DescentBB

Thanks for the info, Peb.

Powell, as far as I'm concerned, is equivelent to the rest of the Bush bunch. His folly at the UN is what lost me. He had a chance to do what was right (in my eyes, obviously not in a republican's) and he spewed erroneous garbage. A party line tower. *yawn*

Birdseye, for the last time, do you really think that Powell believed that the information was "garbage"? Did anyone, at that time, believe so? For once, acknowledge that, although hindsight may be 20/20, foresight isn't. And, once again repeating ad nauseam, the war did not solely focus on the over-hyped WMD issue. In that light, Powell did nothing "right" or "wrong" in front of the UN.

Did anyone, at that time, believe so?

Me. Not hindsight, I questioned most of the intelligence at the time. I had long debates here about how bad the evidence was.

And, once again repeating ad nauseam, the war did not solely focus on the over-hyped WMD issue.

I have never claimed it was solely about WMD, though it has frequently been the easy way out for conservatives to claim on this message board. I have long thought there were multiple reasons, but the primary being a security threat to the United States.

Birdseye wrote:I have never claimed it was solely about WMD, though it has frequently been the easy way out for conservatives to claim on this message board. I have long thought there were multiple reasons, but the primary being a security threat to the United States.

Wow Birds, talk about a complete "about-face". I don't even enjoy reading this part of the forum that much anymore and even I know better

Since I fixated a lot on WMD, you and others made the assumption that I thought it was the USA's only reason...definitely not the case.

Feel free to go back into my old pre-war posts, it's all there. The reason WMD is argued about so vigerously for me is that it is the key element in the argument to go to war. Remove the WMD and the case is weak (to me, obviously not to you and other conservatives). I also felt at the time of the UN inspection debates, the existance of WMD was the dividing issue around the world. Sure there were other reasons such as oil, liberation, and democratizing the middle east. But the dividing issue around the world was WMD. The reason Americans were scared into war was WMD.

We told the world we could not wait during inspections, it had to be done now. Bush wasn't willing to wait for the proof to come in the form of mushroom cloud. WMD *defines* this war to me.

If you had told the American public straight up - These people do not have any WMD, nor do they have any plans to attack us, but it is a really good long term strategy to democratize the middle east and liberate Iraq, the public would not have gone with it. Yes, Bush mentioned other reasons. But a security threat was (and usually is, economic or physical) motivaiton for public acceptance.

Hopefully the gamble of democratizing Iraq will pay off, while not completely forgetting about Afghanistan (another one of my concerns). Unfortunately last I heard the Taliban was increasing in power.

Birdseye wrote: Hopefully the gamble of democratizing Iraq will pay off, while not completely forgetting about Afghanistan (another one of my concerns).

In 2004 a historic moment happened in Afghanistan. The first Afghan woman voted. Of course, liberals and the liberal media didn't want to make a big deal of this because it would help President GW Bush get re-elected. You see "liberals" really don't care about liberty. If they did, they would support the spread of liberty around the world ASAP instead of relying on despots and bureaucraps in the UN to set the schedule.

Shut up! For the love of God, just shut up!

KlubMarcus wrote:In 2004 a historic moment happened in Afghanistan. The first Afghan woman voted. Of course, liberals and the liberal media didn't want to make a big deal of this because it would help President GW Bush get re-elected. You see "liberals" really don't care about liberty. If they did, they would support the spread of liberty around the world ASAP instead of relying on despots and bureaucraps in the UN to set the schedule.

Your over-generalizations of Liberals offend me. I am a Liberal and I can tell you with no doubt in my mind that I would fight and die to protect liberty here at home and to protect the Constitution. I would also consider fighting to bring freedom to a people who wanted it, but there may be other ways to do that. They should be explored. War should be an absolute last resort in the resolution of any conflict.

That said, how does anything you just said relate to WMD and the administrations inability/failure to locate such WMD, and/or the inaccurate intelligence that was accidentially/intentionally(That ones for another topic) used to insinuate that Iraq had it?

Whatever Powell did at the UN by presenting that intelligence is irrelivent. Wether he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, or wether he was simply following instructions from the more core members of the Bush administration is irrelivent. The fact is that we are stuck in Iraq for the long haul and we must find a way to help them embrace democracy. Wether that proves possible is debateable, but the elections in Iraq are a good start. The coming weeks and months and the Iraqi peoples reaction to their new system will tell us soon wether democracy can actually take root there or if weve made a most greivous and costly error. I hope it does not come to that.

Vader, he is just trolling. Ignore it. If he continues like this he won't post here forever.

I think the reason we went into Iraq is becuase Sadam planned to Kill W's dad. All the rest is just a shiny object.

Avder wrote: Your over-generalizations of Liberals offend me.

Then stop being a liberal.

I am a Liberal and I can tell you with no doubt in my mind that I would fight and die to protect liberty here at home and to protect the Constitution.

Better write a letter to liberal politicians, their rhetoric doesn't match yours.

I would also consider fighting to bring freedom to a people who wanted it, but there may be other ways to do that. They should be explored. War should be an absolute last resort in the resolution of any conflict.

Typical liberal, using qualifying words such "consider", "other", and "resolution". Just admit it, Saddam got what he deserved and we were the country with the military to get the job done. Who else were you going to depend on? The UN? All the UN does is jibber-jabber using those same words. War, for lack of a better word, works.

That said, how does anything you just said relate to WMD and the administrations inability/failure to locate such WMD, and/or the inaccurate intelligence that was accidentially/intentionally (That ones for another topic) used to insinuate that Iraq had it?

It doesn't matter if Iraq had WMD's, now. We've got Iraq's Commander-In-Chief in jail. What's Saddam going to do, ask for his one phone call from jail so he can send authorization codes to launch a WMD attack on Kuwait in order to increase oil prices?

Whatever Powell did at the UN by presenting that intelligence is irrelivent. Wether he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, or wether he was simply following instructions from the more core members of the Bush administration is irrelivent. The fact is that we are stuck in Iraq for the long haul and we must find a way to help them embrace democracy. Wether that proves possible is debateable, but the elections in Iraq are a good start. The coming weeks and months and the Iraqi peoples reaction to their new system will tell us soon wether democracy can actually take root there or if weve made a most greivous and costly error. I hope it does not come to that.

If democracy doesn't work, we'll release Saddam Hussein and teach those Iraqis a lesson in "alternative medicine... err government". It's kinda like Cuba. Fidel is of no consequence to us. America has an instant laughingstock and figurehead to point out as an example to lesser nations and peoples around the world. A Cuban will yell out, "Long live the Socialist Revolution", right before he jumps into the water on an innertube as he paddles for the good 'ole USA.

Birdseye wrote:The reason WMD is argued about so vigerously for me is that it is the key element in the argument to go to war. Remove the WMD and the case is weak (to me, obviously not to you and other conservatives).

No, Birdseye. Life would be wonderful if it were that simple, but "remove the WMD and the case is weak" is, in my opinion, a ridiculous thing to say.

It is a ridiculous thing to say, because "remove the WMD" assumes a world where Iraqi WMD suddenly vanishes from the face of earth. Now let's assume we live in Birdseye's world. What do you have remaining?

You have the following undisputed material facts:

1) A dictator who invaded a wealthy foreign soveriegn to enhance his power and control over world oil reserves;

2) A war against the dictator to drive him back into his own country.

3) A surrender by the dictator in 1991, under U.N. Resolution 687, which states in relevant part:

"Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons, under terms that include weapons inspections 2) Used chemical weapons in the past to slaughter his own people . . . ;"


8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless,[/u] under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities . . . ;"

(Emphases added.) Iraq is further required to give up its nuclear weapons program (§8.), and required to submit to onsite inspections and verifications that it has complied with all of terms of the surrender.

4) Iraq begins a campaign of violating the terms of its surrender.

5) Iraq plots to assassinate President Bush 41. In June of 1993, the United States conducts a missile attack on Iraq, after discovering the plan.

6) 1997 -- After a series of troop buildups by Hussein near the Kuwaiti border, Iraq throws out the weapons inspectors, claiming they are "spies". He later permits some back in, but refuses them access to palaces and other official residences -- suspected WMD sites.

7) 1998 -- Iraq cuts off all work by U.N. monitors, then agrees to let them back in within 20 minutes of B-52's being launched.

8.) December, 1998 -- A formal U.N. report accuses Iraq of a repeated pattern of obstructing weapons inspections by not allowing access to records and inspections sites, and by moving equipment records and equipment from one to site another.

9) December, 1998 -- President Clinton authorizes Operation DESERT FOX. The Mission: "To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction."

10) 9/11/2001 happens.

11) Hussein continues his defiance by refusing to permit full inspections, so the United Nations passes Resolution 1441 which recites the following fact: " . . . that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction . . . ."

I believe the facts set forth above are indisputable. If you dispute any of those facts, or you feel there are additional undisputable material facts should have been included, say so.

Now, let's assess your remove-the-WMD-and-you-have-no-war argument. You contend that U.S. intelligence regarding Hussein's possession of WMD was flawed. You impliedly concede, therefore, that intelligence assessments by other countries that came to the same conclusion was similarly flawed.

Naturally I'm intrigued by your contention that you knew this all along (Birdseye: "...I questioned most of the intelligence at the time. I had long debates here about how bad the evidence was"), which would seem to imply that you knew more than the intelligence assessments of the United States (including the Senate Intelligence Committee), Russia, Great Britain, France, and the list goes on and on. But I'll leave that statement hanging out there for others to judge.

Let's take the WMD out of the equation now, per your assumption, and leave all the other material facts the same. For purposes of this analysis, I will concede that Hussein became a born again Christian after President Clinton bombed Baghdad under Operation Desert Fox, and instructed his fellows to do away with all WMD and Iraq's capacity to make them. But this is all a secret.

He still refuses to permit inspections, or disclose what he has done with his WMD.

At minimum, you have a remaining dispute, Birdseye, over whether or not WMD exists in Iraq -- which dispute is based on the best known intelligence in the world. And you have an uncooperative dictator who refuses to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations to permit verification of what you contend is a certitude, even though many of them are terms of his surrender from the Gulf War.

The argument might be weaker (but not "weak"), had we all known that Hussein had no WMD but still had the desire, the will, and the intent to generate them. But that argument assumes either 1) verification by full disclosure and inspections of Iraq ; or 2) perfect intelligence. Neither of these variables are available to you. Your own argument proves too much.

The idea, that if Hussein did not have WMD just prior to the war, that we would not have gone to war, is a child's idea. It is an idea that conveniently ignores the complications of what is real, including Hussein's own conduct and his failure to disclose that fact -- if it is a fact. It is a notion repeated largely by democrats, based on spoon-feeding from democratic politicians playing politics. The hope is that by saying it over and over, it will become a political, if not historical, reality.

BD

I'm pretty sure Siria is now the proud owner of all of Iraq's missing WMDs.

9/11/2001 happens.

Um, please tie this in with Saddam Hussain. I would hate to quote John Kerry, but I almost feel like I have to. Saddam Hussain did not attack us.

which would seem to imply that you knew more than the intelligence assessments of the United States

You are forgetting about the weapons inspections. We had teams of investigators probing the country. The Bush administration said they "knew" of locations of "stockpiles" of banned weapons. The weapons inspectors never found anything.

I didn't 100% know, it is impossible to do that... but the pictures people posted of "evidence" on the DBB during the *inspection era* were downright terrible, and turned out to be false.

He still refuses to permit inspections, or disclose what he has done with his WMD.

Total catch-22.

The idea, that if Hussein did not have WMD just prior to the war, that we would not have gone to war, is a child's idea.

Argumentation 101: You don't prove your point with Ad Hominem attacks. I don't call you a retard for buying the "Evidence could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" BS, so please give me the same respect.

It is a notion repeated largely by democrats, based on spoon-feeding from democratic politicians playing politics.

Ad hominem attack. I am not a democrat. I thought the democrats completely pussied out at the time. If you remember your US history, at the time the Democrats were TOTALLY ON THE BANDWAGON. John Kerry wasn't giving the speeches he later gave. The only democrat speaking out at the time was Cynthia McKinney. Spoon fed? Please. The democrats hadn't even switched to anti-war when I had my position, they were pro-war at the time. Remember flip flop?

I have never voted for a democrat in a major political office. Actually, I have voted for more republicans. But mostly I have voted Libertarian. See, it's easy to see how you are making assumptions and that must translate into idiocy regarding WMD, right? (I'm kidding, I hate the ad hominem attack game you are reducing this to).


I'm willing to work on a longer post if you are willing to focus on arguing/discussing, rather than attempting to prove your point partly on basis of personal attacks.

This whole topic reminds me of that South Park episode where the boys were building a ladder to heaven so they could talk to Kenny and find out what he did with their candy store raffle tickets.

U.S. intelligence tried to sell the idea to the U.N. that Saddam Hussein was in heaven, after being kicked out of hell by Satan. They tried pointing out clouds that looked like weapon factories and the like.

Hilarious episode.

News Anchor: "Now that we know heaven has WMD, should we bomb it? 48% say Yes, 52% say no"

Yes, one of the funniest.

Birdseye wrote:

9/11/2001 happens.

Um, please tie this in with Saddam Hussain. I would hate to quote John Kerry ...

Then spare us. John Kerry was trying to pick up your vote with that line. Let me walk you through the logic here.

9/11 was an event that demonstrated the extent to which middle-eastern terrorists would go to harm the United States. Only those that hold a simplistic view of the world would adopt a post-911 foreign policy that ignored this growing threat. Saddam Hussein was a middle-eastern dictator of what I believe was the fourth largest army in the world. He had demonstrated, let's see, antipathy for the United States. Hussein had also used WMD on his own people. Additionally, Saddam Hussein had paid off families of terrorists exploded themselves amidst crowds of Jews.

911 is significant because, from a policy standpoint, it signaled that the United States needed to increase its awareness of the threats around it. That includes recognition of the very real possibility of cooperation between enemies.

which would seem to imply that you knew more than the intelligence assessments of the United States

Birdseye wrote:I didn't 100% know, it is impossible to do that...

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere!

Birdseye wrote: ... but the pictures people posted of "evidence" on the DBB . . . .

. . . are pictures posted on the DBB.

He still refuses to permit inspections, or disclose what he has done with his WMD.

Birdseye wrote:Total catch-22.

Well yes, for Hussein, but not for the Coalition. Hussein may have not wanted to reveal, say, that he had destroyed his own WMD, so he could continue to frighten his his neighbors. If so, that was Hussein's calculated risk. He lost.

The idea, that if Hussein did not have WMD just prior to the war, that we would not have gone to war, is a child's idea.

Birdseye wrote:Argumentation 101: You don't prove your point with Ad Hominem attacks. I don't call you a retard for buying the "Evidence could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" BS, so please give me the same respect.

Riiiiiiiiight, let me give you my thoughts on that.

The position you are defending is naive, unsupported, uninformed, and in my view, demonstrates an immature point of view. I withdraw my remark that it is a "child's idea."

On the other hand, my argument is laid out there for your substantive analysis, but you haven't touched it. I doubt you ultimately will, because it will be hard.

With regard to your assertion about the "BS" concerning mushroom clouds, Bush did not state that Hussein had present capacity to deploy a nuclear weapon. So let's just clear that up now for anyone whose reading along. Here's the quote:

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. (Emphases added.) [/quote]

Helps me to get the context. Does it help you?

It is a notion repeated largely by democrats, based on spoon-feeding from democratic politicians playing politics.

Birdseye wrote:Ad hominem attack. I am not a democrat.

"Ummmm", I certainly wasn't accusing you of party affiliation with democrats, but I am very amused that you consider it an "ad hominem attack". I know you hold yourself out to be libertarian. (Lord help me if I'd been referring to Republicans.) And as a sidenote, since we're being so free with sidenotes, you might do well to reduce your reliance on the phrase "ad hominem attack", in your next reply. Among other reasons, it's hard for me to re-type, because I can never remember how it's spelled.

I stand by my comment that the notion of No WMD = No War is one largely repeated by democrats. I think they do it for political gain. The fact that you contend they should have said it before the war is irrelevant to the fact they are saying it now.

Birdseye wrote:See, it's easy to see how you are making assumptions and that must translate into idiocy regarding WMD, right? (I'm kidding, I hate the ad hominem attack game you are reducing this to).

I'll bet you secretly wish you could take this one back. Tell you what, if you edit it out, it'll be our little secret.

I'm willing to work on a longer post if you are willing to focus on arguing/discussing, rather than attempting to prove your point partly on basis of personal attacks.

You can do what you like, Birds. If you think you can post a counterargument, I'll be happy to respond.

BD

You are not willing to have a rational discussion. Have a nice day, BD.

Birdseye wrote:You are not willing to have a rational discussion. Have a nice day, BD.

Oh, I think I did ok. The truth is that you are not capable of defending a poorly thought-out position.

Have a nice day, Birdseye.

Birdseye wrote:

He still refuses to permit inspections, or disclose what he has done with his WMD.

Total catch-22.

Sucks to be him, then. After all, he did sign the treaty that said he had to account for his weapons. So what if it's a catch-22? He got himself into it by not complying with the resolutions in the first place.

Even so... what if the entire world intelligence community agreed, Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? Saddam still needed dealt with. Like many politicians now say, he should've been dealt with in 1991 -- so why continue to wait? Why not take a shot right at the heart of the f***ed up ideology that's waging war against us?

Oh, I think I did ok. The truth is that you are not capable of defending a poorly thought-out position

I am more than capable, and I have done so in thousands of words on the DBB. What I don't have to put up with in an argument is going off the point and shifting to personal attacks, which is the content of half your argument in this thread.

That's one thing I enjoy about arguing with Lothar--we are frequently polar opposites, but he always treats me with respect no matter how vigerously he disagrees--and I have learned a lot from him through our cordial discussions/arguments. Had we insulted each other in all of these debates, I fear both of our ears would have remained closed. I'd like to think our dialog has been mutuall beneficial. I've learned a lot about Christianity, Bush's positions, etc. There are very few posters here who are able to detatch emotion from their posts and are able to stick to their intellectual positions. I'm afraid I'm human and when the personal attacks come out, I tend to close my ears to the person's positions. It's your choice, you can keep an open dialog with me, or you can chose not to.

It's ok to think "That's a child's argument" in your head, but typing it in a public forum really accomplishes nothing. Actually, it is counterproductive. You tend to push someone into an ego-defending mode where both parties just attack each other's personal character rather than each other's specific positions with argumentation. Even worse, after a personal attack the recipient will become completely closed to your viewpoint. You've insulted their position as a child's position, or whatever--did you really expect that to be an effective vehicle for your position? What are you trying to accomplish here? Did you want progress, a debate, or a pissing match?

Even so... what if the entire world intelligence community agreed, Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? Saddam still needed dealt with. Like many politicians now say, he should've been dealt with in 1991 -- so why continue to wait? Why not take a shot right at the heart of the f***ed up ideology that's waging war against us?

This is a very valid point.

However, my argument here in this thread about WMD is more about the reasons the american public accepted the war and was willing to go along. The threat of WMD was at the heart of it for public acceptance. Going into the Iraq war the american public overwhelmingly supported the war, but over 50% thought Saddam Hussain was somehow involed in 9/11. It was the fear of weapons, I believe, that drove the public to comply with the war.

It's fine to think Saddam had to go and that's your reason for war. I accept that, and can see where you are coming from, though I didn't see him as a threat. Considering how easily he fell, he really wasn't a threat in my eyes. I don't see him as the type to have given away his weapons. If he had the WMD, I think he would have used every missile he could have against our onslaught. We think of Saddam as this crazed dictator, but then some are also arguing that he was willing to give up his weapons to other countries. No crazed dictator would give up his ability to defend himself, even for cash. The defense/military complex is what keeps him in power.

At this point I think Bush (this is speculation, which I think you HAVE to do to some extent in politics, though I know it's not really a fair thing to try to have a precise argument about) believed there to be more WMD than their turned out, but I also think he sort of thought that since he viewed the security threat as real, he was willing to pile on sketchy information. Either that, or because of his deep-seeded belief he was closed to opposing points of view, and when confronted with sketchy evidence was willing to believe it.

I think the war was really more about long term goals of reforming the Muslim world into the "Modernized" paradigm of democracy and capitalism. Pax Americana, as Bash likes to say. And that viewpoint is fine, and though I disagree I can respect it -- but it was not the one that was presented to the american people, and nor was it what they thought they were getting into it for. Maybe it was because it would be too politically unpopular to just go out and say it. Maybe it was because it would have made muslim relations difficult. I don't know why we weren't given more direct reasoning.

Perhaps I'm silly to expect the government to be forthright. What has bothered me the most is that I sensed "ends justifies the means" mentality from Bush. It's not a new one either, it is something that has been done in the past by presidents.

Lothar wrote:Even so... what if the entire world intelligence community agreed, Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? Saddam still needed dealt with. Like many politicians now say, he should've been dealt with in 1991 -- so why continue to wait? Why not take a shot right at the heart of the f***ed up ideology that's waging war against us?

Indeed, and Ive said this before, but if getting rid of Saddam would have been the hallmark reason for going to war with Iraq then I would have supported that decision a great deal more than I did. The reason for my decision was that, blundered intelligence or not, we went to war based on several lies that were made central points of the justification the administration used to invade. Those points were that saddam had wmd, that he was a threat to the US, and that he had been involved in the 9/11 plot. Indeed, he should have been dealt with on a permanent basis back in the early 90's after he went renegade (anyone got that pic of saddam and rumsfeld shaking hands in the late 80s?), after all, we were the ones who gave him his wmd to begin with and unleashed him on Iran in the late 80's (all Republican decisions I might add). He had to go eventually, as he had been an ally of convenience that turned rogue after we gave him the false impression that we would let him do whatever we want. That temper tantrum of his that we had to snuff out (better known as Desert Storm) was preventable, and even redeemable. We had all the justification we needed back in 91, but instead for some reason we waited until 2003 to deal with the Saddam problem, and by that time the public had become somewhat less accepting of such an idea.

So instead of finding a way to get rid of Saddam just because he was Saddam, which would have been all the justification we needed, the current administration either intentionally or accidentially took the easy way out and came up with the WMD. On top of that the repeted shoutings of "Hes a threat! Sqaush him!" and "He helped mastermind 9/11!" were tossed in for good measure ,uch the way a mother tosses in a cookie or a piece of cake to get a reluctant child to do his homework. Granted, that if the administartion hadnt have done what it did Saddam might still be in power instead of having been found cowering in a foxhole covered in dirt, but that is Ireelivent I think. What we did was the right thing in the long run, but we did it for the wrong reasons. the ends may justify the means in the long run, buyt the means were still immoral by virtue of the fact that it was based on outright lies and disinformation.

We could have done things a lot cleaner and moral. There had been groups of people ready for years to help overthrow saddam. Why not arm them with weapons and intelligence and let them stage a little reveolution? Didnt we do something like that in Afghanistan? These are the same people we fed to the dogs after Desert Storm, we owed them a little bit of redemption, after all, were the ones who got them to think we were going after saddam for good back then and when we didnt, they got slaughtered by Saddam.

The point is, there were plenty of options for dispoising of saddam that wouldnt have needed the lies that were told to persuede the public. We erred by not exploring them and now all we can do to try to make things right is to do the very best job we can in iraq. God help us all, but dont tell the insurgents that, that would just piss them off more since its not allah.

Quagmire suxors, but hopefully the recent elections will act as the rope we need to get ourselves out eventually.

I agree with Avder and Birdseye in that the entire premise for going to war in Iraq turned out to be a load of fluff. There's a reason why Bush does not mention these original reasons for going to war in Iraq nowadays. Only history will show years from now whether the intelligence was there but blundered or if Bush was relying on la-la land intelligence.

Now the U.S. must salvage what they can and make the best of the situation (as the White House administration is doing) and try not to make that same mistake again.

We need to use that energy many are throwing into justifying or protesting the Iraq War into getting the troops out of the Iraq and to focus on more domestic issues in order to come up with better solutions.

Birdseye wrote:

Lothar wrote:Saddam still needed dealt with.... Why not take a shot right at the heart of the f***ed up ideology that's waging war against us?

This is a very valid point.

However, my argument here in this thread about WMD is more about the reasons the american public accepted the war and was willing to go along.

Fair enough.

Personally, I think the administration believed the WMD evidence was strong enough to warrant using it to convince the public. They took a gamble on it, and they let the debate focus on the WMD evidence instead of putting more emphasis on the other reasons they had. That was certainly a mistake.

The threat of WMD was at the heart of it for public acceptance. Going into the Iraq war the american public overwhelmingly supported the war, but over 50% thought Saddam Hussain was somehow involed in 9/11. It was the fear of weapons, I believe, that drove the public to comply with the war.

Quite likely, though I think the percentage of people "for" the war would've been about the same if the focus had been different (more support from the left would've offset those who were misled.)

I didn't see [Saddam] as a threat.

That's kind of the point -- get him while he's still too weak to be a real threat.

We think of Saddam as this crazed dictator, but then some are also arguing that he was willing to give up his weapons to other countries.

Unless his plan was to hide out for a while, waiting for the insurgency and the protests to scare off the US troops. It's better to put your weapons in the hands of a friendly country (and hope they'll give them back) than to have them seized. Saddam wasn't stupid -- he knew he didn't have the military might to stand up to the US, and he knew if he used WMD the rest of the world would support us, but I wouldn't be surprised if he expected the same thing that happened in 1991 to happen again... the US goes in, loses heart, loses public opinion, and pulls out.

I think the war was really more about long term goals of reforming the Muslim world into the "Modernized" paradigm of democracy and capitalism.

Of course.... strike at the heart of a f***ed up ideology, and change it. I don't think this idea was nearly as hidden as you make it out to be, though. It just wasn't reported on very much.

Birdseye wrote:

Oh, I think I did ok. The truth is that you are not capable of defending a poorly thought-out position

I am more than capable, and I have done so in thousands of words on the DBB. What I don't have to put up with in an argument is going off the point and shifting to personal attacks, which is the content of half your argument in this thread.

I it's obvious that your tedious position that "I'm a victim of a personal attack" is a convenient excuse to avoid the far more difficult problem of defending your own post. I think the position you assert is naive; I made the case and I stand by that. You've said nothing to dissuade.

You're embarrassed, and you should be, because you overreacted in an odd way to a comment about Democrats that had nothing to do with you.

If you think that I'm craving that you defend your position, you're wrong. I don't think it's defensible. I offer counterpoint since others around here may be influenced by your incorrect view.

Have a really nice day,

BD

It would be as simple as reposting minus the attacks.

You delight in being a "wise" old republican and that I am a young "naive child" but you have huge blinders on. Your positions are solidified. You don't have the ability to change or grow. It's equally as arguable that the reason for the personal attacks originally was that you didn't have a good argument or that you didn't know how to properly express yourself. That's the usual cause of personal attacks; someone that has an argument that lacks clarity or weight and drops the conversation to the )_real_ little kid level. But here we go, you asked for it (By the way, as you can see I'm politely replying to Lothar's polite responses)

Embarrassed? Heh. You should be embarrassed for buying into the bull★■◆●. You believe everything the republicans say; basically a bush clone. Learn to think for yourself, rather than towing the party line. Even when no WMDs are produced, you continue to ego defend your obviously incorrect position than saddam hussain had the stockpiles Bush claimed he "knew" hussain had. Unfortunately, I think for the rest of your life you are doomed to intellectual mediocrity of spitting out what other people have told you. Enjoy the box you've been stuck in your whole life.

The pissing contest is really getting us somewhere, now isn't it? Now did you want to argue facts, or continue name calling?


Back to a rational discussion:
--------------

Personally, I think the administration believed the WMD evidence was strong enough to warrant using it to convince the public. They took a gamble on it, and they let the debate focus on the WMD evidence instead of putting more emphasis on the other reasons they had. That was certainly a mistake.

You know, I think this is pretty close to what I am saying--only I think the gamble included taking fuzzy intelligence as fact because they held a solidified belief that the weapons had to be there.

Quite likely, though I think the percentage of people "for" the war would've been about the same if the focus had been different (more support from the left would've offset those who were misled.)

Wow. I really find that hard to believe. If the president said to the public: "I think nation X poses no immediate security threat, but for long term stability we need to go to war now" I think people would not be into it. I really felt like WMDs pushed the drive for war. As the PNAC document said, to get the war in Iraq going they needed something the magnitude of Pearl Harbor to happen (9-11 happened). They needed the public to feel afraid in order to go to war. And why Iraq? Because they have weapons that could fall into terrorist hands!
I just don't see the public buying the war without the fear of "the proof coming in the form of a mushroom cloud". The Bush administration played on fear a lot, and I think a lot of that was tied to WMD.

That's kind of the point -- get him while he's still too weak to be a real threat.

Weird--Both President Bush and John Kerry considered him a threat. I happened to disagree with both of them, but I'm surprised that you admit he was not a threat.

So--do you think we need to go to war in case someone might become a threat? I see Iran as being in this category by your logic, since they don't have nukes yet but are developing them.

Unless his plan was to hide out for a while, waiting for the insurgency and the protests to scare off the US troops. It's better to put your weapons in the hands of a friendly country (and hope they'll give them back) than to have them seized. Saddam wasn't stupid -- he knew he didn't have the military might to stand up to the US, and he knew if he used WMD the rest of the world would support us, but I wouldn't be surprised if he expected the same thing that happened in 1991 to happen again... the US goes in, loses heart, loses public opinion, and pulls out.

Good job. This is the best explanation I have possibly heard, but I still consider it grasping at straws. I don't think he would have given his weapons to another country (did he really have friends in the region with that kind of understood loyalty? I didn't think so). I think if this explanation was right, you would have found some stockpiles near where he was found.

Of course.... strike at the heart of a f***ed up ideology, and change it. I don't think this idea was nearly as hidden as you make it out to be, though. It just wasn't reported on very much.

Or really talked about by Bush himself explicitly. You heard "spread freedom and democracy" but what it really meant was "change their way of life to ours". Now, that could be a good thing (and likely will be with the rate elections are keeping things positive). But I don't think the general public grasped this, and I think that was bush's intention.

Birdseye wrote:

That's kind of the point -- get him while he's still too weak to be a real threat.

Weird--Both President Bush and John Kerry considered him a threat.

A threat, yes. A "real" threat, on the order of the USSR in the 1980's? No. But he certainly wanted to be, and probably had the means to be in the not-too-distant future. If I recall correctly, the terminology used over and over again was "gathering threat".

So--do you think we need to go to war in case someone might become a threat? I see Iran as being in this category by your logic, since they don't have nukes yet but are developing them.

I don't think it's a question of "might become a threat", but rather, "has the means and desire to become a threat". In a circumstance like that, I don't think any nation would be wise to sit back and allow the threat to grow. There are many ways to deal with such future threats, of course.

This definitely, absolutely, 100% includes Iran right now -- and not just as a threat to the US, but as a threat to Israel and many other nations. In this case, I'm not convinced the proper response would be a full-scale invasion, but looking the other way while Israel takes out some nuclear facilities we just happened to accidentally point out to them might not be a bad way to go.

I still consider it grasping at straws. I don't think he would have given his weapons to another country...

*shrug* then we'll just have to disagree, there. I'm not convinced that was his plan, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was something like that.

Of course.... strike at the heart of a f***ed up ideology, and change it.

Or really talked about by Bush himself explicitly... I don't think the general public grasped this, and I think that was bush's intention.

There were many comments about radical ideology and hijacked religion in the speeches leading up to war. This was also where a lot of the "us vs them" statements you dislike so much were coming from. I don't think people grasped this quite right -- "Saddam was involved in 9/11" was one distortion of it, and there were others. I think that's actually the main reason people thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- they knew taking out Saddam was a central pillar of the WoT (because Bush communicated that) but they misunderstood the WoT as a war on Al Qaeda instead of a war on a whole ideology. It wasn't so much that they didn't know Bush was striking at the heart of the matter, but that they misunderstood "the matter" as "Al Qaeda" instead of "a larger radical ideology that contains AQ".

I do think Bush intended to obscure this somewhat, but only far enough to keep it from being thought of as a holy war.

This reminds me of that thread...in the cafe...where a survey concluded that ignorant people think they're a lot smarter then they actually are

Yea, I got that feeling when Klub posted.

Birdseye wrote:You should be embarrassed for buying into the bull****. You believe everything the republicans say; basically a bush clone. Learn to think for yourself, rather than towing the party line. Even when no WMDs are produced, you continue to ego defend your obviously incorrect position than saddam hussain had the stockpiles Bush claimed he "knew" hussain had. Unfortunately, I think for the rest of your life you are doomed to intellectual mediocrity of spitting out what other people have told you. Enjoy the box you've been stuck in your whole life.

"Bush Clone"? "Doomed to intellectual mediocrity"? Shucks ... go on, I'll bet you say that to all the republicans.

Do you have any others? I'm thinking about getting some T-shirts made up.

BD

Bird, is it possible you can catagorically state that WMD's were not moved to Syria?

Birdseye is no dummy and Bold Deciever has laid out in easy to understand terms a very strong case so I have to conclude he, like many others, has chosen to ignore the glaring truth and let his dislike for Bush, or maybe dislike for war in general lead him to denial land.

If I'm wrong Birdseye (or anyone else) why not look past the so called personal attacks and prove Bold Deciever wrong on substance?

I'd love to see anyone try to refute what Bold laid out.

And what new ideas did he bring to the table? I've seen such lists that he posted before. This was argued about before the war, including on this war.

Denial land? Heh, I have been praising the elections and I'm still open to the idea that it may turn out for the better and that I was wrong. I've been calling the war a gamble. It may pay off big. On this issue, however, the proof is in the nation. Proof in the form of a mushroom cloud? Please. You're holding on to vapor weapons.

Will, you know me better than to think that. If there is anyone anti war here who was willing to respond to any rational argument that didn't involve personal attacks, it's me. I've never backed down from an argument. Give me a break. It's your own ego shining through, hoping that somehow I have finally been "vanquished" by a list I've seen a few times the past few years. Yawn. Before the war I criticized the intelligence and didn't think it was correct. You'd think that after the war begins and the US itself has ended the WMD search, that at least on this issue I would be found to be correct. This just shows that you were NEVER willing to admit you were wrong, NO MATTER WHAT. Not from someone who can't admit they were wrong and can only ego-defend their own position.

There is another list I could pull up of US claims before the war of weapons stockpiles they "knew" about. None of these stockpiles were found. I feel denial land swinging in the opposite direction. I am willing to admit the Iraq war may be for the better depending on how it plays out over the long term. But the bush supporters here surely cannot think Bush can do any wrong. I've never seen BD disagree with Bush on a single issue here. He comes, defends bush like a good party line republican, and dissappears until another day to defend Bush. You act like he posted some ground breaking list. Really, it is not new content to me. During pre-war arguments, such lists were posted in great detail, most notably by index.

Will, a strong case for *what*? You say a strong case, but you don't say exactly for what.

Clearly, the lack of weapons in Iraq shows that there *was* time to bring the international community on board (of course, you'll never think anyone would have, so don't even bother posting the counter argument...at this point your positions seem totally solidified). Even if you don't think the inspections weren't working (although it is hard to see how they were not--no weapons! Did you realize the part about no weapons?) it is at least obvious now that we could have been significantly more diplomatic regarding the war in Iraq and that it could have been conducted in a manner to save a significant amount of respect for us. That loss of respect may have resulted in the loss of american lives and money. But I don't expect you to believe that. I know you'll just regurgitate that they never would have come on or respected us if they didn't help, same outcome waiting or not... so you don't need to bother replying. I know the response.

Of course catagorically you can't say anything about WMD... I can't say catagorically that woodchip isn't a jewish mother of 100 children. The logic is just bizarre. First I am told saddam is a crazed dictator who is ready to use his stockpiles of weapons either on us or given to terrorists. Then when we invade the country and the claimed weapons are not there, these same people decide that Saddam gave the weapons to another country and that he thought going into a foxhole was a better idea than trying to create another vietnam-like scenario. Riiiight. Good ol' saddam, his muslim brothers have always been able to count on him to share the weapons.

The US itself has ended the search for WMD. LET GO. It's funny, it would have been really easy for bold to just have replied earlier saying "Sorry about the personal attacks" and reposted minus them. I would have thanked him and rational discussion would have proceeded. Instead, he decided to increase the amount of personal attacks. Is that how you taught your children to act? Did you think personal attacks would somehow woo me to see the light in your argument, or are you not really even here for a dialog? Are you here to just piss out your own position, completely disregarding everyone else? Is that what E&C has come to? Forgive me for trying to raise the bar here. What was I thinking?

The strangest thing is that all of you are grown men. You should know better than to throw personal attacks in what should be a rational discussion. Yet I don't see anyone agreeing that perhaps the debate should continue after the personal attacks are removed from the argument. So much for civility. Looks like the 50+ crowd needs to return to high school english class (logical fallacies) and kindergarten (golden rule). Good luck with that.

Hussein dismantled his WMD and the means to create them, yet he played neener neener with the US.

refer to the previous WMD thread for the discussion Lothar, Pebkac and I had about it.

What bothers me about the WMD is the message it sends to other countries. If you were N.Korea, and the U.S. now said â??stop making WMD or we will invadeâ?

If I wake one september 11th morning and find fox tracks in my henhouse and decide I've had enough of my hens dying in the jaws of foxes I'm not going to hunt only the fox that left the tracks I found that morning.

I think you can understand that logic and choose to ignore it when you constantly demand that we show Saddam was connected to the attack 9/11. That is denial.

Saddam was very connected to terrorism. Bush declared a war on terror.
If Bush had declared a war on al Queda you'd have a point but he didn't, he declared a war on terror....all terrorists and the entities that harbour and aid them. Therefore Saddam was connected.

With the benifit of hindsight you convieniently accent the missing WMD's but don't bother to use the same hindsight to consider the inevitable failure of the U.N. resolutions and the inspections that did not suceed in bringing Saddam into compliance. They were never going to work and Saddam was going to be free of them, he bribed a number of the security council members! He was soon to be free to carry on where he left off! Can you not honestly address where he was when he left off and try to explain how he wasn't going to once again be a threat! Even if he really didn't have any WMD's, a highly unlikely scenario, he was most certainly going to rebuild his abilities immediately.
If you want to apply the benefit of hindsight to judge Bush's motives and methods then please apply it to all the factors that make up the conditions you are judging.
Instead you are selectively applying bits of knowledge to suit your case.

Also, You say Bush lied about the 'mushroom cloud'...Bold Deciever addressed that very clearly with the whole quote from Bush. He made his case and you dodged it.
Further, you say that the american people were fooled into supporting the war by that lie and don't seem to want to consider the american people weren't fooled, they felt justified in assuming Saddam was connected to the threat we faced, surely some are just so knee jerk in their ways that they still think he paid for the 9/11 attack but most of us just simply get the picture. The war on terror will include war on terrorists, not just some terrorists in a cave in Pakistan but all terrorists that we can get at.
With the constant chorus of "Bush Lied" ringing out in the news and all forms of media from acadamy award speeches to jokes in sit-coms to every leftwing voice that could find a microphone we all heard it ad-nasuem for over two years! The majority of americans heard that as a lame argument, a bit of whinning over a trivial piece of the puzzle not relavent to the total picture that we could see. If it was true that Bush had lied, completely fabricated the connection between Saddam and terrorism we wouldn't have seen him get re-elected. Americans don't like to be used like you claim he used us and a lot of them would have stayed home on election day.

You either don't get it, which I doubt because you too are a grown man and clearly have the capability, or you choose to deny it.

So here it is once again, this is what Bush said, just not quite so simply or clear:
It's the war on terror, not the war on a few terrorists hiding in a cave somewhere.

Gooberman wrote:What we did to Sadamn is analogous to a cop telling an armed criminal, "Stop, drop the weapon, put your hands in the air, or I will shoot." And after the criminal drops the weapon and puts his hands in the air, the cop shoots him in the face. What is the precedent that we just set? What do you think the next criminal will do when told to stop?

He will shoot!

I don't think your analogy is completely accurate.

Had Hussein "dropped his weapon and put his hands in the air" there would have been no war. But to do this, he would have had to have made full disclosure (kind of like Libya), he would have had to have permitted full inspections, he would have had to have fully and completely cooperated with the United Nations and the I.A.E.A.

Here, the United Nations told Hussein, "Stop, drop the weapon, put your hands in the air, or I will shoot." Here, Hussein is a known violent criminal who has killed before with the same or similar weapons. The criminal spins around, with his hands out of view, and says "I dropped it, I dropped it". But he refuses to show his hands to show he is unarmed.

He is warned, again and again, to turn around and show his hands. He stays turned, with his hands hidden, and insists "I dropped it, I dropped it". He is told he will be shot if he does not turn around and show his hands. He refuses, and the cop shoots him.

If you believe North Korea would be inspired to procure even more WMD in spite of this, then it's a very troubling world. What's your solution?

BD

Birdseye wrote:Of course catagorically you can't say anything about WMD... I can't say catagorically that woodchip isn't a jewish mother of 100 children. The logic is just bizarre.

It's a good bit different, really, isn't it?

Woodchip has not held himself out to be Jewish, or a mother of 100 children. Nor is there any available evidence (to my knowledge) that Woodchip is Jewish. There is no evidence that Woodchip is the mother of 100 children.

Neither is there any available evidence that the moon is made of cheese, for that matter.

On the other hand, there was a wealth of evidence that Hussein was a dangerous dictator. There is no dispute he deployed WMD against his own civilians. There is no dispute he deployed WMD against a neighboring country. There is no dispute he invaded a soveriegn nation to expand his power base. There is no dispute he had no love for the U.S. There is no dispute he tried to assassinate a U.S. President. There is no dispute he violated the terms of his surrender by ousting U.N. inspectors. There is no dispute he attempted, over and over, to frustrate inspections of his weapons arsenal for 11 years; inspections which were calculated to determine whether he in fact was in possession of WMD. There is no dispute the United Nations codified all of this horsehockey in Resolution 1441, and called for Hussein to demonstrate compliance or face serious compliance.

There is no dispute that absent full cooperation by Hussein, no one could know with certainty whether Iraq possessed WMD, or not.

And Hussein opted against it.

In this context, one cannot choose against wrenching a pistol from the equivalent hand of a badly-behaved teenager, one who has attacked others before and is now shouting epithets and threats at you and your loved ones from across the room, on the basis that the gun might not be loaded. (Pick your favorite analogy; either one works.)

The fact the gun could be empty isn't a basis for spawning another 11 years of "negotation" on the question.

BD

That's if North Korea would listen anyway. They'd certainly know how determined the Bush administration is to push a war, and that they'd quite happily manufacture evidence regardless - or even if not, they probably wouldn't want to do anything the US or UN told them. If such an ultimatum was pushed, they'd probably up the ante with their nuclear weapons program; if war was imminent, they'd be sure they made the first strike.

How to stop them? Either not let them know it's coming, or avoid the use of warfare...

BD wrote: What's your solution?

The only solution now is to stay the course. And leave when the job is finished, not when we grow wiery of its existence. I only differ with most conservatives on this issue when it comes to the past, not the present or the future. The road has allready been chosen.

However it really bothers me as a nation how so many shrug off there being no WMD. Would you agree that it was only the WMD that made us go now?

When responding to a question about sufficient armor for the vehicles, Donald Rumsfield said, "When you go to war, you go with the army you have not the army you want."

People have died for this mistake. And has anyone even been fired? I don't think the mistake was intentional but my god, people died because of it.

If you rush to a war, (anytime you go to a pre-emptive war with anything except the army you want, it is being rushed), you better damn well know that the reason for rushing is valid. Not think, or believe, but know.

War is the most serious action that man kind can take. This mistake cost peoples lives, and may very well cost alot more, and at the bare minimum there needs to be an investigation.

And at the maximum anyone who made comments like it was a "slam dunk," need to lose their jobs. Because they just had to be blinded by their beliefs.