Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 12 of 27
Compared to invading a country, keeping your troops nearby is a whole lot cheaper in terms of money and morale. Please Finn, stop rationalizing.
Quote:In other words, they chose to invade not because Saddam posed an imminent threat but because he might have won a political victory? Or because he might pose a threat some day? We invaded to preempt the conclusion of inspections?
I think that there was a concern that the longer the wait the less political will there would be. I work with a guy whose always “almost done” with any project. He might spend three months being “almost done” if you let him. And that was the way weapons inspectors went in Iraq. For 10 years, the weapons inspectors just needed a couple more months. The more often Blix came out and said “almost done” the longer people would be willing to wait, and if people waited long enough, the US/UK would have to withdraw their forces because you can’t keep an invasion force indefinitely in a state of readiness. And Saddam wins yet another political victory on an increasingly week UN. So yeah there was an urgency, because the administration believed that weapons inspections were nothing more than an excuse to put off the inevitable, and given enough time the typical complacency of the UN and the craftiness of Iraqi agents would turn the whole thing into another debacle.
Well, that's not what they told US
Don't you remember Rumsfeld running around with his hair on fire saying he KNEW where the WMD were deployed? Condi saying that we had to get Iraq before the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, we aren’t talking about just troops – this was an invasion force. And it is costly on moral to keep your troops waiting and not knowing what is going to happen. Soldiers begin to keep helpless, and that is far more costly on moral then taking causalities. Furthermore there’s a difference between spending money to keep an invasion force idle and spending money to put your invasion force to work. These may be points that you didn’t both to consider when you were doing your experienced analysis, but they are not rationalizations.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Compared to invading a country, keeping your troops nearby is a whole lot cheaper in terms of money and morale. Please Finn, stop rationalizing.
Quote:As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But let me take your reasoning a bit farther. According to you, it didn't matter to the Administration what UNMOVIC found. Invasion was a forgone conclusion. How do you explain the hysteria of the Administration, which claimed to know where WMD were deployed and scared us all with pictures of mushroom clouds? What kind of backing did they have for these overblown statements?
Quote:The inspections had 10 years to work – they didn’t, and the administration no longer had any confidence in them. What about that is so difficult to understand? I’ve repeated that a half dozen times already. You don’t seem to disagree that the administration didn’t have any confidence in the inspections, but you just sort of dismiss it. But it was the reason for the war. Iraq had gotten out of control and no one had any confidence in the UN’s ability to deal with it, and after 9/ll that wasn’t considered tolerable.
Originally posted by SignyM:
We invaded to preempt the conclusion of inspections?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, this is YOUR conviction and is THE point under discussion. It's clear to me that they planned the invasion for a long time. It's also clear to me that they moved up the deadline to preempt the UNMOVIC findings. It does not necessarily conclude that they did this all because they were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. I can think of a LOT of reasons to do exactly what they did that have nothing to do with WMDs.
As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.
Quote:And as I said b4- new inspection team, new mandate, new access. Yes, forced by US troops and induced by pending contracts. But nonetheless different than before, and effective.
The inspections had 10 years to work – they didn’t
In the end Finn they were wrong. And the info that they used to prove their point had either been discredited ahead of time or was sheer supposition. They ignored fresh credible data to the contrary. They irresponsibly committed lives and money to a mission that they had every duty to pursue thoroughly and honestly, and they utterly failed. And given the weak nature of their findings, they used exaggeration and lies to scare the American public into backing a weak case.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn, since this political discussion with you has slipped into "belief-not-fact" territory, and more resembles a religious discussion than anything else, I see no point in continuing for me.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but this desire to portray Bush as some sort of evil villain that was desperate for war is just far too sophomoric.
Let me just say that I believe you are so unwilling to see George for the arrested adolescent, dry-drunk, puppet-politician that he is, that only Jesus himself could convince you, and he'd have to have some angels with him to back him up.
Is Bush evil? That depends on the definition. Some would say yes.
I think he's just an unfortunate cog in the machine. We didn't go to war because of Bush, he was merely one of many to make that decision- he was just the most visible.
More than ever, The United States is a business. And I understand that it's mostly nothing personal anymore...but the rich peeps who have the biggest say see the impending financial lows this global economy is going to thrust upon us, and they are determined to set up their lasting nest egg. Where are the millions unaccounted for going?
Who's profiting the most from this war?
A little googling will reveal all.
But concerning history past- YOU RULE!
The gotta-bounce Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I knew....you did'nt know....round and round we go....Truth is that Bush and the neocons KNEW that WMD's were not present in Iraq. They just needed a reason to go in. If you can't see that it is one of two reasons...A) Your head is in your ass...deep in your ass. or B) You are an absolute idiototic, kool-aid drinking, neoconservative, cheney ass wiping, rove ball licking, bush daughter dating person with his head in his ass....deep in his ass........Which is it?
......Well it's true........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:and explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:No, this is YOUR conviction …
As I already said, the administration was certain there would were WMDs in Iraq.
Quote:Regardless of what Luxuries you think Bush had, that is exactly what they did, in my opinion. And the only difference between the last inspection team and the one before it was an invasion force poised to attack on Kuwaiti soil.
Originally posted by SignyM:
And as I said b4- new inspection team, new mandate, new access. Yes, forced by US troops and induced by pending contracts. YOU may be free to roll your eyes and pretend it was all the same old same old, but Bush & Co do not have that luxury.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying. I like Finn's correlation to the officer shooting; and still believe a full investigation is warranted just as one would be done for such a case.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn has pretty much agreed that Bush was committed to an invasion no matter WHAT Blix concluded. The only thing we're arguing about now is whether Bush did this out of conviction (ignoring contrary data, rush to judgment) or whether he did it out of maliciousness.
Quote:Are yu saying they used imminent WMD as an EXCUSE because they knew it would play with the public? That the REAL reason had nothing to do with any imminent threat? Well Lordy be! Join the club!
No, this is YOUR conviction …Signy
and explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue.-Finn
The difference between Finn and me is that he thinks all of this backhanded stuff is justified.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This discussion has been “belief-not-fact” from the very beginning. Just because rue and signym claim they know something doesn’t make it a fact because you agree with it – regardless of how they worded their posts, they were discussing their belief that WMD did not exist in Iraq, not fact. And I’m discussing what I believe as well. Hopefully, before you tuned out my perspective, you at least learned that there are other points of view then just the Bush is evil theory.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, since this political discussion with you has slipped into "belief-not-fact" terratory, and more resembles a religious discussion than anything else, I see no point in continuing for me.
Quote:Not Bush, the Republicans or the Neo-Conservative theory in general, that’s for sure. In fact, as a whole this war has been most beneficial to the Democrats and the Liberals.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who's profiting the most from this war?
Quote:History past is easy. No one has any political or emotional investment in Hannibal’s invasion of Italy or whether Caesar took it in the rear from Phillip of Macedon.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But concerning history past- YOU RULE!
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Finn. I watched Bush et al rather closely. I pursued data, a lot of which is new to you. I drew conclusions, and they were correct. And you were wrong. (And so was Bush but in a different way and for different reasons.) You might want to check back with your model/ assumption/ hypotheses to see what went wrong.
But I'm outta here. I got things to do today, so TTUL.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME