Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

[WinkOsmosis]

I'd hit it.

 

[Gaard]

Dari - <<In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence>>

Why do you think they were overly eager Dari? Why would someone be overly eager to go to war?

I'm not looking to get into another pissing match with you, but I am curious as to what you think might be the reason for this administration to be, as you put it...overly eager.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari - <<In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence>>

Why do you think they were overly eager Dari? Why would someone be overly eager to go to war?

I'm not looking to get into another pissing match with you, but I am curious as to what you think might be the reason for this administration to be, as you put it...overly eager.

I have a theory. Because maybe we'd been attacked by terrorists? Wanted to set an example? Kill two birds with one stone? Because a "stern finger shaking lecture" generally doesn't make the world's dictators think twice? Nor do "negotiations"? Terrorists and the states that support them play by a different set of rules. Time to change the rules.

Of course, I'll let Dari answer for himself, that's just my opinion.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari - <<In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence>>

Why do you think they were overly eager Dari? Why would someone be overly eager to go to war?

I'm not looking to get into another pissing match with you, but I am curious as to what you think might be the reason for this administration to be, as you put it...overly eager.

I have a theory. Because maybe we'd been attacked by terrorists? Wanted to set an example? Kill two birds with one stone? Because a "stern finger shaking lecture" generally doesn't make the world's dictators think twice? Nor do "negotiations"? Terrorists and the states that support them play by a different set of rules. Time to change the rules.

Of course, I'll let Dari answer for himself, that's just my opinion.

I think what you just said is what I've been saying forever.

September 11 made the Bush Administration more urgent in dealing with rogue nations. It changed the nature of the game. Diplomats are known for taking their time and talking beautifully. Terrorists and leaders of rogue nations aren't.


Does that answer your question, Gaard? As for North Korea, it may rattle its tail, but it has yet to lash out at the level of Hussein's Iraq.

3. If violating UN resolutions was sufficient cause for war, Israel would be speaking Arabic now.

All of Israel's UN resolutions have been Article VI, not Article VII. Article VII sanctions force (including, but not limited to, war), article VI doesn't.

 

[Gaard]

Yes, that does answer my question. Thanks.

Alchy, by your response, I think I'm safe in assuming you agree with Dari that Bush and Co. were overly eager?


I remember someone implying a long time ago ( it may even have been you Dari) about how the Iraqis, in a round-about way, owe a big thanks to AQ. The theory was that if AQ hadn't attacked our WTC, we wouldn't have bothered liberating them.

 

[Gaard]

Dari - <<All of Israel's UN resolutions have been Article VI, not Article VII. Article VII sanctions oil, article VI doesn't. >>

What the hell is on your mind Dari?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari - <<All of Israel's UN resolutions have been Article VI, not Article VII. Article VII sanctions oil, article VI doesn't. >>

What the hell is on your mind Dari?

Sorry, I meant war. Moonbeam's cynicism got the best of me.

It's been corrected.

It wasn't a Freudian slip. Lay that to rest.

 

[Gaard]

Dari - <<All of Israel's UN resolutions have been Article VI, not Article VII. Article VII sanctions force (including, but not limited to, war), article VI doesn't. >>


I don't agree.





<---- really hopes someone asks Dari to show where the UN charter says what he says it does. (I know better than to ask.)

 

[Witling]

Dari, and by implication, AlC. You say,

"I have a theory. Because maybe we'd been attacked by terrorists? Wanted to set an example? Kill two birds with one stone? Because a "stern finger shaking lecture" generally doesn't make the world's dictators think twice? Nor do "negotiations"? Terrorists and the states that support them play by a different set of rules. Time to change the rules."

Your "theory" just cost about $127 billion, $30 + 87. I think that most responsible people accept the fact that Saddam didn't have much to do with Al Qaeda. I missed it, what did Saddam do to us?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo
Here are ten with debunking provided.

They seem more of a stretch of the truth than outright lies. But then again, these are politicians.

Among all these accusation, you seem to be forgetting the Iraqi intransigence that led to the war. In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence, but it was only a matter of time before Iraq had to be taken to task for all the (16) Article VII UN resolutions that she broke. No way was she going to get away with anything. After 12 years, punishment was long overdue for breaking international laws.

Thanks for you honesty.

I'm just botherd nothing has been done about SA than anything. What you have here is a dictictorial regime that really does support terror and 15/19 were saudis, and the royals even funded terror but then you have the carlye group and all the saudi money pumped into our leaders and country who chooses to ignore it so it's not on the table even. It just rotten from a moral persective.

If you want to go into Iraq that's fine with me on a humanitarian/intragence level.. but lets get to the source too and stop the "threat" lie. Everyone knows we could annihilate Iraq in a new york second if they did something. This was the deterance.


Then at times I go isolationist because empire building is expensive and it's questionable wether we can succeed in it with these two-bit/stone-age mentalities abroad. Germany and Japan was easy they were first world.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo
Here are ten with debunking provided.

They seem more of a stretch of the truth than outright lies. But then again, these are politicians.

Among all these accusation, you seem to be forgetting the Iraqi intransigence that led to the war. In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence, but it was only a matter of time before Iraq had to be taken to task for all the (16) Article VII UN resolutions that she broke. No way was she going to get away with anything. After 12 years, punishment was long overdue for breaking international laws.

Thanks for you honesty.

I'm just botherd nothing has been done about SA than anything. What you have here is a dictictorial regime that really does support terror and 15/19 were saudis, and the royals even funded terror but then you have the carlye group and all the saudi money pumped into our leaders and country who chooses to ignore it so it's not on the table even. It just rotten from a moral persective.

If you want to go into Iraq that's fine with me on a humanitarian/intragence level.. but lets get to the source too and stop the "threat" lie. Everyone knows we could annihilate Iraq in a new york second if they did something. This was the deterance.


Then at times I go isolationist because empire building is expensive and it's questionable wether we can succeed in it with these two-bit/stone-age mentalities abroad. Germany and Japan was easy they were first world.

Saudi Arabia is a special case for three reasons:

1. US-Saudi relations date back to the founding of the kingdom. It is older than most of our other "special relationships."

2. Saudi Arabia is too big to fail. They control 25% of the global oil market. Any gyrations and there will be massive price swings throughout the world. Europe and Asia will be hardest hit, but it would affect us all since globalization is bringing everyone's market closer together and more intertwined.

3. Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam. Even if we wanted to, an overt attack on that country would bring unprecedented global instability, perhaps unseen in human history. The wahhabis are there for a reason. It legitimizes the stewardship of the government over the various shrines, (even though many in the gov't practice a much older religion). To attack SA because the terrorists were born there would be incredibly stupid. The best thing we can do is ask them to change their ways.

Another thing, just because 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudis, most people forget the more important individuals and their origins. The other 4 were Egyptians, and they were the leaders of the group. In fact, the most important person in Al Qaeda is Zawahiri, not bin Laden. He too is Egyptian. Zawahiri is bin Laden's spiritual guide. Capturing Ayman al-Zawahiri would be much more important than bin Laden because it is from him that many of the bright (and dark) ideas for attacks and recruitment eminate. A lot of the top commanders of Al Qaeda ("The Base") are Egyptian, derived from a more extreme element of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the same in Al Qaeda as it is in general arab culture.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Zebo
Here are ten with debunking provided.

They seem more of a stretch of the truth than outright lies. But then again, these are politicians.

Among all these accusation, you seem to be forgetting the Iraqi intransigence that led to the war. In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence, but it was only a matter of time before Iraq had to be taken to task for all the (16) Article VII UN resolutions that she broke. No way was she going to get away with anything. After 12 years, punishment was long overdue for breaking international laws.

Thanks for you honesty.

I'm just botherd nothing has been done about SA than anything. What you have here is a dictictorial regime that really does support terror and 15/19 were saudis, and the royals even funded terror but then you have the carlye group and all the saudi money pumped into our leaders and country who chooses to ignore it so it's not on the table even. It just rotten from a moral persective.

If you want to go into Iraq that's fine with me on a humanitarian/intragence level.. but lets get to the source too and stop the "threat" lie. Everyone knows we could annihilate Iraq in a new york second if they did something. This was the deterance.


Then at times I go isolationist because empire building is expensive and it's questionable wether we can succeed in it with these two-bit/stone-age mentalities abroad. Germany and Japan was easy they were first world.

Saudi Arabia is a special case for three reasons:

1. US-Saudi relations date back to the founding of the kingdom. It is older than most of our other "special relationships."

2. Saudi Arabia is too big to fail. They control 25% of the global oil market. Any gyrations and there will be massive price swings throughout the world. Europe and Asia will be hardest hit, but it would affect us all since globalization is bringing everyone's market closer together and more intertwined.

3. Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam. Even if we wanted to, an overt attack on that country would bring unprecedented global instability, perhaps unseen in human history. The wahhabis are there for a reason. It legitimizes the stewardship of the government over the various shrines, (even though many in the gov't practice a much older religion). To attack SA because the terrorists were born there would be incredibly stupid. The best thing we can do is ask them to change their ways.

Another thing, just because 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudis, most people forget the more important individuals and their origins. The other 4 were Egyptians, and they were the leaders of the group. In fact, the most important person in Al Qaeda is Zawahiri, not bin Laden. He too is Egyptian. Zawahiri is bin Laden's spiritual guide. Capturing Ayman al-Zawahiri would be much more important than bin Laden because it is from him that many of the bright (and dark) ideas for attacks and recruitment eminate. A lot of the top commanders of Al Qaeda ("The Base") are Egyptian, derived from a more extreme element of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the same in Al Qaeda as it is in general arab culture.

I thought most saudi hate the royals for extracting the coutries wealth all for them?

Seems if we were interested in a truly democratic regime there they would welcome us. In addition I thought lots of USA hatred was being generated by our overt support of the totalitarian regime there at thier expense.

Either way your "old relationship" is rotten one to the core. Not only does it support just a small fraction of the pop it's own members deflect the poeple anger twards USA and Israel and even fund it to appease.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'll just say this: I don't know if there were WMD's, and I don't know whether, if they had them, Saddam Hussein planned to somehow use them against the US. With that, I have to also admit, I don't know if Iraq was in any way a threat to the US, at least not directly.

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years. He tortured people for having opinions that didn't support the regime. He threw CHILDREN in prison for not joining the Baath party. He murdered people for whatever reasons he or his sons and their agents chose. Since the start of the occupation there have been nearly half a *million* bodies found in mass graves-bodies of Iraqi people killed in the last several years.

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*. I personally never did care whether there were WMD's and I think Bush was a fool to predicate the war on such premises. If he had simply stated that the war was being fought in order to bring freedom to Iraq's oppressed people, what could the rest of the world have said? "We don't care if they have freedom!" (Or in the case of France, Germany, China and Russia, "Wait! They still owe us money for stuff we sold the regime! Don't overthrow them yet, screw the people, we want our cash!")

Why there is an argument about the rest is beyond me; as far as I'm concerned it's utterly irrelevant.

Jason

 

[Zebo]

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*. I personally never did care whether there were WMD's and I think Bush was a fool to predicate the war on such premises. If he had simply stated that the war was being fought in order to bring freedom to Iraq's oppressed people, what could the rest of the world have said? "We don't care if they have freedom!" (Or in the case of France, Germany, China and Russia, "Wait! They still owe us money for stuff we sold the regime! Don't overthrow them yet, screw the people, we want our cash!")

Good point he'd be 10X the man for doing so. Problem is people are selfish or isolationists even in the party and would then make excuses "like what about this country or what about that. I don't want nation building remember?"

Much easier sell with the "threat" line.

My argument has always been, we not trade and support red china, our mortal enemy, who deos the same x100. We don't have to invade them cause it a huge death toll, but at least be consistant. Money plays too much a role in the morals.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'll just say this: I don't know if there were WMD's, and I don't know whether, if they had them, Saddam Hussein planned to somehow use them against the US. With that, I have to also admit, I don't know if Iraq was in any way a threat to the US, at least not directly.

What I DO know is that Saddam's regime brutalized the people of Iraq for over 20 years. He tortured people for having opinions that didn't support the regime. He threw CHILDREN in prison for not joining the Baath party. He murdered people for whatever reasons he or his sons and their agents chose. Since the start of the occupation there have been nearly half a *million* bodies found in mass graves-bodies of Iraqi people killed in the last several years.

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*. I personally never did care whether there were WMD's and I think Bush was a fool to predicate the war on such premises. If he had simply stated that the war was being fought in order to bring freedom to Iraq's oppressed people, what could the rest of the world have said? "We don't care if they have freedom!" (Or in the case of France, Germany, China and Russia, "Wait! They still owe us money for stuff we sold the regime! Don't overthrow them yet, screw the people, we want our cash!")

Why there is an argument about the rest is beyond me; as far as I'm concerned it's utterly irrelevant.

Jason

If you feel the war was justified because the people were oppressed and brutalized, that's cool. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just remember not everyone shares the same opinion.

I think, imo , that some who say "I don't care about WMDs" (like yourself), also seem to think that it's also a non-issue if our president lied/mislead us about WMDs. Contrary to what some think, they are 2 seperate issues.

1)WMDs were needed to justify the war.
2)Bush lied/mislead the country (world) in order to garner support for the war.

Some on this board are of the mindset that whether or not our president lied to us or not doesn't matter because good came of the war. (Saddam is out). For some (like me), it's not ok for my president to do that. The question isn't whether you think he lied or not, but if you think it's ok.

 

[Czar]

Saddam's removal was *completely* justified on these grounds *alone*.

moraly yes, but not legaly and in our society laws come first

 

[Dari]

I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

wow, that was realy.. yeah.... is a horrible thing to say

 

[chess9]

Dari:

One of these days you are going to have your typing fingers "slit" by one of the Anandtech moderators for such comments. The next time you decide to type out one of your little fantasies, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and 5 brewskis...or your medication if you can find it.

Why are so many right wingers so unconsciously aggressive? "Bring 'em on". Sheezh....

-Robert

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

wow, that was realy.. yeah.... is a horrible thing to say

Actually, better words to desribe what Dari said are sick and disgusting. Aren't those the words you used in another thread Dari?

I'm reminded of all the members who raised holy hell over another member wishing Americans would die. It's a good thing you're an R, huh Dari? If you were a D you'd be tarred and feathered for your remark. Because of your party affiliation, however, I think you're safe from the wrath of the holy hell raisers.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: chess9
Dari:

One of these days you are going to have your typing fingers "slit" by one of the Anandtech moderators for such comments. The next time you decide to type out one of your little fantasies, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and 5 brewskis...or your medication if you can find it.

Why are so many right wingers so unconsciously aggressive? "Bring 'em on". Sheezh....

-Robert

I apologize but I find Kelly's outing honorable. Unlike Ritter, Kelly didn't go to any toothless parliament to make wild declarations. Kelly fell on his sword in as quiet a way as possible.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: chess9
Dari:

One of these days you are going to have your typing fingers "slit" by one of the Anandtech moderators for such comments. The next time you decide to type out one of your little fantasies, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and 5 brewskis...or your medication if you can find it.

Why are so many right wingers so unconsciously aggressive? "Bring 'em on". Sheezh....

-Robert

I apologize but I find Kelly's outing honorable. Unlike Ritter, Kelly didn't go to any toothless parliament to make wild declarations. Kelly fell on his sword in as quiet a way as possible.

:disgust:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Gaard<brIf you feel the war was justified because the people were oppressed and brutalized, that's cool. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just remember not everyone shares the same opinion.

I think, imo , that some who say "I don't care about WMDs" (like yourself), also seem to think that it's also a non-issue if our president lied/mislead us about WMDs. Contrary to what some think, they are 2 seperate issues.

1)WMDs were needed to justify the war.
2)Bush lied/mislead the country (world) in order to garner support for the war.

Some on this board are of the mindset that whether or not our president lied to us or not doesn't matter because good came of the war. (Saddam is out). For some (like me), it's not ok for my president to do that. The question isn't whether you think he lied or not, but if you think it's ok.

Well I would never say it's "OK" for the president to lie. I didn't think it was OK when Clinton did it, I don't think it's OK if Bush does it. I'm just not sure that it's clear he lied. It could very well be he just got bad intelligence, or that Saddam *did* destroy or remove them before the war started. The point is just that *I* don't know, and it would be silly to make a judgment call on it while knowing full well that I am not privy to probably even 1% of the information that the government has/had on the matter before hand. I think it's very common for people to assume that the President must know everything that goes on in government, but I think that's a huge mistake. The line of intelligence gathering individuals, systems, etc. is very long and complicated, and I think we all know that a story is never the same when it reaches the end of the chain as it was when it began.

I do NOT think that WMD's were needed to justify the war, as I stated. I believe that the liberation of an oppressed people is justification enough to take out their government when they, themselves, cannot do so. I think that it is very common for Americans to assume that just because the history of *our* nation began with the people overthrowing their government, that all people who are oppressed can do so. Certainly they SHOULD do so, they definitely have the moral right, but it's a very rare thing indeed. Jefferson wrote in the Declation of Independence that indeed "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

That's really ingenious for the time, particularly. Read a little on human psychology and you find that people tend to carry the problems of their family life with them and pass them on to their children because of this same kind of pattern whereby you tend to continue suffering with what you are saddled with rather than face it and change it. Change is hard, and sometimes it's hard to realize you even *need* a change.

Now on the issue of whether it was legal, it appears that every legal scholar on earth, plus everyone here, has an opinion on it. I'm not a lawyer (though I have a close friend who is an attorney and he says there can really be no question that it's legal on the basis of both US law and UN resolutions) so I don't really want to claim yes or no. You can find arguments either way, but as I said before, I don't really care. Iraq's people are going to be free now, and so long as we ensure that a democratic government is in place, today's Iraqi people can finally look at their children with some hope for a better future.

Jason

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

LOL dari, you're such a damn militant it's funny. How old are you? Just curious.. I'm 33...

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of hearing about scott ritter. Why can't he just slit his arm/throat like Kelly?

LOL dari, you're such a damn militant it's funny. How old are you? Just curious.. I'm 33...

How about we change it to a more politcally correct "I hope a child molesting conviction sticks on him and he becomes a prison bitch"?