Throatpunch
Banned
Did/would you support the Iraq war?
I personally would not have supported the Iraq war. In my opinion the USA (Dick Cheney in particular) cherry-picked intelligence about the WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire/make, and in the end it cost $758.6 billion, and £4.5 billion, money that could have been spent in other places. It also resulted in over 4000 soldiers death's (thats KIA and non hostile).
They did a good job in the First Gulf War, but I thought the Iraq war was not well thought out and lacked suitable provocation.
In September 2002, Dick Cheney insisted there was "very clear evidence" Saddam was developing nuclear weapons: Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes that were to be used to enrich uranium for bombs. But Cheney and the Bush White House did not tell the public that there was a heated dispute within the intelligence community about this supposed evidence. The top scientific experts in the government had concluded these tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. But one CIA analyst—who was not a scientific expert—contended the tubes were smoking-gun proof that Saddam was working to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush-Cheney White House embraced this faulty piece of evidence and ignored the more-informed analysis. Bush and Cheney were cherry-picking—choosing bad intelligence over good. Cheney often cited discredited intelligence.
Please state your opinions, or even start a debate if you want to.
Don't go crazy or have a loud argument, and try not to derail the thread.
I personally would not have supported the Iraq war. In my opinion the USA (Dick Cheney in particular) cherry-picked intelligence about the WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire/make, and in the end it cost $758.6 billion, and £4.5 billion, money that could have been spent in other places. It also resulted in over 4000 soldiers death's (thats KIA and non hostile).
They did a good job in the First Gulf War, but I thought the Iraq war was not well thought out and lacked suitable provocation.
In September 2002, Dick Cheney insisted there was "very clear evidence" Saddam was developing nuclear weapons: Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes that were to be used to enrich uranium for bombs. But Cheney and the Bush White House did not tell the public that there was a heated dispute within the intelligence community about this supposed evidence. The top scientific experts in the government had concluded these tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. But one CIA analyst—who was not a scientific expert—contended the tubes were smoking-gun proof that Saddam was working to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush-Cheney White House embraced this faulty piece of evidence and ignored the more-informed analysis. Bush and Cheney were cherry-picking—choosing bad intelligence over good. Cheney often cited discredited intelligence.
Please state your opinions, or even start a debate if you want to.
Don't go crazy or have a loud argument, and try not to derail the thread.