It's a good thing we found them, huh?

[bignick]

Suprised nobody else has already picked up on this. Read about this yesterday, the administration has ended the search for weapons in Iraq. I don't really have much to say about this subject anymore, but if anybody else has something to say, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Flatlander]

Well, um, michaeledward did have this to say.

 

[bignick]

Dang it...and I thought was really on the ball...I looked for a thread on it, not a post....


Oh, well...I'll have to find something more obscure to report next time

 

[The Kai]

Did the Great White Bush lie to us?????

Todd

 

[lvwhitebir]

All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all. What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

WhiteBirch

 

[shane23ss]

All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all. What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

WhiteBirch

What makes you think that?

 

[PeachMonkey]

All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all. What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

Given that the neoconservative powers behind the Administration have been lobbying for the conquest of Iraq since the first Bush Administration, and that former GW Admin officials have pointed out that some of those neocons (including Rumsfeld) immediately began looking for ways to engage Iraq in conflict after 9/11, this statement seems wistfully naive.

 

[shane23ss]

Given that the neoconservative powers behind the Administration have been lobbying for the conquest of Iraq since the first Bush Administration, and that former GW Admin officials have pointed out that some of those neocons (including Rumsfeld) immediately began looking for ways to engage Iraq in conflict after 9/11, this statement seems wistfully naive.

AGREED!

 

[Ray]

Given that the neoconservative powers behind the Administration have been lobbying for the conquest of Iraq since the first Bush Administration, and that former GW Admin officials have pointed out that some of those neocons (including Rumsfeld) immediately began looking for ways to engage Iraq in conflict after 9/11, this statement seems wistfully naive.

Oh,year, I forgot...Saddam was innocent and making peace with his neighbors during George Herbert Walker Bush's administration.

No, wait, didn't Sadmma invade Kuwait...oh, but that only because it was historically Iraq's real estate...and he was saving them from rulers who were too westernized. Oh, yes, and when he was forced out of Kuwait by the evil coalition forces, he just left without causing much trouble...no wait, I think he burned a bunch of oil wells and killed and raped and maimed. Heck, if I wasn't of Viking stock I would think that he was a bad, bad man; (otherwise he's just like my forebearers).

Now, wait, I also seem to recall that Saddam was launching scuds on Israel during the battles to free Kuwait. Of course, I'm sure that is fully explainable and acceptable...after all, the establishment of Israel in 1945 meant that someone else's homeland had to be siezed; and there really was no historical basis for the country of Israel...And Israel is just a puppet of the US and we can have a foothold in the region by making sure Israel continues to exist.

Come on, you need to do a little better at convincing me. I'm too old to be fooled so easily.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Actually, if you actually read my statements in various threads rather than putting words in my mouth, you'll find that I'm rather something of a supporter of Israel.

Can you tell me what any of your statements about Saddam Hussein's actions in the Middle East have to do with the assertion by the GW Bush administration that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US and the world because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, thereby justifying an invasion and occupation of Iraq?

And as for your list of Hussein's evil acts, you might want to include the litany of acts he performed when he was an ally of the United States. I'm too old to be fooled quite so easily.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Given that the neoconservative powers behind the Administration have been lobbying for the conquest of Iraq since the first Bush Administration, and that former GW Admin officials have pointed out that some of those neocons (including Rumsfeld) immediately began looking for ways to engage Iraq in conflict after 9/11, this statement seems wistfully naive.

Given that we've been engaged in a military action against Iraq since we repelled them from Iraq in 1991, and that they were non-compliant to the UN demands to disarm for the past 12 years, I can understand why they would want to plan to invade to end the conflict.

There was a lot of proof that WMDs were there at one time and no proof was provided by Iraq (as required by the UN) that they were destroyed.

To me, believing that we just invaded because Bush wanted some action is naive. There's a lot of history, and legal justification behind the invasion. The Butler Report has the legal justification if you're wondering.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

Can you tell me what any of your statements about Saddam Hussein's actions in the Middle East have to do with the assertion by the GW Bush administration that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US and the world because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, thereby justifying an invasion and occupation of Iraq?

UNSCR 1441.

1) Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction constitues a threat to international peace and security;
2) Iraq has failed - in clear violation of its legal obligations - to disarm; and
3) that, in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in SCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991, thus reviving the authorisation in SCR 678.

SCR 678 allowed states to use all necessary means (understood by all to mean use of force) to implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequence relevant resolutions and to restore internactional peace and security in the area.

The UN believed that WMDs were present, that Iraq was in continuing violation of its obligations, and that authorisation to use force would be allowed if they continued to do so. Thus the invasion.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

What makes you think that?

I'm not sure which part you're asking about, so I'll address them both.

1) All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all.

I think I read that specifically in the Butler Report, but I'll have to look again to find the exact line. The line indicated that British Intelligence didn't make up the charge of WMDs, other services indicated it as well. If nothing else, the US and Brittain's intelligence services agreed.

2) What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

If he had been fully compliant with the UN resolutions, we would have been satisfied that he had no WMDs and we would have left.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all. What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

WhiteBirch

No, they did not.

No, he did not.

No, he would not.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

So the logic here is that when the UN told us they didn't have WMDs (after our own inspectors told us they didn't have WMDs), the UN was wrong, politically biased, probably corrupt, and we needed to ignore them and launch a war--and now that we found that there ain't any WMDs and weren't any WMDs, the UN was our justification for launching the war in the first place.

One could also ask why we didn't follow the advice of the one person in Bush's cabinet with experience in a) the Mideast, b) combat, c) the military and put up with thrashing through the politics until we'd built international consensus as we had in 1991, had the military really ready to go, and figured out what the hell we were actually gonna do after we won, but...

...frankly, the leaps of logic and slides into alternate universes are beginning to make one's head hurt.

 

[shane23ss]

I'm not sure which part you're asking about, so I'll address them both.

1) All of the intelligence services reported that he probably had them, so he snookered us all.

I think I read that specifically in the Butler Report, but I'll have to look again to find the exact line. The line indicated that British Intelligence didn't make up the charge of WMDs, other services indicated it as well. If nothing else, the US and Brittain's intelligence services agreed.

This I will agree with.

2) What makes me laugh is that if he had been more forthcoming and didn't fight and deceive the weapons inspectors Saddam'd probably still be in power.

If he had been fully compliant with the UN resolutions, we would have been satisfied that he had no WMDs and we would have left.

WhiteBirch

This I completely disagree with. I was in the U.S. Army during this time. I went to Afghan and then Iraq. The general opinion in the military during this time was that we agreed with military action against Afghan. But, why would the government send about 10,000 troops to Afghan in retaliation against an attack on our home land, and send over 200,000 to Iraq to put some one "in check" that hadn't attacked this country or any other. While all of this was going on, North Korea stepped up to the plate and stated they were in the WMD business and no more of us went there than were all ready in South Korea. In Iraq, where WMD "might have been" entire division were deployed. By no means am I saying Saddam isn't a "bad man", but to think revenge didn't have a WHOLE LOT to do with us invading that country is being nieve. I mean come one, GW once made a statement "we are talking about a man that tried to kill my father once"!

 

[Bester]

Wait.

Powell was wrong?

George lied?

We invaded Iraq for nothing?

Oh, wait. We have the oil rights, a place to dispose of surplus youth and outdated hardware to fund new weapon programs.

Cool. Then it wasn't all wasted after all.

 

[ghostdog2]

Absolutely correct. When will the smug superficiality of the Left yield to the hard reality of life? You guys are out of it and joke about it. We won the war there and here, America thinks your logic is childish oversimplification. They're right,

 

[shane23ss]

Absolutely correct. When will the smug superficiality of the Left yield to the hard reality of life? You guys are out of it and joke about it. We won the war there and here, America thinks your logic is childish oversimplification. They're right,

What are you referring to here?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Apparently, he's referring to a) the way that even semi-leftists like John Kerry tend to see the world as a complex place of shifting motives and multiple histories, one that's poorly understood in terms of dimwit political slogans and hysterical rants from talk-show hosts--oh wait, that would mean that lefty types see complexities rather than simple truths, or b) lefties tend to have a bad habit of being right about conflicts like Vietnam on several different levels...oh wait, that doesn't fit either, or c) the way that many of us--including Bill Clinton--grew up without a lot of money, worked in real jobs, and struggled without big bucks to get our educations without daddy's money and connections, in ways that left (joke, get it?) us far better equipped to discuss reality than....no, one is hopelessly confused.

OK, am confused. Personally, this writer suspects that if this country keeps throwing its weight around and blowing our historical advantages like a drunk sailor on leaved in Manila Bay circa 1954, sooner or later, we're going to regret it pretty seriously. Oh wait...

Am very confused. This particular leftist has a nasty habit of looking pretty squarely at the toll in actual human lives that our militarism and our capitalism takes...you know, embarassing realities like our increasing workweek, or dropping actual income, or inferior literacy rates, the millions of abused/hungry/ill-educated children in the richest country on earth, the growing sense of anger and disconnection in our society. Then, just as bad, those out-of-touch leftists seem to know a helluva lot more about work, working people, and American history that folks who proudly announce that they don't need to look up no stinking facts...

Oh, and while we leftists are busily avoiding the hard realities of reality--will we be dealing with North Korea any time soon? taking steps to actually fix our educational system rather than just coming up with new unfunded mandates? doing anything real to protect workers and their families, or just spouting moralistic homilies? handling minor issues like ecological damage?

Try reading E.P. Thompson, "Making of the English Working Class." Or those, "History of Everyday Life," books. Find out something about your ACTUAL history, and what's actually going on in the modern world. Really, relying on Rush Limbaugh for your intellectual material...

No, didn't think so. Much better to spout right-wing slogans that would've had Barry Goldwater smacking everybody with a blivet...

Yes, one knows. The writer's being snooty. He expects that people understand that knowledge--as the martial arts, or Giles on "Buffy," or even "Highlander 3," will tell you, is hard-won, complicated, and all that other leftist stuff.

We are not the guys who lied to you about this nifty little unnecessary war, you know.