wonderwench

Thank you for sharing Matteo.

I just don't buy the paranoid conspiracy theory.

Occcam's Razor applies. The simplest explanation is that we engaged in war for the stated purpose. The four reasons were justified based upon what has since been discovered. Nobody here has provided any evidence to contradict them - just opinions that what we have found is not "enough".

The discovery of mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of corposes should be "enough". The discovery of torture and rape rooms should be "enough". The discovery of any WMDs should be "enough".

apeman

i don't see anything wrong with matteo101's post... mind you i'd tend to agree with him (not 100% but i think he's on the right track)

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

wonderwench

That's fine if you want to agree with his suspicions. He provides no proof - just accusations.

That's not enough for me.

matteo101

Thats seems to be enough for the american people...

apeman

i have seen precious little proof of anything from anybody, so i've got to go with my suspicions for now... we knew Mr Hussein was an evil fuck before the war... i think the burden of proof is with US & UK governments though

even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, he's lost a lot of trust with the rest of the world, which can't be a good thing

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

wonderwench

If it is a choice between protecting our national security and currying the favor of the rest of the world, I'll take the former.

matteo101

Yes, but what threat did Iraq pose to The United States? They have never once invaded you, and had no plan to do so?

wonderwench

I've already addressed this point earlier in the thread, in my post about Senator Feinstein.

To reiterate:

Matters of national security involve assessing reasonable risks (as opposed to the legal treatment of domestic criminals, for which the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies.) In the case of Iraq, Saddam's history of aggression, brutality towards his own people, efforts to procure and make WMDs, and ongoing ties to terrorist organizations created a risk that he could pass chemical or biological weapons to terrorists cells to use within the U.S.

This is the reason that Congress approved the war.

matteo101

Well if you think the war was justifable then I guess that is all that matters, it is not the young men and women from my country losing their lives... I just have to think is it justfiable enough..I mean 864 American troups have been killed for "risks" that Iraq posed...i'm sorry but for me atleast that does not justafy 864 human lives, and the pain that parents, kids, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives also have to experience...It just doesnt do it for me..

Thats just me I guess..

apeman

1 history of aggresion - check
2 brutality towards his own people - check
3 efforts to procure and make WMDs - kind of check
4 ongoing ties to terrorist organizations - mmmm

so it's the significance of items 3 and 4 that we're interpreting differently i guess... and i don't honestly see what 1 and 2 have to do with the US, unless you're trying to prove that he was an evil dangerous bastard?

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

xepherys

i still don't quite see why this matters. What we did in Iraq, and what my fellow soldiers, marines and airmen in Iraq continue to do is right, important and useful.

Bush is a politician... politicians, in their very nature, lie. This is a known fact. Name a president who has not, at some point in their term, lied.

War sucks... people die. Sometimes innocent people die. But sometimes the ends DO justify the means. If that were not the case, then it was wrong that America ever gained it's independance in the first place. In the 18th century, when the Revolutionary War was fought what we did was reprehensible. A King's will was NOT to be questioned. That was abhorrant at that point in history. But today, nobody (notably) denies that it was the right thing to do... that America's revolution changed the face of the world.

Sometimes you have to look to the future. If the future is better because of an action today, that action is rightful in taking place, even if people don't like it.

Are there WMDs? I'm sure... we SOLD some to them in the 80's. Does it matter? Not really... we ousted a dictator who commenced in genocide of the people who lived in his country. If a few hundred US soldiers (in a VOLUNTEER military) die, and a few Iraqi citizens die, but THOUSANDS of other innocents are saved, then the action is justified! I volunteered to enlist. I enlisted into an infantry-type MOS (Combat Engineer). I scored a 99 overall (percentile) on the ASVAB. I could've done anything. I'm an IT professional as a civilian. There are IT jobs that would wisk me safely out of harms way. But I chose to do something with my feet on the ground, risking myself for what I believe is right.

Americans have SoS (Shiney Object Syndrome). Things are as important, as good or bad, as the media allows them to believe. If more people formed their won opinions, without fear or religious, moral, or other grief, perhaps we'd have a stronger Democracy today. Form opinions with your hearts and your heads, not with your eyes and your ears.

matteo101

Saving civilians is the UN's job..not a countrys to invade.

wonderwench

It is the combination that made Saddam remaining in power a high risk.

4 was proven by his sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel as well as by the fact that AQ operatives took refuge in Iraq.

wonderwench

Absolutely not.

The UN is not a global government to which sovereign nations cede responsibility for their national security.

shakran

Well, OK. If you wanna get technical, sarin has a shelf life of 10 years. These things were more than twice that old (assuming indeed that 2 (only 2) of them had sarin in the warheads). They therefore would not have worked. For a weapon to be a weapon of mass destruction it has to be capable of. . well. . causing mass destruction. These things were capable of denting whatever they fell on, and that's about it.

So no, it doesn't at all prove that he had WMD's at the time we claimed he had them unlawfully. It certainly (as you noted) doesn't prove what Bush & Co. led us to believe - that the country was crawling with the things. A key phrase used in the buildup to war was "STOCKPILES" of WMD's. 2 busted missiles does not a stockpile make.

Now, how do I know that there AREN'T stockpiles? Simple. I don't think the U.S. military is so inept as to be unable to find jillions of WMD's if the country really had them.



Really? That's not what Bush said. He said Saddam had WMD's and if we didn't go in and get them he would use them against us. Never mind the fact that Iraq's best missile couldn't even fly 1000 miles, much less cross an entire ocean to hit us even if he did have stockpiles of WMD's, which he obviously did not.

analog

Even if we got into war for exactly the stated purpose, there are many who believe that purpose was bullshit to begin with when we found out there were no WMD's.

We have found nothing, I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.

Also, if you're going to use a method like Occam's Razor which is by no means an accurate "science" to measure anything, then its application should at least be followed correctly.

To assume that we went to war for the "stated purposes" must include the assumptions that the objects of the purposes exist. The simplest assumption, in this case, would be that the shrub is looking out for his own best interests, whatever they may be. That assumes only 1 thing: that he has personal interest in it.

So, I'm not really sure why you'd use Occam's Razor when it doesn't fit what you're trying to say.

wonderwench

I used it because the simplest explanation is we went to war for the reasons we stated for going to war - as opposed to the tortured conspiracy theories for which no proof has been offered.

You are in correct that we found nothing. To date we have located:

- Mass graves of civilians murdered by Saddam's regime.

- Rape and torture rooms Saddam & Sons used to terrorize their subjects.

- Small amounts of WMDs which are proof of violation of the UN resolutions.

Ignoring proof doesn't make it non-existent.

matteo101

Well then, if that is the criteria to invade a country "to liberate people from an oppressive regime" well you guys better start getting busy. Now that you have already invaded Iraq to "free the Iraquis" you better damn well head over to Burma, Peru, Columbia, Sierra Leone, and then back to Afganistan. You guys are going to be very busy in the upcoming years..

analog

WMD's were their main selling point, and all I was addressing.



Mass graves are not WMD's.

Quote:

- Rape and torture rooms Saddam & Sons used to terrorize their subjects.

Rape is not a WMD.

Quote:

- Small amounts of WMDs which are proof of violation of the UN resolutions.

Saying there are stockpiles, and that they can hit us within 45 minutes' notice at any time, is not justified by finding "small amounts" of weapons that are totally inoperable abnd have been for some time, that are about 14-24 years old, and a few containing trace amounts of chemical whose potency wore off 6 years ago.

And as for "tried to purchase uranium" is concerned, "tried to" and "succeeded in" are two very different things. Yes, attempting to was a bad thing, but we should not go to war over "tried to buy".

That's like someone trying to buy cigarettes and getting denied, and then you punch them in the face for trying to give you cancer from second-hand smoke.

Quote:

Ignoring proof doesn't make it non-existent.

Rhetoric about "proof" doesn't make it exist, or justifiable for war.

*edit- added "and" somewhere in there for clarity.

wonderwench

Liberation is not the full criteria. The justification was a combination of factors which led to an assessment that Saddam's regime posed a reasonable risk to U.S. national security.

That said, I am perfectly content that the Iraqi people have been liberated from the monster and his odious offspring.

matteo101

RISK is not JUSTAFIABLE to go to WAR. How many times do you have to hear that. They never once posed a threat to the states..sure they "could have"...but any country "could" pose a risk...but unless they say they will, why invade? Oh yes, because Bush is a "war president"..he even claimed it himself.

wonderwench

That is where you and I differ. A reasonable risk is a justification to do what is necessary to protect our national security. If the government isn't willing to handle that responsibility, what is it good for?

kutulu

There's just one small difference between the Revolutionary War and Iraq. We fought for OUR independence. How many Iraqi's joined our fight?

wonderwench

How many Iraqis fought to keep Saddam in power? The ease with which his regime was conquered is the telling fact.

splck

As kutulu said, the US fought for their independence; they weren’t invaded and told this is how you will live from now on (I'd say that was a huge difference). You might like your way of life, but not everyone in the world wants it.

__________________
nice line eh?

powerclown

new thread instead

shakran

You are demonstrating a shocking lack of logic. Let's boil your statement down to its essence. "the simplest explanation for anyone doing anything is whatever they tell you the reason is."

In fact, according to your interpretation of Occam's razor, if Occam's razor is to be taken as a valid postulation, lying cannot exist.

I don't buy it

In fact, I would argue that a simpler reason for going to war than the one Bush gave us is that "Bush wanted to."



You can find these in North Korea, China, Haiti, etc etc etc. Why did we go after Iraq and not one of these?

You can find THESE in dozens of countries as well.

Plus, this and the bit about mass graves is irrelevant. Bush said we were going to war because Saddam had WMD's. You can rape and kill all the people you want without necessarilly having WMD's. You are suggesting that because he is guilty of these two crimes, he must be guilty of what we accuse him of. Your logic here suggests that I am a murderer because I once got a speeding ticket.

Please cite your sources, because the "small amounts of WMD's" to which I assume you refer are defunct, non-functional remnants of a time in which Saddam was not forbidden to have them.

And ignoring the fact that the proof is fabricated doesn't make it true.

wonderwench

Please provide proof that the U.S. fabricated the mass graves, torture & rape rooms, the small amounts of WMDs that have been discovered, and Saddam's sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel.

TIA.

analog

First of all, what the fuck? Your original reference to "ignoring the proof" dealt with the WMD's, not the other things, so why are you crawling up Shakran's ass about graves and rapes?

You brought the WMD's up, you bear the burden of proof. Besides, the "small amount" which you yourself stated exists exists has been discussed already.

Since Shakran and I's last posts are pretty much exactly identical, I am doubly curious why neither have been argued against. Instead, we're getting doublespeak about gravesites and WMD issues we've already argued about, and now you're tossing in a suicide bomber sponsorship which has not existed in the context of this debate, and is off-topic anyway.

So... in all sincerity... what exactly are you trying to prove or get across to us, other than your blind love of Bush? Because honestly that's all I'm seeing.

tecoyah

And this is why I now just sit and watch........Pity.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

wonderwench

I have seen nobody refute the Congress' concurrence that the analysis of intelligence data made Saddam's regime a reasonable threat. Instead, what has been done is to try to isolate and pick apart the various elements.

This is not a criminal trial in which proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is needed is an assessment of a reasonable risk. The combined criteria provided this reasonable doubt to hundred of elected officials. If you disagree with their judgement, you may express yourself at the polls in November.

I intend to express my opinion that we are doing the right thing by engaging in a serious response to a declaration of war by Islamofascists.

Sun Tzu

Wonderwrench I've heard various versions of what people think; I just wanted to be clear on what areas you view as the conspiracy theory area; thanks.

Just a quick note: whether or not I agree or disagree I find the political discussions worthy time consumers. As do many or there would obviously be no debate/conversation. It sucks when they are closed down by the mods because of the direction they take. Although its understandable and IMO justifiable. The conversation truly starts to take on its own negative entity when personal swipes begin formulating. They start out subtle like the questioning of someone's intellect or courses like stating their comments belong in the humor section.

Anyone’s case is of course stronger when they have proof to back up what they state; but what exactly is considered proof. Is it a universal definition understood by everyone? Is it a source that is considered valid by some and not by others? Is it a website? Is it a quote from a book? Is it an excerpt from documentation http://www.loc.gov/ or http://www.archives.gov/records_of_congress/

or

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005177.html

http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=1409

?

If suspicion that the very source are providing the foundation of proof the one seeks as being self served with other motives then validation is not achieved leaving the reason why time, energy, and emotion was devoted to hopefully making a point.

The net brings everything. All masters of google giving birth to avenues such as http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1412.htm
where proof is questioned.

History is selected interpretation. Unless one was there they rely on the documented events from sources who bear the same mindset. Not good news, not bad new; just the news.

Or one can put IMO in front of every statement they make, and put a source THEY VIEW as being valid in form of every comment made- 2 actions I don’t think any of us will see in any thread. That of course is MO. I'm guilty of losing my cool; and my power in the fight to make someone think like me. Im glad to have been humbled; it reminded me that everyone has an opinion thats important to them, and if I didnt care to hear such I have no business devoting time in a setting such as this.

Asking respectfully as a fellow member of the forum; please try and keep the personal attacks out of the discussions; or even masking them through other means; its obvious to all and it gets the thread closed.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

KMA-628

UN Report

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

Here is an article and corresponding UN report regarding WMD's other than the one's referenced in this thread.

I don't have an opinion either way yet because, while the "facts" look solid, I am in no way familiar with "World Tribune".

Considering the sources are not from the United States, does this have any effect on this debate?

The one thing that keeps me from pointing at the article and saying, "look, over here, here are the WMD's" is the fact that I haven't heard anything other than this article.

One would think this article would be all over Bush's website (it may be, I haven't checked).

Can anybody tell me if this is a legitimate source?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

O.K., I found another article, from another source, related to this UN Report. This one, I think, is better written.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...c_report.shtml

I am starting to lean towards the validity of the report. I started to read it, but I will have to finish tomorrow.

The gist, that I am getting, is that "prohibited" components are being discovered in numerous places throughout the world (the source of the items apparently Iraq).

All I can really get from this is the UN saying, "we are investigating this further" (my quote).

I haven't been able to find any other "mainstream" articles relating to this UN report. I will sit myself down tomorrow and try and read the whole report.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

apeman

is anyone disputing the mass graves and torture rooms? not that i've noticed

i haven't heard the suicide bombers in Israel bit, but it wouldn't suprise me, no-one likes the Israelis over there, so i'll accept that too

it's this WMD thing that we can't take seriously

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

onetime2

In the end none of this matters. Some are convinced that WMDs and Saddam's ability to strike the US are the only reasons we went to war. Others believe these were parts of the reason, while still others believe they had little to nothing to do with the invasion.

Even if we found a cache of wmds built two years ago with video of Saddam stamping the shells out himself the argument will be turned to "but the shells couldn't have struck the US".

At this point it doesn't matter. The best available intelligence from a dozen or more countries pointed to wmds in Iraq. Saddam gambled and through his speeches, actions, and games tried to make it appear that he had them (probably for very good reasons like not wanting to appear weak to his neighbors). The gamble failed and we are in Iraq. Nothing will convince some that it was a just cause. Nothing will convince others that it wasn't.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Bookman

Americans are "Ph*cKED"!!!
We as a group dont know our asses from our elbows.
It takes a personal history (like being African American or another minority group...try homosexual this time around) of being victim of INJUSTICE to really have a good perspective of the world events taking place today.
There is no proof or dis-proof.
There is no real reason to believe that the CONGRESS cares about us citizens.
There is no real reason to believe what anyone reports to you...EVEN MICHAEL MOORE himself.
Like religon and the bible/torah/koran (spell??) people tell the story their way to manipulate the readers.
GO WITH YOUR HEART.

My heart tells me that people over there are dying for no logical reason.

roachboy

two articles on todays developments--now it seems the cia knew the wmd programs had been shut down/dismantled, but they didnt tell anyone.

i dont present this as definitive proof of anything, but as one more index of how things really stand on the matter at hand in this thread.

it seems that the isolation of certain bits of information combined with the effort to pin blame on agencies internal to the state rather than actually accepting it as Individuals----is central to how the administration is choosing to deal with this. that strategy seems to run directly agains the moralizing language of bushworld.

btw--i include a link to an article on the same information that appeared in today's le monde as well--the reason for it is you'll get an sense of the extent to which the ny times is even now softpedalling things if you compare the two--it is in french.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/po...06INTE.html?hp

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-371672,0.html


you can find articles concerning blair's now-routine mantra concerning the wmd question in todays guardian....i didnt link them simply because there is no information--more a note about yet another occaision that required blair to defend himself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Regarding WMDs - there was a large consensus among many nations that Saddam possessed WMDs. To some, only Bush is lying. I don't get it.

Sun Tzu - The conspiracy theories to which I refer have a common theme: despite the stated reasons for going to war, the "hidden agenda" was to profit the Friends of Bush. The other commonality is that no proof is provided - only accusations.

bodymassage3

If one was to watch this movie, it would definately shed some light on how and why one would think that he did it to help his friends make lots of money, in turn helping himself. The keywords there are "watch this movie."

Accusations are a start. Accusations are suspicions made known. Do you think that any person in any of these high-ranking jobs/positions are going to say "Alright, guys; You caught me!"

I got it from BT 2 days ago, and I might have to watch it again...but I don't remember him even accusing them (flat out saying, "Hey, you guys did this!") of any foul play, or starting the war to make money. I don't follow Moore or what he or any other individual says day after day, and I wouldn't doubt that he's made flat-out accusations or given speeches on this just based on the fact of who he is and what he stands for; However, in *this* movie he did not. The attitude I got from the movie was "Isn't this funny how all of these people relate?" If I got a different copy, somebody let me know. What I saw was him (Moore) showing people who worked where, who was friends with who, and how that related to how things went down. That should make ANYONE stop and think "hmm...wait a second..."