As for saddam, there wasn't a chance in hell he was getting a nuke for a variety of reasons, most of them explained way back in the early 90s.
I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.
I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.
however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.
The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .
So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.
Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.
my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww\
I agree. Whenever I see anyone ask the "Why did they do it question" I tend to spew the ideology response. I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs. The problem with their logic is they didn't have an understanding of the region or the culture. Hell, OBL had a $25,000,000 bounty on his head an noone turned him in. That bounty is up to 50 mill now--do they expect OBL to be turned in now?
It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region. Not all people are motivated by the all mighty $$$. Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.
I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.
I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.
I think you're right to a degree. You also have to consider that those idealogues also believe it is the USA should be the only mighty power in the world and impose it's brand of peace. Go to PNAC's website to see what I mean.
Something else to consider is the fact that Saddam was also considering bypassing the dollar and going with the Euro(oik sales)which would have helped further de-stabalize the dollar.
Another thing to consider is the emergence of China as a global power. Going back to what I said about being the mightiest, the only superpower if you will. What do all countries, especially industrialized and emerging countries need to keep their engine going? Oil. Decades from now, when supplies start running low, and prices are sky high, he who controls the oil supplies has a HUGE, monumental advantage.
Quote:
Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.
I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.
It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.
faust9, I think it could be said that both purposes you suggest amount to the same thing.
Both 'control' or 'competiton' regulate fuel costs, that is, keep them low; but more important then that is that both those things mean those petrodollars just keep flowing and flowing and flowing. US economic dominance is predicated on oil underground being priced in dollars and those dollars pumping into the market. Any energy transaction (in other words, any economic transaction) results in American wealth being created. That's before you even hit any infrastructure reliance on cheap energy.
The war WAS about oil; American interests; the American way of life. To put it another way, 15,000 Iraqis have died so that people can drive SUVs and get fat.
I have been contemplating this issue thouroughly for a couple of days and have come to some conclusions:
1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.
9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.
IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?
2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.
3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
We do you post this drivel in this thread? It is all entirely off subject.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me . . . .
yes . .. there are many
many
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening.
Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.
As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:
1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!
2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.
And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .
The babarism of the sanctions and the dirty hands that surrounded that whole ordeal, combined with a seemingly endless set of inspections, combined with the recent Jeckel/Hyde "complete absolution" of WMD after 1994, smacks of either gross negligence or subterfuge.
I have been contemplating this issue thouroughly for a couple of days and have come to some conclusions:
1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.
9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.
IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?
2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.
3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
In response to:
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.
2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.
3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:
Quote:
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.
First line of the first link
Quote:
U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq said they found empty rocket warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents yesterday, but a U.S. official said it did not represent a "smoking gun" that could mean war.
emphesis added.
second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.
This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.
third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.
That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.
Quote:
As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.
I don't understand what your getting at with this link:
The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
Finally:
Quote:
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.
2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.
3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:
4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.
First line of the first link
emphesis added.
second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.
This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.
third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.
That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.
Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.
I don't understand what your getting at with this link:
The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.
Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?
What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?
Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.
Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?
What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?
Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.
I'm not getting this.
The "corrupt" UN turned out to be right. Hans Blix had a much more accurate picture of WOMD in Iraq then the Bush whitehouse, and was belittled as a tool of evil for his trouble.
What "intentions" can you impute to an orginization that history has vindicated? Are you saying that you suspect them of being in bed with SH which caused them to minimize the threat of WOMD, and it was just lucky for them that they were right?
Whereas Bush was "right" in the sense that he disliked the right guy, even though he was proved to be wrong?
I get the sense that you are arguing from a kind of "all over feeling about things" that includes the rightousness of Bush, the corruption of the UN, and the general OKness of invading Iraq, which is fine.
But when you keep trying to fit the facts into a pattern that supports this non-fact based general feeling, it keeps coming out mangled and incoherent.
We do you post this drivel in this thread? It is all entirely off subject.
yes . .. there are many
many
Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.
As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:
1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!
2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.
And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's [sic] intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their [sic] no loyalty to the office anymore?
Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.
It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".
As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.
Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.
It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".
As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.
Please help me with your definition of right and wrong.
Was it right to continue, according to Hans Blix, sham inspections since the mid nineties?
Was it right during that time to take US tax dollars and give them to a brutal regime?
Was it right to, in effect, finance rape rooms, torture chambers, starvation and mass killings during that time? How about the palaces and bunkers?
Was it right to tell the world they cared about the poor people of Iraq when all they cared about was their pocketbooks?
Was it right that the UN passed resolution 1441 if they "knew" there were no WMD's?
What were all of those reports given about all of the unaccounted for WMD's? Was that just a sham also to keep them in Iraq to arrange more kickbacks?
Originally posted by FormerLurker As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness. [/B]
Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.
In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.
As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?
I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?
Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."
Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.
America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.
Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.
Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.
In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.
As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?
I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?
Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
Don't attribute the disagreement to the war with the left or liberls. Centrists and conservatives are also against it.
Quote:
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
The answer is yes. Look back to ohh, 1960 or so and you'll see the same line towed by the Kennedy administration about Vietnam. Later LBJ followed the same logic as did Tricky Dick. We are not aligning ourselves with foreign powers. We are questioning the justifications for a war involving so many US troops. We are questioning a war founded on halftruths. We are questioning the administration, NOT aligning with foreign powers. Questioning one's rulers is not disloyal; moreover, if you are not questioning this administration in the light of all of the revelations I feel sorry for you. Anybody who doesn't question an action such as invading a soverign nation on false pretenses to justify a prexisting plan needs to be a little introspective.
Please, I'm asking you, do some research. Read the writings of those within this administration. Contrast what was said by Tenet a couple of weeks ago to what the administration said. Read what Powell said before the war, to the UN, and to-date. Read what Rummy, and Dick have both said before the war and to-date. If you take the time to read these statements in context, if you take the time to read the views of those within the intelligence agencies, if you take the time to contrast what was said to what is being said you might actually be surprised.
Three time articles I found in a 1.5 minutes. There are hundreds if not thousands of good articles out there as well as the words as spoken by those within the administratin
I'm sorry but I am not a Ditto-head. I don't question someone's patriotism, or their allegiance because they disapprove of the nations leadership. In fact, I'll hold my own allegiance up to anyones. I'll hold my military service up. I'll hold my volunteer service up. I'll hold be lack of blind acceptance of this conflict up as my patriotism. I'm actually offended that you could draw a line like that in the sand, but I guess that stems from the administrations "With us or against us" mentality.
Also, don't demogogue the debate with rape chambers and the like because SH is not the worst and is defenetly not (or at least was not) the only dictator out there. If that was the justification then so be it. That is a good reason in my mind, but if we go after SH for that reason then we need to go after all dictators.
The evil dictator reason wasn't the one presented to the nation as the major reason for invasion though was it. WMD was. Ties to Al Quaeda was. Not the liberation of an oppressed people. The last reason didn't evolve until it became apparent that the ties and WMD would never be found. Mull that over for a little while. Why did "they" have to change their song and dance? According to Powell before the UN, and statements made by Cheney, Rummy, and Perle before the conflict we "knew" where the stuff was. If we "knew" why haven't we found it yet?
My last question is was war in your opinion the only answer?
Please address the issues though. Don't get upset with me and simply dismiss me because I've asked a coupple of questions. I took the time to address your points in a logical laid out fashion can and will you do the same?
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Why not go to the best sources? www.nuclearweaponarchive.org www.fas.org
As for saddam, there wasn't a chance in hell he was getting a nuke for a variety of reasons, most of them explained way back in the early 90s.
I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.
Originally posted by pfflam
please be patient and read this:
I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.
however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.
The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .
So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.
Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.
my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww
I agree. Whenever I see anyone ask the "Why did they do it question" I tend to spew the ideology response. I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs. The problem with their logic is they didn't have an understanding of the region or the culture. Hell, OBL had a $25,000,000 bounty on his head an noone turned him in. That bounty is up to 50 mill now--do they expect OBL to be turned in now?
It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region. Not all people are motivated by the all mighty $$$. Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.
Originally posted by faust9
I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.
Gee, I wonder why that might be.
Originally posted by faust9
I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.
I think you're right to a degree. You also have to consider that those idealogues also believe it is the USA should be the only mighty power in the world and impose it's brand of peace. Go to PNAC's website to see what I mean.
Something else to consider is the fact that Saddam was also considering bypassing the dollar and going with the Euro(oik sales)which would have helped further de-stabalize the dollar.
Another thing to consider is the emergence of China as a global power. Going back to what I said about being the mightiest, the only superpower if you will. What do all countries, especially industrialized and emerging countries need to keep their engine going? Oil. Decades from now, when supplies start running low, and prices are sky high, he who controls the oil supplies has a HUGE, monumental advantage.
Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.
And that can be VERY dangerous.
Just my 2 cents. In US currency.
Originally posted by faust9
I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.
It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.
faust9, I think it could be said that both purposes you suggest amount to the same thing.
Both 'control' or 'competiton' regulate fuel costs, that is, keep them low; but more important then that is that both those things mean those petrodollars just keep flowing and flowing and flowing. US economic dominance is predicated on oil underground being priced in dollars and those dollars pumping into the market. Any energy transaction (in other words, any economic transaction) results in American wealth being created. That's before you even hit any infrastructure reliance on cheap energy.
The war WAS about oil; American interests; the American way of life. To put it another way, 15,000 Iraqis have died so that people can drive SUVs and get fat.
1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.
9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.
IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?
2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.
3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=74177
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/bowman042798.html
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113271
As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...q-353318.shtml
If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
Originally posted by NaplesX
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me . . . .
yes . .. there are many
many
Originally posted by NaplesX
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening.
Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.
As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:
1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!
2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.
And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .
The babarism of the sanctions and the dirty hands that surrounded that whole ordeal, combined with a seemingly endless set of inspections, combined with the recent Jeckel/Hyde "complete absolution" of WMD after 1994, smacks of either gross negligence or subterfuge.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been contemplating this issue thouroughly for a couple of days and have come to some conclusions:
1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.
9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.
IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?
2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.
3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=74177
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/bowman042798.html
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113271
As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...q-353318.shtml
If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
In response to:
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.
2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.
3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.
First line of the first link
U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq said they found empty rocket warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents yesterday, but a U.S. official said it did not represent a "smoking gun" that could mean war.
emphesis added.
second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.
This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.
third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.
That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.
As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm
Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.
Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.
I don't understand what your getting at with this link:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003...aq-353318.shtml
The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/pape...s/7mjm77m0.pdf
Justify this:
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.
Finally:
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.
Originally posted by faust9
In response to:
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.
2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.
3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:
4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.
First line of the first link
emphesis added.
second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.
This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.
third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.
That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.
Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.
I don't understand what your getting at with this link:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003...aq-353318.shtml
The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/pape...s/7mjm77m0.pdf
Justify this:
Finally:
One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.
Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?
What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?
Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?
What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?
Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.
I'm not getting this.
The "corrupt" UN turned out to be right. Hans Blix had a much more accurate picture of WOMD in Iraq then the Bush whitehouse, and was belittled as a tool of evil for his trouble.
What "intentions" can you impute to an orginization that history has vindicated? Are you saying that you suspect them of being in bed with SH which caused them to minimize the threat of WOMD, and it was just lucky for them that they were right?
Whereas Bush was "right" in the sense that he disliked the right guy, even though he was proved to be wrong?
I get the sense that you are arguing from a kind of "all over feeling about things" that includes the rightousness of Bush, the corruption of the UN, and the general OKness of invading Iraq, which is fine.
But when you keep trying to fit the facts into a pattern that supports this non-fact based general feeling, it keeps coming out mangled and incoherent.
Sorry it just does.
Originally posted by pfflam
We do you post this drivel in this thread? It is all entirely off subject.
yes . .. there are many
many
Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.
As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:
1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!
2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.
And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
" Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah! That's it! It's a self fulfilling prophecy!
Man, they'll say anything to try to justify this war.
Originally posted by NaplesX
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's [sic] intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their [sic] no loyalty to the office anymore?
Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.
It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".
As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.
It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".
As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.
Please help me with your definition of right and wrong.
Was it right to continue, according to Hans Blix, sham inspections since the mid nineties?
Was it right during that time to take US tax dollars and give them to a brutal regime?
Was it right to, in effect, finance rape rooms, torture chambers, starvation and mass killings during that time? How about the palaces and bunkers?
Was it right to tell the world they cared about the poor people of Iraq when all they cared about was their pocketbooks?
Was it right that the UN passed resolution 1441 if they "knew" there were no WMD's?
What were all of those reports given about all of the unaccounted for WMD's? Was that just a sham also to keep them in Iraq to arrange more kickbacks?
I guess this is the year of the "Flip-Flop".
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
" Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah! That's it! It's a self fulfilling prophecy!
Man, they'll say anything to try to justify this war.
man you will say anything to blame this president.
Originally posted by FormerLurker As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.
Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness. [/B]
Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.
In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.
As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?
I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?
Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."
Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.
America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.
Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.
Originally posted by NaplesX
man you will say anything to blame this president.
Well if the shoe fits.............
Originally posted by NaplesX
Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.
In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.
As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?
I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?
Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
Don't attribute the disagreement to the war with the left or liberls. Centrists and conservatives are also against it.
As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
The answer is yes. Look back to ohh, 1960 or so and you'll see the same line towed by the Kennedy administration about Vietnam. Later LBJ followed the same logic as did Tricky Dick. We are not aligning ourselves with foreign powers. We are questioning the justifications for a war involving so many US troops. We are questioning a war founded on halftruths. We are questioning the administration, NOT aligning with foreign powers. Questioning one's rulers is not disloyal; moreover, if you are not questioning this administration in the light of all of the revelations I feel sorry for you. Anybody who doesn't question an action such as invading a soverign nation on false pretenses to justify a prexisting plan needs to be a little introspective.
Please, I'm asking you, do some research. Read the writings of those within this administration. Contrast what was said by Tenet a couple of weeks ago to what the administration said. Read what Powell said before the war, to the UN, and to-date. Read what Rummy, and Dick have both said before the war and to-date. If you take the time to read these statements in context, if you take the time to read the views of those within the intelligence agencies, if you take the time to contrast what was said to what is being said you might actually be surprised.
Read articles like these:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...0.html?cnn=yes
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...0.html?cnn=yes
Three time articles I found in a 1.5 minutes. There are hundreds if not thousands of good articles out there as well as the words as spoken by those within the administratin
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
I'm sorry but I am not a Ditto-head. I don't question someone's patriotism, or their allegiance because they disapprove of the nations leadership. In fact, I'll hold my own allegiance up to anyones. I'll hold my military service up. I'll hold my volunteer service up. I'll hold be lack of blind acceptance of this conflict up as my patriotism. I'm actually offended that you could draw a line like that in the sand, but I guess that stems from the administrations "With us or against us" mentality.
Also, don't demogogue the debate with rape chambers and the like because SH is not the worst and is defenetly not (or at least was not) the only dictator out there. If that was the justification then so be it. That is a good reason in my mind, but if we go after SH for that reason then we need to go after all dictators.
The evil dictator reason wasn't the one presented to the nation as the major reason for invasion though was it. WMD was. Ties to Al Quaeda was. Not the liberation of an oppressed people. The last reason didn't evolve until it became apparent that the ties and WMD would never be found. Mull that over for a little while. Why did "they" have to change their song and dance? According to Powell before the UN, and statements made by Cheney, Rummy, and Perle before the conflict we "knew" where the stuff was. If we "knew" why haven't we found it yet?
My last question is was war in your opinion the only answer?
Please address the issues though. Don't get upset with me and simply dismiss me because I've asked a coupple of questions. I took the time to address your points in a logical laid out fashion can and will you do the same?