"Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked" [Archive]

View Full Version : "Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked"

Pindar

05-23-2006, 19:29

This is from the Wall Street Journal's Editorial page: Opinion Journal

Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question [the Bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.

Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "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."

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.

The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments. Earlier this year, Mr. Gore charged that "CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House . . . found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases." Sen. Kennedy charged that the administration "put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis."

This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Among the findings: "The committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so." Silberman-Robb concluded the same, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." What the report did find is that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "riddled with errors"; "most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policy makers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war."

Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat. Howard Dean declared Iraq "was not a danger to the United States." John Murtha asserted, "There was no threat to our national security." Max Cleland put it this way: "Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs." Yet while we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.

Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told the Senate: "I actually think this may be one of those cases where [Iraq under Saddam Hussein] was even more dangerous than we thought." His statement when issuing the ISG progress report said: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities" that were part of "deliberate concealment efforts" that should have been declared to the U.N. And, he concluded, "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, "the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution."

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.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization. "The president now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact," according to Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."

The following day the New York Times editorialized: "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. . . . The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: 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. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.

Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives."

Rodion Romanovich

05-23-2006, 19:30

Gah

Scurvy

05-23-2006, 19:34

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...

Lemur

05-23-2006, 19:35

Agreed. This post definitely needs a Gah option.

Tribesman

05-23-2006, 19:56

Revisionist History
...well that bit is correct anyway

"Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations.
well you only have to see that to give it the big GAH .

Xiahou

05-23-2006, 20:23

"gah" the intellectual equivalent of answering an argument by farting.... :laugh4:

_Martyr_

05-23-2006, 20:29

"Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations."

The author's intellectual equivalent of having his head in the sand...

Divinus Arma

05-23-2006, 20:35

Seamus Fermanagh

05-23-2006, 21:23

Good piece, but about 18 months late.

Despite Mr. Wehner's efforts, public opinion has already adjudged that:

There were no WMD's.

Saddam was evil, but posed no immediate threat.

The Bush administration "rushed to judgement" in launching the invasion.

These viewpoints, however erroneous (and I believe they are) will persist and cannot be altered for the forseeable future. In time, historians will revise and re-evaluate things, probably concluding that Mr. Wehner is largely correct, but that will not occur for some time.

The Bush administration needed to be fighting this perception war with a full-court press a long time ago. Wish they'd booted Mac' a lot earlier -- apparently Snow can at least see the need to do something on this front.

solypsist

05-23-2006, 21:24

"debunked" article ~:rolleyes:

sorry WSJ, there is utterly no question whatsoever that the Bush Administration lied about the threat saddam posed. also, the nightmare scenario was nothing like anything the bush administration talked up.

the WSJ's thesis, is "the Bush administration did nothing funny with the intelligence, and the intelligence apparatus of the US, through no fault of it's own, dramatically overestimated saddam's buildup." whenever anyone went past the "yes/no" executive summary... they encountered the problem the CIA analysts encountered writing the NIE. the information was weak, and at the same time it said it would be ridiculous to think that saddam had rearmed, there was a small undercurrent of, "he could have super advanced weapons from the future... because we can't prove otherwise". any suggestion (from the intelligence community repudiating the intelligence the bush administration built their war claims on) otherwise fell on deaf ears. the bush administration had heard what they wanted, and tenet knew that their truth had little bearing on the zealotry displayed by cheney, and the singlemindedness of w. bush. then on the "yeah, there weren't any WMD, but he wanted them" the small problem with that, is Iran and North Korea have ACTIVE programs.

op/ed pieces are no better than blogs.

stalin

05-23-2006, 21:28

Any chance of a reader's digest version released?
Oh and GAH

Ironside

05-23-2006, 21:29

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. :2thumbsup:

Here's some itty bitty things that he forgets to mention.

The media went form ............................................. to OMG SADDAM GOT WMD AND IS READY TO USE THEM. HE ALSO TRYING TO GET NUKES AND CAN FIRE THEM ON BRITAIN IN 45 MIN

when it comes to the WMD issue. Now, compare that to Iran and North-Korea.
Notice that this wasn't even a simple media focus from the US, this was letting Colin Powell presenting questionable (and later proven false) evidence as facts for the UN council.

In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003:

On February 15, 2003, as a response to the imminent invasion, the largest ever world-wide protests took place with 6-10 million people in over 60 countries around the world.

Notice the dates. At this point he had argued since October 2002 about those WMD in a way that made most of the world quite certain that Bush wanted war. Liberation of the Iraqi people was only formed as an issue when the war was emminent and then still only mostly as a positive side-effect.

Don't have time to debate this more atm, but if you want to I can go into this deeper.

Oh, I've never argued that Bush lied to the public. What I'm arguing is that Bush started the hole debacle in October 2002 with the full intention of ending the Saddam issue (aka removing Saddam) once and for all, fully aware that war was the most likely option, with a considerble margin, to accomplish that goal. As a natural consequence, all information gathered and released by the Bush administration was focused onto accomplish war. No need to step outside those boundries and lie if you don't have to.

Pannonian

05-23-2006, 21:36

This is from the Wall Street Journal's Editorial page: Opinion Journal

Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives."
Is there any credible explanation of why British blood and treasure had to be spent to achieve this goal? If the White House wants freedom and democracy for Iraq, good on them, but why did we have to be involved? Blair certainly didn't say anything about freedom and democracy when he was justifying the war to Parliament in the vote before the invasion.

yesdachi

05-23-2006, 21:41

That is a great article. I read the entire thing. :yes:

Of course it reads like it was written for the Wall Street Journal, if he wants mainstream America to believe it he would have to put it into a “People” or “Star” format with some beauty tips and Britney Spears baby references intermingled. Having George Clooney or Bono read it would also help.

Sometimes I think if you were to give a plate of food to some starving people and tell them it was from the Bush administration they would starve to death. The same starving people would say with their last dying breath that the bush administration was only trying to keep them alive to torture them, rape them, and to steal their oil.

Vladimir

05-23-2006, 21:46

Lemur

05-23-2006, 21:47

So I guess Yesdachi's reply counts as another "Gah" vote.

yesdachi

05-23-2006, 22:00

So I guess Yesdachi's reply counts as another "Gah" vote.
I’d vote for GAH or Britney’s baby, they both make more sense than mainstream America’s inability to see past the hype.

Ser Clegane

05-23-2006, 22:04

mainstream America’s inability to see past the hype.

And that was apparently the reason for all this WMD and "Saddam is linked to AQ" nonsense - to have "mainstream America" buy into the war.

Lemur

05-23-2006, 22:05

So Yesdachi, if I'm understanding your original "gah or britney's baby" post, everyone who disagrees with the Bush admin is either fixated on celebrity culture or an unthinking Bush-hater who would rather eat poison than admit Bush was right about anything. Am I getting you right, here?

I'm just not sure which camp I fall into. Besides the Gah camp, of course.

Keba

05-23-2006, 22:08

"I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security."

Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives"

Just these two things from the article.

One: To actually threaten the US Saddam would have to get a clutch of ICBMs, and those things aren't exactly easy to hide, acquire or build. If you've ever seen one, those things are huge, and cost like you wouldn't believe. Plus, they are essentially more like a rocket than a missile. Now, he may be pouring a lot of his economy into the army and weapons, but nevertheless, just the infrastructure to actually threaten the US would be huge.

Two: now, now, you would't expect the deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives to actually say something bad about his boss. He's a bearoucrat, his career depends on people above him, and telling they made a mistake would not be healthy (for his career, I mean, we're past those days when you could just kill the messanger).

Oh, and officialy, my answer is :gah:.

Byzantine Prince

05-23-2006, 22:09

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!!!!!
It's obviously just well written propaganda.
"Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives."
What do you expect coming out of that. A bunch of former lawyers using misleading language.

It doesn't change the fact that Bush Administration lied and acted incompetently. They lied about the connection to Sept. 11, and they lied that Saddam had nukes, and soon that will cost America more lives than Sept.11 itself. It's true that Iraq is somewhat democratic now, but for how long? Once the US leaves, if it ever does, what makes you think they won't begin rigging elections again, or worse start a factional civil war that will completely destroy the place worse than it already is. And all this at what cost. All those lives for nothing. I think more than 10,000 innocent Iraqis are now dead from constant insurgency.

Lemur

05-23-2006, 22:14

It's true that Iraq is somewhat democratic now.
As Fareed Zakaria said (I'm paraphrasing), "Iraq has a new government, but the question is how relevant it is outside the Green Zone."

Kagemusha

05-23-2006, 22:17

What new does this article bring up? What new evidence it shows that would change the things Bush Government did? Maybe im loosing my skills to understand written english,becouse i dont see anything but a nicely written document to defend the Bush Administration.Words merely words.I say :gah:

Hurin_Rules

05-23-2006, 22:49

Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

Dear lord, you could feed all of Ghenghis Khan's cavalry for a decade on all those straw men.

Lets take just a few for starters: first, on the issue of whether the president misled the country into war:

The article cites the NIE, etc. What it neglects to mention is that the senate report on the 9/11 intelligence is only half complete. The second part, that deals with how the intelligence was used by the goverment, has not been written nor, apparently, even begun, because the Republicans who control the committee won't let it begin. You can read all about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

To summarize: no independent report has ever been published on how Bush et al. used the intelligence. That's is the real charge here, strawmen notwithstanding.

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.

BTW, Divinus, did you know that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, your signature is a virtual paraphrase of the theme from 'Team America: World Police'?

Divinus Arma

05-23-2006, 23:13

Divinus, did you know that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, your signature is a virtual paraphrase of the theme from 'Team America: World Police'?

It's meant to be facetious and poke fun at my own political inclination, although beer and chicks are certainly worth fighting for.

I have actually never seen the movie.

I suppose if I were liberal my sig would look like this:

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.

yesdachi

05-23-2006, 23:20

And that was apparently the reason for all this WMD and "Saddam is linked to AQ" nonsense - to have "mainstream America" buy into the war.
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.

I also think there were WMD’s in Iraq and that they were moved prior to our invasion. An invasion that was known about for weeks if not months before it happened. Is it soooo out of the realm of possibility that the WMD’s were moved? Like to Syria? That could certainly explain why they were not found in Iraq. There is practically as much evidence indicating that they were moved to Syria as there was that indicated they were in Iraq in the first place but for some reason “mainstream America’s inability to see past the hype” that bush lied to us has made it impossible for the masses to believe that there could have been other options than, found WMD in Iraq = Bush told truth & didn’t find WMD in Iraq = Bush Lied, lets hate him and everything he ever does period do not cross go do not collect $200 that’s it he is the antichrist done.

Id suggest that people take off their (patent pending) “bush lied glasses” and looked at things without the jaded hatred for the man and you might see that everything the administration has done, has not been wrong or a lie.

Could anyone answer the question… Could there have been WMD’s in Iraq that were moved prior to our invasion? The answer has to be yes. Were there? We may never know, but that doesn’t make it nonsense or bush a lier.

System check: I may be ranting. ~D I have written this last half quickly, I just received a call that my grandfather has been taken to the hospital, I am on my way there now. Please wish him well.

Pannonian

05-23-2006, 23:42

*sigh* Doesn't anyone remember that Saddam not only violated the Gulf War cease fire AND tried to kill a former U.S. President (via suicide bomber, aka: TERRORISM)? Just because some weak fool who was more concerned about getting his nob polished than foreign policy did nothing doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold Saddam accountable.
Why should it matter to Britain whether or not Saddam tried to kill a US president, or if Clinton was more interested in having his knob polished than foreign policy? Is there any credible reason why Britain should have been dragged into this venture?

Seamus Fermanagh

05-23-2006, 23:44

It doesn't change the fact that Bush Administration lied and acted incompetently. They lied about the connection to Sept. 11, and they lied that Saddam had nukes, and soon that will cost America more lives than Sept.11 itself. It's true that Iraq is somewhat democratic now, but for how long? Once the US leaves, if it ever does, what makes you think they won't begin rigging elections again, or worse start a factional civil war that will completely destroy the place worse than it already is. And all this at what cost. All those lives for nothing. I think more than 10,000 innocent Iraqis are now dead from constant insurgency.

Just these two things from the article.

One: To actually threaten the US Saddam would have to get a clutch of ICBMs, and those things aren't exactly easy to hide, acquire or build. If you've ever seen one, those things are huge, and cost like you wouldn't believe. Plus, they are essentially more like a rocket than a missile. Now, he may be pouring a lot of his economy into the army and weapons, but nevertheless, just the infrastructure to actually threaten the US would be huge.

What new does this article bring up? What new evidence it shows that would change the things Bush Government did? Maybe im loosing my skills to understand written english,becouse i dont see anything but a nicely written document to defend the Bush Administration.Words merely words.I say :gah:

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.

Byzantine Prince

05-23-2006, 23:48

Why does anyone want to defend this idiot of a president? It confounds me. :dizzy2:

Divinus Arma

05-23-2006, 23:55

Why should it matter to the U.S. whether or not Hitler tried to bomb and invade the Islands? Is there any credible reason why the U.S. should have been dragged into this venture?

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.

:2thumbsup:

:unitedstates: :unitedkingdom:

Pindar

05-24-2006, 00:51

Pindar

05-24-2006, 00:53

Good piece, but about 18 months late.

Alas, too true.

Pindar

05-24-2006, 00:54

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. :2thumbsup:

Pannonian

05-24-2006, 01:25

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.

:2thumbsup:

:unitedstates: :unitedkingdom:
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

05-24-2006, 01:26

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

05-24-2006, 02:24

:laugh4: 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:idea2: 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 .:book:

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 .:oops:

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 :balloon2:

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:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :no: :skull: really the result is lots of:skull: :skull: :skull:

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:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So full of holes and contradictions to reality it would be completely laughable if the outcome wasn't such a ballsup .:furious3:

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 :juggle2:
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 .:2thumbsup:
Or alternatively......GAH

Louis VI the Fat

05-24-2006, 02:51

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

05-24-2006, 03:05

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

05-24-2006, 03:16

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. :book:

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 .
:inquisitive:
That would require the knowledge that your information was never bulletproof to begin with, and would therefore constitue lying about the first part anyways. :dizzy2:
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 :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: really the result is lots of :skull: :skull:
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. :book:

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. :wall:

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. :juggle2:

Joker85

05-24-2006, 03:53

. . . 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...:idea2:

Tribesman

05-24-2006, 04:10

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:dizzy2: 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 :dizzy2:

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 :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

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":oops:

JimBob

05-24-2006, 04:20

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 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm) wounded. That adds up to 20246 casualties in four years.

Xiahou

05-24-2006, 05:08

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

05-24-2006, 05:24

cacophony of 'gah's.

'Gah' is euphonic...

Spetulhu

05-24-2006, 05:45

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. :oops:

Lemur

05-24-2006, 05:55

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

05-24-2006, 07:51

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

05-24-2006, 13:25

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

05-24-2006, 14:18

:inquisitive: For a thread of this title and this claim it sure carries a lot of myth. :dizzy2:

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

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

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-24-2006, 14:34

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

05-24-2006, 15:44

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.:book:

Regards Cegorach

Scurvy

05-24-2006, 16:06

Pindar

05-24-2006, 17:30

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

05-24-2006, 17:32

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

05-24-2006, 17:47

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

05-24-2006, 18:14

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.:book:

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. :2thumbsup:
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. :book:

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. :laugh4:

Redleg

05-24-2006, 18:49

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

05-24-2006, 19:05

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:no:

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 :no:
Oh yeah , I almost forgot ....GAH:2thumbsup:

Xiahou

05-24-2006, 19:20

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. :dizzy2:
Nice use of a personal attack though. :no:

Pindar

05-24-2006, 19:31

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.

Pannonian

05-24-2006, 19:32

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.

It means that the points in Pindar's OP have nothing to do with the war. We do not care about how things are going in Iraq. We expect to go to war to defend ourselves (Falklands), defend our interests, or defend our allies (Afghanistan). We will also go to war in service of the UN (Kuwait), or to prevent genocide (Kosovo). None of these reasons apply to Iraq, so don't use the OP as an argument to support the Iraq affair - they're irrelevant. Why the hell are we in Iraq in the first place?

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?
Didn't we pay for that? I seem to remember Churchill, Eden, Keynes and whoever else was involved going nuts over the price demanded, with Churchill accusing Roosevelt to his face (as recounted by Elliott Roosevelt) of dismantling the British empire as the price of American aid. According to Elliott, that was precisely FDR's aim.

BTW, do you want to discuss the exchanges of technology during WW2, with particular reference to Tube Alloys and the McMahon Act? Most estimates of the technology "exchanges" (which only ever went west across the Atlantic, never east) value them at at least several times the total Lend Lease and Marshall Aid combined.

Tribesman

05-24-2006, 19:35

An interesting response Xiahou , entirely lacking in substance , no surprise really as the position which you take has absolutely nothing to back it up .
But hey I am sure you are really enjoying sucking on that lemon , it is not bitter at all is it ?
If you really close you mind I am sure it could almost seem like a real genuine juicy pineapple .
But its still a lemon .:stupido:

BTW if you want to change peoples statements then do it properly , you might want to alter that last line:oops: 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 .: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Pindar

05-24-2006, 19:35

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

This is not an argument. It does illustrate my point nicely however. Well done.

Tribesman

05-24-2006, 19:47

Hurin_Rules

05-24-2006, 19:49

Tribesman, don't even bother: you're just feeding the trolls.

It's not even worth a GAH!

Redleg

05-24-2006, 19:49

It means that the points in Pindar's OP have nothing to do with the war. We do not care about how things are going in Iraq. We expect to go to war to defend ourselves (Falklands), defend our interests, or defend our allies (Afghanistan). We will also go to war in service of the UN (Kuwait), or to prevent genocide (Kosovo). None of these reasons apply to Iraq, so don't use the OP as an argument to support the Iraq affair - they're irrelevant. Why the hell are we in Iraq in the first place?

Different subjects there is not a correlation between what you initially stated and this position. You stated this 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 question is best addressed by a British citizen to the leadership of that nation.

You continue to miss the boat. An American citizen nor the American President can answer the question. The answer must come from your own government.

Didn't we pay for that? I seem to remember Churchill, Eden, Keynes and whoever else was involved going nuts over the price demanded, with Churchill accusing Roosevelt to his face (as recounted by Elliott Roosevelt) of dismantling the British empire as the price of American aid. According to Elliott, that was precisely FDR's aim.

BTW, do you want to discuss the exchanges of technology during WW2, with particular reference to Tube Alloys and the McMahon Act? Most estimates of the technology "exchanges" (which only ever went west across the Atlantic, never east) value them at at least several times the total Lend Lease and Marshall Aid combined.

Lets see your point was not to compare with WW2, however I do see that you have fallen into the trap that you have laid for others.

There is no comparing WW2 to Iraq.

Unless one is willing to address appeasement and dictorships. Other then that all other comparisions are rather mote.

Pannonian

05-24-2006, 19:53

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.
So it's our fault we got conned into a war which was none of our business. Thanks for making it plain.

To further the parallel with WW2, perhaps Blair should send the bill for our soldiers to Washington, perhaps demand that New York State should be handed over in return for our deployment thus far.

Redleg

05-24-2006, 19:57

I always get a laugh out of the accusations of President Bush lied. Its rather humorous in a sad pathic way. Politicans by their very nature use colorful words to sell their agenda and their ideas.

However for those who think President Bush flat out lied - care to explain this report.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Otherwise know as the Duefler Report...

Tribesman

05-24-2006, 19:57

It's not even worth a GAH!

I disagree Hurin , this "myth debunking" is worth loads of GAHGAHGAH or perhaps even GAH
Any time baseless bullexcrement is posted denying indisputable facts it is always worth a reply .~:cheers:

Pannonian

05-24-2006, 20:01

Different subjects there is not a correlation between what you initially stated and this position. You stated this 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 question is best addressed by a British citizen to the leadership of that nation.

You continue to miss the boat. An American citizen nor the American President can answer the question. The answer must come from your own government.
In which case Pindar's OP doesn't address the anti-war side in general, but only the US side. If his arguments suffice to demolish the American anti-Iraq war cause, it certainly does not do so for the British anti-war cause. Why the hell are we in Iraq? I don't mind sending troops when our allies are attacked or threatened, as with Afghanistan, but who was Iraq threatening?

Lets see your point was not to compare with WW2, however I do see that you have fallen into the trap that you have laid for others.

There is no comparing WW2 to Iraq.

Unless one is willing to address appeasement and dictorships. Other then that all other comparisions are rather mote.
Appeasement of what? What was Iraq demanding that we were willing to appease? How is it possible to appease without there being any demands to appease?

Pindar

05-24-2006, 20:03

This is not an argument. It does illustrate my point nicely however. Well done.

Pindar , you have no point and no arguements , facts speak for themselves .
You appear to be very delusional with your refusal to accept reality .
Its rather sad really .
Oh yeah ...... GAH

This is not an argument either.

Actually, I did and do have a point. It was explained and you have illustrated it quite nicely. The arguments are found in the initial piece.

Tribesman

05-24-2006, 20:07

Reenk Roink

05-24-2006, 20:08

Oh boy, it's happening again...:rolleyes:

And once again, nothing new is brought to the table.

Lemur

05-24-2006, 20:09

The gaggle is its own refutation.
To which I wish you a hearty Gah. You may love your gaggle metaphor, but if you've ever tangled with an angry goose, you'll know how dangerous it can be. Prepare for prolonged pecking, lawyer.

Pindar

05-24-2006, 20:10

So it's our fault we got conned into a war which was none of our business. Thanks for making it plain.

Thus does the sword of Damocles hang. Insofar as Britain is its own, then the burden of decision making is there.

Brenus

05-24-2006, 20:19

“The disbanding of the Army, the Guard and the Police virtually ensured that the country would fall apart.” Especially when they keep their weapons… Not it would have made a difference, because all at least the male population had and still have weapons in Iraq…

“Police Action”. That were the words of the French Government from 1954 to 1963 during the Algerian War for Independence. If it is a police action, put Police Officer in charge…:sweatdrop:

“remember anti-war protesters in the 80s in Europe especially in France and Germany”: Not true, President Mitterrand declared: “The Pacifists are in the West, but the SS20 (nuclear Tactical Missiles) are in the East”. Hardly against the deployment of the Pershing, was it?:laugh4:

“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...”
Sorry I don’t understand. Is it a style exercise or you really thing it was what happened?
The reality was: In 1939 country B –Germany-, having signed a secret Pact with country D –Soviet Union- attack country A-Poland-. Against its own immediate interests, country C -France-, fulfilling its Treaty, in full agreement with country E –UK- declared war to Country B and paid 4 years of occupation because doing it.

“I always get a laugh out of the accusations of President Bush lied. Its rather humorous in a sad pathic way. Politicans by their very nature use colorful words to sell their agenda and their ideas.”
Yeap, and it is called politic. It was used before, and it will be. Is it moral? No. Do you lead a country, even a small one with morality? No. And I am sorry to say it, but to choose to follow a man knowing he lied is worst than the man who just achieved his goals, whatever they were/are…

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-24-2006, 20:27

Some more thoughts from me.

1. Niether hardline position is entirely correct, there is an arguement on both sides, I suggest you all accept this, or else you are just trolling.

2. Bush is smarter than you think, what was the #1 complaint about Kerry?

3. The issue revolves around there being no weapons found. Let me ask you this: What if weapons had been found? Then the boot would be on the other foot, wouldn't it?

4. As I said before no one was able to provide intelligence that suggested Iraq didn't have weapons, in fact pretty much everyone thought he was hiding something, and he was. He was hiding the fact that he was only holding a pair of 2s. In 2002 the arguement wasn't about whether the weapons were there, it was only ever about what to do with them. As I said, the CIA is not the only slime in the world.

5. Personal attaks demonstate a lack of sound arguement, regardless of whether there is one or not, as do offensive smilies.

Brenus

05-24-2006, 20:39

“As I said before no one was able to provide intelligence that suggested Iraq didn't have weapons” It is difficult to prove I don’t have money. I can’t show the absence, the lack of. That is NOT a valid argument.

“Let me ask you this: What if weapons had been found?” Well, that is the bulk of the problem isn’t it? NO weapons has been found, therefore...

Redleg

05-24-2006, 20:44

However for those who think President Bush flat out lied - care to explain this report.

Hey Redleg , want to play a game ?
Take Georges speech from march 18 '03 and see haw many flat out lies you can spot~;)
Its a spreech about Iraq in case you didn't guess .
Have fun .:juggle2:
But of course , you know politicians lie don't you , its part of the job .

You first. However provide supporting evidence on what the lie consists of and here is the kicker prove that the statement was a known lie before it was stated. Colorful adjectives used by the different adminstration folks can be indications that misleading information was included in the statement, but - only if one can prove that the overall statement was known to be false at the time that it was stated.

This is why there has been no serious call for impeachment - no clear cut lie can be proven given the information that is availiable. So all one has with calling many of the statements lies is thier own opinion and idealogue stance.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-24-2006, 20:47

2. Bush is smarter than you think

For Hurin or Tribesman, evidence that anything aside from Bush's medula works would confirm this statement...and surprise them. They want him out of office only slightly less than they want Cheney in.

3. The issue revolves around there being no weapons found. Let me ask you this: What if weapons had been found? Then the boot would be on the other foot, wouldn't it?

Not at all. Critics of the Iraq invasion have always argued that: a) Iraq had no practical means of delivering such weapons even if they had existed, b) no way whatsoever to directly attack any of the partners in the 'coalition of the willing," aside from Kuwait and c) that the UN inspections teams would have found any significant WMD efforts and put the kabosh on them if given time to let the process work. Had weapons been found, therefore, Bush would not have been attacked as a liar, but would have been attacked as a fearmonger and imperialist. The presence of refined nuclear materials and/or nuclear weapons, and this threat alone, would have silenced criticism.

4. As I said before no one was able to provide intelligence that suggested Iraq didn't have weapons, in fact pretty much everyone thought he was hiding something, and he was. He was hiding the fact that he was only holding a pair of 2s. In 2002 the arguement wasn't about whether the weapons were there, it was only ever about what to do with them. As I said, the CIA is not the only slime in the world.

Iran critics have argued that much of the intelligence data was mixed prior to the attack. Specific reports of WMD's and programs to develop same were noted -- but generally by defectors whose own "value" would be enhanced if they claimed information about something really scary. Other reports were unconfirmed, contradictory, or innaccurate. According to critics, the Neo-cons heard what they wanted to hear, rushed to judgement, and then lied about and/or ignored contradictory evidence that came through the pipeline later in the process. I doubt such critics would argue that the CIA is particularly evil, though they would probably point out that the USA was the only country to seek to invade Iraq based on this evidence.

5. Personal attaks demonstate a lack of sound arguement, regardless of whether there is one or not, as do offensive smilies.

Ah, but they are so hard to resist, no? After all, anyone who does not share your opinion of an issue must be of lesser intelligence -- poor devil.:laugh4:

Redleg

05-24-2006, 20:48

In which case Pindar's OP doesn't address the anti-war side in general, but only the US side. If his arguments suffice to demolish the American anti-Iraq war cause, it certainly does not do so for the British anti-war cause. Why the hell are we in Iraq? I don't mind sending troops when our allies are attacked or threatened, as with Afghanistan, but who was Iraq threatening?

Again one must ask their own government about such things.

Appeasement of what? What was Iraq demanding that we were willing to appease? How is it possible to appease without there being any demands to appease?

Review the time period from 1991 to 2003 - you will discover what appeasement was being conducted.

Pannonian

05-25-2006, 00:47

Review the time period from 1991 to 2003 - you will discover what appeasement was being conducted.
What demands did Iraq make during the 1991-2003 period that were appeased? And don't ask me to look it up - you brought up the issue of appeasement, the onus is on you to bring up examples of such.

Redleg

05-25-2006, 01:59

What demands did Iraq make during the 1991-2003 period that were appeased? And don't ask me to look it up - you brought up the issue of appeasement, the onus is on you to bring up examples of such.

THere is no onus on me to do anything.

But I will give you a small clue. Look into the history, what a couple of nations wanted in regards to the reduction of sanctions without the Iraqi regime having meant the conditions of the United Nations Resolution nor the initial cease fire...

Seamus Fermanagh

05-25-2006, 04:17

To further the parallel with WW2, perhaps Blair should send the bill for our soldiers to Washington, perhaps demand that New York
State should be handed over in return for our deployment thus far.

Hmmm. An idea here, but you'd have to take all of NY's politicians too.:laugh4:

Tachikaze

05-25-2006, 06:10

I've said this before a while back. It seems that making valid points and providing sound evidence is not going to make any difference. I find that the real distinctions between the two sides in this argument, as with most, is attitude and values, not evidence.

Kanamori

05-25-2006, 06:33

cegorach

05-25-2006, 06:50

[QUOTE=Brenus]

[B]“remember anti-war protesters in the 80s in Europe especially in France and Germany”: Not true, President Mitterrand declared: “The Pacifists are in the West, but the SS20 (nuclear Tactical Missiles) are in the East”. Hardly against the deployment of the Pershing, was it?

-----------> Yes anti war protesters, not governments fortunatelly. Still governments allowed the SU to live for little longer buying its oil and gas this way postponing SU destruction for couple of years.

“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...”
Sorry I don’t understand. Is it a style exercise or you really thing it was what happened?
The reality was: In 1939 country B –Germany-, having signed a secret Pact with country D –Soviet Union- attack country A-Poland-. Against its own immediate interests, country C -France-, fulfilling its Treaty, in full agreement with country E –UK- declared war to Country B and paid 4 years of occupation because doing it.

OK. Poor France and honourable UK thing, how nice I thought that alliances are to be fulfilled - and it DIDN'T fulfill it you should read about the subject more i.e. promised offensive on the 15th day after declaration of war. I still can't get how after over 60 years from 1939 it is so conveniently put and against its own immediate interests:inquisitive: hmmm great idea m8, I am sure that these 10 divisions in 1939 were so offending that France and the UK wanted more serious challenge so waited untill 80 more were moved and humilated them.
Although the broken traties and crappy allies are not the subjet of this thread
I don't really like when someone puts fact in wrong order.:no:

Papewaio

05-25-2006, 07:08

OK. Poor France and honourable UK thing, how nice I thought that alliances are to be fulfilled - and it DIDN'T fulfill it you should read about the subject more i.e. promised offensive on the 15th day after declaration of war. I still can't get how after over 60 years from 1939 it is so conveniently put and against its own immediate interests:inquisitive: hmmm great idea m8, I am sure that these 10 divisions in 1939 were so offending that France and the UK wanted more serious challenge so waited untill 80 more were moved and humilated them.
Although the broken traties and crappy allies are not the subjet of this thread
I don't really like when someone puts fact in wrong order.:no:

So you are saying that France and UK were crappy allies declaring war against one of the superpowers of the day for invading Poland. And what makes them crappy was because they couldn't instantly stop Germany?

Neither could the USSR. And it finally took an alliance of UK, USSR, USA and the nations of the Commonwealth half a decade to defeat the Axis.

Major Robert Dump

05-25-2006, 10:39

cegorach

05-25-2006, 14:09

So you are saying that France and UK were crappy allies declaring war against one of the superpowers of the day for invading Poland. And what makes them crappy was because they couldn't instantly stop Germany?

--------------> Couldn't or maybe didn't try ? And they were superpowers so much as Germany - it used 85 % of its ground forces to attack Poland saving token force to cover western border - a gamble but paid off because nothing happened in the west - according to the promises of France the major offensive was supposed to be launched 15 days after the declaration of war, yet nothing happended French army retreated after losing 100 men on mines, so did the British bombers throwing leaflets over Germany - not together because they didn't want to hurt anyone - official statement.:juggle2:

Neither could the USSR. And it finally took an alliance of UK, USSR, USA and the nations of the Commonwealth half a decade to defeat the Axis.

--------> What axis ? IN 1939 Italy, Japan and others didn't fight at all, unless Slovakia ( which sent 3 divisions in 1939) is enough to declare it Axis.

And the SU - I have nothing against them not helping in 1939 - they were enemies not allies, I don't expect the SU to help in 1939 so much as I do not expect it from Hitler.
Simply - I don't get it what is SU doing in the statement :inquisitive: it is somehow a mystery to me. Can you explain ?

Redleg

05-25-2006, 14:40

“I always get a laugh out of the accusations of President Bush lied. Its rather humorous in a sad pathic way. Politicans by their very nature use colorful words to sell their agenda and their ideas.”
Yeap, and it is called politic. It was used before, and it will be. Is it moral? No. Do you lead a country, even a small one with morality? No. And I am sorry to say it, but to choose to follow a man knowing he lied is worst than the man who just achieved his goals, whatever they were/are…

Care to guess how many Presidents in the United States have lied while in office? Care to guess how many Presidents have been shown to have lied in office?

Then pick any democratic government and its leader and ask the same question.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-25-2006, 14:50

Hmmm...Monastery stuff creeping in here....:2thumbsup:

UK and France honored the first portion of their defense agreement with Poland in 1939 by declaring war and mobilizing.

Why did they not attack on day 15 as had been promised?

1. Not really ready.

Commanders on the ground were reluctant to attack a fortified position on limited preparation with an army they viewed as not even half-prepared. The lesson of Russia's on-time attack beginning day 15 of War One -- and the debacle of Tannenberg that resulted -- must have played on more than one mind. Such reluctance may have been overcome by staunch political leadership (arguments as to how much of this either possessed at the time vary), but then we have...

2. Stunned by the pace of modern conflict.

By Sept. 15th, the battle in Poland appeared to have been decided -- the commitment to attack and draw pressure away from Poland was predicated on the notions of conflict persisting from War One, where few dedicated defenders were beaten, and never rapidly. Blitzkrieg was psychologically stunning. Under such conditions, the Western Allies may well have considered any day 15 effort as simply "throwing good money after bad" in that it would be too late to actually help Poland and would only decrease their own forces prior to the inevitable battle in the West. The stunning impact of the blitzkrieg rendering the Western Allies unwilling to attack was very much exacerbated by....

3. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union.

On Sept. 17th, just 14 days after the Western Allies declared war, the Soviets decided that Germany had won and began their invasion to collect the spoils owed them in the secret portion of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. This was immediately prior to the ostensible kick-off date for the Western counter-punch and could not have had anything but a chilling effect. Poland, fighting valiantly but inneffectively against the German blitz from the North, South and West now had a second Great Power enemy slamming in from the East. Any rational assessment would have to have concluded that the destruction of Poland was a foregone conclusion.

Ceg, from your perspective I can well understand your apparent bitterness. Recognize that any failure to act was more a result of being completely out of their depth in coping with the unfolding realities of then-modern war more than any lack of regard for the Polish people. I say this with some regard, as I have no doubts that my mother's kinfolk (Dombrowski) were involved and paid the price.

Tachikaze

05-25-2006, 15:34

Except for the fact that most Americans, at the time, justified the war on the factthat saddam, a crazy man, had nuclear weapons. Oops, those were bogus along with all of the other *facts*. There are many dictators outther and there has been no bombs thrown against them.:help: It seems like a very singular attack.
Of course, I see it your way. But the conservatives will look at the same information differently. Because their values differ, they will use different justifications and reasoning.

This call for more evidence and support seems to go nowhere.

Louis VI the Fat

05-25-2006, 15:52

No amount of arguing is going to change the fact that we are there and must see it through.

The question is, based on what we have found post-invasion and even based on what we thought we knew but later turned out to not be completely true, was all of this still worth a war? It is only further complicated by poor planning.

Perhaps the more educated public might have been able to assess the evidence we had and thought we had, and came to the conclusion that war was worth it. But from the hype leading up to the war it was awful easy for paranoid joe regular to decipher that Iraq had big nukiller missles aimed at us and was sending Bin Laden moneygrams. Subtle as those insinuations may have been, its a hollow opinion many held, which would explain the huge shift in public opinion about the administration from one extreme to the other. Someone inferred something they werent supposed to, and now they are mad they were "lied to."

I think they "myths" the article dispells are the ones believed by uninformed people, uninformed liberals in most cases. The politicians who perpetuate the myths are aiming for the lowest common denominator. We have those in both parties, and liberals often shoot down "myths" from the right that were only ever believed by uninformed conservatives aka the Toby Keith Shock and Y'all crowd.

All this being said, based on what I thought I knew and what I know now, I still think a gung-ho invasion was not the right choice, and is never the right choice unless time is of the essence, which it wasn't.

Iraq was a problem that festered for 10 years, and I honestly think that a decade of inaction and sidestepping was replaced with a policy just as ridiculous and uncreative.Great post! Shame it should come so late in the discussion, not getting the attention it deserves.

Now to off-topic Poland 1939 :

'broken treaties and crappy allies'

Yes, the treaty was broken. Because the UK and France promised more than they could deliver. We didn't have 8000 divisions ready to overrun Germany and march all the way too Moscow before winter. A realistic assesment of the situation in Europe in 1939, then and now, leads to the conclusion that was reached: the fate of Poland must depend on the outcome of the war at large.

Frustrating for Poland? Sure. A betrayal? No.

The UK was allied to France too, their fates combined. Was it frustrating to see the UK abandon the continent in 1940? Sure. Was it a betrayal? No again. What were they to do, eh?

In both cases the partners did go on to fight a bitter war, honouring the alliance, and paying a high price for it.

cegorach

05-25-2006, 18:02

I thought everyone knows about it or is willing to check but:

" On August 25 the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to Polish-French alliance. Like the “guarantee” of March 30, the Anglo-Polish alliance committed Britain only to the defence of Polish independence. It was clearly aimed against German aggression. In case of war, United Kingdom was to start hostilities as soon as possible; initially helping Poland with air raids against the German war industry, and joining the struggle on land as soon as the British Expeditionary Corps arrived in France. In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn.

However, both British and French governments had other plans than fulfilling the treaties with Poland. On May 4, 1939, a meeting was held in Paris, at which it was decided that the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning. Poland's government was not notified of this decision, and the Polish–British talks in London were continued"

next

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 22. The full text of the treaty, including the secret protocol assuming a partition of Poland and Soviet military help to Germany in case of war, was known to the British government thanks to Hans von Herwarth, an American agent in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yet, Poland's government was not informed of this fact either.

more

The French assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. All the necessary forces were mobilised in the first week of September. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately.

more

Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop not closer than 1 kilometre from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions are in contact with the enemy, and that French advances have forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland ,General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.

Explain this by inability and there is more, before and after 1939.

If you want - you can use PM to do it, because it will be too much off topic text here, but I think it will be extremely hard to explain all those Poland was not notified everywhere, don't you think ?:laugh4:

solypsist

05-25-2006, 20:20

thread locked until i have had time to sort through all this thread ad hominem attacks and insults.

https://i4.tinypic.com/10omng2.jpg