 |
| |
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, because your response indicated you didn't grasp the meaning of the original post...i.e., LoA was making a point that all those supposed reasons were obviously false, and we can prove that now by the lack of any substantiation for them.
That you found it "interesting" that so many people still seem to think those reasons were valid is interesting in itself. A tacit acknowledgement to the effectiveness of the administration's lie machine. |
Actually, I never really debated that what LoA said was true. I have always stated that the real reasons for war were different. In order to accomplish its real goals the admin had to bring to the forefront speculation and unconfirmed intelligence for the reasons stated above. Is this a lie? I suppose it depends on how you define the word "is" (  ). Seriously, I think that all the reasons that LoA layed out were concerns and not reasons . That is the only point that I am trying to bring out. Certainly I recognize that what LoA says is true and relevant, but I was trying to frame the debate to a more fundamental one.
The question is really: "Should we have invaded Iraq?". Not, "Were we justified by these specific reasons?" While it s now very clear that WMD was not a threat, it is still equally clear that success in Iraq will result in a better Middle East. Additionally, success in Iraq will leave the US as the major western power broker in the Middle East...something, that IMO, was beginning to slip. The key is now to be successful. Without that there is no justification for the war. With it, a specific casus beli becomes a diminishing historical footnote.
So, to summarize, I did grasp what LoA said, I was simply attempting to reframe the debate to a more relevant level. I do find it interesting that people do not look beyond what the admin says on eithier side of the issue. Both the left and the right concentrate and debate on the edge of this issue and ignore the "meat" of the matter. Sorry to continue to dissapoint, but I am on a mission!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1) |
And these are grounds for a pre-emptive war, how?
Please be reasonable. Everyone knows the war was about WMD and al-quaeda connections. Neither of which proved to be true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Having an "international" justification for a pre-emptive war is the most unusual of circumstances. |
This, however, is an obfuscation of reality. It's a brilliant argument, but one at odds with history. The war could not have been sold to America, let alone the world, as you lay it out here (and which was the real reason all along, as I argued back then). The American people and the American Congress signed on to this war, not to re-establish American hegemony in the ME, but to protect the US against an iminent attack. When you ask Bush supporters about Iraq today, they overwhemingly say we needed to stop them from attacking us.  There are millions of Neds in this country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Assuming CIA was his only source would make that statement relevant, but it wasn't. State had cast serious doubts on both the sources of the intelligence and the intelligence itself. NSC also had questions. The point is that Bush did NOT lie, but he did frame the debate to accomplish his greater goals. Not an unusual thing from a President.
My point is that to look at the real reasons for the war and to evaluate it from that standpoint. Given the reasons that I layed out above, I would submit that the war was not only justified, but extremely important to the US staying the major player in the ME. Obviously, from my point of view, this is a neccesary precursor to there ever being a chance for real peace there. No other country can bring to the table the combination of factors that the US can. For our political and economic power to wan there would be the real crime. Action had to be taken. |
No doubt that the war was justified regardless of whether or not WMD's were found. But the central thesis of the left is that Bush lied because there were no WMD's found and that war was unjustified for the same reason. I would hope you would agree that the left is being completely disingenuous here.
As to whether others in the administration questioned whether or not there were in fact of WMD's in Iraq, the real question is whether or not these doubts were communicated to President Bush in that final meeting with the Director of Central intelligence where the issue and reliability of the intelligence was discussed. From the 9/11 report, we have learned that Bush did have doubts about the reliability of the evidence, but was reassured by the Director of the Central Intelligence that it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMD's. Did Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney or anybody else continued to debate that issue after George Tenet said what he said?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2004 15:43
|