THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[kisc]

Bush told the truth: The weapons existed

What do you all think of this? It is the opinion section of whatever this website is, where it belongs, but it seems to make a good point.

Not that I know what I'm talking about, which is why I hope someone smarter than me will have something to say.

....

Also, can you say deja vu[edit

Comments

[hemlock_martini]

I don't want to argue about the definition of "WMD"--after all, we sold Saddam his chemical WMD's back in the 80's--but as I saw it, selling the case for war in Iraq to the American public was hinged mostly on the idea that Saddam was ramping up nuke capabilities; hence the "yellowcake in Niger" fiasco. People are scared by chemical/biological weapons in the abstract sense, whereas nukes are much scarier. We've all seen images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And I agree with ruthanolis--there are plenty more tinpot dictators out there who pose more of a distinct threat to the US. We didn't go after them because they (a) don't have oil, and (b) never threatened George Bush senior.

[kisc]

google for the following:

iraq flypaper

Then come back.

And I very strongly recall Libya kowtowing like the bitches they are after the Iraq war started .... I don't know how to search historically through Google News, so I'm not having any luck finding the article. But the meat was "please don't invade us next, we'll be good." There is evidence (google news is good for current events, anyway) that they are moving towards a less barbaric attitude.

Your point about nukes may be valid, I don't remember the specifics. If you have suggestions where to look, that'd be fun too.

[hemlock_martini]

Khaddafi is looking out for Khaddafi, as always. There are more like him all around the world who won't be so ready to roll over.

See, here's my thing--everybody's assuming three points, that (A) you can have a war against an abstract noun like "terrorism," (B) that you can WIN a war against an idea, again like "terrorism" and that (C) once we kill all the terrorists there won't be any more terrorists. First off, you can't win a war against an idea, especially one so vaguely-defined and open-ended as "terrorism." Even the War On Drugs was more clearly defined, and as history proves, drugs are pretty much winning that one. The idea of taking up arms against what the impoverished see as a tyrannical oppressor who slanders their religion just by existing is an ancient one and won't be killed off by a land war in Asia. And terrorism is generational, it is self-perpetuating--how many young Iraquis will grow up and happily accept the idea of martyring themselves in attempting to kill the Great Satan who invaded their country, killed

[kisc]

How wrong country? You would prefer they do it here? Or am I missing something else

[hemlock_martini]

By "wrong country" I refer to Afghanistan. As in the country we invaded in an attempt to root out the Taliban and rebuild; but sort of got disinterested in halfway and allowed to fall back into chaos and Islamofascist theocracy. See, these are the "root causes" I'm talking about--if we had taken our time and focused on Afghanistan, not only would there be a better chance of bringing bin Laden to justice, but to insure that the rule of people like him did not return. Now it's an even greater mess, and more likely to be a breeding ground for terrorist activity in the future.

I have, as a matter of fact, read The Art Of War. Nowhere did Sun Tzu suggest that you use half an army to fight a whole war (which Bush did by ignoring the Powell Doctrine), nor did he advocate fighting a war when it is not absolutely necessary (i.e. pretty much the entire Iraq fiasco, from my viewpoint). Why, instead of devoting a ground force to fight street-to-street, did we not pool international intelligence efforts to eliminate Saddam strategically

[kisc]

And the point I keep forgetting to make is that a bunch of tinpot dictators are not the same as Saddam Hussein, no matter where you go with the comparison.

I'm still not convinced that Hussein was a clear and present danger, not after Desert Storm, but that is why I initiated this discussion, in order to get people to tell me where I can get more information.

This may disprove my statement about Libya -

There was speculation that Qadhafi had blinked after the recent events in Iraq. But it is now revealed that American and British officials were holding high-level secret talks with Libyan officials before the war in Iraq started. In recent years, Qadhafi has been trying to change his image. He announced his disenchantment with fellow Arab leaders, preferring to focus his considerable energies on sub-Saharan Africa. Qadhafi was one of the prime movers behind the African Union, the revamped version of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which held its first summit two years ago. There are reports that one of the factors that

[hemlock_martini]

In my opinion, he did not represent the same clear and present danger that, say, Kim Jong Il--who posesses the potential ability to nuke Los Angeles--represents. If Saddam was REALLY a threat, they would have been able to prove it to the UN.

[kisc]

Er, you didn't read Howard's link, did you? Because it is fascinating.

Also, I don't think If Saddam was REALLY a threat, they would have been able to prove it to the UN. is a fair statement. There is plenty of stuff that you can't prove which is true, when it comes to governments and whatnot. For instance, from Howard's link:

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.
"In no instance did political pressure cause them to skew ... judgements." Why would they even put that in there if they could document proof that it didn't happen? All they have is a bunch of eye witnesses. In Law and Order, a bunch of eyewitnesses and $0.50 will buy you a cup of

[hemlock_martini]

There is a lot of back-and-forth on this, and everything I've heard from either side contradicts everything the other side says. I am not a pundit. I don't have the time or mental resources to pull up quotes and links and articles that prove or disprove. Other people do that easily. Everything I've heard from the anti-war side points to biased intelligence, everything from the pro-war side points to a lack of bias. What this says to me is that both sides are picking and choosing the facts that they want to use

[kisc]

Howling Mad, thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Between your comments and Chucks, I've decided that I've been wasting everyone's time trying to play catchup on a topic that left me as far behind as most of the jokes on Sealab 2021.

There is, as always in the world theatre, too much going on for me to be able to get a handle on it. I'm convinced at this point that Bush (or his handlers or someone) made a decision, and that some people think it was the right one for some reasons, and that other people think it was the wrong decision for pretty much the same reasons.

Madness.

And I hereby give up trying to figure out what's really going on.

XOXO

[ruthanolis]

$0.50? You guys get cheap coffee over there ...
It's $1.50 a cup minimum over here.

=P