Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Iraq Report

  • 06-10-2004 7:41pm
    #1
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭


    Is anybody watching this farce?

    It basically seems the senators are quizzing Duelfer (the lead analyst) based on their own leanings.

    The last senator spent 10 minutes asking loaded questions asking Duelfer to speculate on Iraq'a intentions and what he may or may not have planned to do if sanctions were lifted.

    [edit] The current senator questioning is tearing apart his speculation.....


Comments

  • #2
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    welcome to spinsville!

    Basically, the reasons for going to war were 1) he was a threat, 2) he had WMD, 3) he was in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden.

    Now... a CIA report is due to announce that the links with Al Quaida and Saddam were miniscule at best (obviously, given that Bin Laden hates Saddam), and that Saddam was not in contact with them before 9/11.
    This report says that firstly there were no weapons, and secondly that while he had intent to get weapons, his capability had dropped since 1991 (I think it may have even said it dropped even more since 1998).

    So basically saddam had the intention to get weapons, but no possibilities because the whole world was applying pressure where they could. Maybe the sanctions could have been tightened, but no more.

    So whats the spin? Forget that he had no weapons, and no hope of getting weapons... he would have liked them so he was a threat... much more than Lybia which had them, N. Korea which had them, Iran which was working on a nuclear station under unusual circumstance, Saudia Arabia which has a huge terrorist community.....

    So what they're saying now is they went to war because Saddam would have liked to have WMD if only we weren't being tough on him as things were...??

    flogen


  • #3
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    flogen wrote:
    welcome to spinsville!

    Basically, the reasons for going to war were 1) he was a threat, 2) he had WMD, 3) he was in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden.
    Thats gonna be a future SAT question:
    The reasons for the 2003 War in Iraq were (tick more than one if appropriate):

    1)Iraq was a security threat to the US
    2)Iraq were in posession of WMD
    3)Iraq was sponsoring Al Queida terrorism
    4)None of the Above X


Advertisement