[Catria]

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Goering:

If WMD's aren't found and it becomes even more obvious Iraq was no real threat to the US, does it matter that the Bush Admin. clearly based it's premise for an invasion of Iraq on a falsehood?

Doesn't a democracy only work if the people are given the truth from which to make choices? Because we now expect politicians to lie, does this then mean we should accept it as well?

All the mainstream media talks about now is "liberation" and "building democracy"...the original justification for the war seems to have been forgotten. Americans seem sure of the nobility and altruism of US actions in Iraq, but they should not ignore the real reason for the war ...that is, the neo-cons wanted to rearrange the Midde East and chose a weakened Iraq to be the *example*. They care so much about Iraqis they're willing to kill thousands of them, shatter many lives and destroy their cities just to depose one man and take a highly dangerous gamble on the outcome.

In the light of this, all the the backpatting and self-righteous assurance surrounding the Bush camp is a little sickening. Maybe US citizens should indulge in a little healthy introspection at this time...the people shouldn't confuse the Bush administration with something good.


First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization - the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS - called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year - a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy:
blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true - we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?
Paul Krugman

Such a caring President.

[Noumenon]

"If WMD's aren't found and it becomes even more obvious Iraq was no real threat to the US, does it matter that the Bush Admin. clearly based it's premise for an invasion of Iraq on a falsehood?"

If no WMD is found, most likely the Bush administration will say Saddam shipped them to Syria before the war (not unlikely). They wouldn't have been much use against US soldiers anyway, so is it inconceivable that Saddam would have done that to make the US look bad?

Besides, the burden of proof was always on Iraq. Resolution 1441 - Saddam had one last chance to disarm or face the consequences. He didn't show any evidence that he did so, obviously, so we had to assume he still had the WMD. If we don't find any, it doesn't make any difference.

"they care so much about Iraqis they're willing to kill thousands of them, shatter many lives and destroy their cities just to depose one man and take a highly dangerous gamble on the outcome."

In case you didn't know, Saddam killed thousands of political enemies every year. He also exterminated more than 200,000 Southern Shiites since the Gulf War. Even if 2000 civilians died in this war, its nothing compared to the number that would have been killed had we left Saddam in power. It may seem like a cold calculation, but in the end this war saved more people than it killed.

"First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization - the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS - called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year - a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal."

Maybe we thought it be more efficient to spend that money on fighting AIDS in Africa?

[Proctor]

If no WMD is found, most likely the Bush administration will say Saddam shipped them to Syria before the war (not unlikely).

Now why would he do that? Are you aware that Saddam has been sentenced to death in Syria?

Saddam had one last chance to disarm or face the consequences. He didn't show any evidence that he did so, obviously, so we had to assume he still had the WMD.

Well....

He showed a lot of evidence. But there were holes in this evidence, and there was probably a lot that he decided to keep to himself. Now, as you say, it would be possible to assume he still had them, but wasn't Blix there to determine exactly that? Cutting him off when the inspections were just reaching full steam just left a huge question mark.

[Noumenon]

Now why would he do that? Are you aware that Saddam has been sentenced to death in Syria?

I don't have any proof for it, but its a strong possibility. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94DB404482

He showed a lot of evidence. But there were holes in this evidence, and there was probably a lot that he decided to keep to himself. Now, as you say, it would be possible to assume he still had them, but wasn't Blix there to determine exactly that? Cutting him off when the inspections were just reaching full steam just left a huge question mark.

Blix and the inspectors were there to verify that Saddam had disarmed, not to disarm him themselves. The only reason inspections were reaching "full steam" was that Saddam recognized the imminent threat of invasion and decided to do a little disarming of his worthless missiles. He had no intention of disarming his WMD.

[Proctor]

If that's the case, why not just wait a bit for Blix to say that Saddam was fucking around and they were no longer making progress. Then, no matter what France and Russia said, the world would have supported the war. Hell, I would have supported the war.

[Noumenon]

Are you kidding? Blix would have never given up on Iraq as long as they kept
appeasing him by disarming a few missiles here and there. Resolution 1441 was a final chance. We couldn't allow Blix to give Saddam a million more chances, which is what he would have done.

[Catria]

In case you didn't know, Saddam killed thousands of political enemies every year. He also exterminated more than 200,000 Southern Shiites since the Gulf War. Even if 2000 civilians died in this war, its nothing compared to the number that would have been killed had we left Saddam in power. It may seem like a cold calculation, but in the end this war saved more people than it killed.

I did know it, but how is that relevent to WMDs and a pre-emptive war of so-called defence, which was supposed to be the whole justification for the war? If saving Iraqis was the main objective why didn't the Bush Admin. say so from the beginning...why was this brought out only after they were losing the battle for world opinion? This thread is about truth.

Forgive my cynicism but did you read that Goering quote? Weren't we persuaded to believe Saddam was an imminent threat and when this did not prove to be convincing enough, *liberation* became the cause celebre. If it is now all about liberation...is this new-found despot-removal service to be applied consistently?

You may consider it "nothing" by comparison, but many more than 2000 people have been killed in the Iraq war...soldiers are people too, and people are still dying as a direct result of this war. Then there's those who have been maimed and have had their families wiped out and lives shattered. It is also far too early to predict the outcome...it's entirely possible Saddam Husseins regime could be replaced by a fundamentalist theocracy...not a good look for Bushs early prediction of a democratic flourishing in the ME. Not to mention the lives that may be lost should civil war ensue. I remain unconvinced that this violent *cure* will clear Iraq of its afflictions. Even if it does, this still doesnot address the deceptions that the war was built upon.

Forgive my cynicism but did you read that Goring quote? Weren't we persuaded to believe Saddam was a large and looming threat and thus must be acted on immediately, and when this did not prove to be quite convincing enough, *liberation* became the cause celebre. If it is now all about liberation...is this new-found despot-removal service to be applied consistently? Or is this political ultruismn only to occur when it serves the needs and desires of the neo-con enclave which surrounds the President?

Now we have President Bush directly linking Iraq to 9/11, despite any real evidence to support that highly emotive assertion. First Afghanis, now Iraqis...who next must die because Bin Laden killed Americans?

Are you kidding? Blix would have never given up on Iraq as long as they kept appeasing him by disarming a few missiles here and there. Resolution 1441 was a final chance. We couldn't allow Blix to give Saddam a million more chances, which is what he would have done.

It seems to me the villified weapons inspectors have been proved right. Their assessnment of the truth seems closer to reality than Washingtons alarmist propoganda.

In explaining the gap between the prewar and postwar claims on Iraq's WMD, Dr Rice said the US was now seeing the programs in a different light. "The fact is that we are beginning to see a kind of pattern on how Iraq may have hidden its weapons of mass destruction from the outside world for all of these years," she said this week.

According to Dr Rice, the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces"
rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities.

She had a new explanation too for Iraq's ability to launch these
weapons that were not assembled. "Just-in-time assembly" and "just-in-time" inventory, as she put it.

But in the months before the Iraq war, Mr Bush and his advisers,
including the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, gave far more frightening descriptions of Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Addressing the UN Security Council on February 5, Mr Powell said recent
intelligence showed a missile brigade outside Baghdad was "dispersing
rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to
various locations". Mr Bush was equally alarmist, describing satellite
evidence showing that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear
weapons programs with his top nuclear scientists, his "nuclear
mujahideen". Iraq's deadliest weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists.

"We cannot wait for final proof," Mr Bush said. "The smoking gun that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Sydney Morning Herald

Should wars be launched on "Mights" and Maybes"...?

Creating anticipatory fears without real evidence can so easily be exploited and used to manipulate public acceptance for opportunistic military campaigns.

[ahab]

I did know it, but how is that relevent to WMDs and a pre-emptive war of so-called defence, which was supposed to be the whole justification for the war? If saving Iraqis was the main objective why didn't the Bush Admin. say so from the beginning...why was this brought out only after they were losing the battle for world opinion? This thread is about truth.

yeep... The administration is an elected body, and only wishes to stay elected, so they must convince the American populus that they will benefit from this. That was the only purpose of this.

is this new-found despot-removal service to be applied consistently?

If a despot is found to possibly be in possesion of WMD and a possible threat to the US or it's interests, and various other requirements, yes.

Should wars be launched on "Mights" and Maybes"...?

Creating anticipatory fears without real evidence can so easily be exploited and used to manipulate public acceptance for opportunistic military campaigns.

Is it better to launch a war on "Mights" and Maybes" or "whoops... lotsa people just died... we've gotta do that war we avoided earlier, we only postponed the war."

[Catria]

yeep... The administration is an elected body, and only wishes to stay elected, so they must convince the American populus that they will benefit from this. That was the only purpose of this.

Let me get this straight...you saying the primary objective of government is to stay elected, not to give the public the truth. How then, is democracy viable if the public is not given choices based on truth, but merely needs to be convinced through deception that certain government actions will "benefit them"? This makes a farce of democratic freedom.

If a despot is found to possibly be in possesion of WMD and a possible threat to the US or it's interests, and various other requirements, yes.

Now I'm confused. So it's not about liberation and human rights, but US interests and self-defence...even if it turns out there was no real threat after all. I guess we'll have to invade Iran and North Korea then, since both are in possession of nuclear weapons and both are featured in the "axis of evil", thus must surely be a greater danger than Iraq was. What are the other requirements? In fact Iraq had NO nuclear weapons, and ironically, this made it a more acceptable target. The WMD argument loses its credibility... the message to so-called rogue states is to develop nuclear weapons as this will make you less vulnerable to American incursion.

Is it better to launch a war on "Mights" and Maybes" or "whoops... lotsa people just died... we've gotta do that war we avoided earlier, we only postponed the war."

Well "lotsa people just died" in the war. Why should Iraqis have faith in this war of liberation...the US didnot care about the human rights of Iraqis when it chose to do business with Saddam Hussein in the past. Iraqis see the duplicity and are sceptical of the intent...it will be a hard task for the Americans to gain general acceptance and keep the different factions of Iraq united to form a proper democracy.

[ahab]

yeep... The administration is an elected body, and only wishes to stay elected, so they must convince the American populus that they will benefit from this. That was the only purpose of this.

Let me get this straight...you saying the primary objective of government is to stay elected, not to give the public the truth.

so-so, depends upon the administration at the time. To inform the public would have required just a few speeches, but to convince the public that the administration was doing the right thing took many more.

How then, is democracy viable if the public is not given choices based on truth, but merely needs to be convinced through deception that certain government actions will "benefit them"? This makes a farce of democratic freedom.

again, depends on the administration at the time. If Bush were on his second term this war would not have had nearly as many justification speeches as it did. Many Americans are imperialistic and really don't care if a war benefits them, as long as victory would mean more people benefit after the war, the cries that Saddam is a threat are really minor in the public's perception.

If a despot is found to possibly be in possesion of WMD and a possible threat to the US or it's interests, and various other requirements, yes.

Now I'm confused. So it's not about liberation and human rights, but US interests and self-defence...even if it turns out there was no real threat after all. I guess we'll have to invade Iran and North Korea then, since both are in possession of nuclear weapons and both are featured in the "axis of evil", thus must surely be a greater danger than Iraq was. What are the other requirements? In fact Iraq had NO nuclear weapons, and ironically, this made it a more acceptable target. The WMD argument loses its credibility... the message to so-called rogue states is to develop nuclear weapons as this will make you less vulnerable to American incursion.

each situation is different. Diplomacy has not been failing for the past 12 years in those situations.

Is it better to launch a war on "Mights" and Maybes" or "whoops... lotsa people just died... we've gotta do that war we avoided earlier, we only postponed the war."

Well "lotsa people just died" in the war. Why should Iraqis have faith in this war of liberation...the US didnot care about the human rights of Iraqis when it chose to do business with Saddam Hussein in the past. Iraqis see the duplicity and are sceptical of the intent...it will be a hard task for the Americans to gain general acceptance and keep the different factions of Iraq united to form a proper democracy.

In the past Saddam and Iraq and the US's situation were much different. Saddam actually fed his people and did some improvements, but he bankrupt himself on the Iran war and he did nothing to loosen the sanctions and hampered efforts for help to his people.

I'm sure some people saw two possibilities for the future:
A: Saddam contributes WMD to a terrorist group, terrorist group kills several thousand Americans. America seeks security and gets the UN to back an American led war to kick Saddam out.
B: America gets nervous and poorly justifies an American led war to kick Saddam out.

Option A is/was NOT likely at all, but it is/was feared by many people, and Saddam is/was one of the most likely people in the world to give WMDs to terrorists, but you would have had terrorist attack + war instead of just war that took place in option B.

[Proctor]

Ahab has a point. It's kind of like a fire. Its better to prevent them than to have to put them out.

Isuldur, if what you are saying is that Blix wouldn't have given up on Iraq while decent progress is being made, you're right. And that is the way it should be. I have an enormous amount of respect for Hans Blix. There was propaganda being fired everywhere from both sides, and he just did his job. And he did it well. Pity he couldn't finish it though...

There were no million more chances. There was one. Blix said that if Iraq didn't start pulling its weight, he might as well go home, and the bombs would have started falling. France, Russia and Germany wouldn't have been able to do anything to sway public opinion if Blix said the game was up.

And just so you know, Iran has no nuclear weapons. They utilise nuclear power, but when they started up their new reactors, they cheekily asked the US if they wanted to inspect them for WMD, and declared they would be all to happy for the UN to come in and prove them right. The US stayed strangely silent...

[Catria]

You're right Proctor...I should have said Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons. Although the Iranians claim their nuclear program is for energy only, they have been rapidly developing their nuclear capabilities while strongly arguing they have a right to nuclear weapons.

What a box of snakes we open if we go around launching war on the premise of "putting the fire out before it starts." What's to stop other countries [with dubious motives], using this logic too? Or is this new rule of pre-emption the privilege of the United States alone?

While Saddam did support Palestinian terrorists, there was no evidence to suggest he would provide a terrorist group such as Al Quaeda with WMD's...and many years of sanctions had significantly weakened Iraqs military. America spends more on weapons in a day than Iraq would spend in a year. It seems very dangerous to me, to go to war without substantial evidence of threat.

Nor does it seem like a good way to change a brutal government. If this is the new way to deal with such things who decides which regimes need changing? America alone...?

Many Americans say war is worth the price to remove Saddam Hussein. They said the same thing about the Taliban in Afghanistan...but how great have the improvements been worth there? Would Americans accept this price on their own shores? Since 9/11 thousands of people have died...that single and terrible act of terrorism has provided the justification for the American Hawks to act out their plans for the New American Century...plans which were hatched long before those planes crashed into the WTC. The spectre of *terrorism* has been of enormous use to neo-conservative propagandists to push their single minded idealism...and now President Bush tells us the *war* against terror is not over. The future is full of nervous question marks.

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

- Leo Tolstoy

[ahab]

What a box of snakes we open if we go around launching war on the premise of "putting the fire out before it starts." What's to stop other countries [with dubious motives], using this logic too? Or is this new rule of pre-emption the privilege of the United States alone?

If someone wants to use it and face the international critisizm, they can go ahead and try it. I would suggest that they try the UN first and at least make it a reasonable plea.

While Saddam did support Palestinian terrorists, there was no evidence to suggest he would provide a terrorist group such as Al Quaeda with WMD's...and many years of sanctions had significantly weakened Iraqs military. America spends more on weapons in a day than Iraq would spend in a year. It seems very dangerous to me, to go to war without substantial evidence of threat.

He was one of the most likely in the world to contribute WMD to terrorists. Maybe someday he might have, and if he would have it would have been bad, but that possiblity was a very small one. He wasn't a very likely threat, but if he decided to be he would have been a big threat. Saddam being a threat is only a small bit of justification for this war. Japan has more reason to go to war with N Korea.

Nor does it seem like a good way to change a brutal government.

Not that many other ways. He was given a final warning and was given 12 years to cooperate. I doubt someone as resolute as Saddam would have gone out of power with less violence. A revolt by his own people might have been much bloodier.

If this is the new way to deal with such things who decides which regimes need changing? America alone...?

*shrug* UN should, but it is no where near a perfect world.

Many Americans say war is worth the price to remove Saddam Hussein. They said the same thing about the Taliban in Afghanistan...but how great have the improvements been worth there?

Improvements in daily life right now are not much, but in 5 years compare what the country will be like under the current gov't and with what the country would have been like if left under the Taliban. Same goes for Iraq, improvements won't be overnight.

Would Americans accept this price on their own shores?

If my leadership were as brutal as the Taliban and Saddam I just might, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.

Since 9/11 thousands of people have died...that single and terrible act of terrorism has provided the justification for the American Hawks to act out their plans for the New American Century...plans which were hatched long before those planes crashed into the WTC. The spectre of *terrorism* has been of enormous use to neo-conservative propagandists to push their single minded idealism...and now President Bush tells us the *war* against terror is not over. The future is full of nervous question marks.

When going to war, justification is a good thing. Iraq never should have been directly tied to the war on terror by the administration. It will be a major leverage point against the middle east supporters of terrorism, but the Iraq war itself wasn't really about terror. The hawks are just looking to accomplish the things that they want done, and to stay in power.

[Catria]

Iraq never should have been directly tied to the war on terror by the administration. It will be a major leverage point against the middle east supporters of terrorism, but the Iraq war itself wasn't really about terror. The hawks are just looking to accomplish the things that they want done, and to stay in power.

Aye captain ahab...we agree on that.

[grinner]

Truth matters in everything in life. When lives are on the line, it's even more important. It's a shame when ordinary people lie. It's tragic when so-called leaders lie.