News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[Ned]

Originally posted by St Leo
Very old news. The UN inspectors established that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war even started.

How do you prove a negative?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah, rank me right up there with the GOP, Bush and Kerry.

well since the first 4 points are true, explain to me why we did go into iraq.

cuz bush to is a flip flopper. first he says we're going in cuz of WMD, and there is imminenant threat. then he sez we went in cuz there were connections between al qaeda and iraq. then he sez we're going in to liberate the people.

tell me. is the mission accomplished? or was that just a cheap stunt?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


really? so then what were the reasons for war, if it wasnt any of those? interesting that some in america are so blind to the obvious.

Why are the left so driven by fantasy and conspiracy theories?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How do you prove a negative?

apparently a lot more positively then bush tried to prove the positive.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned


Why are the left so driven by fantasy and conspiracy theories?

Same reason, I suppose, that the right is so prone to believe that Saddam had WMD, even after the Bush admin admitted he probably had not.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Why are the left so driven by fantasy and conspiracy theories?

again, blind to the obvious - im not from the left. but you still havnt answered the questions.

[Ned]

No, the fantasy is that because we found no WMD, their absence proves, mind you, proves that Bush was lying, that the war was unjust, etc., etc., etc.

[Ned]

And, el Lawarence, what would you have America do now? Return Iraq to Saddam with our deepest apologies?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, the fantasy is that because we found no WMD, their absence proves, mind you, proves that Bush was lying, that the war was unjust, etc., etc., etc.

it does prove that the war was unjust. are you saying that its still possible to find WMDs in there? you cant be serious. weve been in the country for whole long now? a year? and youre saying we hanvt looked everywhere?

their absense after a year of occupation proves there was nothing in there in the first place.

[Ned]

Lawrence, you must know that the test of legitimacy is taken at the time the war starts.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, because your response indicated you didn't grasp the meaning of the original post...i.e., LoA was making a point that all those supposed reasons were obviously false, and we can prove that now by the lack of any substantiation for them.

That you found it "interesting" that so many people still seem to think those reasons were valid is interesting in itself. A tacit acknowledgement to the effectiveness of the administration's lie machine.

Actually, I never really debated that what LoA said was true. I have always stated that the real reasons for war were different. In order to accomplish its real goals the admin had to bring to the forefront speculation and unconfirmed intelligence for the reasons stated above. Is this a lie? I suppose it depends on how you define the word "is" ( ). Seriously, I think that all the reasons that LoA layed out were concerns and not reasons . That is the only point that I am trying to bring out. Certainly I recognize that what LoA says is true and relevant, but I was trying to frame the debate to a more fundamental one.

The question is really: "Should we have invaded Iraq?". Not, "Were we justified by these specific reasons?" While it s now very clear that WMD was not a threat, it is still equally clear that success in Iraq will result in a better Middle East. Additionally, success in Iraq will leave the US as the major western power broker in the Middle East...something, that IMO, was beginning to slip. The key is now to be successful. Without that there is no justification for the war. With it, a specific casus beli becomes a diminishing historical footnote.

So, to summarize, I did grasp what LoA said, I was simply attempting to reframe the debate to a more relevant level. I do find it interesting that people do not look beyond what the admin says on eithier side of the issue. Both the left and the right concentrate and debate on the edge of this issue and ignore the "meat" of the matter. Sorry to continue to dissapoint, but I am on a mission!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


it does prove that the war was unjust. are you saying that its still possible to find WMDs in there? you cant be serious. weve been in the country for whole long now? a year? and youre saying we hanvt looked everywhere?

their absense after a year of occupation proves there was nothing in there in the first place.

No. It proves that that specific reason was not justified. It does not prove that the war was unjust. Look below the surface for the truth!!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


well since the first 4 points are true, explain to me why we did go into iraq.

cuz bush to is a flip flopper. first he says we're going in cuz of WMD, and there is imminenant threat. then he sez we went in cuz there were connections between al qaeda and iraq. then he sez we're going in to liberate the people.

tell me. is the mission accomplished? or was that just a cheap stunt?

1.) Already done. Read above.

2.) Playing to the audience. Also explained above.

3.) The "mission" that he said was accomplished, was. The war was not over, as he also stated in that speech, but the soldiers, sailors, and Marines he was addressing had accomplished their mission well.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am glad that you admit that the Bush admin were a dirty lying bunch, as we lefties long held.

The real reason is oil, though. The Middle East would be a nothing place, if not for the fact that it has oil, lots of oil.

Almost right. I'm impressed. You are really coming along. The Bush admin didn't lie. They relied on uncorraborated intelligence and speculation to make the case in the two arenas that they had to. These, of course, had little to do ith the actual reasons, which were much more important and necessary...and a lot harder to sell to the world.

[Ned]

Plato, the only question that is really relevant to Bush's conduct is whether he should have relied on what the Director of Central Intelligence told him at the time he told him. The DoCI did not give Bush a wishy-washy statement on WMD. He said it was a "slam dunk."