31 Iraqis killed while celebrating

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, explain this to me please (I haven't had my coffee for the day)...<<Again, I don't think this war needs justified by the ends.>>

Would you say that if the justifications given by Bush turn out to be false, that it's ok because we ousted Saddam? If Bush lied to garner support, would you say that that's ok, also?

My "justification" has nothing to do with G.W. Bush. Again, for the last time - Saddam should have been removed after he broke the cease-fire agreement. It really is too bad that we've had to mess with this for so long.

CkG

Sorry Cad, but I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your reply. If you'd rather not give an answer, just say so...I won't press you.

If it turns out that we were lied to/deceived in any way, is that ok in your opinion because Saddam has been ousted and the Iraqis liberated? Let's pretend that our president's name is Bill Clinton so that you aren't swayed in any (Republican) way.

The fact that SH should have been removed years ago doesn't, IMO, have any bearing on the question, btw.

Could you possibly answer the question without using any double talk? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Do you not understand a word I've said? I've stated my position. There are alot of "What ifs" and like I said - THEY DON'T MATTER to me when it comes to "Justification" (IMO ) MY justification doesn't involve what the President said his reasons are. Get it? You are asking me to defend a position from an angle that I don't need and didn't even use.
If you look at my reason for the war's justification - it totally bypasses all this rhetoric spew. Saddam broke his agreement - that is all the justification needed- PERIOD.

I will not answer your twisted question with a yes or no. Your question is asking if it is ok to be lied to/decieved because we liberated people from Saddam. Lying isn't what is being justified here -the war is. You can't pigeon hole the "justification" argument like you have. It isn't a black and white question. IF Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed to US(which he didn't), the war could still be justifiable on humanitarian and regional security grounds, no?

Ask a good question you get good answers - ask a twisted one - then you get twisted answers. You don't get good answers to twisted questions.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, explain this to me please (I haven't had my coffee for the day)...<<Again, I don't think this war needs justified by the ends.>>

Would you say that if the justifications given by Bush turn out to be false, that it's ok because we ousted Saddam? If Bush lied to garner support, would you say that that's ok, also?

My "justification" has nothing to do with G.W. Bush. Again, for the last time - Saddam should have been removed after he broke the cease-fire agreement. It really is too bad that we've had to mess with this for so long.

CkG

Sorry Cad, but I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your reply. If you'd rather not give an answer, just say so...I won't press you.

If it turns out that we were lied to/deceived in any way, is that ok in your opinion because Saddam has been ousted and the Iraqis liberated? Let's pretend that our president's name is Bill Clinton so that you aren't swayed in any (Republican) way.

The fact that SH should have been removed years ago doesn't, IMO, have any bearing on the question, btw.

Could you possibly answer the question without using any double talk? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Do you not understand a word I've said? I've stated my position. There are alot of "What ifs" and like I said - THEY DON'T MATTER to me when it comes to "Justification" (IMO ) MY justification doesn't involve what the President said his reasons are. Get it? You are asking me to defend a position from an angle that I don't need and didn't even use.
If you look at my reason for the war's justification - it totally bypasses all this rhetoric spew. Saddam broke his agreement - that is all the justification needed- PERIOD.

I will not answer your twisted question with a yes or no. Your question is asking if it is ok to be lied to/decieved because we liberated people from Saddam. Lying isn't what is being justified here -the war is. You can't pigeon hole the "justification" argument like you have. It isn't a black and white question. IF Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed to US(which he didn't), the war could still be justifiable on humanitarian and regional security grounds, no?

Ask a good question you get good answers - ask a twisted one - then you get twisted answers. You don't get good answers to twisted questions.

CkG

That's not what I asked...but of course you know that. Let me rephrase as to try and reduce any confusion...

*Does the fact that Saddam has been removed and the Iraqis have been liberated as a result of this war mean that any deception by this administration in order to gather support for the war is ok?*

I'm not asking if the war can/could be justified. I'm simply asking you if you think that any deception (if any) is justified because the end results of the war are positive.

That's a black and white question, isn't it? Pretty straight forward....not twisted in the least.

Cad's possible answers...

1) Yes, any deception by our administration to garner support for the war is ok because the war brought about the downfall of SH and the Iraqi's are a free people.

or

2) No, Just because the war brought about the liberation of the Iraqi's and the removal of SH, any deception on the part of the administration is wrong and head's should roll.


Pretty straight-forward, no?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, explain this to me please (I haven't had my coffee for the day)...<<Again, I don't think this war needs justified by the ends.>>

Would you say that if the justifications given by Bush turn out to be false, that it's ok because we ousted Saddam? If Bush lied to garner support, would you say that that's ok, also?

My "justification" has nothing to do with G.W. Bush. Again, for the last time - Saddam should have been removed after he broke the cease-fire agreement. It really is too bad that we've had to mess with this for so long.

CkG

Sorry Cad, but I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your reply. If you'd rather not give an answer, just say so...I won't press you.

If it turns out that we were lied to/deceived in any way, is that ok in your opinion because Saddam has been ousted and the Iraqis liberated? Let's pretend that our president's name is Bill Clinton so that you aren't swayed in any (Republican) way.

The fact that SH should have been removed years ago doesn't, IMO, have any bearing on the question, btw.

Could you possibly answer the question without using any double talk? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Do you not understand a word I've said? I've stated my position. There are alot of "What ifs" and like I said - THEY DON'T MATTER to me when it comes to "Justification" (IMO ) MY justification doesn't involve what the President said his reasons are. Get it? You are asking me to defend a position from an angle that I don't need and didn't even use.
If you look at my reason for the war's justification - it totally bypasses all this rhetoric spew. Saddam broke his agreement - that is all the justification needed- PERIOD.

I will not answer your twisted question with a yes or no. Your question is asking if it is ok to be lied to/decieved because we liberated people from Saddam. Lying isn't what is being justified here -the war is. You can't pigeon hole the "justification" argument like you have. It isn't a black and white question. IF Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed to US(which he didn't), the war could still be justifiable on humanitarian and regional security grounds, no?

Ask a good question you get good answers - ask a twisted one - then you get twisted answers. You don't get good answers to twisted questions.

CkG

That's not what I asked...but of course you know that. Let me rephrase as to try and reduce any confusion...

*Does the fact that Saddam has been removed and the Iraqis have been liberated as a result of this war mean that any deception by this administration in order to gather support for the war is ok?*

I'm not asking if the war can/could be justified. I'm simply asking you if you think that any deception (if any) is justified because the end results of the war are positive.

That's a black and white question, isn't it? Pretty straight forward....not twisted in the least.

Cad's possible answers...

1) Yes, any deception by our administration to garner support for the war is ok because the war brought about the downfall of SH and the Iraqi's are a free people.

or

2) No, Just because the war brought about the liberation of the Iraqi's and the removal of SH, any deception on the part of the administration is wrong and head's should roll.


Pretty straight-forward, no?

Gaard - If you want straight answers, then ask straight questions. "IF Bush lied, should he be let off the hook because we won the war?" See how easy that was? Don't hide it in justifications and details - just ask your question. The way you were framing the questions was not direct.

Answer to my question:
No- He should be personally responsible for any willful intent to decieve/lie on his part.

Question for you:
IF Bush lied does that mean this war was unjustified? In YOUR opinion

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, explain this to me please (I haven't had my coffee for the day)...<<Again, I don't think this war needs justified by the ends.>>

Would you say that if the justifications given by Bush turn out to be false, that it's ok because we ousted Saddam? If Bush lied to garner support, would you say that that's ok, also?

My "justification" has nothing to do with G.W. Bush. Again, for the last time - Saddam should have been removed after he broke the cease-fire agreement. It really is too bad that we've had to mess with this for so long.

CkG

Sorry Cad, but I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your reply. If you'd rather not give an answer, just say so...I won't press you.

If it turns out that we were lied to/deceived in any way, is that ok in your opinion because Saddam has been ousted and the Iraqis liberated? Let's pretend that our president's name is Bill Clinton so that you aren't swayed in any (Republican) way.

The fact that SH should have been removed years ago doesn't, IMO, have any bearing on the question, btw.

Could you possibly answer the question without using any double talk? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Do you not understand a word I've said? I've stated my position. There are alot of "What ifs" and like I said - THEY DON'T MATTER to me when it comes to "Justification" (IMO ) MY justification doesn't involve what the President said his reasons are. Get it? You are asking me to defend a position from an angle that I don't need and didn't even use.
If you look at my reason for the war's justification - it totally bypasses all this rhetoric spew. Saddam broke his agreement - that is all the justification needed- PERIOD.

I will not answer your twisted question with a yes or no. Your question is asking if it is ok to be lied to/decieved because we liberated people from Saddam. Lying isn't what is being justified here -the war is. You can't pigeon hole the "justification" argument like you have. It isn't a black and white question. IF Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed to US(which he didn't), the war could still be justifiable on humanitarian and regional security grounds, no?

Ask a good question you get good answers - ask a twisted one - then you get twisted answers. You don't get good answers to twisted questions.

CkG

That's not what I asked...but of course you know that. Let me rephrase as to try and reduce any confusion...

*Does the fact that Saddam has been removed and the Iraqis have been liberated as a result of this war mean that any deception by this administration in order to gather support for the war is ok?*

I'm not asking if the war can/could be justified. I'm simply asking you if you think that any deception (if any) is justified because the end results of the war are positive.

That's a black and white question, isn't it? Pretty straight forward....not twisted in the least.

Cad's possible answers...

1) Yes, any deception by our administration to garner support for the war is ok because the war brought about the downfall of SH and the Iraqi's are a free people.

or

2) No, Just because the war brought about the liberation of the Iraqi's and the removal of SH, any deception on the part of the administration is wrong and head's should roll.


Pretty straight-forward, no?

Gaard - If you want straight answers, then ask straight questions. "IF Bush lied, should he be let off the hook because we won the war?" See how easy that was? Don't hide it in justifications and details - just ask your question. The way you were framing the questions was not direct.

Answer to my question:
No- He should be personally responsible for any willful intent to decieve/lie on his part.

Question for you:
IF Bush lied does that mean this war was unjustified? In YOUR opinion

CkG

Of course.

See how easy that was?

 

[DealMonkey]

See?! You both agree. It's all hugs and rainbows and puppy dog noses here at AT P&N

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
See?! You both agree. It's all hugs and rainbows and puppy dog noses here at AT P&N

Umm, I doubt we agree on my question to him, but of course he'd have to answer it first

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I answered it already CAD. Look up a couple posts. ^

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I answered it already CAD. Look up a couple posts. ^

Didn't see a yes/no

But if "of course" means "yes" then why exactly would the war be unjustified because Bush lied? Did not Congress give Bush permission based on the same intelligence Bush had? Surely Congress wouldn't have given permission for an "unjust" attack.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Does Congress giving a thumbs up = justification to you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I answered it already CAD. Look up a couple posts. ^

Didn't see a yes/no

But if "of course" means "yes" then why exactly would the war be unjustified because Bush lied? Did not Congress give Bush permission based on the same intelligence Bush had? Surely Congress wouldn't have given permission for an "unjust" attack.

CkG

But Congress never asked for the war. Bush did. And he didn't just ask for it, he effectively pressured everyone into it. I do agree that Congress should have never written a blank check. They should have made Bush prove his case beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm equally angry at Congress about it. However, that still doesn't deflect the responsibility from Bush...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Does Congress giving a thumbs up = justification to you?

Yes - Congress is elected by the people to represent the people. If they feel Saddam is a threat so much as to give a president permission to attack a "sovereign" nation, they must feel it was justified, no?

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Won't presume to know what they felt. But if Congress felt it was justified, that doesn't mean it was justified. Just that they felt it was.

If a majority of the world thought a war was justified, why were they against it. (It is accepted that a majority were against this war, right?)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Won't presume to know what they felt. But if Congress felt it was justified, that doesn't mean it was justified. Just that they felt it was.

If a majority of the world thought a war was justified, why were they against it. (It is accepted that a majority were against this war, right?)

But it's all Bush's fault? The warmongers in his Admin? Is Congress full of sheep? Need we break out the quotes from our dear Congress people and Senators?

CkG

 

[Michael]

"And he didn't just ask for it, he effectively pressured everyone into it."

He pressured everyone into it? With the Democrats able to block it in the Senate and put up a huge fight in the House, they just allowed themselves to be pressured?

With all the opposition to the war, where were the credible representatives that were shouting that there are no WMD? I've looked and can't find them. France and Germany, both solidly opposed to the war, never argued they didn't exist, just that more inspections and more time might work.

The only question is whether or not Bush knew the truth. Since Clinton and other Democrats have not leapt forward to show that they knew all along that there were no WMD, I really doubt that was the case. (unless they're all in this together, which the paranoid can't ignore). Every bit of information I've seen shows that, during the time of the votes authorizing force, the intelligence information said there were WMD in Iraq.

All the bleating about the war being "illegitimate" or "illegal" is just bleating. The President asked for and received authorization to use force. Sure, the buck stops on his desk, but what about the desks of all the other leaders, our representatives that voted for it as well?

There are a few posters here that were solidly against the war. I can't recall any of them arguing that there were no WMD, though.

If it can be proven that Bush knew that there were no WMD, then I fully support the full weight of the law being applied to him.

Right now, I'm wondering when our leadership will fix our intelligence resources and process since it has so horribly failed us in the last few years.

Michael

 

[LunarRay]

It occurs to me that this celebrating thing may be the way to deal with the bad guys... if they're out there celebrating.. they will attrit themselves out of existance.. how can we get them to celebrate is the question..

 

[Gaard]

CAD, what's all Bush's fault?

Michael, I don't recall anyone arguing that no WMDs existed either. But ask yourself this, were there any reports of fabricated evidence at that time? How about forged documents? And how was anyone to know that no WMD would be found months after the war?

And about your 'bleating' comment...it isn't correct to say that all of the bleating about the war being illegitimate is just bleating. Not all of the 'illegitimate war' bleating going on has anything to do with WMD, or any evidence that Bush had or didn't have. There is a tear in the force, caused by those arguing that the US was out of line when it presumed to act on UN resolution violations without UN approval.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
"And he didn't just ask for it, he effectively pressured everyone into it."

He pressured everyone into it? With the Democrats able to block it in the Senate and put up a huge fight in the House, they just allowed themselves to be pressured?

In the post-9/11 climate with the entire administration on message screaming "WMDs!" and "Mushroom Clouds!" it presented a difficult decision for Congress. Opposing the war could have damaging effects on the political careers of those voting against the war. Considering even Condi Rice wasn't entirely up on all of the Iraq intel, it would be expected that not all members of Congress were well-versed either. I think a lot of them simply bought the administration's story. The house had the following votes: Yes - 296; No - 133. While the senate had: Yes - 77; No - 23. To their credit, the support wasn't 100%.

With all the opposition to the war, where were the credible representatives that were shouting that there are no WMD? I've looked and can't find them. France and Germany, both solidly opposed to the war, never argued they didn't exist, just that more inspections and more time might work.

I think you have a lot of people saying "I don't know." Which is a far cry from definitely, they are there and we know where they are. Which as we're finding out now, simply isn't the case. But you can't go to war based on an unknown, right? You have to make it a clear-cut case. And I think that's where the manipulating began...

The only question is whether or not Bush knew the truth. Since Clinton and other Democrats have not leapt forward to show that they knew all along that there were no WMD, I really doubt that was the case. (unless they're all in this together, which the paranoid can't ignore). Every bit of information I've seen shows that, during the time of the votes authorizing force, the intelligence information said there were WMD in Iraq.

Why does anyone have to prove there are NO WMDs? Those making the accusations should substantiate their claims. Right? I don't even see how this is relevant.

All the bleating about the war being "illegitimate" or "illegal" is just bleating. The President asked for and received authorization to use force. Sure, the buck stops on his desk, but what about the desks of all the other leaders, our representatives that voted for it as well?

True. Those that voted for war in the House and Senate s/b accountable too.

If it can be proven that Bush knew that there were no WMD, then I fully support the full weight of the law being applied to him.

Again, I don't understand why we have to prove anything. Those who wanted to go to war should make damn sure the reasons they're feeding us are factual. They should have to prove their claims, not the other way around...

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey,

I look at it this way.

There is no doubt that Iraq had WMD at some point in the past.

I'm firmly convinced that Iraq supported terrorists.

I would have ranked them as the #1 threat to the US before the war (I'm glossing over longer term threats like China, but MAD works for most of the major threats).

If I didn't know that there were no WMD (which is not proven, but I'll assume that's true) and I belived that they were there and that a real threat existed, I would have requested the authorization to use force and attacked.

Right now I think that WMD existed in Iraq, but the threat was much less than thought. I think that Bush and his staff did not know the real threat level and honestly thought it was higher.

Gaard - My problem with your calling in the UN on this is that 1) The US does not have to listen to the UN and 2) UN resolutions are almost always ignored.

Michael

 

[Gaard]

Michael, I'm not trying to begin a UN argument. I was just making a point about your bleating comment.

And I wonder if all of the fabricated and/or forged evidence had come to light before the congress approval if in fact congress would have given it's approval. What do you think?

 

[Michael]

What "fabricated or forged" evidence are you refering to? The Uranium papers? They weren't in any speech to Congress before they gave approval. The UN inspectors conformed years ago that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, so that fact is not in doubt.

Michael

 

[Gaard]

Hmmm, I guess I just suck at asking questions, sorry. Let me ask in a different way. If Congress knew then what they know now (as far as forged or fabricated evidence) do you think the vote still would've been in favor of approval?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hmmm, I guess I just suck at asking questions, sorry. Let me ask in a different way. If Congress knew then what they know now (as far as forged or fabricated evidence) do you think the vote still would've been in favor of approval?

Using your same hindsight logic - Do you think Bush still would have laid the case for war out differently?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Michael - again, w/ the WMDs ... about the best you can do is "I don't know if Iraq had WMDs or not." If you say "Yes they had them" or "No they did not" you're overstating the intel. Sure, if you go back far enough, they did have WMD programs. But post-Desert Fox it gets rather murky. Recent UN inspections and U.S. occupation has resulted in nothing substantial.

You can, of course, remain convinced of whatever you want. Obviously Bush presented a compelling scenario and a lot of people are buying it. Whether is was an accurate scenario or not, remains to be seen.

 

[Michael]

Gaard - That's a different question and why limit it to just that variable? Hindsight is wonderful, but no one has the benefit of it when making a decision today.

Michael

 

[Gaard]

I'm not sure CAD. What other case could he present that would give him the support he got from the WMD case? I don't think there is one.