NPR

Bokkom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm 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.

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:53 am 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“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm The biggest travesty is that all those war criminals are still walking amongst us as free men, Blair included.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:46 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:53 am 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”.”

Hawkish? You have to be a prize cnut Leader to read the above and think: “Yup, there’s a certainty there are nukes hidden near Baghdad, send in the troops tomorrow “

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:53 am 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”.”

Fangle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:41 pm At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:49 pm

Fangle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:41 pm At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

My memory isn’t the best but I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of posters who said it was bollocks and we shouldn’t be going to war

Fangle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:09 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:49 pm

Fangle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:41 pm At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

My memory isn’t the best but I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of posters who said it was bollocks and we shouldn’t be going to war

Our memories differ. But, maybe I’m wrong, that The Economist thought it the correct action.

stemoc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:16 pm

Enzedder wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:49 pm

stemoc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:30 pm 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.

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:28 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:53 am 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”.”

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:55 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:28 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:53 am 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”.”

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

You are right bud, I don’t usually do the back and forth. For the record, I asked what was clear and obvious in response to a suggestion (not yours) that only dopes believed it. As I recall it wasn’t as clear cut as that and so I said so. There would be no point in this place if we didn’t have a few discussions Here’s to wind in your sails

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:08 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:55 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:28 pm

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

You are right bud, I don’t usually do the back and forth. For the record, I asked what was clear and obvious in response to a suggestion (not yours) that only dopes believed it. As I recall it wasn’t as clear cut as that and so I said so. There would be no point in this place if we didn’t have a few discussions Here’s to wind in your sails

Top man

Just aware, especially on here, that actual discussion can look more aggressive than intended.

You stupid cunt

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:23 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:57 pm 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.

Enzedder wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:49 pm

stemoc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:30 pm 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.

Jambanja wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:52 am Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

Gumboot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:01 am

Jambanja wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:52 am Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

His new user name is a cunningly disguised version of his old one.

Gumboot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:01 am

Jambanja wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:52 am Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

His new user name is a cunningly disguised version of his old one.

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:23 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:57 pm 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 assume you're just being funny?

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:32 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:23 pm

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 assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:41 am

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:32 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

But I don’t think I see you calling it a mistake yet?

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:41 am

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:32 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

But I don’t think I see you calling it a mistake yet?

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:32 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:23 pm

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 assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:33 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:32 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

Well you could start with the obvious discrepancy between the people who perpetrated 911 and those who Dubya and Blair selected to be recipients of the revenge & regime change cure.

Then, if there was serious evidence of WMD, we'd have heard about it from sources with less of a vested interest in convincing the wider public to go to war.

It was so outrageously transparent that I have difficulty relating to people who swallowed the thing without questioning.

And the cost was grevious because now there's an entire cohort of people who question everything which could yet topple the whole democratic experiment.

Fangle wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:56 pm My shaky memory says that all but one of the US senate, including Joe Biden, voted for action.

Fangle wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:56 pm My shaky memory says that all but one of the US senate, including Joe Biden, voted for action.

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:02 am It's a bit of a silly discussion to be having. The evidence behind the justification for the war was preposterous at the time. Powell got laughed out of the UN and countries that did send troops sent the bare minimum so as not to offend the US (bar UK of course).

And sure enough, the evidence being shit was proven after the invasion.

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:14 am I agree with Un Pillier. Although there were plenty of reasons to believe the US and UK were exaggerating the threat in their dodgy dossier, at the time there were good reasons for thinking that Iraq still had a secret stash of WMD. We knew Iraq had previously had WMD and had used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against its own population. There was a long history of evasion and obfuscation in its dealings with weapons inspectors, who it had just expelled. It was not unreasonable to believe the expulsion might be because they were about to discover a stash of weapons. The fact was no one knew whether they had WMD or not, and it was only later we learned that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD, while maintaining the pretence that they still existed.

It should also be remembered that David Kelly, who was the first person to really call into question Blair and Campbell's sexed-up dossier (and later committed suicide when he was outed as the source of the leak), neI never did and never will.ertheless was still convinced Iraq had WMD. As he wrote at the time:

"Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.... The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert."

For myself, I thought Iraq probably did have chemical and other WMD, but also thought the level of threat Iraq posed was completely over-stated, and there was no justification for going to war with Iraq. The best option would have been to continue diplomatic efforts to allow the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, something that Blair and Bush refused to countenance.

.OverThere wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:28 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:14 am I agree with Un Pillier. Although there were plenty of reasons to believe the US and UK were exaggerating the threat in their dodgy dossier, at the time there were good reasons for thinking that Iraq still had a secret stash of WMD. We knew Iraq had previously had WMD and had used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against its own population. There was a long history of evasion and obfuscation in its dealings with weapons inspectors, who it had just expelled. It was not unreasonable to believe the expulsion might be because they were about to discover a stash of weapons. The fact was no one knew whether they had WMD or not, and it was only later we learned that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD, while maintaining the pretence that they still existed.

It should also be remembered that David Kelly, who was the first person to really call into question Blair and Campbell's sexed-up dossier (and later committed suicide when he was outed as the source of the leak), neI never did and never will.ertheless was still convinced Iraq had WMD. As he wrote at the time:

"Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.... The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert."

For myself, I thought Iraq probably did have chemical and other WMD, but also thought the level of threat Iraq posed was completely over-stated, and there was no justification for going to war with Iraq. The best option would have been to continue diplomatic efforts to allow the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, something that Blair and Bush refused to countenance.

All that is total meaningless bollox in connection to being a valid reaction to 9/11.
You bought some type of spin, that in your eyes justified the war on an uninvolved country.
I never did and never will.
America still possesses chemical weapons despite years ago promising to destroy them.