Daddy, why did we attack Iraq?

[LunarRay]

I once heard a government official ask a military person... "can you proove you were in Nha Trang during the Agent Orange Spraying?" the person asked "when was it exactly?" the official said "never mind that! can you proove you were there when the spraying occured?" The person said to this "Yes." to which the official said "So you can't and if you could all we have is your word for it, is that right?" the person said "I don't understand?" the official said "I'll take that as a yes, and if I need anything further we'll contact you".

This happened.... I represent this occured. So logic is not always used to deduce conclusions. It depends on what the final outcome must be first and then you arrive there in some fashion..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: lozina
Ok so maybe the U.S. didn't directly fund the Taliban with that 43 million, but saying so is the typical kind of rhetoric our government uses quite frequently. So now let's say you have 'disproven' a small part of his post, does that mean the whole thread is now illegitimate? If so, let me ask you this then: One of Bush's great pieces of 'evidence' for reason to attack Iraq was those aluminum tubes ordered from Niger. Since that is now debunked (well actually, it was debunked before the war started but the Administration refused to acknowlegde it until now) does that make the war on Iraq illegitimate?

Just for the sake of accuracy, it was uranium that Iraq did NOT try to purchase from Niger (forged documents notwithstanding). The anodized aluminum tubes really were purchased by Iraq, from a European country IIRC. These tubes were NOT suitable for use in enrichment centrifuges contrary to Bush administration claims. Both of these deceptions were widely recognized before the war.

That aside, I notice no one has answered your question.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Let me ask a simple question. If an authoritarian government like the Taliban, a government with COMPLETE control over
everything in their country down to what women can wear, knows there is $43 million in aid don't 'ya think maybe they could
get their hands on it?

the taliban never acquired complete control over the whole of afghanistan. the northern alliance controlled the northeast
corner of the country, and the alliances which the taliban struck with numerous warlords gave them only nominal control,
and not complete control. the vast majority of the taliban's military victories were secured without a single shot being fired.

Funding anyone in Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled was like funding the Taliban

wrong. massoud was not in the taliban's pocket. a savvy intelligence service like the pakistani i.s.i. could have split the
taliban faction if they chose to swing their favor and largess to another camp. the taliban could never convince multinational
companies (like unicol) of their ability to form a legitimate government and maintain internal order. they remained an invention
of the i.s.i. that ran amuck.

. . . was like funding the Taliban. Which the USA did while they were fighting the USSR.

you're clueless. the taliban never fought the u.s.s.r.

the taliban coalesced in and around 1994-95, primarily funded by the i.s.i.

many of the individual pathans who formed the taliban commands did fight in the afghanistan war (1979-1989), but
so did many of the tajiks, uzbeks, and hazaras who were mortal enemies of the taliban. massoud fought against
the soviets, yet he was never aligned with the taliban. the monies the u.s. funneled to afghanistan went through
the i.s.i.

smart or not, the cia is said not to have had a single operative on the ground in afghanistan over the course of the
entire soviet conflict. they allowed all fiscal decisions to be made by the i.s.i., and in keeping with their islamist bent,
they favored the more rigid parties, like mullah omar and gulbuddin hekmatyar(aka 'mr blowback').

They may turn out to be the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein or any of the myriad dictators the USA has aided over the
years for short term political gain that come back to bite us on the A$$.

the u.s. aided the afghan combatants to stem the communist tide. how is that 'short term political gain' ?

the only error which foresight could've predicted, and which the cia concedes, is they allowed the i.s.i. unquestioned
control over the dispersal of u.s. tax dollars. the u.s. intellgience people thought the area to alien for their direct
intervention, and with a willing partner in pakistan why become embroiled further ? fight a proxy war instead. that
way everybody is happy. the afghans, who want to do the fighting, especially if it saves them from any overt 'foerign
assistance', and the pakistans, who keep their hands clean by deploying only a few logistical officers.

According to the Christian Science Monitor the Taliban had 90% control over Afghanistan.

The USA funded anyone who would oppose the Soviets, including bin Laden who later alllied himself with the Pakistani inspired Taliban. Many of the Taliban allies in Afghanistan were aided by the US when they fought the Soviets. It all boils down to the same result. We keep funding anyone without regard to the long term consequences.

It's short term political gain becuase every one of these dictators we jump in bed with becomes the next US version of "The Great Satan" and we then have to jump in bed with another to get rid of the previous. Short sighted. Example: Musharaf to get rid of bin Laden. bin Laden to get rid of the Soviets. Hussein to get rid of the Ayatollah. We were even in bed with the Taliban. :disgust:

Reminds me of the ecological disaster caused in Hawaii by the introduction of new species. Had to keep bringing another predator to take care of the last one. This is the foreign policy version.

from NYU

From MSNBC:

"When Gorbachev finally pulled the plug on the Soviet travesty in 1989, the groups armed, trained and directed by the CIA changed were set loose on each other. In retrospect, the United States did little to ensure its arms fell into responsible hands. Among the CIA?s star pupils of the era, for instance, was one Osama bin Laden."

"RUSSIA claims the Chechen separatists its army now surrounds in Grozny had received training and materiel from the Taliban. More seriously (and less substantiated), Russia has accused bin Laden of helping direct a wave of bombings in Moscow and other cities last summer that killed over 300 civilians."

The Toronto Sun:

"The `diplomats' were, most likely, military advisors. They, and Russian advisors, were aiding the opposition Tajik-Uzbek Northern Alliance battling the Islamic Taliban. Tehran and Moscow have formed a de facto alliance to defeat Taliban. Russia's recent slaughter of 100,000 Muslims in Chechnya (Ishkeria) does not seem to trouble Iran's leadership. After 20 years of fruitless intrigue and subversion, Iran's leadership is considering using raw military power to impose its will on Afghanistan."

"In 1994, a new force exploded on the scene. `Talibs,' students at religious seminaries, or madrasas,' took AK-47's in one hand, and the Holy Koran in the other, formed a crusading army, the Taliban. and went to war against the fueding mujihadin, vowing to bring order and Islamic law to Afghanistan. Led by the shadowy, one-eyed, Mullah Omar, the simple seminarians were miraculously equipped with heavy artillery, tanks, and fighters. They quickly captured 60% of Afghanistan, including Kabul."

"Other players quickly joined this new round of what Rudyard Kipling called, `The Great Game.' Russia, eager to restore its influence in Afghanistan, backed the Afghan Tajiks and Uzbeks with arms, money, oil, and advisors. So did the former Soviet republics of Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Their despotic, neo-marxist regimes live in terror Taliban will export Islamic revolution to Central Asia and overthrow the existing communist order."

"Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the wealthy Gulf Emirates support Taliban. The United States flirts with both sides. Washington is worried by Taliban's Islamic extremism, sheltering of enemies like Osama Bin Laden, and Taliban's medieval ways, particularly in treating women. But the Talib's hatred of Shia Iran, and their promise to bring order to Afghanistan - opening the way to American strategic penetration of Central Asia - is most appealing."

Who are you kidding? The USA was up to their A$$ES as usual funding anyone who served that particular moment's purpose. Short sighted.

There are many factions fighting for control of the region. The USA backs whoever they need at the moment. The mess is left for clean up later. Witness Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or the mess fermenting in Pakistan. Or Iran.

Every US step another foreign policy disaster. And your reply? The only mistake was giving too much power to Pakistan and the ISI. Another short sighted view. Another mess for clean up later.

 

[BOBDN]

"America saw in the situation a great opportunity to hit at the Soviet Union. That Islamabad helped Washington to do so is well known. The rest is history ? how the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of the expensive and unpopular war. Once Washington achieved its purpose it lost interest in Afghanistan, leaving it to become a den of fundamentalists. In fact, America helped in the birth of the Taliban so that Russia would never come into the picture again. But all America?s chickens came home to roost later. It was not at all surprising that the same Taliban hit the Americans in their own country. In fact, it was inevitable. If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind."

Link

*EDIT*

P.S. Mullah Omar lost his eye fighting the Soviets before he became the LEADER of the Taliban.

 

[oreagan]

Okay, to join the discussion, let me pose a hypothetical:

I have two malignant cancerous tumors. They both cause me great pain and could end up killing me many years earlier than is my time. One I can remove, and have the doctors do so, despite the great pain it causes me. The other I cannot remove because doing so has a very high probability of killing me. I'm saddened by this, but there's really not a lot I can do without taking unacceptable risk.

To clarify symbolism: The narrator is the United States. The cancerous growths are Iraq and North Korea.

The point: We cannot remove every harsh dictator, but doing the right thing in one situation is better than doing the right thing in no situations and being consistent.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Okay, to join the discussion, let me pose a hypothetical:

I have two malignant cancerous tumors. They both cause me great pain and could end up killing me many years earlier than is my time. One I can remove, and have the doctors do so, despite the great pain it causes me. The other I cannot remove because doing so has a very high probability of killing me. I'm saddened by this, but there's really not a lot I can do without taking unacceptable risk.

To clarify symbolism: The narrator is the United States. The cancerous growths are Iraq and North Korea.

The point: We cannot remove every harsh dictator, but doing the right thing in one situation is better than doing the right thing in no situations and being consistent.

Well at least you sought out the doctor (UN) and allowed him to operate instead of whipping out the kitchen knife and going it on your own... and if you did go it alone... why not really go for it all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You just don't get it and I don't think you even possess the ability to get it so I'm probably wasting my time. But here goes anyway.

Everybody knows he had them if for no other reason than he admitted to having them and actually used them. The burden of proof was not on anybody to prove he had them...it was on him to prove that he didn't.

I can only assume you're in such a blinded liberal haze over anything Bush-related that you refuse to look at this scenario reasonably, but I only wasted two minutes of typing trying to get through to you so no big loss.

Go on and throw a red herring and ask me why this or that and ignore the logic.

You know what HoP, you are right in the most narrow sense. One of the U.N. resolutions did, in fact, require that Iraq document that it destroyed all proscribed materials. While Iraq said it did destroy these materials, it never produced the "proof" demanded by Bush & Co.

The problem with asserting this position is that it is morally bankrupt. First, it was a U.N. resolution, yet Bush took it upon himself to attack without U.N. support. This is normally considered vigilantism, and it is wrong.

Far more importantly, however, no civilized country attacks another, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people, based on unsupported suspicions. You don't invade a country for poor paperwork. We had significant evidence that Iraq might have destroyed the weapons. We had an inspection process in place to determine whether Iraq did still have any. (And don't give me the oft-repeated crap about "we know he had these weapons" -- the key word is had, past tense. We did NOT know that he still had them. There was a reasonable doubt.) All human life is precious; we took thousands of lives without proof, without justification.

This is the point where a few people jump up and denounce the inspectors as ineffective, pawns of Saddam, had too much time already, whatever. First, too bad. It was a U.N. resolution and the U.N. decided to continue the process. The U.S. had no right to circumvent it. Second, the inspection process had actually been quite effective, destroying substantial quantities of proscribed weapons over the years. Coupled with the no-fly zones and our continued presence in the region, we were effectively containing Iraq. There was no reason we needed to escalate this to a full invasion. There was no imminent danger.

Finally, and most importantly, it is now obvious to everyone that the inspectors were doing just as good a job as the military is doing now. Further, the inspectors did it without killing thousands of people or plunging this country another $100 billion+ in debt.

The United States is supposed to be a role model for the rest of the world, a leader, a shining beacon of hope and justice and freedom for all. Our behavior with Iraq was abominable, a schoolyard bully picking a fight with the crippled kid hiding in the corner. This is a still great country, but we should be ashamed of what Bush and his thugs did.

______

At this point, let me take all of your childish little digs about "possessing the ability to get it", "wasting my time", "blinded liberal haze", "refuse to look at this [...] reasonably", "red herring", and "ignore the logic" (damn, that's a lot of gratuitous attacks in one short post), and toss 'em right back at you. Can you get it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Okay, to join the discussion, let me pose a hypothetical:

I have two malignant cancerous tumors. They both cause me great pain and could end up killing me many years earlier than is my time. One I can remove, and have the doctors do so, despite the great pain it causes me. The other I cannot remove because doing so has a very high probability of killing me. I'm saddened by this, but there's really not a lot I can do without taking unacceptable risk.

To clarify symbolism: The narrator is the United States. The cancerous growths are Iraq and North Korea.

The point: We cannot remove every harsh dictator, but doing the right thing in one situation is better than doing the right thing in no situations and being consistent.

Let me try it a little differently:

I have two growths. Both are irritating today; either or both may become malignant in the future, threatening my life. The doctors say leave them alone until there is a more imminent threat. However, I ignore the doctors and take the easy one out myself, killing thousands of innocent people in the process. I am OK with this since it distracts my family from the fact that I'm an incompetent father, I've maxed out our credit cards, I can't find the guy who killed my neighhbor, and I've been letting my friends loot our bank account.

I suspect I don't need to clarify the symbolism.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Ok so maybe the U.S. didn't directly fund the Taliban with that 43 million

Let me ask a simple question. If an authoritarian government like the Taliban, a government with COMPLETE control over everything in their country down to what women can wear, knows there is $43 million in aid don't 'ya think maybe they could get their hands on it? Who was gonna' stop 'em? Funding anyone in Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled was like funding the Taliban. Which the USA did while they were fighting the USSR. Which is the point. You can't selectively jump into bed with whoever suits your current needs. They may turn out to be the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein or any of the myriad dictators the USA has aided over the years for short term political gain that come back to bite us on the A$$.

Short term thinking does little good in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is long term.

The aid was given in the form of food and medical aid to the people that were suffering. If you would prefer that we not help them because some small part of the aid might have helped the Taliban than you have my sympathy. That's so cold hearted that I can't imagine how you even contemplate it.

BOBDN, during WWII the US sent money and arms to Russia to aid them in their fight against the Nazis. Under your rules we would not have done that. Would you care to speculate on what the world would be like today IF and I repeat IF that aid was the factor that allowed the Russians to first hold off and than attack the largest part of the Nazi army?


It was a long day at work, I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[syzygy]

"America saw in the situation a great opportunity to hit at the Soviet Union. That Islamabad helped Washington to do so is well known. The rest is history ? how the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of the expensive and unpopular war. Once Washington achieved its purpose it lost interest in Afghanistan, leaving it to become a den of fundamentalists. In fact, America helped in the birth of the Taliban so that Russia would never come into the picture again. But all America?s chickens came home to roost later. It was not at all surprising that the same Taliban hit the Americans in their own country. In fact, it was inevitable. If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind."

This isn't fact en toto but one author's opinion. In my view, he is not far from the truth as presented by ahmed rashid, who wrote the definite account
about the birth of the taliban. from other quotes in the author's piece, he appears to be familiar with rashid's work. the u.s. did ignore the country
once the soviets were defeated. they turned a cold shoulder to them and left them to fend for themselves. so he is correct there. but the ultimate
responsibility still lies with the factions themselves. they conducted the civil war that fractured their country and created the social vaccuum which
the taliban filled.

try not to absolve themof all personal responsibility.

According to the Christian Science Monitor the Taliban had 90% control over Afghanistan.

i don't know why you quote this figure because it serves to prove YOU wrong. i'm the one who corrected you when
you claimed in one of your previous posts that the taliban had 'complete' control of the country. you can't remember
your own words.

The USA funded anyone who would oppose the Soviets, including bin Laden who later alllied himself with the Pakistani
inspired Taliban. Many of the Taliban allies in Afghanistan were aided by the US when they fought the Soviets. It all boils
down to the same result. We keep funding anyone without regard to the long term consequences.

again, you provide your own retort. we had been fighting the soviets for how long ? now, if we answer 'short-term', and
pay no attention to time and space, i would guess a day, a week at most. certainly not decades. because if we had
been fighting the soviets for decades from one corner of the earth to other then that would not constitute a 'short term'
objective or an objective applied 'without regard to the long term consequences', now would it ? hey, but thats just me.

's short term political gain becuase every one of these dictators we jump in bed with becomes the next US version of "The
Great Satan" and we then have to jump in bed with another to get rid of the previous. Short sighted. Example: Musharaf to
get rid of bin Laden. bin Laden to get rid of the Soviets. Hussein to get rid of the Ayatollah. We were even in bed with the
Taliban. :disgust:

its not short-term for the reasons cited above. as for the unsavory allegiances we make, there isn't a method yet invented
that would help immunize nations from contact with nasty pathogens in the form of bloodthirsty dictators when a need to
preserve their interests in a given region arises. yes, you are partly correct, if you choose to lie in bed with the likes of a
hussein, you'll be infected, you will be making moral compromises. seen from a larger perspective, you have to ask whether
we can afford to ignore the rise of an ayatollah khomeini. could we afford to allow him to continue his export of militant islam
that was programmed to breed revolution in any and all weakened nations ? these are questions which leftists, standing on
the outside, have the luxury of treating in a very glib manner. but when there in the cauldron, there response tends to
be spectacularly vicious. see bolsheviks, see pol pot, see saddam hussein (an arab socilaist), etc, etc.

 

[Phuz]

BOBDN, during WWII the US sent money and arms to Russia to aid them in their fight against the Nazis. Under your rules we would not have done that. Would you care to speculate on what the world would be like today IF and I repeat IF that aid was the factor that allowed the Russians to first hold off and than attack the largest part of the Nazi army?

Great comparrison. You're right, I'm sure the world's a MUCH better place having funded many countries that the US has since gone to war with. Nazi germany was clearly a threat to the world. Countries that have/will receive arms from the US are pawns, temporarily serving a purpose that will only benifit the US.

I don't care if you like the Q & A, but this is fact.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: oreagan
Okay, to join the discussion, let me pose a hypothetical:

I have two malignant cancerous tumors. They both cause me great pain and could end up killing me many years earlier than is my time. One I can remove, and have the doctors do so, despite the great pain it causes me. The other I cannot remove because doing so has a very high probability of killing me. I'm saddened by this, but there's really not a lot I can do without taking unacceptable risk.

To clarify symbolism: The narrator is the United States. The cancerous growths are Iraq and North Korea.

The point: We cannot remove every harsh dictator, but doing the right thing in one situation is better than doing the right thing in no situations and being consistent.

Let me try it a little differently:

I have two growths. Both are irritating today; either or both may become malignant in the future, threatening my life. The doctors say leave them alone until there is a more imminent threat. However, I ignore the doctors and take the easy one out myself, killing thousands of innocent people in the process. I am OK with this since it distracts my family from the fact that I'm an incompetent father, I've maxed out our credit cards, I can't find the guy who killed my neighhbor, and I've been letting my friends loot our bank account.

I suspect I don't need to clarify the symbolism.

Haha, good doctor you have there, telling you to "leave them alone until there is a more imminent threat." I mean, really, if my doctor tells me to ignore a developing stress facture (or ANYTHING) instead of treating it before it becomes worse, I'm firing the doctor.

That kinda works for the analogy too. I hate to throw around cliches, but "an ounce of prevention" and such.

Also, please keep in mind the point of that analogy. It wasn't meant to defend the war itself - though I agree with the war, that's not the point of the analogy. The point was, taking out one dictator and threat to our nation is better than taking out no dictators (et cetera) even if we don't remain fully consistant and go postal on every similar dictator.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Phuz

BOBDN, during WWII the US sent money and arms to Russia to aid them in their fight against the Nazis. Under your rules we would not have done that. Would you care to speculate on what the world would be like today IF and I repeat IF that aid was the factor that allowed the Russians to first hold off and than attack the largest part of the Nazi army?

Great comparrison. You're right, I'm sure the world's a MUCH better place having funded many countries that the US has since gone to war with. Nazi germany was clearly a threat to the world. Countries that have/will receive arms from the US are pawns, temporarily serving a purpose that will only benifit the US.

I don't care if you like the Q & A, but this is fact.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

No, it is not fact, but rather a nice case of spin. The author characterizes Iraq as a "friend" in the 1980's. Iraq was treated as an ally against a greater threat. There is a real and distinct difference.

edit/ Is it your contention that only the US benifited from supplying arms to Russia during WWII?

Can you document exactly how the US "looked the other way"?

 

[Phuz]

No, it is not fact, but rather a nice case of spin. The author characterizes Iraq as a "friend" in the 1980's. Iraq was treated as an ally against a greater threat. There is a real and distinct difference.

Prove it.

edit/ Is it your contention that only the US benifited from supplying arms to Russia during WWII?

Russia getting arms from the US during WW2 (likely because the US didn't want to get invovled at the time) is completely out of context with what we're discussing. This isn't WW2, and nothing in the middle east has the potentially to be as dangerous as Nazi Germany. (never say never, though)

Can you document exactly how the US "looked the other way"?

Can you prove how they didn't? Did they act on it? Did they try and stop it?

 

[oreagan]

Some various observations about the Q&A:

First of all, it's long. But anyway:

"A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer."

I know it's more fun to play along for the sake of the joke, but that's not really truthful, now is it? The reason we don't go after China or North Korea is cause they can kill many millions of our citizens if we attack them. Whether you like it or not, it's a "cost/benefit" analysis that decides these things, and the cost part is too great against China. Also, come on, "slave wages"? I mean, not to be the oxymoron police or anything, but...


"A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?"

Worked for China, didn't it....
Sure, there is a capitalistic part of their society, just as there was with Stalin's NEP, but no one's arguing that he went capitalistic, are they?


"Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan."

Ally does not equal friend. That mistake is made fairly often in the passage.


"Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either."

So millions in foreign aid only makes people our friends if it helps with the joke? Caues I'm pretty sure we've been giving Russia a lot more financial aid than the aforementioned Taliban quote, and more frequently.


"Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade."

This one's not that important, but come on, history, people! Ever heard the phrase "liberty cabbage"? Was saurkraut during World War II. There was some cute name for the Schnauzer (sp?) dogs too, and several other items. The whole "freedom fries" thing was a parody of those earlier days. Let's really not lie.


"Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes. "

No. Ally.


"Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time all the better."

Come on now, that's just silly, every industrialized nation has companies who try to make money off of every war, and the unindustrialized ones would if they had the capability. It's an act that's been going on in America since the Revolution itself, and it's nothing special to this war, administration or country.


"Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes."

Well, I'd probably have to concede that. I dislike Bush and Company, but would you rather Saddam Hussein still be in power now? I don't like the reasons, but I like that result. Yep, I'm a pragmatist.


People had asked for a further breakdown of what people thought was wrong with the Q&A, there's most of my answers. I don't care for Bush and saw the war as a necessary evil done for the wrong reasons, but I hate reading bad debating.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Haha, good doctor you have there, telling you to "leave them alone until there is a more imminent threat." I mean, really, if my doctor tells me to ignore a developing stress facture (or ANYTHING) instead of treating it before it becomes worse, I'm firing the doctor.

That kinda works for the analogy too. I hate to throw around cliches, but "an ounce of prevention" and such.

Also, please keep in mind the point of that analogy. It wasn't meant to defend the war itself - though I agree with the war, that's not the point of the analogy. The point was, taking out one dictator and threat to our nation is better than taking out no dictators (et cetera) even if we don't remain fully consistant and go postal on every similar dictator.

Nonsense. Doctors frequently recommend leaving things alone -- for the time being, at least -- simply because the treatment is too risky or is worse than the cure.

Re. the point of the analogy, I think both of our analogies share a common flaw. Instead of you having the tumors or growths, lets amend the analogy to say that the tumor/growth is in our neighbor, and that you (i.e., the narrator) decides to take it out anyway. No matter how certain you are that it is better for us (an ounce of prevention), or even for his own good, you have no right to make that decision. Bush did not have the right to invade another country.

 

[Gaard]

Alistar7 - <<Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.>>

Gaard - <<Regarding your claim that the UN was never given access to certain sites. I may be wrong, it's my understanding that they were allowed access to wherever they wanted to go. Like I said, I could very well be wrong, but could you please provide a link so that I can understand why you say what you say about the UN not given access to some sites?>>


Would someone please provide a link that supports Ali's claim. I don't remember it the way he says, and if I'm wrong I'd like to know.

 

[Phuz]

"A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer."

I know it's more fun to play along for the sake of the joke, but that's not really truthful, now is it? The reason we don't go after China or North Korea is cause they can kill many millions of our citizens if we attack them. Whether you like it or not, it's a "cost/benefit" analysis that decides these things, and the cost part is too great against China. Also, come on, "slave wages"? I mean, not to be the oxymoron police or anything, but...

So, because NK/China are too great a combatant, you'd rather devistate a country that imposes little to no threat to anyone?

"Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan."

Ally does not equal friend. That mistake is made fairly often in the passage.

You should let GW know that.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Phuz

No, it is not fact, but rather a nice case of spin. The author characterizes Iraq as a "friend" in the 1980's. Iraq was treated as an ally against a greater threat. There is a real and distinct difference.

Prove it.

edit/ Is it your contention that only the US benifited from supplying arms to Russia during WWII?

Russia getting arms from the US during WW2 (likely because the US didn't want to get invovled at the time) is completely out of context with what we're discussing. This isn't WW2, and nothing in the middle east has the potentially to be as dangerous as Nazi Germany. (never say never, though)

Can you document exactly how the US "looked the other way"?

Can you prove how they didn't? Did they act on it? Did they try and stop it?

Define what you would consider as the difference between a "friend" and an ally against what is considered to be a greater threat?

While you are on the second question, was the US the only country in the world that helped arm Iraq durning the Iran/Iraq war? Which of those nations did what you consider to be the "right thing"?

So, because NK/China are too great a combatant, you'd rather devistate a country that imposes little to no threat to anyone?

Is invasion of another country the only way to pose a threat? Consider the social and economic situation of the middle east in your answer. What effect does having a despot such as Saddam pose on the region. What effect has the sanctions on Iraq had on the economy of the region? Add in the repression and fear of the people living in Iraq, does that have a negative effect on other countries in the region? Don't forget his support of terrorists in the P?I conflict and how that now that he is gone that some progess is being made there. Add it all up and let me know why you think the world was a better and much safer place with Saddam in power. Don't take a short term narrow view. Look at the big picture.

 

[oreagan]

So, because NK/China are too great a combatant, you'd rather devistate a country that imposes little to no threat to anyone?

No, I don't like it. But it's the truth.

 

[oreagan]

Re. the point of the analogy, I think both of our analogies share a common flaw. Instead of you having the tumors or growths, lets amend the analogy to say that the tumor/growth is in our neighbor, and that you (i.e., the narrator) decides to take it out anyway. No matter how certain you are that it is better for us (an ounce of prevention), or even for his own good, you have no right to make that decision. Bush did not have the right to invade another country.

Ehh, I considered that, it isn't a perfect analogy (there is no such thing), but it's fairly accurate. I justified the tumors being on "our" person because the tumor is more of the threat than the actual country. As for having the right, well....rights get blurry when there's a threat to your constituency, the government's "sons and daughters." Is it right? Again, it's blurry, but it's the way things are. I think to further correct our initial metaphor you'd have to add that the neighbor's disease is contagious and there's no way to move away or anything. You can shutter the house and hold your kids inside and hold your shotgun in the dark, or you can choose otherwise. Bush did the later.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
You just don't get it and I don't think you even possess the ability to get it so I'm probably wasting my time. But here goes anyway.

Everybody knows he had them if for no other reason than he admitted to having them and actually used them. The burden of proof was not on anybody to prove he had them...it was on him to prove that he didn't.

I can only assume you're in such a blinded liberal haze over anything Bush-related that you refuse to look at this scenario reasonably, but I only wasted two minutes of typing trying to get through to you so no big loss.

Go on and throw a red herring and ask me why this or that and ignore the logic.

You know what HoP, you are right in the most narrow sense. One of the U.N. resolutions did, in fact, require that Iraq document that it destroyed all proscribed materials. While Iraq said it did destroy these materials, it never produced the "proof" demanded by Bush & Co.

The problem with asserting this position is that it is morally bankrupt. First, it was a U.N. resolution, yet Bush took it upon himself to attack without U.N. support. This is normally considered vigilantism, and it is wrong.

Far more importantly, however, no civilized country attacks another, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people, based on unsupported suspicions. You don't invade a country for poor paperwork. We had significant evidence that Iraq might have destroyed the weapons. We had an inspection process in place to determine whether Iraq did still have any. (And don't give me the oft-repeated crap about "we know he had these weapons" -- the key word is had, past tense. We did NOT know that he still had them. There was a reasonable doubt.) All human life is precious; we took thousands of lives without proof, without justification.

This is the point where a few people jump up and denounce the inspectors as ineffective, pawns of Saddam, had too much time already, whatever. First, too bad. It was a U.N. resolution and the U.N. decided to continue the process. The U.S. had no right to circumvent it. Second, the inspection process had actually been quite effective, destroying substantial quantities of proscribed weapons over the years. Coupled with the no-fly zones and our continued presence in the region, we were effectively containing Iraq. There was no reason we needed to escalate this to a full invasion. There was no imminent danger.

Finally, and most importantly, it is now obvious to everyone that the inspectors were doing just as good a job as the military is doing now. Further, the inspectors did it without killing thousands of people or plunging this country another $100 billion+ in debt.

The United States is supposed to be a role model for the rest of the world, a leader, a shining beacon of hope and justice and freedom for all. Our behavior with Iraq was abominable, a schoolyard bully picking a fight with the crippled kid hiding in the corner. This is a still great country, but we should be ashamed of what Bush and his thugs did.

______

At this point, let me take all of your childish little digs about "possessing the ability to get it", "wasting my time", "blinded liberal haze", "refuse to look at this [...] reasonably", "red herring", and "ignore the logic" (damn, that's a lot of gratuitous attacks in one short post), and toss 'em right back at you. Can you get it?

You absolutly did not counter my argument. You ceded it and proceded with a red herring. *Resists stinging predictability comment and the urge to say 'I told you so'*

Now to your herring:

You know what HoP, you are right in the most narrow sense. One of the U.N. resolutions did, in fact, require that Iraq document that it destroyed all proscribed materials. While Iraq said it did destroy these materials, it never produced the "proof" demanded by Bush & Co.

Narrow...wide...either way I'm right.

The problem with asserting this position is that it is morally bankrupt. First, it was a U.N. resolution, yet Bush took it upon himself to attack without U.N. support. This is normally considered vigilantism, and it is wrong.

Are we going to start a debate on morality? What exactly is the morality in allowing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die? The "moral" thing to have done would have been to remove Saddam from power a decade ago. Funny because most liberals are arguing about the legality of the war and not the morality because the moral implications are on Bush's side.

Far more importantly, however, no civilized country attacks another, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people, based on unsupported suspicions. You don't invade a country for poor paperwork. We had significant evidence that Iraq might have destroyed the weapons. We had an inspection process in place to determine whether Iraq did still have any. (And don't give me the oft-repeated crap about "we know he had these weapons" -- the key word is had, past tense. We did NOT know that he still had them. There was a reasonable doubt.) All human life is precious; we took thousands of lives without proof, without justification.

First of all the suspicions were not "unsupported". Iraq claimed to possess them, used them, and wouldn't/couldn't submit proof that they destroyed them. Poor paperwork? Are you seriously proposing that the reason Iraq couldn't submit proof was because somebody lost the paperwork on their destruction? They had a 12,000 page delcaration, but lost the one sheet that explains how and when and where they destroyed their WMD? And, yes, we know they "had" them and are safe in assuming they still have them if they can't provide evidence or at least an explanation of how they got rid of them.

This is the point where a few people jump up and denounce the inspectors as ineffective, pawns of Saddam, had too much time already, whatever. First, too bad. It was a U.N. resolution and the U.N. decided to continue the process. The U.S. had no right to circumvent it. Second, the inspection process had actually been quite effective, destroying substantial quantities of proscribed weapons over the years. Coupled with the no-fly zones and our continued presence in the region, we were effectively containing Iraq. There was no reason we needed to escalate this to a full invasion. There was no imminent danger.

The U.S. didn't circumvent it. It enforced it. The other nations in the security councel were playing games and before any new resolution was even proposed they were saying they'd veto it. I'm glad our president refused to be manipulated or bullied like that. Iraq was never considered a threat of course. Saddam giving WMD to terrorists was the threat. The longer we waited the greater the chance he would distribute them. This is all speculation on both our parts though and this minute part of the debate could go on perpetually and be bogged down in minutia.

Finally, and most importantly, it is now obvious to everyone that the inspectors were doing just as good a job as the military is doing now. Further, the inspectors did it without killing thousands of people or plunging this country another $100 billion+ in debt.

To pseudoquote moonbeam "The old war is too expensive debate." So it's about money now? Liberating a nation costs too much money? Removing the threat of WMD isn't worth that much money? Surprisng then that we're getting new tax cuts.

Regardless of who's doing a better job finding WMD, those WMD won't be getting used or moved any more. Besides, Hans Blix even said that Iraq was not fully cooperating. Cooperation is now irrelevent.

The United States is supposed to be a role model for the rest of the world, a leader, a shining beacon of hope and justice and freedom for all. Our behavior with Iraq was abominable, a schoolyard bully picking a fight with the crippled kid hiding in the corner. This is a still great country, but we should be ashamed of what Bush and his thugs did.

So freedom and justice means allowing murderous dictators to committ genocide and murder and torture hundreds of thousands of innocent people? "Freedom for all" you said? Freedom for Iraq now. Yes we were stronger but we showed restraint. We couldn have killed millions and flattened the entire country, but, instead, we used precision strikes and a defensive posture which meant more danger for our troops. And you use the word thugs to group everyone around Bush which gives away your bias...as if we needed anything else.

______

At this point, let me take all of your childish little digs about "possessing the ability to get it", "wasting my time", "blinded liberal haze", "refuse to look at this [...] reasonably", "red herring", and "ignore the logic" (damn, that's a lot of gratuitous attacks in one short post), and toss 'em right back at you. Can you get it?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Because he failed to prove that he didn't have any doesn't prove that he did. Can you understand this? Are you just a kid and haven't learned about such things as proof and logic yet, or are you an adult and simply lack the knowledge that there are differences between possibilities and certainties?

You can be fairly certain of the existence of WMD all you want, but you can't know for a fact of their existence...unless you're privy to evidence that the rest of us aren't aware of.

BTW, do you agree with Ali that the fact that something is unaccounted for is proof of it's existence?

one last time gaard...

I never said because something is unaccounted for that is proof of its existence.

What I said was for anything to be unaccounted for it's existence had to have been known, it's current location is not. Does that make sense to you? Try to follow along. It is unaccounted for because we know it exists, we just don't know where it is at the moment.

You sit and suggest they dont exist, yet they are also unaccounted for. Will anyone sit here and tell me how anything could be unaccounted for (existence known, location not) and never have existed? That's your logic and arguement with Iraq, and it's seriously lacking.....

 

[Insane3D]

Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.

Sorry man...wrong. They were taken to at least two sites for them to do things like soil testing and such. They ran short of time since we had to attack them before they got us first!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard
Because he failed to prove that he didn't have any doesn't prove that he did. Can you understand this? Are you just a kid and haven't learned about such things as proof and logic yet, or are you an adult and simply lack the knowledge that there are differences between possibilities and certainties?

You can be fairly certain of the existence of WMD all you want, but you can't know for a fact of their existence...unless you're privy to evidence that the rest of us aren't aware of.

BTW, do you agree with Ali that the fact that something is unaccounted for is proof of it's existence?

one last time gaard...

I never said because something is unaccounted for that is proof of its existence.

What I said was for anything to be unaccounted for it's existence had to have been known, it's current location is not. Does that make sense to you? Try to follow along. It is unaccounted for because we know it exists, we just don't know where it is at the moment.

You sit and suggest they dont exist, yet they are also unaccounted for. Will anyone sit here and tell me how anything could be unaccounted for (existence known, location not) and never have existed? That's your logic and arguement with Iraq, and it's seriously lacking.....

Ali, Ali. What to do with you. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, nor am I suggesting they never existed. What I am suggesting is that you don't KNOW they exist, merely THINK they exist. And if I haven't made myself clear, there's nothing wrong with THINKING that.

Try this...replace 'never have existed' with 'not exist' in this statement made by you...Will anyone sit here and tell me how anything could be unaccounted for (existence known, location not) and never have existed?

And please show me where I have ever said/suggested that they NEVER existed. Please stop saying I have when I haven't, ok? If you want to defend your stance, could you please do so on the merits of your logic and not stoop to putting words in my mouth?

One last thing...regarding your claim that the inspectors were denied access to sites, please provide a link. I remember it differently, but I could very well be wrong, and if I am I'd like to know.


EDIT:
Alistar7 in this thread - <<I never said because something is unaccounted for that is proof of its existence. >>

Alistar7 here - <<the fact that they are unaccounted for is proof of their existence...>>