Downing Street Memo

This is a discussion on Downing Street Memo within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; > Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may ...

  1. #16
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may have.

    Once again our excellent intelligence has no idea where. It's not as if we blindly decided to go in there. We had had our eye on Iraq (whether as an invasion target or not) for quite some time. Where'd they go?

    > They're not the majority.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May12.html
    Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

    In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.
    Saddam claimed he didn't have them. The UN inspectors said there was no evidence he had them. Is it more likely that he didn't actually have them, or that Bush is lying?

    > I'll find the source in the morning

    IIRC, they found two shells containing long inert sarin gas. If you find any evidence that there have been any of the stockpiles, by all means contact major news locations, because no one's said anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    Time will tell.
    While I agree that it's silly to impeach every president, if it is found that Bush led us to war based on lies as it appears, then I think it's warranted. 1700 Americans and thousands of Iraqis have died, billions of dollars have been spent. Billions more have been spent on top of what was told to us in the beginning. None of our interests have been advanced, besides propping up a friendly government in the region, which will undoubtedly come back to bite us in the ass.

  2. #17
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by sean_mackrory
    Yes we have - just not in amounts large enough to be considered, "stockpiles". And once again - Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may have.



    They're not the majority.



    My personal opinion is, "Why go to the U.N.?"
    Sorry sean, but I'm bored at work, aka time for me to tear you a new arsehole...


    A) Saddam had WMD's? According to what, our little CG graphics we showed to the UN? I'm sure the purple boxes were real convincing. Need the Kennedy pictures of nukes in Cuba be brought up again as a form of comarison? Would the leader of any nation say "the word of the US president is good enough for me?"


    B) Already refuted.


    C) Why go to the UN? I don't know, maybe because the UN and not the US is the world police? If the UN decides to take Saddam out of power, it's the world's decision; that carries a bit more weight than the decision of a single (and yes fallible) nation.

  3. #18
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    If the UN's there we need to go to them, but the number of times that this country's been screwed over or messed around by the UN leads me to believe that the US would be a lot better off if the UN never existed at all.

    And after some research I was thinking of the shells govt talked about - looks like I'll have to concede defeat on this one - but I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by sean_mackrory
    but I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.
    They were in 2003.

  5. #20
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    >but the number of times that this country's been screwed over ... by the UN leads me to believe that the US would be a lot better off if the UN never existed at all.

    Please elaborate. I don't recall ever being "screwed over" by the UN.

    > I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.

    But they were the biggest selling point. I've said this before, but if Bush had just said "Saddam is a really bad man and we're going to kick his ass to try and stabilize the Middle East", I probably would have supported the war. Instead, he makes up this crap about WMDs and Hussein harboring al-Qaeda members and everything and we get into this garbage. No thanks. The continual whitewashing of stuff by the administration certainly doesn't help my opinion, either.

  6. #21
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    UN:

    http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4

    And I agree with govt's second paragraph.

  7. #22
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    I'll check out that link when I'm not at work.

    edit: If you agree with my second paragraph, why do support the war? Do you feel the ends justify the means? You don't care about being lied to as long as something happens?

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    361
    I still don't believe bush lied. I think he was simply given information on how it is most likely that Iraq had WMDs...so likely that it is pretty much guaranteed. Much like the OJ trial. He then used that as the biggest point because if we said Sadam is a bad man, people would say "So what...it's none of your business to tell people how their country should be". If we said he was a direct threat to America and harboring terrorists(especially after 9/11) then there would be a whole lot more support for the war.

    I also think that instead of trying to defeat our invading armies, sadam instead hid WMDs and also traces to terrorists he supported in order to make America look bad and instead of him defeating us we would defeat ourselves and the world would hate us. That seems a whole lot more effective than trying to fight us.

  9. #24
    Anti-Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,399
    <offtopic> Anyone else miss the Iraqi Minister of Information? </offtopic>
    If I did your homework for you, then you might pass your class without learning how to write a program like this. Then you might graduate and get your degree without learning how to write a program like this. You might become a professional programmer without knowing how to write a program like this. Someday you might work on a project with me without knowing how to write a program like this. Then I would have to do you serious bodily harm. - Jack Klein

  10. #25
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > I think he was simply given information on how it is most likely that Iraq had WMDs...so likely that it is pretty much guaranteed.

    Oh ok. So he just led us to war on intelligence that pretty much everyone else thought or knew was faulty. He's not a liar, he's just incompetent. That's fine with me! And what is pretty much guaranteed?

    > Much like the OJ trial.

    I... um... okay...

    > sadam instead hid WMDs and also traces to terrorists he supported in order to make America look bad

    When proof of any of this turns up, let me know. Instead you're just justifying it based on no evidence.

    > instead of him defeating us we would defeat ourselves and the world would hate us. That seems a whole lot more effective than trying to fight us.

    Yeah, giving up has proven to be a much better strategy for him.

    > <offtopic> Anyone else miss the Iraqi Minister of Information? </offtopic>

    I hear he's our SecDef now

  11. #26
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    I do miss the Iraqi Minister of Information... he was a hoot. "This is a complete lie. American forces are nowhere near Baghdad"... and there's a tank rolling through in the back.

    Well we're having our floors redone with wood, and I'm not gonna have much access to the PC for a week, so this is probably my last post for a while (govt - you better not forget that letter!) - so here's my final two cents:

    Before we invaded Iraq, Bush gave a speech outlining the reasons. WMDs were first on the list, but they were by no means the only reasons. Among others were the aforementioned rape chambers, mass graves, etc... (whether you think that's any of our business is debatable - I think it should be, personally). We knew he had WMDs that were given to Iraq when they were helping us in the middle east, I think in the 70's. Some of this stuff had gone missing - which leads to wonder what else has gone missing.

    I'll try and find some information to document this (though that may take a while), so for the mean time this is, as govt said, just an unsupported theory: In the weeks before the imminent invasion - hundreds of trucks were seen leaving for Jordan. Somehow or another our inteligence lost track of them - but the contents of those trucks was never accounted for. I agree with Girk Client - I don't think Saddam thought he had any chance of winning a war against the US. He still claims he won Desert Storm, but thats... well we all saw the tanks driving out of Kuwait. Look at it this way - he either spends resources fighting, which wouldn't have workd because he either loses the long way, or actually does use WMDs if has them, but at that point other world forces would just join and kill him quicker. Or he spends his resources hiding WMDs and when he finally does lose, he looks innocent.

    The only things I think Bush did wrong were push the WMDs as the main issue (though in that situation I very well have misconstrued things the same way), and although he planned the invasion quite well (his generals, at least), I think a long-lasting guerilla war was inevitable, and perhaps could've prepared better for the current situation.

    But of course, the main reason I support Bush is just the social issues, so most of this is irrelevant for me - I would still support him.

    edit: on top of the information in the link I sent govt (which isn't all the well argued, I will admit), here's a slightly forgotten story from the first night of the invasion. A "target of opportunity" arose when inteligence located the bunker where the Hussein's and most of the deck of cards would be sleeping. They sent in an F-117 to take out the bunker, but somehow, the Iraqis managed to track the stealth fighter and put enough AA fire in the air to compromise the mission (the F-117 was never hit, but had to leave before the job was finished). Anyone know who taught the Iraqi's how to track stealth Aircraft? The French.

  12. #27
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > and there's a tank rolling through in the back

    Dude, special effects! Baghdad is like the Hollywood of the Middle East! Everyone knows that!

    > In the weeks before the imminent invasion - hundreds of trucks were seen leaving for Jordan.

    Proof please. This is the first I've heard of that. Besides, Occam's Razor applies here.

    > He still claims he won Desert Storm, but thats... well we all saw the tanks driving out of Kuwait.

    Special effects! Seriously, Saddam's opinion on Desert Storm is really irrelevant. His rule depended entirely on showing no imperfection at all, so of course he's going to say that.

    > But of course, the main reason I support Bush is just the social issues, so most of this is irrelevant for me - I would still support him.

    You realize you can say he shouldn't have gone to war and still support him, right? You and I obviously disagree on social issues, but I can see why you'd support him there. I see no reason at all to support his war unless you're deluding yourself.

    edit:
    > Anyone know who taught the Iraqi's how to track stealth Aircraft? The French.

    Um... So what?

  13. #28
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    No, I think he should've gone to war. I disagree with some of the stuff that went on the background like if evidence really was doctored, (though I'm not entirely convinced of that) and things like that. I still think he should've gone to war.

    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=13835

    Granted, I'm sure this is biased, but that's the kind of think I'm talking about. Do a google search for "WMDs Jordan", and I found a lot of interesting stuff (this website included). I'm not saying this is proof, but I'm sure it's better than nothing.

    Gosh, cheez, use Google!

  14. #29
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > Gosh, cheez, use Google!

    If I wasn't doing this at work, I might.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    Oh ok. So he just led us to war on intelligence that pretty much everyone else thought or knew was faulty. He's not a liar, he's just incompetent. That's fine with me! And what is pretty much guaranteed?
    When you are given a piece of paper that says Iraq has WMDs and has 50 pages of evidence, why would he say Nah, theres no way...especially when theres so much evidence its almost a joke to say he doesn't. Of course he would believe them telling him there is for certain WMDs in Iraq. To go to war on this evidence isn't Bush's fault but the people who came up with false evidence. It is their job to make sure what they are telling the president is 100% correct.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 05:41 PM
  2. street Rod 3
    By cdoublejj in forum Projects and Job Recruitment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 02:08 AM
  3. Begging on wall street
    By vasanth in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-04-2004, 05:50 PM
  4. ok i think i missed the memo
    By kl3pt0 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-12-2004, 07:11 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21