 |
| |
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
1. These figures come from a seemingly serious source quoted by Lord Of The Mark. They figure the estimated amount of dead Iraqi soldiers, among other victims. For these guys are people too. And when hundreds of tanks get wasted, and when barracks get levelled by cruise missiles, it's not hard to figure there have been quite a few dead anyways.
2. It's most probably true that the death toll would have been worse if Saddam's family had been remaining in power. This is actually the only valid reason to support the war IMHO (and IIRC, only Laz was consistent he solely supported the war based on these grounds).
Yet, starting a war is great responsibility. When I read that it's "not that bad" that doubtful intelligence started a whole war, I think that some people have completely forgotten what responsibility a declaration of war is. I find it particularily frightening coming from someone in the military. I mean, these people are supposed to know better than others that war is hell.
If I kill your daughter, and then I say later it's "not that bad, because I trusted my hunch she was dangerous", how would you react? Badly I assume (I hope). Well, here is exactly the same.
The "oops" argument can not, may not be tolerated. |
1.) I am not disputing those figures.
2.)It certainly should have been one of our concerns in starting the war.
You are quoting me and then debating Patroklos ????
The "daughter" analogy is faulty. If your daughter was a mass murderer and was shot for alledgedly kidnapping(which may not have happened) is that "so bad"?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
Realpolitik does not exclude mistakes, false information, incompotance or misanalysis if it is applied in its true sense. It does not mean assume the worst. |
If the Bushies hadn't been so gung-ho about this war from the beginning, they would have judged the "evidence" provided by USUK intelligence with more than a pinch of salt, especially after the UK report debacle.
I mean, when an intelligence agency uses a so false report as its main support for accusation, any person with common sense would think something is fishy (and we knew the report was completely bollocks way before the war).
For the sake of argument, I'll admit the Bushies haven't willingly manipulated intelligence. Then, they have shown their gung-honess by taking for granted everything that was accusatory to Saddam, and by forgetting about everything that was fishy. This is especially irresponsible, considered that so many other countries publically rejected the evidence as being shaky at best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
In other words: Guilty until proven innocent. |
Inexact.
Saddam was not exactly an innocent guy.
Consider this.
A person named Saddam is convicted of aggravated assault in 1991. His arrest reveals he also has been possessing illegal arms. He is forced to visit his parole officer and continuosly report on his stash of arms.
In 1998, he suddenly quits visiting his parole officer, and refuses to give any information on arms he may or may not have. Police intelligence suggests he does have arms, but at the time, no serious action is taken against him.
In 2001 new legistlation called "hard on crime" is passed. The police then decides to pursue Saddam for avoiding meetings with the parole officer, and, according to intelligence evidence, developing and possessing illegal arms.
Saddam is asked to report with his parole officer, and bring papers documenting his arms developing and smuggling bussiness. He tries to avoid meetings, or comes and doesn't speak. The evidence he gives on the arms issue is clearly missing any part about arms. When confronted, he promises he stopped dealing with them years ago, but the police knows it contradicts evidence they had in 1998.
When asked, Saddam does not provide any evidence of having disposed of any arms. He continues to claim he never had anything, which contradicts police intelligence.
Would you arrest this person on suspected charges of evading justice, purgery and arms smuggling?
I remind you that you have what appears to be soild intelligence that he is lying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
PLATO:
You mix up the timeline: the "triumvirate" formed AFTER the US made WMD's and a tie to Al-Qaeda the basic cliam for the war, NOT before. In fact, the US failed to get as many votes as it sought for the second resolution exactly becuase it failed to make the sale of this arguemnt, that this war was a valid war of pre-emptive self-defense. We can see right now why they failed- becuase that arguement was weak from the start.
From day 1 my opposition to invading iraq was based on the notion that the administration was defrauding the world but more specifically the American people for the rationale of the war, and that the war effort itself would be greatly undermined. Sloww's endless arguemnt that the US did thi to enforce UN resolutions is flawed becuase you can ahrdly base your action on the legitimacy of a UN resolution while at the same time undermining the very validity of the UN system.
Laz and a few others were the ones who pushed, as Spiff has said, the war on purely humanitarian reasons. If Bush had come out day one saying this was the reason for the war, I would jhave backed it- but the American people and congress would not have. If the Admin. had form day one said this was the start of a new experiemental porgram of democratization of the ME through the use of military power as opposed to trying to decay systems from within or using non-military presure form without, we could have had a real debate in this country about the core ideas that really drove this war- but I doubt such a serious discussion would have been possible and that at the end of the day the admin. would have been able to seel the idea to non-elites.
So, with a good idea that selling the war on the valid points was impossible before the fact, they distorted beyond reality the threat from Iraq to sell the war on the one basis that mattered.
Interestingly, the US would have been able to sell the war to foreign governments on the real basis of the war more easily than with the made up arguements, but the people who run this WH really do not care if anyone save maybe the UK is along- they do think US power is sufficient to do something like Iraq, which is why they could spurn the UN.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2004 09:44
.
|