So, can we finally all admit Bush & Co. lied?

[Vandal-1]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not really inclined to believe that the evidence presented to the public was made up whole cloth considering the fact that Iraq's own declaration to the UN during this mess pointed to the conclusion that they had the weapons.

Really what declaration was that Doc?The only declaration that I am aware of is the acknowledgement of violating missle range restrictions.

[Jac de Molay]

If this was simply an issue of noncompliance, war probably wasn't necessary. Deterrence would have worked just fine.

[gsmoove23]

The fact that Saddam could have handled things differently doesn't justify the war.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iraq could have easily provided a verifiable accounting of it and gutted the reason for the invasion itself.

Not necessarily. Stuff destroyed in Gulf war 2, bad record keeping, etc. I doubt the US can fully account for all its military hardware.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
If this was simply an issue of noncompliance, war probably wasn't necessary. Deterrence would have worked just fine.

Duh!
That's the reason I was against the war before it began. Unfortunately, I don't make US policy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iraq could have easily provided a verifiable accounting of it

True.

and gutted the reason for the invasion itself.

Do you believe THAT ? We are talking about how US officials admit having spinned the WMD threat to push for war, and you think thos war was about the WMD threat which was on this guy's own admittance exaggerated because insufficient ?

[Giancarlo]

Hey you anti-Bush folks... if you really think there is no evidence found then what the hell is this:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

[Spiffor]

A mobile lab. What else is new ?

[Jac de Molay]

Two old rusted-out trailers, eh?? Wow, I'm glad we acted so quickly then.

Again, this sham of a war was justified on the grounds that there was a large, active, and ongoing effort to produce non-convent. arms.

I think they'll have to look a little harder.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by MRT144
why would israel have been created for any other reason than sympathy?

the point is if the end always justified the means then the holocaust was actually a good thing because it led to the creation of israel and i dont believe you think the creation of israel is bad. (unless youre arab or me)

so if the end result is good then it doesnt matter how it got there. which is bull****

I don´t think that Israel was supported out of Sympathy after the holocaust, but rather because of the cold war.
Countries like Egypt were supported by the russians, so the US needed a counterweight in the region, Israel.

But of course there is anothert thing within WW2, you could use as an example for Utiliarism:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As an Utiliariarian you could argue that WW 2 was a good thing, because it let the US drop Nuclear weapons on those 2 Cities.
Why would it probably be a good thing from an utiliarian standpoint (despite it led to the death of many people)?
Because it showed the massive Destruction and Suffering which are associated with the use of Nuclear weapons and so probably their use in WW2 prevented a WW3 where those weapons would be used en masse by both sides.

As for the Iraq war, I don´t see it justified even from an utiliaristic standpoint.
It led to the end of an dictatorship and freed nmany people, who were oppressed or tortured by it, but thats the only good point from it.
But there are also many negative sides:

1. Bush showed that under his presidency the US will attack those countries, it has targeted and even the UN can´t prevent it. The only thing which probably could be used as a countermeasure are Nuclear weapons and Long Range Carrier Systems for them (see North Korea). So the conclusion could be for many governments, (especially for example Iran, because it is a member of the axis of evil, according to Bush) to get their own nuclear Programs running (of course under secrecy, til the wepons are fully developed). Another conclusion could be that it is probably dangerous to give away any WMDs you possess, if you are one of the potential targets of the USA.

2. The danger of Iraq turning into a Islamistic State. The majority of the inhabitants are Shiites and, according to the news reports the US aren´t seen as liberators, but rather as as conquerors, while the shiite religious leaders are gaining broad influence within the population. Of course the US dsays, that they will try to prevent the formation of an islamistic state, but how difficult will it be if, for example, a majority of the inhabitants of Iraq elects a religious party to rule the country?

3. The War in Iraq has again shown that it is easy for a country to invade another one. Just point out that the other country has WMDs or supports terrorism (or both), if necessary just fake some Intelligence Informations which confirm your claims. Maybe other countries will follow the example the USA have given.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd like to know that even if you couldn't go two steps in Iraq without tripping over a chemical weapon.

A confluence of pretty diverse reasons, but neither individually or collectively they make much sense. Often, the most primitive explanations are the best for politics. Maybe it's mostly just a feelgood exercise for some loonie chickenhawks.

[juhani_kahvi]

Originally posted by Azazel
The creation of Israel is a good thing.

Why do you say so?

[Vandal-1]

It all about money and not all American money cares about securing and developing a insecurable energy supply.The only conclusion I can draw is that the fabrication was more acceptable even to the Bushies than the real reason so .Get Back Iraq yer gonna get Bushie-whacked. Oh-man Iran welcome to the plan,I hope the American people feel a little Bushie-whacked now and deal justly with the problem.

[Winston]

Hmm, well at least Bush didn't lie under oath about porking an intern in the White House.

I'd say this is a step in the right direction.

[Urban Ranger]

Was W banking on his taking massive liberty with known facts wouldn't come out before his re-election, or he couldn't care less?