Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Rxke · 2004-05-04 00:15:16

I admit I was a little nervous quoting this one...
Actually I've both seen, heard and read this myself:
1) Seen it on Fox about 6 months ago.
2) Heard it on talk radio during the war about a year ago.
3) Read it during the 90s in both far right and far left newspapers, but I can't remember which, and
4) Read it on libertarian blogs just before 9/11.
Might be time for another trip to the library...

Huh? I can't find Shaun's original post you're quoting? ? ?

What's it about?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-04 01:28:46

Hi Rxke!
It all started at the top of page 6 in this thread.

Hi Mundaka!
Thanks for the potted history of this allegation of U.N. corruption. It seems I am indeed way behind the times. :laugh:
I watch the news most days on T.V. and I read the paper regularly but it just goes to show how far behind you can get, even when you think you're reasonably current.

But still, the fact that the allegations are at least 5 years old and the alleged perpetrators are yet to be called to account, underlines what I surmised - that it's going to take a long time to get to the bottom of it.
Now that Mundaka has clarified how old this case really is, and I'm feeling anything but 'current' , may I ask if everyone else here is just as au fait with the story as Mundaka? Am I the only one who failed to notice it in the media or are there others like me?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-04 02:12:29

Hi Alt2War,
The hardcore of the left-wing in any country are passionate people. I admire them for the strength of their convictions (even if I've 'been there; done that' and understand now the futility of their position) and their willingness to get out into the streets.
But, as an indicator of the general feeling, big protests, like the ones you mention, leave me cold. Even if we assume the figure of 500,000 for New York is accurate (always difficult to judge these things), it still represents only a small percentage of the local population, about 6%. And the fact that left-wingers tend to be younger, more radical, more vocal and possibly more excitable, means that such protests are to be expected. They certainly shouldn't be taken as any indication, on the day, that the majority of people feel the same way.

Having said that, I hear you about the political backlash in certain countries. Tony Blair has certainly been doing it tough in Britain in recent months, Australia's John Howard has been sniped at repeatedly in the press over Iraq, and your President Bush's popularity ratings are, I believe, pretty low.
Given Spain's popular antagonism towards involvement in the liberation of Iraq, I applaud the new socialist government's adherence to its promise to bring the Spanish troops home. This is democracy at work and, despite its inherent flaws, it's the best system we have. My personal belief, however, for what it's worth, is that the Spanish people have got it wrong.

The coalition has made an example of Iraq in a world full of religious extremists who cannot be bargained with. Sad to say, but someone who cannot be bargained with will only understand strength. Witness the mood in Iran and Libya.
Bill White's plea to tackle the root of the extremist problem, the Islamic hate schools, is typically intelligent and should be listened to, but having Saddam as a loose cannon in the Middle East was unacceptable politically and morally after 9/11, and his removal was justified.

History will judge the coalition favourably, in my view, just as it has judged Reagan favourably for his stance against the Soviets. You'll no doubt recall the protests against him in the 80s - not against the cruel Soviet Empire, mind you, against the voice of liberation!
The left-wing is one mixed up bunch of well-meaning fools.

Bill White · 2004-05-04 08:19:07

The coalition has made an example of Iraq in a world full of religious extremists who cannot be bargained with. Sad to say, but someone who cannot be bargained with will only understand strength. Witness the mood in Iran and Libya.

Only if we win.

I read that the newly formed Fallajuh Brigade, formed to police that city on behalf of the Coalition, includes in their ranks some insurgents who were shooting at US Marines a few weeks ago.

If those pictures of US abuse of Iraqis turn the majority of Iraqis against us, then we will find Coaltion forces very strung out, and exposed with precarious supply lines.

If forces like the Fallajuh Brigade turn coats against us at crucial moments, we may well face some embarassing and costly military defeats in the weeks and months to come.

= = =

If the people who are going to prosecute and judge Saddam Hussein cannot reveal their names or faces for security reasons, how secure can Iraq actually be?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-04 08:43:25

If, if ,if ... !!
The Fallujah Brigade (is that their official title?) is an experiment in a tricky situation for the coalition. There's no chance of any military defeat, as such, regardless of whether the Brigade turns against us or not. The coalition's military supremacy is complete, in any conventional sense. Though the few thousand well armed fanatics we're having to deal with are indeed a very significant problem, for the time being.

I believe the way the coalition deals with the individuals responsible for the disgraceful degrading of Iraqi prisoners, will be sufficient to prevent the great majority of Iraqi civilians passing up this opportunity for a free and prosperous country they can at last genuinely say is their own. I still have faith that most Iraqis are intelligent and reasonable people and they can see already how Iraq will be when the violence is over.

Of course Iraq isn't secure at present. There are elections still to be held. The forces attempting to bring about an Islamic theocracy in Iraq still feel they have a chance to scuttle the plans for democracy.
The recent situation in Spain has no doubt been a shot in the arm to these thugs because it looks as though violence has brought them a good result.

Let's not allow ourselves to wallow in pessimism just yet. The noble cause in Iraq is not yet lost.

Rxke · 2004-05-04 09:18:30

Not sure if this'll get posted, this thread acting weird, too (empty page)

Thanks, Shaun, for the pointing out, but strange: i see: "Posted: April 30 2004, 09:02" and the quote said different date and time... probably because different timesettings, confusing...

(EDIT: now threa looks ok again... :hm: )

Alt2War · 2004-05-04 11:54:17

Hi Alt2War,
The hardcore of the left-wing in any country are passionate people. I admire them for the strength of their convictions (even if I've 'been there; done that' and understand now the futility of their position) and their willingness to get out into the streets.
But, as an indicator of the general feeling, big protests, like the ones you mention, leave me cold. Even if we assume the figure of 500,000 for New York is accurate (always difficult to judge these things), it still represents only a small percentage of the local population, about 6%. And the fact that left-wingers tend to be younger, more radical, more vocal and possibly more excitable, means that such protests are to be expected. They certainly shouldn't be taken as any indication, on the day, that the majority of people feel the same way.
Having said that, I hear you about the political backlash in certain countries. Tony Blair has certainly been doing it tough in Britain in recent months, Australia's John Howard has been sniped at repeatedly in the press over Iraq, and your President Bush's popularity ratings are, I believe, pretty low.
Given Spain's popular antagonism towards involvement in the liberation of Iraq, I applaud the new socialist government's adherence to its promise to bring the Spanish troops home. This is democracy at work and, despite its inherent flaws, it's the best system we have. My personal belief, however, for what it's worth, is that the Spanish people have got it wrong.
The coalition has made an example of Iraq in a world full of religious extremists who cannot be bargained with. Sad to say, but someone who cannot be bargained with will only understand strength. Witness the mood in Iran and Libya.
Bill White's plea to tackle the root of the extremist problem, the Islamic hate schools, is typically intelligent and should be listened to, but having Saddam as a loose cannon in the Middle East was unacceptable politically and morally after 9/11, and his removal was justified.
History will judge the coalition favourably, in my view, just as it has judged Reagan favourably for his stance against the Soviets. You'll no doubt recall the protests against him in the 80s - not against the cruel Soviet Empire, mind you, against the voice of liberation!
The left-wing is one mixed up bunch of well-meaning fools.

I can tell you from experience, that the protests in new york were not filled with "Hard Core Left Wingers"

Most were over 30, brought children, there were senior citizens, firemen, school teachers. There was a contingent of Carroll Gardens Italians.

A large portion of the people I spoke with had never protested publicly before.

but having Saddam as a loose cannon in the Middle East was unacceptable politically and morally after 9/11, and his removal was justified.

Bullshit.

History will judge the coalition favourably, in my view,

History not see this so kindly.

clark · 2004-05-04 12:14:23

History will judge the coalition favourably, in my view, just as it has judged Reagan favourably for his stance against the Soviets. You'll no doubt recall the protests against him in the 80s - not against the cruel Soviet Empire, mind you, against the voice of liberation!
The left-wing is one mixed up bunch of well-meaning fools.

History is written by the victor. I've seen "mission accomplished". I haven't seen the "V" sign yet.

How attacking a secular leader of a secular state shows the religious extremists, who didn't particulary care for said leader, that we mean business is beyond me.

Is the world a better place with Saddam's removal? Yeah, for those tortured by him. Is it any better for those being tortured by US military, or US proxies? I doubt it.

I say fight the good fight, but let someone else lead.

clark · 2004-05-04 12:51:59

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c … &printer=1

"We're taking and will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to hold accountable those that may have violated the code of military conduct and betrayed the trust placed in them by the American people," Rumsfeld told a news conference.

Perhaps we shouldn't just hold only the boys doing the fighting accountable...

Rxke · 2004-05-04 15:27:17

... The slideshow: WARNING: shows some pretty graphic pics... on]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/ts/042904iraqprison&tmpl=sl&e=1",750,580);]on the same page I've seen them before, but not sure wether they were 'pulled' a while back, they seemed hard to find...

Rxke · 2004-05-05 05:52:21

Then again... This behaviour seems to be sleeping in most of us... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/maga … .stm]Would you hit him?

Palomar · 2004-05-05 10:13:37

Then again... This behaviour seems to be sleeping in most of us... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/maga … .stm]Would you hit him?

*Hi Rik:

I've read similar articles in the past (not related to current Iraqi abuse scandal). I think Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that you can know a person's character if you give them power.

I think -a lot- of humans have a deep hatred and resentment toward others (misanthropy). Or they seek to take their frustration out on others. When given the opportunity to act out on it, many of them WILL.

And I agree with the statements regarding group-think diminishing personal responsibility or making it "easier to go along with the group" for persons such as these abusers.

It's funny how society always fears and loathes "the loner." The group can be just as fearsome. The group, after all, is "the mob."

It is amazing what some people will do, and then later excuse it or write it off as "I was just following orders" or "I thought it was expected of me" -- without seeming to bat an eye or really care [:edit: Unless, of course, it happens to *them* -- then they'd care, all right]. IMO, they can't have had much integrity, scruples, or principles to begin with. Or much of an independent mind. Let alone a conscience.

It's cowardice of the worst sort, IMO.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 12:38:35

Quote
but having Saddam as a loose cannon in the Middle East was unacceptable politically and morally after 9/11, and his removal was justified.

Bullshit.

So Alt, you're saying that loose cannon states with a record of invading others are acceptable? Careful where you step.

Is the world a better place with Saddam's removal? Yeah, for those tortured by him. Is it any better for those being tortured by US military, or US proxies? I doubt it.

Let's be clear on two things. What was done to the Iraqi prisoners was abuse and is totally unacceptable conduct for American soldiers, but it isn't torture in the proper sense.

Second, the prisoners aren't just people off the street, they're enemy combatants. Comaparing the conduct of US forces, even after this, to Saddam is asinine.

I say fight the good fight, but let someone else lead.

If not us, who?

And I agree with the statements regarding group-think diminishing personal responsibility or making it "easier to go along with the group" for persons such as these abusers.

That's part of it, but looking over the photos I can't help but think that the presence of female soldiers has something to do with it. I'm not quite sure how yet, but I get the distinct impression that they were in some way the catalyst for this, perhaps more. I don't know quite where I'm going with this, but feel free to get offended now There's something here we haven't quite pinned down yet.

clark · 2004-05-05 12:49:23

you're saying that loose cannon states with a record of invading others are acceptable? Careful where you step.

Hmm, a nation that's invaded Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Vietnam, Columbia, Cambodia, Cuba, Philippines... we don't have a great record either, we just happen to understand it when we do it.

Let's be clear on two things. What was done to the Iraqi prisoners was abuse and is totally unacceptable conduct for American soldiers, but it isn't torture in the proper sense.

To-mato, Toe-mato. Stories about prisoners being forced to masturbate into the open mouth of other prisoners? Humiliation designed to offend and degrade them based on their beliefs? Beating them?

I doubt any of us could walk a day in these prisoners shoes and not call it torture.

Second, the prisoners aren't just people off the street, they're enemy combatants.

As designated by our commander in chief and without any judicial (or any other) overview or review. Don't you see an inherent problem in claiming that these people are enemy combatants when there is no means to acertain (other than our presidents word) that these individuals are 'enemies'?

There was a camera man from some Arab media (aljeriz) that was held as an 'enemy combatant', subjected to the same type of treatment as these other people. I don't think anyone can rightly say that all of them are innocent, just like we can't rightly say all of them are guilty.

Either way, it's hard to justify the treatment of people we came to liberate in this manner.

If not us, who?

It can be us, just not him.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 13:54:08

Quote
you're saying that loose cannon states with a record of invading others are acceptable? Careful where you step.

Hmm, a nation that's invaded Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Vietnam, Columbia, Cambodia, Cuba, Philippines... we don't have a great record either, we just happen to understand it when we do it.

That's actually my point. How can one argue that we are militant, murdering imperialists because we attack militant, murdering imperialists? Doesn't that mean that in order to not be one we must submit to them? Such an ideology is sick.

Quote
Let's be clear on two things. What was done to the Iraqi prisoners was abuse and is totally unacceptable conduct for American soldiers, but it isn't torture in the proper sense.

To-mato, Toe-mato. Stories about prisoners being forced to masturbate into the open mouth of other prisoners? Humiliation designed to offend and degrade them based on their beliefs? Beating them?
I doubt any of us could walk a day in these prisoners shoes and not call it torture.

I'm not excusing it. I'd be conducting field executions were it my decision and have already stated as much. But to somehow equate the perverse activites of a few prison guards with the systematic torture, murder and rape of the Saddam regime is a blatant distortion. Did Americans drip acid on anyone, drill into their bones, cut their hands off, cut their tongues out, force them to watch while their wives, mothers or daughters are raped? No? Then don't compare them. The latter is torture, the former is abuse. If we redefine torture as any humiliation we insult those who have endured torture of the more brutal variety.

Either way, it's hard to justify the treatment of people we came to liberate in this manner.

I'm not trying to justify it. But we only came to liberate those who want to be liberated and live in a peaceful country. We came to kill the rest. If we're holding innocents, by all means let's exonerate and release them. For the rest, those who attack American and allied citizens, let's dispose of them in a more dignified manner. Preferably without photographs.

It can be us, just not him.

Why is it so personal?

clark · 2004-05-05 14:03:36

There is a refreshing bit of honesty in your very brutal assessment of the situation. I can't fault you, as you size up the situation, and make the call.

We're there to kill those who oppose us.

I'm not equating Saddam's actions with what some prison guards have done. I'm just saying that we're supposed to better than that. We should be better than this.

Our foreign policy is inconsistent, and generally, we engage in warfare and conflict for sometimes noble reasons, and sometimes not so noble reasons. I believe the American people have a good heart, but I don't believe in the intentions of the Bush administration.

I believe we were lied to by our President, and by leaders within his administration. Maybe it was a neccessary lie, maybe it was for the greater good. But to be frank, I can't be certain anymore. I don't know if i can believe that anymore.

Politicans are like children, and our Republic more so. The leaders will do as much as they can get away with. They use previous examples to guage how far they can go. Right now, we have children who have learned that they can lie to the American public and get away with it. They can lie about the reasons we need to put our own people in harms way.

If I cannot believe what the President says, but the situation requires I trust him more, I have some serious problems. We all should.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 14:41:13

I'm not equating Saddam's actions with what some prison guards have done. I'm just saying that we're supposed to better than that. We should be better than this.

Yes, we should be. I expect this from some other nations, but when it is my own countrymen (and women) doing it... heads gotta roll.

Our foreign policy is inconsistent, and generally, we engage in warfare and conflict for sometimes noble reasons, and sometimes not so noble reasons. I believe the American people have a good heart, but I don't believe in the intentions of the Bush administration.

American policy in general is inconsistent, it's a natural trait of modern republics. Sometimes we fight for the wrong reasons, but even in those cases we try to be better than those we fight. We don't always succeed, we can't in war, but we try. In a way, the fact that there is such outrage over these prison incidents is encouraging, it show's that we still know how we are supposed to conduct ourselves. It shows that we're still better than our enemies, more humane. That alone is worth fighting for.

I believe we were lied to by our President, and by leaders within his administration. Maybe it was a neccessary lie, maybe it was for the greater good. But to be frank, I can't be certain anymore. I don't know if i can believe that anymore.

That's the big sticking point. Even if we never find any of the weapons we were looking for I don't believe we were lied to. The Administration may have been mistaken, but it was an almost universal mistake. Everyone from congressional Democrats to the UN believed that Iraq had these weapons, up until Dubya starting looking like he might actually do something about it.

Perhaps they've long since been destroyed. Then Bush made a mistake on that point. I can forgive mistakes if they're well founded. But it remains to be seen.

That seems to be the source of our biggest difference on this issue. You believe that Bush deliberately decieved us all for some hidden motive. I believe that it's possible he made a mistake based on bad data. A willful lie versus a potential honest mistake.

clark · 2004-05-05 14:49:47

That's the big sticking point. Even if we never find any of the weapons we were looking for I don't believe we were lied to. The Administration may have been mistaken, but it was an almost universal mistake. Everyone from congressional Democrats to the UN believed that Iraq had these weapons, up until Dubya starting looking like he might actually do something about it.

The UN inspectors said there were no weapons. Bush and friends said they knew where they were. Bush and friends sent Powell, with what was immediately seen as false data, to the UN to prove their point.

We have a policy now of preemptive war. That means if we think there is a threat, we act first. That means we are setting up a system where all a President needs is "just enough" data (in other words, more information can be kept from him, so he is "out of the loop") to make the determination to act, adn we all have to go along with it. Couple this all with less oversight and less congressional review and you have a break down in the system.

I can forgive a mistake as well, but these guys came into office gunning for a war with Iraq. They were looking for an exscuse. Wolfwitz has said as much. The change in tone from "WMD" to "Regime Change for the sake of the poor down trodden Iraqi" leads me to suspect that we were lied to. They gambled by thinking they would find something, anything, by which to justify this war.

What have they found? Not a god damn thing. No mobile biological factories. No ready to go nuclear devices- hell, they found maybe a schematic, something that you can get online.

No, the only thing they found in violation were some missles that could a few dozen miles further than they were supposed to. Threat to our Western way of life my ass.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 15:16:03

The UN inspectors said there were no weapons. Bush and friends said they knew where they were. Bush and friends sent Powell, with what was immediately seen as false data, to the UN to prove their point.

I seem to recall you saying something about having done the right thing for the wrong reasons... Are the reasons now outweighing the "right?"

Iraq had been deceiving these inspectors for a decade, admitted by some of these very same inspectors. Then on the eve of war a few go in for a whirlwind tour, I'm not impressed. Couple that with the UN's clear lack of desire to do anything regardless and their word is shaky it best. Even if Hans Blix found a hangar with a flying saucer the size of Chicago armed with plutonium deathrays and piloted by Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin, I seriously doubt that Kofi would be jumping out of his seat demanding war. We didn't find the Death Star buried under the sand, damn. It doesn't mean nothing was there, or that we were deliberately decieved.

We have a policy now of preemptive war. That means if we think there is a threat, we act first. That means we are setting up a system where all a President needs is "just enough" data (in other words, more information can be kept from him, so he is "out of the loop") to make the determination to act, adn we all have to go along with it. Couple this all with less oversight and less congressional review and you have a break down in the system.

The other side is that we must be pre-emptive now. We don't have the luxury of watching our enemies mass ships across a vast ocean. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best choice, but someone had to take the fall.

And here's were I'm coming from. I believe Iraq had all kinds of nasty weaponry in various stages. But I don't believe that was the reason we went in. Maybe that's why I'm not outraged, I wasn't taken in by the alleged "lie" that was actually serving the bigger picture. Iraq is a beachhead. We weren't lied to about this, we just didn't get a full briefing. All the reasons were presented, but as a nation we focused on the wrong ones. We ignored the greater strategic picture because as a people we have short attention spans. Americans, in general, won't fight for something that will matter five years down the road, as a nation we want the sound bite, instant gratification response. Explaining the role of Iraq as a military staging area in the heart of the Middle East and as a free republic to destabalize autocratic Muslim regimes is not going to hold anyone's attention, but Weapons of Mass Destruction... Ohhh!

Just mention them together and you have a winner. It's a bit sly, but we decieved ourselves if there was any deception. To be a little miffed at falling for it is one thing, to be outraged that our leaders can play the game is a bit naive.

clark · 2004-05-05 15:28:30

I seem to recall you saying something about having done the right thing for the wrong reasons... Are the reasons now outweighing the "right?"

No Cobra, and your take is pretty much why I think we did the right thing to begin with. I do see a larger picture. I don't know if I can trust that is what's going on though.

And there in lies my problem with Bush. I think any other President will continue in iraq becuase of the "Big Picture", it makes sense on many levels, most importantly, becuase it makes the world a bit safer for "us" in many respects (far off on the horizon). So if I believe this, why would I willingly choose a President who purposefully lied for expediency for unknown reasons?

I'd rather the devil I don't know than this one. [shrug]

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-05 20:29:19

Yet again, I find myself saying I agree with CC.
Everyone seemed to believe there were WMD until it looked like President Bush (a.k.a. The Redneck Cowboy, The Grasping Oil Baron, The Prince of Darkness, or The Evil One) was going to go after them.
I think people tend to overlook the fact that America went into Afghanistan first, after 9/11. Iraq came later. The only thing wrong with that is the fact that it's taken a back seat to Iraq since. If it were up to me, I'd be policing and rebuilding Afghanistan with much more gusto.

But I am a little suspicious of the contrived naivety of some people here, who have climbed up on a soapbox of righteous indignation to proclaim they've been lied to by President Bush. The logic seems to be that, since the President has lied and been found unworthy, somebody trustworthy should be elected in his place. Somebody like, say, .. Senator Kerry. :hm: (Which lies are more heinous? Those of a Democrat or those of a Republican? Tricky moral question.)
My point here is not to denigrate Kerry and support Bush. It's not my country; it's not my call. All I'm saying is that politics is a dirty business and you're going to get lied to no matter who you vote for!

I'm like CC in that, for me, the WMD thing was just one aspect of a bigger picture. I expected we'd find evidence of WMD somewhere but Saddam had a long time to hide them, if he still had any, and I wasn't too disappointed when the search proved fruitless. Stabilising the Middle East was always the ultimate goal for me and Afghanistan and Iraq were the obvious places to start. A festering hotbed of extremists in the first and a genocidal maniac in the second were reason enough, after 9/11, to go in and try to clean the place up. If the new policy of pre-emption made a few arab countries nervous, so much the better. Decades of pussy-footing around only seems to have encouraged the most militant among them. With the arab world, it looks like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so why not get tough and see what the shake-out brings? At least the Taliban and the systematic mass murder of Iraqis are things of the past.

I, too, reiterate that 'heads would roll' if I were in charge, over this appalling treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I haven't the words to describe how I feel about this betrayal of Western liberal standards at this critical time in history. What were these criminals thinking of?!
???

Euler · 2004-05-05 20:48:04

Everyone seemed to believe there were WMD until it looked like President Bush (a.k.a. The Redneck Cowboy, The Grasping Oil Baron, The Prince of Darkness, or The Evil One) was going to go after them.

Well, I at least realized that the whole WMD thing was bogus even before the war. All of the "evidence" that Bush presented was circumstantial at best.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 21:26:28

Shaun: "Yet again, I find myself saying I agree with CC.
Everyone seemed to believe there were WMD until it looked like President Bush (a.k.a. The Redneck Cowboy, The Grasping Oil Baron, The Prince of Darkness, or The Evil One) was going to go after them."

*Shaun...wow. I'm surprised at your stance in this particular regard. That is not the impression I was under at all, concerning the general consensus pre-Iraq re: Bush & WMD's (but of course my impression could be wrong...). I didn't believe that way (i.e. that there were WMD's, until Bush went after them). No, I'm not taking these statements "personally" -- just responding. Maybe you are referring to no one bashing the Clinton administration's suspicions that Saddam was harboring WMD's...(but remember, we had to worry about Monica!)?

Shaun: "But I am a little suspicious of the contrived naivety of some people here, who have climbed up on a soapbox of righteous indignation to proclaim they've been lied to by President Bush."

*But isn't part of the problem Bush's own fault? He -did- repeatedly insist on WMD's being in Iraq...*now*. Donald Rumsfeld claimed to know precisely *where* they were. And when inspectors showed up (after the war began)...no WMD's. They may have been subsequently moved...but wouldn't there be evidence here and there, some at least? Maybe Bush was lied to/mislead/given faulty "intelligence." Maybe Saddam did have WMD's and managed to stash them elsewhere, even in Syria. Anything IS possible I suppose. But Bush came off as so self-assured and certain. It backfired on him, apparently. And is it possible that Saddam overplayed his hand (he seems to have liked playing mind games), perhaps -didn't- have lots of weapons, made things deliberately difficult for UN weapons inspectors prior to the war (i.e., kept kicking them out), tried (successfully, I'd say) to build and build this aura of suspicion and fear around himself -- and that all backfired on *him*?

Shaun: "The logic seems to be that, since the President has lied and been found unworthy, somebody trustworthy should be elected in his place. Somebody like, say, .. Senator Kerry. (Which lies are more heinous? Those of a Democrat or those of a Republican? Tricky moral question.)"

*Well, there is a perception in this nation that Demos = working/middle and lower classes and Repubs = wealthy/priviledged. But I suspect the truth is more along the lines of "they're all a bunch of crooks."

Shaun: "All I'm saying is that politics is a dirty business and you're going to get lied to no matter who you vote for!"

*Yes. But there can be a lesser of two evils, right? Not that I'm calling anyone "evil"...I just mean as opposite of a benefit/asset. :-\

Shaun: "I'm like CC in that, for me, the WMD thing was just one aspect of a bigger picture."

*That Bush kept focusing on, repeatedly. I recall feeling nearly hypnotized by how often he repeated the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" from September 2002 to March/April 2003. :-\ He is responsible for his own actions and statements, no?

Shaun: "I expected we'd find evidence of WMD somewhere but Saddam had a long time to hide them, if he still had any, and I wasn't too disappointed when the search proved fruitless."

*But if he did have them, where are they? Unaccounted for WMD's prior to the war, during the war, after the war...all should be the same level of concern, no? I wasn't surprised they didn't find WMD's, but I was hoping they would -- because of all the lives lost over there since the war started.

Shaun: "At least the Taliban and the systematic mass murder of Iraqis are things of the past."

*I sincerely hope so. [I have been in favor of the war in Afghanistan, as I've mentioned before].

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-05 21:29:02

Everyone seemed to believe there were WMD until it looked like President Bush (a.k.a. The Redneck Cowboy, The Grasping Oil Baron, The Prince of Darkness, or The Evil One) was going to go after them.
Well, I at least realized that the whole WMD thing was bogus even before the war. All of the "evidence" that Bush presented was circumstantial at best.

Getting "played" by Ahmad Chalabi, now that is a bigger problem.

Before the war I said, if there solid evidence of plutonium, go yesterday, don't ask no one, just go in fast and furious.

Bio-weapons? Mustard gas?

Far less serious and go slow, only with very broad international support.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ … .html]Edit to add link

and this tidbit

http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters/20 … index.html

which is interesting in light of this:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cf … ...Century

and a wrap up:

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/042204 … 42204.aspx

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-06 07:11:59

I don't think I'd make a very good politician because, when I put my views here, I seem occasionally to cause consternation among people I have a high regard for. This makes me regret, at times, that I ever bother to get involved in political threads at all.
Anyway, what I was saying was that, before the war, President Bush was sure of WMD in Iraq, so was Britain's Tony Blair, so was Australia's John Howard, so was the Aussie Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean (not known for his ardent admiration of the U.S.), and so were many others in the U.N., I'm told.
I personally weighed up the information I had concerning Saddam Hussein's character and his record in using WMD within his own borders. I weighed up the fact that the former Soviet Union had collapsed in some degree of financial chaos and that its scientists weren't getting regular pay cheques from Moscow in the 1990s. Some of those scientists were working on covert weapons systems and a proportion of them had no doubt succumbed to the temptation to sell what they knew to people they shouldn't have done deals with - people with large bank balances and ideological axes to grind. I remembered a story concerning dozens of 'suitcase nukes', which had gone missing from the Soviet inventory after the collapse of the iron curtain. Fortunately, their tritium triggers decay quickly, rendering those nukes inoperative. But the point is clear, that a great deal of dangerous material has been mismanaged since 1989 and unscrupulous people, with access to the resources of whole countries, may well have availed themselves of some of it.
So, my personal opinion at the time was that the notion of WMDs being secreted inside Iraq was certainly not an outrageous one. And I could see that other people were thinking along similar lines; even people who had no particular inclination to believe what President Bush said.
I don't regard myself as entirely stupid, nor as someone who believes everything I see on T.V. or read in the paper. So, it seems reasonable to me that, if I see enough circumstantial evidence honestly to believe a madman like Saddam Hussein may very well have WMDs hidden in his country, then perhaps other people genuinely believe the same thing. Hell! Maybe even George W. Bush really believed it when he told America about it!
The fact is, you can believe whatever you want to believe. You'll never be able to prove categorically that Bush, Blair, Howard and others didn't believe what they were preaching. My view is that their position was quite plausible and that they probably believed it themselves. (This leaves aside the whole question of whether they were all badly advised by incompetent intelligence organisations.)

For what it's worth, I say again, my personal view is that, in the wake of burgeoning overt terrorism against the West, the invasion of Iraq was justified in an effort to remove one very obvious loose cannon in a region of the world intricately involved in the sponsorship of terror. The war was legal, though I wish a further U.N. mandate could have been given - I blame unscrupulous elements within that organisation for the lack of that mandate (more on this as the case develops). And the war was indisputably moral, in that it removed the yoke of barbaric oppression from the Iraqi people. (And yes, if it were practicable, it would be very satisfying to remove other tyrants like Kim Jong Il and some of the theocratic despots distorting politics in Tehran etc.)

I think, sometimes, I could fall into the same mood as many here at New Mars' political threads and say: "It's a country on the other side of the world. It's not our business. They were no direct threat to us."
It would be easier to withdraw from the world, let it go, curl up in a ball and just get on with our lives.
But I don't believe in that. Despotism and terrorism are like a cancer in the world today, which cannot be ignored any more than a person can ignore a malignant melanoma on his/her leg. Sure, it's far from the heart or the brain but it will undoubtedly metastasise.
One of the first metastases of the cancer of Islamic terrorism spread to America in 2001. There will be others - not may be others, will be others - unless we systematically seek to cut out the main sources of the cancer, as and when we find them. I don't care how you have to do it, diplomatically or militarily, but it does have to be done.

As a last comment, I find it hard to stomach some of the barely disguised glee of some commentators in the wake of the coalition's difficulties in Iraq. This utterly immature schadenfreude, at a time when we should all be pulling together instead of bitching about who was right and who was wrong, causes me far more despair than any setback on the path to freedom and democracy for Iraqi people.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-05-04 00:15:16

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#102 2004-05-04 01:28:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#103 2004-05-04 02:12:29

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#104 2004-05-04 08:19:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#105 2004-05-04 08:43:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#106 2004-05-04 09:18:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#107 2004-05-04 11:54:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#108 2004-05-04 12:14:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#109 2004-05-04 12:51:59

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#110 2004-05-04 15:27:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#111 2004-05-05 05:52:21

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#112 2004-05-05 10:13:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#113 2004-05-05 12:38:35

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#114 2004-05-05 12:49:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#115 2004-05-05 13:54:08

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#116 2004-05-05 14:03:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#117 2004-05-05 14:41:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#118 2004-05-05 14:49:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#119 2004-05-05 15:16:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#120 2004-05-05 15:28:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#121 2004-05-05 20:29:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#122 2004-05-05 20:48:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#123 2004-05-05 21:26:28

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#124 2004-05-05 21:29:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#125 2004-05-06 07:11:59

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Board footer

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2