"Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Good Guys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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

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

It's not even worth a GAH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

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_...y_Findings.pdf

Otherwise know as the Duefler Report...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Good Guys

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesmen

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.

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 .

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

“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…

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.

“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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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:

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.

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.

[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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach1

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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 ?