Interesting Iraq war politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those "unsubstantiated claims" were hardly unsubstaintated.

All of the world's major intelligence agencies had credible evidence of activities in Iraq that indicated the presence of WMD. It wasn't just Powel making up some unsupported stories for the UN. He (and many others at the UN) presented reasons why they believed Saddam had WMD. They didn't just pull this stuff out of their collective arses like you suggested.

The Brits don't think those references to uranium from Africa are very "vague". To this day they stand behind their intel and firmly blieve that Saddam made an attempt to purchase yellow cake from Niger.

The UN inspectors had a decade to do their job. They were thwarted by Saddam's men at every turn. How much longer should we have allowed that charade to last before admitting that UN weapons inspections weren't working?

Besides, the original cease fire agreement placed the burden upon Saddam to demonstrably destroy his WMD. He chose not to do that. He also violated just about every other tenet of the cease fire. Among other things, he attacked US and coalition forces roughly once a month, executed POWs, attempted to assassinate a US President, and on and on...

The libs say all this and more is simply a Bush lie.

Well, if Bush can manipulate foreign intelligence services simply by lying...
And if Bush can materialze volumes of evidence simply by lying...
And if Bush can force Saddam to try to buy uranium simply by lying...
And if Bush can cause Saddam to obstruct the UN inspectors simply by lying...
And if Bush can force Saddam to repeatedly violate his cease fire agreement simply by lying...

...then surely Bush can fake some WMD in Iraq simply by lying. Given that Bush is evil personified, he would have every reason in the world to do precisely that. Logical, right?

Of course this makes no sense. (At least we can agree on something :p )

The "Bush lied" reasoning [sic] has never made any sense. That's precisely the point I've been trying to make. Bush can't possibly lie WMD proof into existence. Not now, and not before the war. To claim that he can is utterly irrational!!
 
Asserting something does not make it so. The proof of the pudding is that there were people who had good arguments at the time that inspections WERE working and evidence for WMD was controversial to say the least. One side or the other was wrong, not just wrong, but shopping around for evidence to fit it's pre-concieved beliefs. Such as publishing reports by defectors who had failed lie detector tests administered by our own intelligence officials. (I'd post a link, but it's too long, and the url function doesn't seem to be working. It was in the Rolling Stone.) Such as making claims that were not proven. After the truth is out, they're trying to cloud things with ridiculous claims about massive convoys of trucks dissappearing into Syria.

How stupid do they think we are?

Got up to edit un-high road remark...
 
Last edited:
Here's a better link. Look at the item at the bottom of the page. Pay special attention to the last quote by Powell.

http://www.polygraph.org/inthenewsaprmay2004.htm

Iraq war partially based on bad information
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is having to do some damage control after a failed polygraph test by an Iraqi defector proved he was lying about knowing where Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons facilities were. That defector was a big reason why the U.S. went to war with the Iraqi regime. Adnan Ishan Saeed al Haideri claimed he worked at chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons facilities in the Baghdad area. He was given a lie detector test and failed. When he visited Iraq with the CIA and was asked to point out the alleged facilities, he could only show authorities well-known military installations; al Haideri was unable to locate any facilities that produced weapons of mass destruction. Administration officials used Haideri’s claims of knowing the whereabouts of the facilities as one reason to go to war. It was not known if the Bush camp was aware of the lie detector test results before the war began, or if they knowingly gave Congress false information when justifying why America should go to war with Hussein. On NBC’s 'Meet the Press,' Secretary of State Colin Powell apologized for the misinformation. "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I am disappointed and regret it."
Source: http://www.stltoday.com. U.S. publicized Iraqi defector’s claims after he was discredited, By Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers. May 18, 2004.

Edited to add text.
 
Let's not forget where the original Iraqi nerve gas came from.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous thing to claim; everyone knows Iraq had no WMD. :neener:

Seriously, we do know that Iraq had WMD because the US gave them some a long time ago. Then Iraq made some more of their own. And we do know that Iraq used WMD on the Kurds and in the war against Iran.

Here's my quandry and unanswered questions: since Iraq acquired, developed, and used WMD over a period of a number of years, when did Iraq turn over a new leaf and get rid of their WMD? And if Iraq had purged itself of WMD, why did they refuse, over a number of years, to allow the UN inspectors to prove their innocence?

So, beyond simply pronouncing the ridiculousness of "massive convoys of trucks dissappearing into Syria" just what did happen to Iraq's WMD?
 
And the point would be............

"If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?"

They already got what every first term administration wanted........a second term. No real point of the dog and pony show now is there.

SirPorl
 
SirPorl said:
They already got what every first term administration wanted........a second term. No real point of the dog and pony show now is there.
Click to expand...
By that logic, there is also no reason to stay in Iraq.
 
Good point

Good call.....I don't really think there is a reason to stay there. I think Team USA needs to take care of a few things at home first. Mainly doing something about our porous southern border before we go galavanting around the world playing law enforcement officer, nation builder, blah blah blah blah.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
I'll give the professor the benefit of the doubt. She may well think she's telling the truth and at some level even sort of believe it herself. That's because the most effective way to lie is to tell the truth, or at least some version of the truth that a group of people have convinced themselves to buy into.

Take this example. There was no way the Bush administration was going to whip the masses into a fearful frenzy over something as abstract as the Iraqis threatening the hegemony of the petrodollar, even though that may well have been the most legitimate threat the country faced. It was much easier to use hyperbolic imagery of a vague threat that "might come in the form of a mushroom cloud." And even if the neocons were cynical enough to believe that we needed to fight a war to preserve the dollar while convincing us that it was about WMDs, they weren't good enough actors to pull it off.

The solution was to convince themselves that the war was about WMDs. Once they bought into it, at least on a superficial level, convincing most of the rest of us was easy.
Click to expand...

+1;)
 
Why stay in Iraq now? Besides trying to maintain whatever gains we and/or the Iraqi people have acquired, I think a war in Iraq might help a Republican candidate for Prez in '08. Especially if the Dems say they will pull out ASAP. They probably won't say that (look at Kerry in '04), but if they did, it would probably solidify the Reps base and even fence-sitters might say, "well, we gotta finish the job, and it would be a waste to throw it all away now." Or maybe Bush will have us in a war with Iran by then. I remember many people telling me that they were going to vote for Bush in '04 because we were at war and they did not trust Kerry to follow-through in a respectable manner (i.e. he would run away and we'd look worse than ever).

Why wouldn't Saddam admit to disarming? Because his not-so-friendly neighbors would see just how weak he was and he'd be finished.

Why wouldn't Bush admin. claim WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq into Syria? Because then he appear as incompetent as ever. I mean how do you beat the drums of war for months with the contention that you need to rid a madman of WMDs only to allow those WMDs to be shipped to another persons of "questionable" character. Lose-lose for Bush.

I don't buy it however. I would be willing to bet the caravan' cargo was loot that Saddam was hoping to store somewhere else until after he was victorious or in case he had to flee. If I were in Syria, I'd certainly say, "sure, we'll hold on to that for you."

International inspectors would be all over any claims of WMD being discovered. They would analyze the trace elements and determine they came from the US if Bush tried to plant them. I don't believe Bush is as "stupid" as many others do. He knows exactly what he is doing. He knew he was going to war with Iraq on inaugeration day, 2000. The WMD thing was the best case he thought he had at the time. I think he should have went with the "violations of the cease-fire agreement," but then he may have been under the old UN resolutions and guidelines fromt he first GW and he didn't want that. He wanted to finish Saddam this time.

FWIW.
 
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.
 
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry.
Click to expand...
But a Republican pushed for it. That makes it wrong. :rolleyes:
 
bogie said:
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.
Click to expand...
I guess that might all work if only Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy would get with the program.

Can't find a link for this, just the image from today's onlind Sun Herald:

Iraq recovery on hold
Insurgents disrupt water, sanitation projects
By JIM KRANEE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Guerrilla attacks in Iraq have forced the cancellation of more than 60 percent of water and sanitation projects, in part because American intelligence failed to predict the brutal insurgency, a U.S. government audit said.
American goals to fix Iraq’s infrastructure will never be reached, mainly because insurgents have chased away contractors and forced the diversion of repair funds into security, according to an audit of the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Program released last week. It is the latest in a series of auditing reports being issued by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The rise of Iraq’s insurgency was never envisioned by U.S. officials, who originally budgeted about 9 percent of reconstruction aid for project security, the audit said.
As kidnappings, killings and sabotage drove local laborers and foreign technicians from the reconstruction program, U.S. administrators were forced to step up protection for workers.

snip

The spending diversions forced the cancellation of 60 percent of the 136 planned water and sanitation projects, including sewage, irrigation and dams. Just 49 water projects are expected to be completed, the audit says.
Of the 425 planned electric projects, 300 will be finished, meaning ambitious U.S. promises to restore Iraqi power will not be fulfilled.
Projects canceled include $1 billion for six generating plants across Iraq, which will cut back U.S.-funded increases in Iraq’s power generation capacity from a planned 3,400 megawatts to 2,109 megawatts, the report said. The stated monthly goal was 6,000 megawatts.
 
bogie said:
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.
Click to expand...

...and I don't think its "interesting". I think that it is *amazing*. I support their transition to democracy 100%.

I am amazed taht it has occurred. I am a bit bothered by the "go into Iran" bit, but not cuz I don't think we should be going into Iran. The opposite, in fact. I kept thinking that the President got it wrong...mixed up his Q's and N's. Iran *is* a threat to us. Has attacked our embassy, has directly sponsored and continues to directly sponsor and train terrorists, and is *ripe* for revolution with an absolutely rotten support base for their mullahs.

I question us going into Iran FROM Iraq from a strategic point of view. There are fixed installations that both sides built up during their long war, and if we go in through Iraq, we have to negotiate those. *can* we? Oh, without question, we can. Is it the easiest way? Not by a longshot. It will be costly, and I would imagine that there are better ways.

just my thoughts.
 
1) Iraq was far from the most oppressive regime in the ME. It was a brutal dictatorship, and definitely fatal to political opposition, but it was not a place where women were stoned to death for showing their faces.

2) The "representative democracy" in this case means the majority fundamentalist Shia gets to institute a Theocracy. One friendly with Iran, BTW. Nice going.
 
Malone LaVeigh said:
2) The "representative democracy" in this case means the majority fundamentalist Shia gets to institute a Theocracy. One friendly with Iran, BTW. Nice going.
Click to expand...

this brings up an interesting question...what happens when a country popularly elects a group we don't like/cannot deal with?

Examples: Palestine and Venezualla.

It looks like we are gonna be kissing off Palestine, but we can't quite kiss off Venez...they supply too much of our oil.

Hmmm...
 
Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is an interesting malady in that it allows the sufferer to hold two beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

HTG provided a fair example with regard to the WMD issue, while ML did his best to square circles. ML is proof that we all apply differing weights to arguments of logos, pathos, & ethos.

It is my contention that GWB & his admin were convinved of the existence of WMDs in Iraq. His predecessors were convinced. So were the French, Germans, Brits, Russians, and Saddam's fellow muslim dictators. Even Scott Ritter (UN inspector) was convinced, until he was blackmailed with some naughty things he did.

So, what the prof said rings true, IMO.

As to why GWB has not proposed invading Syria, Iran, the Norks, & all other foreign bad guys; perhaps GWB & his buds are not quite the war mongers some portray thme to be. Maybe they really mean it when they think force is not the first option, but an option to use when others have failed and when the cause is important enough to warrant force.

I am not much for the touchy-feely "democratize the world" point of view. I think some folks will do well with self-rule & others will muck it up. With regard to Iraq, Iran, etc, I am pretty much in line with John Derbyshire's view. The main difference is that I do hope this exercise in self-rule in Iraq pans out. But, I know it is a hope and unsupported by history and don't over invest in it.
John Derbyshire said:
Andy: You are of course right that open societies are fertile soil for terrorism. The War on Terror, though, is not really a war to stamp out terrorism, a thing that probably can't be done, as our leaders very likely know. It is a war on terrorists getting nukes. ("WMD" if you like, but that is really just a synonym for nukes. Chemical and biological terrorism, in the present state of the dark arts, are minor threats by comparison.) Nukes can only be made by biggish, stable--whether under dictatorship or law--well-organized nations. Any such nation friendly to terrorists, hostile to us, and looking as if it is on the way to getting nukes, demands action.

The question is: What action? My answer would be, has always been: Attack them, smash up their assets, kill their leaders if you can, cripple their military. Then leave them in rubble and chaos. They're not going to be making any nukes in that condition. Mission accomplished. That was what I hoped we would do to Iraq, and why I supported the war. It is what I believe we should now do to Iran. The reduced-to-rubble nation might indeed "breed terrorists"; but then, as you pointed out, so might New Zealand or Spain. Rubble nations are not a threat to us. Africa has a score of them; none threatens us.

The administration has taken another course, one of "spreading American values," "building democracy," and so on. This won't work. It will end in tears. Any leaders of Iraq installed under any system we set up will be lynched by ululating mobs within a month of our departure. We can't export our system, even to small, cheap, near places like Haiti (where we have been trying for nigh on a century).

This is bad news for the many people living in the sphere of barbarism who would like a quiet, middle-class, law-governed, Western style of life, but it's not especially bad news for **us**, if we can just acknowledge it frankly and act accordingly.

Incidentally, the best argument for the proposition that democracies don't make war on each other is Spencer Weart's Never at War. Weart patiently chronicles every counterexample you could come up with, trying to prove that proposition, mainly by slicing'n'dicing the definition of "democracy" to make it fit. I wasn't 100 percent convinced; but it is clear at any rate that free nations go to war with each other only grudgingly, under exceptional circumstances, and never with the annihilatory total-war mindset.
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by middy
LaVeigh's answer? "Ba'athists Forever!"
Middy's answer? "America-hating fundamentalist Moslems forever!"
Click to expand...

GoRons answer? Let them vote in the government that reflects what they really believe. This eliminates the pesky "collateral damage" problem you get with dictatorships.

Vote in a government that declares war on the US? Prepare to face the FULL consequences, not a politically correct half assed response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Meet the President; then be deported to Iraq.
Replies
1
Views
358
Dannyboy
D
4
  • Locked
White supremacists claim Cindy's cause
Replies
16
Views
995
Standing Wolf
S
2
  • Locked
Looming Iraq war divides U.S. vets
Replies
2
Views
530
Thumper
Thumper
2
  • Locked
Iraq War Fuels Flames of Muslim Rage
Replies
11
Views
558
Coronach
C
O
  • Locked
To stop Hillary, draft Condi...
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
ravinraven
R
Back
Top