21-11-2004 23:18									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara This, however, is an obfuscation of reality.

Indeed it is. The type of action that was required would not have sold well. The President's duty is to do what is best for the country. It is interesting that among all the rehtoric that the President has actually spelled out the real reasons. They have just gotten lost is the media frenzy over the sell job. What a dilema! To have a clear idea of what is best for your country, but no clear way to make people understand that it is for the greater good of all.

	21-11-2004 23:21									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara PLATO is mostly correct, except for the Bush not lying part. Of course, it's possible Bush may not have known he was lying, since important information had been kept from him. Regardless, the war was sold to Congress and the American people as a war of self-defense against imminent danger. That's the only reason the Administration received funds to embark on their crusade. It was the fig-leaf they attempted to sell the war on internationally, damaging the credibility of some of our allies, such as Great Britain and bringing down the Spanish Conservative government. BTW, GB has said that no matter what the evidence, they won't follow us into Iran. So another real danger gets a go ahead while Bush goes after his daddy's enemy.

Che, check out my new sig.

As to the second paragraph, Bush argued that action was needed BEFORE the threat became imminent.

	21-11-2004 23:22									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO The type of action that was required would not have sold well. The President's duty is to do what is best for the country.

It is against the law to lie to Congress, even if you are the President. It should be against the law for the government to lie to the American people, regardless of how good they think their excuse is. Democracy relies upon truth. When the government can dispense with the truth as they see fit, we may as well stop voting.

I would also argue that this war was not in our best interests, but that's a discussion for another thread.

	21-11-2004 23:23									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned 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.

Yes the war was justified. The left's thesis is irrelvant to the issue. In the end analysis, if we are successful in Iraq, their argument will be a footnote in history. The real proplem is on the international scene. It may well be much harder for the next twenty years or so to get any kind of tacit approval for pre-emptive action. Franch, Germany, and Russia know what we did to them and they are unlikely to let themselves get so seriously pwned on this type situation again for quite a while.

	21-11-2004 23:24									#65
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, check out my new sig.

teh w00t!

I think I'm the most quoted Poly-Tubbie.

	21-11-2004 23:25									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ned is trying to get into the groove of things, thinking it's popular now, to quote commies living in Florida, who ride bicycles.

	21-11-2004 23:26									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Che, one question: Did any of the committees or special panels investigating the Iraq intelligence failure conclude that the president lied to Congress?

	21-11-2004 23:26									#68
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The war wouldn't have been that bad in realist terms if it were run competently; as is, it's been a total disaster, however you choose to look at it.

	21-11-2004 23:34									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The war wouldn't have been that bad in realist terms if it were run competently; as is, it's been a total disaster, however you choose to look at it.

Indeed. That, however, is a totally different question.

	21-11-2004 23:38									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, one question: Did any of the committees or special panels investigating the Iraq intelligence failure conclude that the president lied to Congress?

No, but I think they weren't completely honest either. One doesn't trust foxes to truthfully lead the investigation into disapearing chickens.

	21-11-2004 23:43									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No, but I think they weren't completely honest either. One doesn't trust foxes to truthfully lead the investigation into disapearing chickens.

I don't think they were a rubber stamp at all. There was definately some political opposition to the President on that panel.

	21-11-2004 23:47									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by PLATO I don't think they were a rubber stamp at all. There was definately some political opposition to the President on that panel.

On the 9/11 Commission, yes. On the commission led by David Kay, no. As well, the design of the 9/11 Comission made it unable to blame the Pres or Administration.

Nor did I say they were rubber stamps. I just think that the Administration should have nothing to do with setting up a commission to investigate the Adminstration. This is why we need the Special Prosecutor law.

	21-11-2004 23:50									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara This is why we need the Special Prosecutor law.

The special prosecutor comes into play when their is evidence that a crime may have been committed by a high official. The majority in Congress and the justice department say no evidence of that. (Big suprise there, huh? ). Therefore no special prosecutor would be appointed.

	21-11-2004 23:55									#74
	Suffering from ads?

They did it to Clinton for years.

	21-11-2004 23:58									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara They did it to Clinton for years.

Yes, but the situation was different. Clinton had a hostile Congress for one. Also, Bush did have evidence that he could point to. And, lastly, Clinton was guilty.

	22-11-2004 00:00									#77
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by PLATO The question is really: "Should we have invaded Iraq?". Not, "Were we justified by these specific reasons?"

I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this?

In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

	22-11-2004 00:09									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this? In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

I suppose you could look at it like that, but I think there is more to it.

There was evidence to support WMD's in Iraq. Great Britian agreed, Russia agreed, Jordan agreed, Egypt agreed. Yes there were also questions, but there was evidence. Strong enough to go to war? Probably not in hindsight.

There was evidence of al-Qaeda links. Strong evidence? Nope, but there nonetheless. Sadaam admitted paying the families of terrorist in Israel. al_Qaeda operatives had been seen in Baghdad. Enough to go to war on? Probably not.

I am not saying that the admin was being disingenious. I am saying that they relied on the weakest arguments to go to war. They did this due to the specific audiences that they had to get on board.

These were reasons for the war, but they were not the real reasons.

So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

	22-11-2004 00:14									#79
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by PLATO So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

Yes, but it's still dissembling. Look at Powell's presentation to the UN. They KNEW it was horseshit. Powell said as much to his aides. The administration deliberately presented information they knew was bogus and stretched to try and make a case. I'll point again to the claim about the mobile weapons lab. This was a complete fabrication--not a stretching of truth. It was an out-and-out lie. No such labs were ever known to exist in Iraq, and the notion they could be such labs was invented by the CIA just as a "possibility." That's why Powell had to present drawings. He might as well been showing drawings of a Star Destroyer, for all the truth behind it.

I still think it's a damn shame you'll tolerate such dishonesty from the administration.

	22-11-2004 00:19									#80
	Got spare money?

"not the real reasons"

Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

	22-11-2004 00:23									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this? In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

Boris, one could conclude that Bush was disingenuous if and only if it can be demonstrated that the reasons Bush advanced for going to war were not the reasons he went to war. The fact that the war can be justified another grounds and is justifiable on other grounds does not prove that the grounds Bush advanced were not the reasons that Bush went to war.

At times I am frankly amazed at the complete lack of logical thinking by opponents of the Iraq war.

	22-11-2004 00:25									#82
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yes, but it's still dissembling. Look at Powell's presentation to the UN. They KNEW it was horseshit. Powell said as much to his aides. The administration deliberately presented information they knew was bogus and stretched to try and make a case. I'll point again to the claim about the mobile weapons lab. This was a complete fabrication--not a stretching of truth. It was an out-and-out lie. No such labs were ever known to exist in Iraq, and the notion they could be such labs was invented by the CIA just as a "possibility." That's why Powell had to present drawings. He might as well been showing drawings of a Star Destroyer, for all the truth behind it. I still think it's a damn shame you'll tolerate such dishonesty from the administration.

Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so?

(I know you may not agree with the assumption, but please answer the question as if you do.)

	22-11-2004 00:26									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Do we hand out comedy/farce points?

	22-11-2004 00:26									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned At times I am frankly amazed at the complete lack of logical thinking by opponents of the Iraq war.

Me too. It is amazing how myopic one's vision can become in eithier supporting or opposing the war.

	22-11-2004 00:26									#85
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Seeker "not the real reasons" Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

Cuz Isreal had little to do with it.

	22-11-2004 00:27									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Seeker "not the real reasons" Why are you not just coming out and saying the obvious, israel?

I am sure you meant "oil" not "Israel" didn't you?

	22-11-2004 00:29									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so?

Define "national interests." It was in our "national interests" to overthrow a democracy in Guatemala and replace it with a serious of the most murderours dictatorships in the history of Latin America. In this case, national interests were narrowly constured to mean, the interests of the United Fruit Company.

	22-11-2004 00:31									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by PLATO I suppose you could look at it like that, but I think there is more to it. There was evidence to support WMD's in Iraq. Great Britian agreed, Russia agreed, Jordan agreed, Egypt agreed. Yes there were also questions, but there was evidence. Strong enough to go to war? Probably not in hindsight. There was evidence of al-Qaeda links. Strong evidence? Nope, but there nonetheless. Sadaam admitted paying the families of terrorist in Israel. al_Qaeda operatives had been seen in Baghdad. Enough to go to war on? Probably not. I am not saying that the admin was being disingenious. I am saying that they relied on the weakest arguments to go to war. They did this due to the specific audiences that they had to get on board. These were reasons for the war, but they were not the real reasons. So, no...the ends do not justify the means. The means are just far more expansive than most will admit. Does that clarify my position some?

Plato, you too conflate the fact that war was justifiable on other grounds with a conclusion that the reasons for going to war advanced by Bush were not the real reasons for going to war. At best one could conclude that if the Bush administration had any doubts as to whether or not they should go to war based upon inconclusive evidence of WMD's, they resolved these doubts in favor of war based upon the fact that there were other very good reasons for going to war besides the WMD's. In other words, these other reasons may have tipped the balance in favor of war. But this but this does not mean that they were the real reasons for going to war, as this implies that Bush would have gone to war regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's. Even if he says that now, I just don't buy it at all.

	22-11-2004 00:32									#89
	Put an end to popups!

that only seems to be the case if you listen to stated reasons and short-term causes and goals.

Long-term, geostrategically this war is closely linked to advancing israels interests in not having a major regional rival IMO.

	22-11-2004 00:32									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Boris, one could conclude that Bush was disingenuous if and only if it can be demonstrated that the reasons Bush advanced for going to war were not the reasons he went to war.

Wrong, Ned. You can conclude the administration was disingenuous by their claims of confidence in the evidence they had versus the reality. We now know that all the while the administration was claiming that we KNEW 100% there were WMDs there. Rumsfeld said we knew 100% were they were stored. But they didn't know, and they lied to us about the certainty. That's disingenuous.

Cheney was caught in his own lie about the war's justification in the debates, claiming he had never said Saddam had links to 9/11. Sure enough, there was the clip of him on Meet the Press saying exactly that in the lead up to war.

Rumself claimed in a post-war interview he had never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. Sure enough, we have the pre-war clip of him using precisely those words about Saddam.

There's no way to avoid it--they lied to us. Had they at been honest and said, "Look, we have a little evidence, but nothing conclusive. Shall we go to war?" then I doubt they would have gotten the support they had. So instead they played up the evidence beyond what it was, played up the supposed links between Al Queda and Saddam--that's still dishonesty! And you accuse me of illogic? Nearly half of Americans still think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Where did that notion come from?

Holy crap, it's frustrating to see the heads-buried-in-the-sands attitude about this from the right. The administration fed us a story, and you're still swallowing it! How much of a sucker can you be?