POLL: Wanted to get some feedback on the new WMD not found report

[lozina]

I would like ot see if it has had any effect on people.

 

[Gaard]

Some of us knew that Bush was chomping at the bit from day one. I remember UQ and etech constantly making the claim of "Sabre-Rattling" leading up to the start of the war. To some who aren't wearing Bush-colored glasses however, it was painfully clear from day one that, not only was there going to be a war, but that Bush & Co wanted a war. And to get his war, claims were made...claims that were far, far from concrete, and if nothing else, not justification enough to take this country to war. It seems like yesterday that we were watching TV, and reading quotes by Bush & Co, where they repeatedly and often, implied that Iraq and 9/11 were related.

 

[Infohawk]

Good thread. I'm really waiting to hear more from the neocons and crypto-zealots about the official debunking of their conspiracy theories.

 

[glenn1]

Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WMDs? :laugh: Remember those?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Some of us knew that Bush was chomping at the bit from day one. I remember UQ and etech constantly making the claim of "Sabre-Rattling" leading up to the start of the war. To some who aren't wearing Bush-colored glasses however, it was painfully clear from day one that, not only was there going to be a war, but that Bush & Co wanted a war. And to get his war, claims were made...claims that were far, far from concrete, and if nothing else, not justification enough to take this country to war. It seems like yesterday that we were watching TV, and reading quotes by Bush & Co, where they repeatedly and often, implied that Iraq and 9/11 were related.

:thumbsup: You pretty much summed up the atmosphere leading up to the war that Bush & Co. had created. I wouldn't be surprised if the pattern repeats itself and Americans wake up to find their troops on yet another foreign soil (Iran/Syria), waving the banner of freedom in one hand while shoving democracy down people's throats with the other.

I only understand now how well the Bush administration's understanding of "1984" really is. Create Goldstein(s) (Saddam/Zarqawi), instill fear into the hearts and minds of the populace by creating an air of anxiety/insecurity (security levels) due to an impending cataclysm, i.e. bombardment by Eurasia (terrorist threats). I think I will go back and read 1984 again:

"The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city.. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."

 

[maddogchen]

If I went back into the past and told myself from 2 years ago that they found no WMDs in Iraq, I (2 years ago me) would be surprised. I'd also pass on some winning lotto #s

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

Do you also find it disgusting that, without the threat of WMD, our leaders wouldn't have taken us to war to liberate the Iraqis.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WMDs? :laugh: Remember those?

WMD's to the need to take out Iraq is like Playboy magazine is to good sex!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Condor


WMD's to the need to take out Iraq is like Playboy magazine is to good sex!

So why'd you talk so much about the magazine at the beginning? Is it because you knew your girl/war was ugly?

 

[glenn1]

Do you also find it disgusting that, without the threat of WMD, our leaders wouldn't have taken us to war to liberate the Iraqis.

Yes I do. As I've stated here many times before, our biggest sin in Iraq was not invading in 2003, but rather cozying up to the regime for decades when it was strategically convienent instead of doing the moral thing and taking out the Saddam regime 30 years earlier. Ditto with every tinpot dictator we've ever supported because he was considered to be on "our side."

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Do you also find it disgusting that, without the threat of WMD, our leaders wouldn't have taken us to war to liberate the Iraqis.

Yes I do. As I've stated here many times before, our biggest sin in Iraq was not invading in 2003, but rather cozying up to the regime for decades when it was strategically convienent instead of doing the moral thing and taking out the Saddam regime 30 years earlier. Ditto with every tinpot dictator we've ever supported because he was considered to be on "our side."

:thumbsup: for not being a hypocrite.

Do you agree with me that if Bush had looked for support to go to war with Iraq to liberate the Iraqis, he wouldn't have gotten enough of it to go ahead with the attack?

 

[glenn1]

Do you agree with me that if Bush had looked for support to go to war with Iraq to liberate the Iraqis, he wouldn't have gotten enough of it to go ahead with the attack?

Don't know if I can answer that question. Obviously if you ask them in advance, I would say the American public is rarely in favor of planned overt wars of liberation (although seemingly surprisingly tolerant of covert acts, like supporting a coup without direct American military involvement). Normally the support for direct action only comes after the fact and preferably when you're asking them about a fait accompli such as how we removed the government in Grenada and Panama in the 80s and it was over before they woke up in the morning and had a chance to be asked if they supported it. However, with 9/11 and the 10 year standoff in Iraq in the foreground, who knows how it would have sold if Bush attempted to sell it as a straight regime change rather than a WMD hunt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

Do you also find it disgusting that, without the threat of WMD, our leaders wouldn't have taken us to war to liberate the Iraqis.

Yes, actually. That has been my position regarding Iraq. WMDs or not, we let down the Iraqis when we didn't support uprising attempts and then let them suffer under a sanctioned Saddam regime. Now, sanctions were a good thing but it was quite obvious Saddam was never going to fully comply with the cease-fire terms. He should have gotten 2 chances to fully comply. One "ooops, I forgot about those" (a mistake) and then after that one warning - he should have been removed. Unfortunately not only were our leaders not strong enough against him, but also the world(UN). If the UN is going to take the time to pass resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's actions and "forcing" him to comply -then they better ACT when their resolutions are not heeded. Without action their resolutions are meaningless and toothless words.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, actually. That has been my position regarding Iraq. WMDs or not, we let down the Iraqis when we didn't support uprising attempts and then let them suffer under a sanctioned Saddam regime. Now, sanctions were a good thing but it was quite obvious Saddam was never going to fully comply with the cease-fire terms. He should have gotten 2 chances to fully comply. One "ooops, I forgot about those" (a mistake) and then after that one warning - he should have been removed. Unfortunately not only were our leaders not strong enough against him, but also the world(UN). If the UN is going to take the time to pass resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's actions and "forcing" him to comply -then they better ACT when their resolutions are not heeded. Without action their resolutions are meaningless and toothless words.

CsG

So CsG, do you think those WMDs still exist? :laugh:

Also, since you are so altruistic, what other countries do you think the US shoudl invade right now to get rid of evil dictators?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, actually. That has been my position regarding Iraq. WMDs or not, we let down the Iraqis when we didn't support uprising attempts and then let them suffer under a sanctioned Saddam regime. Now, sanctions were a good thing but it was quite obvious Saddam was never going to fully comply with the cease-fire terms. He should have gotten 2 chances to fully comply. One "ooops, I forgot about those" (a mistake) and then after that one warning - he should have been removed. Unfortunately not only were our leaders not strong enough against him, but also the world(UN). If the UN is going to take the time to pass resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's actions and "forcing" him to comply -then they better ACT when their resolutions are not heeded. Without action their resolutions are meaningless and toothless words.

CsG

So CsG, do you think those WMDs still exist? :laugh:

Also, since you are so altruistic, what other countries do you think the US shoudl invade right now to get rid of evil dictators?

The whereabouts of the WMDs are not known. They existed and have not been accounted for.

Do we have a cease-fire agreement with a country who currently sanctioned by the UN? I'm sure there are places not only us but the UN should be involved but are not. Do you really think that means we can't act on one because we can't act on them all?:roll:
I'll also echo what glenn1 stated about the little game you are trying to play:

also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

CsG

 

[Siddhartha]

I voted no but I never gave my consent to this war in the first place.

I started a thread a while back asking what if no wmd where found. If I remember correctly it did not make a difference to the people who supported GWB. I found this to be disturbing because you have to be able to trust what the president says.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The whereabouts of the WMDs are not known. They existed and have not been accounted for.

Do we have a cease-fire agreement with a country who currently sanctioned by the UN? I'm sure there are places not only us but the UN should be involved but are not. Do you really think that means we can't act on one because we can't act on them all?:roll:
I'll also echo what glenn1 stated about the little game you are trying to play:

also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

CsG

So it sounds like you are more interested in upholding the rule of law than you are about moral concerns. Or do you only think we should intervene when there are UN sanctions? :laugh: I'm not sure whether it is sad or funny that you still think the WMDs exist / existed during the period leading up to the war.

And your glenn1 garbage is not helpful. I am all for helping ALL countries. BUt I'm not the one who claimed there were WMDs in Iraq and based an invasion on that. Anyway, nice obfuscation. The reasons for war have been dealt with plenty of times. We're talking about WMDs right now. FOCUS.

As much as you want to forget about the WMDs, they never existed in the run up to the war and it was the main basis on which your leader went to war.

 

[her209]

So should we be doing business with countries that are currently or formerly violating human rights?

 

[chess9]

The real tragedy is not that no WMD ever existed or were found but that the American public really doesn't care. They voted in November for the liars, which is ample proof they don't care.

-Robert

 

[glenn1]

So should we be doing business with countries that are currently or formerly violating human rights?

Depends on what the the nature of that "business" is, and what the nature of the violations are. Admittedly that's a bit of a judgement call but there are quite a few no-brainers out there as well. For the incorrigibles out there like North Korea we should cut them off completely and seeking regime change should be our only business. Other cases will require different responses. India might require only some encouragement, Bahrain some gentle but firm prodding, Syria some hostile prodding; a Robert Mugabe might call for sanctions and shame, and a Robert Taylor in Liberia being shown the door. But we shouldn't take the dictator's sides in any event. Just because Hosni Mubarrak is on "our side" that shouldn't mean we prop him up instead of supporting democratic reform. We shouldn't ferment a coup against a democratically elected President Chavez just because we don't like him and feel he's too cozy to Fidel. We've been on the wrong side too many times for our political convienience. I want us to start being on the correct side every time, even when it's NOT in our immediate interests.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The whereabouts of the WMDs are not known. They existed and have not been accounted for.

Do we have a cease-fire agreement with a country who currently sanctioned by the UN? I'm sure there are places not only us but the UN should be involved but are not. Do you really think that means we can't act on one because we can't act on them all?:roll:
I'll also echo what glenn1 stated about the little game you are trying to play:

also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

CsG

So it sounds like you are more interested in upholding the rule of law than you are about moral concerns. Or do you only think we should intervene when there are UN sanctions? :laugh: I'm not sure whether it is sad or funny that you still think the WMDs exist / existed during the period leading up to the war.

And your glenn1 garbage is not helpful. I am all for helping ALL countries. BUt I'm not the one who claimed there were WMDs in Iraq and based an invasion on that. Anyway, nice obfuscation. The reasons for war have been dealt with plenty of times. We're talking about WMDs right now. FOCUS.

As much as you want to forget about the WMDs, they never existed in the run up to the war and it was the main basis on which your leader went to war.

The only thing that is sad is that there are apologists like you who don't seem to understand the fact that there were WMDs that were not accounted for. Do you not care about that? Do you think we blew them up in 1998 like one member here likes to suggest? Were they moved? Were they destroyed before the war?(why weren't they documented then?)
But yes, I am interested in the rule of "law" but I am also interested in the moral concerns(which coincidentally have a habit of being hand in hand with the rule of law).

The only one that needs to focus is you. You need to focus on the fact that the WMDs did exist at one point and have not been accounted for. Oh, and it was YOU who brought up invading other evil dictators so don't even attempt to weasel out of that by telling me that I should "focus". Also, along those lines - I do believe the OP brought up the subject of the WAR and consenting to it so you are again WRONG - we are not just "talking about WMDs right now".

Again Info - I supported the invasion long before W. Bush took office, so despite your attempts to claim I want to forget about them - I didn't need them to be present. What we need to find out is HOW the intelligence agencies from around the globe got the information about WMDs so wrong or didn't notice what happened to them. THAT should be our goal at this point but go ahead and whine about Bush if it helps heal your election wounds.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
But yes, I am interested in the rule of "law" but I am also interested in the moral concerns(which coincidentally have a habit of being hand in hand with the rule of law).

Since you have moral conserns independent of what the UN deems important, I return to my question about which country you think we should invade next. What country do you think deserves attention next? There are a lot of evil dictators left. Which one is next on the hitlist? Since you supported the Iraq INvasion long before Bush took office which invasion do you support now?

[/quote]

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
But yes, I am interested in the rule of "law" but I am also interested in the moral concerns(which coincidentally have a habit of being hand in hand with the rule of law).

Since you have moral conserns independent of what the UN deems important, I return to my question about which country you think we should invade next. What country do you think deserves attention next? There are a lot of evil dictators left. Which one is next on the hitlist? Since you supported the Iraq INvasion long before Bush took office which invasion do you support now?

[/quote]

I already addressed that issue. You might try to "FOCUS"

Oh, and I thought you said this was about WMDs? :laugh:

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I already addressed that issue. You might try to "FOCUS"

Oh, and I thought you said this was about WMDs? :laugh:

CsG

The thread is about WMDs. I admit I shouldn't have given you a hard time about your general war comments since I talked about the other stuff.

But no you did not address the which country should we attack next issue. You responded with a question.