At this point, or rather some time ago, it’s quite clear that you will tolerate only a single opinion, which is that Bush is an evil, mad, liar, who is solely to blame for the Iraq War, and that all other parties involved acted with diligence, integrity, forbearance, wisdom, and foresight, especially Hillary Clinton. Those who disagree with you must have a single motive, which is to defend the honor of George W. Bush.
Well, I am now stepping off this particular treadmill. Your rapid-fire sequential posts, your attacks on your opponents’ motives, and your refusal to address questions posed to you have conspired to make me weary of continuing this endless, fruitless, exchange.
Good Bye! Thanks for insight and challenging thoughts from a perspective I have not encountered from one who articulates it quite well.
As to my alleged “refusal to address questions posed” before you go could you leave behind summary of what you think those, are?
If I missed some questions because time constraints prevented me from responding, I will be reviewing the thread to find them; however for you to make the charge, you must have a few on thevtip of your tongue.
I also note that in your farewell address you did not complain that my grasp of the facts and that my reliance upon the historical record about the run up to the Iraq invasion is lacking or of low standard.
I believe with you that this topic is very critical for lessons learned for posterity. So I will continue to comment and summarize the conversations that went on here.
No, that would be rather tacky, to attack your argument in a post where I said I wasn’t continuing said argument. -Human Action Today 09:43 AM 065a0908.
It goes without saying that Human Action was and should and must attacking my argument, even in leaving; but I did not say anything about my ‘argument’ posted above. I specifically mentioned my use if facts and the historical records.
There are at times a disconnect between posts and replies in what is written. That happens and it just happened again.
When the AUMF in October 2002 was passed, there were 74 US Senators who authorized the use of military force were saying exactly the same thing that Human Action wrote on March 5, at 05:55 am.
Except that Human Action would not have let Bush be the sole decider as to whether or not such cooperation was good enough. And that would have made all the difference, as Robert Frost might have said.
[QUOTE"I think you’re asking me if war was justified if Hussein refused to cooperate with inspections and disarmament. If that is what you’re asking, my answer is yes." -[COLOR=“red”]
Human Action #555 Yesterday, 05:55 AM 064a0855.
“When the AUMF in October 2002 was passed, there were 74 US Senators who authorized the use of military force were saying exactly the same thing that Human Action wrote on March 5, at 05:55 am.” -Ntfldbw #586 Today, 01:33 PM 065p0133.
“Except that Human Action would not have let Bush be the sole decider as to whether or not such cooperation was good enough. And that would have made all the difference, as Robert Frost might have said.” -John Mace #587 Today, 03:09 PM. [/COLOR]]
[/QUOTE]
There are a few critical points that you have missed.
(a) Until November in 2002, it is true that that Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with the UN and being disarmed in violaiton of international law.
According to Human Action (March 5 at 05:55 AM) “YES”, “war was justified if Hussein refused to cooperate with inspections and disarmament.”
(b) It was established as a precedent FOR IRAQ’s Non-Cooperation of its disarmament obligations that at least one President had already use Military Force Against Iraq without an Authorization from Congress.
(c) Senator Clinton explained in her October 10, 2002 speech before her vote that, Member States were already authorized under INTERNATIONAL LAW to use Military Force Against Iraq to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions whether the UN Authorized them or not.
(d) As seen in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and during the US and UK enforcement fo the North and South No Fly Zones, Air Strikes were at least an option for starting a war without necessary being combined with a ground invasion.
(e) US Ground Forces were already on the ground in Iraq during Desert Fox in the Kurdish Controlled Provinces of Iraq, and had withdrawn (maybe) after Desert Fox was concluded., but the Precedent had been set and the Kurds had a 60,000 man Army ready to go against the Regime.
Therefore, Human Action has expressed an opinion that Bush was justified to at least launch air strikes similary to Clinton, and we know that Bush had several options to bring the US into a war against Iraq without an AUMF.
And Dick Cheney, the most powerful Vice President in American History - Never wanted to go the ‘UN Last Chance for Saddam’ route.
So John, It is apparent that Human Action did not have the power to prevent Bush from being the sole decider of anything, specifically with regard to taking military action against Iraq.
I personally think had Blair been able to join in the ‘fun’ without going through the UN first. Bush would have gone the Cheney way… Get Congress approval after some Americans got killed in a limited engagement of some type.
It was not sanity that drove Bush to the UN… It was Tony Blair. Bush wanted Blair in on it. (This is an opinion and not necessary for the case I am making)
Bush, the WarMonger did take us through a spell before He became the PEACEKEEPER where he didn’t think he needed Congress… Legally… to start a war against Iraq.
This is the start of an interensting exchange regarding Iraq’s cooperation and what cooperation meant or should mean on one’s viewpoint that was bing discussed here.
My post #588 may have put a stop to the discussion. That is too bad. I won’t know if the facts and historical conditions I presented can be refuted. I guess I must assume they stand.
I think a more accurate assumption is that everyone is tried of beating their heads against your wall of stubbornness and your infuriating posting style…I know I was tired of it pages ago. The only one still giving you a pass and still trying to engage you was Human Action, and he wisely gave it up as a bad deal.
My advice is to start a new thread if you are really interested in continuing to pursue the subject, and learn how to debate and engage other posters in a good faith manner…and don’t spam multiple posts in a row like you seem to enjoy doing (not sure why the mods let you get away with that, but whatever). Do what you like, however.
Did you read post #588? Stubbornly sticking to facts and reality is not necessarily a vice. And I am not Spamming. As is the case right now, younger not addressing the discussion topic at all. Just griping and insulting I guess. That’s all fine with me. I never complain about how others go about expressing their thoughts. I like to exchange thoughts and facts, and see where they go.
I’d think if I wish to summarize in a thoughtful and respectful way what went on in this thread that I find quite interesting and informative, it would be OK.
I’m more open minded than you think, but when someone, for instance, knocks down a major point of mine that Iraq made a huge offer for peace to let the CIA in, by telling me that the UNSC would not allow it so no big deal - that’s to me what a forum should be about. That reply was nonsense. And do you weigh in on the many points counter points? Nope.
I see where your interests lie, in knocking posters instead of posts.
But hey, it is a free world and I respect freedom of Speech, but in my stubborn way, I am going to ask that when you bring complaints against me personally, that you back it up with some examples.
Perhaps Ravenman could have accepted, “they voted to invest the decision in the president to determine if war was necessary” but it sure gets the point across must easier to say “they voted for war if necessary”.
When Ravenman states in five words, **“They did vote for war” ** that is not true and Ravenman tells us why in the following sentence.
What is so precious about saying “THEY VOTED FOR WAR”?
The voted at least equally for an alternative outcome to war on two conditions, which were both subsequently met prior to Bush’s determination to start a war.
They were, (a) The UNSC passed a Resolution to enforce all WMD Resolutions with regard to Iraq and renew inspections. And (b) Saddam Hussein cooperated fully with that UN Resolution and the three months of inspections.
The big dispute here on this Hubris thread, and among those who most agree overall, that the US invasion of Iraq was wrong and amoral and dumb etc, I see as the primary dispute being over whether Democratic Members of Congress “VOTED FOR WAR” or “VOTED FOR WAR IF NECESSARY”.
Perhaps I should redefine why I think it matters.
The issue today, and the issue going forward is that there is a general split in opinion about the US invasion of Iraq and Bush’s decision to do it, among those of us who lived through 9/11 and who were witness to the aftermath of that fateful event, including the supercharged period when the Administration’s plans were being laid to invade Iraq over the alleged existence of WMD and the potential nexus of those “wmd” and the war on terror.
That split in opinion about the merits or non-merit of the war has settled in at roughly 60 to 40 calling it a mistake.
To me that is not good enough for the ‘lessons learned for posterity’ matter that has also been discussed here for two reasons. First it did not happen because of 'mistaken intelligence and secondly 40 percent who are ok with the entire concept of the invasion, for whatever reason, is too high. It is too many people who are not educated to what really happened.
That is bad going into the future because as time wears on, the sympathy will tend to drift in favor of, looking back on the war as somehow justified.
I think the split should be around 90% accepting that Bush deliberately lied us into the war and it was wrong and can never be justified in any way, while the ten percent of hard core rightwingers would still believe Bush was the greatest thing that ever happened and Iraq deserved what it got.
I believe the compliant news media is content with a 60/40 split going into history because it relieves them of their being accessories to the crime that Bush committed when he decided to kick the UN Inspectors out of Iraq.
There are things going for the News Media and the Pro-Bushies that enter into this.
The $10 to $13 Billion Abrams Tanks, F-16 Fighters and other military hardware arms sales to Iraq will make the war more over time seem more palatable and worthwhile.
Bush Sr will pass away, sympathy will dribble down to Junior and the historical revisionism will really start to kick in with regard to Iraq.
So to me, it matters how we who have a keen interest in this moments in history, can reveal what really happened. What was the mood at the time. What the vote for war really meant. Why is the fact that Iraq COOPERATED with UN inspectors so important.
This thread sheds light on all that stuff.
It is a shame that it turned into a Let’s villify different thought than the sitting majority kind of thing.
Ten years ago at this time, the scam for war was in full force by the Bush White House. From March 07, through March 17, 2003 the President of the United States clearly was detached from reality to end up producing this report for delivery to Congress as an explanation for the necessity for war.
Some on tell me this is sane. War was necessary because two UNSC Members would VETO war when, “THE APPEARANCE OF PROGRESS ON the PROCESS of inspections” was the reality.
And there is an outright lie in this statement. Bush says UNSC members would veto any resolution that compels disarmament of Iraq when Iraq was being disarmed like it never had been disarmed before.
Voted for WAR 03 - Posts #596,597,600
Here we see an example that with many to blame, none can be held accountable. Hillary Clinton is as much to blame, (Prison Time) as Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. I have pointed out why a war crimes court would not bring Hillary Clinton to the proceedings if they ever did take place. More on that aspect as the summary continues.