Bush's Iraqi Platitudes

[Cleon]

Of course not. That is not the point that I am trying to make.

But you keep repeating this phrase. "Clinton wanted regime change." (As if it's even remotely relevant.)

What is the point you're trying to make?

 

[Mark]

The mission to topple Saddam had been accomplished. It was a PR blunder but correct. We had set a goal to overthrow Saddam and we accomplished that misssion. THAT was the purpose of that banner. Nothing on the banner said "war over everyone can go home."

Clearly you see the worst in everything the president does in regards to this effort. Is there a point to discussing these events with you? Is it possible for you to see the world any differently than you do now?

Saddam was removed and we created a power vacuum that has made things far worse in that country, and for our own security. This is success?

And I remind you again that I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Is it possible for you to hold Bush responsible for anything he does?

 

[Mark]

He wanted regime change.

Everybody did, in the worst way. And Bush managed to do it in exactly the worst possible way.

 

[Year Zero]

Well there are lot's of books denying the Holocaust. It's kind of funny because they all make the same claim that you do that there is a lack of evidence.

Interesting logic here. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. Perhaps I can claim Randi's million dollars now. I'll tell them about my "power", and when they ask for evidence I'll say "HOLOCAUST REVISIONISTS complain about a lack of evidence you NAZI!!"

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. We are not talking about the "Holocaust" but rather the record of Saddam Hussein.

But the parsimonious answer is that all of these news outlets are either part of the conspiracy or too lazy. These at best seem to be convenient answers.

Many news outlets have voiced skepticism about Saddam's record. The Wall Street Journal is known by many as "right wing" yet one of the sources I've been mentioning, Wanniski, works for them.

Poor argument. Sure they can be wrong. Sure groups are wrong. Human Rights Watch certainly could have made mistakes but they don't have the political motivation to push this lie. If they did it is unlikely they would be critical of Bush since he has finally done what they asked all along. I'm sorry but your explanations are simply becoming convenient.

Human Rights Watch is pretty much useless without stories of genocide. They have shown in the past a very disturbing eagerness to believe any stories of "human rights" violations at face value, regardless of where they came from- terrorists, PR agencies, etc.

I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes. I'm showing there is little reason to suppose that everyone is part of a conspiracy, lazy or incompetent. Your arguments appear to be an attempt to avoid considering that perhaps the evidence is there. Are you really willing to consider the possibility or is your mind made up?

Then where IS the evidence?

That YOU haven't seen it does not prove that there is a complete lack of evidence. This is just a statement by you. Human Rights Watch has documented literally *"ton's" of evidence.

Really? Then why were they complaining about not being able to find "mass graves" when the military came in?

Now, I haven't seen the evidence and a final decision awaits the airing of that evidence but the telling thing to me is that so many people oppose this war with such ferocity that it just doesn't make sense that these people have all been bamboozled, are part of the conspiracy or just too incompetent to realize that there is a complete lack of evidence.
*from NPR interview.

When you are intimately involved in the study of history, you realize that there are different "layers" to any given topic. The surface layer is usually accurate, but lacking in detail. On the surface, not taking into account the actual detailed history of the Baath party and its ideology- one might be tempted to believe the superficial claim that Saddam was "anti-Shiite, anti-Kurd, etc." But a detailed study of the regime's history simply reveals this to be untrue.

 

[Mark]

Good rule of thumb for spotting an idiot: ask them if they think the Holocaust was a hoax.

 

[Year Zero]

Of course not. That is not the point that I am trying to make.

It does not matter whether regime change is synonymous with "war" or not(I would argue that it is not). The point is we have this thing called international law that says you can't just change a government because you don't like it. You are not supposed to be able to finance coup d'etats, insurgencies, terrorists, impose sanctions, or invade a nation in hopes of "regime change".

This regime change, according to the John Hopkin's study after 18 months, may very well have cost up to 100,000 civilian casulties. The US must also take direct responsibility for the insurgency since they destablized the nation. Call it "regime change" all you want but the real word is "criminal".

 

[Year Zero]

Good rule of thumb for spotting an idiot: ask them if they think the Holocaust was a hoax.

This is a non-sequiter. If you have a problem with people questioning the Holocaust you should address them. I am of Ukrainian descent and I have routinely ran across people that deny that the Ukrainian famine that killed between 7 and 10 million people was "not intentional" and that the mass purges of Stalin were "nothing but propaganda". When confronted by such people, I don't start screaming about the Holocaust, as was Rand in this debate about Saddam's record.

However, I don't believe in calling someone an idiot because they question some historical event. If someone can show me convincing evidence that Stalin's crimes against Ukrainians and other Russians is exagerrated I'll believe it. I would be more than happy to find out that perhaps not as many of my ancestors died a horrible early death.

 

[Cleon]

However, I don't believe in calling someone an idiot because they question some historical event.

No, I believe in calling someone an idiot because, in the face of mountains of physical, eyewitness, photographic, and confessed evidence, they choose to believe that the Holocaust was a creation of some giant Jewish conspiracy.

But this is a derail.

 

[Year Zero]

No, I believe in calling someone an idiot because, in the face of mountains of physical, eyewitness, photographic, and confessed evidence, they choose to believe that the Holocaust was a creation of some giant Jewish conspiracy.

But this is a derail.

Well take that up with the people that say otherwise, assuming their are any major Holocaust revisionists not currently in jail. Living in a border state, I am glad that our immigration department has cracked down on dangerous illegal aliens such as Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, who might drive by my house at any moment shouting Holocaust denials.

Now let's try to keep this train on the tracks.

 

[Mark]

This is a non-sequiter. If you have a problem with people questioning the Holocaust you should address them. I am of Ukrainian descent and I have routinely ran across people that deny that the Ukrainian famine that killed between 7 and 10 million people was "not intentional" and that the mass purges of Stalin were "nothing but propaganda". When confronted by such people, I don't start screaming about the Holocaust, as was Rand in this debate about Saddam's record.

However, I don't believe in calling someone an idiot because they question some historical event. If someone can show me convincing evidence that Stalin's crimes against Ukrainians and other Russians is exagerrated I'll believe it. I would be more than happy to find out that perhaps not as many of my ancestors died a horrible early death.

Fine. And when someone puts forth any credible evidence whatsoever that the Holocaust didn't happen, I'll change my opinion. It hasn't happened yet...
but, hey, maybe someone will convince me we didn't go to the moon, either.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting logic here. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. Perhaps I can claim Randi's million dollars now. I'll tell them about my "power", and when they ask for evidence I'll say "HOLOCAUST REVISIONISTS complain about a lack of evidence you NAZI!!"

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. We are not talking about the "Holocaust" but rather the record of Saddam Hussein.

The point is that claiming a lack of evidence doesn't prove a lack of evidence. Those who refuse to look at the evidence will see what they want to see.

Many news outlets have voiced skepticism about Saddam's record. The Wall Street Journal is known by many as "right wing" yet one of the sources I've been mentioning, Wanniski, works for them.

Some have but there apparently is too much evidence for any serious consideration of such skepticism.

Human Rights Watch is pretty much useless without stories of genocide. They have shown in the past a very disturbing eagerness to believe any stories of "human rights" violations at face value, regardless of where they came from- terrorists, PR agencies, etc.

I'm sorry but I find this unfair and unfounded. They are a credible organization. They have made mistakes but they have earnestly sought to find the truth.

Then where IS the evidence?

It's documented on the internet. The Halbaja and Anfal events are mentioned on the Internet by many journalists and the evidence discussed. See U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Reviews Saddam Hussein's Criminality.

It would be difficult for me to believe that most of the journalists and organizations who are very critical of George Bush have not critically examined the evidence at hand.

Really? Then why were they complaining about not being able to find "mass graves" when the military came in?

"Mass graves" is not in the statement you quote. I said "tons" of evidence. Please go back and re-read.

When you are intimately involved in the study of history, you realize that there are different "layers" to any given topic. The surface layer is usually accurate, but lacking in detail. On the surface, not taking into account the actual detailed history of the Baath party and its ideology- one might be tempted to believe the superficial claim that Saddam was "anti-Shiite, anti-Kurd, etc." But a detailed study of the regime's history simply reveals this to be untrue.

I don't buy that you have done a detailed study. The UN, Human Rights organization, Reporters, and other critical of George Bush have declared that there is an extraordinary amount of evidence including video tapes, audio tapes, and documents. The folks are either liars or inompetent. And they are doing so in opposition to their own mistrust and criticism of George Bush. I'm sorry but it simply doesn't add up. The notion that the claimed evidence is a fabrication on the part of so many is begining to sound very much like the claims of holocaust deniers. Yeah, it could be that the evidence doesn't exist and these folks are winging it and lying but why? It will come out in court. It doesn't serve the purpose of many journalists and organizations to do so. So the question becomes, why? Why would they fabricate stories and make things up that would help Bush? It's still not making sense. They say that there is an extraordinary amount of evidence and you want me to ignore that fact because of a book and your claim that there is no evidence.

You can't prove a negative zero and I'm not asking you to. It is up to those who claim that Saddam is guilty to produce the evidence they claim they have. However, based on my understanding that won't be very difficult. I find little reason to suppose otherwise because you have come here and told us about a book.

Time will tell.

 

[RandFan]

Everybody did, in the worst way. And Bush managed to do it in exactly the worst possible way.

I respect your opinion. There is certainly ample evidence as a basis for that conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

It does not matter whether regime change is synonymous with "war" or not(I would argue that it is not). The point is we have this thing called international law that says you can't just change a government because you don't like it. You are not supposed to be able to finance coup d'etats, insurgencies, terrorists, impose sanctions, or invade a nation in hopes of "regime change".

This regime change, according to the John Hopkin's study after 18 months, may very well have cost up to 100,000 civilian casulties. The US must also take direct responsibility for the insurgency since they destablized the nation. Call it "regime change" all you want but the real word is "criminal".

You are entitled to an opinion. I don't share it.

 

[RandFan]

No, I believe in calling someone an idiot because, in the face of mountains of physical, eyewitness, photographic, and confessed evidence, they choose to believe that the Holocaust was a creation of some giant Jewish conspiracy.

But this is a derail.

Agreed. The thread is important and shouldn't devolve to a squable about the Holocaust. I agree with your point however.

 

[Ziggurat]

Saddam was removed and we created a power vacuum that has made things far worse in that country, and for our own security.

The Iraqis don't think things are far worse, and you don't even need to look up opinion polls to know that either. Just look at refugee flows. People fled Iraq in large numbers under Saddam. More people have returned to Iraq than have left it since we began our invasion.

So I'm curious: by what metric are things "far worse" in Iraq now than they were under Saddam?

 

[Mark]

The Iraqis don't think things are far worse, and you don't even need to look up opinion polls to know that either. Just look at refugee flows. People fled Iraq in large numbers under Saddam. More people have returned to Iraq than have left it since we began our invasion.

So I'm curious: by what metric are things "far worse" in Iraq now than they were under Saddam?

100,000 dead civilians. I guess they don't get recorded in the polls.

 

[RandFan]

But you keep repeating this phrase. "Clinton wanted regime change." (As if it's even remotely relevant.)

What is the point you're trying to make?

That we wanted regime change. That regime change was desirable. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear.

Wanting regime change does not justify the war. It demonstrates however that there was motivation to go to war other than WMD.

 

[Mark]

I respect your opinion. There is certainly ample evidence as a basis for that conclusion.

You like me, you really like me!

Seriously, I should try to be as open minded. And I will.

 

[RandFan]

You like me, you really like me!

Seriously, I should try to be as open minded. And I will.

Thanks, I really do understand the visceral AND objective anger and emotion over this war. I'm not without doubts. I take stories of the loss of life and injury hard and I coun't myself responsible. Big deal though, here I am sitting corpulent and safe typing away on a key board.

I get it. I really do.

 

[Mark]

Thanks, I really do understand the visceral AND objective anger and emotion over this war. I'm not without doubts. I take stories of the loss of life and injury hard and I coun't myself responsible. Big deal though, here I am sitting corpulent and safe typing away on a key board.

I get it. I really do.

I can only try to explain it in terms of my own opinions.

You're right: I am very bitter about this war. Ignoring the (in my view) waste of our soldiers' lives, the fact is I was 100% behind the Afghanistan invasion; that country was directly involved with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Also, I saw it as a golden opportunity to at last be a force for good in the mid-east by showing the Arab world our dedication to helping rebuild the country after the horrors of the Taliban.

Instead, we squandered our genuine victory there by spreading our resources too thin in a (again this is just my opinion) pointless invasion of Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, the Taliban are gaining in strength again, Osma is free as a bird, Mullah Omar is free as a bird, and the people there largely feel abandoned by the U.S.; and well they should. In Iraq, I strongly suspect that in order to restore calm, we will end up with a dictatorship as harsh as Hussein or worse; the main difference being that this time we will be blamed for its existence, just as we---correctly---were with the Shah of Iran; a mistake we are still paying for today.

That is why I am bitter about this war. Despite what many conservatives (not you) claim, I do NOT want to see us defeated, I do NOT hate Bush the man (I hate what he has done), and I most emphatically do NOT hate my country. I would just like to see us stop making the same bloody mistakes over and over and over again.

That's the best way I can explain it.