Powell: No evidence of al-Qaida link

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

1. These figures come from a seemingly serious source quoted by Lord Of The Mark. They figure the estimated amount of dead Iraqi soldiers, among other victims. For these guys are people too. And when hundreds of tanks get wasted, and when barracks get levelled by cruise missiles, it's not hard to figure there have been quite a few dead anyways.

2. It's most probably true that the death toll would have been worse if Saddam's family had been remaining in power. This is actually the only valid reason to support the war IMHO (and IIRC, only Laz was consistent he solely supported the war based on these grounds).
Yet, starting a war is great responsibility. When I read that it's "not that bad" that doubtful intelligence started a whole war, I think that some people have completely forgotten what responsibility a declaration of war is. I find it particularily frightening coming from someone in the military. I mean, these people are supposed to know better than others that war is hell.

If I kill your daughter, and then I say later it's "not that bad, because I trusted my hunch she was dangerous", how would you react? Badly I assume (I hope). Well, here is exactly the same.

The "oops" argument can not, may not be tolerated.

1.) I am not disputing those figures.

2.)It certainly should have been one of our concerns in starting the war.
You are quoting me and then debating Patroklos ????

The "daughter" analogy is faulty. If your daughter was a mass murderer and was shot for alledgedly kidnapping(which may not have happened) is that "so bad"?

[TCO]

If Powell said there was definitive proof, then he was wrong. But bottom line, Saddam brought it on himself when he threw out the inspectors in 1998 after losing the war in 1991 and signing a cease-fired which bound him to abide by the inspection of removal of his WOMD.

He had a record of cheating before GW1. Why should the burden of proof be on us to monitor a closed society. that is too much. That is a recipie for failure...for allowing people like Saddam to evade.

the way he played ally against ally shows enough.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course, this assumption is wholly unreasonable when talking about realpolitik .

I still fail to see how come the intelligence could have been adamant there was a proof (as Powell told the UN) of the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, now that we know there is no proof? What could we possibly learn this year that invalidates previous proof? How could we learn that the accusatory taped conversations were just pranks? How could we learn that the blatant missile platforms have never been there? Surely, the satellites must have had a glitch and just happened to make sand look like convincing missile platforms.

Really, I would have thought that the capture of Saddam's palace would have brought many revelations. But how could they bring "unrevelations"?

The only possible explaination would be that the intelligence was based on HUMINT and that once we got on the ground there was a different picture.

[Patroklos]

If you can not see how "proof" van be invalidated by further findings then I suggest you go back to the labratory, or at least study scientific history.

Realpolitik does not exclude mistakes, false information, incompotance or misanalysis if it is applied in its true sense. It does not mean assume the worst.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
You are quoting me and then debating Patroklos ????

Sorry, but Pat's "not so bad" argument made me extremely angry, I only focused about it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Sorry, but Pat's "not so bad" argument made me extremely angry, I only focused about it.

Understandable. I am sure that he was speaking in relative terms and was not trying to disrespect those who died nor diminish the importance of individual life.

[TCO]

haven't we covered this before?

[Patroklos]

Spiffor,

For someone who normally has such a good grasp on things I don't know why you are stuck on that comment. I said the information available to the intellignece assets at the time was more than adequate to lead some to believe things about Iraq, and that I can understand it to be an honest mistake. It was "not so bad" of a mistake for an analyst behind a desk in the basement of Langely to make. Obviously the cosequences are horrible.

I swear people try to misunderstand things here.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by TCO
haven't we covered this before?

Check.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Realpolitik does not exclude mistakes, false information, incompotance or misanalysis if it is applied in its true sense. It does not mean assume the worst.

If the Bushies hadn't been so gung-ho about this war from the beginning, they would have judged the "evidence" provided by USUK intelligence with more than a pinch of salt, especially after the UK report debacle.
I mean, when an intelligence agency uses a so false report as its main support for accusation, any person with common sense would think something is fishy (and we knew the report was completely bollocks way before the war).

For the sake of argument, I'll admit the Bushies haven't willingly manipulated intelligence. Then, they have shown their gung-honess by taking for granted everything that was accusatory to Saddam, and by forgetting about everything that was fishy. This is especially irresponsible, considered that so many other countries publically rejected the evidence as being shaky at best.

[TCO]

how do you feel about the death penalty. How about if we turn Saddam over to the EuroUN Worldcourt of himan rights or whatever it is. Will you promise to kill him then? Win-win?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If the Bushies hadn't been so gung-ho about this war from the beginning, they would have judged the "evidence" provided by USUK intelligence with more than a pinch of salt, especially after the UK report debacle.

But they were gung ho to go to war. The reason why, while necessary, wasn't internationally sanctioned. WMD was.

[Patroklos]

I agree that emotions were running high at the time, on both sides. As gung-ho for going to war as Bush was much of his opposition was equally gung-ho about not no matter what the evidence said, both irresponsible positions.

But as I said this still only knocks out a few reasons. If you are like me who agrees with the war for both the realpolitik AND idealist reasons, than having one of the two legs to stand on, in my opinion the more important one, is more than enough. And since I actually have to go there and it is good enough for me, alot of the extremies here are just arguing for the sake of it.

[Ted Striker]

TCO's jokes are the mf'in shiznit

[Drake Tungsten]

Word.