# The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 25, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019 "2004-01-25T18:07:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/181 "2004-01-29T16:31:31Z")
I want to take up a topic that been something of an ongoing conflict from the first page: namely, the claim that “everyone” believed there were “WMDs” in Iraq prior to the war. In his first response to the OP **Sam** writes (# 5): > [@](#): > > - Those were judgements made given the information available at the time. It wasn’t just my opinion - it was the opinion of the intelligence services of almost every major country. EVERYONE was surprised by the apparent lack of WMD in Iraq. Even Bill Clinton has recently said that he was absolutely certain WMD were in Iraq. So this isn’t just “BUSH LIES!”. There’s something more going on here.\* **Kimstu** replies (# 8) > [@](#): > > \*Er, there were millions of people all over the world, from UN inspectors and CIA officials on down, who were skeptical all along about the WMD claims. > > Maybe most of us believed that the inspectors might turn up something, but we never felt that the Administration had made a credible case that Iraq had enough stuff to justify our invading them. Your credulity was by no means universal.\* **Werewolf** rebuffed **Sam’s** statement at the top of page 2, and a bit further on down **Princhester** even threatened to vomit (# 64). Now, first, a few caveats: I admit that I, as well, have been frustrated by the pro-war side’s insistence that _everyone_ believed Iraq possessed “WMDs” prior to the invasion. After all, politicians who opposed the war – like Robin Cook in England – expressed grave doubts about Hussein’s actual “WMD” capacities. In the media we’ve all read a slew of reports about how dissenting opinions within the US intelligence community were discouraged and so on. And certainly, after 1441 was passed and the inspections resumed, pre-war intelligence came under particularly critical scrutiny and began to “fall apart,” so to speak. On the other hand, it would appear that **Sam** isn’t entirely incorrect (although I don’t really know where he got his information). It seems that at the very least, up until the first couple of months of 2003, there was a strong consensus in the entire international community that Saddam _was_ up to no good, was concealing chemical stocks and pursuing clandestine “WMD” programs – at least if Kenneth Pollack is to be believed. The picture he paints is of a much tighter agreement among intelligence specialists/agencies than I, at least, was previously aware of: > [@](#): > > \*\*The U.S. intelligence community’s belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush’s inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure…. > > In October of 2002 the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD, representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job, and that the NIC should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like me for years in verbal briefings. > > U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes). > > Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, _no one_ doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.\*\* So, if one understands the word “everybody” in fairly limited sense – as referring to “everybody” in the upper levels of the international intelligence community – then he is not completely wrong in his claim. However, I still maintain that many of the specific claims made by the Bush administration, or slipped into the NIE – like the “yellowcake” accusations, or the aluminum tubes assessment – were dubious then and still are. That the intelligence community as a whole overestimated Saddam’s WMD capabilities does not in any way absolve members of the administration from further distorting those mistakes to their own advantage. **whuckfistle** : > [@](#): > > _ **If it was that easy to lie to the American people about the lack of WMDs they could have also just as easily had a plan in place to forge, overstate, plant, what-have-you, any proof to back up the lies. The early stages of the war would have been the ideal time to do this**._ …is a ridiculous statement on the face of it, and an invitation to glide into the wonderful world of conspiracy theory. But look – it is obviously easier to lie than it is to put into motion a secret operation involving at least several hundred people – many of them specialists – to plant credible evidence of “WMDs,” especially with the international community breathing down your neck and watching your every move. _Especially_ if you anticipate (incorrectly) that you will almost certainly find _something_ you can retroactively exploit to justify your pre-war claims. > [@](#): > > - In the end, the info you accessed could have strongly led you to lean in one direction, however, I suspect you were still holding your breath. \* In a backwards sort of way, you might be right, at least as far as I’m concerned. As I noted earlier, had they found even so much as a mason jar of gunk forgotten on the back shelf of some researcher’s lab, I doubt we would be having this conversation right now. The anti-war side was arguing that Iraq _didn’t possess enough “WMDs” to constitute a serious threat_, not that Iraq _didn’t possess “WMDs” at all._ But naturally, the latter strongly underscores the former, so yeah, we caught a break. **elucidator** : > [@](#): > > - Feith based intelligence.\* You see? It’s impossible to hate you, even when you chide my grammar. **Beagle** : > [@](#): > > - First of all, Bush never justified the war convincingly for the reasons I was in favor of it – humanitarian grounds and crimes against humanity.\* Well, in my opinion, the humanitarian argument was the strongest grounds for the war. But even if you felt this way prior to the invasion (and I see no reason to doubt you), this observation is a far cry from the snide, condescending, and flatly bizarre claim: > [@](#): > > - Moreover, nobody I know ever suggested that actual stockpiles of WMDs were the real reason to attack Iraq. The real reasons are quite obvious to even a half-assed student of modern history. I’d like to think I’m at least that.\* Finally, I agree with **ALE** , and suspect that the administration was doing everything in its power to make sure the inspections failed, since only failed inspections would suffice as a _casus belli_ in the international context. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/182 "2004-01-29T17:12:38Z")
**Mr. Svinlesha** , thanks a lot!!, now you _ **really** _ got me thinking… ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/183 "2004-01-29T19:52:58Z")
Why the rush, **Tee**? Was it in the interests of the Iraqi people to be without water, electricity, or police protection for several months? Or is the sacrifice of any number of them worth it because we _really_ don’t like that Hussein guy? If piss-poor post-invasion preparation was due to the need for speed then from whence comes the need for speed? You (seem to) have accepted that there was no imminent danger - and in essence (seem to) claim that the American people, in general, saw through all of the administration’s fear-mongering claims of imminent danger. Then why go in half-assed? Why the occupation fuck-ups? If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well, especially when lives are on the line. Why not wait until you no longer need special forces in Afghanistan to chase down OBL before you start using them in Iraq? I agree that SH was a bad man. I agree that the Iraq situation inherited by GWB was unsustainable. But even if I did agree that the _only_ solution to the SH problem was invasion, you still have an uphill climb to convince me that the war _had_ to start in Spring 2003 or all would be lost. Of course, you haven’t tried. Why placate the Chileans and Canadians (other than that they are our allies)? When you are claiming rule of law and international agreements as the immediate justification of war, it kinda sorta makes sense to at least make a pretense of following some sort of agreements. When your friends/allies suggest a compromise which will give you 95% (or more) of what you want, while staying within a format that will make them comfortable with cooperating with you and at the same time prevent a breach between you and your allies (with whom you are _still_ relying on and cooperating with in Afghanistan and from whom you will want money and or favors to rebuild Iraq), it seems to me that it is worth at least contemplating the offer rather than rejecting it out of hand (unread), lumping them in with all of the other America-hating, pro-terrorist Nazi Communists. Unless that is, pissing on your existing international relationships is what it’s all about. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/184 "2004-01-29T20:01:15Z")
**Beagle** said: > [@](#): > > …Just listen to Saddam and his sons, they think they are a threat to the United States… I don’t personally recall any threats issuing from Saddam, which would be spectacularly stupid, under the circumstances. A nice cite might refresh my memory. No doubt you have oodles of them, or you wouldn’t have said such a thing. Just a couple or three will be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/185 "2004-01-29T21:18:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Beagle** said: > > I don’t personally recall any threats issuing from Saddam, which would be spectacularly stupid, under the circumstances. A nice cite might refresh my memory. No doubt you have oodles of them, or you wouldn’t have said such a thing. Just a couple or three will be fine. Allow me; [From Here](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/middleEast3.asp) “\*From their respective speeches and other public proclamations, both Saddam Hussein and bin Laden have made apparent their intent to attack the United States and its global assets. Saddam’s anti-U.S. rhetoric is borne out of his survival instincts, which have apparently inspired his quest for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and his vision of Arab unity against the West. \*” [And from here.](http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/hussein_saddam.html) “\*The Iraqi leader has made blistering threats of the consequences of any attack on him or his country (not unlike the blistering threats he made before his defeat in the Gulf War). He is a man not easily cowed, perhaps because his people reap the suffering he sows. \*” And the Best for Last-[The Mack Daddy](http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2002/a101802a.html) I shant quote from that one, there are too many. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/186 "2004-01-29T22:13:12Z")
From the Department of Defense website linked by **wuckfistle** : “[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory.” Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999 Well, now I’m convinced. Talk like that must surely be conceded by all to constitute a clear and present danger to the vital national interest of the United States that could only be dealt with by blowing Saddam and his country back to the Stone Age. You can’t let a guy spout stuff like that and suffer no consequences. Let’s see now. No nuclear weapons or the makings of any. No biological weapons or the makings of any. No chemical weapons, not even something relatively simple like WWI era mustard of chlorine gas let alone nerve agent. No complicity in September 11, 2001. What do we have left? Let’s try this. Saddam was a bad man, a tyrant who ran an oppressive police state and brutally suppressed any dissent, **and he had a big mouth to boot**. We put up with the brutal dictator for quite a while but we could not tolerate the big mouth. Give me a break, for crying out loud. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/187 "2004-01-29T22:25:43Z")
Hey, I was merely suplying the information that another one of our esteemed members had requested. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/188 "2004-01-29T22:36:49Z")
Well, now, lets just have us a looky-loo, shall we? First cite: from the Center for Contemporary Conflict, a subset, apparently, of the US Navy. It contains a lot of information, some of which may even have a factual basis. (There is considerable verbiage spent on the much dreaded WMD’s, including the ever-popular Aluminum Tubes…) Indeed, it does offer quotes from Osama bin Laden, but offers none from Goddam Hussein. It does concur with friend **Beagle’s** statement that such threats were uttered, but does not offer to show when and where, that is, a cite. Swing and a miss, strike one. Second: An article from the CBC, from the much-esteemed and quoted Gary Katz, dated as of August, 2002. It is clearly an opinion piece, and Mr. Katz concurs that Saddam has made terrible threats against the US. It also lacks any of the specificity that would make for a “cite”. Third, the aptly yclept “Mack Daddy” (a synonym for “pimp”, if my trashy argot is up to date…) U.S. Dept. of Defense News About the War on Terrorism. I believe a fair person, like you or I, could easily admit that they have a “dog in this fight”. But they do offer quotes, sadly lacking before. I quite understand your reluctance to drag them all in, there are quite a few. But I invite the impartial Doper to check your link. There are indeed threatening quotes from Saddam, but the vast majority derive from the time when the US and Saddam were in direct armed conflict. True, I did not specify any such distinction. Nonetheless, I must suggest that statements made by the US as regards Japan were of a wholly different flavor in 1944 compared to say, 1954. There are post-conflict quotes, but they are mostly in the fashion of curses. Saddam wishes something dreadful would happen to the US, but in no wise does he suggest _himself_ as the agent of that dreadful something. To threaten, in my understanding, must necessarily include that agency, mustn’t it? Otherwise it is a curse, or perhaps a prayer, but not a threat. For instance, the quote that begins “What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests…” can easily be taken as encouraging _others_ to strike against the US. But that is not the same as saying “I will strike the US.” Another, in its entirety, “”[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means…" Frankly, I find its brevity a bit troubling. Is this the only part of the Iraqi TV broadcast that refers to a possible threat? And note that it does not specify a target for this “struggle and jihad”, yet one must assume that it exists in the original. Yet it is left out. Odd, no? And, what, precisely, are we to make of the “[Iraqis]”? Like many rhetorical flouishes, it is subject to some interpretation, one of which may well be Saddam, as representative of Iraq, is making some sort of threat. Long on bombast, it is short of specificity. It could as easily have been as Stalin-esque exhortation to potential Iraqi Stakhanovites to boost production. If you have to go to any effort to interpret a quote as a specific and explicit threat, then I don’t think you’ve quite made the grade. And if, as has been implied, there are oodles and gobs of such quotes to be offered, surely you can offer better than these? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/189 "2004-01-29T23:03:47Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > a bad cop can collar a real criminal using corrupt methods. In that case, we ought to be glad the criminal is collared, and then we ought to fire the bad cop. This strikes me as a particularly potent analogy. A nation of [laws, not men](http://lilt-vetri.lilt.ilstu.edu/rrpope/rrpopepwd/articles/definition.html) refuses to allow a corrupt officer to continue patrolling the streets. Regardless of his effectiveness at putting inarguably bad men behind bars (or in the ground), he does not deserve to keep his badge if he himself flouts the laws he professes to be upholding. So, does this mean Michael Chiklis is now first in line to play the President in a hypothetical adaptation of Woodward’s _Bush at War_? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/190 "2004-01-29T23:07:20Z")
Re Saddam and the US: I did ask a few times around the time of the assassination of Saddam’s sons what they’d ever done or threatened to do to the US and it all seemed to revolve around Paw setting off some third-rate missiles over the no-fly zone in order to give the US state-of-the-art fighters something to talk about over lunch. Fwiw, I can’t recall what it was they did to the US or threatened to do to the US. Anyway **beagle** ; the “moral component” of which you now speak never manifested in your posts as “humanitarian” or a phrase like “crimes against humanity”. At times you seem to have concerned to promote democracy in the region (esp. IRT the Kurds), and saw that as one possible reason to support Bush’s war of aggression, but that’s a pretty long way from having as your primary purpose humanitarian issues or Saddam’s crimes. As you claimed above. But I do acknowledge you gave consideration to the moral dimension. You put much reliance on this: But, the moral imperative to rid the world of the most horrible dictators exists whether the president believes it or not. Both taken of itself here, and in the context of your post, it’s a general proposition, and one few would question. It does not, however, tell us you wanted Saddam removed for humanitarian reasons above all other. I don’t think it helps you prove your point. I did read everything you linked to but I’m sorry, what you cite doesn’t support your claim, in my view. In all those months and in all those posts, maybe you could have found something more conclusive, had it been there . . . but what of it; you exaggerated your position and reinvented a little, all that seems to mean these days is that you’re fit for office. Onwards. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/191 "2004-01-30T00:36:58Z")
Big picture. I think it was Blackclaw who said something like: “The Iraq war started with Gulf War 1, I hope it ends soon” I agree. I think the removal of Saddam was always on the agenda for the Bush administration. Even if 9/11 hadn’t happened, Bush would have still gone after Iraq. I think that this objective was so important for the Bush admin (for a number of reasons - some good, some bad) that they would have gone after Saddam _even at the cost of losing the next election_. They must have been aware that going after Saddam could cost them the election. Bush _could_ have rested on his laurels after Afghanistan and waited until his 2nd term to do Iraq but I think that Iraq was so important to them that they couldn’t risk waiting for a 2nd term (in case they didn’t get one). They had to do Iraq now, even if it meant they lose power for a while. There will be other elections in the future but they wanted to make sure Saddam was gone while they had the chance. This explains the urgency they displayed. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/192 "2004-01-30T00:59:33Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > What tipped me to the pro-war side was, perhaps, naivety. I just could not imagine the leaders of the US and UK lying, plain and simple. I must admit that I also found the fact that Blair supported the war to be about the most compelling piece of evidence that they might really have some decent intelligence on WMDs. (Although that may just reflect my own ignorance of Blair, and maybe **London Calling** would tell me that I was silly in that regard.) But, **Bush**? Had you been sleeping during the first two years of his Presidency? It was not only clear a year ago that Bush lied and deceived, it was clear that this was a major aspect of how he sold his policies! In fact, as lying and deception go, I feel Iraq is one of the more ambiguous cases for the Bush Presidency, in the sense that it could be explained away largely by self-deception rather than lying and deception. (Of course, it is one that did have very major consequences.) **Mr. Svinlesha** : Add my compliments to those of the others on a great OP and follow-up! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/193 "2004-01-30T01:02:48Z")
> [@](#): > > …that they would have gone after Saddam even at the cost of losing the next election… This is an extraordinary proposition. One that I must regard as somewhat improbable. In the same way I regard the Milky Way as “big”. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/194 "2004-01-30T01:28:35Z")
Cutting a few corners **jshore** it reads like this to me; Blair supported Bush on the pre-emptive war policy even prior to the 2002 State of the Union address because it was long-term UK Foreign Policy to support US FP – almost all PM’s have put that at the centre of UK FP since the late 1950s (Harold Wilson on Vietnam being the exception); accepted by both major parties and the permanent Civil Service to be in the UK national interest for several reasons. In essence, by Jan 2002, Blair had bought the goods without seeing what it was he’d bought. At that point, I’m far from convinced Blair understood how things would pan out (Bush was deadly serious and would go without a UN mandate, or evidence, or a coallition, or without the majority of world opinion on side). No one has taken the word ‘Isolationism’ quite so literally for a very long time . . . But then it all unfolded and Blair – like Bush – went shopping for justifications (having determined the policy first). At this point both sides of the pond began to politicise the raw Intelligence data to suit the predetermined agenda. Blair couldn’t back out of the deal with Bush and retain any international credibility; he had, to a large extent backed himself into a corner . . . and even this week, he’s still battling his way out of that same corner. The mystery – and the one thing in this whole sorry business I was inaccurate in assessing – was how Blair convinced his own Parliamentary party to support this war without the second UN Resolution – I was pretty convinced he’d need that or his own party would veto involvement. But he pretty well used up his personal credibility in swinging that vote. I think he will still pay the ultimate price for that by next summer. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/195 "2004-01-30T05:42:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Not how I remember it - I don’t recall a single person expressing the view you now claim as being your primary motivation, and I read an awful lot of views prior to the invasion. So, you got a cite for being such a caring, thoughtful, farsighted person ? That was the original question. In hindsight, I should have done a better job of pushing for what I believed in. It’s obvious that my several attempts to mention human rights as the only justification for the war were far from enough. The arguments at the time were so heated, partisan, and ugly – mostly I didn’t participate. In hindsight your original question is ugly and only intended to insult. Why did I bother trying to answer it again? I’m sure you care a great deal. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/196 "2004-01-30T11:49:40Z")
It’s whatever you want it to be **Beagle** - that’s how this thing called the ‘human condition’ works. A lot of people claim a lot of things; as time wears on it also becomes increasingly clear that it is part of the human condition to think well of ourselves, often in the face of obvious contradiction – perhaps we need to feel good about ourselves to get though this life . . . I don’t know. So sometimes, especially when we’re in the wrong, it’s part of who we are to remember events, surrounding circumstances, whatever, differently to how they actually were. All we can do is be aware of that trait, imho, and guard against it as best we can. You made a claim, I called you on it, if I hadn’t you’d still happily believe you were for the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons. You probably still might. Whatever, in my mind it’s now my fault and I’m not worthy of your effort. Welcome to the human race. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/197 "2004-01-30T11:53:29Z")
Idiot ! > [@London\_Calling](#): > > Whatever, in my mind it’s now my fault and I’m not worthy of your effort. Should read: Whatever, in **your** mind it’s now my fault and I’m not worthy of your effort. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/198 "2004-01-30T14:26:41Z")
> [@LC](#): > > as time wears on it also becomes increasingly clear that it is part of the human condition to think well of ourselves **Public service is my motto. Ninety percent of the people in Chicago drink and gamble. I’ve tried to serve them decent liquor and square games. But I’m not appreciated.** -A. Capone ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/199 "2004-01-30T16:26:35Z")
One thing I’m learning is that you need to tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. I did not make that one up. All those vanity searches made me come to grips with a disturbing fact, I’ve been all over the map on this war. Why? I tend to think of the arguments on both sides. **One, I’ve felt getting rid of Saddam was justified – good ends.** Two, the ends don’t always justify the means. My “Attack Iraq” thread from July, 2002 seemed so hypothetical. I thought Bush would build a case based on HR violations, terrorism, whatever. [Jean-Francois Revel](http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.17764/article_detail.asp) should be required reading for everyone. The more I considered it, the more I learned about the opaqueness (always covers corruption) of the Oil-For-Food Program, Chirac’s close personal friendship with Saddam, the fundamental gaps between my ideas of a civil state and Europe’s evolving conception – the less I cared much what anyone on the other side thought. By “other side” I mean, how can you oppose a war that is mostly over and we are trying to get out of? I was willing to consider delaying the war right up until the first shots were fired. OTOH, now, with our troops building schools while dodging IEDs (not good that I’ve learned that) built by al Qaeda, the war with Saddam seems just to me. Everyone that predicted a civil society, ethnic harmony, and instant Jeffersonian democracy is very disappointed. I’ll just take an end to the “disappearances.” That’s something I care a great deal about, **the fundamental right to exist in your own skin with your own ideas.** Any time you attempt to export your ideas – the greatest example would be war – you take your chances. Typing on the internet is my idea of a revolution. **War is inherently bad – bad means.** Sometimes war is forced upon you, other times it _is a better option than peace_ for whatever reasons. **Those reasons are important.** Every time I tried to raise the issue of just how bad Saddam was, as in my thread about the Kurds, it made little impression. OTOH, the same arguments can turn back on me. I am well aware of this. Any time you go around touting “democracy, freedom, self-determination, and end to crimes against humanity”, whatever, the person you are going to back (here GWB) must deliver the goods. Moreover, you must have the evidence that Saddam is whatever you say he is. The most fundamental problem with going to war over crimes against humanity is that you might create more crimes against humanity in your attempt to end them. Notice how I find things paradoxical? I can’t help it. The jury is still out on a number of things. It appears that even Saddam may have thought he had more WMDs than he did. That would be better than anyone could have anticipated, unless you are an intelligence analyst. Analysts in free nations often misinterpret what is going on in closed societies. Makes you wonder where all that money goes. The party line was “we all agree Saddam is a bad man”. That precedes the argument for not toppling him. My contention was, and remains, that Saddam was one of the worst individuals that ever led a nation in my lifetime, and that the war was just for that reason. If someone wants to vote Bush out of office for evident intelligence failures, even though the war was just, that’s their perrogative. Personally, as noted, I think he could use some Red Bull and tutoring. I’ll do it cheaply. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019/200 "2004-01-30T16:52:25Z")
Well, thats certainly a more even handed crock. Its still a crock. The issue isn’t remotely “intelligence failures”, unless you mean that which presumably resides above GeeDubya’s ears. The issue is willful ignorance and bald mendacity. There were oodles and gobs of intelligence, GeeDub and his minions simply accepted as gospel that which supported thier determination for war, and ignored everything else. Again and again and again. Cases in point: the “yellowcake/Niger” fiasco. The dreaded Aluminum Tubes of Death. The “mobile bio-weapons labs”. Take particular note of that last. Even after it became abundantly clear that those piles of rusting crap were not even remotely likely to be “laboratories”, we have Cheney claiming the exact opposite with a straight face! How is this an “intelligence failure”? GeeDubya standing there with Tony “The Poodle” Blair, waving a report in the air which he claimed removed all doubt about Saddam’s nuclear program coming to fruition in a matter of months, and I quote: “I don’t know how much more proof you need!” And the report didn’t _even exist!_ How, by any stretch of the imagination, could this be regarded as an “intelligence failure”? Unless, of course, it is another clear example of the dreadful effects of Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to our Republic! Remember, when your CD volunteer comes knocking, think of GeeDubya, and give, and give generously… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-pro-war-massacree-thread-and-general-meltdown/226019.md?page=11)