Thank you!
In practically every paragraph.
From the first paragraph:
From the second:
From the third:
And the fourth:
And then goes on to say:
He seems to be repeatedly drawing a very clear distinction between Saddam Hussein (and his sons) and the Iraqi people. The war is to overthrow Saddam - the joker in the famous deck of cards - and not to destroy the Iraqi people.
Sounds like regime change to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry but there must be some material between the lines that I’m not picking up, or else you are inferring more than what is actually there.
Where in that quote is a call for regime change? Similarly for the other quotes. We may say things like the Chinese regime is repressive and reprehensible, but that’s not a call to invade and overthrow China, is it? And more importantly, what gives the US the right to change a regime that it doesn’t like? If the Swedes don’t like George Bush, should they lob bombs into Washington?
I have to ask two things.
Do you sincerely, honestly, believe that GWB and his pals give a dead rats ass about the kurds?
Should the world bomb american cities (killing civilians) retroactively for the US governments past decision to drop two nuclear bombs on japanese cities vaporizing all innocent men, women and children?
**
Yes.
No.
> “It argues.” Those are some strong words! I’m convinced. We shoulda nuked the bastards.
Who knows. If you throw enough non sequiteurs at people, they might just give up and go away.
>I’m a chemist. My lab is concealed – I’ve got the windows
>blocked up, because I do photochemistry and so I need a light-
>controlled environment – and I clean it all the time. What’s
>more, if you test my lab for chemical weapons, none will show
>up… all you’ll find is cleaning agents!! Clearly, I’m also producing
>contraband.
Just like people have hair, and dogs have hair, and so people are dogs. Can’t argue with that logic - there’s no logic to argue with.
>I see… so “cheat and retreat” = terrorism.
No…cheat and retreat+terrorism=reason to attack. Need some math work there, eh?
>If you say so, chief. Me, I’ve got the quotes to back my shit up.
That’s…nice…but quotes chop everything in between. I would pick out a quote from your post out of context, but I’m not that mean.
Have a nice day,
Athelas
You really don’t see it? I am not sure I can make it any clearer.
As I read the speech, it seems that Bush spends the first few paragraphs giving the history of interaction between the US and what he explicitly refers to as the “Iraqi regime”. Then he details all the bad actions by that regime that lead to his desire to see a change - so that the bad stuff will cease.
Then he makes the ultimatum - Saddam and his sons have to leave Iraq within 48 hours. If they don’t do so, there will be military action. But Bush goes to make it very clear that the US beef is not with the Iraqi people, but only with their regime. If the Iraqis do not take any action to defend what Bush refers to as a “dying regime”, they will not be attacked.
The purpose of the invasion, in other words, is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons. In other words, regime change.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If Bush wasn’t talking about regime change, why would he make a distinction between the regime and the people?
I’m not sure where you are headed with this. If China had a equivalent record on human rights, presented a threat to their own people and to their neighbors, and was attempting to amass weapons of mass destruction in violation of a cease-fire, and could reasonably be expected to fall as quickly, easily, and with minimal damage to US forces as was true with Iraq, you’re darn right we should invade and overthrow them. Especially if we can do it before they develop nukes, instead of waiting until after they develop them, as in the case of North Korea.
With China, they already have developed them, and therefore regime chance in Peking is a very different matter than in Baghdad. But the difficulties are practical, not moral - any regime that behaves as Iraq has done would be overthrown, in a perfect world.
I am not necessarily arguing that Red China is as bad as Iraq, but if they were, and didn’t have nukes, and would fall in a matter of three weeks or so, why not? Just because we can’t bring it off in every case is not an argument that we shouldn’t do it in any case.
I think it is more than disingenous to minimize the atrocities of Iraq by pretending that it is just a matter of what the US likes or not. And to draw or imply a moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam Hussein is not a point that really needs a lot of refutation.
I guess the short answer is that if George Bush had been acting as Saddam Hussein has for the last twenty-five years, and was attempting to acquire the weapons of mass destruction to threaten Mexico and Canada, and it was very likely that the US could be overthrown with minimal damage and effort, the Swedes would be entirely justified in lobbing bombs at Washington.
The point being, he hasn’t, and Saddam has. Therefore, regime change in Iraq was justified in a way that it couldn’t be in the US.
Regards,
Shodan
Aren’t you confusing two different things here? The two trailers were not found to be concealed, were they? There were ten 10’ by 10’ “labs” that were found “buried in the sand” that were later determined by US forces not to be weapons labs. If you don’t know what you are talking about, it is hard to take the remainder of your points seriously. But let me ask you, what would you say about any laboratory in the US that did not clean the facilities regularly? Seriously, if I were doing anything with any chemicals, the first thing and last thing I would do would be to clean the damn thing. It seems that the “biased mind” is the only one that would interpret this as a nefarious act.
This argument is just mindless horseshit. They would count, if they were determined to be weapons producing facilities. They might even be meaningful if they could be determined to have been in operation sometime during the past 6 years. However, relative to what we were supposed to be scared of, honestly, can you say that they are comparable? Would you have authorized the deaths of US soldiers to secure these two trucks?
He gave it as a fucking “casus belli” - that should be pretty goddamn iron-clad, don’t you think?
The rest of your argument is not much of one at all.
Both sides of this debate are WAY too premature in declaring victory. The fact is, this whole situation is a conundrum. It makes little sense. That tells me we don’t have all the information yet.
Consider:
From the Anti-War Side:
[ul]
[li]The Bush Administration seemed to have specific evidence. Not just evidence that there must be WMD because they are unaccounted for, but satellite photos of production facilities, decontamination trucks, mobile labs, etc. They had evidence of unaccounted-for SCUD missiles. [/li][li]Some of the evidence floating around was very specific as to places. For example, one of Saddam’s ex-bodyguards claimed that there was a hidden WMD site in Tikrit. He said that you had to enter the door of a residence, and there was a hidden tunnel that went for several blocks before it opened into a large underground facility. I have to believe that site was checked, and either nothing is there or the government is suppressing the evidence for some reason.[/li][/ul]
So, from the standpoint of those against the war, there is a very reasonable question to be asked: Why did the U.S. claim to have such accurate information? Even if WMD are still found, it seems strange that it wouldn’t have been found by now, given the precision of U.S. intelligence. And if Saddam’s ex-bodyguard was lying about this, how many other Iraqi defectors were also lying, to try to force the U.S. to liberate their country?
It would be a mistake for the pro-war side to brush off these concerns.
From The Pro-War Side:
This is where I am, and I am confused. Not because I’ve been snookered, or believe that a government is incapable of lying. I’m confused because those lies simply don’t make sense. Consider:
[ul]
[li]It wasn’t just the Bush administration. Tony Blair’s government shared the same intel, and believed in it just as strongly. It defies belief that Tony Blair would engage in a grand conspiracy with the Bush administration to concoct evidence.[/li][li]Flat-out lying about WMD doesn’t make any sense, because both governments had to know that if they couldn’t produce those weapons after the war, there would be hell to pay.[/li][li]Other governments, some of which opposed the war, concurred with the basic intel. CSIS in Canada, for example.[/li][li]The military went to great hardship and fought at a significant disadvantage to put their soldiers in MOPP gear. If this were a conspiracy to manufacture evidence, surely an excuse could have been made to avoid that - by simply claiming that the evidence was that the chemical weapons were in storage and wouldn’t be on the battlefield in time or something. Clearly, the military believed it.[/li][li]Saddam did not account for the destruction of his chemical and biological weapons and precursors, despite the fact that failure to do so was threatening his regime. That’s not smart. But then, as elucidator pointed out in another thread, the son of a bitch was crazy enough to pretend to still have the stuff, just to maintain stature amongst his fellow leaders. This is possible, but doesn’t seem likely to me.[/li][li]Colin Powell, who most think is a stand-up guy who would not lie to the American people, flatly states that he stands behind every single piece of evidence he presented to the U.N. [/li][li]Those mobile labs. Quixotic78 said, "The truly unbiased mind would say, “We should test them for the presence of chemical weapons. If no traces show up, then they weren’t being used to produce chemical weapons!”. This is nonsense. If I find a fermenter and some copper piping in a backwoods cabin, I’m going to guess that someone was making a still. It would be unlikely that it’s a perfume plant. Likewise, if I kick in the door of a house in the projects and find hydroponics gear and rows of gro-lux bulbs, my first thought would not be that I stumbled across a hidden petunia garden. Sure, those labs could have been used to make hydrogen. But there’s no reason to hide hydrogen-production gear in a mobile lab and camouflage it. Intelligence experts have been very honest about this: They’ve found no traces of chemicals (possibly because the labs had yet to be used), but occam’s razor says these were bioweapon labs. Nothing else makes sense.[/li]
And Other Confounding items:
[list]
[li]Tony Blair says he has ‘secret’ data, which will be made public soon, which will show clearly that their claims of WMD before the war were true.[/li][li]The Bush Administration is sticking to their story as well. [/li][/ul]
If this isn’t the case, then this falls into the category of ‘digging yourself a deeper hole’. And both leaders are too smart to do that.
Frankly, I think the lack of WMD so far has surprised everyone, INCLUDING the Blair and Bush governments. I think they were shocked when they turned up diddly squat. Now, just why that is, I don’t know. I think they are trying to piece that together right now, and some of Blair’s ‘secret evidence’ may shed some light on this. It could be an intelligence failure. It could be some lower-level officials with an agenda pulling a fast one on the leadership. Or it could be that they were exactly correct, and Saddam destroyed his weapons on the eve of war. Knowing invasion was inevitable, he may have decided that his best chance of surviving was to destroy all the WMD to deny the casus belli for war, then to hold out in Baghdad and wait for world opinion to turn in his favor. This is at least a plausible theory - as plausible as any others.
So, I’m sitting on the fence. I’ll wait for all the information to surface before drawing any more conclusions. I’m confused, and I don’t think I’m the only one. When you don’t know the answer, the best response is to say “I don’t know”, rather than bluster and bicker in a partisan fashion.
Bolding mine. They aren’t that smart. They are captive to their handlers. And their handlers, this time, fucked up big time. Their handlers manipulated the evidence and they ate it up like good little pols. Dems do it, and this time a Rep did it in the US.
The lack of WMD has surprised only the people who blindly support the Republican agenda in the US. That includes about 90% of the population. Included in the total are the “unwashed” masses in the US who are waiting for their refund check.
Colin Powell was probably NOT surprised that they haven’t found any WMD. Karl Rove was probably not surprised. Rummy was probably not surprised.
Blair’s secret evidence doesn’t exist. It’s bullshit. Just like the WMD. It wasn’t an intelligence failure, unless you are describing the intelligence of the American people, senators, representatives, the die-hard suck-up conservatives on this board, and most people who don’t care about what their leaders are doing.
The professional intelligence people in the US and other countries did their job. They got fucked by the politicians in the Bush administration. Just read the revelations of the last two days in the newspaper of your choice. Blair will possibly not survive this stupid, blind support of the US…And he deserves not to.
And your evidence for this is…?
Oh yeah. I remember now. You hate Bush. QED.
In the meantime, I’ll wait for all the data before drawing any conclusions about a gigantic multi-national conspiracy. Seems the prudent thing to do.
I’ve got a couple of honest question about these points. I don’t live in the US nor the UK so maybe you can inform me.
Has there been any significant challenge against these leaders concerning these issues lately?
Will the democratic party for instance, seriously confront the republicans on these matters anytime soon?
Or is it in fact the case that most americans have the underlying feeling that can be expressed along the lines of: “The iraquis had it coming. This was just retribution for 9/11, end of story, forget the WMD mumbojumbo”
If this is the case, I can’t see GWB getting in any serious trouble for anything concerning this war. Much to the contrary.
If no WMD are found, expect this to be a BIG campaign issue for the Democrats.
And from what I’ve heard, the criticism in Blair’s government is rising rapidly.
But the point is, before the war, when it wasn’t clear exactly how it would all come out, it would have been insane to decide to flat-out lie about WMD, knowing that you’d have to face the music after the war was over.
Even if Bush and Blair come out of this in one piece, would that have been the case if the war had gone badly? Then everyone would have had the knives out.
I maintain that the, “flat-out lying” angle, with the information we have today, makes no sense.
You are, in essence, defending GeeDubya’s honor by claiming stupidity and incompetence. In truth, I think you have a case.
Unless, of course, Karl Rove, his Eminence Greasy, simply figured that the popularity of a wartime President is such that, given a few photo-ops and even the slightest hint of truth, they could ride it out long enough for it to drop off the radar screen.
Which is what they’re doing. Which is, best I can tell, working.
Shodan Just because someone uses the word “regime” does not mean they are saying “regime change.” “Regime” is not shorthand for “regime change”. Its kind of like someone slamming thier thumb with a hammer and screaming “Mother!”.
I have my doubts.
I’m not sure the US public is or will be in the mood to change their minds about what happened.
This means that attacking the republicans on this issue will come off as un-patriotic.
So if the Democrats are smart, they’ll have to stay clear of this issue.
Maybe in the UK things will be different, cause it was a more bitterly divided decision in the first place.
For the record, I believe this war was wrong, regardless of whatever weapons they find, if they find them.
If they don’t find the famous WMD, (or can’t plant them), then it would simply be the cherry on a cake of attrocities, IMHO.
Sam Stone said
Oh, I’ve got the evidence. It’s in a safe place. And I promise to release it just as soon as Blair releases his. Assuming he’s got the goods. But I get to be the judge on whether his evidence is good enough.
Sam. If I implied that there was a " gigantic multi-national conspiracy" about this, then I left the wrong impression.
I think that the intelligence agencies in the US, and perhaps other countries, listened to the crap that came from the Iraqui exiles, fed it to the pentagon and the Bush politicos, and then the individuals who I listed in the post twisted the info, convinced Bush and others that it was real, and then it was sent into the world as real. Blair got sucked in. The sadder choice is that Blair and Bush knew it to be false and exaggerated, but went with it anyway. I hope that didn’t occur.
Have you not read any of the stories from the intelligence community the last 2-3 days? Are you not aware that they are saying they were ill-used?
I have my doubts.
I’m not sure the US public is or will be in the mood to change their minds about what happened.
This means that attacking the republicans on this issue will come off as un-patriotic.
So if the Democrats are smart, they’ll have to stay clear of this issue.
Maybe in the UK things will be different, cause it was a more bitterly divided decision in the first place.
For the record, I believe this war was wrong, regardless of whatever weapons they find, if they find them.
If they don’t find the famous WMD, (or can’t plant them), then it would simply be the cherry on a cake of attrocities, IMHO.
sorry about the repeat. The “hampsters” did it.
Samclem said:
Actually, I agree with you. If it turns out that there never were WMDs, it won’t be because the President and Prime Minister sat down and said, “Okay, here’s how we’re going to lie to the people…”. More along the lines of prejudicial selection of data that supports a conclusion, assigning weights to intelligence sources according to what you want to hear, etc. In other words, good old bias, propagated through the system, distorting whatever comes out the other side.
But as I said, there are too many developments going on right now to warrant a judgement.
Shodan, Sam Stone, and whoever else…
There’s really two issues at hand concerning the trailers:
(1) What are they, exactly? Are they mobile weapons lab facilities?
(2) If they were used to produce prohibited weapons, is that enough of a reason to invade?
As far as Question 1… I’ve seen that they’ve been tested. I’ve also seen that they’ve not tested for any biological (I kept saying chemical; I don’t see that it changes the arguments any) signatures that would indicate illicit activity. All I have seen is the CIA saying, “We can’t think of anything else these could be.”
Even if I concede that they’re just like Colin Powell described, that proves jack and shit. I could describe to you an 18 wheeler and tell you that they are only used to transport nuclear material. If you invade and find 18 wheelers, it does not follow that the bit about transporting nuclear material is true.
Call me crazy, but seeing as how war was involved, I want something a little meatier than, “We’re pretty sure that these trailers were used to make biological agents. Not that we have any proof to that effect, mind you, but we don’t have any proof against it, either. Well, except for the lack of anything illicit showing up in our lab tests, but you gotta admit – these things really look like they could have been used to make biological weapons!”
To put it another way:
I’d naturally come to the same conclusion. If the person objected, and the supposed still were tested and showed absolutely no traces of alcohol… wouldn’t you at least raise your eyebrows? Especially if they had an alternate explanation?
**
You said it yourself in the first sentence – sure, they could have been used to make hydrogen. Shouldn’t we be damned sure about their purpose before we jump to any conclusions?
**
Occam’s Razor doesn’t prove anything. A useful guideline, sure. But it’s not proof, and to present it as such is disingenuous.
To summarize, I think if you decide that these are mobile weapons labs, despite anything but rather flimsy circumstantial evidence to support your case, you’re jumping to conclusions.
Okay, Question 2 – suppose tomorrow they do test positive for trace amount of anthrax, or whatever.
*
(Emphasis added) I simply have to disagree that this is a valid causus belli, and I don’t think we’re ever going to see eye-to-eye on this point.
Shodan, you keep harping and harping about how Colin Powell said that we’d find these things, and there they are, so the Republicans were RIGHT, of course, party on! I find it interesting that all the stuff we DIDN’T find – the tons of this, the liters of that, the enough of the other to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans – must have been destroyed. Somehow, in ShodanLand, Saddam is okay with destroying the weapons but can’t part with his precious Winnebagoes. :rolleyes:
I’ve really got to admire this tactic of yours. It’s irrefutable, because it’s based on nothing but pure conjecture. I mean, hell, had we not found these mobile weapons labs, your psychic-like investigation into the mind of Saddam Hussein would need just the slighest tweaking and it’d still fly. “Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMDs just before the war, because he wanted to laugh at the world while fleeing from the burning ashes of his former empire [Or something like that. I still can’t follow the illogic of your argument.] He also destroyed the mobile trailers that Colin Powell talked about for the same reason. They must have existed, though, even though we can’t find one trace of them, because Bush said they were there. Regardless, you can be sure of this – had we not removed him, he would have started right back up again.”
The sad thing is that, since we can’t find him, he COULD start back up again. This was one helluva war <sigh>