Most War Protesters...

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
People on the left are nice and like to help people. People on the right like to back wars and are happy what war brings. Seeing you reverted to stereotypes, I thought I would join in.

Face it, Iraq war was on false pretences. That is what every thread like this turns into, about 5 people disagreeing with you and your murdrerous views. Well I would like to withdraw from this tirade.

My murderous views.. oh man, that's the best one I have heard yet. It's still a better world without Saddam, no matter what you say... Saddam was the murderer, and maybe it would suit you best to remember such things. Statements like the one you just made give so much ammunition to the people youa re trying to debate with.



People on the right pay all the taxes so that people on the left can "help" people. You should thank them every once in awhile.

 

[INFESTA]

Hey, tell me where I can register as a 'leftie' so that I, my family, my friends, won't ever again have to pay taxes.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by INFESTA
Hey, tell me where I can register as a 'leftie' so that I, my family, my friends, won't ever again have to pay taxes.

Just go down to your local government office and sign up for welfare. Then it is your job to complain about the rich and how they don't "pay their fair share" of taxes and demand more money from them.

Of course, I was being sarcastic.. but the way the Democratic party talks in this country... it's very sad.

 

[INFESTA]

Originally posted by Elder
Just go down to your local government office and sign up for welfare. Then it is your job to complain about the rich and how they don't "pay their fair share" of taxes and demand more money from them.

Yeah, I'd love to see all lefties out there sign up for welfare over the next week. Maybe the right wing, a.k.a. rich folks, would finally have to work.


Of course, I am being sarcastic too.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
It's still a better world without Saddam, no matter what you say... Saddam was the murderer,

And this is increasingly the fall-back that people who supported the war, and those who initiated it, are using to justify the action in light of the fact that the search for WMD is an abject failure.

BUT it is a flawed argument. Firstly, getting rid of Saddam was NOT the primary reason for going to war. Again and again, war supporters have said this was is justified and legal according to the UN Resolution 1441. Well, this resolution neve contained ANYTHING about toppling Saddam, it was about DISARMING Saddam of WMD. UN inspectors were in Iraq to search for WMD - the US and the UK believed Saddam still had them, most of the rest of the UN wanted the UN teams to continue their inspections. We have seen that the latter group were in fact correct to take the stance they did.

Using the UN resolution as justification for war is no longer possible. There is no reason the UN teams could not have been left in Iraq to continue their job. Think about it - in economic terms, a cost-benefit analysis just does not stack up. Getting rid of one man who was not a threat to the US versus billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars, over 500 American lives, over 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and a deterioration of Americas moral status and reputation in the eyes of the world. And given common knowledge about US support for Saddam when he was actually committing his major crimes against humanity, gettng rid of Saddam cannot simply be seen as a 'good deed' independent of any context, but rather as a rectifying of past mistakes on the behalf of the US.

You cannot use the ends to justify the means. The entire LEGAL argument for war was based on the presence of WMD in Iraq. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle, Blair, Hoon, Howard, everyone who was behind this war made repeated and constant claims that Saddam had WMD. One example, Rumsfeld, who shortly after the fall of Baghdad said "We know where they are, they are in such and such" referring to WMD. He is now saying his choice of wqords was wrong, and he meant to say "We THINK we know where they are...". Bollocks. He knows very well he meant to say his original statement.

Any attempt to deflect the blame onto intelligence agencies is also a sidestep of the issue. Anyone who knows anything about the way intelligence operations work knows full well that raw intrelliegence does not come 'fully formed'. It is raw data, that must be analysed to connect the dots, draw inferences and make conclusions. Everything the CIA provided always came with the caveat that they could never be sure if Saddam had WMD or not. These caveats were EDITED out for final documents when the research team set up by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitx got their hands on the intel. They knew the argument they wanted to make, and they made the data fit the argument. They were determined to go to war, and any intel that did not fit their position was discarded. End of story.

Finally, if the justification for war is now going to be 'Saddam has to go" rather than "Saddam has WMD", then why the hell was this argument not made in the first place. Powell now looks like a complete fool, thanks to his presentation to the UN security council, where he outlined in great detail the WMD Saddam possessed. I am sorry, but if you want the US to retain credibility, then you base your argument on Saddam as a person, and as a person only, if your primary reason for going to war is his displacement.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
And this is increasingly the fall-back that people who supported the war, and those who initiated it, are using to justify the action in light of the fact that the search for WMD is an abject failure.

BUT it is a flawed argument. Firstly, getting rid of Saddam was NOT the primary reason for going to war. Again and again, war supporters have said this was is justified and legal according to the UN Resolution 1441. Well, this resolution neve contained ANYTHING about toppling Saddam, it was about DISARMING Saddam of WMD. UN inspectors were in Iraq to search for WMD - the US and the UK believed Saddam still had them, most of the rest of the UN wanted the UN teams to continue their inspections. We have seen that the latter group were in fact correct to take the stance they did.

Using the UN resolution as justification for war is no longer possible. There is no reason the UN teams could not have been left in Iraq to continue their job. Think about it - in economic terms, a cost-benefit analysis just does not stack up. Getting rid of one man who was not a threat to the US versus billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars, over 500 American lives, over 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and a deterioration of Americas moral status and reputation in the eyes of the world. And given common knowledge about US support for Saddam when he was actually committing his major crimes against humanity, gettng rid of Saddam cannot simply be seen as a 'good deed' independent of any context, but rather as a rectifying of past mistakes on the behalf of the US.

You cannot use the ends to justify the means. The entire LEGAL argument for war was based on the presence of WMD in Iraq. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle, Blair, Hoon, Howard, everyone who was behind this war made repeated and constant claims that Saddam had WMD. One example, Rumsfeld, who shortly after the fall of Baghdad said "We know where they are, they are in such and such" referring to WMD. He is now saying his choice of wqords was wrong, and he meant to say "We THINK we know where they are...". Bollocks. He knows very well he meant to say his original statement.

Any attempt to deflect the blame onto intelligence agencies is also a sidestep of the issue. Anyone who knows anything about the way intelligence operations work knows full well that raw intrelliegence does not come 'fully formed'. It is raw data, that must be analysed to connect the dots, draw inferences and make conclusions. Everything the CIA provided always came with the caveat that they could never be sure if Saddam had WMD or not. These caveats were EDITED out for final documents when the research team set up by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitx got their hands on the intel. They knew the argument they wanted to make, and they made the data fit the argument. They were determined to go to war, and any intel that did not fit their position was discarded. End of story.

Finally, if the justification for war is now going to be 'Saddam has to go" rather than "Saddam has WMD", then why the hell was this argument not made in the first place. Powell now looks like a complete fool, thanks to his presentation to the UN security council, where he outlined in great detail the WMD Saddam possessed. I am sorry, but if you want the US to retain credibility, then you base your argument on Saddam as a person, and as a person only, if your primary reason for going to war is his displacement.

Powell isn't the only one who looks like a fool... try the entire UN, who had the same information everyone else did. This screw up is not just the fault of the United States.

And since everyone loves conspiracy theories, maybe the weapons were shipped out of country... Who knows?! Maybe they are still buried in the desert somewhere.. who knows?!

The whole point is this really. Many people screwed up, not just the US. And whether or not the justification for war was there or not, as explained by the President, he couldn't take that chance after 9/11. And that argument is the one that will stand up, at least to the citizens of this country.

And Saddam was, by all accounts, in violation of 1441. That was enough to go to war, and if the members on the security council didn't know that when they voted for 1441, then shame on them for not paying attention to details.

But back to what I said.. My opinion isn't murderous. But Saddam was a murderer. Critics of the war need to figure that out because people don't take them seriously when saying such things.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by INFESTA
Yeah, I'd love to see all lefties out there sign up for welfare over the next week. Maybe the right wing, a.k.a. rich folks, would finally have to work.


Of course, I am being sarcastic too.

I always love "the rich don't work" argument. The reason they are rich is because they make choices in life to reach that goal... i.e. working longer hours! i.e working two jobs! i.e. paying attention in school!

It's such a crazy concept this work thing... But you know, screw the rich, they are assholes and didn't earn anything that they have.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
Powell isn't the only one who looks like a fool... try the entire UN, who had the same information everyone else did. This screw up is not just the fault of the United States.

And since everyone loves conspiracy theories, maybe the weapons were shipped out of country... Who knows?! Maybe they are still buried in the desert somewhere.. who knows?!

The whole point is this really. Many people screwed up, not just the US. And whether or not the justification for war was there or not, as explained by the President, he couldn't take that chance after 9/11. And that argument is the one that will stand up, at least to the citizens of this country.

And Saddam was, by all accounts, in violation of 1441. That was enough to go to war, and if the members on the security council didn't know that when they voted for 1441, then shame on them for not paying attention to details.

But back to what I said.. My opinion isn't murderous. But Saddam was a murderer. Critics of the war need to figure that out because people don't take them seriously when saying such things.

Sorry, it was never shown that Iraq had WMD, the UN inspectors themselves said that cooperation from the Iraqis was increasing and there was no need to rush to war until they had completed the job they were there to do, and the UK and the US were quite simply wrong to proceed the way they did.

And isn't it funny that the whole time the left were attacked fro advocating conspiracies, it is now the right who actually have to revert to them in the absence of evidencr for their initial arguments.

And the indisputable fact is, if the removal of Saddam was the objective, things could and should have proceeded differently.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Sorry, it was never shown that Iraq had WMD, the UN inspectors themselves said that cooperation from the Iraqis was increasing and there was no need to rush to war until they had completed the job they were there to do, and the UK and the US were quite simply wrong to proceed the way they did.

And isn't it funny that the whole time the left were attacked fro advocating conspiracies, it is now the right who actually have to revert to them in the absence of evidencr for their initial arguments.

And the indisputable fact is, if the removal of Saddam was the objective, things could and should have proceeded differently.

The "rush to war" took over a decade... I think you are smarter than that to use such silly slogans one could find at an anti war rally.

Conspiracey theories? The one about moving WMD to Syria is a hell of a lot more believable than "we went to war for Halliburton." Both sides are stupid to use them.

But you're right, if the removal of saddam was the objective, we could have just assasinated him. But, as I think everyone actually knows, the world thought he had WMD. That is just the fact, or none of us would be in the place we are in now.

 

[rhizome17]

The rush to war did not take a decade. The CIA had concluded Iraq was not a threat in 1998. As soon as Bush came into office, the 'rush' began.

And the rest of the world did not have the same 'knowledge' as the US - when Blix delivered his report, the US seized it and edited 8000 out of the 11,000 words - the final document being the one the rest of the countries received.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
The rush to war did not take a decade. The CIA had concluded Iraq was not a threat in 1998. As soon as Bush came into office, the 'rush' began.

And the rest of the world did not have the same 'knowledge' as the US - when Blix delivered his report, the US seized it and edited 8000 out of the 11,000 words - the final document being the one the rest of the countries received.

Was this before or after the bombings by the Clinton administration that the CIA made this statement?

Blix was prick who was against war from the start. He had his own agenda just like everyone else did.

 

[rhizome17]

Not sure what Clintons bombings have to do with it...

And Blix was against the war because he was not convinced that Saddam had WMD and therefore posed a threat. If he felt that the Iraqis were trying to hide something, he would have supported whatever action was to occur. He has said that himself. But he was not convinced, and he was actually on the ground in Iraq. So he is in a better position than a bureaucrat in Washington to assess the evidence.

So it seems he had much better foresight than alot of people. His 'agenda' was to uncover the truth about Iraqs 'stockpile' of WMD, the agenda mandated by the UN - of which the US is a member.

And he was right .

 

[Solo Inter]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Not sure what Clintons bombings have to do with it...

.

Neither does Elder.....

 

[Moron]

LOL

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Not sure what Clintons bombings have to do with it...

And Blix was against the war because he was not convinced that Saddam had WMD and therefore posed a threat. If he felt that the Iraqis were trying to hide something, he would have supported whatever action was to occur. He has said that himself. But he was not convinced, and he was actually on the ground in Iraq. So he is in a better position than a bureaucrat in Washington to assess the evidence.

So it seems he had much better foresight than alot of people. His 'agenda' was to uncover the truth about Iraqs 'stockpile' of WMD, the agenda mandated by the UN - of which the US is a member.

And he was right .

Blix was against the war from the start and did what he could to prevent it. He is an idealogue, not a professional, and many people had questions about his ability to performe his job to the best that he could.

And you saying the CIA said there was no threat in 1998... the year Clinton bombed Iraq because he was a "threat." The funniest thing to me is that everything Bush has said about Iraq was taken directly from the Clinton White House.. But, it's always about Bush. I know most of you just have a hatred for this man that blinds your judgement most of the time, but everything Bush has said is consistent with the past agruments and actions undertaken by the UN and this government.

 

[Elder]

.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
Blix was against the war from the start and did what he could to prevent it. He is an idealogue, not a professional, and many people had questions about his ability to performe his job to the best that he could.

And you saying the CIA said there was no threat in 1998... the year Clinton bombed Iraq because he was a "threat." The funniest thing to me is that everything Bush has said about Iraq was taken directly from the Clinton White House.. But, it's always about Bush. I know most of you just have a hatred for this man that blinds your judgement most of the time, but everything Bush has said is consistent with the past agruments and actions undertaken by the UN and this government.

Again, Clinton bombing Iraq has nothing to do with it - think of it like this: if Clinton bombs Iraq after the CIA says Saddam is not a threat, who is wrong? Are you saying that the politician decides whether Saddam is a threat? If so, then the recent war in Iraq need not be investigated with an analysis of the CIA.... if it is the politicians who decide whether Saddam is a threat (which is what you appear to be saying) then it is they who need to be investigated.

I don't even need to bother with your comments about Blix, you haven't even provided any evidence to back up your statement about him doing all he could to prevent war, unless you mean his attempt to keep doing his job, which is pretty reasonable if you ask me. But when 8000 words of his 11000 word report is confiscated then it must be pretty hard to tell...

As for everything Bush has said coming from the Clinton whitehouse, so what? All that does is make them both wrong. I am not particularly interested in bipartisan politics. I am not an american. If it were CLinton who had prosecuted this war, I would be saying the exact same thing as I have all along - the arguments for going to war are wrong. ffs, Blair is the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, and I am not defending his actions, why would I defend Clinton? My perspective is not clouded by whichever Party the US president comes from, because I don't give a s.hit. All I am interested in is their actions.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Again, Clinton bombing Iraq has nothing to do with it - think of it like this: if Clinton bombs Iraq after the CIA says Saddam is not a threat, who is wrong? Are you saying that the politician decides whether Saddam is a threat? If so, then the recent war in Iraq need not be investigated with an analysis of the CIA.... if it is the politicians who decide whether Saddam is a threat (which is what you appear to be saying) then it is they who need to be investigated.

I don't even need to bother with your comments about Blix, you haven't even provided any evidence to back up your statement about him doing all he could to prevent war, unless you mean his attempt to keep doing his job, which is pretty reasonable if you ask me. But when 8000 words of his 11000 word report is confiscated then it must be pretty hard to tell...

As for everything Bush has said coming from the Clinton whitehouse, so what? All that does is make them both wrong. I am not particularly interested in bipartisan politics. I am not an american. If it were CLinton who had prosecuted this war, I would be saying the exact same thing as I have all along - the arguments for going to war are wrong. ffs, Blair is the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, and I am not defending his actions, why would I defend Clinton? My perspective is not clouded by whichever Party the US president comes from, because I don't give a s.hit. All I am interested in is their actions.

Even though the link comes from a right wing website, it's still accurate and damning of Blix. Take it for what it's worth, and he also said Iraq was in violation of 1441.. that meant war and everyone, unless you were living under a rock, knew that.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/11/19/132206

And as crazy as it sounds, politicians DO decide whether we go to war or not. Clinton did it all by himself, WITHOUT authorization from Congress, to go to Bosnia and bomb people from the sky. Bush got authorization from Congress, and the UN, no matter how you want to spin in.

And I agree. Everyone involved should be investigated if it turns out it was all bull****. I am not opposed to that, and ALL heads should roll. That includes Clinton, who gets a free pass the entire time. That's my criticism of the left and this whole debate.

If you are against it either way, then you are a better person than most. Personally, I am happy Saddam is gone and that's that. If it makes the world a better place in 10 years, it will be hard for you to argue against what happened.

Here's a link from a story coming out tomorrow about al queda and Iraqi ties. It's honest, and actually presents both sides.. hard to imagine these days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/09/i...00&en=84c5cf739273755b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[rhizome17]

The first article criticises Blix for entering the WMD investigation with an open mind. I can't see what is unreasonable about that. David Kay went into the ISG investigation expecting to find WMD. He found as much as Blix did. Nothing.
All the article does is show that Blix was the preferred inspector for Iraq. Based on the evidence of the Kay report, it would seem that Blix's investigations prior to war were pretty accurate. Actually, pretty exact. The writer seems upset at the possibility Blix might present a report saying that Iraq had no WMD, which if Blix had been given the chance, he would have produced. The guy can't win either way - fact remains, he was right in this case. End of story.

As for the NY Times article, fair enough. Al Queda might be operating in Iraq, they may not be. But whatever the case, the appeal for help is now, not from before the war, and not from anyone with links to Saddam, and not from Hussein loyalists. The war has created an ethnic and religious mess in Iraq, and it is just a damn shame that the ones who suffer the most, from the coalition bombing through to the resistance attacks, are the ordinary civilians. Throughout the whole mess, they are the forgotten ones, yet apparently the ones in whose name the war has occurred. Thousands dead as the result of coalition bombs, hundreds from resistance bombs.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
The first article criticises Blix for entering the WMD investigation with an open mind. I can't see what is unreasonable about that. David Kay went into the ISG investigation expecting to find WMD. He found as much as Blix did. Nothing.
All the article does is show that Blix was the preferred inspector for Iraq. Based on the evidence of the Kay report, it would seem that Blix's investigations prior to war were pretty accurate. Actually, pretty exact. The writer seems upset at the possibility Blix might present a report saying that Iraq had no WMD, which if Blix had been given the chance, he would have produced. The guy can't win either way - fact remains, he was right in this case. End of story.

As for the NY Times article, fair enough. Al Queda might be operating in Iraq, they may not be. But whatever the case, the appeal for help is now, not from before the war, and not from anyone with links to Saddam, and not from Hussein loyalists. The war has created an ethnic and religious mess in Iraq, and it is just a damn shame that the ones who suffer the most, from the coalition bombing through to the resistance attacks, are the ordinary civilians. Throughout the whole mess, they are the forgotten ones, yet apparently the ones in whose name the war has occurred. Thousands dead as the result of coalition bombs, hundreds from resistance bombs.

Do you really think that the religous mess is because of the war? You know better than that Rhizome, come on. Maybe you forget the thousands of dead Shia that were crushed under Saddam.

The point of the Blix article wasn't that he had an "open mind" as you say. How about this great line.. "he is weak and easily fooled." It actually doens't matter now anyway. They still haven't found any WMD. But they did find those long range missles that Saddam "didn't have" either. Time will tell.