[Ratmagiclady]

Oh, and as for Libya, well, yes, Obama's right about this. We can support a popular insurrection against a tyrant who's massacreing his own people. We also *can't* control the results, and if the rebels can't pull it off, they can't pull it off.


None of the factions want American boots on the ground, anyway, at this point. It'd have the opposite effect from what's desired anyway.

People need to stop thinking all-or-nothing. Just cause we can't solve other countries' problems doesn't mean we can never *help.*

That also means that if *we,* the American people, want to help, we can start by not upping the political stakes for the President by demanding he 'win' by whatever absolutist goal posts people want to ascribe.

[Wheatfield]

Bill, I recognize and freely admit that. Let me clear things up.
1. I believe he had WMDs. I don't think he woke up one day and just decided he didn't want them anymore. He had plenty of time to hide, or get them out of the country between the time W told the U.N. we wanted to go in and the time we actually did.
2. I DON'T believe that whether they existed or not had a damned thing to do with why we attacked them. I'm not going to try to come up with an explanation for it because yours, though perhaps a bit over simplified, is pretty accurate.

Jim, it's the time frame that is the problem. Fifteen years is a heck of a long time. The UN inspectors didn't find anything when they had access to the country, the general opinion of the entire world other than GWBs lying bastard inner circle was that he had no WMDs, and it's become pretty evident that they knew better and were lying through their teeth because they had just plain decided to invade Iraq and no amount of facts presented was going to change their minds.
Someone had to pay for 9/11, and Hussein was a nice fat and easy to hit target that no one liked anyway, so they manufactured him as an even worse bad guy.
It's obvious he had WMDs in the late 1980s, but by 2003, its equally obvious that he didn't have either WMDs or the ability to deliver them to a target even if he did have anything more dangerous than the common cold.

[JohnInIndy]

This was a big deal to me. I (then independent--supported McCain) and some friends who were Republicans at the time completed the change in party over this issue.

You do not go to war and kill tens of thousands unless you are very sure it is absolutely necessary. I was all behind the President when he made warlike noises and got full access for the UN inspectors. I thought that was genius. I never thought he would actually do it, since the flimsy nature of his evidence was clear, if you read papers from outside the U.S. When it turned out he was serious about attacking Iraq, and didn't care what the inspectors said about the WMD, it was over for his credibility in my book.

In the present situation, the killing was by the dictator, and we are destroying his ability to carry it out.

Full access? I seem to remember Saddam letting them in chasing them out and on and on. He never did comply with UN resolutions.

January 29, 2002: ... Several [top US] officials question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as the only way to guarantee that Iraq will not develop weapons of mass destruction in the future.

March 7, 2002: Iraqi officials meet with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and... UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July...

September 16, 2002: Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return 'without conditions.' Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month.

November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.

December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration 'of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes' as required by Resolution 1441...The resolution requires the declaration to be 'currently accurate, full, and complete,' but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.

December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a 'pattern of systematic…gaps' that constitute 'another material breach' of Iraq’s disarmament obligations...

February 24, 2003: The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying ' Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441' ...

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient...

March 17, 2003: ... Annan announces that UN weapons inspectors will be withdrawn from the country. Bush announces that Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or the United States will initiate military action.
March 18, 2003: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors leave Iraq.

March 19, 2003: The United States commences military action..

[GeneV]

That summary does not completely and accurately portray the events of February-March 2003. Hans Blix, who was engaged in that inspection and making progress when his team was pulled in March to protect them from the impending invasion called the Iraq invasion "a war of utter folly." Hans Blix: A war of utter folly | Comment is free | The Guardian

Blix believed they were getting somewhere in answering the questions about WMD in 2003, when the U.S. effectively pulled the plug:

And I would also say that what was the alternative -- I don't think the Europeans actually were saying we would never exclude use of armed force. They did not. They rather said they would like to have longer period of inspections. And we broke them off at three and a half months, which was a very short time. There was nothing in the resolution from 2003 that suggested that it should be so short.

So if the Iraqis would have practiced cat and mouse in the spring of 2003 on inspectors, then I think the Europeans would have come along. There would have been an authorization of the Security Council and there would have been legitimacy for the action, which I think they now suffer from a lack of legitimacy.

Online NewsHour: Newsmaker: Hans Blix -- March 17, 2004 If the Iraqis had been uncooperative in March, the Europeans would have been on board for invading.

[redrockcoulee]

Full access? I seem to remember Saddam letting them in chasing them out and on and on. He never did comply with UN resolutions.

So Iraq not obeying a UN resolution the US and others can disregard the UN Charter which is the equivalent of a constitution for a nation?

Inspectors were on the ground and were ordered out by the US as well.

As far as him not complying he did indeed comply with the important part and that was ridding himself of the weapons. The game he was playing with the inspectors was perhaps more for his neighbours sake then for the UN.

[les3547]

Full access? I seem to remember Saddam letting them in chasing them out and on and on. He never did comply with UN resolutions.

Here's a little essay on what I don't understand about your position. We now know (quoting The Guardian) the following:

"The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

'Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right,' he said. 'They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.'"

It should be clear to anyone wanting to know the truth that the Bush team used that information to justify going to war. What is the quality of that info? One man's unverified report, a man with ulterior motives. At the very least it is utterly incompetent (to commit lives and billions based on an unverified report). At the worst (which many of us suspect) it was warmongering.

I can imagine that President Bush might have been manipulated by certain of his more clever and devious team members, so I am not rushing to contempt for GW.

But whoever is responsible, we now know it was the Bush administration that sent the US warmongering, scared the crap out of the rest of world who had formerly believed we could be trusted in that regard, got thousands of Americans killed, compromised our focus in Afghanistan, spent a trillion $ doing it . . .

If all that is true, do you approve of it? If you do not approve of it (assuming it's true), then it is no reflection on you that it was Republicans who did it, just like I don't consider Bill Clinton's indiscretions any reflection on me (or Democrats in general) because I am a Democrat. Powell was a Republican and if he'd been in charge I bet he would have done a better job of checking out Curveball's intel.

So I don't understand Republicans who seem ready to fight to the death defending everything a Republican has done! By refusing to acknowledge the wrong some have done, you are implicitly approving of it, and actually encouraging your opponents' to stereotype anyone who is Republican.

[Wheatfield]

got thousands of Americans killed,

I know this is unimportant to Americans of either political stripe, but the real tragedy isn't a few thousand dead Americans but the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were freed from Hussein's regime by being killed due to the actions of, primarily, the American military.
Whether we care to admit it or not, in 2003, Iraq was more or less a country at peace, at least internally, until the coalition of lying b@stards decided to trash the place.

[Ira]

I know this is unimportant to Americans of either political stripe, but the real tragedy isn't a few thousand dead Americans but the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were freed from Hussein's regime by being killed due to the actions of, primarily, the American military.
Whether we care to admit it or not, in 2003, Iraq was more or less a country at peace, at least internally, until the coalition of lying b@stards decided to trash the place.

A country at peace? Who invaded Kuwait and didn't follow the terms of the ceasefire?

And who paid Palestinian suicide bombers for every Israeli they killed? And who gassed thousands of Kurds and others of their own population?

Wheatfield--your summations of the geopolitics involved here are not just inaccurate, they're sad.

The coalition of lying bastards are not the past ones you refer to...but the current ones...which include you.

How do you expect to rewrite history here to suit your anti-U.S. agenda, and not expect to be called out for your ridiculous lies?

Worse yet--you diminish the sincerity and bravery of U.S. military, men and women, who have no stake in this other than to defend freedom and democracy.

My God--your comments are about as disgusting and cowardly as they get--someone who has never served their country at all.

You want it ALL, don't you?

Never served a day of military service, and hate those who risk their lives doing so.

[Ira]

I know this is unimportant to Americans of either political stripe, but the real tragedy isn't a few thousand dead Americans but the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were freed from Hussein's regime by being killed due to the actions of, primarily, the American military.
Whether we care to admit it or not, in 2003, Iraq was more or less a country at peace, at least internally, until the coalition of lying b@stards decided to trash the place.

WHAT HAVE YOU EVER DONE TO DEFEND OR SUPPORT DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE!?

If it was up to people with your attitude, we would all be speaking German, Japanese or possibly, Arabic.

And in case you forgot, we had a little event here in the states called 9/11--and although this might not mean much to you as a Canadian, as an American, we're not really listening to Canadian opinions on this. We saw our brothers and sisters jumping to their deaths from Floor 65 and above.

Perhaps when you're bombed and lose thousands of innocents on a single day, your opinion will change.

[redrockcoulee]

Ira

You are absolutely right on two counts, only those who fought in a war should have the right to have opinions and only countries with powerful armies should make the rules and right the histories.

Personally I supported the Afghan war but opposed the Iraq war which I still think was illegal and unnecessary plus extremely poorly planned. Under your doctrine I would only recognize any bravery of those who fought in the one but not the other? Garbage. Bravery has nothing to do with the cause being right or wrong otherwise do you say that all soldiers on the losing side are cowards?

Separate the politics and the troops on the ground. If one thinks the troops were brave does that make Bush and Chenney right and honest? If you think US pilots are brave does that mean that Obama is right?

And why is not the deaths of 10s of thousands of Iraqis killed in their own country more important than the deaths of an invading army? To an American the American life is more valuable but it sure is not to an Iraqi family and may not be to any one other than those two countries.

[redrockcoulee]

WHAT HAVE YOU EVER DONE TO DEFEND OR SUPPORT DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE!?

If it was up to people with your attitude, we would all be speaking German, Japanese or possibly, Arabic.

And in case you forgot, we had a little event here in the states called 9/11--and although this might not mean much to you as a Canadian, as an American, we're not really listening to Canadian opinions on this. We saw our brothers and sisters jumping to their deaths from Floor 65 and above.

Perhaps when you're bombed and lose thousands of innocents on a single day, your opinion will change.

And what does this have to do with Iraq?

By the way not only did Canada open its skies to your planes, send people to help at 911 but some Canadians did die there as well.

Canada was fighting the Germans and the Japanese well before the States entered the Second World War and was also in the first one before as well. Again separate those who fight and those who start the wars. Some wars are necessary (good?) and some are not. Does not take a coward to be able to think on if a war is worth starting. I have talked to vets from the first gulf war who were opposed to the second one. Do you think they became cowards (they were out of the service by that time anyways)

[Wheatfield]

And what does this have to do with Iraq?

By the way not only did Canada open its skies to your planes, send people to help at 911 but some Canadians did die there as well.

Canada was fighting the Germans and the Japanese well before the States entered the Second World War and was also in the first one before as well. Again separate those who fight and those who start the wars. Some wars are necessary (good?) and some are not. Does not take a coward to be able to think on if a war is worth starting. I have talked to vets from the first gulf war who were opposed to the second one. Do you think they became cowards (they were out of the service by that time anyways)

Give it a rest, for some reason Ira's shorts shrink about 3 sizes every time he posts something that he thinks might get a rise out of me. It's why he tries to make every post into a personal attack when he is replying to me.

It's juvenile and it's stupid, and he just can't seem to help himself, I've taken to just ignoring his manchild tantrums every time his wizened little balls start making testosterone again.
You would do well to do the same.

[les3547]

I know this is unimportant to Americans of either political stripe, but the real tragedy isn't a few thousand dead Americans but the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were freed from Hussein's regime by being killed due to the actions of, primarily, the American military.
Whether we care to admit it or not, in 2003, Iraq was more or less a country at peace, at least internally, until the coalition of lying b@stards decided to trash the place.

You are generalizing about all Americans? How do you "know" what is unimportant to all the different varieties of us?

Regarding your point about Iraq being a country at peace . . . well, Hitler's concentration camps were places of peace. Who would dare speak up and disturb that peace? Of course one can create "peace" by so oppressing one's people they are afraid to utter a peep.

Breaking away from authoritarianism is never easy. Sure, the controls that were in place actually do provide some protection, but it's at the expense of personal development. Are you saying if it were you, you'd choose Hussein's oppression to the hardships new freedom demands?

[Wheatfield]

You are generalizing about all Americans? How do you "know" what is unimportant to all the different varieties of us?

I was answering specifically to your "thousands of Americans killed" comment, which ignored the deaths of many, many thousands of Iraqis. By only mentioning American deaths, you give the impression that the Iraqi people who have died as a result of your invasion of their country as being unimportant.

Regarding your point about Iraq being a country at peace . . . well, Hitler's concentration camps were places of peace. Who would dare speak up and disturb that peace? Of course one can create "peace" by so oppressing one's people they are afraid to utter a peep.

Breaking away from authoritarianism is never easy. Sure, the controls that were in place actually do provide some protection, but it's at the expense of personal development. Are you saying if it were you, you'd choose Hussein's oppression to the hardships new freedom demands?

We'll ignore the Hitler comments, since they have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are only brought in as a strawman to deflect the debate.

Are you saying that the USA has the right to be the arbiter of who "has democracy" and who doesn't? Did GWB run a poll of citizens on the street of Baghdad and ask them if they would find it preferable to be blown up by American bombs to living under the rule of a dictator?

The hubris you are showing here is appalling.

[GeneV]

.. . . the real tragedy isn't a few thousand dead Americans but the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were freed from Hussein's regime by being killed due to the actions of, primarily, the American military.

Probably more like one million killed according to Lancet studies, if the sheer number matters. It is not just the "violent" deaths that are increased by a war. Take out electricity, communication, water, sewer, transportation for food and medicine, and people die. It is also not just the deaths caused by your bombs and bullets. Fight a war with insurgents, and people around them die. It is why we need to think very carefully before entering into a war.