U.S. undermined weapons inspectors.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
Yes, I believe it was O.K..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all of the US felt like it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later, then I believe that it would be in the best interests of the rest of the world to combine and destroy this dangerous, lawless beast.

Fortunately, I don't think this is the default US position. This is a simple case of being wrong and not being able to admit it, at least not yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortunately for the iraqi people, this is one time that being wrong, might have been the best thing that could have happened to them.

It is possible, to not agree with someones motives, even dislike them as a person, and still realize the outcome of their actions was a good thing.
That is called ' being objective'.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks. I like to believe this is typical of my fair and logical thinking.


I am usually impressed with your skills too, Diogenes. That is why it is so surprising to see you take such untenable positions and dodge questions.

Like this one:
Do you favor the use of blank search warrants?

No.

I didn't realize you asked a question. I thought it was an extension..

P.S. As alluded to in my other post, just because I don't favor them, doesn't mean I think that no good can come from using them. I would say they are not the best tool for the job.

 

[Tricky]

I didn't realize you asked a question. I thought it was an extension..

Oops. Ya got me. I did not phrase it in the form of a question. Does this mean I don't get to move on to the Double Jeopardy round?

No. (answering my question about the blank search warrant)

P.S. As alluded to in my other post, just because I don't favor them, doesn't mean I think that no good can come from using them. I would say they are not the best tool for the job.

I agree that some good might come of it, but in my mind, the badness outweighs it. I wouldn't want the US to become a police state. I feel that allowing searches for no reason or for some made-up reason would lead to that. By extension (damn, but I sure extend a lot!) I think that to invade a country with a made-up reason is wrong, regardless of how noble your intentions were. "Filling in the blank" with whatever bad stuff you find there is equally wrong.

Now for the Final Jeopardy answer.

"A fundamentalist Islamic government is the most likely outcome of the invasion".

Can you come up with the question?

 

[RichardR]

Politicians lie all the time.. If you recall, we didn't get to vote on it.

P.S.

Yes, I believe it was O.K..

They lie? Really?

I never bought the “they are a threat” reason. But for me, that (if it had been true), would have been the only reason to go to war. However, whether you agree with me on that or not, it seems to be sloppy thinking to say that if your original reason for doing something was wrong then any other one that works will do. These were the reasons given, as I recall:

1. Iraq has WMD and is a threat to the US
   
   But no WMD were found, so
   
2. Iraqi scientists were not allowed to leave the country to talk to inspectors
   
   But that was too weak an excuse to go to war, even for Bush, so
   
3. Evidence was presented that Iraq had tried to acquire nuclear parts
   
   But that evidence was shown to have been faked, so
   
4. Iraq is helping al Qaeda
   
   But no connection could be found, so
   
5. Iraq is in contravention of UN resolutions
   
   But the UN didn’t agree we needed to go to war for this, so
   
6. Iraq needed “liberating”.
   
   Yes, that’s it. Yes. It’s “Iraqi Freedom”! THAT”S the reason.

The new lie from Bush and his gang is that we went in to liberate the Iraqis. Listen to the politicians talking about the war now – it’s all talk about “liberation”, as though the WMD, UN resolutions etc never existed. And amazingly, a large part of the media has bought it.

Do you agree that the “threat to the US” reason was bogus?

 

[RichardR]

If all of the US felt like it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later, then I believe that it would be in the best interests of the rest of the world to combine and destroy this dangerous, lawless beast.

Fortunately, I don't think this is the default US position.

I hope you're right, although I am worried you might not be. And so, I believe, is the rest of the world.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you agree that the “threat to the US” reason was bogus?

Nope..

I'll try to put together a more detailed reply later...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Now for the Final Jeopardy answer.

"A fundamentalist Islamic government is the most likely outcome of the invasion".

Can you come up with the question?

This is a visual question.. look at the following picture, and tell me:

What if this man has his way?


I would like to deal with that when it happens.. Hold me to it..

 

[Clancie]

originally posted by Tricky
Also, it is important that these finds have international witnesses, otherwise people will accuse the US of planting them. Besides, wouldn't you want the people who know the most about weapons inspection to help?

Yes, and don't forget we also produced forged documents to the U.N. in support of our claims of WMD. When he was told that they were forgeries, all Powell did was shrug. What credibility does that give the Bush team?

Re: Blix

There are thousands of possible sites and we haven't even visited a hundred of them so far. Of course, we should accept the offer of experts, meaning the U.N. team. Actually, we should ask for their help.

But, since our current policy is to stomp around the world showing contempt for other countries and doing whatever we damn well please ourselves, of course, we won't get any input from anyone.

Here's the team we're sending instead of the U.N. (CNN, April 18):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- April 18, 2003

The United States is sending a 1,000-man team to Iraq to hunt for weapons of mass destruction, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The group, probably to be led by a general, will consist of military personnel, government intelligence analysts, civilian scientists and private contractors.

Initial elements of the "Iraq Survey Group" are already in Iraq and the full organization should be operational within a couple of weeks, a defense official said.

The survey team will focus on putting a larger number of people into the country to undertake a more organized search based on intelligence leads.

The latest effort underscores the growing Pentagon view that the United States no longer expects to find weapons of mass destruction on its own, but will have to offer rewards to Iraqis to elicit information as to where to look.

"I think what will happen is, we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during a town hall meeting at the Pentagon. "It is not like a treasure hunt, where you just run around looking everywhere hoping you find something.

"The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will. What we will do is find the people who will tell us."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/17/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

I can't, in my memory, recall any Defense Secretary more arrogant than Don ("Who would have thought there were so many vases?") Rumsfeld

 

[Tricky]

This is a visual question.. look at the following picture, and tell me:
{snip picture of Shiite Pilgrim}
What if this man has his way?

I would like to deal with that when it happens.. Hold me to it..

Then we will have another Muslim fundamentalist government to deal with. I don't think that is what the US had in mind.

So we are faced with a contradiction. Either we went in to liberate Iraq, leaving them free to choose whatever kind of government they want, or we went in to force them to have the kind of government we want, which is not exactly what most people consider "liberation".

It is a very tough question, and I am curious as to how you would deal with it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It will be a while before this all plays out.

I don't see how anyone could suggest that getting rid of Saddam's regime was the wrong thing to do, or that we should have waited for some more concrete reason to do it. ( .. while accepting that everyone might not feel that way...)

If the end result, is that the Islamic Fundamentalists gain political control of the country, hopefully, it will be as a result of free elections.

If that elected government chooses to confront, or threaten the security of the U.S., I hope we have the balls to knock em' down, just like we did Saddam.

 

[Tricky]

It will be a while before this all plays out.

I don't see how anyone could suggest that getting rid of Saddam's regime was the wrong thing to do, or that we should have waited for some more concrete reason to do it. ( .. while accepting that everyone might not feel that way...)

Yeah, it is hard to argue with the motive. Saddam was a terrible man. Unfortunately, there are many terrible men just waiting to fill the vaccuum. Don't be surprised if you see the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis in retribution for the "Saddam years". They would have to be pretty brutal to be as bad as Saddam, but brutality is sort of a way of life there.

Not saying that removing Saddam was a bad thing, but we will have to walk on eggs wearing bubble-wrap shoes if we plan to make the ultimate outcome beneficial to the US and fair to the people of Iraq. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that the current US administration is any good at sensitive diplomacy.

If the end result, is that the Islamic Fundamentalists gain political control of the country, hopefully, it will be as a result of free elections.

And if it isn't? What do we do then? Liberate them again? And since when did the US care about free elections? Our two biggest allies in the Arab world are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both totalitarian monarchies. When are we going to liberate them?

If that elected government chooses to confront, or threaten the security of the U.S., I hope we have the balls to knock em' down, just like we did Saddam.

Saddam did not confront or (directly) threaten the security of the US. There is virtually no link between Saddam and the terrorists. The countries that are threats to the US are mostly fundamental Islamic governments. And even then, it is not the government that threatens us, but the fanatics that it spawns, otherwise we would have invaded Saudi Arabia right after 9-11. Other than the Taliban, the closest thing we have had to a government threatening the US was in the Iran hostage crisis. So we bravely bribed them with some weapons to release the hostages. Yeah, we really showed a lot of balls there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So we bravely bribed them with some weapons to release the hostages. Yeah, we really showed a lot of balls there.

I know.. I was just blustering....


This is a very complicated issue.. It will be a marvelous political milestone if Iraq emerges from the rubble as a world force for democracy, human rights and economic success.

The irony of it is, if it happens during GWB's tour, he may see it as good reason to take out some other anal sphincter.

 

[Tricky]

I know.. I was just blustering....


This is a very complicated issue.. It will be a marvelous political milestone if Iraq emerges from the rubble as a world force for democracy, human rights and economic success.

Ah, I knew we would come to agreement on this eventually.

The irony of it is, if it happens during GWB's tour, he may see it as good reason to take out some other anal sphincter.

John Ashcroft???