HS I agree that he was a tyrant, and if that's enough justification for you, I won't argue against you on that one. But if Bush claimed that Saddam could avoid war by disarming, then Armament would be the first and main reason for going to war as far as the way it was presented by the Bush team.
Ducked another what, tree? Your question was answered...I'll do it again, if you want... The humaitarian angle doesn't and can't stand alone...a fact the administration conceded when it emphasised other angles more. The reason it doesn't is because the counter arguments are so readily available, and it alone doesn't answer the question of Why Iraq, and Why Now? There are dozens of murderous tyrants, many of whom we call ally...like we used to call Saddam. So to suggest that the Tyrant angle alone works is erroneous and specious post applied rationalization. That aspect isn't even enough to put us on unfavorable diplomatic relations with soem nations, how could it alone put us on the path to war with another? Ok...so then you have to consider it as, at best, a back-up argument. It was, I agree, always part of the backdrop to more primary aspects the administration used to get us and the world to go to war, but never THE aspect, nor the main aspect. That was clearly WMD...That has been proven time and again...it was WMD according to the support polls...it was WMD according to the statements to the UN...it was WMD according to the conditions the US gave to Saddam about how to avoid the war. WMD, period. To help get us behind this Bush kept citing 9-11, and the war on terrorism, and like the WMD argument, asked the world to take his word for it. When they didn't, he fumed, and took his ball and went home in a huff, calling them names. At best the humanitarian angle was one of the supporting arguments for the main thrust, WMD. I fully agree that, had the public grabbed hold of the humanitarian angle instead of the WMD angle, Bush would have used it as his thrust...I have long said that the decision to go to war came first, the reasons after, and they were thrown at us one after the other as if to see what would stick...In the US, WMD stuck. From that point on, WMD was the primary focus. To now strip away 9-11...to take off WMD..as we already did away with suporting UN resolutions, as we had to, when the UN disagreed...and to argue that that is good enough...wow. Ok, tree..I've answered your question again...Now answer mine ( yeah, right)... If this wasn't about WMD, and WMD alone, how do you explain the administration's declaration that Saddam could avoid the war if he got rid of his WMD? Good luck.
Oh. My. God. Was that really your answer? Your answer is effectively this: The humanitarian issue alone was not sufficient in and of itself, so therefore it was not a reason. Therefore the WMD issue must be the only reason. That is, unfortunately, your argument. Shortened, of course (it is not always necessary to be long-winded)... Do I really need to explain the illogic of this answer, and why it is not a satisfactory answer to my question? It is not that complicated. I am coming to the conclusion that you are not as bright as I thought you were, that you are not actually a systems thinker. This is really not that complicated - I mean, I wouldn't even call it parallel thinking. I will, however, answer your question (although it is difficult, since you apparently are not capable of understanding that there was more than one reason): Quick answer: It was a bluff, and Saddam failed to see it. Saddam never had a chance of escaping war; his fate was sealed when 19 yahoos drove planes into our buildings. We knew that Saddam would never give up his WMD; 12 years of inspections and deception proved that. We hadn't done anything serious to punish him up to that point, so why would he believe that we were serious now? It was a trap, and Saddam walked right into it. Thanks Saddam!
1) There is a growing trend in pro-war folks to take an argument, alter it, summarize the alteration, and then feed it back with a rebuttal. Re-read my post...your summary is not accurate, so I will not refute your answer to it. 2) Conclude whatever you want about my intelligence...hell, maybe you're right, maybe I am just not that bright...or maybe I just misspoke...or maybe it's a bluff...or maybe you're wrong...The kind of thinking you failed to ascribe is based on a false premise...False starts ften lead to faulty conclusions, but what do I know... 3) Thanks for answering my question. That said, are you serious? OK,,,so Bush didn't lie, he misspoke...when we said that if Saddam disarmed, we wouldn't invade, we were bluffing...Apparently the UN was in on the joke, as we told them the same thing...Tree, do you not see the logistical gymnastics you have to go through rather than admit the truth, or at least the more explicable solution? We went through this in the 1st days of the war, remember? When the WMDs that were supposed to be battle deployed were never used, you offered all of these elaborate scenarios which you said explained the inconveneient facts...and here we are, a couple of months later, and it would seem that your elaborate answers were just so much smoke...like these... Think of this, tree...honestly...I have seen you call several people in here 'Liars" on a lot more flims ground than currently stands against Bush, despite the fact that Bush's statemtns were to the world, not a basketball chatsite, and were used to suport a war, not an argument...Apply anything like your level of suspicion to Bush that you apply to those on here who disagree with you, and see what you come up with.
I was going to start a new thread on this, but I reconsidered as it fits so well in here... Having just watched Blair on the BBC, I am becoming more and more convinced that my earlier supposition about where the pro-war WMD argument is going was correct. In his statement before the comittee reviewing the intel gaffe, when informed that their judgment would be suspended for a while pending further developments in Iraq, Blair said that he had no doubts about his position, and that he was completely convinced that we will find " Evidence of a program to develop weapons of mass destruction." Note the shift...Not a smoking gun, but a blueprint for a gun. I predicted a couple of days ago that this was the next leap in the spin war, and it would seem to be coming to pass. I fully expect that in the next while the White House will 'reveal' that it has discovered plans which prove the intention to build WMDs, or plans outlining a program to be used to develop WMDs... It will be interesting to see if they actually try and make this leap of reasoning...and if so, how people will react. Part of my supposition in my original post, that we may indeed have given up, seems to be in the process of being assuaged, as recent polls counter the earlier ones which said that we don't care if we're lied to or not...but whether that kind of integrity survives the administration offering an out while saving US face remains to be seen. Stay tuned...Blueprints for a gun which might be designed to smoke may well be on the way...
On the issue of multiple pretenses - I just don't know what else to say. I'll just run through them all again: 1) WMD. No need to elaborate on this one, we all know it inside-out by now. 2) Threat to neighbors, and therefore to global oil supply and global economy. You say "Well, they didn't feel threatened...", but that is s tupid argument. Iran didn't feel threatened. Kuwait didn't feel threatened. Saddam has a 25+ year pattern of unpredictable behavior, during which time he regularly threatened his neighbors. To simply sit back and say "Well, they don't feel threatened, so there must be no threat" is a very dangerous tact to take. 3) Getting out of Saudi. We never wanted to be there, but it is absolutely necessary for us to maintain a military presence in the region. Our Gulf allies simply did not have the real estate we required, so... 4) Humanitarian. No real need to explain this one again, everyone gets it. You acknowledge that this was a legitemate concern, although not sufficient cause alone in and of itself. I largely agree. 5) Terrorism links. The links are not in question, only with whom those links existed. We know of links with Hamas, and the Ansar group in the north, the Al Qaeda sub-group. We also know of his training camps, which were overrun during the war. We just don't know the extent of the ties, although there is no argument now that the ties were there. Before the war we had only intel to go on. These are the main reasons. It is - was, sorry - the conjunction of all of these fears and uncertainties that made the endeavor warranted in the minds of admin officials, not any one single issue. In the media the WMD angle was played up, because that is the easiest to understand. That does not mean that it was the only reason, or even the main reason. Personally, I think that that particular one is largely irrelevant without tying it into #5. I also think that #2 and #3 was more at the front of everyone's minds in the administration. But to try and simplify it to a single reason is misleading. And to try to throw out the whole case just because you don't buy one piece of it is irresponsible. With regards to the uranium/Niger issue, yes - I do believe that he misspoke. With regards to the bluff he played with Saddam (and the UN - they were always out of the loop) - yes, he did lie. The decision to invade was made shortly after 9/11. The troops started moving over there a full year before the invasion. That says volumes about what the intent was. No, the UN was always out of the loop. Someone in the administration - probably either Rice or Cheney - had the foresight to see that the UN would never come on board, no matter what we did. But still, we had to try to win some opinion over, and the only issue that anyone got was the WMD issue. It's not so much that we lied to the UN, just that we didn't reveal our full intentions. And why should we? We owe the UN nothing, and they proved more a hindrance than anything else. And what is this more explicable solution that you speak of? That it was all about WMD from day one? Well if that is so, then why are we not combing the desert with a f*ing fine-toothed comb? And why are we doing backflips trying to set up a government there? And why are we repairing their country? And why are our troops getting shot at daily trying to protect Iraqis from other Iraqis? Your "It's all about WMD" solution is almost as inexplicable as the "It's all about oil" one. Makes no sense, and does not jibe at all with reality and what we are seeing and doing. If I gave you five possible explanations for that then logic would dictate that only one could be true, and the rest inaccurate. That is why they were *possible* explanations, a point that I made clear and you just ignored. As it is, it would appear that one of them was probably correct: the weapons are buried somewhere and have been for quite some time, likely since before UNMOVIC got there. Unless you actually believe that the WMD were never there - which we know is not true, because we know that they existed at one time - then the only other option is that they were destroyed at some time prior to the invasion, an explanation which is also fraught with inconstincies and illigical reasoning... Incidentally, I said that they were likely buried because that is what the Iraqis tried to do during the UNSCOM period - bury them in the desert. And they would probably never have been found without Iraqis telling us where they were, just as they will not be found this time without Iraqi help. But that answer did not arise out of smoke - it is based on what the Iraqis actually did in the past. And it's not that elaborate - pretty crude, actually. But it doesn't matter - just a matter of time... Jesus, if I trusted Bush as little as I trusted some of you I'd be leading the "Bush lied" charge. Fortunately, I have yet to hear Bush say anything that stands out as probably untruthful; what I have seen is Bush saying that he is going to do something, and then doing it. That takes balls. And if I thought anyone here actually had any of those... Well, maybe I'd treat them differently.
All the bestest leaders have balls! Yea! As for saying he is going to do something, how about conduct the nation's business with humility? That would take real guts, you butthead. Sitting back behind secret service and letting warmongers prod you into adolescent-fantasy comic-book-speak and reckless deadly action is the antithesis of courage. But maybe it's what you mean by "balls." All I have to say to your rhetoric is just that: balls!
B-Bob: When did he say he was going to conduct the nation's interests with humility? I don't remember that... but if he did, then he lied. Personally, I think that humility has its time and place. Personally, I think that the four years you're in the Presidency is not the time and place for it. I want to see balls. Please guys, don't use that last one in your sig? I think his mind was made up long before anyone tried to prod him into it. And I doubt he fantasized about it. He knows that war is not a game, and there's nothing sexual about it. Maybe my rhetoric is just that. But who else here signed up with the armed services after 9/11? Who else told the government to send them wherever they felt it necessary? I guess I'm just a f*ing Macho Man... (J/K) I just like it when people follow their words with action. That's what "balls" means to me.
campaign rhetoric, every time he was asked about foreign policy. I knew it. I hope you're correct. I do at times argue with my lefty buddies out here that he's a lot smarter and in command than he appears. And I hope he's not getting off on it -- I think I'm misled by his smirk and his "bring them (sic) on" type of stuff. It's a good trump, and you've seen me post my sincere respect. But it's not the only way to be brave. No, I don't mean a BBS post either. I mean doing what you see as right and doing what you can to do as much for your family, nation and species as possible. We both think we're doing that. Fair enough. He calls his shots, follows through on his violent threats.
1) Agreed, but sort of dismissive. 2) Right. Much better for us to decide who others should feel is a threat to them. 3) I never heard this advocated as a pre-war govt. position on Iraq. I would have found it very interesting to hear... 4) Cool. 5) But we were told, as were our allies, that the intel was conclusive...and we were pissed when they wouldn't just take our word for it...Remember Rumsfeld calling the Germans 'traitors'...That was, if I remember correctly, because they asked to see the prrof of 91-- links rather than just accpet our say-so. 6) tree, it's fine to speculate as to what they really thought, what it all meant behind the scenes, etc...although you tend to freak out and use terms like 'conspiracy theory!' when people with differing views do the same thing...but if, as we contend, we are a representative society, than the government has to be upfront with the argument presented, and has to be accountable if that arguemtn is flawed, manufactured, or dishonest. In that regard the argument presented to the public, to our allies, and to Congress was about the WMD, period. The other stuff was window dressing, but when they went before the UN, the Congress, or the American people and asked for support for the war, they cited WMD, the imminent threat they presented, and the UN dictates being violated. They have to be held accountable for that if we are to go on considering ourselves a representative society, let alone if we are to re-gain any measure of trust from the rest of the world. 7) Re: your bluff theory,and duping the UN because of advanced knowledge of their lack of support...really, really think of the implications of what you're suggesting...of what it means about what kind of administration we have, what kind of ally we make, and what kind of future we can expect...and then if you still feel that that is what we did, let me know. I really hope you don't. 8) I don't get how the fact that we're combing the desert proves that it wasn't about WMDs...at all. I tend to think that, if anything, it proves the opposite. Please explain this. 9) Dealt with. In order to suggest that it wasn't about WMDs, we now need to believe that the White House intentionally decieved us, our allies, and the person we were negotiating with before a war in order to, as you say, ensure that that war happened. You somehow think that that is preferable...I don't know what to say to that. Scary. 10) In oreder to believe that the weapons were burried in the event of war, we have to assume that A) CHeney lied or 'misspoke' when he said we knew where they were, that the pre-war White House reports that Iraqi divisions were being given chemical weapons was false, and that, and this is the best bit, Saddam spent years developing WMDs in secret...investing untold millions when he was in serious financial difficulty...so that, when push came to shove, and an almost unwinable war was upon him, and his end assured, he could...hide them!?!?! 11) tree...and I swear, this is not any kind of psudeo compu-threat, etc...but I have this image of your gravestone bearing the inscription " It's just a matter of time." 12) You think Bush...the Bush who ducked hanging out with soldiers when there was a fight on, but now won't pass up a photo op with them...you think Bush has balls? Really? SO then what does Osama Bin Laden have? Or the 9-11 hijackers? What did Hitler have? Hitler who, unlike Bush, was decorated for bravery in the war he fought in, not ducked...Or Stalin? Or Mussloni? Or countless others I wouldn't want leading the USA today...Aren't the problems we're having in thw world today related to too many leaders with more balls than brains? I don't agree that Bush has shown he has balls, but he has definitely shown he doesn't have brains,so I guess he qualifies... You have balls, treeman. I'll give you that. You put your money and heiney where your mouth is. I don't have a lot of respect for the way you think, but if we're just taking balls, I respect you a hell of a lot more than Dubbya. What the hell has he ever risked, except other people?
MacBeth: We decide who is a threat to us. We do not base our estimation of threat levels upon the percieved threat levels that other countries estimate. We decide that ourselves. In this case, it does not even take a thorough check of the regional history to understand why we percieved Saddam as a regional threat. You can get that after 5 minutes on any history book. Do you deny that the potential threat to the global economy was to insiginificant to take into consideration? Personally, I never heard this officially (meaning press releases, things of that nature) talked about prior to the war. Unofficially, it has been a major thorn for 12 years. Are you denying that our close proximity to Islam's holy sites has been a major agitating drive in the Arabic/Islamic world? It was Osama's most popular gripe, after all. And we never did want to be there. Another of the myths propagated by the antiwar camp: that the administration theorized and vocalized a Saddam/911 link. The administration never did such a thing, and repeatedly told foreign governments - Germany included - that there was no specific link that they were prepared to stand on. Other links were mentioned - to Hamas, for example - to show a pattern of terrorism-sponsorship, a pattern that we know was accurate. The American public merely inferred a 911 link. Now, the admin didn't do a whole lot to stop such gossip... But they did not propagate it. All they did was mention the links that we knew about. I agree. And when I see a flawed, manufactured, or dishonest argument originating with the admin I will hold them accountable for it. I have yet to see proof of any of that, though. No, the WMD issue was merely the spearhead - the part that the public saw the most of. And yes, the admin did play that angle up, for reasons we have already discussed... we can do this all day. Serious question from me to you: Do you believe that there are/were no WMD? Just answer that, and I'll know where we can take the discussion from there. Into the logical or into the dumpster. Well, it was an inevitable threat, but we've already covered that. Different. UN dictates were being violated. No one - not even France - disputed that. I like a good game of poker. Where does it say that we have to play fair? Playing fair in war is stupid. I'd rather cheat. Oh, this one is easy to explain: we are not combing the desert (please read more carefully). I'm actually a bit surprised about that, considering the political blowback, but the WMD search almost seems like about the 5th or 6th priority on Bush's Iraq To-Do List. We're looking, spending lotsa resources, but we really aren't looking too aggressively. We could be combing the desert, but we aren't. Why? No conspiracy theories, please. Yes, dealt with. But still curiously unresolved. I explain to you the multiple reasons, you even acknowledge some of them, and jump right back to "Well, the admin always said it was just WMDs, so it was just WMDs". That is highly illogical. Not really scary, though. And as I said before - it's war, I don't mind cheating. I also have no problem with the prez playing up a particular angle, as long as it is legitemate. I think the real problem we're having here is that some people are beginning to believe that there really are/were no WMD (which is ludicrous, as we know for a fact that he had them after 1998), but in the absence of any quick find, and with the quick fix mentality that some people have, it is almost understandable. But by no means true. Well, it was Rumsfeld, but... Actually, we really did think that we knew where they were. One of the first things we did was pounce on about a dozen sites with Special Forces where we thought they were being housed. I sh*t you not, we would not jeapordize hundreds of SF operators' lives just to cover for Rumsfeld's statement - heads would seriously roll, and the stink of corpses would be smelled by media for a month. We honestly thought we knew where they were. They had been moved. If I had a dime for every time that battlefield intelligence was inaccurate - or flat wrong, and dangerously wrong - then I'd be a rich man. Obviously, he hid them before UNMOVIC got there, which would have made them quite inacessible during the period when UNMOVIC had left and before we started. Coincidentally, it would have made them quite inacessible to us postwar. After all, why bury a centrifuge in someone's back yard for 12 years? Or a biological weapons lab for a year? I mean, unless you had designs to use it at some point... I cannot think of a good answer to either of those questions. Well, if that happens, then it has taken entirely too long to find them. But I suspect it will not take quite that long. As B-Bob put it, he does follow through with his violent threats. I think that counts for something. Oh, they all had balls, too. They were just evil and/or insane as well, which is not a good combination for someone with balls. You need to take that kind of thinking over to Foggy Bottom where it will fly. You know, the guys who got us into this whole mess? I juuuust don't have enough energy to respond to your last comment...
You would hope that the World Police wouldnt be capable of such deception. Shouldnt we want to lead by example? I guess thats not important enough. Its more important to make sure the Iraqi neighbors dont feel threatened.
Uh, 'World Police'? Are these the guys with the black helicopters? Oh! You mean us... Leading by example works just fine when you're talking about organizations which number less than a thousand people. When you get bigger than that you have to start pushing people around... How big is the company you work for, anyway? But in principle, yeah, leading by example is the way to go. Just doesn't always work out that way.
I see. So its okay to push people around. Lie. Misspeak. Not tell the whole truth. As long as we our on top and in charge, its all gravy. Nice theory.
It works in the real world. Personally, I'd rather be on top than at the bottom, especially when you're talking about a war situation where real people are really getting killed. Under normal circumstances, it is not OK to mislead people. Under war circumstances, you just might have to do it to win. That is not to say that Bush mislead us. As the President of the United States he has a duty to be truthful to us, and I believe that he has. But misleading Saddam? France? Sorry, I just see no reason to feel guilty about that. What duty does he have to be honest when dealing with dictators and adversaries? None. His job when dealing with them is to advance our interests, and if he has to lie to them to do it, then so be it. All's fair in love and war. Tell me, when some gigantic drunk guy is about to hit you in a bar, do you give him advance warning that your plan is to kick him in the nuts and run? No, you just do it and hope for the best. That was this situation writ large.
Wow. Yours must be made of steel... Actually, the 'writ large' aspect would necessitate us kicking the guy in the nuts - and then staying there, ready to beat the crap out of whatever parts of him still functioned after our initial, unexpected violent assault. Really? You'd stay there? You mean like we're doing in Iraq? And would you say to him "I am rezdawg. I intend to attack you violently and unexpectedly, and follow it up by not running away. I will then proceed to dismantle those bodily functions which are not paralyzed by my initial attack..." Even Arnold wouldn't say that in his stupidest movie.
You are writing the script as if Iraq is the "gigantic drunk guy" and the U.S.A. is the little helpless fella. Unfortunately, your fairytale has nothing to do with the real world.
