Blair's case for Iraq War smashed

Seven of Nine · **Sun Jul 11, 2004 2:25 pm**

Can I just say something? This is what over 1 million people protested against in London last year, going to Iraq on iffy evidence. It's now been proved to be true, but I'd like to see Blair after the Butler enquiry. He might have to resign!

Ksim3000 · **Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:14 pm**

The real threat with Weapons of mass Destruction was none other than North Korea, who are rumoured to have atleast six Nuclear Weapons and yet they accuse Iraq of having them instead. Well, there were no weapons. For one, Bush's main goals was to have revenge on Saddam Hussein and as usaul, Blair follow Bush like a little puppy with a pat on the head.

There were no weapons at all. Bush wanted revenge and also, that Oil was a nice bonus too. But Saddam Hussein wasn't even a threat. There is Russia practically next door and so even if Saddam Hussein tried anything, The Russians would have invaded.

Still, what is done is done I suppose although it will be interesting to see how Blair gets through it.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Saddam was a threat, perhaps not the largest, but he was. We know he DID have some chemical and biological weapons at one point, and he did nothing to make us think he had gotten rid of them. He also DID have ties to Al-Queada, how deep they ran is still murky, but we know that there was at least a little something going on. Bush did not go to war just for oil, or for revenge. Intelligence pointed that Saddam was a threat. If Iraq DID happen to have any WMD's and they somehow were used by Saddam or terrorists, he would have looked pretty bad not going after Saddam with the intelligence he had at the time. As for the CIA, they might have better Intel in the middle east if former President CLINTON had not passed his little Torricelli acts, we may have many more resources in the Middle-East, and much better intel.....but that's another story I guess.

Link, the Hero of Time · **Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:18 pm**

here we go. Bush looks bad so it's back to slamming democrats.

Bush went to war on flimsy evidence. His reasons for the war was the same as Blair's, "They have WMD's"

Yes, we knew Saddam had Biological and Chemical weapons, DURING THE GULF WAR! Since then most have either been destroyed or are still around, but have been stored so badly they are no longer a threat.

And now the truth comes out, so Bush must open his mouth and insert his foot.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

What about the link between him and Al-Quaeda, there was one. It is murky, and they do not know the details, but there was one. As for WMD's. As for you, if the CIA told you they have WMD's and Blair's intelligence tells you, and you KNOW they did several years back, are you just gonna look over that, or are you gonna force the issue?

Link, the Hero of Time · **Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:56 pm**

Again, Iraq HAD them in the past, had being the Key word.

What I would have done is What Bush SHOULD have done. Gather more information to see if the original analysis that they have WMD's was correct or not.

unfortunetly he didn't, Thousands of Soldiers died and he was wrong. His entire case for the war in Iraq was based on the fact that "Iraq has WMD's"

Jeremy · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:53 am**

It seems like Iraq did have at least a few WMD, as there was that Sarin found a few months ago, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. But so far there is no link between Saddam and Al Quida. Actually the reports here on the evidence they had at the time say there was no link, so even if one is found then it can't be used as an excuse.

PrankishSmart · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:35 am**

Theresa · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:57 am**

Ksim3000 · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:16 pm**

But then if they had Weapons of mass Destruction, why were not any found? Surely there must have been a missile facility or something. Perhaps Iraq did abandon them as not to upset the international community? Not sure but if they did pose a threat, Russia would have just invaded anyway.

Captain Dappet · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:39 pm**

Theresa · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:44 pm**

Link, the Hero of Time · **Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:52 pm**

Jeremy · **Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:25 am**

In some ways this has nothing to do with the evidence found now though. It is on the evidence that was provided to Bush and Blair at the time. If they were getting information that said there was WMDs then they have their case made. If it turns out that information was wrong then the blame should be on the people who gave them this wrong information. But if it turns out they were told at the time not to go in, yet they did then they are the ones in the wrong.

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:14 pm**

The president can't pass the blame. It was after all, his decision to go to war with Iraq.

As Truman put it, "The buck stops here"

Jeremy · **Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:05 am**

Up to a certain point, then yes. But if he got information that was "solid" that there was WMD then he has an excuse. Another example could be the president had information from intelligence sources saying Korea was going to nuke America and he did a first strike, and then the information was found to be wrong is it his fault he made a wrong dicission on the wrong information? He cannot be blamed for a desiccion made on false information if he never knew it was wrong.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Let's blame all the Senators that voted for war to. They saw the EXACT same intel as the president when they voted.