is another joke, the 2003 attack on Afghanistan was just a way for the US to get into Iraq, the country they "actually" wanted to invade

That is some outstanding conspiracy theory "thinking" right there. Bravo sir, I say again, bravo!

I particularly liked the logic that every single one of the terrorists were from two counties only, except for the ones who weren’t.

[Margin__Walker]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

In my humble opinion it was fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense and a healthy amount of cynicism. Hindsight not needed.

The French knew the whole thing was bogus hence why they didn't give it the green light in the security council.

Saddam played no role in the 9/11 attacks and was in no way affiliated with AQ or Osama. I think he's not even the same sect of Islam - AQ were Sunni iirc whereas Saddam was Shia. The terrorists that pulled it off were mostly Saudi nationals.

In fact the biggest causes of 9/11 really boiled down to a) lax immigration - many of the terrorists entered the US legally but overstayed their visas and had not either identified or deported and b) poor airline security whereby they were able to bring weapons on the airplane and gain access to cockpit. Throw in a third problem - US intelligence agencies did not know about the planned attacks.

Invading Iraq does nothing to address those problems or any of the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism.

Um, nope

[stemoc]

Osama was an 'ally' to the US, he was told if he says he did it, he would get some reward or something later ....only later did he find out he got escapegoated by the US..mind you, not a SINGLE terrorist on those planes that hit the towers were from Al Qaeda, each and everyone of them were from the 2 muslim countries Saudi arabia and UAE, both American allied countries with 3 others from Lebanon and egypt, neither of them were from Afghanistan, iraq, iran or pakistan, the home of al-qaeda......Americans are dumb and can be easily manipulated and confused, we saw it during the 2016 presidential elections, that is why they used the word "muslim terrorists" since 2001 to confuse the Americans cause they didn't know and to this day don't know the difference between a Persian and an arab or an iraqi or iranian.... lol just found out i got banned on facebook for 3 days for pointing out that US killed more refugees than they saved during the height of the Iraq war... which hilariously is another joke, the 2003 attack on Afghanistan was just a way for the US to get into Iraq, the country they "actually" wanted to invade

That is some outstanding conspiracy theory "thinking" right there. Bravo sir, I say again, bravo!

I particularly liked the logic that every single one of the terrorists were from two counties only, except for the ones who weren’t.

let me put it this way, they were from 4 countries , all AMERICAN ALLIES and not a single country has been attacked by the US since 2001, do you get the logic now? 19 hijackers, 15 from saudi arabia, 2 from UAE and one each from lebanon and Egypt .. this was 2001, all the Americans wanted to hear from the media was that the perpetrators were Muslim, they did not care they were from allied countries, they did not care that the country their government wants to attack had nothing to do with it, they did not care for the reason for the attack by the US on Afghanistan, all they heard was "Muslims"..again 2001, the ONLY news they got was from tv and radio which was controlled by the US Government..times have changed..they won't be able to do the same thing again even if they tried...... trust me, US tried recently with Iran and Venezuela.. Liberating and dictators is just another 2 words in American lexicon meaning "OIL"

[Tichtheid]

In fact the biggest causes of 9/11 really boiled down to a) lax immigration - many of the terrorists entered the US legally but overstayed their visas and had not either identified or deported and b) poor airline security whereby they were able to bring weapons on the airplane and gain access to cockpit. Throw in a third problem - US intelligence agencies did not know about the planned attacks.

Invading Iraq does nothing to address those problems or any of the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism.

a - leaving a door unlocked is the cause of someone walking into your house and murdering you?

b- see above

c- third - the police didn't know it was going to happen, so it's their fault?


I'd suggest there were other reasons for the attacks, foreign policy would be the obvious place to start. Foreign policy has underlying tenants and motivators, of course, so we could go there.

[MungoMan]

In fact the biggest causes of 9/11 really boiled down to a) lax immigration - many of the terrorists entered the US legally but overstayed their visas and had not either identified or deported and b) poor airline security whereby they were able to bring weapons on the airplane and gain access to cockpit. Throw in a third problem - US intelligence agencies did not know about the planned attacks.

Invading Iraq does nothing to address those problems or any of the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism.

a - leaving a door unlocked is the cause of someone walking into your house and murdering you?

b- see above

c- third - the police didn't know it was going to happen, so it's their fault?


I'd suggest there were other reasons for the attacks, foreign policy would be the obvious place to start. Foreign policy has underlying tenants and motivators, of course, so we could go there.

Tenet, not tenant. Underlying tenants are lodgers in your basement.

[Tichtheid]

Tenet, not tenant. Underlying tenants are lodgers in your basement.

The most important thing about the post was a typo?

[stemoc]

lax immigration is an excuse, again, all those that did the attack were from allied nations so immigration were relaxed for them and ironically still are too this day..they had stringent migration polices for people from pakistan, Afghanistan, iraq and iran..ppl still keep falling for this bullshit..in simple english, An apple attacked an orange tree so the oranges decided to destroy all the pear trees in retaliation.. thats basically sums up 9/11

[Hugo]

In fact the biggest causes of 9/11 really boiled down to a) lax immigration - many of the terrorists entered the US legally but overstayed their visas and had not either identified or deported and b) poor airline security whereby they were able to bring weapons on the airplane and gain access to cockpit. Throw in a third problem - US intelligence agencies did not know about the planned attacks.

Invading Iraq does nothing to address those problems or any of the underlying causes of Islamic terrorism.

a - leaving a door unlocked is the cause of someone walking into your house and murdering you?

b- see above

c- third - the police didn't know it was going to happen, so it's their fault?


I'd suggest there were other reasons for the attacks, foreign policy would be the obvious place to start. Foreign policy has underlying tenants and motivators, of course, so we could go there.

The lax immigration and airline security created the opportunity for the terrorists. Without that opportunity the whole thing is just a fantasy in the mind of a fanatic. From a logistical perspective the lack of security was what enabled them to pull it off. If a "war on terror" is a campaign to reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks then the logical place to start would be looking at how the successful attacks succeeded and react accordingly.

Regarding point c, of course the US intelligence agencies are at fault to some degree. In fact its a massive embarrassment to them that such an ambitious and grandiose attack was pulled off on home soil and right under their noses.

[the cursed]

Junior only ever invaded Iraq to finish the job his father wanted to years before...remember, the US aided Saddam to rise to power, as he was seen as the lesser of evils.

"US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem"
https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-confl ... egime.html

9/11 was just the "opportunity" to allow this. Senior didnt have the guts during his presidency.

The sad thing is, normal, everyday civilians are the ones who pay for it the most, while the rich powerful players profit off it all..

my 2 cents worth.

[Hugo]

lax immigration is an excuse, again, all those that did the attack were from allied nations so immigration were relaxed for them and ironically still are too this day..they had stringent migration polices for people from pakistan, Afghanistan, iraq and iran..ppl still keep falling for this bullshit..in simple english, An apple attacked an orange tree so the oranges decided to destroy all the pear trees in retaliation.. thats basically sums up 9/11

By lax immigration (which may not have been the best phrase to use) I'm talking about border security, the monitoring of foreign national visitors that type of thing.

At a port of entry the hijackers would not have presented as your prototypical holidaymakers who have come to visit the Statue of Liberty and Disneyworld. Many of them had fake ID's or multiple driving licences from different states and were using credit cards registered to dodgy mailboxes. They bounced around from city to city staying at seedy motels, frequenting strip clubs and that sort of stuff. One of them sent an e-mail to dozens of aviation training companies saying that him and his pals from the middle east were all looking to become pilots and were interested in enrolling in training courses. This type of stuff should have aroused the interest of the immigration authorities.

[stunt_cunt]

A century of stepping on toes and planting fingers in pies where they weren't wanted is how the mess started. 9/11, bombs on busses in the UK and other terrorist dumbfuckery is just cogs in the machine. You only need flick through history to see how it all blew up.

[Hugo]

Junior only ever invaded Iraq to finish the job his father wanted to years before...

Would love to read an alternate history of "what if HW had taken out Saddam in '91?". I wonder if the 1990's would have played out substantially differently? I know that the recession cost him re-election but maybe he could have got a second term with the scalp of Saddam.

[the cursed]

Junior only ever invaded Iraq to finish the job his father wanted to years before...

Would love to read an alternate history of "what if HW had taken out Saddam in '91?". I wonder if the 1990's would have played out substantially differently? I know that the recession cost him re-election but maybe he could have got a second term with the scalp of Saddam.

Agreed Hugo, its a fascinating thought which sadly we'll never know the answer to.

[stemoc]

Saddam was installed by the US to control the region, why would senior take him out? but he was also scapegoated liek osama..the only 2 other US doesn't own was gaddafi and assad...

[Glaston]

What job needed finishing?


The only one I can think of, is to get hold of Saddams papers of his dealing with the CIA and US Govt.
Militarily Iraq was defeated, there were no more WMD's, Saddam was a much reduced power in the region.
The country was in a total mess, people and children dying partially due to US sanctions.

and please dont have the "job", mean removing evil dictator!


Bush senior was very reluctant to get involved in GW 1 , the US had pretty much given Saddam the green light on invading Kuwait.

The Kuwaiti's were nicking Iraqi oil after all.

[Lemoentjie]

Funny how it's now uncontroversial to state that there weren't WMDs or chemical weapons in Iraq in 2002/3, but if you mention that the West was involved in a false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria trying to frame Assad, people just ignore that.

[Slick]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I don’t know mate, what convinced me was the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, saying there were no WMD.

FFS

[robmatic]

The thing is, and this is only to add context rather than defend what happened, if you read contemporary reports from soldiers on the ground after the first Iraq war, you would read of frankly horrific daily behaviour from the Republican Guard. The Iraqi regime was condemned by Amnesty International, they did use illegal chemical weapons against their own citizens, primarily the Marsh Arabs - the destruction of their homelands was apparently visible from space.

The routine torture, rape and murder of citizens by a Stasi-like paramilitary police was the reality of everyday Iraq.

Against this background it was plausible that Saddam had WMD.

Again, this is not to defend the West's actions, but if you are against Fascism, and I mean real Fascism, you would have been in favour of the removal of Saddam Hussain.

The way it was done and the aftermath was a horrific mess, no doubt.

You are not wrong about Baathist Iraq being fascist, but you don't have to travel far in the region to find other brutal countries who happen to get a green light for human rights abuses because they are the allies of the West.

[Sandstorm]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I don’t know mate, what convinced me was the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, saying there were no WMD.

FFS

Yeah but Battlefield WMDs

[stunt_cunt]

Portable WMD labs wasn't it.

[Un Pilier]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I don’t know mate, what convinced me was the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, saying there were no WMD.

FFS

Except that’s not what he said. Numerous proscribed missiles had been destroyed under supervision. Empty chemical weapon warheads had been found. Investigations into mobile chemical weapons delivery systems had not been completed. I’m just suggesting that it might not have been as demonstrably clear and obvious to the average person as Uncle Fester suggests.

[Monkey Magic]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I don’t know mate, what convinced me was the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, saying there were no WMD.

FFS

There was even the farce of Colin Powell presenting at the UN and everyone going wtf? How is this your evidence?

[Slick]

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I don’t know mate, what convinced me was the UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, saying there were no WMD.

FFS

Except that’s not what he said. Numerous proscribed missiles had been destroyed under supervision. Empty chemical weapon warheads had been found. Investigations into mobile chemical weapons delivery systems had not been completed. I’m just suggesting that it might not have been as demonstrably clear and obvious to the average person as Uncle Fester suggests.

He said they had found nothing from over 700 inspections. He said they found no WMD’s just empty casings. He said the US was over dramatising the scale of it for their own ends.

That was contemporaneous information available to the average dope. This was from the UN’s weapons inspector in his final report. That was the best information anyone on the planet had at the time

[Un Pilier]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

[Bokkom]

Seriously, are there still some people justifying that illegal war of the Yanks in 2003?
The biggest travesty is that all those war criminals are still walking amongst us as free men, Blair included.