Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login


Not sure how that applies, but I'm pretty sure that's not true. Where outside the USA is that still a commonly held belief?

> e.g. Majority of world* still believes Iraq had WMD

I honestly can't believe that for a moment. At least in my country its widely known they didn't and we mainly went to war to secure Uncle Sam some cheap oil reserves.

"I honestly can't believe that for a moment."

I can't speak for the majority of the world.

In rural Texas, it is a widely held belief that there were WMD's found by the US in Iraq during the 2003 war (IME, anecdotally, YMMV, IANAL, whatever... I have no hard numbers just my lifetime of living there).

A second and slightly less widespread belief is that "knowing what they knew at the time, thinking there were WMD in Iraq was a reasonable conclusion".

I don't hold that second belief, but it seems more rational than the first even if I find it suspicious and unsupported by the facts.

In any case, I can attest that the first belief is in the majority in rural Texas and between both beliefs I'd guess that 95% of the population holds one or the other.

Republican stronghold believes Republican propaganda, no surprise there.

This can’t be extrapolated to the rest of the world. The vast majority of the rest of the world didn’t believe it at the time and nothing ever happened to change their mind.

That's probably why one of the first oil companies started working in Iraq was Russian Lukoil?


Why would anyone believe that? Because there's substantial evidence, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

So what messages were employed to sway the electorate? Should be possible to give examples even if it was targeted.

If these important questions are omitted, the seriousness of the investigation should indeed be questioned.

It just looks that people tried and failed to dig up some dirt. Standard political procedure and you would find something like this for any political candidate. It was just scandalized by media.

The article is a disgrace to Wikipedia and I do see many parallels to the WMD stories. There was never any evidence of their existence as well as there is no evidence of any collusion.

Not even the hacking could be attributed without any doubt. Even though that is a tool governments are ready to employ.

> Obama emphasized that Russian efforts caused more harm to Clinton than to Trump during the campaign.

True. He also said that Putin isn't our friend. Also true. But it isn't that hard to see that there is basically nothing here.

My opinion? A substantial part of the electorate voted Trump because they were sick of fairy tales.

Have you looked at the Mueller Report? There’s no doubt Russia interfered. If there was no conspiracy with the Trump campaign, it’s only because the campaign was too incompetent to make it happen.

5000+ ordnances were found: "roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs"

Do you consider it "no WMD"?


These were old stockpiles manufactured by western companies, apparently with full knowledge of Washington. It's questionable whether they were still usable. Certainly not a reasonable justification for invading Iraq.

"All of the weapons found, however, were produced prior to 1991 as part of a crash program started in the 1980s and meant to be used against neighboring Iran during an eight-year war between the two countries. "In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies," the Times says."

> These were old stockpiles

So there were WMDs. Case closed.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact