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

[sirs]

Putting aside Tee's foaming over the keyboard style of debate, let's focus on some substantivity

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.

So, that brings up the logical foll-up question.  How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911?  You're the President.  You've seen the intel, your CIA chief says "slam dunk", you have documented connections, both direct & indirect between Iraq & AlQeada, and AlQeada just murdered 3000 innoncent civilian Americans.  Iraq also continues to remain out of compliance with UN 1441, not to mention a bunch of others.  Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy?

BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?

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.

Because they weren't in violation of UN 1441.  Nor were there any documented connections between AlQeada & NK

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

But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies??  What was that official position on regime change all about then??

[Michael Tee]

<<And how do you know this? [that the majority of the UN Security Council was satisfied with Saddam's accounting?]  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?>>

You're right and I'm wrong.  Sort of.  I was thinking of the old Security Council - - US, UK, France, USSR and China.  France, USSR and China were against invasion.  I wasn't thinking of the current, 15-member council. 

However, France's threat of the veto does not necessarily mean that they expected a majority vote in favour of the U.S. position.  It could have been nothing more than an emphatic demonstration of French opposition.  The Americans could have scored at least a symbolic victory had they been supported in their request for an invasion, only to be disappointed by a French veto.  This would have given them moral, if not legal, justification for their action.  The American decision NOT to proceed in the Security Council indicates to me that they felt not only would they lose, but that they wouldn't even gain a moral victory.

[Amianthus]

However, France's threat of the veto does not necessarily mean that they expected a majority vote in favour of the U.S. position.  It could have been nothing more than an emphatic demonstration of French opposition.

Personally, I think the threatened veto was no more than government support for the French oil company that had just signed a huge deal with Saddam.

[Michael Tee]

<<Personally, I think the threatened veto was no more than government support for the French oil company that had just signed a huge deal with Saddam.>>

I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies?  wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one?  Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure.  None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?

[Amianthus]

I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies?  wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one?  Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure.  None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf) was getting one of the new deals.

So, yeah, I guess they are handing out deals to "French oil companies."

[Plane]

"I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf)"

I would like to see that.

[sirs]

I guess the deal wasn't huge enough to make the U.S. government wonder why it was allowing Saddam to stay in business handing out deals to French oil companies?  wonder if the new American-installed "government" will be as good to the French as the last one?  Nothing to do with the Bush administration, I'm sure.  None of their business, they just wanted an independent Iraq, right?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I read last week that Total (formerly Total Fina Elf) was getting one of the new deals.  So, yeah, I guess they are handing out deals to "French oil companies."

D'oh             

[Lanya]

They're liars.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as 'inappropriate,' were not unlawful. 'This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' ' he said. 'It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance.
[As Kevin Drum puts it,

Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01

Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001275.html

I think "To War" has been decided.  Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying?  Bleed, die, pay.  Repeat. 

[sirs]

They're liars.

The NIE, and (one more time) the vast majority of nearly every other country's intel agencies, say otherwise, as it relates to Saddam's WMD disposition, at the time we went to war.  Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp.  Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess

[Michael Tee]

<<Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp.  Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess>>

No, guess again:  because it's another lie, actually.  NONE of the intelligence received was sufficient to generate a decision to go to war on the part of Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries.  So whatever the conclusions of their "intelligence communities" a great many responsible, law-abiding nations did not take the criminal path of the Bush administration.

On the alleged ELF contract, it could possibly be true and it wouldn't mean jack-shit.  (Like most of the "truths" that Ami puts out.)  On the one hand, Ami refers to a Saddam-era concession to a French oil company that was so huge it would induce France to use its veto power in the Security Council.  Against which he now "balances" a rumoured post-Saddam contract with a French oil company . . . with no indication whatsoever of the size of the contract or how it compares with the "huge" contract that allegedly brought out the French veto threat.

As if the U.S. government would be so transparently stupid as to insist upon a monopoly of all post-Saddam oil concessions, thereby virtually confirming to all its critics, domestic and foreign, that it really was about oil all along.  Step into the real world, Ami, where control of a public corporation doesn't mean ownership of 51% of the voting shares and control of the oil in a given country doesn't mean 100% of every deal made.

[Amianthus]

On the alleged ELF contract, it could possibly be true and it wouldn't mean jack-shit.

Of course not. You're always right, and anything that contradicts you doesn't "mean jack-shit."

Arrogant asshole.

[Michael Tee]

<<Of course not. You're always right, and anything that contradicts you doesn't "mean jack-shit.">>

Not always, but often enough that it just seems like always.  Especially to those who are almost always wrong.

<<Arrogant asshole.>>

Sorry about that.  I'm working on developing my humility even as we speak and I think I can safely say I've got that arrogance thing  licked.

[sirs]

<<Not sure why this concept is so hard for so many to grasp.  Blinded hatred for the man Bush, is my guess>>

No, guess again:  because it's another lie, actually.  NONE of the intelligence received was sufficient to generate a decision to go to war on the part of Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries. 

Actually, the LIE is trying to persuade the folks here that the intel conclusions were being generated to determine if we all should go to war with Iraq and not.  NEVER was.  The intel is simply the intel.  And he intel was nearly unamimous in it's conclusions about Saddam's WMD disposition.  THAT'S A FACT, and no amount of rivisionist distortion on your part is going to change THAT FACT

[BT]

I think "To War" has been decided.  Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying?  Bleed, die, pay.  Repeat. 

The rich pay more than their share for wars monetariliy, and if you want them to fight it also, reinstate the draft. Pretty simple solution.

[Plane]

I think "To War" has been decided.  Whose kids are going to fight it, and whose money...ahahah, never mind, they'll use the middle class and the poor, what am I saying?  Bleed, die, pay.  Repeat. 

The rich pay more than their share for wars monetariliy, and if you want them to fight it also, reinstate the draft. Pretty simple solution.

The Air Force is top heavy with officers because every aircraft needs at least one and somef them need three. In Bosnia 100% of the personell shot down behind enemy lines was an officer.

If we attack Iran we will be forced to use Air Power to reduc the Iranian ability to fight  befre we use any other tactic , so for the first part , the well to do will be more exposed than any other class.  The attempt to disunify the country alon class lines is not a good thing to do , the welthy include the same purortion of Barbra Strisand and Rush Limbaugh as the rest of us.

It is a nasty trick .