Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
If that's not the true reason, please have the supporters of the Iraq War indicate which Middle-easterner country you believe you *wouldn't* have the moral right to invade even if it refuses to cooperate with you in battling communism/islamism/whatever your current enemy of the week is.

So you think we have a moral obligation to leave people in slavery? Promoting freedom and democracy is immoral? You're the kind of guy that witnesses a sexual assault and tells the woman she should just lay back and enjoy it rather than try to stop it aren't you?
You're kidding yourself if you think America's goals were even remotely altruistic dude. As exhibit A I present every arab state ran by dictatorships that America is quite happy to be bestest buds with, including Iraq prior to the early 1990s. The invasion was purely about getting rid of a government that was hostile to America's goals in the middle east, and any freedom or democracy which might magically rain down onto the Iraqi people as a result was considered a happy side effect.

And I use the word "happy" loosely, since it looks like the Iraqi people have paid in blood to have a despot replaced by a corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that's just waiting for Uncle Sam to leave the country so it can be co-opted or overthrown by militant Sunnis.

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're the kind of guy that witnesses a sexual assault and tells the woman she should just lay back and enjoy it rather than try to stop it aren't you?
Wow, G2 actually edited his message in order to make it more insulting, more offensive and more assholish. That sentence hadn't been there when I first responded to him.

It seems that G2 is the kind of guy who when he witnesses a sexual assault, he just shoots the victim, because she must of course choose death to rape, and G2 feels authorized to make that choice for her.

To think that G2 should NOT murder potential rape-victims is to enable rape, I guess. After all, to NOT bomb everyone and call it a success is to promote tyranny, according to G2.

[ February 17, 2011, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, since he argued in favour of supporting Mubarak for 6 more months, because Egypt might find worse dictators for itself, I guess G2 is the kind of guy who argues that the spousal abuse victim shoould stay with her raping wife-beating husband, because of the possibility that the next boyfriend will be even worse.

And then he bashes me for not believing we should just bomb the house and kill the abuser and the abused alike.

[ February 17, 2011, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
a regime that:
1. developed and used weapons of mass destruction,
2. that harbored and supported terrorists,
3. committed outrageous human rights abuses,
4. defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world

Out of these, 4 is just nonsense, an appeal to the authority of the United Nations, and an unjustified claim that its demands and that of the world are just. Since its demands are the demands of the five veto-holders, that's just nonsense, the United Nations is largely a tool to deal with disagreement between the five major imperialist powers, not a true representative of the world based on criteria of either "justice" or "freedom" or "democracy".

And the other three can be easily applied to the United States -- though in different extent: USA has supported more terrorists than Iraq ever did (e.g. the Contras) and certainly developed and used more WMDs than Iraq ever did, but you've (probably) committed fewer human rights abuses.

If the arguments can be used to justify the invasion of your own country, then said country probably oughtn't be making them.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
I have read similar claims that the Chinese had to bring in troops from other regions to fire on the students.

The Chinese did it, the Russians did it. One of the big reasons that it didn't happen in Egypt as well is that, when Mubarak gave the order on the 30th, the military basically told him to stuff it because they wouldn't fire on innocent civilians and fellow citizens.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As several people have noted, the following was out of line:
quote:
You're the kind of guy that witnesses a sexual assault and tells the woman she should just lay back and enjoy it rather than try to stop it aren't you?
In addition to the comparison being insulting, the whole idea that foreign invaders will usually be regarded as liberators from domestic tyranny is problematical. For the most part, people think foreign invaders have their own reasons for their actions, which are rarely for the benefit of those invaded. Certainly many governments deserve to be overthrown, but an invasion by a foreign power usually makes things worse.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I have said, Bush's lie was the certainty he projected about his claims, when almost every piece of data had caveats attached in the originals.

If I read a report that says there is a 50% chance that Iraq has WMDs, and I convince Americans to go to war because we are "certain" that Iraq has WMDs, then I lied.

Report Here

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We might have known for sure that Saddam didn't have WMDs or a program to develop them if he would have let the inspections occur as stipulated in the cease-fire agreement that left him in power after he invaded Kuwait which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including members of our proud military.

The WMDs... it looks like they weren't there. I'm probably going to sound foolish, and not for the last time either, but I think there still was the intention, the ability, and the resources both in human terms as well as equipment, to develop WMDs. All Saddam had to do was show that he gave up on that by allowing the inspectors complete access to do their jobs, and Saddam didn't do that. I'm not sure why that's Bush's fault. Okay, that's not the foolish sounding thing. The foolish sounding thing is that we still don't KNOW that Iraq didn't have WMDs or at least a WMD program because we still have no idea what was in the convoy that went from Iraq to Syria right before we attacked. All we seem to know for sure from everyone who insists Saddam didn't have WMDs or even a WMD program is what could NOT possibly have been in that convoy, which is anything that helped Syria shortly thereafter develop the nuclear weapons program that the Israelis promptly bombed into oblivion.

So this guy lied. That actually isn't proof that Saddam didn't have a WMD program. Proof of that one way or another rests in what was in that convoy. Do we still not have any idea what that was?

Nobody ever likes my analogies but I guess I'll never learn...

So there is a convicted drug dealer and he's given a suspended sentence. He meets with his probation officer erratically, is dodgy about whether he's in the drug business again, only lets inspections of his property occur on his own terms, refuses to allow inspections of some parts of his house, and in fact he often shoots at police helicopters as they fly over his property, and to top it all off the police get a report that he's in the drug business again.

Right before they go in on a raid, they catch him by video surveillance through an open window dumping a huge amount of something down the toilet, flush after flush after flush. So they wait until he's good and finished just in case it's just his business, and then they raid him, shooting up the place.

No drugs are ever found. Whatever he was flushing down the toilet is never found. In fact, no questions are even asked about it. There is never any curiosity about what that was. It's deemed to be entirely irrelevant. Obviously, he's completely innocent.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

quote:
ll Saddam had to do was show that he gave up on that by allowing the inspectors complete access to do their jobs, and Saddam didn't do that.
The US actually refused to complete the inspections. Exactly what you claim we wanted was allowed for the last month but the US decided to pull out the inspectors then instructed the UN to pull out the remaining inspectors.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749720551.html

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

Your analogy should include "The police get a report that he is in the drug business again, but they know the source is very unreliable. They go on TV and say they are absolutely sure that he is in business again, and that he will certainly put the safety of the populace at risk. Public pressure mounts, and the police raid his house, killing a few of his neighbors."

Here's another example. Cheney says we have classified evidence that Iraq has nukes. When ALL the evidence is examined (by Porter Goss, Republican), there is none.
back in 2003

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> LetterRip

> The US actually refused to complete the inspections. Exactly what you claim we wanted was allowed for the last month but the US decided to pull out the inspectors then instructed the UN to pull out the remaining inspectors.

I don't want to be a complete apologist for Bush and Cheney, if it's not too late already. Someone high up thought it was too late for Saddam to come around by then. I would prefer that maybe they give him more time, one last chance. Maybe Saddam was already given too many one last chances; I'm not sure.

Part of the point of my analogy and put up against the conduct of Saddam ever since the cease-fire left him in power is that the accusations of the informant are only one part of the overall situation, a more important part to some and of lesser importance to others. I like to get to the heart of the discontent, and that seems to be it right there.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So there is a convicted drug dealer and he's given a suspended sentence. He meets with his probation officer erratically, is dodgy about whether he's in the drug business again, only lets inspections of his property occur on his own terms, refuses to allow inspections of some parts of his house, and in fact he often shoots at police helicopters as they fly over his property, and to top it all off the police get a report that he's in the drug business again.

Right before they go in on a raid, they catch him by video surveillance through an open window dumping a huge amount of something down the toilet, flush after flush after flush. So they wait until he's good and finished just in case it's just his business, and then they raid him, shooting up the place.

No drugs are ever found. Whatever he was flushing down the toilet is never found. In fact, no questions are even asked about it. There is never any curiosity about what that was. It's deemed to be entirely irrelevant. Obviously, he's completely innocent.

What you're missing here is that they only decided to raid him at all because they wanted to distract from bad publicity over another bust that went bad, otherwise he wouldn't have been worth the time or money to pay attention to. He just happened to be on their radar when they were looking for away to shift the headlines and cover up their embarrassment.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not an apologist for George Bush. There is no need to apologize. I didn't think going to war with Iraq was worth the cost, but clearly a bipartisan Congress did. I never believed the Neo-Con account that the people of Iraq would greet us with open arms, either. There was a lot of BS coming from both sides.

All that said, if faced with an aggressive Dictator with no respect for human life who was continuously shooting at my aircraft, I would have probably made the same decision. Actually, I would have ordered him assassinated by a many a metric ton of fire power and called it good.

Bush never lied to anyone. He aggressively made his case. Just like Obama has done and every President before or since. Liberal's don't like what he did, waaah. Get over it. You're probably not going to like what Obama has to do either. Or what Clinton did. Or Bush Senior or Reagan, etc.

We don't live in a perfect world and some time you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. I will never shed a tear over the loss of Saddam Hussein, his government or their army.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was a break with prior American history, and it was based on near certainty, not on good intentions and best efforts to determine the truth. Not "oops, but we really didn't like you anyhow, so it doesn't matter that we were wrong".

quote:
I will never shed a tear over the loss of Saddam Hussein, his government or their army.
How about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, thousands of American deaths, a trillion dollars of additional American debt, the strengthening of Iran by taking out a regime that helped counter its strength, the plummeting of public approval world-wide, the recruitment of additional terrorists in response to American actions associated with the War in Iraq. You got any tears left for any of that?


quote:
Bush never lied to anyone. He aggressively made his case.
What is your operational definition of what constitutes a lie?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're the kind of guy that witnesses a sexual assault and tells the woman she should just lay back and enjoy it rather than try to stop it aren't you?
The above personal attack got reported to me yesterday - not by Aris Katsaris - along with another post which used an obscene metaphor. Any more such posts which get reported will earn the offender a ban, whoever makes the post and whatever may have been said to him to provoke such a reply. The person who reported the remark agreed that no one would actually believe this of Aris Katsaris, but that does not justify saying so even to earn a point in a heated exchange.

[ February 18, 2011, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I didn't think going to war with Iraq was worth the cost, but clearly a bipartisan Congress did. I never believed the Neo-Con account that the people of Iraq would greet us with open arms, either. There was a lot of BS coming from both sides."
Both the dems and the reps that supported this should be in prison. Much more important than the 'aggressive' argument put forward was the deliberate deployment of too few troops, which assured massive civilian death and loss of homes. War is SFB. I think it is our duty to the victims of the war, and to our own self respect, to prosecute irresponsible American war criminals (perhaps recklessly or negligently war criminals, but I would not be surprised if the carnage was a desired outcome).

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll tell you all something -- I don't think Bush "lied" either about WMDs. I think a lot of information was filtered before it reached him, and that out of what remained (which still was open to interpretation) he heard what we wanted to hear.

The much more important fact -- and I don't know why this question is continually overlooked -- is why Bush launched an invasion when an inspection process was underway. Pragmatically speaking, this process had a better chance of answering the WMD question than an actual invasion (unless said WMDs were used right off the bat in retaliation). Everyone seems to forget that Hans Blix's report to the UN a mere 10 days before the invasion reported "unprecedented" access to sites of interest and high levels of cooperation from Iraqis.

Why invade so soon after such a positive report?

I believe Bush manipulated the public regarding the government's interest in invading Iraq. WMD was only the casus belli for public discourse. But I believe that he believed in the preceding months that WMD's would be found.

In those last few days...I dunno. Maybe he decided that the wouldn't be so easy to find, and he wanted to invade before the momentum was lost.

Okay, so he kind of lied.

Ah, well. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, is it?

Except, actually, it is.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KidTokyo said
I'll tell you all something -- I don't think Bush "lied" either about WMDs. I think a lot of information was filtered before it reached him, and that out of what remained (which still was open to interpretation) he heard what we wanted to hear.
__________________________________________________________________

Should that last part be (he wanted to hear) ?
We wanted to hear he was going after Bin Laden in Aphganistan, not attacking Iraq. [Smile]

What a waste of lives, time and resources. [Mad]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Should that last part be (he wanted to hear)
Yes. My typos are always of the "completely changes the meaning" variety.

ADD + dyslexia=KidT needs to check each post like 4 times.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We don't live in a perfect world and some time you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. I will never shed a tear over the loss of Saddam Hussein, his government or their army.
At least one of my friends has some pretty nasty PTSD from having had to kill people in that war. Got any tears for him?

The "at least" is because I have other friends who saw combat.

[ February 18, 2011, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Liberal's don't like what he did, waaah. Get over it.
I'm not a model of grammatical perfection on here either, but 's would not be used to denote plurality in this statement. A simple s will suffice.

Now having said that, that's a terrible argument. What if Obama started rounding up the tea party leadership and sending them to concentration camps? "Conservatives don't like what he did, waah. Get over it." Our president doesn't govern by divine right. People have the right and even the duty to object to the things he does if they disagree with them. Just mind blowingly bad argument.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We don't live in a perfect world and some time you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
Let me say, by the way, that I hate this analogy for a variety of reasons, not least that it is terrible.

See, an omelet is made of eggs. The end goal of eating an omelet is to consume eggs; an omelet without eggs is not an omelet. It's like saying, "to make French fries, you have to slice a few potatoes." So, yeah, duh.

But this statement is regularly used to justify acts which are not definitionally or even logically required by the end goal. "You can't win a war without killing innocent civilians," for example, is not necessarily a true statement. "You can't convince the American people to invade a foreign country without lying to them," is again not self-evident. "You can't prevent terrorist attacks without implementing sweeping domestic police powers" is also not an axiom that's likely to roll off the tongue.

And, sadly, no one ever says "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" when it's an equivalent case. I mean, if I were stepping out of the house and my wife were to complain about my opening the door to let cold air in, I could legitimately say "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" to observe that, in similar fashion, one can't go outside without opening the door. But it would never occur to me, because the only time people use that old saw is when it's inappropriate.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Now having said that, that's a terrible argument. What if Obama started rounding up the tea party leadership and sending them to concentration camps? "Conservatives don't like what he did, waah. Get over it."

You mean what if Congress had a vote authorizing Obama to roundup people and send them to concentration camps and it passed with a bipartisan vote. And then later, Republican's decided to villianize Obama for doing what they authorized?

Yep, my reaction would pretty much be, waah? Get over it. If you didn't want him to do it, you shouldn't give him specific authorization.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

quote:
You mean what if Congress had a vote authorizing Obama to roundup people and send them to concentration camps and it passed with a bipartisan vote. And then later, Republican's decided to villianize Obama for doing what they authorized?
I think you are missing a step in the argument. If Obama had made public statements and provided 'proof' that tea party members were planning a massive terrorism campaign, then congress based on those statements and that proof had authorized rounding up tea party members. Then at a later point it was revealed that the proof was fabricated, and public statements were false or misleading.

quote:
If you didn't want him to do it, you shouldn't give him specific authorization.
If deliberate misinformation has to be used to achieve the authorization then how is it really authorization.

If your child asks you for funds to fly to a college interview and you give them the funds, and actually really wanted the funds for hookers and blow. Do you then conclude that you should 'waa, get over it' since they did after all ask for the funds, and you authorized them to receive the funds.

I'm pretty sure that authorization under false pretenses and other deceit most individuals find it entirely reasonable to be upset. Indeed it is something that in many cases is a felony offense by the individual who provided the false pretense or engaged in the deceit.

Pretty sure that most of the votes would not have been there if congress and the public had not been given false and misleading information.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Now having said that, that's a terrible argument. What if Obama started rounding up the tea party leadership and sending them to concentration camps? "Conservatives don't like what he did, waah. Get over it."

You mean what if Congress had a vote authorizing Obama to roundup people and send them to concentration camps and it passed with a bipartisan vote. And then later, Republican's decided to villianize Obama for doing what they authorized?

Yep, my reaction would pretty much be, waah? Get over it. If you didn't want him to do it, you shouldn't give him specific authorization.

No, now you're attempting to change the terms of the debate. If you want to say to people like John Kerry or Clinton, "You voted to authorize this, get over it" you'd have a point. You said liberals need to get over it. Anti-war liberals, along with Paleo-cons and Ron Paul style libertarians who opposed the war before hand have every right to make an issue of this.

Acording to the Washington Post 4,424 coalition troops have died in Iraq . Over 30,000 physically wounded and who knows how many with psychological wounds. Iraqi civillians killed, estimates in the hundreds of thousands. How many Iraqi civillians wounded but not dead? How many Iraqi civillians with permanenet psychological damage?

I'm not going to just "get over it" because I don't want it to happen again. I also don't see why I should shut up now about a war I opposed before it started and has gone even worse than I predicted.

[ February 20, 2011, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If deliberate misinformation has to be used to achieve the authorization then how is it really

Really? So deliberate misinformation from the Bush administration is responsible for every reason sited here?


quote:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Iraq War Resolution


And I suppose George Bush was responsible for the "deliberate misinformation" leading to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 also:

quote:
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

Iraq Liberation Act
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Democrats did not give Bush specific authorization to attack Iraq.

Bush publicly asked for authorization. If Congress denied it, the US would have zero bargaining power, so they were backed into a corner. Bush could have continued the status quo of no explicit authorization until the inspections were exhausted, or the situation became clearer. But he jumped the gun because he did not want to give Congress a real choice.

From the Iraq Resolution:
quote:
(The President shall) make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq;

So according to the law, Bush should not attack until diplomatic means were exhausted. They were not, so the attack was not authorized.

Hillary Clinton said at the time of the vote
quote:
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
By no stretch of the imagination did Bush seek to avoid war if at all possible. Shame on Clinton for trusting Bush, but not for authorizing attacks.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

quote:
Really? So deliberate misinformation from the Bush administration is responsible for every reason sited here?
Pretty sure no one has claimed that. The only reason anyone viewed Iraq of significant concern was over WMD and in particular the potential of Iraq to achieve nuclear capabilities, everything else was window dressing.

If there were no concern over WMDs and nuclear WMDs in particular no one would have considered Iraq to be urgent, and probably not worth invading.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't forget the original campaign to convince the American people that Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein had close links (I think it was something like 58% of Fox News viewers still had that belief as of 2005)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
By no stretch of the imagination did Bush seek to avoid war if at all possible. Shame on Clinton for trusting Bush, but not for authorizing attacks.

So you are saying that she didn't expect Bush to attack Iraq even though her husband attacked Iraq 4 years earlier? That seems a pretty big stretch.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Attack" and invade are worlds apart.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-------------------------------------------------Some one said:-------------------------------
We don't live in a perfect world and some time you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. I will never shed a tear over the loss of Saddam Hussein, his government or their army.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starpilot says
Looks like you're trying to get rid of gilt by saying the "end justified the means"
If you have to put it that way it's mostly never true, and something is being covered up. [Wink]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longship said:
At least one of my friends has some pretty nasty PTSD from having had to kill people in that war. Got any tears for him?
______________________________________________________________________

That's the saddest thing of all. The men, and some women who are physically and emotionally messed up,
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
I've shed tears for them. Tears of anger for the lack of medical care our wounded military get. They should get better care than congress and the prez combined, instead some of them got sick from mold and rat infested wards. This is a world wide embaressment, and the gov acted like it didn't care.

Arguements for the war, for any war is just an insult to these people. Most of them (without judging the correctness of the war) did their duty. Put their futures on the line because of the heartless cowardly elected leaders who mostly never served in the military and who just had wild hairs up their wazoos. There are so many things not right with how this all went down, it's pathetic. [Mad]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The liberal/conservative ideological battle lines are so OLD already.

Good lord, some variations of all these arguments have been going on since 2001. Did Bush lie or not? Doesn't matter. If he didn't lie, there would have been some other convenient event or excuse used to justify the war.

Let me quote a former President...one who gives the ULTIMATE reason of why we are at war in the Middle East, and it really is the only real cause underlying all of these arguments.

quote:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

That potential has been realized.

War is a Racket.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what are you doing about it, Daruma?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only thing I can...getting away with paying as little taxes as possible.

Starve the beast.

The only other thing I've been trying to do -- which is quite futile, but I keep doing it...so I guess I'm insane... be we all already knew that. [LOL] -- but what we really need, is for everyone to quit playing their stupid divide-and-conquer game called 2-party politics.

Obama is every bit the warmonger Bush was, that Clinton was, that Bush Sr. was that....

Quit trying to play this navel-gazing, pin the tail on the donkey or the elephant blame game.

Supporting one side or the other is really just supporting the status quo.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, I consider the whole "starve the beast" approach to be dangerously irresponsible, because starving beasts are not good things. If your goal is to kill the beast, and lose a few villagers to it while you're at it, starving it might work -- but we want a well-trained, obedient beast, and beasts (and governments) don't respond dutifully or sensibly to starvation.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, but Tom, feeding this beast makes it grow bigger, Instead of terrorizing a few villagers here at home, it's now terrorizing a crap load of villagers all away on the other side of the world...

I have no illusions that my "starve the beast" approach will work.

I just take personal satisfaction in doing my best to not pay for the beasts actions that I find so objectionable.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Recapping briefly:

There was no concrete evidence of WMD, clear even in the UN presentation (which may also have had other problems).

Hans Blix clearly stated that Iraq was not cooperating. They failed to prove that they didn't have WMD, or even look like they were trying to prove it.

Iraq did finally admit to having illegal rockets, which it destroyed just before the invasion. The extra range made it possible for Iraq to strike Israel.

Iraq's own top military leadership were convinced that there were WMD in the form of poison gas (just not in their commands).

France's objections pretty quickly were linked to their self-interest in keeping the Oil-for-Food program going and protecting their illegal trade with Iraq, not due to superior intelligence.

Iraq was an unabashed state sponsor of terrorism in the West Bank, which helps to constitute a threat of delivery against American interests in the region - specifically Israel.

I'm not going to argue right and wrong here, because everyone likely has made up their mind long ago.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
As several people have noted, the following was out of line:
quote:
You're the kind of guy that witnesses a sexual assault and tells the woman she should just lay back and enjoy it rather than try to stop it aren't you?
In addition to the comparison being insulting, the whole idea that foreign invaders will usually be regarded as liberators from domestic tyranny is problematical. For the most part, people think foreign invaders have their own reasons for their actions, which are rarely for the benefit of those invaded. Certainly many governments deserve to be overthrown, but an invasion by a foreign power usually makes things worse.
I disagree, I believe the analogy I'm drawing is apt. Maybe it's a little rough and a hard to face truth but people often see an attack on an entire population as merely a statistic where an attack on a person is horrific. I am making the abstract personal with this analogy. What is happening to entire populations under the oppressive regimes that rule them is, in my opinion, equally horrific. Doing nothing when we have the power to stop it is just as morally reprehensible as the situation I use in the analogy. If some find that insulting, it's because they've worked themselves into a morally bankrupt position and it's much easier to lash out than face the truth.

I am not saying we should invade every country with a maniacal dictator. However, we can do many other things diplomatically, clandestinely and economically and we should. And yes, as a final option, we should be willing to use the military to remove those from power that would enslave their people. Despite the prevailing belief here, everybody desires to live in a free society.

Now, if it was personally insulting to Aris, well, he fired back didn't he? It's not likes he as pure as the driven snow. And did I further escalate? No, why would I? We took our shots at each other and moved on. No big deal IMHO (although I did not edit my post to add anything, I think he just missed it the first time). We're big boys, we can take it. "Other people" believe it's out of line only because I'm not a liberal. "Other people" are upset because I treat them the way they've always treated anyone that disagrees with them. "Other people" are frightened because the politics of personal destruction are failing to work for them any more. If these oh tho thenthitive "other people" don't like our more heated and passionate exchanges, don't read them. It's not rocket science for god's sake.

But if Aris does indeed personally think I crossed the line and would prefer to demand an apology instead of what he ultimately responded, I'd offer it. Let him back on the forum now and we can kiss and make up if that's what "other people" need to see and it's what he wants. Same for any of you here, I've done it before. Am I not magnanimous?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma28 said
The liberal/conservative ideological battle lines are so OLD already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great ideas on how to fix things come from both sides. But,if a good Idea comes from the consevative side it most likely will be rejected by the other side just because of the label (consevative) And it works the same way if a liberal comes up with the idea. Those labels are stupid!

It's the prejudice we can't get rid of.
The idea that we're better than them, we're smarter than them.
Both sides in the extreme areas are, not ready for prime time.

If people can't be civil with people they disagree with it brings down everyone.

We need to find a way of not labeling the person. The idea could be bad but if the person has good intentions they are not a bad person. Sad to say though some people are in it just to cause trouble and contention. Eliminate them and the system will work much better.

I just said Eliminate to get a reaction, to show that is what they do. They say things a certain way on purpose so it will disrupt the train of thought. Derail our thinking so to speak.
So if we just learn to ignore them, they will eventually go away (in theory).

Eventually there could be a drastic change, brought about by millions of frustrated people. There are already millions of frustrated people,but there isn't the one truely noble and caring person who wants to get involed. And I don't blame him/her.

This country is unique. But it is slowly losing it's greatness and respect.
The elected few in charge who can do something to fix it are stuck in the contention covering their own behinds and are to busy thinking about something else. They have lost focus while the country slowly becomes some sort of aristocracy.

I just blabed on to much. Later [Razz]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1