News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Define "national interests." It was in our "national interests" to overthrow a democracy in Guatemala and replace it with a serious of the most murderours dictatorships in the history of Latin America. In this case, national interests were narrowly constured to mean, the interests of the United Fruit Company.

I was actually meaning a bit broader interpretation.

[Frozzy]

The way I see it, the real reasons for war were changing the ME to the US' advantage (oil, et al.), but the publicised reasons were WMD, etc.

So while the US wanted the millions, they threw pennies at the rest of the world to keep them happy, and now the rest of the world has found out the pennies are fake. Too late now though...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

You can conclude the administration was disingenuous by their claims of confidence in the evidence they had versus the reality.

On this I am forced to agree. There is no way they could have 100% confidence on the evidence. There is also no way they could say they didn't. A catch-22 for an admin that had already decided to go to war.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kalius
The way I see it, the real reasons for war were changing the ME to the US' advantage (oil, et al.), but the publicised reasons were WMD, etc.

While this is partially true, it is important for other reasons that the US is strong in the ME.

ALL parties agree that a strong US is needed for a lasting peace to emerge. This is the long term benefit sought by the admin's policy in the ME.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
I was actually meaning a bit broader interpretation.

I know that. My point, however, is that we always claim our national interests are at stake when we go to war or invade someone, even when we are clearly not threatened. I think the last time our national interests were truly at stake was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then there's also the question of how important the particluar interests are. The CMC involved an existential threat to the U.S., nuclear death from above. The "national interests" at stake in Panama were illegal drugs (if you believe the Administration--the war against Nicaragua and/or the Panama Canal if you don't). The national interests at stake in the invasion of Grenada was the possibility that the Soviets might be able to station MiGs there, as if the MiGs in Cuba weren't really a threat themselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO
Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so?

(I know you may not agree with the assumption, but please answer the question as if you do.)

I would echo che...how do you define "vital interest?" It's a very subjective term.

Do you think the answer is to lie? But that's the problem...if you have to lie to your own people to start a war, I think the term "vital interest" doesn't apply. Wars should be undertaken for our defense, not for establishing military/economic footholds in far-away lands.

[chequita guevara]

Bascially, if our nation is threatened, it isn't necessary to lie to us to get us to defend ourselves. Despite the Red staters opinion of liberals, blue staters have no wish to be murdered. Red staters also seem to forget that it is the blue staters who are always attacked by terrorists, and they might have a better idea of what the real threat is having faced it in person rather than on a tv screen.

[Ned]

Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Administration?

While they may be important and had their own views on the issues, the only statements as to why we did what we did have to come out of the presidents mouth or his speeches. It is clear to me that Republicans speak their mind on issues and are not totally muzzled like we saw in the prior Democrat administration or in the Kerry campaign. Republicans often openly disagree with each other on critical issues. Some have questioned why Bush would put up with this "chaos." But he does, perhaps because he wants independent views from his top people.

But the fact still remains that Bush was very careful on what he said on the issues of war and peace, and publicly admitted when the evidence he relied upon was faulty -- such as the Nigerian yellowcake issue. Bush said Saddam had WMD's because his intelligence servicees told him so. This conclusion was the same conclusion that the UN came to in 1998, that Clinton came to when he was president, and that every other intelligence service in the world came to as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is clear to me that Republicans speak their mind on issues and are not totally muzzled like we saw in the prior Democrat administration or in the Kerry campaign.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Wars should be undertaken for our defense, not for establishing military/economic footholds in far-away lands.

I think that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. In order to assure our continued place in the world, and therefore our ultimate security, I believe we should become involved where these particular interests are.


Oh, and for the definition of "national interest", use one that you like. It is not relevant to the question. Your answer?

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO


On this I am forced to agree. There is no way they could have 100% confidence on the evidence. There is also no way they could say they didn't. A catch-22 for an admin that had already decided to go to war.

The problem we have here, Plato, is that when Bush raised the issue of reliability of the evidence of WMD's, he was reassured by Tenet that their presence was a slam dunk. So, if there is fault here, it is not Bush's fault -- except if one were to conclude that Bush should never have relied on a Clinton appointee for anything.

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, are you serious? The Nedaverse becomes stranger and stranger day by day!

Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld--they ARE the administration! Bush isn't the only one who speaks for it (hell, IMO he's a puppet mouthpiece anyway). Why do you think these guys were dispatched to the talk shows to speak about the reasons for invading Iraq? It was to MAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S CASE. They weren't there acting of their own accord, stating their personal opinions. They were speaking for the administration.

The president is responsible for his administration, simple as that. Your attempt to disassociate him from his surrogates is just another unbelievable example of Republican disingenuity!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem we have here, Plato, is that when Bush raised the issue of reliability of the evidence of WMD's, he was reassured by Tenet that their presence was a slam dunk. So, if there is fault here, it is not Bush's fault -- except if one were to conclude that Bush should never have relied on a Clinton appointee for anything.

Once again Ned, State and NSC had questions. Do you totally disregard them or did you totally disregard my earlier post?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I know that. My point, however, is that we always claim our national interests are at stake when we go to war or invade someone, even when we are clearly not threatened. I think the last time our national interests were truly at stake was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Excuse me.

Please tell me what US national security interests were involved in the two wars Clinton conducted in the Balkans?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO
I think that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. In order to assure our continued place in the world, and therefore our ultimate security, I believe we should become involved where these particular interests are.

Note how the right's answer has led to the U.S. doing things like Iran-Contra, installing Pinochet, backing military coups against democratically-elected leaders, etc. If you really think those are in our best interest, keep in mind that it's those things that prompted people to fly planes into the WTC.

Oh, and for the definition of "national interest", use one that you like. It is not relevant to the question. Your answer?

I answered. You even mentioned it above--national interest is defense of the nation. If a lie needs to be made to justify a war, it's not in our vital interest.