To war, or not to war......that is the question

[sirs]

"Which is why decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people DO NOT START WARS, for non-existent or manufactured reasons."

In an effort to pull Tee out of his rut, I thought I'd address a core problem with the Iraq debate.  Now, I ask if folks on the left, could put their Bush is Hitler glasses away for a while and address this debate with some civility and substance.  Tee's above quote is very accurate.  1st half is absolutely reasonable.  The 2nd half is the qualifying opinion that makes the 1st half credible.   Fair enough?

So, when that opinion is debunked by a mountain load of facts and logic to the contrary, is the 1st half discredited?  The person posing the opinion?  When that opinion is presented as "sun will rise in the East" fact, what does that say?

But truthfully, this is where the rubber hits the road, for many, as it relates to Bush and the war in Iraq.  For a huge chunk of folks (pretty much the same flock that believes Bush stole the elections), Bush absolutely lied us into war, manufactured reasons, manipulated Intel, and fooled everyone into following him in.  That mind has been made up.  And for those, the only real reason to "debate" them, is in highlighting the sheer lunacy of many of the positions they use in "coming to their reasoned conclusions"

Now there are those who also believe Bush can do no wrong.  That as CnC, his orders in a time of war, are to be followed to the letter, that such commands are not to be challenged or questioned.  That he has the absolute authority to do anything necessary in a time of war, even if it pushes the Constitution out of the way.  If there are any "24" fans out there, you'll note the President's Chief of Staff, Lennox comes to mind, though he's looking at the Country as his CnC, and not the President.  The point being, there are fringe folk on both of the ideological isles

But instead of getting bogged down into both sides trying to stamp their feet as to how bogus vs non-bogus the reasons for going to war were, why isn't it possible to debate the merits of the 1st half of the quote Tee provided, that I placed at the top, minus the 2nd half of it which brings out the vitriol.  Why can't folks debate if it was prudent to go to war? 

Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?  Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?  THAT's the debate we should be having.  THAT's the debate that has merit, and can be substantively debated by all sides.  Those that would still opine it was unjust and inappropriate, with their reasoned explanations, THOSE would be the opinions I could truly respect, and possibly even be moved in changing my position in supporting Bush on the war

[Henny]

Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?  Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?

IMO, no. I say that because I believe that there were many other tactics that could have been pursued, especially continued diplomacy.

And I also feel that if it is believed that the evidence Bush thought he had at the time was good enough, then there is certainly more than enough to go into N. Korea or Iran now, not to mention multiple other repressive dictators or dangerous regimes throughout history.

And in that, I think you might find part of the problem - this is what sets people off - making them believe even more strongly that the causes for the war were manufactured.

[sirs]

Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?  Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?

IMO, no. I say that because I believe that there were many other tactics that could have been pursued, especially continued diplomacy.

And I also feel that if it is believed that the evidence Bush thought he had at the time was good enough, then there is certainly more than enough to go into N. Korea or Iran now, not to mention multiple other repressive dictators or dangerous regimes throughout history.  And in that, I think you might find part of the problem - this is what sets people off - making them believe even more strongly that the causes for the war were manufactured.

And this is rational civil debate, that despite being opposite in my support of Bush and the War in Iraq, I not only can respect, but admire it.  Thanks Miss Henny.  When I have more time to respond, I would like to get back to you on this.  Right now though, it's time for some zzzzzzzzz's     


How about those Red Wings?     

[Michael Tee]

<<Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  >>

Why would we want to pretend that when even at the time he could not persuade the French, Germans, Belgians, Canadians, Russians, Chinese or scores of other countries that there was justification for war?

<<If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?  Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?  >>

Well, let's see.  Is the possession of deadly weapons by a country with a history of attacking and invading other countries good enough reason to go to war against it?  On that theory, any country that has the muscle would be perfectly justified in invading the U.S.A.  Was that your point, sirs?

<<THAT's the debate we should be having.  >>

Yeah, not the debate about lying Presidents that take the country to war on manufactured reasons.  That's not important.  It's much more important to debate hypothetical situations that exist only in some die-hard's fantasies ("He didn't lie.  He couldn't lie.  He didn't lie.  He couldn't lie.")  Let's debate what WOULD have been right if Bush HADN'T been lying.

<<THAT's the debate that has merit . . . .>>

Yeah, I can see that.  Merit for whom?  Anyone who wants to continue the cover-up?  Anyone who wants to pretend Bush didn't lie?

<<and can be substantively debated by all sides. >>

Sure.  I love to substantively debate all kinds of hypotheticals.  What if Joe Louis had boxed Mumammed Ali?  What if JACK DEMPSEY had taken on Rocky Marciano?  Boy, those substantive debates get my juices flowing every time.

<<Those that would still opine it was unjust and inappropriate, with their reasoned explanations, THOSE would be the opinions I could truly respect . . . >>  Holy shit!  A chance my opinion could EARN the respect of sirs!  Be still my beating heart!>>

<<and possibly even be moved in changing my position in supporting Bush on the war>>

That'll happen when you visit the White House and see with your own eyes him and Cheney dressed in ladies' underwear and French kissing on the White House lawn.  Till then you're the last man to leave the party.

[sirs]

<<Let's pretend for a moment that Bush is right, and everything he said about Saddam's WMD was accurate, based on what his intel told him AT THE TIME.  >>

Why would we want to pretend that when even at the time he could not persuade the French, Germans, Belgians, Canadians, Russians, Chinese or scores of other countries that there was justification for war?

Because the above wasn't about anyone else going to war.  Apparently you've conceded that they too also believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles, which in itself helps reinforce the question I posed, that pretending Bush was right, was it still appropriate to go to war.  Miss Henny understood the position and question.  Now let's see if you do.

<<If that were the case, was it a good enough reason for going into Iraq?  Would "decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people" believe it to be good enough to go to war?  >>

Is the possession of deadly weapons by a country with a history of attacking and invading other countries good enough reason to go to war against it?  On that theory, any country that has the muscle would be perfectly justified in invading the U.S.A.  Was that your point, sirs?  

Apparently you don't.  No biggie.  I knew you wouldn't and couldn't

<<THAT's the debate we should be having.  >>

Yeah, not the debate about lying Presidents that take the country to war on manufactured reasons. 

You want to initiate a thread like that, and prop your pathetic Bush-is-a-moron-who-lied-us-into-war opinions as "reasoned thought", you go right ahead.  You and knute should have a great time

[Michael Tee]

<<Because the above wasn't about anyone else going to war. >>

It was originally, remember?  Only when Bush found the rest of the civilized world wasn't going to buy his lies, his bullshit or his blackmail did he decide that the U.S. and Britain would have to go it alone.

<< Apparently you've conceded that they too also believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles>>

Yes, at one time, chemical and biological but not nuclear stockpiles, but I believe he had accounted for them as the UN had asked, within the UN deadline for the accounting.  Also that by the time of the invasion the weapons which he had not been permitted to have had been destroyed, which was part of the accountng.

<<You want to initiate a thread like that, and prop your pathetic Bush-is-a-moron-who-lied-us-into-war opinions as "reasoned thought", you go right ahead.  You and knute should have a great time>>

I DID have a great time.  Thanks to you.  I guess you've exhausted that subject, which I don't blame you for.  How many times can you get hit over the head with facts, logic and reason and still remain in the ring?  But you have fun with your WHAT-IFs, sirs.  You've earned some light relaxation.

[Amianthus]

but I believe he had accounted for them as the UN had asked, within the UN deadline for the accounting.  Also that by the time of the invasion the weapons which he had not been permitted to have had been destroyed, which was part of the accountng.

You "believe" incorrectly. A number of chemical weapons were destroyed after the invasion that were not accounted to the UN.

[Michael Tee]

<<You "believe" incorrectly. A number of chemical weapons were destroyed after the invasion that were not accounted to the UN.>>

Given the numbers of weapons involved and the length of time covered by the accounting, a perfect account of every single weapon was virtually impossible.  Even at the time the accounting was produced, there were gaps in the account, but the gaps were considered reasonable given the circumstances and the difficulties involved.  I doubt if even the most sophisticated large North American corporation could give a perfect accounting for every unit produced over a comparable time period.  A Middle Eastern army operating under near-crisis boycott conditions could be expected to under-perform the corporation in that respect.

[Amianthus]

Given the numbers of weapons involved and the length of time covered by the accounting, a perfect account of every single weapon was virtually impossible.  Even at the time the accounting was produced, there were gaps in the account, but the gaps were considered reasonable given the circumstances and the difficulties involved.  I doubt if even the most sophisticated large North American corporation could give a perfect accounting for every unit produced over a comparable time period.  A Middle Eastern army operating under near-crisis boycott conditions could be expected to under-perform the corporation in that respect.

OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.

[sirs]

OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.

Fits nicely into the template, doesn't it?         

[Michael Tee]

<<OK, you "believe" incorrectly and are willing to make excuses for it.>>

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  Translated from neocon, it means I have a realistic expectation of what's possible and realistic standards of compliance.

[Amianthus]

it means I have a realistic expectation of what's possible and realistic standards of compliance.

So, do you always think that partial compliance is all that is needed?

[Michael Tee]

<<So, do you always think that partial compliance is all that is needed?>>

I have enough common sense to know that an insistence on 100% compliance when everyone knows it's impossible to achieve is just creating a fig-leaf excuse for going to war.  I also know that the majority of the UN Security Council was sufficiently satisfied with the compliance demonstrated that they were unwilling to authorize the use of violence that the U.S. would have demanded.

[Amianthus]

I also know that the majority of the UN Security Council was sufficiently satisfied with the compliance demonstrated that they were unwilling to authorize the use of violence that the U.S. would have demanded.

And how do you know this? France's threatened use of their veto prevented a vote from happening. I mean, I can "connect the dots" as well - France wouldn't have threatened the use of their veto if they thought the vote was going to go their way, would they?

[Plane]

   I do not think it was unreasonable to assume that Saddam had WMD to hide , the best evidence of WMD we ever had was his expulsion of inspectors who could have lifted the UN blockade , sice he would rather have had the privcy than the money or freedom of action , I considered the resistance to accounting and lack of transparency to be evidence of something worthy of hideing.

I am not yet convinced entirely that the WMD are entirely reveiled , totally destroyed , all accounted for, if given the power of a king over a territory as large as Texas and money being no object I can imagine myself produceing a really good hideing place.

   I was not shocked that the president and other well connected figures thought the same way ,if there was convinceing evidence of Saddams cleanliness there were lots of world leaders with motive to produce it, but most of all there was Saddam ,with Saddam proven in the past to e an offender with WMD it was up o him to prove his innocence rather than ours to assume it.

    By the way , yes every drop of the US arsenal of war gasses can be accounted for and it is an expensive and troublesome disposal problem ,but worh the effort to dispose of properly. In Britan an Island was accidentally made unnhabitable for sixty years with a spill of Anthrax , lets hop that Saddam was more carefull.