It is not irrelevant. It goes to the reasons we went there. There is nothing more relevant. Also, if we had found WMDs and a facility where they were developing a nuclear weapon, don’t you think that would matter?
And you still haven’t responded to this:
It’s not the reason we went there, but even if it had been, it would have been an illegal reason. The UN Charter makes it illegal to overthrow even dictatorships unless it is done in self-defense, which this was not. And from the perspective of the Iraqi people – which is the only perspective that matters – their invaders’ opinion of Saddam ahd no bearing at all over whether they were being invaded and seeing their children killed by shells.
Nope. For one thing, you have to establish your casus belli BEFORE you invade, not hope to stumble on to a post facto justification after the bombs fall. the possession of banned weapons is not sufficient to justify regime change. You have to prove that they have both the ability and the intention of harming your own country with them. All the intelligence told Bush that Iraq had neither the ballistic capability nor the intention of attacking the US.
Only illegal wars of aggression.
In part it was. It was a preemptive action. If you think preemptive action is NEVER justified, that is a different discussion. But know that the person who very well might be Obama’s running mate has stated that he does believe in preemption. And that if he believed that Iraq posed an imminent threat—within one year—he would have been for the overthrow of Saddam. Which, by the way, could be justified on purely humanitarian grounds. Much like people think we should go into Darfur.
Where did you get this bullshit from? You’re just making shit up here.
Are you fucking kidding me? You blame Bush incessantly for doing just that. Except you call them lies because some of the reasons turned out to be wrong. But the justification was presented.
No. You have to believe that they meet those two criteria. And be able to make a good enough case that people are with you. What was the Senate vote again?
Strawman. You know that was not the belief. The belief, wrong or not, was that 1) he had WMD and 2) that he might be willing to put them into the hands of the people who had already expressed their desire and ability to cause us great harm on 9/11.
Good. Then you should retract all the odious stupidity you spewed about Snow.
It’s not a question of what I think, it’s written in the UN Charter. There is no justification for regime change but self defense. There are no exceptions. Should the US honor its treaties or shouldn’t it?
I don’t understand this objection. The whole discussion is about whether the Iraqis are justified in fighting back against invaders. If they see it as an invasion, then it’s an invasion.
No, I blame him for failing to do that. Making wild allegations does not equal justification. He never proved a damn thing before he went in, and all his justifications turned out to be bullshit.
The argument that Iraq was a threat to the US (the only legal justification allowable) was an intentional lie.
No, you have to prove it. Read the Charter. Belief isn’t good enough, and the Bush administration never even really believed it in any case. They knew that Iraq was not a threat. Every US intellgence agency had told them that Iraq had neither the ability nor the inclination to threaten the US.
That was their claim, not their belief. They knew that claim was false.
Um…nope…the invasion Iraq was an illegal war of aggression and acquisition. It was no different than the Nazi invasion of Poland.
Yes, you fucking dolt. I find war altogether to be a despicable yet SOMETIMES necessary thing. Snow did not make the policy that started the war. Snow did not authorize the war. Snow did not get elected and VOTE for the fucking war. Very likely, if you are an American, your own elected officials DID ALL OF THOSE things. Yet, because he took a position in the highest office in the country (which if most people here were offered, I would suspect they’d take) spinning something that he believed in, and I might add it is a position that 51% of this country believed in, (myself not being one of them, but here I am on the defense, god help me) he is some kind of monster and you see yourself as somehow superior because you don’t hold the same beliefs.
What the fuck.
There was plenty of evidence that Iraq had no ability to attack us or a program of building weapons of mass destruction. Many CIA and FBI employees have said that the admin was made aware of that. They chose to ignore evidence that challenged them. Cheney forced the info to come out the way he wanted. Employees that fought were fired or demoted. They bent everything to justify their plans. It was dishonest. Snow stood in front of the reporters and the public and lied his ass off. He presented as known fact what they had to know was a huge stretch. at best and a fabrication at the worst. Rice ,Cheney and Rummy took to the news circuit telling their distortion as a known fact. Snow was just another lying cog in the wheel of the war machine.
Preemptive action is a form of self defense.
This “prove” idea is a fantasy of yours. A strong case has to be made. We’re not talking about a scientific proposition here. He was wrong. Along with many others.
:rolleyes: Look, you fucking idiot, all lies are intentional. Otherwise they’re called mistakes. I know you confuse and conflate the two in order to call Bush a liar constantly, but that doesn’t make it so. It just shows your stupidity and dishonesty, and rank partisanship. And while people can disagree with the degree to which Saddam and the supposed WMDs posed a threat, that doesn’t mean there was zero rationale. But I guess that perspective requires honesty, so I understand how you might have missed it.
And now your fucking Kreskin, too. Give me a break.
Kreskin, again? In this envelope I hold the answer to the question: “What is that, while tiny, was lost and will never be retrieved again?” Answer: “Respect for the black-hearted poster called Diogenes the Cynic.”
Sorry I called you an idiot. You’re an imbecile.
I see what you’re saying and I broadly agree (though I wouldn’t go as far as putting US troops on the same level as the Waffen SS, et al.). And if Der Trihs were Iraqi, I wouldn’t begrudge him his sentiment at all.
But he’s not. He’s an American, and that’s what makes his viewpoint on the Iraq War so goddamn repellent.
WTF???
You’re kidding, right?
Not at all. What’s the difference?
Jesus H. Christ. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.
Germany directly annexed approximately 94,000 km² of Polish territory. The rest of the country that wasn’t taken by Stalin was formed into the General Government, which was intended to be “Germanized” over the next decade or two, and had killed about 5 million Poles by the time the Red Army showed up in the final months of the war. Poland lost a higher percentage of their pre-war population than any other belligerent in the war, and almost all of them civilian casualties. Had Germany won the war, all Poles were to be evicted or exterminated from Poland and the land turned into a German colony.
This is directly analogous to the Iraq War in what way?
But then you’re stuck with the notion that nationality creates truth, that what is wrong becomes right based on who is doing it. You are certainly free to believe that, but I caution you. If that is true, how far is that away from the reverse, that anything American is inherently evil? If there is no morality outside of our national identity, there is no morality at all, everything become tooth and claw, and the struggle of soulless savages.
Believe that if you will, I refuse.
Dio, I swear to Eugene V. Debs, you have developed an astonishing gift for the worst possible analogy. Your friends despair.
Nah, I’d never go that far.
I have German blood on my father’s mother’s side. Three of her brothers (my father’s uncles) fought in the Waffen SS. All died in the war. I feel no compunction at all at labelling them as criminals who got what they had coming to them. However, there was one other brother who fought in the Wehrmacht (drafted, like most were) and was wounded severely at Stalingrad. For him, I do feel sympathy. Though the invasion of the USSR was of course an act of great evil, it wasn’t his choice; he didn’t go looking for trouble - it came to him.
Simply wearing one uniform versus another doesn’t necessarily make you in the right. However, in the case of the Iraq War, I don’t see the evil that our troops have done as being anywhere near as bad as most invaders through history. I think that even though the mission was flawed in its conception, the vast majority of our troops have conducted themselves honorably over there, though I understand that the natives might have a different take on it.
And yet you still don’t have the balls to apply the same logic to all American soldiers who serve in Iraq, especially the ones who joined the service after 2003, all of whom are far guiltier than Tony Snow of what’s going on there.
Why don’t you have the balls to say that everybody who opposes the war is a traitor and a dirty fucking hippy! C’mon, you chicken? Huh? You chicken?
Balls has nothing to do with it. It simply wouldn’t be accurate. Maybe I’m biased from having been in the military and having come from a military family.
Or maybe you’re biased on the other side because you so anti-Bush. Ever consider that?
Well, I’ll never agree with that. Compare their paychecks and airtime. No way an 18-year-old private is guiltier than someone with Snow’s paycheck.
Whew. What an exhausting 8 pages to read through in one sitting.
I don’t wish anyone a painfull death. I just don’t wish to be(come) that kind of person.
For the big time evil guys (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), the world is better off without them. I feel (very slightly) guilty in feeling that they are better off dead. Mussolini died horribly (beaten to a pulp, IIRC), and I don’t rejoice in his pain.
I am not convinced Snow will be remembered in the same breath (or with the same scope) as Goebbels.