Democrats Lied, Kids Died

[avsp]

There is a difference between 'fabricating intell' & 'politically-motivated agenda-driven intell assesments'

I very much doubt that opposition politicians are, en masse, given access to the raw intell, not least coz much would be un-understandible by a non-professional, (or so I'nm led to believe)

It is clear that the OSP existed primarily to write biased intell assesments & to extert pressure within the intell community for others to do likewise.

(It would not have been the first time that Cheney & Rumsfeld had been involved in setting up an alternate intell assessment office in order to influence policy, ..., their previous case had knowingly & deliberatell lied to the then President about the exact nature of the military threat that the USSR posed)

Originally Posted by b2w

This is not Bush's war, this is America's war.

Personally I see it as even wider than that, however if you think this then why have you framed this thread in the fashion that you have?

OTOH the phase 'its Bush's war' is usually used to indicate somekind of properitary interest as its 'creator', ..., in which case its almost certainly not Bush's war, ..., its Cheney's or someone, IMO

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by avsp

Personally I see it as even wider than that, however if you think this then why have you framed this thread in the fashion that you have?

Yes, you're right, it is wider than that. But at this point I'm speaking to Americans trying to create some sort of unity among them.

The other thing too is that there are few countries that are as involved as Britain and the US. They seem to be the leaders at this point; the rest of the world needs to become leaders in their own right.

[Diamond Cross]

I'm not sure what you mean. Would you care to elaborate?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

He never would have used them against us on his soil because he knew the consequences. He would have used them against his weaker enemies locally and allow "others" to use them.

What other consequences? We're invading him. He wants to kill Americans. If he has WMD, why doesn't he use them? He doesn't worry about killing his own people. It's in his self interest to defend himself. He's surrounded by enemies both within and without. Who is Saddam going to give his weapons to? Iran? Kuwait? Osama? The Shia? The Kurds? Airlift them to North Korea? How is giving your weapons away at the moment you're about to be invaded a winning war strategy?

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Selective memory loss is a funny thing. The WMD component of the reasons for war were numerous and not singularly nukes, or even just strikes on the US or our allies. Saddam has PROVEN he has no problems using WMD, we had intel saying he both had and was developing more.

It seems you're the one with selective memory, or you're trying to rewrite history. I'm not saying that there were no other good reasons to remove Saddam. Yes, those other reasons are valid. I agree. But, that's not how this war was sold to the public at the time.

It was about weapons with the ability to hit Britain in 45 minutes. It was about not finding the evidence in a mushroom cloud. It was about WMD north, south, east and west somewhat. Aluminum tubes. Pictures of trailers. Yellowcake from Niger. I didn't make that stuff up.

I remember the run up to the war very well. Those were the reasons used to sell the war to the public. Saddam and his WMD's were painted as being a direct threat to America and Britain. Every other justification was secondary at best.

Since the war, the war supporters have trotted out multiple justifications, but at the time, just prior to the invasion, the primary justification for the war was the threat of WMD above all else. That's the way that it was, and I'm sorry that you seem to remember it differently.

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Here is a metaphor for you:
Each argument for war (ousting a tyranical dictator, human rights violations, having WMD, developing more WMD, state support of terrorism, funding of terrorism, genocide, war crimes, violations of treatys, freeing the Iraqi people, failure to allow inspections, violation of no fly zones, his destablizing effect on the middle east, threats against the US, threats against our allies, harboring terrorists, etc) is a chain supporting the justification for invading. Most of these reasons alone are strong enough to support an regime change, but together they are more than strong enough. So from these chains hangs the righteousness of the war. Assume we were completely wrong and not only did he have no WMD, but he wasn't even trying to develop any or get any. Two chains down, while the rest still hold the weight just fine.

I hate to tell you this, but if you break one link in a chain, the whole thing breaks. You're thinking of rope. A few strands of rope can break, but the rope still holds.

And I agree with you. We're not arguing opinions, just what was used as the primary justification for the war at the time. It WAS the threat of Saddam using WMD against America and her allies/interests.

Hey, back when I was a kid, liberals and Democrats were defined as the people who wanted to be "The World's Policeman." And I do agree somewhat. But, I know now that you can't bring Democracy to people at the barrel of a gun. If we try, we must realize that it will be a long, bloody, costly venture with no guarantee for success.

If we have the might, we should help people and right the wrongs of the world. If conservatives really believed that, they'd be clamoring for us to go into Darfur, wouldn't they? If conservatives really believed in helping oppressed and suffering people, why don't we invade North Korea? I'm not trying to change the subject, just trying to show that the whole "we did it because we wanted to get rid of a bad guy and help suffering people" retroactive justification for the war kinda gets cut down at the knees at that point.

[Diamond Cross]

So what would be good alternate reasons to go?

However, I do tend to agre. After all, if it was about true morality, we shouldn't be trading with Communist China who forces women to have abortions in favor of their one child per family rule and not to mention their oppression of Christians. We need to take Out North Korea. The Warlords of Mogadishu. So on and so forth.

But the war of Iraq was not about morality as President Bush would like to have us believe. Morality requires consistency, or it ceases to be morality and becomes instead special protections and privaleges.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, you're right, it is wider than that. But at this point I'm speaking to Americans trying to create some sort of unity among them.

why then have you framed the debate in terms of the much beloved red v blue partisanship?

The other thing too is that there are few countries that are as involved as Britain and the US. They seem to be the leaders at this point; the rest of the world needs to become leaders in their own right.

This is not quite what i meant
[ridiculously idealistic position statement warning]

I dont often do this

It is often argued that 'fighting them over there is better than fighting them over here'. This argument is, seemingly, made without refrence to total body counts, ..., ie. fewer American civiians are killed than otherwise

Although the 'fact' may be true I dispute the 'better' value judgement.. I use this argument just as an example to expound my position

It is such beliefs as American civilian lives are of 'greater value' or of 'more concern' than the lives of Iraqi civilians that is, largely, the cause of conflict.

To me it makes no difference where its fought, both in terms of the 'righteousness' of the fight or in terms of the sorrow at the sufferring & death engendered.

I'm not a Christian nor am I certain that my understanding of Christian doctrine is 'correct', ..., but I always find it hard to understand why self-confessed Christians dont readily see a life is a life regardless of the nationality.

Nevertheless I can understand both the 'self-centred-ness' & the political democratic-process-driven requirements, of the view, that random hate fuelled death is better happening far away from me & mine, ..., but the view that policy should be based on such notions seems, to me, logically, morally &, in some sense, pragmatically flawed

Cliffs: Countries, (& the alliegence to them), are an outmoded concept whose existance is as much as a cause of problems as owt else.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls' etc'

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what would be good alternate reasons to go?

coz he's a c*nt

Other observations
45 mins

The 45 minute claim was never interpretated as being able to hit the UK mainland but as hitting UK bases in Cyprus. The Blair admin claims that it never meant its statements to be interpretated in such a fashion & that they knew these were battlefield only weapons are fair enough

Or they would be if they had actually countered the huge headline in the Sun newspaper that expounded the Cyprus theory, completele with 'misslie range' map

The subsequent claim made by the Blair admin about why such newspaper reports werent corrected, (defence minister was in China & didnt see the headlines), are so self-servingly laughable as to actually credibility damaging, ..., Nelson did better with his 'I see no such signal'

why didnt he ]prove' he didnt have them
The people he was bluffing may well have been the
Oraqi people themselves, they were the people he really couldnt allow to believe his claims nopt to have them

Its debateable if the Iraqi people would have been able to bring themselves to believe assurences of Blix if his search had been allowed to continue, ..., but then Rumsfeld couldnt allow Blix's search to continue to continue either coz he feared that WE would believe Blix

Airlift them to North Korea?
If he had've had them he may well have offered to swap them for missile tech. Its seems likely that Pakistan (Kahn?) swapped nuke know-how for missile tech with NK

[goldenponderbob]

How does the logic stack up if you rearrange the players and state that: Given the President's inclination to finish the job his father started, he,
along with the congress, democrats and media were all duped by those
at the pentagon, who felt cheated out of their opportunity back in 91.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by goldenponderbob

How does the logic stack up if you rearrange the players and state that: Given the President's inclination to finish the job his father started, he,
along with the congress, democrats and media were all duped by those
at the pentagon, who felt cheated out of their opportunity back in 91.

I'd say it changes the story to

Republicans tried, Democrats cried,
They both were duped, now our military's pooped.
We had our shot, down to the last dot,
Back in 91, when we should've won,
and finish the job Bush started, not 43, but 41.

[Thomas Crown]

wtf is this? kindergarten? rhyme time? lol

and to the comment about my metaphor, it wasn't ONE chain and the reasons were links...it was the reasons were each a chain. Think of something hanging from the ceiling by multiple chains.