Honest question for war supporters

[Ryan]

Now that even the Bush administration has accepted that there are probably no WMDs in Iraq, how do you still consider them to be an imminent threat to our people? Specifically, is there something that was happening in Iraq that made them more of a threat than other enemy nations to the point that you would still support the war if you had it to do over again? If you think it was a mistake, who should be held accountable? The president, the CIA, Congress? We can't just say "whoops, our mistake." Remember, there are lots of dead people here and we, the taxpayers, are out billions of dollars for this.

Just to avoid the issue, YES, I do think we are better of not having Saddam in power, and YES, I know he gassed his own people. I just really want to know if you think the received benefit is worth the cost.

[Blasto]

i am still a supporter, i agree with the war in the sense that we must have cooperation from countries when it comes to inspections because proliferation may one day end up at our shores..i think we should definately pursue more rogue countries and toughen our stance on nations like pakistan and n. korea..whenever these nations go unchecked they become more and more dangerous as weapons are used or pointed at their neighbors or through the threat of proliferation..take your pick.



btw..i never fell for the whole imminent threat thing and those who did need to definately re-think their position

[thumpcbd]

Originally posted by Ryan
If you think it was a mistake, who should be held accountable? The president, the CIA, Congress? We can't just say "whoops, our mistake." Remember, there are lots of dead people here and we, the taxpayers, are out billions of dollars for this.

Who can we hold accountable for this whoopsie? There are many governments besides ours that thought Iraq has WMD. The Clinton Adm, the Bush Adm, CIA, the Brittish, French , Germans and Russians all believed Iraq had WMD. Their argument was that we shouldn't go to war over them, NOT that Iraq didn't have WMD. So whos mistake is it?

[bfp]

Now that even the Bush administration has accepted that there are probably no WMDs in Iraq, how do you still consider them to be an imminent threat to our people? Specifically, is there something that was happening in Iraq that made them more of a threat than other enemy nations to the point that you would still support the war if you had it to do over again? If you think it was a mistake, who should be held accountable? The president, the CIA, Congress? We can't just say "whoops, our mistake." Remember, there are lots of dead people here and we, the taxpayers, are out billions of dollars for this.

I do believe, that the CIA should be held accountable for 'dated' intel absolutely. All Bush was doing was getting updated with certain Intel. Bush didn't say that Saddam was an imminent threat btw. He was quoted as saying that we can't wait for him to become an imminent threat, due to his acts in the past. Do you think that being the tyrant that he was, that he wouldn't seek to purchase weapons in the future?

And please do not bitch about the 100+ billion dollars spent on the war. There is more money being wasted elsewhere.

Originally posted by Ryan
Now that even the Bush administration has accepted that there are probably no WMDs in Iraq, how do you still consider them to be an imminent threat to our people? Specifically, is there something that was happening in Iraq that made them more of a threat than other enemy nations to the point that you would still support the war if you had it to do over again? If you think it was a mistake, who should be held accountable? The president, the CIA, Congress? We can't just say "whoops, our mistake." Remember, there are lots of dead people here and we, the taxpayers, are out billions of dollars for this.

Just to avoid the issue, YES, I do think we are better of not having Saddam in power, and YES, I know he gassed his own people. I just really want to know if you think the received benefit is worth the cost.

This presumes that the only reason for the war was imminent threat. That is not the case, however it is the only one that people seem to want to discuss.

Currently - NO - I do not consider Iraq an imminent threat.

If we assume for the sake of argument that Saddam was still in power and that we knew as fact that he did not have WMDs and was not for a fact pursuing programs to develop and manufactuwe chem/bio/nuke weapons - NO - I wouldn't consider him an imminent threat to the US. But that assumes a lot as fact - and to do so with a man like Saddam would be foolish. The quetion you'd have to ask is, "Is the President telling the truth - that he believes WMDs exist. Or is Saddam telling the truth when he denies possession - as he continues to deny UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to sites of ther choosing as he has agreed to the halt major military operation against him."

Assuming that we believed Saddam (which I would never do) - there was still a case for war in his ongoing violation for 10+ years of over 17 UN resolutions. If the UN would not enforce them it may as well close its doors. The US/UK coalition put muscle behind the UNs pen and gave the resolutions teeth.

What if he did have them....and he gave a suitcase of cesium to an agent who set it off in New York rendering the entire city a contaminated desert? The calls for why we didn't do anything to prevent this would be deafening.

Given the alternatives I don't find the choice a hard one to make.

Assuming that no WMDs exist - I doubt very much that we were lied to by GW, Powell etc. I believe they believed that Saddam had'em. They may have been wrong - but I do not believe them to be liars - big difference.

Cost/benefit? Too early to tell. If we find that Iraq developes into a pro-western liberal democracy - even a nation that is not a radical "USA=Great Satan" theocracy we may find it worth the costs.

I find it hard to believe the Libya would have surrendered its WMDs had the war in Iraq not taken place.

There may very well be other tangential benefits to come and that are developing.

I assume most Iraqis prefer their current expectation to life under Saddam - but that is an assumption.

So - - can't say yes it was worth it but I cannot say no either. My outlook is quite optimistic though.

Accountability - if intelligence operatives were simply wrong I don't think they should be punished - they work in a difficult field and have to make hard choices. If however, it is easily demonstrable that the intelligence community intentionally mislead and lied to GW, Powel. Rumsfeld etc - then yes - heads should roll.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by thumpcbd
Who can we hold accountable for this whoopsie? There are many governments besides ours that thought Iraq has WMD. The Clinton Adm, the Bush Adm, CIA, the Brittish, French , Germans and Russians all believed Iraq had WMD. Their argument was that we shouldn't go to war over them, NOT that Iraq didn't have WMD. So whos mistake is it?

Uhm, well, which country acted upon it? All of the opposing nations said they thought there were weapons, but the threat of them being used in the near future was not great enough to warrant immediate unilateral action. They were right.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by bfp
And please do not bitch about the 100+ billion dollars spent on the war. There is more money being wasted elsewhere.

You're right. It's just $100 billion, no big deal. We shouldn't "bitch" about $100 billion of our money being spent on one of the greatest intelligence fuckups in history. But hey, Bush can always have more money printed, right?

Originally posted by Ryan
Uhm, well, which country acted upon it? All of the opposing nations said they thought there were weapons, but the threat of them being used in the near future was not great enough to warrant immediate unilateral action. They were right.

They cannot be proven to be right - or wrong - the threat potential has been reduced to acceptable levels now that Saddam is gone.

Did Paris need to have the Eifel Tower blown up before they think a threat is great enough to go to war....

OK bad example - The French don't fight wars

How about Berlin bombed?

The problem is that although we MAY be able to show at this point that Saddam couldn't conduct such an attack he respresented himself as being capable and he demonstrated his willingness to do so in previous attacks.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
This presumes that the only reason for the war was imminent threat. That is not the case, however it is the only one that people seem to want to discuss.

Currently - NO - I do not consider Iraq an imminent threat.

If we assume for the sake of argument that Saddam was still in power and that we knew as fact that he did not have WMDs and was not for a fact pursuing programs to develop and manufactuwe chem/bio/nuke weapons - NO - I wouldn't consider him an imminent threat to the US. But that assumes a lot as fact - and to do so with a man like Saddam would be foolish. The quetion you'd have to ask is, "Is the President telling the truth - that he believes WMDs exist. Or is Saddam telling the truth when he denies possession - as he continues to deny UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to sites of ther choosing as he has agreed to the halt major military operation against him."

Assuming that we believed Saddam (which I would never do) - there was still a case for war in his ongoing violation for 10+ years of over 17 UN resolutions. If the UN would not enforce them it may as well close its doors. The US/UK coalition put muscle behind the UNs pen and gave the resolutions teeth.

What if he did have them....and he gave a suitcase of cesium to an agent who set it off in New York rendering the entire city a contaminated desert? The calls for why we didn't do anything to prevent this would be deafening.

Given the alternatives I don't find the choice a hard one to make.

Assuming that no WMDs exist - I doubt very much that we were lied to by GW, Powell etc. I believe they believed that Saddam had'em. They may have been wrong - but I do not believe them to be liars - big difference.

Cost/benefit? Too early to tell. If we find that Iraq developes into a pro-western liberal democracy - even a nation that is not a radical "USA=Great Satan" theocracy we may find it worth the costs.

I find it hard to believe the Libya would have surrendered its WMDs had the war in Iraq not taken place.

There may very well be other tangential benefits to come and that are developing.

I assume most Iraqis prefer their current expectation to life under Saddam - but that is an assumption.

So - - can't say yes it was worth it but I cannot say no either. My outlook is quite optimistic though.

Accountability - if intelligence operatives were simply wrong I don't think they should be punished - they work in a difficult field and have to make hard choices. If however, it is easily demonstrable that the intelligence community intentionally mislead and lied to GW, Powel. Rumsfeld etc - then yes - heads should roll.

I don't personally subscribe to the notion that GW or anyone else in the White House tried to intentionally mislead the public. If they truly thought there were no weapons, they wouldn't have started a war based mainly on that claim. However, I do believe that there were other hidden political motives here and that the administration exaggerated the threat in order to scare the American people into supporting this war. Had this intelligence been available prior to the invasion, there is no way this country would have stood behind such a dangerous and expensive campaign.

We have indeed seen some benefits to this action, namely the freedom of oppressed people. However, if we can agree that our international policy is not driven by a goal of freeing oppressed people and that this was merely a side effect of this war rather than a primary objective (which I personally believe), then it seems difficult to argue that we have gotten a good return on this investment. 500+ dead Americans and nearly $100 billion later, I don't think that any major risk has been eliminated nor do I think we will be substantially safer in the longrun.

Again, I agree that some good things have come of this. But remember, we have started something from which we cannot withdraw until the task is completed. I would not be at all surprised to find ourselves in Iraq 5 years from now with another couple hundred billion dollars committed, who knows how many dead soldiers, and no clear objectives for how to finish the job. This is one I'd like to be wrong on, but nothing has happened so far in the last 10 months to make me think otherwise.

[Blasto]

^^^dude you keep bringing up intelligence, when that was the sole purpose of inspectors..to inspect. youre baseing your whole argument on that, when the inspectors were given the boot time and time again. so if youre not getting inspection cooperation to know what they got, then how the hell is intelligence going to be 100% sure??

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Blasto
^^^dude you keep bringing up intelligence, when that was the sole purpose of inspectors..to inspect. youre baseing your whole argument on that, when the inspectors were given the boot time and time again. so if youre not getting inspection cooperation to know what they got, then how the hell is intelligence going to be 100% sure??

Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, I recall Secretary Powell sitting in front of the UN Security Council "making our case" for war. He claimed that we had enough intelligence to prove the case for war and he even had tangible "evidence" to back up his case. We are now learning that all of that evidence was garbage. I never heard a single member of the administration claim that we didn't have enough intelligence because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors finish. Not one time did anyone in the administration say "well, we know they have 'em, but we're just speculating. We really don't have any hard facts to back up the claim." Now, as logical as that speculation may have been, it was still only speculation. From everything said by Bush et al, there was only one conclusion to be drawn - that we were 100% sure.

I am not in the camp who thinks Bush should be impeached for this. However, I think at the very least we are owed an explanation. As the leader of this country and the Commander in Chief of the military, he needs to admit that we made some mistakes and reset the course of this campaign. But all we hear from him and his followers are more excuses and more denials of what was stated before the war started. Accountability should be applied to everyone, not just people with whom you disagree.

Originally posted by Ryan
I don't personally subscribe to the notion that GW or anyone else in the White House tried to intentionally mislead the public. If they truly thought there were no weapons, they wouldn't have started a war based mainly on that claim.

WMDs was one of many reasons given - but seems to be the only one people wish to talk about.

Originally posted by Ryan
However, I do believe that there were other hidden political motives here and that the administration exaggerated the threat in order to scare the American people into supporting this war.

Certainly the Government made its case for the war with the intent that the public would support the decision. You're suggesting that they intentionally overstated the reasons knowing them to be false?

You suggest hidden motives.....care to share?

Originally posted by Ryan
Had this intelligence been available prior to the invasion, there is no way this country would have stood behind such a dangerous and expensive campaign.

What you seem to say is that if we had a crystal ball.....

But, again, you omit the fact that the WMD basis was only one of several bases for the war.

Originally posted by Ryan
We have indeed seen some benefits to this action, namely the freedom of oppressed people. However, if we can agree that our international policy is not driven by a goal of freeing oppressed people and that this was merely a side effect of this war rather than a primary objective (which I personally believe), then it seems difficult to argue that we have gotten a good return on this investment. 500+ dead Americans and nearly $100 billion later, I don't think that any major risk has been eliminated nor do I think we will be substantially safer in the longrun.

Why is Iraq as dangerous today as it was when Saddam ran the place?

The benefits of having a friend in the middle east are huge. The benefits of letting other terrorist harboring totalitarian regimes know that we mean it when we say we'll invade if you don't comply is also huge....again - think Libya just up and decided it didn't need WMDs anymore - or do you think the Iraq War scared the piss out of Khadafi?

Originally posted by Ryan
Again, I agree that some good things have come of this. But remember, we have started something from which we cannot withdraw until the task is completed. I would not be at all surprised to find ourselves in Iraq 5 years from now with another couple hundred billion dollars committed, who knows how many dead soldiers, and no clear objectives for how to finish the job. This is one I'd like to be wrong on, but nothing has happened so far in the last 10 months to make me think otherwise.

We will probably be in Iraq 5 years from now. We were in Berlin and Tokyo much longer (still are in Germany - 60 years later)

A clear objective would be toppling Saddam's regime. Establishing a representative one in its place. Freeing the people from his brutality and developing a friend in the region. Those are clear goals.

Regarding dead soldiers - that is tragic and sad - but soldiers are soldiers to fight wars - they understand the risks. Do you think basic training goes unnoticed?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ryan
Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, I recall Secretary Powell sitting in front of the UN Security Council "making our case" for war. He claimed that we had enough intelligence to prove the case for war and he even had tangible "evidence" to back up his case. We are now learning that all of that evidence was garbage. I never heard a single member of the administration claim that we didn't have enough intelligence because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors finish. Not one time did anyone in the administration say "well, we know they have 'em, but we're just speculating. We really don't have any hard facts to back up the claim." Now, as logical as that speculation may have been, it was still only speculation. From everything said by Bush et al, there was only one conclusion to be drawn - that we were 100% sure.

At a meeting with veterans, Rumsfield said that the administration knew where 30% of the WMDs were.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
WMDs was one of many reasons given - but seems to be the only one people wish to talk about.

OK, then, help me create a list of reasons given. So far, I have:

1) WMD's - false
2) imminent threat - false
3) Iraqi freedom - complete and utter bullshit.
4) Harboring terrorists - never proven. May be true, may not be, but the administration barely even mentioned it, much less tried to make a case for it.

What am I missing here?

Originally posted by Ryan
OK, then, help me create a list of reasons given. So far, I have:

1) WMD's - false
2) imminent threat - false
3) Iraqi freedom - complete and utter bullshit.
4) Harboring terrorists - never proven. May be true, may not be, but the administration barely even mentioned it, much less tried to make a case for it.

What am I missing here?

WMDs - unproven, and we know he had them prior - explain his refusal to permit inspectors into certain sites? explain his failure to point out that he'd destroyed some of his MWDs?

Imminent Threat - unproven, see WMDs

Freedom - you're way too cynical - although not an exclusive goal it certainly has merit.

Terrorists - looking more and more likely every day


what we need to find is the speech GW gave when he announced we were going to war - I believe that was were he gave the laudry list of reasons for war. I'll try to find it.


5) Enforcing 10 + years of UN resolutions that Saddam agreed to and broke - all of them. This could be expanded for each resolution he violated but I'll bunch them together to be brief.

6) His attempt to assassinate Bush I


here is - I think - a link to the speech. I didn't bother readnig it all but it seems to support your point at least in part. There is a strong push on the WMDs and Threat argument - although that is not the exclusive basis outlined.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


As I said earlier - I would have supported the decision even without those two points (WMDs / Imminent Threat) simply to enforce his violation of UN resolutions and to topple his regime (I've noted the benefits of this earlier)

Generally I think the UN is full of shit - and generally they are. The Iraq War is a good example of its impotence. It serves as thermometer of world opinion and little else. Some times the right thing is not the popular thing. As I said earlier - without our toppling of Saddam the UN might as well have shut its doors as it would have showns itself to have no will to enforce its own resolutions