CBS 60 Minutes II - The Man Who Knew

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess it boils down to "The end justifys the means" with some people. Sure, the removal of Saddam and his regime is a good thing, but to mislead America (and the world) is wrong. Maybe we need another questioned asked (instead of whether or not you believe Iraq would've attacked). The new question would be "If Bush lied to (or misled) Americans, is it ok because it led to the removal of an evil dictator?"

I think we've had that question asked before

To that point though, IF Bush lied and had knowledge of it, then he should be held responsible by the American public, but to pin it to the Saddam thing makes it sound like support for Saddam if Bush lied...and we all know how sensitive the leftists are about that

Saddam needed removed because he did not do what he promised the world he would do, to bring int'l peace and security to the area- he needed to be removed - That is totally independant of the whole alleged lying about WMDs issue.
So yes the ends were more than justified because of multiple means(although some still can't see that) but people will still question the means(WMDs) ....until we find actual WMDs that is.

CkG

So can I take that as a 'no' to my question?

"If Bush lied...is it ok..." = No, it's not OK. Nothing more is needed. Saddam being the target, doesn't mitigate knowingly lying. Now, the question comes - If the way he led us(as a public) shows to be totally false - did he know so at the time of his leading? That is what it's going to come down to. But, like I said - even if it is shown that he knowingly mislead/lied, it doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't have been removed at this time. So basically the ends were justified without the narrow WMD interpretation of "means".

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess it boils down to "The end justifys the means" with some people. Sure, the removal of Saddam and his regime is a good thing, but to mislead America (and the world) is wrong. Maybe we need another questioned asked (instead of whether or not you believe Iraq would've attacked). The new question would be "If Bush lied to (or misled) Americans, is it ok because it led to the removal of an evil dictator?"

I think we've had that question asked before

To that point though, IF Bush lied and had knowledge of it, then he should be held responsible by the American public, but to pin it to the Saddam thing makes it sound like support for Saddam if Bush lied...and we all know how sensitive the leftists are about that

Saddam needed removed because he did not do what he promised the world he would do, to bring int'l peace and security to the area- he needed to be removed - That is totally independant of the whole alleged lying about WMDs issue.
So yes the ends were more than justified because of multiple means(although some still can't see that) but people will still question the means(WMDs) ....until we find actual WMDs that is.

CkG

So can I take that as a 'no' to my question?

"If Bush lied...is it ok..." = No, it's not OK. Nothing more is needed. Saddam being the target, doesn't mitigate knowingly lying. Now, the question comes - If the way he led us(as a public) shows to be totally false - did he know so at the time of his leading? That is what it's going to come down to. But, like I said - even if it is shown that he knowingly mislead/lied, it doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't have been removed at this time. So basically the ends were justified without the narrow WMD interpretation of "means".

CkG

I would agree with this staement 100%. Notice however that I'm not saying that I think that we should've removed Saddam, all I'm agreeing to is that one (lied) doesn't have anything to do with the other (removal of Saddam). How'd you put it in our 'opinion' discussion? Oh yeah...They aren't bound to each other per se. I get the impression sometimes that there are those who think that because good came of the lies or misleadings (removal of Saddam), they are justified.

 

[DealMonkey]

It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Only in this case (U.S. war vs Iraq), at least 50% of the country doesn't seem to give a sh!t why or how it happened, they're simply pleased with the results.

The only explanation I can think of is that 1/2 the country seems to believe that war is the best tool for international diplomacy. On the flip side, there's quite a number of people in the U.S. and around the world, that believe there's better solutions and that war should only be an absolutely final option after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

It's traditional diplomacy and international legitimacy vs. cowboy diplomacy and might makes right.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
By closing the door then, his fate was sealed. There was nothing acceptable short of invading and ridding the whole Mid East of this menace. The dictator called our bluff and he was promptly dealt with. If this guy wanted to save Hussein's ass, he should've urged him to give the 1998 inspection team complete access.
**************

He, Hussein, must have thought the US would live up to the rule of law and not invade without UN Security Counsel authority which he must have known would not be granted given his buddies in France and Russia hold veto rights.. heck the US wouldn't have a majority notwithstanding the veto anyhow..

You subscribe to the rule of law don't you? The US should not have invaded without UN authority.

Oh please. You won't fool anyone with the wording of your statement. Nice try, though.


EDIT: lol. Hussein should've lived up to the rule of law, of which he so highly regards, by not invading Kuwait and Iran. lol

Seems the rule of law is a broad blanket covering us and them. The rule of law was being enforced by the UN. You and others may not have agreed with the means and timing of the authoritative body but, it is the rule of law. The only unilateral provision available to us was the Article 51 defense issue, which we chose. But, you argue a different tact. We are not the rulers of the Earth. We are just some small portion of it. When we've learned this maybe we will see the rule of law (that we agreed to abide by) as not always to our liking but, neither is much else.
When the Lawrence v ? (Texas) was decided by the USSC not many agreed either but, we accept it as the rule of law because we agreed to abide by it. Why do we make exceptions when it is in one regard and agrue to support the rule of law in another. For instance, on an international basis we say the WTO is the rule of law and we must work within its parameters..
"of which he so highly regards" I don't understand that.. but, I assume you are being

If so fine.. he could care less about the rule of law.. but, we must!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Dari,
By closing the door then, his fate was sealed. There was nothing acceptable short of invading and ridding the whole Mid East of this menace. The dictator called our bluff and he was promptly dealt with. If this guy wanted to save Hussein's ass, he should've urged him to give the 1998 inspection team complete access.
**************

He, Hussein, must have thought the US would live up to the rule of law and not invade without UN Security Counsel authority which he must have known would not be granted given his buddies in France and Russia hold veto rights.. heck the US wouldn't have a majority notwithstanding the veto anyhow..

You subscribe to the rule of law don't you? The US should not have invaded without UN authority.

Oh please. You won't fool anyone with the wording of your statement. Nice try, though.


EDIT: lol. Hussein should've lived up to the rule of law, of which he so highly regards, by not invading Kuwait and Iran. lol

Seems the rule of law is a broad blanket covering us and them. The rule of law was being enforced by the UN. You and others may not have agreed with the means and timing of the authoritative body but, it is the rule of law. The only unilateral provision available to us was the Article 51 defense issue, which we chose. But, you argue a different tact. We are not the rulers of the Earth. We are just some small portion of it. When we've learned this maybe we will see the rule of law (that we agreed to abide by) as not always to our liking but, neither is much else.
When the Lawrence v ? (Texas) was decided by the USSC not many agreed either but, we accept it as the rule of law because we agreed to abide by it. Why do we make exceptions when it is in one regard and agrue to support the rule of law in another. For instance, on an international basis we say the WTO is the rule of law and we must work within its parameters..
"of which he so highly regards" I don't understand that.. but, I assume you are being

If so fine.. he could care less about the rule of law.. but, we must!

Another slick try, but I'm not buying it. You seem to forget that Hussein, along with his partners in Europe, was leading a worldwide movement to get rid of the sanctions because all those kids were dying. Remember all the failed "smart" sanctions? The UN sanctions failed and they failed to disable Hussein. Come one, LunarRay, keep trying. Don't give up.

 

[DealMonkey]

Yup, the U.S. really took the moral high-ground by going to war against International law. That's the problem with those who profess to be righteous, they so rarely are.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yup, the U.S. really took the moral high-ground by going to war against International law. That's the problem with those who profess to be righteous, they so rarely are.

Against international law? Prove it. Bush followed the letter of the law. After 12 years and 17 Article VII Resolutions, war was the last option. No President likes to go to war, unless he has no other option. In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option. Bush regrettibly (sic?) went to war.

 

[Gaard]

<< In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option.>>

Now this is just incorrect.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option.>>

Now this is just incorrect.

Only because he should have said - "viable option that will produce positive results" instead of just "option".

Saddam didn't hold up his end of the agreement(cease-fire) and the UN didn't back up their own resolutions - except with more resolutions.
Do you really think that Saddam was ever going to hold up his end of the bargain? Remember - he was supposed to show us all of his stuff - not for us to aimlessly wander around and try to find it.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Well, as long as we agree that what he said is wrong.

As to your statement...

<<Only because he should have said - "viable option that will produce positive results" instead of just "option".>>

This opinion and not fact.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option.>>

Now this is just incorrect.

Only because he should have said - "viable option that will produce positive results" instead of just "option".

Saddam didn't hold up his end of the agreement(cease-fire) and the UN didn't back up their own resolutions - except with more resolutions.
Do you really think that Saddam was ever going to hold up his end of the bargain? Remember - he was supposed to show us all of his stuff - not for us to aimlessly wander around and try to find it.

CkG

thanks for the correction.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option.>>
Now this is just incorrect.

Only because he should have said - "viable option that will produce positive results" instead of just "option".

Saddam didn't hold up his end of the agreement(cease-fire) and the UN didn't back up their own resolutions - except with more resolutions.
Do you really think that Saddam was ever going to hold up his end of the bargain? Remember - he was supposed to show us all of his stuff - not for us to aimlessly wander around and try to find it.

CkG

That was not for Bush to decide. The only justification for one country to unilaterally attack another without U.N. approval is a direct and imminent threat to the attacker or its allies. Iraq did NOT pose such a threat. Therefore, the United States was obligated to let the U.N. make its own decisions about the proper measures to deal with Iraq. The Bush administration lied to side-step this, crafting a bogus case painting Iraq as such a threat. This is exactly what the people in this article confirm.

Was it good thing to get rid of Hussein? IMO, yes, absolutely. Was it OK to justify through lies? No. Period. The ends do NOT justify the means. As an allegedly moral, God-fearing country, we should ALL be appalled the Bush administration's dishonesty. We are supposed to be the world's role model for honesty and integrity and the rule of law. Our actions are irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify them.

Finally, ignoring the lies, did we remove Hussein in a reasonable and effective manner? Hardly. We killed thousands of innocent people, cost ourselves hundreds of billions of dollars, and became tangled in in an unneccessary quagmire. Why? Because the same arrogance and self-insulation from contrary information led us to make stupid decisions, most notably in our insistence on invading without solid international support and in our complete lack of a coherent exit strategy.

 

[Gaard]

Person A's opinion...The other options were not viable for producing positive results.
Person B's opinion...The other options were viable for producing positive results.

Is one opinion more right than the other?

 

[LunarRay]

Dari, quote...
Another slick try, but I'm not buying it. You seem to forget that Hussein, along with his partners in Europe, was leading a worldwide movement to get rid of the sanctions because all those kids were dying. Remember all the failed "smart" sanctions? The UN sanctions failed and they failed to disable Hussein. Come one, LunarRay, keep trying. Don't give up.
************
I'm not trying to do more than sustain the rule of law, as established, in all cases at all times. US v Iraq is just a case to me (for this issue). I don't debate the moral issue while debating the legal issue. The legal issue stands on its own two feet and the moral one does as it does.
The question before us (as I see it) is rather simple. What authority did the US have to invade Iraq? The authority granted Bush via his resolution to Congress simply meets the 'War powers Act' requirements and garners the sense of Congress and the people of the US. It does not provide authority to dissolve the sovereignty of another nation. That authority must explicitly be given by the Only body possessed with such power, The UN. You do not argue the Article 51 (WMD and exigent circumstance) possibility (for good reason) but, continue to argue the prior Resolutions which have been all but been put to bed regarding this. England (Jack Straw) started there but, quickly left in favor of the WMD and defense issue because it was easier to defend.. Bush started with Terrorists etc and parroted Straw but, he too quickly and in unison with England opted for the Defense issue.. Why won't you? The US and friends sought invasion authority via the draft resolution that was dismissed by the majority and veto holders.. does this not convince you the Administration knew they didn't have the authority because the UN always remained seized of the issue..

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yup, the U.S. really took the moral high-ground by going to war against International law. That's the problem with those who profess to be righteous, they so rarely are.

Against international law? Prove it. Bush followed the letter of the law. After 12 years and 17 Article VII Resolutions, war was the last option. No President likes to go to war, unless he has no other option. In this case, the UN, Hussein, and the rest of the world give him (Bush) no other option. Bush regrettibly (sic?) went to war.

I absolutely refuse to get into a "prove it" scenario for the millionth time on these forums. Suffice to say: The UN specifically said that NO UN resolution authorized force against Iraq and that only the security council (NOT the U.S.) retained the authority to do so under International law. We ignored all of that and as soon as we saw the UNSC would shoot down a "use of force" resolution or authorization, we pulled it off the table. Geeze Dari, have you been living in a cave? Why do you think there's so much outrage about our war vs Iraq in the first place?!

You're the ultimate revisionist historian. Akin to the idiots who claim that SH never allowed inspectors back into Iraq last year. Puh-lease.

 

[LunarRay]

Deal,
Is that Plato's cave Dari has been visiting.. ?

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps the DA should just start throwing people in jail despite the Judges decision(s)?

 

[LunarRay]

What some folks argue regarding this UN/Iraqi issue is akin to the US having received plenipotentiary power to act as the divine intervention in the moral issues of Iraq, et. seq. General Boykin's My God is God and your's ain't volume two.

 

[SuperTool]

This administration is treating wars like used cars they need to sell. They'll lie about anything and everything to sell it. I never really trusted or respected Bush or Cheney. I used to have respect for Powell, but not anymore. He might have lied on behalf of Bush, but he still lied.
He is just as responsible as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, etc. for getting us bogged down in this unnecessary war.

 

[Dari]

You guys are making statements as if they're true. Show me where the President lied and I'll recant. And also prove that our invasion of Iraq was against international law.

Strange how people here don't understand how diplomats work. A law is a law. The interpretation of it is reserved for judges. If my interpretation of a law is different from somone elses, its all the more important for the matter to be settled by an impartial mediator. When it comes to international law, there is no impartial mediator. Furthermore, international laws are made between nations and ratified unanimously (sic?). Once passed, it is too late for a nation to call foul when another nation uses that law as justification for action. The former nation should've made the law less opaque if he wanted to avoided such traps.

...or face serious consequences

We have the same scenerio with Resolution 1441, which is an Article VII resolution and was passed unanimously by the SC. THose that passed it all agreed to the text. Unfortunately, they disagreed on its meaning. WHose fault is that? And how can you accuse a country of breaking international law if you can't even agree on the text you just signed?

 

[DealMonkey]

Dari - it's NOT up to the U.S. to enforce International Law! It's up to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council. END OF STORY. The US NEVER GOT authorization from the UN to go to war. The UN specifically said on numerous occasions that NO current or former UN Resolution authorized force against Iraq. You're spinning, just like Bush did when he walked away from the UNSC empty-handed.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dari - it's NOT up to the U.S. to enforce International Law! It's up to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council. END OF STORY. The US NEVER GOT authorization from the UN to go to war. The UN specifically said on numerous occasions that NO current or former UN Resolution authorized force against Iraq. You're spinning, just like Bush did when he walked away from the UNSC empty-handed.

Prove it or shut up (that the US never got authorization to go to war). And while you're proving it, don't forget to mention the 17 Article VII UN resolutions.

As for the US enforcing international law, as a part of the UN, we are oblidged to do so. Try to prove me wrong here as well.

 

[chess9]

SuperTool:

Nice post. Yeah, Powell has gone to the dark side of the force. This is the corrupting influence of power. He is now worthless as a Presidential candidate. He's fallen on his sword for a two bit Texan. Sheezh....

But, query, what should be G.W.'s punishment for betraying the American people? Shouldn't a President who lies to us to support a war be treated as we would treat a traitor? I hope some Republicans start showing some balls and push another candidate for the Republicans in next year's election. Why would anyone support Bush in light of his obvious lies to us?

Dari is completely fooled, as most true believers are fooled.

Oh, and most excellent post Bowfinger!

-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dari - it's NOT up to the U.S. to enforce International Law! It's up to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council. END OF STORY. The US NEVER GOT authorization from the UN to go to war. The UN specifically said on numerous occasions that NO current or former UN Resolution authorized force against Iraq. You're spinning, just like Bush did when he walked away from the UNSC empty-handed.

Prove it or shut up (that the US never got authorization to go to war). And while you're proving it, don't forget to mention the 17 Article VII UN resolutions.

As for the US enforcing international law, as a part of the UN, we are oblidged to do so. Try to prove me wrong here as well.

I don't have to reiterate for the millionth time what happened at the UN Security Council - I'm quite clear on it. Let me ask you this, Dari: Why in god's green earth, was the U.S. at the UN Security Council in the first place? Why were they there trying to get explicit authorization to use force against Iraq should inspections fail? Just for the HELL of it?

Kofi Annan made a speech in which he explicity stated that ONLY the UN Security Council has the authority to enforce UN resolutions and ONLY the Security Council can authorize force against Iraq to upload said resolutions. What part of that don't you understand? Or does the U.S. speak for the UN now?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dari - it's NOT up to the U.S. to enforce International Law! It's up to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council. END OF STORY. The US NEVER GOT authorization from the UN to go to war. The UN specifically said on numerous occasions that NO current or former UN Resolution authorized force against Iraq. You're spinning, just like Bush did when he walked away from the UNSC empty-handed.

Prove it or shut up (that the US never got authorization to go to war). And while you're proving it, don't forget to mention the 17 Article VII UN resolutions.

As for the US enforcing international law, as a part of the UN, we are oblidged to do so. Try to prove me wrong here as well.

I don't have to reiterate for the millionth time what happened at the UN Security Council - I'm quite clear on it. Let me ask you this, Dari: Why in god's green earth, was the U.S. at the UN Security Council in the first place? Why were they there trying to get explicit authorization to use force against Iraq should inspections fail? Just for the HELL of it?

Kofi Annan made a speech in which he explicity stated that ONLY the UN Security Council has the authority to enforce UN resolutions and ONLY the Security Council can authorize force against Iraq to upload said resolutions. What part of that don't you understand? Or does the U.S. speak for the UN now?

Kofi Annan is a diplomat. So is Powell. So were the Foreign Ministers of the other 14 nations at the SC. In the end, its not what they say that matters. It's what they do.

As for what the US was doing at the SC, I thought the answer was obvious but if you want a more transparent answer, email Colin Powell at the State Department. And if you don't want to answer the question I asked you, then don't further this debate because you're dodging my questions.