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

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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

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

I never said they were the ONLY ones. Quit putting words in my mouth.

[Berzerker]

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

The UN resolution authorising the first war was to expel Iraq from Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. That became US policy. We went to the UN and couldn't get permission, at least 1 top member state with veto power wouldn't sign on I suspect. So we went without the UN's blessing...



MtG sounds like a libertarian

This question, or should I say, argument, - what would you sacrifice to stabilise Iraq - is what I ask in debates about other aspects of society. If you want prostitution illegal, how much would you pay to enforce the law? Nevermind about the immorality of the law, how much would you pay to put people in cages for having sex?

If government is a necessary evil, then shouldn't we at least try to inhibit the overgrowth of evil by letting taxpayers decide how their money gets spent?

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes, it was only the evil Neocons who believed that...

and the dumb ones.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


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.

Powell has since called that speech the most embarrasing in his entire career.

[Reader81]

Nothing, let's get the hell out ASAP

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Max Webster
and the dumb ones.

At least Drake's not evil...

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The UN resolution authorising the first war was to expel Iraq from Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. That became US policy. We went to the UN and couldn't get permission, at least 1 top member state with veto power wouldn't sign on I suspect. So we went without the UN's blessing...

Yep SG said so at the time and has done so again since.

Yes thats correct. one quibble, when the UN mandates member nations to use force, the terms of any ceasefire are not solely withing the UNs perview. Since WMD was one of the ceasfire provision you can make an argumenmt that the ceasfire has been breached, which was really what all the WMD independent UN misions were about, and that means tha retrocativly force has already been mandated by the UN for member nations to enforce the ceasfire obligations that are being ignored by Iraq. thats certainly one starnd of the case for war being legal, of course the whole war is legal is a double edged sword, its needed because the UN exists to prevent war being used as national policy, and its needed to show the world at large and more specificly your own people that your acting lawfully when you do go to war, and for good reasons, not just its a damn good idea!!.

Removal of SH is against the UN laws, even planning to do it is, so thats never going to get of the ground however much the US wants to do it as being legal.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by PLATO
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.

Are you seriously suggesting that if Saddam handed over certain pieces of paper he would have been able to hold onto power?

[Patroklos]

Skilander

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."

This would be assuming there was a monolithic reason for war. From the very beginning the administration and the dems that supported it had a laundry list of things to accomplish. One was simply more pressing and perceived as more important than the others.

since they could have just as easily concluded it was an acceptable loss

This is Skilanders point, there is no way they could have come to this conclusion, and the people who maintain that they did out of some evil plot are transparent in their motivations for doing so primarily because of this impossibility.

Powell has since called that speech the most embarrassing in his entire career.

Irregardless, it proves that someone who was not in an ideological frezzy (as you believe everyone else was), and is respected by you (obviously, since you still manipulate him into somehow supporting you, and are not using your two threads a day to start hate rants on him) took an objective look at all the evidence available and came to the same conclusion as everyone else who had access to all available information.
You dogged admiration for him refutes two of your assumptions that holds up your tin foil had world 1.) that the administration intentionally lied and 2.) there was no justification of war by the information available at the time.

Are you seriously suggesting that if Saddam handed over certain pieces of paper he would have been able to hold onto power?

There were lists of things that he did not do, such as allow unrestricted access to facilities. The requirements of the resolution called for complete compliance with inspections.

[Sava]

Even if Saddam had WMD's it was not a good enough reason to go to war. He had not used them for over 10 years. And he was not going to use them against America. He had no way to use them against us!

He didn't even use them in the first Gulf War when US forces were within striking distance!

Sorry Pat, you lose.

[Patroklos]

Even if Saddam had WMD's it was not a good enough reason to go to war. He had not used them for over 10 years. And he was not going to use them against America. He had no way to use them against us!

He didn't even use them in the first Gulf War when US forces were within striking distance!

Sorry Pat, you lose.

How does that not make him in complete breach of not only 1441, but also the Gulf War I cease fire?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos


How does that not make him in complete breach of not only 1441, but also the Gulf War I cease fire?

You are just splitting hairs over a technicality.

The Bush administration was going to invade no matter what.

Face it, the war was not justified. Why can't you just admit this? The facts prove this. You have no evidence to support your claims.

[Patroklos]

You are just splitting hairs over a technicality.

I am sorry "yes" and "no" are too technical for you.

The Bush administration was going to invade no matter what.

Because you say so, of course.

Face it, the war was not justified. Why can't you just admit this? The facts prove this. You have no evidence to support your claims.

Well, lets go over my claims.

1.) All evidence prior to war supported the Administrations claims.

True. Even those countries who did not participate in the war came to the same conlusion about Iraq's pocession of WMDs.

2.) That Iraq had violated both the spirit and letter of two resolutions from the UN.

True. And even if you want to be obtuse and claim 1441 does not authorize force, the breaking of the cease fire doing so is not up for debate.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am sorry "yes" and "no" are too technical for you.

actually it's "yes" with a BIG FAT asterix *... known as a technicality

Because you say so, of course.

because after 9-11 that was the agenda... Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...

Well, lets go over my claims.

1.) All evidence prior to war supported the Administrations claims.

oh yeah, like the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

or the yellow cake in Niger?

or Saddam's nuclear program that did not exist?

or the satelite photos of the "UAV chemical weapons" facility! everyone remember those?

the list goes on and on...

the administration, when they didn't completely mislead the public, cherry-picked BAD INTELLIGENCE to support their agenda. They ignored all the intelligence that contradicted their view. Then they gave a watered-down version of this intelligence to Congress so they could say "OH BUT THE DEMOCRATS CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION"

The Democrats and Congress did NOT have the same intelligence the Bush Admin had. They do not see the same reports. They get a finished version... a summarized report. They don't see the actual intel.

2.) That Iraq had violated both the spirit and letter of two resolutions from the UN.

True. And even if you want to be obtuse and claim 1441 does not authorize force, the breaking of the cease fire doing so is not up for debate.

And still. Violating resolutions is not justification for war or invasion. Iraq was not a threat to anyone. It was not a threat to America. Violating some stupid resolution is not justification for a war that has costed hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives over 2,000 US soldiers, not to mention the untold thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed.

[Patroklos]

actually it's "yes" with a BIG FAT asterix *... known as a technicality

Then I will let you fill in the footnote, as even GePap agrees it is "yes."

the administration, when they didn't completely mislead the public, cherry-picked BAD INTELLIGENCE to support their agenda.

How can you willing engage in such self pawnage after such a well balanced and superbly articulated post by Skilander should have warned you to leave that dead horse out of your normal trolling. Not like you don't have other tricks in your repertoire.

And still. Violating resolutions is not justification for war or invasion. Iraq was not a threat to anyone. It was not a threat to America. Violating some stupid resolution is not justification for a war...

Well you are of course entitled to your opinin, but 70 years of international and national law are at direct odds with it.

Do you know what a ceasefire is?