so, it's official now

[rmnunez]

People who say Saddam was well-contained overlook a few outstanding facts; a) the firm controlling what could be shipped to Iran was compromised with corruption, b) the restrictions on what could be shipped from Iran were also compromised through bribes from Saddam, c) the restrictions were said to cause untold harship and death to many innocent civilians, d) Saddam was able to obtain uncontrolled cash through illicit exports to neighboring countries throughout his containment, and e) despite its draconian measures Saddam showed no signs of modifying conduct as sought through the containment.

Containment (such as it was) merely slowed Saddam down, it was foreseable eventually he would acquire whatever he sought despite the enforcement so it becomes just a matter of time. Thus the argument that containment was adequate merely suggests intervention was premature. Though its true intervention was premature, if it had been timely the risk faced would have been much greater.

[Dieval]

In response to -

Quote by: Pooeypants So he didn't lie but those nasty men at the Intelligence services did, right?

&

Quote by: The Dunedan Dieval: Everyone is happy that Saddam is gone. However, we are NOT HAPPY about being lied to by this Administration. Whether Bush himself knowingly lied, or was lied to and lied to us in turn, is not important. The salient fact here is that over 1300 of our countrymen have died in a war that was predicated upon falsehoods.

Do you understand that there is a difference between being intentionally lied to and having wrong intelligence?

Quote by: The Dunedan And frankly, if the Iraqi people didn't have the wherewithal to get rid of Saddam themselves ( as the Iranians did with Reza Shah, who was almost as bad as Saddam ) then perhaps they didn't need our help to begin with.

If they didn't have the ability to remove him themselves, wouldn't that be a sign that they actually NEED our help?

Quote by: The Dunedan I don't mean to sound heartless, but the simple fact is that any tyrannical Gov't is easily enough overthrown by a large enough body of the Citizenry.

How is it easily overthrown when anyone that stands up to his was basically killed? That's very wishful thinking on your part.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop i definitely have the upmost respect for people who would accept a politician lying to the country to achieve his own agenda - even if that includes sending us into a bogus war. this isn't about understanding realpolitik, it's about basic ethics which seem missed on you.

A government uses its own (re)sources to get a nation's support and approval for its actions. It applies to all the countries around the world.
It happens that a government's decisions do not always reflect reality. One needs to distinguish it.

P.S.
Is that ethical to "respect" lies over ethics ?

[bishop]

a government is supposed to represent the will of the people, not its own closet agenda! that applies to all republics/democracies. when you have government officials taking underhanded action to instigate wars, you begin to look like a nazi.

and, how could it be ethical to respect lies over ethics??? that's quite the oxymoron right there.. it's ethical to respect ETHICS. heh, doesn't get any more obvious than that.

[Lou Minotti]

Is it unlawful to break the law?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop a government is supposed to represent the will of the people, not its own closet agenda! that applies to all republics/democracies. when you have government officials taking underhanded action to instigate wars, you begin to look like a nazi.

I agree, but what a government should do and what a government does (in reality), there are 2 different issues, most often.
No, I am not any Nazi or have ever felt that way either, not to mention any desire or points of interests into that direction. What people think about me I care less, since most of people change their views, opinions accordingly with the direction the wind blows from, while "adjusting" their back respectively.

[bishop]

are you trying to tell me how reality works? don't bother, i already know how reality works.

what i can't understand is how someone could accept that the government lied its way to get a war. maybe you like being lied to? or maybe you don't choose to hold your elected representatives to the same standards that you would anyone else. that is, of course, if you don't like being lied to by the average joe - for all we know, you could be a used car salesman's wet dream.

fyi, when i say nazi, i don't mean nazi as in being genocidal and/or anti-jew/whatever.. i mean that you favor the notion of an authoritarian government that does what it wants, and makes its own rules.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Dieval In response to - & Do you understand that there is a difference between being intentionally lied to and having wrong intelligence?

But does that justify old "Slam Dunk's" freedom medal? At BEST, that shows the Bush administration has no trouble with gross incompetance, and extremely EXPENSIVE gross incompetance at that. At worst it seems to indicate a payoff of a sort to Tenet. A kind of "hush money" to thank Tenet for taking the fall for others.
Both scenarios stink on ice and I cant see a third option in this case.

[rmnunez]

The notion a citizenry ought to rise up and remove its tyrant raises some interesting questions. If they need help, can another government intervene? If the "help" needed involves going in and removing the tyrant, is this too much? Is there some point where a tyrant's oppression merits intervention regardless of local capacity to overcome it? Should we figure, as long as the tyrant is capable of retaining control he should be left alone by foreign intervenors?

It used to be felt as long as a tyrant's repression did not spill-out beyond his borders, there was no authority to intervene to correct him. Yugoslavia highlighted how when such repression causes disruption in neighbors intervention could be justified. The Hutu-Tutsi slaughter suggested intervention could be an obligation even when the repression was exclusively within a given sovereign. Iraqi intervention was not about Saddam's tyranny, rather than some of its features, but his capacity to repress opposition is relevant. Can it be held that since Iraqis were not successful in Saddam's ouster he should have been left alone? Should one figure that due to the level of Saddamite repression, success in opposition was impossible?

[bishop]

you definitely love to string analogies together, don't you?

nice distortion, but the invasion centered around wmd's, not liberation. or at least that's what they told us anyways. and since the primary reason for going to war turned out to be bogus, i'm not inclined to take an apologist stance and suggest that it was really a war intended to liberate iraq. that right there is grade-a bullshit.

back to these analogies of yours... there were definitely big massacres in iraq, but nothing that represents genocide. the balkans and african examples definitely do represent genocide. there are all sorts of oppressive regimes out there, many of whom are our allies. why didn't we decide to liberate them instead? i'll tell you why - because trumped up charges of wmd's couldn't be applied to those countries. iraq was the easiest choice. a brutal dictator who instigated wars, oppressed his own people and even used chemical weapons on them. (let's just ignore the fact that his country possesses vast oil reserves as if that's irrelavent)

[Dieval]

Quote by: Scribbler1 But does that justify old "Slam Dunk's" freedom medal?

Maybe, maybe not....I don't know all the details as to why he was awarded the freedom medal and it's not my call to give him one...

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop you definitely love to string analogies together, don't you? nice distortion, but the invasion centered around wmd's, not liberation. or at least that's what they told us anyways. and since the primary reason for going to war turned out to be bogus, i'm not inclined to take an apologist stance and suggest that it was really a war intended to liberate iraq. that right there is grade-a bullshit.

What was the name we gave to the whole Iraqi war again? Hmmmm.....wasn't it.....Operation....Iraqi.....what? I can't seem to remember that last word...do you? It sure wasn't anything to indicate liberation, was it? :rolleyes:

[Lou Minotti]

So when I name a rose "shit", it all the sudden turns to shit? Is that what you are saying?

[rmnunez]

Dieval, it is a gross exageration to state Operation Iraqi Freedom's primary aim was to liberate Iraqis. The explicitly stated aim was "regime change". The reasons given were many, suspected WMD possession just one, but it was the one most promoted (others included terrorist ties, breach of Security Council resolutions and genocide).

[Spartacus]

For all of Bush's bashing of Clinton's foreign policies during the 2000 campaign, it sure is funny how quickly he decided to do Clinton one better and actually become the World's Policeman after every Republican blasted Clinton for trying to do that very same thing. Now, there is talk of moving on Iran as well. Oh, well, some people never learn. And since they don't make mistakes, there is nothing to learn from, is there?

[Livemike]

Quote by: rmnunez People who say Saddam was well-contained overlook a few outstanding facts; a) the firm controlling what could be shipped to Iran was compromised with corruption, b) the restrictions on what could be shipped from Iran were also compromised through bribes from Saddam, c) the restrictions were said to cause untold harship and death to many innocent civilians, d) Saddam was able to obtain uncontrolled cash through illicit exports to neighboring countries throughout his containment, and e) despite its draconian measures Saddam showed no signs of modifying conduct as sought through the containment. Containment (such as it was) merely slowed Saddam down, it was foreseable eventually he would acquire whatever he sought despite the enforcement so it becomes just a matter of time. Thus the argument that containment was adequate merely suggests intervention was premature. Though its true intervention was premature, if it had been timely the risk faced would have been much greater.

This is complete bullshit. The fact is that after "containment" was announced as a goal the effort to gain WMD stopped and the WMD he had were destroyed, he made no miliitary attacks against neighbouring countries and indeed actually lost control of territory. Containment unarguably worked.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop what i can't understand is how someone could accept that the government lied its way to get a war. maybe you like being lied to? or maybe you don't choose to hold your elected representatives to the same standards that you would anyone else. that is, of course, if you don't like being lied to by the average joe - for all we know, you could be a used car salesman's wet dream.

I have never had any doubts that the real reasons to enter Iraq differ to the U.S. government officially (re)presented ones.
I does not surprise me.
If a governement says "all the truth and nothing but the truth" publically, then there is no state that government may represent tomorrow.

P.S.
And you have said you know the reality ?

[bishop]

like i said, i can't understand how someone could accept that the government lied its way to get a war. that's as perverse as it gets imo, and the epitomy of apathy.

[RickSp]

For those who still believe in the Easter Bunny or that the WMD werre smuggled off somewhere, more news:

As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started. Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month. But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq

Not that a complete lack of evidence ever bothered the true believers. So lets all sing "Hail to the Chief" to celebrate a war built on lies, never mind the 1369 American soldiers dead, and the estimated 12,000 maimed, so far, with many more no doubt to come.

[bishop]

how long do you think it'll take before the apologists acknowledge that the whole "they moved them to syria" line was just another lie they swallowed?