Very Sad Story

[Decker]

Seems to me that if it was so clear that the U.S. violated a UN resolution by invading Iraq that the UN would have taken some action, and many other countries wouldn't have supported the war. 

I'm in good company in believing that Iraq was a threat:  John Kerry, Al Gore, Durbin, many other Democrats in Congress . . . .   What was that quote by Kerry?  Saddam was "a real and grave threat to our security."  Argue with him all you want.   

Your beliefs, Kerry's beliefs and Bush's beliefs are starting points for investigating and verifying the so-called 'threat' posed by Iraq.

Your beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Do you understand that?

[Decker]

From your link:

"The proposed law not only opens the door to the big international oil companies, but offers them lucrative contract deals, and even a place on the national oil board that will run the industry."

So this law, assuming it passed (the article is a year old), would offer contracts to multinational oil companies and this gives the United States government control of Iraq's oil?   

Who cares about control of the oil?  The contract gives foreigners a huge taste of the oil profits that those companies would not have enjoyed unless we put the figurative gun to the head of the Iraq people by making this contract.

The US is angling to take Iraqi oil profits and that's ok with you?  I suppose that view was clear from Bush's nonsense about the Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war.

What a crock that was.

[Decker]

BB,

can you find some quotes that were made AFTER the UN inspectors found no WMD in iraq - late Feb 03?

I notice all your quotes stop right about the time the UN inspectors found nada.

That's a great observation.

[OzmO]

I'm cynical of what politicians say too and I agree they pander to voters all the time.  They're often disingenuous. 

This is a little different though.  They're all making some very strong statements, like this one from Nancy Pelosi on 10 Oct. 02:  "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."  If it were only Pelosi, only Democrats, or only Republicans, I'd be more inclined to believe that they were pandering.  I guess it is possible that all of them were putting on act and really didn't believe Saddam was a threat, but I doubt that's the case.   

Let's take this one a little further becuase i think you brought up a good point indirectly with Pelosi.  How does she or any other politician really know?  From what standpoint or expertise does their opinion carry any weight?  So yes, in a sense they were pandering but not directly to get votes and not putting on an act, but becuase to say otherwise wouldn't be prudent and becuase they simply don't know any better just like the average American.

In what setting do these people make these statements?  A reporter or interviewer asks them what they think, and as politicians they think politically.  It's not about dem or rep here, it's just about being politically competent.  and think about what was asked?  Was he a threat?  Well he was.  But did they ask if they thought Saddam would attack the USA?  and even if they said yes, what bases of knowledge or expertise would they make that statement  that couldn't have paraded to the American public that we could have all seen? 

So using this as a bases or part of a reasoning to justify a preemptive invasion is a bit niave if you think about it.  If the CIA and the NSA and the JC came to the American public and said Saddam is a threat and could show how he intended to attack the USA and get away with it and not allow us remove him, then he is a real threat. 

Otherwise all that happened here was that we were in a fear hysteria and on the war path and Saddam was the next logical target and our country fell for it.  America got shanghi-ed.   

How dangerous was Saddam?  He was like a wasp in a sealed furnace with our fingers on the switch.

Regarding the (approximately) billion in cash, no it's not enough to move mountains, but the point was you don't keep that kind of cash hanging around for legitimate reasons.  He was probably using that to fund terrorism in Israel.  I doubt he had beneficent designs for money.  And he had access to/control of billions more.   

Saddam was a street thug at heart.  All mobsters keep plenty of cash on hand. 

[240 is Back]

That's a great observation.

He won't address it.

Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.

They got what they wanted - inspections.  And they found nada.  After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.

BB won't address this fact. 

[Deicide]

He won't address it.

Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.

They got what they wanted - inspections.  And they found nada.  After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.

BB won't address this fact. 

BB believes in talking snakes and magical self-resurrecting zombie god men with whom he has a personal relationship...makes sense he wouldn't question the Cheney regime...

[Straw Man]

the bottom line

BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever

On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.

In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.

It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob

[Deicide]

the bottom line

BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever

On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.

In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.

It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob

Finally people are beginning to see how fundamentalist Christianity fucks up politics...

[Decker]

He won't address it.

Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.

They got what they wanted - inspections.  And they found nada.  After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.

BB won't address this fact. 

Beach Bum is doing what President Bush did in authoring the request for use of force against Iraq--throw up 1000 different bits of information and see what sticks.  Unfortunately that approach does not speak to the legality of Bush's illegal call to attack Iraq.

It's a subterfuge from pro-war apologists.

[Straw Man]

Finally people are beginning to see how fundamentalist Christianity fucks up politics...

how about just life in general

it would be much more consistent to be a devout Christian and also be a pacifist and against capital punishment....

....and plenty of Christians and other religious people understand this and don't need to have it explained to them (ad naseum) on a bodybuilding message board

[Eyeball Chambers]

the bottom line

BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever

On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.

In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.

It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob

Good post!

[Dos Equis]

Your beliefs, Kerry's beliefs and Bush's beliefs are starting points for investigating and verifying the so-called 'threat' posed by Iraq.

Your beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Do you understand that?

There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress.  They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03: 

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you? 

[Dos Equis]

Who cares about control of the oil?  The contract gives foreigners a huge taste of the oil profits that those companies would not have enjoyed unless we put the figurative gun to the head of the Iraq people by making this contract.

The US is angling to take Iraqi oil profits and that's ok with you?  I suppose that view was clear from Bush's nonsense about the Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war.

What a crock that was.

lol.  You provided the link in response to the Troll's contention that we went to war to control Iraq's oil and that we now in fact control Iraq's oil.  So when I show you how your own link doesn't prove any such thing you say "Who cares about control of the oil"??  In the words of the great philosopher, ESPN's Chris Berman, "Whaaaat."     

[OzmO]

There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress.  They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03: 

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you? 

It does to me.  Because it's nothing more than opinion from a non-experts view point and not at at all looking at the full scope of the situation.   It goes straight back to what i was saying before:  political blabber.

[Dos Equis]

Let's take this one a little further becuase i think you brought up a good point indirectly with Pelosi.  How does she or any other politician really know?  From what standpoint or expertise does their opinion carry any weight?  So yes, in a sense they were pandering but not directly to get votes and not putting on an act, but becuase to say otherwise wouldn't be prudent and becuase they simply don't know any better just like the average American.

In what setting do these people make these statements?  A reporter or interviewer asks them what they think, and as politicians they think politically.  It's not about dem or rep here, it's just about being politically competent.  and think about what was asked?  Was he a threat?  Well he was.  But did they ask if they thought Saddam would attack the USA?  and even if they said yes, what bases of knowledge or expertise would they make that statement  that couldn't have paraded to the American public that we could have all seen? 

So using this as a bases or part of a reasoning to justify a preemptive invasion is a bit niave if you think about it.  If the CIA and the NSA and the JC came to the American public and said Saddam is a threat and could show how he intended to attack the USA and get away with it and not allow us remove him, then he is a real threat. 

Otherwise all that happened here was that we were in a fear hysteria and on the war path and Saddam was the next logical target and our country fell for it.  America got shanghi-ed.   

How dangerous was Saddam?  He was like a wasp in a sealed furnace with our fingers on the switch.

Saddam was a street thug at heart.  All mobsters keep plenty of cash on hand. 

What did they know?  Enough to authorize the use of force.  I pulled some information about what was contained in the Congressional resolution:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

It passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23.  In other words, an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.  

[OzmO]

What did they know?  Enough to authorize the use of force.  I pulled some information about what was contained in the Congressional resolution:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

It passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23.  In other words, an overwhelming, bipartisan vote. 

None of this makes any difference at all.   We all knew this long before the war.  We knew most of this before 9/11.   The point is:   was Saddam a real threat.  None of this points to that.

Show me some scenario that Saddam attacks the USA and doesn't seal his own coffin as a quick result

And you keep on going back and back to congress authorizing it.  How many times does do you need to hear that the fact congress authorizes something doesn't make it right. 

[Decker]

There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress.  They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03: 

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you? 

The concept "Disarm" applies only to one who is armed in the first place.

That is why we had the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

They found no WMDs.  Yet we attacked Iraq anyways.  For what reason?  To disarm a disarmed country?

Does that sound like a reasonable tact to you?

[Dos Equis]

None of this makes any difference at all.   We all knew this long before the war.  We knew most of this before 9/11.   The point is:   was Saddam a real threat.  None of this points to that.

Show me some scenario that Saddam attacks the USA and doesn't seal his own coffin as a quick result

And you keep on going back and back to congress authorizing it.  How many times does do you need to hear that the fact congress authorizes something doesn't make it right. 

The Congressional vote makes a huge difference, because they believed Saddam was a threat and gave the president the authority to use force in his discretion.  The fact they reached this conclusion means they believed Saddam was a threat.  

We didn't need a scenario that showed Saddam would attack our borders.  Other than 911 and Pearl Harbor, we've never faced a threat that I'm aware of on our borders, but we have used force all over the world, including Yugoslavia and Somalia.  We are concerned about how elements overseas attack our allies, our military bases, and fund the animals who are trying to attack from within (like the 911 hijackers).  Certainly, all of our troops in the region were in danger if Saddam was the threat that Congress believed he was.  

Who said the fact Congress authorizes something makes it right?  I don't agree with everything Congress authorizes.  Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.  In this particular instance, I agree with their overwhelming vote.  You obviously disagree.  Big deal.  

[Decker]

lol.  You provided the link in response to the Troll's contention that we went to war to control Iraq's oil and that we now in fact control Iraq's oil.  So when I show you how your own link doesn't prove any such thing you say "Who cares about control of the oil"??  In the words of the great philosopher, ESPN's Chris Berman, "Whaaaat."     

The Iraqis own the oil.   So what?  They can control the oil.  So what?  They will not enjoy the full profit of their workproduct b/c those rights are to be held by foreign companies.

When the US robs a country, it doesn't rob it in the way some ham-handed crook sticks up a gas station.  We make it look all pretty like.  

B/c, after all, we are installing a democracy and freeing a people!

[Dos Equis]

The concept "Disarm" applies only to one who is armed in the first place.

That is why we had the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

They found no WMDs.  Yet we attacked Iraq anyways.  For what reason?  To disarm a disarmed country?

Does that sound like a reasonable tact to you?

Of course not.  But that's not what we believed.  Congress believed he was a threat.  The Commander in Chief believed he was a threat.  So did the UN.  So did the other countries who supported us.    

[Decker]

The Congressional vote makes a huge difference, because they believed Saddam was a threat and gave the president the authority to use force in his discretion.  The fact they reached this conclusion means they believed Saddam was a threat.

Great point.  And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!

We didn't need a scenario that showed Saddam would attack our borders.  Other than 911 and Pearl Harbor, we've never faced a threat that I'm aware of on our borders, but we have used force all over the world, including Yugoslavia and Somalia.  We are concerned about how elements overseas attack our allies, our military bases, and fund the animals who are trying to attack from within (like the 911 hijackers).  Certainly, all of our troops in the region were in danger if Saddam was the threat that Congress believed he was.  

Great point.  And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!

Who said the fact Congress authorizes something makes it right?  I don't agree with everything Congress authorizes.  Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.  In this particular instance, I agree with their overwhelming vote.  You obviously disagree.  Big deal.  

You are implying that notion.  You think that the mere authorization to use force, as commander and chief, is carte blanche to do whatever the hell he pleases and attack whom he pleases.  You can't deny that assertion.

You would be correct only if there is no such thing as International Law, but sadly for Bush, there is such a thing.

[Dos Equis]

The Iraqis own the oil.   So what?  They can control the oil.  So what?  They will not enjoy the full profit of their workproduct b/c those rights are to be held by foreign companies.

When the US robs a country, it doesn't rob it in the way some ham-handed crook sticks up a gas station.  We make it look all pretty like.  

B/c, after all, we are installing a democracy and freeing a people!

I see.  Moving the goal posts are we?  So now you agree the United States doesn't own or control Iraq's oil and that foreign companies might profit from Iraq's oil.  Two comments:  first, Iraq will benefit from contracts they sign with foreign companies; the companies will obviously provide some kind of service.  Second, precisely how is the United States government profiting from Iraq's oil?  

[Decker]

Of course not.  But that's not what we believed.  Congress believed he was a threat.  The Commander in Chief believed he was a threat.  So did the UN.  So did the other countries who supported us.    

The WMD inspectors did not have to rely on some possibly erroneous belief of Iraq's alleged threat to the US.

As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

Right in the middle of the WMD inspectors verification of whether the WMD claims were true, Bush attacked.

Do you deny that?

Do you now see why your belief of Iraq's WMD capacity was never verified?

[Decker]

I see.  Moving the goal posts are we?  So now you agree the United States doesn't own or control Iraq's oil and that foreign companies might profit from Iraq's oil.  Two comments:  first, Iraq will benefit from contracts they sign with foreign companies; the companies will obviously provide some kind of service.  Second, precisely how is the United States government profiting from Iraq's oil?  

I'm not moving the goal posts.  I'm pointing out how the US and others profit from the Iraqi invasion without having to 'own or control' the oil.

The mafia profits from it's contracts too.  I'm absolutely certain that the Iraqi people were in as good a bargaining position as the US and other foreign interests in carving up the profit agreements on the Iraqi oil.  I mean here are the Iraq people with oil and oil extraction/development infrastructure and here comes the foreign oil companies with no oil.  It's a win-win situation!.

Why are you moving the goal posts re the US Gov's profiting from the theft of Iraqi oil?  I'll bite.  The US Gov. profits from the increased revenues from the US companies doing business in Iraqi oil.  But that's not a good answer.  The Bush Administration uses government to enrich cronies and friends alike....even if that means killing Iraqi people that interfering in the theft. 

[Dos Equis]

Great point.  And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
 Great point.  And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
 You are implying that notion.  You think that the mere authorization to use force, as commander and chief, is carte blanche to do whatever the hell he pleases and attack whom he pleases.  You can't deny that assertion.

You would be correct only if there is no such thing as International Law, but sadly for Bush, there is such a thing.

Well geeze.  Since I can't deny your distorted interpretation of an alleged implication arising from my comments, then I guess this discussion is over. . . .

Just so we're clear, I think the significance of Congressional comments and Congressional authorization regarding Iraq are as follows:

1.  They help dispel the contention that Saddam was not a threat.  

2.  They show that Congress believed Saddam was a threat, which can't be ignored if you're trying to determine whether or not Saddam was a threat.  

3.  They help legitimize the action Bush took in Iraq.  The Congressional vote explicitly stated he could use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

So no, I never said and don't believe that simply because Congress says something that is necessarily true.  But I do believe these particular comments and votes are a very important part of the analysis.  

Keep in mind Bush didn't need Congressional authority to take Saddam out.