Rumsfeld 'led Bush to war'?

[Ziggurat]

It is true to some degree, that people get the government they deserve, and you are an example of getting this from Bush's U.S..

Then what kind of government did the Iraqi's deserve? What kind of government were the anti-war people workin to ensure they got? The anti-war people tried to make sure Iraq was stuck with a blood-thirsty oppressive dictator. So don't try to use that argument on me, it reaks of hypocracy.

As for the government that myself I do deserve, I do deserve a government that deals with wackos like Hussein by the democratic process in place at U.N., process that produces strong results allowing countries to live pracefully together in the world.

That's a joke. Saddam had absolutely no interest in living peacefully with the rest of the world. The UN's diplomacy was not producing strong results at all (despite your protestations, you've done nothing to demonstrate otherwise), only the threat of US muscle (which the UN refused to back up) ever produced any results, and even then not enough. You're essentially calling for the same sort of appeasement that let Hilter have free reign prior to WWII. How much better the world might have been had people realized earlier that he could not be appeased. The US realized that about Saddam, but France and Germany clung to the blind hope that maybe this time it would be different. And Russia and China didn't even really care, because it wasn't their problem. Most of the UN was not working for peace, they were working to try to maintain their own relevance, despite being completely impotent to do anything about the problem.

 

[Ion]

Then what kind of government did the Iraqi's deserve?
...

Hussein in Iraq was being contained pretty good by U.N. since 1992.

What kind of government does Bush's U.S. deserve?

...
That's a joke. Saddam had absolutely no interest in living peacefully with the rest of the world.
...

And Bush does?

Look at what Bush has done to the U.N..


Why is it that countries like Sweden don't have problems with U.N., but gee, cheating Bush does have...

It must be Bush, I guess...

 

[Ziggurat]

You know "...for certain he was going to try to do." from Bush.

Bush is not a reference.

I'm not getting this from Bush. I'm getting this from being able to put two and two together from publicly available and undisputed facts, something you seem completely incapable of doing. Saddam wanted to dominate the middle east. He attacked neighbors on multiple occasions to try increase his power. He oppressed his own citizens with violent force, including using chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own civilians. He was working on nuclear weapons prior to gulf war 1. He consistently obstructed UN weapons inspectors, and stopped them from working completely in 1998 when he thought the US was too preoccupied to respond effectively. He never fully complied with UN security council demands that he accepted as part of the end to the first gulf war. What do you THINK Saddam's plans for the future were? Get a clue. How obvious does something have to be before you can't deny it anymore?

 

[Earthborn]

It's not what we think he would do, it's what we know for certain he was going to try to do.

Claiming that you know for certain what he was going to do is trying to read his mind. You have no evidence that he was going to start his nuclear program again, and you have no evidence what he was going to do with a nuclear bomb once he had one.

Did Saddam try to limit civilian casualties when he invaded Kuwait?

I bet he did. He didn't invade Kuwait with the intention to kill people.

Did he try to repair infrastructure?

So you think Saddam prefers broken infrastructure?

Did he actually refrain from looting the place wholesale?

Please provide evidence of looting.

Did we ever make civilians the direct, intended targets of our invasion of Iraq? No.

Maybe not. But are the people who were cluster bombed in civilian areas going to believe that?

Iraq will be better off because of our invasion

That remains to be seen. Viet Nam was supposed to be better off because of a US invasion, but in the end it wasn't.

Well, if international law hurts the people it's intended to help (Iraqi civilians)

International law didn't cluster bomb innocent civilians.

That's a position that does not place world stability as a priority, a position that could easily cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

That is a fallacious argument. First misconstrue your opponents opinion by assuming he doesn't place world stability as a priority, just because he thinks world stability is better served differently. Then you start an argument from adverse (and unproven!) consequences.

You present no plan for how to keep nukes out of Saddam's hands

But I did. Any criticism on my plan is more than justified, but instead of giving criticism and suggestions that could improve my plan, you simply dismiss it and assume whatever is happening is the best course of action.

Perhaps it is the best course of action of what could be achieved right now, but I hope we will all learn a bit from this for some next time.

you merely claim that we should do in the future what we have no reason to believe we would be capable of doing: knowing exactly when Saddam was building nukes.

Read your own IAEA article. Looks to me like they knew very well what Saddam was up to, and he was not making any nukes.

That's not a plan, and it's not good enough.

Barging in, cluster bombing civilians, blowing up a few offices of the free press and then being surprised that the Iraqis are not welcoming them with open arms and flowers, doesn't look like much more of a plan to me. The promises of rebuilding Iraq, without presenting any plans or asking the local population isn't good enough either.

 

[Shinytop]

We had plenty of reason to go after Hussein. I would have supported the war for him shooting at our planes. I would have supported the war for the violations of the UN resolutions. I would have supported the war for the attempted assassination of an ex American president. I would have supported the war because when the oil embargo was lifted Hussein would have funded anybody willing to attack the US.

But the reality of the situation is that Bush went after support for the war by telling the American people that there was an imminent danger of WMD's. He then used support by the people to get a resolution from Congress supporting a war and used than as an excuse to bypass the Constitutional authority for declaring war bestowed on Congress alone. Since the resolution was obtained under false circumstances and from lies it becomes invalid just as any contract coerced through threats and lies is invalid.

Bush then sent an honorable man, Colin Powell, to tell the nations of the world that we were under this threat. He expended much good will our country could use in order to spread his lie and gain support. He cheapened the value of the American soldiers' lives lost by expending them for a lie.

He further showed his contempt for the people of this country by lying to get his way. And now we have many people saying "So What, the result is all that matters." I cannot go along with that. If we allow leaders to lead through lies and to expend our money and the lives of our young men based on those lies we deserve to lose the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft are eroding on a daily basis.

By the way, I was a big supporter of Bush until I realized he had lied. I do not accept lies from my coworkers, my family or my friends. I see no reason to accept them from Bush.

 

[Ziggurat]

By the way, I was a big supporter of Bush until I realized he had lied. I do not accept lies from my coworkers, my family or my friends. I see no reason to accept them from Bush.

I see no reason to either. But I also see no reason to oppose a justified war because I hate the man in charge of it. I will gladly vote against Bush in '04. But supporting the war is not synonymous with supporting Bush. That's a mistake much of the anti-war croud is making. If there are sufficient reasons to go to war, then support it, even if those aren't the reasons Bush put forward. Criticism of Bush can stand independently of that, and I am more than willing to criticize the man for how he handled the details.

 

[Ion]

I'm not getting this from Bush. I'm getting this from being able to put two and two together from publicly available and undisputed facts, something you seem completely incapable of doing. Saddam wanted to dominate the middle east.
...

When U.N. says there is no WMDs reason to war in Iraq, then there is no WMDs reason to war in Iraq.

Unlike Bush.

"Saddam wanted to dominate the middle east.":

and Bush, the world, especially oil worldwide.

 

[Shinytop]

It is every bit as ignorant to think the countries that vote in the UN do not have an agenda as it is to think the US does not have an agenda. Their votes, much like our own Congress, do not reflect what is right and just, but what is good for their self interests.

 

[Ion]

...
But supporting the war is not synonymous with supporting Bush. That's a mistake much of the anti-war croud is making.
...

In the case of Iraq's war, Bush fabricated the war, so the war is 100% Bush.

Right now, a sick (Hussein) is being treated by another sick (Bush).

I side with U.N. when not approving of Hussein, when containing Hussein since 1992, and when not approving of Bush's war against Hussein.

Hopefully a U.N. condemnation of Bush's war will come in a few years, when the opposition of Bush in U.N. gains more courage.

 

[Ion]

It is every bit as ignorant to think the countries that vote in the UN do not have an agenda as it is to think the US does not have an agenda.
...

I don't think otherwise.

That's why the U.N. process has to contain lone wackos like Bush and Hussein, and more wackos to come in most countries.

 

[Shinytop]

I don't think otherwise.

That's why U.N. process has to contain lone wackos like Bush, Hussein, and more wackos to come in most countries.

What you are missing is how can they contain wackos when they only contain people who are wacko enough for their definition today. Tomorrow they will vote today's wacko sane and declare another person a wacko. I do not understand you agreeing with what I said and then also saying the UN can control wackos.

But then your agenda has been pretty well defined by the posts you have made in this thread. Rest of world good, US bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have no evidence that he was going to start his nuclear program again, and you have no evidence what he was going to do with a nuclear bomb once he had one.

You're kidding, right? We do have evidence. We have the fact that he kept plans and parts for a uranium enrichment centrifuge hidden from inspectors. That's proof he was hoping to restart his program. And are you seriously trying to claim that Saddam with a nuke was an acceptable risk? Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. Yes, we don't know what he'd do - maybe he'd try to crush the Kurds first, or maybe he'd try to invade Kuwait again. Maybe he'd try to blackmail the Saudi's into giving him money to rebuild his army. But none of the possibilities are acceptable risks.

I bet he did. He didn't invade Kuwait with the intention to kill people.

Again, you've got to be kidding me. The man was a butcher. Killing civilians probably wasn't a primary objective (it was however in his campaign against the Kurds), but he certainly never carred about civilian casualtied, even among Iraqis.

So you think Saddam prefers broken infrastructure?

I'm saying he never gave a crap about the wellfare of Kuwaiti citizens. Is that not obvious? And if he couldn't have the infrastructure, then yes, he wanted it broken. Hence all the oil fires he started in Kuwait.

Please provide evidence of looting.

I'm surprised that this is the sort of thing you're contesting, but OK:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/documents/pdf/index.html
There's planty more tales of the looting that went on in Kuwait, but this should be sufficient for starters.
Don't forget the oil fires he set, or the oil he dumped into the gulf either, just to spite the world.

But I did. Any criticism on my plan is more than justified, but instead of giving criticism and suggestions that could improve my plan, you simply dismiss it and assume whatever is happening is the best course of action.

Your plan relies on being able to know if Saddam was restarting a nuclear weapons program. I already indicated that this is not something we can depend on. You have never provided a counterargument.

Read your own IAEA article. Looks to me like they knew very well what Saddam was up to, and he was not making any nukes.

They knew what he was up only after the war. They were completely ignorant of his activities before the war, and much of what they know only came from the partial (never complete) cooperation the Iraqis provided. Saddam did not build his first program to hide it from inspectors, only from external surveilance, and it worked. The IAEA had no clue. Knowing that he must contend with inspectors, you can be sure he would take greater pains to conceal his efforts. In other words, we cannot depend on the IAEA discovering his plans. They weren't responsible for uncovering his plans last time, and cannot be relied upon to do so in the future.

As for making nukes, well, that's really trying to wiggle out of the essential problem. He was not at the manufacturing stage, that is correct. But he was actively working on creating the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium for a bomb. He may not have been "making" a bomb, but he was certainly working on one. The distinction does not avoid the problem. And that comes from the IAEA documents.

The promises of rebuilding Iraq, without presenting any plans or asking the local population isn't good enough either.

And how, exactly, would one go about asking the local population under Saddam's oppressive control actually work? That's not something we could have done. Shortcomings on the specifics of how we plan to rebuild Iraq are justified, but they are also not the same as criticism of the basic decision to invade.

Ironically enough, some Iraqi's actually did greet invading troops with flowers. Certainly not all, but I never expected that. But in terms of the resistance, keep in mind also what that consists of. The resistance WANTS to make life miserable for ordinary Iraqis. It is not representative of the will of the Iraqi people.

 

[Ion]

...
Tomorrow they will vote today's wacko sane and declare another person a wacko. I do not understand you agreeing with what I said and then also saying the UN can control wackos.

But then your agenda has been pretty well defined by the posts you have made in this thread. Rest of world good, US bad.

"Tomorrow they will vote today's wacko sane and declare another person a wacko." has no place in the consistently tenacious U.N..

An example of U.N. tenacious sanctions that work, are in Lybia.

"Rest of world good, US bad.":

should change into:

Rest of world good with some exceptions, Bush's U.S. is bad.

Hopefully Howard Dean in the U.S. Presidential elections in 2004, is going to turn around this disaster that Bush puts U.S. into.

 

[Ion]

You're kidding, right? We do have evidence. We have the fact that he kept plans and parts for a uranium enrichment centrifuge hidden from inspectors. That's proof he was hoping to restart his program.
...

Are you referring to the centrifuge buried in the garden of that scientist for 10 years?

And a nuclear program needing hundreds of these to do anything?

It's ridiculous to war in Iraq and kill and maim thousands for this:

there is no imminent threat from a puny little centrifuge buried in the ground, worth the blood that was spilled by the U.S. and not worth the U.N. inspections.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you referring to the centrifuge buried in the garden of that scientist for 10 years?

And a nuclear program needing hundreds of these to do anything?

It's ridiculous to war in Iraq and kill and maim thousands for this:

there is no imminent threat from a puny little centrifuge buried in the ground, worth the blood that was spilled by the U.S. and not worth the U.N. inspections.

You continue to bury your head in the sand. Yes, it would take many more centrifuges to enrich enough uranium. Yes, it would have taken years. But as I've explained, and you have failed to refute, there would be no point during any of that time during which we would know it was necessary to invade. Opposition to invasion would always remain strong, regardless of how close Saddam actually was, because we could never know how close he was. As the years dragged by, it would become more difficult, not less, to actually do anything to stop him. And eventually he would get his hands on a nuke. Not this year, maybe not for many years. But it would have happened, and now was the best time to do something about that. But you can only resort to blaming the US, because that's the only agenda you understand. And you'll try any rationalization you can think of to support that bias.

 

[Ziggurat]

An example of U.N. tenacious sanctions that work, are in Lybia.

Lybia did not have permanent members of the security council trying to undermine sanctions. Lybia never had a nuclear weapons program. Lybia is not Iraq.

The UN is impotent. Santions were not working on Iraq, you have no evidence that they did, all you have is that worthless comparison. Saddam never cared about sanctions, why should he? What possible reason do you have for actually thinking that HE might be persuaded by sanctions? You have no reason to believe that, but you cling to it like a tennant of faith, hoping it will rescue your anti-American ideology from its own contradictions. The UN insists on sanctions because it is unwilling and unable to use force, yet it wants desparately to cling to any shred of relevance it can find. But it is making itself irrelevant by refusing to take effective action, by allowing Saddam to flout its resolutions for over a decade with no serious repercussions. Why exactly did the UN expect Saddam to bow to their will with that kind of track record?

 

[Ion]

...
Opposition to invasion would always remain strong, regardless of how close Saddam actually was, because we could never know how close he was.
...

The thing is that centrifuge was buried in the ground for 10 years to escape U.N. inspections, and all that Bush's U.S. has found are two trucks it labeled bioweapons which turned to be hydrogen instead.

In the U.N. Council in February 2003, countries were saying Hussein is not close to a threat, inspections are progressing and there is no need to war like there was a need to war in 1991.

This is proven correct.

Bush's U.S. is proven wrong.