Modified:
15 Jan 2010
by Dhc
Vote totals:
Yes:
0%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.
Misc Debates
Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Search:
DEBATE: THE DODGY DOSSIER DID NOT ‘MISREPRESENT’ THE THREAT FROM SADDAM’S WMD.
Posted by: NADIA999
Karma:
5609
In his hearing before the Chilcot inquiry Alastair Campbell has defended every word of the so called ‘dodgy dossier’ that was published as evidence of the need for a pre-emptive war against Iraq due to the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. This dossier was however known for its fantastical claims even at the time, and is now considered to be a classic case of making the intelligence evidence suit the goal, essentially misrepresenting the case for war. Is Campbell right to stand by it?
Executive Summary
Join The Debate
THE DODGY DOSSIER DID NOT ‘MISREPRESENT’ THE THREAT FROM SADDAM’S WMD.
Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat
and Tony Blair and his constituency/government did not use the W.M.Ds excuse to attack Iraq. They only believed, quite rightly that Saddam Husein was a preeminent threat and should have been nipped in the bud just as he was.The Shiite populations of Iraq even considering the initial sectarian violence in the country after the war were/are still better off compared to the days of Saddam's rule. Iraqis , both for and against the war, do not support the idea of coalition forces leaving now (Iraq is a mess but thge people trust the coalition to fix the mess)[1]
They lied about W.M.Ds then, they still do not apologise for lying in an official document(the dossier). They could be lying now.we can't take their word for Saddam's ruthlessness, their word does not count for anything.
Days before the war Saddam had written a document critiquing U.S foreign policy. The Iraqi economy was not in turmoil, and apart from a family grudge there seems to be no good reason to have initiated the war.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE DODGY DOSSIER DID NOT ‘MISREPRESENT’ THE THREAT FROM SADDAM’S WMD.
They sexed up the dossier
Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was no saint. Opposition against the Iraqi government predated the Iraq war by many years. Saddam Hussien had threatened to kill president George Bush senior at the time of his presidency. U.S bombings in Iraq were not uncommon. Protests against the wrath of Hussein:1) The massacres and tortures of the Kurdish people
2) Military dictatorship: his way or the highway
3)Other human rights violations(a colonnade of human shields barricading his palaces)
only brighten the picture of why he had to be ousted. It was also a matter of using up the middle-east's oil supply, to avoid repeating the great depression of the 70s when OPEC cut America, among other countries; off.in conclusion the existence of W.M.Ds becomes/was/is irrelevant.
Everyone knows that the dossier has highly fabricated. That evidence that did not exist was highlighted in the document.And lest we forget the fundamental fact/truth remains that W.M.Ds were never found in Iraq. Mr.Campbell is merely defending a lost cause. If he believes that playing deluded will ease him through the inquiry,then he is wrong.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
Vote on the overall debate: The dodgy dossier did not ‘misrepresent’ the threat from Saddam’s WMD.
What do you think? Vote on this debate below.
NADIA999
|07:07, 15 January 10
|Karma Score: 5609
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
NADIA999
|07:11, 15 January 10
|Karma Score: 5609
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
NADIA999
|06:49, 15 January 10
|Karma Score: 5609
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
NADIA999
|06:59, 15 January 10
|Karma Score: 5609
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply