"Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked"

[Pindar]

Goodness, Pindar! You have destroyed the backroom leftist's argument with one article.

And all of it is true.

edit:Look! All the liberals can do is insult it without providing an actual argument!!!!!

Well done, friend. Well done.

I aim to please.

[Pindar]

Good piece, but about 18 months late.

Alas, too true.

[Pindar]

Liberal Champion

Hybrids. Tofu. Marijuana. Arbor Day. Gay Pride
Parades. Tie-Dye Shirts. Grown Men Crying.
These are the values that San Francisco was built on. We left the U.S.
for a reason. They can keep their SUVs and rifles.

Conservative Champion.

Meat. Gasoline. Rifles. Harley Davidson. The U.S. Marine Corps. Beer. Chicks. The 4th of July.
These are the values that America was built on. We left Europe for a reason. They can keep their tiny cars and hairy women

This is really funny.

[Pannonian]

Heh.


Cause we're allies bro. Because I like the British and I would fight for their interests almost as hard as I would fight for U.S. interests. Because I believe that Britain is the moral/ethical equivalent of the U.S. in foreign policy. Because I belive that the British are a fair and noble just-minded population. Because the success and happiness of the British people matters to me as an American personally. Because the success and security of the British people matter to us as a nation as well.

I thought the US fought a war against Germany because Germany declared war on the US, or did I remember my history wrong? Did Iraq declare war on Britain before we went in?

[Tribesman]

I aim to please.

Well Pindar in that case make sure the rifle range is empty whenever you attend , as your attempt to justify things by posting crap is so completely off target that you are shooting uprange with your posted article .
pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world
Errrr....the vast majority of voters in the referrendum had no access to the final draft(that was put forward) of the proposed unfinished document , the constitution is still not passed as many of the major components can not be agreed upon, some of those componentsof the constitution that have been agreed upon are about as far from liberal as Mercury is to Pluto(even in the arab world) .
and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations.

Absolute bollox , for starters a government some ofwhose rather major constituents consist of parties (elected with an almost total majority in their constituancies) which have the primary policy of breaking up the nation cannot be described as a "unity government" .
Then of course you have the legal problems about the legitimacy of this "government" , you do remember the timeframe for a new government don't you (though by the rest of the rubbish posted perhaps your memory is rather bad) ?
You know little things about a full government being formed , a full cabinet being appointed , ALL by a certain date which has now passed , the outcome of a failure to achieve this would result in a new election would it not ?
So guess what ?
If you want democracy and the rule of law then perhaps you had better celebrate because it is time for more of thosehistoric elections as the failure to appoint the cabinet posts (in three of the most important ministries in a country which is racked by strife where those ministries are of a pivotal role ) means that the "government" as such does not exist .

Then more utter ballderdash

[Tribesman]

but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.

Rubbish . Saying that you have intelligence that strongly suggests something is not lying , saying that you know something as a fact , that you know its location as a fact and that your information is bulletproof is lying .

"I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."

Yep they all knew that they had produced WMDs , many of them had helped them produce them , many of them had helped them use them(sorry Kurds you were backing Iran so tough #### on the gassing) , but the question was did they still have them and were they still producing them Hmmmmmm.....oh you have a German assumption there , great , what about the German statement that the evidence put forward was extremely unreliable ? you wouldn't want to mislead now would you Pindar ?
Now then , does that "we" relate to the German government (who had already told the US that the informationwas unreliable ) or to "all" the governments ? It cannot be the latter as many had publicly stated by that time that there was no evidence to support that assumption .

In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded.
Oh dear , I suppose the author forgot about McNamara then , he knew the information for the Vietnam war was false and he knew that certain members of the military and legislature knew it was false , and it was shown to be false before the war STARTED .

It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.

Well bugger me sideways , the arms inspectors have completed the reports and the US is no longer looking for WMDs .
Its a new century and no one even noticed , happy new century everyone

Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments
Where is that friend of the Tin-man ? he must be here somewhere , can anyone see him?
Ahem ......but , but , but , oh yes I knew it was there somewhere....wasn't the point that the politicials didn't schew or alter any of the analytical judgements , it was that they didn't present any of the anylytical judgements that ran contrary to their political view really the result is lots of

Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran and used mustard gas and nerve gas. A decade later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a massively destabilizing force in the Middle East; so long as Saddam was in power, rivers of blood were sure to follow.

Now lets see , It started a war against Iran with foreign backing , it used foriegn supplied WMDs with foriegn assistance and backing , It invaded Kuwait because it didn't want to repay the money that had financed its foriegn backed wars. Foriegn backing is a massivly destabilizing force in the Middle-East , with or without Saddam rivers of blood are certainly flowing .

To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003:
Xrae to post the ful speech Pindar
So full of holes and contradictions to reality it would be completely laughable if the outcome wasn't such a ballsup .

The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war.
Wow something in the article that is true , but the author is trying to debunk the truth ??????
NO WMDs , NO links to Al-Qaida, NO links to 9-11 , NO threat to America . But hey Saddam was linked to terrorists , terrorists who many decades ago attacked America , terrorists who the US government are now trying to re open their offices and allow their fundraising in the United States , terrorists whose "intelligence" assesment of Iran the US has recently put forward
So Pindar , in summary , I believe that the arguement that you have put forward would be described (in strictly legalese terms) as a pile of rotten tripe .
Or alternatively......GAH

[Louis VI the Fat]

For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred.

Sorry, but however gah the reasons for going to war may have been, the above is true. Whatever my criticisms, I will not condemn the war on moral grounds.

[Tachikaze]

Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran

. . . with US support.

The real terror has been in Sudan and Uganda. The US could have really done something positive there. Too bad those two nations don't have oil.

[makkyo]

ditto the gah, i didn't read the whole thing, but i think the problem with the war has been the lack of forsight of the withdrawl from iraq, and not the invasion itself...

Not having a withdraw plan and not not revealing one to your enemies are two every different things.

Rubbish . Saying that you have intelligence that strongly suggests something is not lying , saying that you know something as a fact , that you know its location as a fact and that your information is bulletproof is lying .

That would require the knowledge that your information was never bulletproof to begin with, and would therefore constitue lying about the first part anyways.
It was the CIA that made these reports. They make themselves out to be perfect (and they are the closest thing to it in this world). But does it equate to the president lying? I hardly think so.

wasn't the point that the politicials didn't schew or alter any of the analytical judgements , it was that they didn't present any of the anylytical judgements that ran contrary to their political view really the result is lots of

are you taking about the Vietnam war? or the war now?
3000 dead in 4 years is a miracle. Not too many wars with so many men have had so few casualties.

Now lets see , It started a war against Iran with foreign backing , it used foriegn supplied WMDs with foriegn assistance and backing , It invaded Kuwait because it didn't want to repay the money that had financed its foriegn backed wars. Foriegn backing is a massivly destabilizing force in the Middle-East , with or without Saddam rivers of blood are certainly flowing .

There was a little something called the COLD WAR going on. Every country had foreign backing, one way or another. But blame the men that write his checks? I disagree. The man that pulls the trigger is guilty in my opinion.
Either case, the way Europe drew up the middle-east after ww2 was what really caused things to go bad. Just like they did Africa. Dividing ethnic groups over imaginary lines doesn't see to work too well.

NO WMDs , NO links to Al-Qaida, NO links to 9-11 , NO threat to America.

Who is the US fighting right now I might ask?

terrorists who the US government are now trying to re open their offices and allow their fundraising in the United States , terrorists whose "intelligence" assesment of Iran the US has recently put forward

and I thought you suported facts and NOT assumptions.

[Joker85]

. . . with US support.

The real terror has been in Sudan and Uganda. The US could have really done something positive there. Too bad those two nations don't have oil.

Yeah, because Somalia and Bosnia/Kosovo had tons of oil...


oops...

[Tribesman]

That would require the knowledge that your information was never bulletproof to begin with, and would therefore constitue lying about the first part anyways.
Since they did not know that the evidence was bulletproof then to describe it as such is a lie .
It was the CIA that made these reports. They make themselves out to be perfect (and they are the closest thing to it in this world). But does it equate to the president lying? I hardly think so.

Did the CIA say they were facts or did the administration say they were facts ? The intelligence was estimates ,the administration presented them as facts , that is not just misleading , it is a lie .
See any difference Makkayo ....
we think he has WMDs
We Know he has WMDs
We think we might know where they are
We know where they are
4 of these 15 bunkers may contain active chemical weapons
these 4 bunkers in this compound contain active chemical weapons
we think there may be evidence that shows there may be mobile chemical laboritories
we know he has at least 7 mobile chemical weapons labs
we believe that someone who may or may not be an officer in the Iraqi army met someone who is linked to Al-Qaida
We have bulletproof evidence of links between Saddam and Al-Qaida .

The administration lied , no two ways about it .

3000 dead in 4 years is a miracle. Not too many wars with so many men have had so few casualties.
Oh sorry I didn't realise that the natives don't count as casualties , silly me Then again , perhaps you can explain to those Brits here on this forum about the findings that link the London bombings to the Iraq invasion , I suppose they must have just been misleading eh , but I suppose they don't count as only servicemen count as casualties , not some poor bugger sitting on a bus .

There was a little something called the COLD WAR going on. Every country had foreign backing, one way or another. But blame the men that write his checks? I disagree. The man that pulls the trigger is guilty in my opinion.

Try that in a court of law , the man that pays the man to pull the trigger is also guilty .
Either case, the way Europe drew up the middle-east after ww2 was what really caused things to go bad. ????????????
Europe drew up the middle east after WW2?????yeah right

and I thought you suported facts and NOT assumptions.
Hmmmmmm....facts, would you like to see the motions put forward to allow the MEK to re-open its US offices , to unfreeze its assets , to resume fundraising ?
Though I must admit that it did have me a bit stumped when I initially read the intelligence assessment that was put out , the "political"wing of the terrorist organisation has changed its name to get around the proscribed terrorist organisation blacklist

Who is the US fighting right now I might ask?

Well thats a hard one , there are so many groups out there now fighting in Iraq that it is really quite hard to see who is who , but I suppose that is what happens when some muppet invites every nutter in the world to "bring it on"

[JimBob]

3000 dead in 4 years is a miracle. Not too many wars with so many men have had so few casualties.

Check your numbers. There have been about 2,472 dead in four years, plus 17774 wounded. That adds up to 20246 casualties in four years.

[Xiahou]

Please note that my earlier post predicted these types of response. Mr. Wehner's belated attempts will fall on deaf ears and will have little or no relevance/effect in defending the President's efforts. To spend serious effort otherwise is wasting one's time.

I came to the conclusion awhile ago that the views on the run up to war have pretty much totally crystalized on both sides and that debating it with the usual suspects amounts to little more than shouting into the wind.

However, I did think it was a pretty well-written article, but unfortunately it was pretty much just preaching to the choir- as the only consideration it seems to have gotten from the other side thus far is a cacophony of 'gah's.

[Reenk Roink]

cacophony of 'gah's.

'Gah' is euphonic...

[Spetulhu]

There were AQ links to Iraq and Iraq equals Saddam. However, there have been no known links to Saddam, AQ and the 911 attacks. AQ operated freely in Iraq and that means Saddam supported them, if he didn’t he would have made an effort to remove them. There is a connection to AQ, Iraq and Saddam and to think otherwise is nonsense.

Really? I thought the only known group with AQ contacts operated in the north of Iraq, among the Kurds and in the No-Fly Zone. That would be a place Saddam had little to no control over after the 1991 war. Besides, a dictator who doesn't practice his religion and even keeps a christian in his government is certainly not a first pick for AQ support.

[Lemur]

However, I did think it was a pretty well-written article, but unfortunately it was pretty much just preaching to the choir- as the only consideration it seems to have gotten from the other side thus far is a cacophony of 'gah's.

And the choir loves to hear it, clearly. You write "cacophony of gahs" as though it were a bad thing. Pindar made his bed on the Gah issue, and I'm sure he'd be the first to say that we should all accept the consequences of our actions. He's doomed to quite a few more Gahs before this plays out.

[Tribesman]

I came to the conclusion awhile ago that the views on the run up to war have pretty much totally crystalized
And until such time as evidence emerges that the reasons given for going to war were true then they shall remain crystalised .

However, I did think it was a pretty well-written article
I agree , a wonderful piece of writing , sadly it is counter factual ,so a well written piece of rubbish .

unfortunately it was pretty much just preaching to the choir
Yep preaching to the choir who either don't understand that they have been sold the wrong song book , or who have convinced themselves that it is the right songbook they have and it is the orchestra who are playing the wrong tune despite repeated reminders from the conductor that it is the choir getting it wrong .

[makkyo]

as the only consideration it seems to have gotten from the other side thus far is a cacophony of 'gah's.

Agreed.

Did the CIA say they were facts or did the administration say they were facts ? The intelligence was estimates ,the administration presented them as facts , that is not just misleading , it is a lie .

Nothing is absolutly rock-solid in the intelligence area, but all things considered, that's the best they can offer. The only way they can have rock-solid evidence for the administation is to actually show these WMD's to the president. (exagerating.... but my point is made)
So assuming that absolutly perfect evidence is rarer than dimonds, does it mean that it amounts to nothing? Should you never use it if it's only 99% certain?

[AntiochusIII]

For a thread of this title and this claim it sure carries a lot of myth.

...man. Look at all the Partisans. Cheney must be proud.

Whatever. I'm just a passer-by. Y'all, please continue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My Thoughts:

Q: Did Bush lie?

A: Well, yes and no. He presented reasonable possabilities as facts, which could have been true and then would have been seen as facts. The fact that the slime got it wrong is their fault, they should have worked harder to convince the administration he didn't have weapons if that was what they thought. Added to all this I would point out there is a lot of desert out there and we bombed a lot of places. It was generally though before this that he did have some form of WMD. I would also point out that incerting agents into Arab countries is natoriously difficult so this would have been a question of analysis, and by the way, other countries do have their own Intelligence services and no one presented contrary evidence that I remember.

Q: Was it wrong to go to war to rmove Saddam?

A: No, it was wrong to wait ten years.

Q: Has reconstruction been handled badly?

A: Yes, and that fault lies with the Americans, I'm sorry guys but you suck at policing. The disbanding of the Army, the Guard and the Police virtually ensured that the country would fall apart. Added to which the general heavyhandedness of American troops contributed greatly to the escalation in violence. Remember those Iraqies that got shot in that school in 2003? It looked bad on my TV screen in Devon, it looked worse on the ground.

Q: Are we still at war?

A: No, this is a Police Action, and until the Administrations treat it as such it is going to drag on.

[cegorach]

My short comment.

I did and do support the war in Iraq and Polish involvement in the affair despite some obvious crappy mistakes with handling the situation after the fall of Saddam.

I think we will fully realise how important it was in around 10 years from now and I expect it will be seen as Reagan policy against the SU - remember anti-war protesters in the 80s in Europe especially in France and Germany ?

I don't care about WMDs - true that everyone thought there is some including all the government of the opposing countries and that the whole stuff about Saddam beeing able to attack the UK and so on. Simply the decision has to be made and I only regret it wasn't 10 years earlier.

Let me now describe a situation from the past.

Country A reacts to the agressive policy of its neigbour state B by enlarging garrison in the enclave it has according to an international treaty - partly to test the world's public opinion reactions.
The regime from the country B attacks this move by calling it irresponsible behaviour putting at risk its peaceful policy. The media from the USA, France and the UK atack country A calling it warmonger. Country B is known as an opressive dictatorship ruled by an extremist party yet public opinion calls country A the danger to the world's peaceful existence.
In secret country A proposes one of the most democratic countries of the world state C to launch a pre-emptive strike at country B to remove its extremist government, but state C refuses.
After that country A signs a non-agression pact with country B.

In 1939 country B - Germany - attacks country A - Poland - and while state C ( France) does nothing it overruns it with the help of the Soviet Union...


What is the lesson - pacifists can easily be used by totalitarian regimes so be careful with anti-war protesters they can be blind fools because noone likes to fight but sometimes it is necessary.

Regards Cegorach

[Scurvy]

My Thoughts:

Q: Did Bush lie?

A: Well, yes and no. He presented reasonable possabilities as facts, which could have been true and then would have been seen as facts. The fact that the slime got it wrong is their fault, they should have worked harder to convince the administration he didn't have weapons if that was what they thought. Added to all this I would point out there is a lot of desert out there and we bombed a lot of places. It was generally though before this that he did have some form of WMD. I would also point out that incerting agents into Arab countries is natoriously difficult so this would have been a question of analysis, and by the way, other countries do have their own Intelligence services and no one presented contrary evidence that I remember.

Q: Was it wrong to go to war to rmove Saddam?

A: No, it was wrong to wait ten years.

Q: Has reconstruction been handled badly?

A: Yes, and that fault lies with the Americans, I'm sorry guys but you suck at policing. The disbanding of the Army, the Guard and the Police virtually ensured that the country would fall apart. Added to which the general heavyhandedness of American troops contributed greatly to the escalation in violence. Remember those Iraqies that got shot in that school in 2003? It looked bad on my TV screen in Devon, it looked worse on the ground.

Q: Are we still at war?

A: No, this is a Police Action, and until the Administrations treat it as such it is going to drag on.

my thoughts exactly

[Pindar]

I came to the conclusion awhile ago that the views on the run up to war have pretty much totally crystalized on both sides and that debating it with the usual suspects amounts to little more than shouting into the wind.

However, I did think it was a pretty well-written article, but unfortunately it was pretty much just preaching to the choir- as the only consideration it seems to have gotten from the other side thus far is a cacophony of 'gah's.

When persuasion is no longer an issue the rhetorical thrust is meant to demonstrate the opposition's loyalty to position over substance, invective above argument and poor fashion sense. The bulk of the response has been illustrative.

[Pindar]

And the choir loves to hear it, clearly. You write "cacophony of gahs" as though it were a bad thing. Pindar made his bed on the Gah issue, and I'm sure he'd be the first to say that we should all accept the consequences of our actions. He's doomed to quite a few more Gahs before this plays out.

The gaggle is its own refutation.

[Pannonian]

When persuasion is no longer an issue the rhetorical thrust is meant to demonstrate the opposition's loyalty to position over substance, invective above argument and poor fashion sense. The bulk of the response has been illustrative.

So do you have an explanation of why Britain needed to be involved in the Iraq war? British interests weren't being threatened, the Iraqi army wasn't going outside its borders, none of Britain's allies were being attacked or threatened with attack. If you want to spend American blood and money to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq that's your prerogative, but what has it to do with us?

Before you drag up the WW2 comparisons, I seem to remember the US did not enter the war against Germany until Germany declared war on the US. Did Iraq declare war on Britain while I wasn't looking?

[Ironside]

What is the lesson - pacifists can easily be used by totalitarian regimes so be careful with anti-war protesters they can be blind fools because noone likes to fight but sometimes it is necessary.

What really annoys me about this war is, firstly it has been pushed forward in a way that makes you certain that the war wasn't for humanitarian issues and then use humanitarian issues as an issue on why you should support it. It's been about WMD, war on terror etc.
If he had given a statement that felt honest then it would have been different.
Secondly, this "well you didn't support the war, but now we're here so support it now" attitude. While it does have some merit, it still gives the feeling that someone starts something tough and troublesome against your will, then handles it so poorly that you'll need to help before everything goes to hell. Then the person in question will babble about your help being a proof of how right they were and if things goes well, they will take all the credit. After all it was they who had this "brilliant" idea.

I mean sure I'll help but only after I've tied him up up-side down, naked on the top of a flagpost with a big flag waving thanking him for his efforts and brilliant ideas.

BTW, I will make a great effort trying to fix the Iraqi mess if I can publically "thank" Bush for his efforts and brilliant ideas.
It might require some impopular ideas to be suggested to the senate and the US people, but I'll do my very best to fix that mess.

One other fun note: the article actually tries to argue the following:

In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.

It's argument here is that Bush is a 'serious' intellect? How very persuasive.

Well, he can't argue that Bush (and his administration) is a brilliant intellect as then this intellect might have predicted that the current situation would occur.

[Redleg]

So do you have an explanation of why Britain needed to be involved in the Iraq war? British interests weren't being threatened, the Iraqi army wasn't going outside its borders, none of Britain's allies were being attacked or threatened with attack. If you want to spend American blood and money to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq that's your prerogative, but what has it to do with us?

That is a question for Mr. Blair the PM of Britian not for a citizen of the United States. It seems someone is attempting to blame the United States for the actions of their own government. As it has been demonstrated some become so entrenched in their idealogue postion that the actual events become clouded in the rhetoric.

Before you drag up the WW2 comparisons, I seem to remember the US did not enter the war against Germany until Germany declared war on the US. Did Iraq declare war on Britain while I wasn't looking?

It seems the comparision has alreadly been made. Shall we discuss lend lease and the aspects of help that the United States provided to Britian before the United States declared war on Germany?

[Tribesman]

Nothing is absolutly rock-solid in the intelligence area, but all things considered, that's the best they can offer. The only way they can have rock-solid evidence for the administation is to actually show these WMD's to the president. (exagerating.... but my point is made)

Yes your point is made makkayo , nothing is rock solid in intelligence , but when it is presented as rock solid by politicains when it is not rock solid it amounts to a lie
Oh sorry the point you were trying to make is not the point that you made ...try again

When persuasion is no longer an issue the rhetorical thrust is meant to demonstrate the opposition's loyalty to position over substance, invective above argument and poor fashion sense. The bulk of the response has been illustrative.
Since your position Pindar , is entirely lacking in substance and your response has been very illustrative of your postion as someone who was sold a lemon as a pinapple and still insists that it is indeed a pineapple .despite the wealth of contradictory evidence calls into question your level of intelligence and your degree in stubborn refusal to face reality
Face it Pindar your false belief that your government (amongst others) did not mislead or downright lie to you over this conflict just does not float .

You do understand the meaning of the words "myth" and "debunked" don't you ?
Perhaps not
Oh yeah , I almost forgot ....GAH

[Xiahou]

Since your position Pindar , is entirely lacking in substance and your response has been very illustrative of your postion as someone who was sold a lemon as a pinapple and still insists that it is indeed a pineapple .despite the wealth of contradictory evidence calls into question your level of intelligence and your degree in stubborn refusal to face reality
Face it Pindar your false belief that your government (amongst others) did not mislead or downright lie to you over this conflict just does not float .:

Wait, let me fix that for you....

Since your position Tribesman , is entirely lacking in substance and your response has been very illustrative of your postion as someone who was sold a lemon as a pinapple and still insists that it is indeed a pineapple .despite the wealth of contradictory evidence calls into question your level of intelligence and your degree in stubborn refusal to face reality
Face it Tribesman your false belief that our government (amongst others) did not mislead or downright lie to you over this conflict just does not float .:

Much better.
Nice use of a personal attack though.

[Pindar]

So do you have an explanation of why Britain needed to be involved in the Iraq war? British interests weren't being threatened, the Iraqi army wasn't going outside its borders, none of Britain's allies were being attacked or threatened with attack. If you want to spend American blood and money to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq that's your prerogative, but what has it to do with us?

Before you drag up the WW2 comparisons, I seem to remember the US did not enter the war against Germany until Germany declared war on the US. Did Iraq declare war on Britain while I wasn't looking?

Hello,

Need? Each nation is amenable for its own decisions. Whatever need Britain opted for, and its attending rationale, is up to the British to decide. Ultimately, it is a question of values and interests. Such must be determined by each state alone.