A different Iraq poll: How much is "completing the mission" worth to YOU?

[Ted Striker]

If you don't like torturing people you can join FEMA and let people die the old fashioned way, you know, through negligence and incompetence.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


The problem being that Iraq DID comply. After all, how could they possibly give the US and UK the information on their weapons programs, since that information did not exist??

So when the Iraqis said they had no mobile biological labs, no drones, no nuclear program, that all thier stockpiles had been destroyed....they were sort of telling the truth.

This is not exactly correct. Anybody else and I would say "bad memory", but you, I suspect, know better.

The violations that were spelled out involved access to known documents not turned over, and to altered documents that were turned over. The simple fact is...Sadaam did not offer "full co-operation" as spelled out in 1441. This put him in material breach of the conditions of 1441.

Meaning that even if the French position was not correct (thought it was probably far more correct than the US-UK position, since even if the council says that non-complience would have "serious consequences", given those consequences had NOT been spelled out, and given that fact that the UNSC must vote before force is used, for sole member states to decide amongst themselves what those serious consequences would be and use direct military aggression against another member state makes no sense), this war was still a legal boodogle.

Again...a bit of a twist of facts. "Serious consequences" are the accepted international code words for "use of force". These words are never used except in situations where the use of force is implied. For less than "use of force" the code words are "serious reprecutions". Given your understanding of international events, I would think you probably knew this as well.

Further, 1441 did not call for any further review of the security council beyond Sadaam eithier being declared in compliance or in breach. The security council declared him in breach.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
If you don't like torturing people you can join FEMA and let people die the old fashioned way, you know, through negligence and incompetence.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"

or even more so...You can become a city of New Orleans disaster planner...

[Berzerker]

Plato

The simple fact is...Sadaam did not offer "full co-operation" as spelled out in 1441. This put him in material breach of the conditions of 1441.

The UN has no authority to affect regime change, its an international body ostensibly set up to deal with international matters.

Again...a bit of a twist of facts. "Serious consequences" are the accepted international code words for "use of force". These words are never used except in situations where the use of force is implied. For less than "use of force" the code words are "serious reprecutions". Given your understanding of international events, I would think you probably knew this as well.

The force is limited to enforcing resolutions, there never was any resolution authorising the removal of Saddam, there couldn't be such a resolution. Besides, we didnt care about UN resolutions as Bush 1 publicly stated our policy was the removal of Saddam, not enforcing UN resolutions. He said it wouldn't matter if Saddam disarmed, we wanted him out of power. Furthermore, according to Scott Ritter the CIA was using the UN inspections to set up assassination attempts and coups... Was that in 1441?

Further, 1441 did not call for any further review of the security council beyond Sadaam eithier being declared in compliance or in breach. The security council declared him in breach.

But it did not authorise regime change, it can't "legally". The last thing the founding members of the UN wanted was an international organisation with the power to meddle in the internal affairs of its members. Also, the UN can't define "legality". At best its one group of countries threatening other countries and calling the extortion "legal". **** the UN, its a fraudulent body used by the major powers to screw small countries "legally". If we had justification to invade Iraq, that justification sure didn't come from the UN.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Az

The question is completely hypothetical - there is no way a single person's actions could secure the "completion of the mission" - presumably a safe and 'democratic' iraq - by paying up with their limbs or lives.

but if I could ensure peace and freedom in Iraq by myself, I would take a bullet.

Ditto.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by PLATO

Again...a bit of a twist of facts. "Serious consequences" are the accepted international code words for "use of force". These words are never used except in situations where the use of force is implied. For less than "use of force" the code words are "serious reprecutions". Given your understanding of international events, I would think you probably knew this as well.

Factual incorrect, the acepted term is in the UN body of legislation is "By all means necessary" for the use of mil force mandated through the UN.

"Serious consequences" applies to over 200 UN motions to Isreal for non compliance with UN resolutions, does that mean anyone can invade Isreal?, nope because a seperate resolution takes those terms from one inquiry and applies them to another resolution and that then decides what measures are required to force compliance, place sanctions or other forms of censure, which can then be vetoed by perm members.

You could argue that pre existing By all means necc was mandated in the GW1 resolution and that WMD issues have forced already mandated if the UN agres the ceasfire provision re WMD has not been met. A much better posistion

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The re-election of the regime that fooled you into this war stands as a monument of the stupidity of America.

I entered the OT forum to protest against the upcoming war, 3 years ago. One thing I remember was Ted posting "Britney with an American flag" pictures in every Iraq thread, and I think that symbolizes the average American view back then: "Let's go kick some ass, just because we can". I told you that you could clearly see on the facial expression of Colin Powel that he did not belive his own words when he spoke to the UN about the "evidence". A whole bunch of Americans told me I was wrong. Now we know the truth.

Told you so. You f*cked up. You pay, in blood and dollars.

I was one of those who told you that you were wrong. Powell claims that he believed what he was saying then, and I again have no reason to doubt him, particularly after much of the pre-war intel has been declassified. What he said was largely consistent with what was believed at the highest levels of the intelligence community in this country as well as abroad. The most doubtful stuff (mobile bio-labs and crop dusters for weaponized anthrax or whatever etc.) may have made some people (including Powell) wonder whether it was true, but the main thrust of the arguments was not seriously questioned by anyone in the upper echelons of the administration, nor the previous administration, nor indeed by most of those in the administrations of countries which opposed the war consistently.

Adding to the chorus of those who had access to the intel were the actions of Sadam himself, not only on the brink of war, but for years beforehand. He behaved as though he had WMD and wasn't going to give them up. It's been said that he still believed that he did have some chemical weapons and a biological weapons program in progress, and he certainly acted as though that was the case. It didn't make any sense to me that he'd let himself get taken down to protect a capability that he didn't have, and I don't see how he could have possibly thought that we wouldn't end his regime and probably take his life if he didn't cooperate.

Now it's clear that both Sadam and the U.S. and the world's intelligence agencies in general were staggeringly misinformed. I'm obviously extremely disappointed by this, but I don't feel that we were "fooled into going to war" in the sense that we were cynically manipulated by people who knew any more than we did. Sure the administration cherry picked some of their arguments, or overstated some things. I always expect this in a political argument and I discount un-provable "facts" reflexively in such situations.

I remain convinced however that the administration believed that they would find an extensive WMD program in Iraq, and if they didn't believe that then they certainly wouldn't have attacked Iraq and proven themselves to be wrong so precipitously. Even the most evil of people simply wouldn't have been so stupid as to have done so right before an election. So this stuff about the administration "lying" us into war is crap, pure and simple. It's bullsh!t every bit as much as the argument that we were going in to steal oil is bullsh!t. Both charges are illogical. Even in the rosiest of scenarios the U.S. was going to lose far more than it would gain financially by seizing the oil wells, and the administration was going to lose far more than it was going to gain politically by being wrong about WMD.

Those who regularly make these stupid arguments are in fact doing a grave disservice to the world, for they are obscuring the true lesson to be learned in search of some villains to blame everything on. That lesson is that despite what we have been led to believe, living in the information age is no proof against staggering levels of ignorance, even among people who are intelligent, well-meaning, well-educated and provided with means far superior to the average person's to discover the truth. Pretending that this egregious intelligence failure is the work of a few bad apples while perhaps emotionally reassurring and politically satisfying simply makes a repeat scenario in the future all the more likely.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin

You wanted to end up in jail for torturing people?

He doesn't want to torture people, if he wanted to do that he could simply adopt Mobius' posting style and political positions and keep posting them on OT.

[Drake Tungsten]

I remain convinced however that the administration believed that they would find an extensive WMD program in Iraq, and if they didn't believe that then they certainly wouldn't have attacked Iraq and proven themselves to be wrong so precipitously. Even the most evil of people simply wouldn't have been so stupid as to have done so right before an election. So this stuff about the administration "lying" us into war is crap, pure and simple. It's bullsh!t every bit as much as the argument that we were going in to steal oil is bullsh!t. Both charges are illogical. Even in the rosiest of scenarios the U.S. was going to lose far more than it would gain financially by seizing the oil wells, and the administration was going to lose far more than it was going to gain politically by being wrong about WMD.

Those who regularly make these stupid arguments are in fact doing a grave disservice to the world, for they are obscuring the true lesson to be learned in search of some villains to blame everything on. That lesson is that despite what we have been led to believe, living in the information age is no proof against staggering levels of ignorance, even among people who are intelligent, well-meaning, well-educated and provided with means far superior to the average person's to discover the truth. Pretending that this egregious intelligence failure is the work of a few bad apples while perhaps emotionally reassurring and politically satisfying simply makes a repeat scenario in the future all the more likely.

Good post, Sikander.

[Sphinx871]

Originally posted by Sikander
I remain convinced however that the administration believed that they would find an extensive WMD program in Iraq, and if they didn't believe that then they certainly wouldn't have attacked Iraq and proven themselves to be wrong so precipitously. Even the most evil of people simply wouldn't have been so stupid as to have done so right before an election ... the administration was going to lose far more than it was going to gain politically by being wrong about WMD.

An understandable sentiment, but it's also possible they rightly predicted "once it becomes clear to the public no WMD existed, we can have our elaborate PR machine (with both its official and unofficial cogs) simply shift emphasis to justifications such as making Iraq a beacon of liberal democracy for the greater Arab world, drawing Islamic extremists to Iraq so they never make it to New York, etc, and act like the WMD debate never happened. Even IF people don't generally buy this, at the very least they'll concede that leaving Iraq would let it become a terrorist haven and would thus support "staying the course" anyway. These lines of reasoning should snag juuuuuuuust enough of the moderates to sneak in a 2004 win and maybe even hold our ground 2006."

Of course there's no way to discover such Machiavellian ponderings without a mindreader; I'm just noting that the administration's decimated political capital is not evidence they were acting in good faith, since they could have just as easily concluded it was an acceptable loss. The fact that they won the election shows this would have been a reasonable conclusion.

Originally posted by Sikander
Even in the rosiest of scenarios the U.S. was going to lose far more than it would gain financially by seizing the oil wells

The financial loss would be absorbed entirely by the American taxpayers, whereas the financial gain would be absorbed entirely by the oil interests at whose behest the Bush Administration allegedly invaded. Again, a pointless speculation without a mindreader - I'm just noting financial losses are also proof of nothing.

[Arrian]

I was "mildly" (as I put it then) against the war, essentially because I thought the WMD stuff was overblown (possibly false) and I had zero faith in my government to manage the occupation/reconstruction well. The basis for my belief was two-fold: 1) it's the US Government; 2) the Bush administration had, to that point, done little to inspire a helluva lot of confidence. The only thing they had done that I'd noticed was muck up the pre-war diplomacy. On the other hand, Saddam was a nasty SOB and I thought the status quo (Oil for Food, sanctions, etc) wasn't working very well. I did think Saddam was contained, but the situation was far from great.

I never had any intention of risking life & limb in this endeavor. It would take quite a bit for me to ante up for that - most likely it would require an actual invasion of the USA. Anything short of that would not result in a volunteer appearance by me (the draft, otoh, is another matter).

As it turns out, the WMD stuff was indeed overblown. The Bush administration has, in my opinion, mismanaged the occupation/reconstruction. As far as I can see, they didn't really have a plan for that part. They've done a host of others things to piss me off, but those are not relevant here.

And so here we are. I don't think pulling out now is a good idea, but we do have to wrap things up in the next year or two - and that's not going to be easy. I'll keep paying for it (via taxes present and future), and I wish our troops well, but I will not be joining them.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I actually found those arguements the least convincing on the merrits.

I repeat. My major argument was that the US had no right to attack a country without provocation - plain and simple.

I now await your latest attempt to twist my words.

[Odin]

I actually think the Neocons actually beleived that Saddam had WMD's. Thats what happens when your ideology makes you blindly believe BS given to you by questionable people (Like Chalabi, who, I assume, is where Shrub got the idea that we would be greeted with flowers and the occupation would be as easy as pie ).

[Drake Tungsten]

I actually think the Neocons actually beleived that Saddam had WMD's.

Yes, it was only the evil Neocons who believed that...

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
e), this war was still a legal boodogle.[/q]

Again...a bit of a twist of facts. "Serious consequences" are the accepted international code words for "use of force". These words are never used except in situations where the use of force is implied. For less than "use of force" the code words are "serious reprecutions". Given your understanding of international events, I would think you probably knew this as well.

NO its not. The law is not made up of catch phrases. The reason "serious consequences" ever got passed was exactly BECAUSE it did not mean war. That way China, France and Russia could vote for it. One would think you would know more about international politics. In the end, the French position probably makes far more sense given the nature of the UN.

Further, 1441 did not call for any further review of the security council beyond Sadaam eithier being declared in compliance or in breach. The security council declared him in breach.

So what? In the end the US and UK could not even get a majority of states to accept "serious consequences" as meaning war, which is really why they dropped the second resolution attempt. So iot seems a mayority of the states in the Security Council in 2003 did not share your interpretation of the legalities, and given the nature of international law, it means the US and UK were in the wrong. Which is why a resolution post the war was necessary to clean up the legal mess and grant the occupation legitimacy post invasion.