WMDs not the REAL reason?

[zakur]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html

W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think some of us suspected that.

 

[aerocontrols]

The REAL reason:

Geopolitics is not mathematics. There is not a single property that leads to a conclusion, nor is there a formal proof for a solution that everyone can agree upon at every step.

My REAL reason for supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein was that he was a tyrant that I felt my government had some responsibility for the existence of. From a national security perspective, I could not support the elimination of sanctions, but from a humanitarian perspective, I wanted them removed. I further regretted my support for limiting the '91 war to 'Kuwait only' though at the time only the most extreme warmongers wanted the military to go all the way to Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein.

There is no person who supported the war (I believe) whose position boils down to one REAL reason. There are people who have reasons I agree with, there are people who have reasons I disagree with, but I don't 'disinvite' people from supporting my position because they come to it for different reasons than I do.
Is that misguided of me? If I believe Hussein should be removed, and that the people doing it will leave something better behind, should I care all that much that their reasons will be different than my own? They always will be, when we talk about geopolitics.

MattJ

[edit to clear up one sentence.]

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The REAL reason:

... snip....

If I believe Hussein should be removed, and that the people doing it will leave something better behind, should I care all that much that their reasons will be different than my own? They always will be, when we talk about geopolitics.

MattJ

You've started some of my gears turning..

If anyone waited for every right reason, that makes everybody happy, to do something; nothing good would ever get done.

Sort of a twist on the saying: " All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing."

 

[Ben Shniper]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html

Many had varying reasons.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - actually a catch-all for saying "Saddam is too powerful". Would Saddam be less dangerous if he had no WMD, but had Russia's or America's army? The arms restrictions, which were in the ceasefire treaty, were just a way to keep Saddam's weapons ability smaller.

2. Oil interests. Saddam boycotted the oil market for a month. Although Saudi Arabia offset this by raising production. But it showed that Oil is not safely available for trade from Saddam's regime. America doesn't want to own the oil. It is happy to simply trade for it, and needs to find willing trade partners.

3. Funding terrorism - IN ISRAEL. Why did America not push this point more? Because of Israel's unpopularity. But Saddam was the main funding source for many of the biggest Palestinian terrorist organization, and he had several big name Palestinian terrorists on his payroll training others. Is it wrong to support removing this tyrant for funding the intifadah? Well, apparently, it's not popular to try to save Israel from the Arab world's and the UN's trap.

4. Also, he funded terrorism to the north in Kurdistan, and in Iran, and possibly (not proven completely) in America as well. He tried to assasinate key Americans, including 41.

5. Saddam repressed his people, killing thousands or possibly millions (who do you blame the sanctions on?). This also weakened him, by creating huge opposition groups in Kurdistan and Shiite south. If Saddam wasn't so unpopular with his own people, the war would have been impossible to have.

6. Global show of power. The UN, the EU, and China are trying to threaten America and bring down America's power in the world. They have a good point. But America doesn't need to cowtow to their opinions, if their opinions are based on America being wrong because it is too powerful (Might makes wrong?).

-Ben

 

[Tricky]

Of course, there are lots of "real" reasons for the attack, one of which is certainly that Saddam was a dangerous tyrant. By itself, that is not a good enough reason, or else we would be taking out the even more dangerous tyrants. The problem is that the US needed a reason which didn't sound too self serving, and there simply aren't many of those. Among the "real" reasons are:

• The oil
• The US needs a power base in that part of the Mideast
• The US needed to make a power show for our other enemies
• We knew they would not put up much of a fight
• Need to distract people from the economy
• Very profitable for business cronies to "rebuild" Iraq
• Need to distract people from the fact that we haven't caught Osama
• Need testing ground for our new military apparatus
• They cheered when the WTC collapsed
• They tried to assassinate Daddy Bush
• Had to do it now, because fighting in the desert in summertime is nearly impossible (this has more to do with the timing than the actual reason).
• Did I mention the oil?

IF the WMDs were a "real" reason, they were probably a very minor one. After all, the greatest damage done to the US by Islamic terrorists was done by a handful of people armed with box cutters.

 

[Tricky]

Sort of a twist on the saying: " All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing."

Every time I hear this quote, I am reminded of a different one.

"There are two kinds of people in the world: The Righteous and the Unrighteous. -- And the Righteous do the dividing."

 

[Clancie]

So the Bush Administration was willing to kill thousands of Iraqis and wound countless more for a "show of U.S. power" (the "democracy" part in that statement is obviously just more "disinformation" since Rumfeld/Bush have made it clear Iraqis can only pick a government we like).

What hypocrisy. And, additionally, I'm sure a related goal to "a show of force" against the "axis of evil" and "terrorists" was to deplete our own sizeable stockpile of unused weapons--to have a chance to try out some cool new stuff--and to create a perceived need for a lot more $$$ to be spent on weapons production orders this year and next).

If this is truly the reason, I would question Mr. Bush's idea of "Christianity" if, as a devout man, he values (Iraqi) life so cheap.

And what a bunch of liars and hypocrites we have at the top. (Of course, after their reaction to finding out the document they presented to the UN about WMD was a forgery--essentially, "So what?"--who could possibly be surprised by anything they say or do?)

 

[aerocontrols]

Every time I hear this quote, I am reminded of a different one.

"There are two kinds of people in the world: The Righteous and the Unrighteous. -- And the Righteous do the dividing."

I don't believe I've ever met an Unrighteous person. Could you perhaps point one out for me?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....who could possibly be surprised by anything they say or do?

You seem to be...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Every time I hear this quote, I am reminded of a different one.

"There are two kinds of people in the world: The Righteous and the Unrighteous. -- And the Righteous do the dividing."

I haven't heard that before.. It seems paradoxical.. Is that the point?

 

[Tricky]

I haven't heard that before.. It seems paradoxical.. Is that the point?

Yes. Just as paradoxical as the "All it takes for evil..." quote. After all, the people we are defining as "evil' could be making the exact same statement, but with the roles reversed.

 

[Tricky]

I don't believe I've ever met an Unrighteous person. Could you perhaps point one out for me?

LOL. Well, I'm not one of the righteous, so I can't do any of the identifying. Ask Jedi Knight. He has a much firmer grasp of these sorts of things than do I.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes. Just as paradoxical as the "All it takes for evil..." quote. After all, the people we are defining as "evil' could be making the exact same statement, but with the roles reversed.

Hmmmm... There is still some philosophical disection to be done here...



" All it takes for good to prevail, is for evil people to do nothing .. " doesn't seem quite as profound to me.. I'm still chewing on it..

 

[Tricky]

Hmmmm... There is still some philosophical disection to be done here...

" All it takes for good to prevail, is for evil people to do nothing .. " doesn't seem quite as profound to me.. I'm still chewing on it..

Come on Lamp Man! You're a bright guy. Imagine this scenario.

"Listen, Achmed, all it takes for evil Americanism to prevail is for good Muslim people to do nothing. Who's got the box cutters?"

In my "the righteous do the dividing" quote, the implication is that virtually everyone thinks that they themselves are righteous, just as virtually no one considers themselves evil.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

And what a bunch of liars and hypocrites we have at the top. (Of course, after their reaction to finding out the document they presented to the UN about WMD was a forgery--essentially, "So what?"--who could possibly be surprised by anything they say or do?)

What document are you refering to? I have not seen evidence that the U.S. forged any documents presented to the U.N. about WMD.

George Bush made a statement about WMDs in Iraq

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/25/bush_iraq_wmd030425

The whole Bush/Blair WMD angle reminds me of a chapter in Carl Sagan's book DHW titled The Dragon in My Garage . The world has asked for evidence for the serious allegation that Saddam's regime had WMDs and Bio/Chem Weapons.

Hans Blix, in my opinion, and the UN were open minded despite there being no evidence. Hans Blix et al never rejected the accusation, but said that present evidence does not support the allegation.

The Bush Adminstration keeps insisting the WMDs are there, like the person that claims the dragon is in the garage. Every attempt to gather evidence has been met with a special explanation (in Blair's case he says "Trust me."

Now I do not think either Bush nor Blair are liars. Both men have been as frank and forth-coming as the need-to-know-basis information has become available. There is no evidence that these men facilitate the dissemintion of fabricated proof. I will give the benefit of the doubt that the 2 men are honest.

What are the explanations then for the discrepancy between the allegations that Saddam's Regime has WMDs or Chem/Bio weapons and the lack of evidence to proove the allegation? Bush and Blair present several explanations, as illustrated in the above article to some extant.

What are the other explanations. Do Bush and Blair consider more than one hypothesis? DO they think of all the ways in which the evidence or lack of evidence could be explained? Do they think of tests by which to disprove the alternatives? The hypothesis that resists disproof has the best chance of being the explanation.

Hans Blix has offered the UN inspection teams (showing that Blix is still open minded, Blix has never said, case closed.) Bush rejects the offer, saying the US will handle the gathering of evidence, they just need more time. Why reject Blix's offer? I have confidence that the US chemical teams will do thorough scientific inspections, but I think having UN inoved again will not impede an investigation, rather, it will contribute to the investigation.

 

[RandFan]

The REAL reason:

Geopolitics is not mathematics. There is not a single property that leads to a conclusion, nor is there a formal proof for a solution that everyone can agree upon at every step.

My REAL reason for supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein was that he was a tyrant that I felt my government had some responsibility for the existence of. From a national security perspective, I could not support the elimination of sanctions, but from a humanitarian perspective, I could not support their removal while Hussein was still in power. I further regretted my support for limiting the '91 war to 'Kuwait only' though at the time only the most extreme warmongers wanted the military to go all the way to Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein.

There is no person who supported the war (I believe) whose position boils down to one REAL reason. There are people who have reasons I agree with, there are people who have reasons I disagree with, but I don't 'disinvite' people from supporting my position because they come to it for different reasons than I do.
Is that misguided of me? If I believe Hussein should be removed, and that the people doing it will leave something better behind, should I care all that much that their reasons will be different than my own? They always will be, when we talk about geopolitics.

Excellent observations Matt,

I made a similiar argument in my thread questioning the logic that the war was just for oil.

And of course I love how unnamed sources are given such weight when they are self serving but are dismissed when they don't support our view.

 

[RandFan]

What are the other explanations. Do Bush and Blair consider more than one hypothesis? DO they think of all the ways in which the evidence or lack of evidence could be explained? Do they think of tests by which to disprove the alternatives? The hypothesis that resists disproof has the best chance of being the explanation.

What about Iraqi Scientist Says WMDs Were Destroyed Days Before War's Start... Was this story discredited? Things change so quickly I might have missed it.

 

[crackmonkey]

If you notice, nowhere is it asserted that members of the administration make these assertions. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if some members of the government - perhaps some of the more vocal anti-war Democratic Congressmen - made such accusations.

 

[Richard G]

Killing our enemies, and those who aid our enemies was the reason for war. There will be more to come.