Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

Gatekeeper · February 12, 2004, 04:32

Everyone:

... but, IMO, we — as in the United States — can't afford this kind of hindsight. I mean, c'mon, we invaded and conquered another nation because of its alleged stockpiles of WMD, its alleged links to al-Qaida, et al., and because of the depravity of its leader.

Well, one out of three ain't bad. Except we can't afford one out of three in cases like this, either.

I'm sort of angry right now, especially with Colin Powell. He was the one I respected the most, and I took his words the most seriously, especially when he appeared before the United Nations. Now, despite all the latest revelations, he toes the line like a good soldier. I just don't know. Honor, duty and loyalty are good things (and always will be), but this is bordering on blind loyalty, and that frankly unnerves me.

Now ... now I don't know who's trustworthy anymore when it comes to national leaders. If Powell is fallible, then what does that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice? Accomplices and/or instigators to war fever? Am I guilty for taking Powell's statements at almost face value, based on his previous experience as, IMO, an outstanding military strategist and political role? Out of all of them, he was the one I respected the most ... and now ... well, I'm just displeased and growing more so with every day.

Iraq isn't secure. It won't be for some time to come. How many more of our men and women will die? We're at roughly 538 now. No, it's not even close to Vietnam, but don't tell that to the families and friends of the dead and wounded. And all the billions we're pouring into Iraqi Freedom ... I'd rather have pumped a few billion into maintaining the U.N. sanctions/inspections until closure was achieved rather than blowing $80 billion and climbing on the military offensive and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

**sigh** I'm just rambling here. I never believed the alleged links Iraq had to the Sept. 11, 2001, perpetrators, and I continue to believe that we did the world a favor by booting out Saddam once and for all. Yet it does nothing to alleviate the nagging feeling that maybe, just maybe, there was another way of going about this.

This isn't carte blanche for those who despise the United States to pile drive into this thread, nor is it permission for folks to come out and blindly defend everything we've done or say that, since 9-11, there's no wrong. As I see it, there never was any easy answer to the Iraq problem ... but that's the way life is, it seems.

If things were easy, 20/20 hindsight wouldn't be necessary. And sometimes, just sometimes, I wish I could just put myself in some group and never have to think too much about whether or not I'm right, wrong, or somewhere in-between. But then I think, no, you really don't want that. Life is all about having to make decisions, having to think, and what's the point of free will, of intelligence, if you're going to sign it off to someone else?

Just a ramblin' man ...

Gatekeeper

Agathon · February 12, 2004, 04:37

But what about all those millions of people who said this before the war and marched around in the freezing cold so people would notice?

We were utterly and completely right, weren't we?

The Mad Monk · February 12, 2004, 04:41

About what?

Flip McWho · February 12, 2004, 04:42

AgathonYeah but you didn't have to march around in the cold to be right. You coulda been right and sitting inside by the fire.

Gatekeeper · February 12, 2004, 04:44

Frankly, Agathon, some of those people were also the ones all for lifting the sanctions against Iraq. In the mindset of any dictator, that's a win, and it just sends the message to others like him that, hey, all they gotta do is wait it out. The West will eventually buckle after seeing images of your starving people (starving because of you, but let's not dwell on that, shall we?).

Then there was the whole case of how Kurdish Iraq seemed to prosper under the sanctions, while the part under Saddam's rule didn't ...

The world isn't so cut-and-dried for me.

Gatekeeper

Agathon · February 12, 2004, 04:59

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Frankly, Agathon, some of those people were also the ones all for lifting the sanctions against Iraq.

I was one of them, the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster. Other than that Saddam was contained and would remain so until the end of his days.

In the mindset of any dictator, that's a win, and it just sends the message to others like him that, hey, all they gotta do is wait it out.

But the "West" had already won a long time ago. His regional ambitions were finished and it was made clear to him that if he ever tried anything again, that would be it.

The West will eventually buckle after seeing images of your starving people (starving because of you, but let's not dwell on that, shall we?).

No one who knows anything about international relations would seriously believe that.

The world isn't so cut-and-dried for me.

What everyone should be asking themselves is "Why?" I mean it is clear now that the intelligence justifying the war was ridiculous and over hyped.

Surely neither Bush nor Blair really believed the exaggerated WMD stuff and that raises the question of why bother invading at all. Humanitarianism is a joke answer given history and it just isn't clear to me why Bush would want to engage in such a reckless act that could have such terrible consequences. He's now made the US into an international cretin and ensured that no-one will trust it again. This is worse than the Gulf of Tonkin, since the truth has come out relatively quickly.

I opposed the war because I couldn't see a reason for it from any political angle, not just for lefty reasons. I suppose one could invent conspiracy theories, but perhaps Bush is quite simply a moron. Wolfowitz and company have this well-known ridiculous fantasy of imposing US style government on the world - that might be it. But it's such a ridiculously naive idea that it is barely credible that intelligent men would actually believe it themselves rather than just attempt to foist it on other people. But I really don't understand what it was about at all. Bush's explanations are so transparently moronic, that no sensible person ought to believe them. But maybe that's the truth.

Ben Kenobi · February 12, 2004, 05:17

Now, despite all the latest revelations, he toes the line like a good soldier. I just don't know. Honor, duty and loyalty are good things

The true test of loyalty is not whether you follow someone when you know they are right, but what you do when you believe them to be wrong.

I find him an honourable man. There is no shame in arguing as hard as you can against the prevailing notion, and then being overrruled. His duty is to support the president, and to argue against the president, when he believes the president is wrong. But there always comes a time, when even if they overrule your decision, you have to go along with the decision to the best of your ability.

I can see Powell serving to the end of his term, and then saying to Bush, thank you for the opportunity, but I have had enough. I have fulfilled my duty, and you can ask nothing more.

Ben Kenobi · February 12, 2004, 05:23

I was one of them, the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster.

And lifting them fails to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq, but allows Hussein to do whatever he wishes.

His regional ambitions were finished and it was made clear to him that if he ever tried anything again,

Constant and consistent efforts to undermine the treaties and agreements set down do not constitute the abolition of his ambitions.

No one who knows anything about international relations would seriously believe that.

N. Korea?

Humanitarianism is a joke answer given history and it just isn't clear to me why Bush would want to engage in such a reckless act that could have such terrible consequences.

He's toppled a tolitarian government, and is attempting to establish peace and order in Iraq. What are the terrible consequences of his actions? Yes, people have died, on both sides. People will continue to die. Should their sacrifice be left in vain?

But it's such a ridiculously naive idea that it is barely credible that intelligent men

So you believe that we should not try to encourage democratic governments around the world? You would prefer thriving, Islamic fundamentalisms?

Agathon · February 12, 2004, 05:29

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So you believe that we should not try to encourage democratic governments around the world? You would prefer thriving, Islamic fundamentalisms?

You can't enforce democracy. You need a tradition of civil society and a strong middle class. Moreover, you can't be engaging in economic rape of the country at the same time.

curtsibling · February 12, 2004, 05:35

I think many people in the USA should adopt a more healthy and cynical attitude.

These men like Ashcroft and Rummy are appointed, not elected, how is that allowed to happen?
These men act like royalty, and warrant no more respect than any other US citizen.

Some Americans may tend to scoff at Europe.
But let me tell you one thing about our way of life.
We elect our leaders, but we are not slow to EJECT them.

We don’t take any crap from arrogant men like Blair and Chirac.
And the press gives them hell at every turn.

We don’t bow and scrape to politicians in power as if they are some kind of royalty.

You see, that is the thing that disturbs me about post-Clinton America.
The fact that US citizens seem so desperate for security, that they treat the current leaders as awe-inspiring monarchs.

That is sinister thinking, and to me against the spirit of what the USA is about.

I recall an American war of independence was fought against an over-bearing kingdom.
I hope the American people can stop the growth of a new royal elite in government.

The bottom line?
Beware of giving politicians carte blanche, they are there to serve you - not vice versa!

Americans – please be cynical, pile the pressure on your leaders, it's their job to satisfy your trust in them!

RGBVideo · February 12, 2004, 06:57

Frankly, Agathon, some of those people were also the ones all for lifting the sanctions against Iraq. In the mindset of any dictator, that's a win, and it just sends the message to others like him that, hey, all they gotta do is wait it out.

Uhh... speaking about a negative message...
US administration said that it would not tolerate if Axis of Evil would have WMD's or they would be researching them. Iraq hadn't any WMD's, US admin. knew it, US. admin. invaded the country.
US admin. said that it wouldn't tolerate if Axis of Evil would have WMD's or they would be researching them. DPRK has WMD's, it's actively resarching ICBM, US admin. knows it, US admin. sends aid packages to DPRK and tries to negotiate with them peacefully.

Not good.

Curt's post above

Sikander · February 12, 2004, 07:35

Originally posted by Agathon

I was one of them, the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster. Other than that Saddam was contained and would remain so until the end of his days.

By any measure the regime was a much larger humanitarian disaster than the sanctions. It's like saying that paying protection money to the mafia prevents violence when all it does is encourage it in the long run.

The Mad Viking · February 12, 2004, 07:52

Gatekeeper- a tremendously honest, forthright post. 'Poly is full of people who entrench their positions forever, making real discourse futile.

I personally was saddened when I watched Colin Powell address the UN. Because I knew he was speaking untruths, and I was certain that he knew it too. I felt then much of what you are feeling now.

There is no shame in being duped by your leader. Once. I suggest you take the lesson to heart. The world is governed by realpolitik and you can never take what anyone says at face value. You must, IMO, always consider the source, the situation, the motive, and what alternatives the speaker had.

Once again,

for Gatekeeper.

OTOH, Agathon. I tend to agree with your positions on most things. I'm sure you pulled some hair out over the months debating Iraq with people. But its infinietely easier to say "I told you so", than it is to admit error. I thinkg Gatekeeper deserves some respect for that.

Patroklos · February 12, 2004, 08:12

Yeah, the French sure don't tolerate Chirac

Pick up a newspaper.

How often was the Allied intelligence information wrong during WWII?

How often were the Cold War president's infromation wrong during the Cold War?

You all really need to understand how intelligence works. If you expect it to be 100% right prepare for disapoitment. The fact is Saddam WANTEDus to think he had WMD and was feeding false information. He just didn't want us to be able to prove it. But you can only be ambigious for so long before someone misinterprets your lies. Should we be pissed of about the mistake. Yes. Should we understand that like any job, sepecially one as tough as this, we can't always be right? Yes. But sense all you Apolytoners are SOOOO adept at the intelligence business go ahead and flaunt your self-righteous BS. Yopu love us when we are up, and hate us when we are down. I will be the first to admit we were wrong about WMD, but anyone who thinks it was some deliberate "conspiracy" are as ridiculous as the Roswell fools.

Bottom line, when everything is done the world will benefit form the Iraq invasion. To include all those nations and people ridiculing it. Everyone knows this, they just love pretending they are on the moral high ground because they know America is going to do what is best for them anyways. It is Sick.

But what about all those millions of people who said this before the war and marched around in the freezing cold so people would notice?

Millions world wide is a pittance. And like most causists, few were out protesting for anyting. They are just out of work acotrs students with nothing better to do. Heh, hippie retards protesting FOR a dictator who kills tens of thousands a year. We can compare death tolls anytime, the protesters will always come on the side of mass murder. Awesome.

GhengisFarb™ · February 12, 2004, 08:19

Our bad.

There we apologized, everyone's happy.

^_^

RGBVideo · February 12, 2004, 08:31

The fact is Saddam WANTEDus to think he had WMD and was feeding false information. He just didn't want us to be able to prove it. But you can only be ambigious for so long before someone misinterprets your lies. Should we be pissed of about the mistake.

Wtf?

By denying that he had them, offering to co-operate, and allowing WMD inspectors unlimited access to the whole nation? And don't try to feed me that "but the inspectors said that Iraqi goverment hadn't been co-operating with us 100%!" -bull, Hans Blix has been furious after the invasion, saying that everything was proceeding smoothly, but US officials pressured him to exaggarate the threat.

Bottom line, when everything is done the world will benefit form the Iraq invasion.

We shall see.
US has a notorious reputation from cold war with situations like this, so I'm not hopeful.

They are just out of work acotrs students with nothing better to do

If someone thinks or does something, he's automatically a no-gooder teen scumbag with nothing better to do. Brilliant.

Heh, hippie retards protesting FOR a dictator who kills tens of thousands a year.

And now I want a source.

No, seriously, I've been fed up with the phrase "everybody knows that Saddam is an evil mass-murderer/rapist/tyrant/bastard/messenger of Satan who sets up deathcamps where he personally brutally murders his own citizens/american babies/cute little defenseless women which we could go'n'****", I want some information. How did this dictator of yours kill tens of thousands a year?

Barinthus · February 12, 2004, 08:38

Originally posted by Agathon
You can't enforce democracy. You need a tradition of civil society and a strong middle class. Moreover, you can't be engaging in economic rape of the country at the same time.

Enforce, no. Encourage yes. I agree that in Iraq, democracy cannot be imposed. There need to be some other kind of solution and then over a period of time, encourage democracy to take root via the people themselves instead of from the top.

And what economic rape?

Barinthus · February 12, 2004, 08:42

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I can see Powell serving to the end of his term, and then saying to Bush, thank you for the opportunity, but I have had enough. I have fulfilled my duty, and you can ask nothing more.

Powell is a honorable man. He's probably the only Republican I would elect for the presidency. Unfortunately he has said that he is not interested.

He wasn't too happy with the Administration. He'd say this and that then next day the Administration or Rumfield would contradict his statements. Powell has declared that should Bush run again and win, he will not serve in the second administration. I believe this says alot about Powell's character. We need more people like him.

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 08:50

Originally posted by Agathon
We were utterly and completely right, weren't we?

Not really. Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

SpencerH · February 12, 2004, 09:06

As has been suggested, Hussein was pretending to have stockpiles of WMD for some reason. Kay commented before congress that even his division commanders believed it was true. You have to ask yourself why did Hussein not come clean about the absence of WMD stockpiles? It would have saved him from being ousted as dictator (at least at that time).

I believe that the answer is simply that he didnt expect the USA to be capable of sustaining a successful attack in the face of antagonistic world opinion. He was wrong. The fallout from the decimation of the Iraqi army and government in a matter of weeks will benefit the west in terms of political stability. 'Rogue' states will now think twice about their actions against the USA. We saw the same effect with the US attack on Khadafi and the Brits reclamation of the Falklands (the comment in Janes after that one was that if the Soviets had mounted such a succesful military operation that NATO would be shaking in its boots).

The lesson to be learned. America and its ally (UK) will act unilaterally and there is no conventional army controlled by enemies of the west that can withstand their attack for more than a few weeks.

The diplomat · February 12, 2004, 09:18

No stockpile has been found but:
1) We have proven that Saddam had the production means to build a stockpile.
2) We have found evidence of WMD in small quantitities.
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

So, the justifications for going to war were by and large accurate.

Barinthus · February 12, 2004, 09:19

It has been suggested that Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. People under him were lying to Saddam and falsified evidence so Saddam wouldn't execute them for not making the progress he wanted.

Also after the war, in interviews with former Iraqi commanders especially those assigned to defending Bagadad, a common story emerged - they would say that they didn't have any WMDs attached to their units but they heard that units on their left and right had WMDs.

In a way the system was fooling itself and looked at what happened.

DinoDoc · February 12, 2004, 09:19

Originally posted by The diplomat
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

Eh?

oedo · February 12, 2004, 09:20

Originally posted by The diplomat
No stockpile has been found but:
1) We have proven that Saddam had the production means to build a stockpile.
2) We have found evidence of WMD in small quantitities.
3) We have proven a link with Al Queda.

So, the justifications for going to war were by and large accurate.

1) no
2) no
3) no

Gibsie · February 12, 2004, 09:22

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not really. Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

The U.N. would only have given the go-ahead if they really thought it was a good idea though, wouldn't they? And they'd have only thought it was a good idea if we were living in some parallel universe where Iraq had WMD's and the inspectors thought they did.

Spiffor · February 12, 2004, 09:23

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, the French sure don't tolerate Chirac

Pick up a newspaper.

Nothing on Chirac on the front pages today, but what about this:

"Une parole d''outrage'" à Nicolas Sarkozy vaut un mois de prison ferme".

An "outrageous" word to [police minister] Nicolas Sarkozy is worth one month in Prison, as a reference to one person who insulted him when he was visiting Strasbourg (the newspaper clearly mentions the guy was on the verge to start a new job).

This is from Le Monde, who is the most neutral of our newspapers.

The diplomat · February 12, 2004, 09:24

Originally posted by SpencerH
As has been suggested, Hussein was pretending to have stockpiles of WMD for some reason. Kay commented before congress that even his division commanders believed it was true. You have to ask yourself why did Hussein not come clean about the absence of WMD stockpiles? It would have saved him from being ousted as dictator (at least at that time).

I believe that the answer is simply that he didnt expect the USA to be capable of sustaining a successful attack in the face of antagonistic world opinion. He was wrong.

Saddam had to know that non-compliance would mean a war and his destruction. Their no way in the world that Saddam could have been that clueless! Why in the world would he risk utter destruction for a lie when coming clean would have so easily saved his regime? It does not make sense.

The diplomat · February 12, 2004, 09:25

Originally posted by oedo

1) no
2) no
3) no

1 and 2 are proven in the Kay Report. And letters found with Saddam prove 3.

SpencerH · February 12, 2004, 09:29

Originally posted by DataAeolus
It has been suggested that Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. People under him were lying to Saddam and falsified evidence so Saddam wouldn't execute them for not making the progress he wanted.

Also after the war, in interviews with former Iraqi commanders especially those assigned to defending Bagadad, a common story emerged - they would say that they didn't have any WMDs attached to their units but they heard that units on their left and right had WMDs.

In a way the system was fooling itself and looked at what happened.

Yeah, thats what Kay said. It would explain the bizarre turn of events.

SpencerH · February 12, 2004, 09:33

Originally posted by The diplomat

Saddam had to know that non-compliance would mean a war and his destruction. Their no way in the world that Saddam could have been that clueless! Why in the world would he risk utter destruction for a lie when coming clean would have so easily saved his regime? It does not make sense.

The Argentine Junta believed that Britain would not defend its colony and that even if it did, they believed could defeat a Brit army based 10K miles away. They were wrong.

Khadafi did not believe that Reagan and Thatcher would take action. After all he had been dealing with carter for 4 years and doing whatever he wanted. He was wrong.