Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

America will it ever have its own Chilcot report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The complete mess there has a name.
    Paul Bremmer.
    Our kids will have to live with the FUBAR he created , him , the unique PAUL BREMMER .
    And Guardian, or not Guardian , all the people with a once of brain ,know that.
    That rug really tied the room together

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      If you don't mind, I'll repost what I put in the UK thread about this:
      Originally Posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Doubtful.

      Remember that the Bush and Conservative argument was that the invasion was justified based on the information available (with further support in terms about how the world was better off without Saddam, that he was committing mass murder with chemical weapons, etc.).


      The fact that we saw no such damning reports after Bush left office, despite the fact that the democrats were in complete control of the government tells me that either there is no evidence of "going to war on a lie", or the dems didn't want to try and further undermine and discredit their political enemies.


      As there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that the dems will use every arm and resource of government to further their political agenda, I suspect that there was no such report because there was no evidence to support "going to war on a lie".
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        The fact that we saw no such damning reports after Bush left office, despite the fact that the democrats were in complete control of the government tells me that either there is no evidence of "going to war on a lie", or the dems didn't want to try and further undermine and discredit their political enemies.


        As there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that the dems will use every arm and resource of government to further their political agenda, I suspect that there was no such report because there was no evidence to support "going to war on a lie".
        Brilliantly said.

        If there was a shred of proof of the 'going to war on a lie' theory it would still be a Dem lead.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          The fact that we saw no such damning reports after Bush left office, despite the fact that the democrats were in complete control of the government tells me that either there is no evidence of "going to war on a lie", or the dems didn't want to try and further undermine and discredit their political enemies.


          As there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that the dems will use every arm and resource of government to further their political agenda, I suspect that there was no such report because there was no evidence to support "going to war on a lie".
          Which is why I never said it was based on a lie, just hubris and incompetence. The belief that the Bush-Cheney combo were sitting there, cackling gleefully as they plotted to invade Iraq to steal all that delicious oil and were just making up a reason to do so, is complete nonsense.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            The number of Iraqi casualties should not be our concern : it was THEIR choice to start a civil war .

            No one said : now you can exterminate each other, you have our blessings .

            They were the enemy and Bush neither Blair were the president of Iraq .
            Which is an irrelevant observation.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              The number of Iraqi casualties should not be our concern : it was THEIR choice to start a civil war .

              No one said : now you can exterminate each other, you have our blessings .

              They were the enemy and Bush neither Blair were the president of Iraq .
              Except for Vietnam estimating enemy dead was only done for intel purposes.

              I really don't believe anyone has an accurate count. Various factions simply choose a number that suits their agenda.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Which is why I never said it was based on a lie, just hubris and incompetence. The belief that the Bush-Cheney combo were sitting there, cackling gleefully as they plotted to invade Iraq to steal all that delicious oil and were just making up a reason to do so, is complete nonsense.
                I was referring to the use of the word "lie" in the OP. Sorry for being unclear.

                I will also dispute that it was based on hubris or incompetence. It could have been, but the fact that they were wrong about WMDs isn't proof they were incompetent. It is just proof they were wrong.
                (As an aside, the WMDs were only part of the stated basis for the invasion)

                No matter how good your intelligence is you never know if it is accurate. There is always an element of guesswork involved.
                The question is whether the interpretations of the intelligence were reasonable, not whether they were right.

                I agree that the thought that they invaded to get control of the oil is nonsense. Especially since they never tried to do that and control of the oil went to other nations, not ours.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  I was referring to the use of the word "lie" in the OP. Sorry for being unclear.
                  No worries.

                  I will also dispute that it was based on hubris or incompetence. It could have been, but the fact that they were wrong about WMDs isn't proof they were incompetent. It is just proof they were wrong.
                  (As an aside, the WMDs were only part of the stated basis for the invasion)
                  My view on the hubris and incompetence was over the whole invasion plan, including their belief that the post-war Iraq could be settled neatly and relatively quickly.

                  Which they then proceeded to bungle up.

                  No matter how good your intelligence is you never know if it is accurate. There is always an element of guesswork involved.
                  The question is whether the interpretations of the intelligence were reasonable, not whether they were right.
                  And that's where the incompetence angle comes in: it seems like on all the major public reasons given, the intelligence services - or at least the leadership who were informed of what they said - dropped the ball on the guesswork and interpretation.

                  Especially when one looks at the other relative threats in the region and what their goals were. Some of the post-war reports were pretty damning when talking about the US in the run up, from unshakable faith in America's own ability to do anything to a lack of first-hand knowledge on the ground and a reliance on old defectors and dissidents living abroad for their impression of domestic Iraq.

                  I agree that the thought that they invaded to get control of the oil is nonsense. Especially since they never tried to do that and control of the oil went to other nations, not ours.
                  It's a myth that lives on. Sure, the fact that Iraq had oil made it more important strategically, but there are still those who believe the whole campaign was so Halliburton could steal oil from the Iraqis.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                    I was referring to the use of the word "lie" in the OP. Sorry for being unclear.

                    I will also dispute that it was based on hubris or incompetence. It could have been, but the fact that they were wrong about WMDs isn't proof they were incompetent. It is just proof they were wrong.
                    (As an aside, the WMDs were only part of the stated basis for the invasion)

                    No matter how good your intelligence is you never know if it is accurate. There is always an element of guesswork involved.
                    The question is whether the interpretations of the intelligence were reasonable, not whether they were right.

                    I agree that the thought that they invaded to get control of the oil is nonsense. Especially since they never tried to do that and control of the oil went to other nations, not ours.
                    The oil issue is at best a strawman.

                    The political reality is that if Bush hadn't gone in back in 2003 and the Dems would be hammering him for not going and leaving the USA at risk.

                    And politics aside, imagine being Prez, having the reports, and thinking 'What if Saddam loses of gives a WMD to Al Q?'

                    Realistically, it was either inspect to a certainty, or invade.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There is no need for the war against Iraq to be justified : the war was legal , it was made legal by Congress that gave the president the consent to start a war .

                      All the rest is waffling .

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                        There is no need for the war against Iraq to be justified : the war was legal , it was made legal by Congress that gave the president the consent to start a war .

                        All the rest is waffling .
                        The problem is, is that Bush went in and won. Bobo has botched the surge in Afghan, blundered around like a cretin in Syria, and had an ambassador dragged through the streets.

                        Since Bobo can't escape being a loser, his only option is to attack other wins.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          There is no need for the war against Iraq to be justified : the war was legal , it was made legal by Congress that gave the president the consent to start a war .

                          All the rest is waffling .
                          That's just patently absurd.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            I was referring to the use of the word "lie" in the OP. Sorry for being unclear.

                            I will also dispute that it was based on hubris or incompetence. It could have been, but the fact that they were wrong about WMDs isn't proof they were incompetent. It is just proof they were wrong.
                            (As an aside, the WMDs were only part of the stated basis for the invasion)

                            No matter how good your intelligence is you never know if it is accurate. There is always an element of guesswork involved.
                            The question is whether the interpretations of the intelligence were reasonable, not whether they were right.

                            I agree that the thought that they invaded to get control of the oil is nonsense. Especially since they never tried to do that and control of the oil went to other nations, not ours.
                            That's even more of a reason to have the US Chilcot as it could exonerate Bush completely. Remember an Enquiry is not to apportion blame but discover exactly what happened in that time frame. That's why Chilcot took 7 years , it made sure to study everything and interview everyone they could.
                            So if Bush was right then this would be the best way to step up and put everything to bed.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by History fan View Post
                              That's even more of a reason to have the US Chilcot as it could exonerate Bush completely. Remember an Enquiry is not to apportion blame but discover exactly what happened in that time frame. That's why Chilcot took 7 years , it made sure to study everything and interview everyone they could.
                              So if Bush was right then this would be the best way to step up and put everything to bed.
                              The problem there is why should the US spend the time, money, and effort on this? If the result is just to clarify who is more to blame... well, that's just an expensive exercise in finger pointing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by History fan View Post
                                That's even more of a reason to have the US Chilcot as it could exonerate Bush completely. Remember an Enquiry is not to apportion blame but discover exactly what happened in that time frame. That's why Chilcot took 7 years , it made sure to study everything and interview everyone they could.
                                So if Bush was right then this would be the best way to step up and put everything to bed.
                                Wrong: not Bush was right, Congress was right (and Democrats were coresponsible for the war ):Congress is always right,unless Scotus declares it is wrong : the Democrats gave Bush the money needed to fight the war, thus they should now not say that it was the fault of Bush .

                                There is no need for an inquiry : Potus, Scotus, Cotus and the American people were behind the war, thus the war was justified ,thus the war was legal .

                                It was the same in Britain .

                                To say that the war against Iraq was not legal is to say that the war against Japan and Germany was not legal . It is treason .

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X