One thing has been made clear by the failure to find WMDs in Iraq: The weapons were not the only or even main reason the Bush administration wanted to go to war (despite what they may have said.) Now that they aren't being found, all sorts of other justifications are coming out. Now it's to help the Iraqi people. It's to free up troops in the region. It's to fix a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and so on. They have not claimed the war was a waste when we failed to find WMDs, hence the war must not have actually been about WMDs.
That raises a couple of questions:
Firstly, why did our government feel the need to mislead us about the reasons why we were going to war? Why weren't the justifications we are talking about now at the forefront of discussion before the war began?
It seems like the answer to this question is that the WMD argument was much more convincing than the other reasons for war. Using WMDs we could not only claim self-defense, but we could also scare up support from Americans still enraged over the attacks of 9/11. In short, the WMD argument was the best-sounding argument we could come up with. It was our excuse.
But if that is the case, is it really okay to fight a war for reason X, but pretend like we are doing it for reason Y just because X isn't convincing enough? Isn't that tantamount to tricking the public?
Secondly, this raises the following question: What WERE the true reasons the Bush administration were so intent on having this war?
Listening to some conservative war apologists, you'd think the reason was to help out the poor Iraqi people. This reason, at least, is absurd. For one thing, we ignored the poor Iraqi people for a decade, including the first 2 years of the Bush administration. For another thing, the plight of the Iraqi people has little to do with the war on terror, which is what the Bush administration has very clearly said this is about from the beginning. To say now that it was purely about helping oppressed Iraqis is absurd in that light.
I would argue that most of us have known what this war was about from the beginning, even if we didn't say it. This war was about remaking the Middle East. It is the belief of this administration that the Middle East needs to be remade to eliminate a culture of terrorism, and that our strategy towards the region must change drastically to do so. The presence of Iraq in the very center of the Middle East was preventing these plans from going into motion and was destabilizing the region. We have plans for a peaceful, happy Middle East and Saddam isn't in them, so we took him out.
If this really was the reason for the war then I think we know why we had to use WMDs as an excuse. Few, if any, other nations in the world would accept the idea that America has the right to invade countries for the sole purpose of reshaping its region to America's liking. Many Americans may, but such a hegemonistic idea is scary to non-Americans. So, we had to come with an excuse, so we could pretend we had accepted reasons for fighting this war.
[ November 16, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One thing has been made clear by the failure to find WMDs in Iraq: The weapons were not the only or even main reason the Bush administration wanted to go to war (despite what they may have said.)
Or. . .
The failure to find WMD's might mean that Sadaam had the foresight to get them all out of Iraq before we could find them; it might mean that the US was mistaken about the existence of these weapons; it might mean that the weapons are buried in a place we simply haven't looked in yet.
There are a number of reasons why WMD's haven't been found-- and one of them is 'Our government lied to us about them.'
But don't discount the other reasons without evaluating why they are not plausible.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
quote:They have not claimed the war was a waste when we failed to find WMDs, hence the war must not have actually been about WMDs.
Could it not be that the Bush administration sees benefits to the US in having taken action in Iraq, despite the fact that WMDs have not been found?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Hmmm, trying to find a swimming pool's worth of chemicals in a place roughly the size of California. Trying to find stuff that an entire government was trying to hide.
Our big mistake was probably giving that 30 day ultimatum to Saddam, that's plenty of time to get things well hidden or out of the country.
I think I'll reserve my judgement a bit longer.
But Tres, how will you feel if we DO find WMDs?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The failure to find WMD's might mean that Sadaam had the foresight to get them all out of Iraq before we could find them; it might mean that the US was mistaken about the existence of these weapons; it might mean that the weapons are buried in a place we simply haven't looked in yet.
I'm not debating why we haven't found the weapons. That could be a number of things. I'm just pointing out that, since the administration has now started talking about Iraq as a success without the WMDs, it must mean the WMDs were not the real goal.
quote:Could it not be that the Bush administration sees benefits to the US in having taken action in Iraq, despite the fact that WMDs have not been found?
Yes, actually that was my point - that there are other goals the administration thinks they've achieved with this war, things that they apparently think justify the war by itself.
My implication was that perhaps it was these "other benefits" that our government actually cared about, and merely used the WMDs as an excuse to get everyone to let them invade Iraq to achieve them. This makes a lot of sense, given that we found no WMDs yet still seem to think we achieved our goals.
quote:But Tres, how will you feel if we DO find WMDs?
I'll probably want to know why it took so long to find them if we knew these weapons programs were a massive imminent threat. It really doesn't matter though - weapons or no weapons, this war was unjustified, without U.N. approval to enforce its treaty via war.
[ November 16, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I think one of our goals was to reduce our own risk that came from not only the existance of WMD, but also the government that controlled them. If they eliminate those people, then even if the WMD are not found, the risk of their use is greatly reduced. Weapons don't fire themselves.
Not eliminated, though. Just like the missing nukes from the former Soviet Union, it makes one a bit nervous that none have been found.
[ November 16, 2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
quote:Hmmm, trying to find a swimming pool's worth of chemicals in a place roughly the size of California. Trying to find stuff that an entire government was trying to hide.
A desert country the size of California. That makes it even harder. Recall those fighters that were found buried in the sand earlier this year. Now, Coalition teams missed fighters buried in the sand. Try finding barrels, or other smaller objects.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I guess the wait-n-see folks are forgetting that the rhetoric from the high levels of the administation were saying we KNEW where they were, and that there were copious amounts... The hearing Colin Powell gave at the UN, with the photos of _labs_ and _factories_! I'm sorry, but if we had pictures of these labs and factories, then even if the Iraqis destroy them, shouldn't later photos show the destruction? Why haven't they been used as evidence, that I dare say would be convincing for most anyone?
Can we at least admit that the threat was nowhere near the level described by our executive office? If so, was it bad intel or actual deception?
Personally, I think the invasion was done for exactly why NPAC said they wanted it, and have been saying publically for almost 15 years. WMD was a plausible option that could mobilize most of the electorate by creating this idea that smacked of terrorism, tapping into our indignation after 9/11.
Otherwise, we should explain why we are willing to pussyfoot around with governments N. Korea and Iran, who also have WMD, and have been shown to commit acts of brutality on their own people. If it is because we are (over)extended in Iraq, then we should explain why we refused to make concessions to some of our allies for help.
I still expect us to find some small amounts of WMD, but we will never find plans, or people who will corroborate our WMD story, that there was an intensive and elaborate system to either procure or produce WMD. Now, short of us finding a lot more than I (or even certain upper level administration officials) believes exists, a defender of the administration policy can do one of two things, admit that the WMD issue was at least overblown, or ignore the data, clinging to the fact that so far as not every single inch of Iraq is not searched, a WMD program of such a size as to be a dire threat against the USA and our allies may be hiding under some boulder somewhere.
Oh, read the following for a senior official essentially positing Tres' argument (and yes, Rumsfeld is also there claiming the weapons may be destroyed, but if they were completely destroyed, shouldn't we have been able to notice, or hear through our intel channels?):
-Bok, who realizes no one is going to change their mind here, since you can never prove a negative. I'll also note that I was in favor of invasion, with a UN mandate, prior to the war.
EDIT: I'd like to add that even if we find the needle in the haystack, say a few dozen barrels of chemical/biological mojo somewhere in the desert, I'd still want the administration to explain why they acted like it was a howitzer in a haystack?
[ November 17, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I find it hard to believe that Hussein had nuclear weapons and chose not to a) flaunt them before we invaded, or b) use them at all at his country was invaded, his people killed, and his power destroyed.
Look how the US is tiptoeing around North Korea because it has nuclear weaponry. Why wouldn't Hussein use that to his advantage? It's clear to every third-world country out there that the US will respect you if you have nukes. And pretending Hussein would rather bury whatever weaponry he had rather than use it against those invading his country borders on denial.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Right before the war everybody thought he had WMD. Clinton even gave speeches telling the US people how dangerous he was. The UN inspected that country for 12 years, AND still felt it was nessessary to keep inspecting. If Bush needs to take the blame for WMD then more than a few world leaders need to also.
quote: if we knew these weapons programs were a massive imminent threat
Bush said at the State of the Union that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, but we needed to stop it before it became one.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Lalo, I haven't seen anyone considering the possibility that the weapons--nukes or whatever--just weren't ready for deployment yet. The claim was always that Iraq was developing them, not that it had them.
But if the truth be known, as long as the claims of WMD wasn't an outright lie, I don't care if it wasn't the whole or even the main reason for the invasion. That boil needed lancing for a long time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tresopax said: One thing has been made clear by the failure to find WMDs in Iraq: The weapons were not the only or even main reason the Bush administration wanted to go to war (despite what they may have said.)
How is your conclusion made clear by the failure to find the WMDs?
quote: They have not claimed the war was a waste when we failed to find WMDs, hence the war must not have actually been about WMDs.
Could that be because we’re still looking? See this link for more info, specifically, “We are still very much in the collection and analysis mode, still seeking the information and evidence that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions to the actual objectives, scope and dimensions of Iraq's WMD activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).”
So why would they say it’s waste because we failed to find WMDs, since they’re saying they’re not done looking?
quote: Now that they aren't being found, all sorts of other justifications are coming out. Now it's to help the Iraqi people. It's to free up troops in the region. It's to fix a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and so on.
So, because the administration used one reason as a justification it can’t list the other benefits that also occurred? And please remember, these benefits were listed before the war as well as after.
quote:Bokonon said: I guess the wait-n-see folks are forgetting that the rhetoric from the high levels of the administation were saying we KNEW where they were, and that there were copious amounts... The hearing Colin Powell gave at the UN, with the photos of _labs_ and _factories_! I'm sorry, but if we had pictures of these labs and factories, then even if the Iraqis destroy them, shouldn't later photos show the destruction? Why haven't they been used as evidence, that I dare say would be convincing for most anyone?
Can we at least admit that the threat was nowhere near the level described by our executive office?
No, we can’t, because we don’t know that yet: “For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASPs), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.”
quote:If so, was it bad intel or actual deception?
Neither. We know the intel isn’t 100% accurate; that doesn’t make it bad. “First, whatever we find will probably differ from prewar intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information.”
quote:I still expect us to find some small amounts of WMD, but we will never find plans, or people who will corroborate our WMD story, that there was an intensive and elaborate system to either procure or produce WMD.
Too late, we already did: “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N.” And also “We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard – a long-lasting chemical agent – but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.”
There, you have equipment and people to corroborate our WMD story. Now on to plans:
“While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agents and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI (Iraq's Military Industrial Organization) he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert, in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Odai Hussein for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam, estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for sarin.”
quote:Lalo said: I find it hard to believe that Hussein had nuclear weapons and chose not to a) flaunt them before we invaded, or b) use them at all at his country was invaded, his people killed, and his power destroyed.
Look how the US is tiptoeing around North Korea because it has nuclear weaponry. Why wouldn't Hussein use that to his advantage? It's clear to every third-world country out there that the US will respect you if you have nukes. And pretending Hussein would rather bury whatever weaponry he had rather than use it against those invading his country borders on denial.
Please show us any report that has the US government claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons. Every report I ever heard was that they didn’t have nukes: they were in the process of trying to develop them.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What WERE the true reasons the Bush administration were so intent on having this war?
I have wondered this exact thing. Newsweek thinks Cheney talked him into it, and Cheney was convinced because of a bit of personal hurt pride from the first encounter.
I don't think I've heard the real reason yet.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Look how the US is tiptoeing around North Korea because it has nuclear weaponry.
This is exactly the point. Once a nation HAS these weapons, the cost of military action goes up a couple million lives. If we were to wait until we were absolutely certain that Iraq had nuclear weapon, we would likely be allowing Saddam to flash fry a few million Isrealis. Also, the Bush team never claimed that Saddam had a working nuclear weapon, only that he was working on one, and could have one in a few years. That certainly could be wrong, but I doubt it.
For all those who will then pose the argument that there are many other countries developing WMD's etc, I would say that none of those counties have someone like Saddam running them. Perhaps the Kim Jong Il is insane, but It is hard to imagine a more dangerous person than Saddam. I won't go over the same tired old lines of Saddam's history, you all know it.
The North Korea situation is a direct result of the Clinton/Carter deal in '94. Clinton basically just gave up, offered them cash if they promised not to build nuclear weapons. Low and behold, the communist dictator of North Korea lied to us, who would have imagined.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The North Korea situation is a direct result of calling NK part of the Axis of Evil and stopping talking to them. The deal you mention was a chance to slowly divest them of their ability to easily make nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear power (which they needed rather badly).
We already had rather good reason to understand we could not conquer North Korea. Were we to have tried it anytime since that previous fiasco (where we effectively lost, you may recall). Any attempt to conquer North Korea would have led almost certainly to China's entering the war on North Korea's side, or if not that, China waiting until we left and then swooping up the entire peninsula (likely the former, as China would fear we would never leave). This is also a common starting scenario for WW3, btw.
Given that any attempt to conquer North Korea was doomed to failure or at least horrific losses (I repeat, remember last time we tried it), the only other option was talking to North Korea. When you HAVE to talk to a nation, you don't label it completely corrupt and stop high level diplomatic talks with it (Bush's comment also scuttled South Korea's high level diplomatic talks, hurting among other things the trade relations of North and South Korea)!
Remember, North Korea is ruled through a cult of personality. Insulting the nation is insulting the leader, and vice versa. Furthermore, Kim Jong-Il cannot put himself into situations that make him look weak; it would undermine his ability to rule, and he knows it. Once Bush made those axis of evil comments, Jong-Il could no longer afford to go along with the major delays we'd been causing in our side of the nuclear reactor deal. He could sweep them under the rug before as understandable and normal, but once Bush made those comments further delays would have been perceived as the US trying to hold North Korea back.
If Jong-Il went along with this, he would have been perceived as weak, and giving in. The only way he had out of the situation was to put pressure on the US over the deal. And to do that, he had to get to the heart of the deal. We made the deal to reduce NK's nuclear weapons capacity, so he escalated Korea's nuclear weapons capacity. Note, he could have done it much more privately, and just broken the deal by reopening the older, less efficient reactors that also produce a higher amount (by energy produced, not as it would have been overall under the new reactors) of weapons grade waste. But that would not have achieved the necessary effect: a show of strength, both to his people and the US. Instead, he announced to the entire world that not only was he breaking the deal by reopening the reactors, he would start at once on making nuclear weapons.
No, unless you are suggesting we could have conquered NK with little loss of life (in which case I would suggest reading some history books), the only option we had was diplomatic resolution, which was progressing until Bush botched things.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dagonee, that's a start, but if you note, the the claims of large caches of agents have yet to be found to verify the stories of some scientists. A claim is not corroboration, particularly if we can't find it. I notice they use the 13-year-old nuclear centrifuge material buried in the scientists yard as "proof", and I wonder how much of some of the other claims are of a similar nature.
Also, the claims that they could have plenty of mustard gas is dubious unless you can show that the materials and equipment were readily at hand. If you a Saddam government official, you have a strong incentive to portray an optimistic (perhaps even unrealistic) view of your weapons capabilities.
I'll be honest, there's a part of me hoping we find huge amounts of Bad Stuff(tm), because them we will be justified. Your link definitely gives me a little more hope, but still isn't concrete evidence, unless the claims are proven true.
Robes: I'll concede that the N. Korea situation was a "direct result of the Clinton/Carter deal in '94" if you can say that the capitalist Saddam lied to good old Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, and company? After all, much of the weaponry CBW or otherwise was provided by that administration. I bet we had assurances that Saddam was going to remain a loyal ally. So I guess the Saddam situation is a direct result of the Reagan/Bush (not sure when the weapons were provided, I presume Reagan) actions of selling him the aforementioned weapons?
In other words, situations may have been fostered by previous administrations, but ultimately any current administration is judged on how they deal with it in the present. When an administration publicizes a policy, but seems to implement it (And of course, we all know the real reason we don't go into N. Korea: China. Ideals crumble when you are dealing with a 1-billion man military with a real extensive system for producing WMD. After all, Iraq was easy pickings, with no strong allies.)
-Bok
EDIT: I would add, that if Iraq didn't have the current capability to be a imminent threat to the US and our allies, there were other solutions to stop procurement of needed resources from outside sources than invasion of Iraq.
[ November 17, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat: I would tend to agree with you, which is why I am not drawing conclusions, but saying the sequence of events leading up to Today raises plenty of questions.
As a related note, I assume everyone else thinks that the NPAC-affiliated administration officials were just spinning their wheels, and weren't serious, when they published all those papers on reinvading Iraq?
From 1998:http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-022698.htm
(Note that even then they were saying that there were only 2 outcomes possible on Iraq... What a bunch of artificial false dilemma logical thinking. Heck, there are more than 2 outcomes to the current situation, and many of them are likely beneficial to the US.)
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bokonon said: Dagonee, that's a start, but if you note, the the claims of large caches of agents have yet to be found to verify the stories of some scientists. A claim is not corroboration, particularly if we can't find it. I notice they use the 13-year-old nuclear centrifuge material buried in the scientists yard as "proof", and I wonder how much of some of the other claims are of a similar nature.
Fair enough –I’m anxious to see the final results late next year, too.
I just think it’s a little too early to say it’s clear the administration never believed the WMD premise (not that you’re the one who said that).
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The North Korea situation is a direct result of calling NK part of the Axis of Evil and stopping talking to them.
Oh gee, did we hurt their feelings? They have been providing missle technology to Pakistan, they have been an international supplier of weapons for terrorists, etc. Their nuclear program is not only 2 years old, they have been working on it since the early ninties. Bush stating the problem, did not cause the problem. He was correct to label Iran, Iraq, and N Korea as an axis of evil. You may not like his choice of words, but the truth is there.
quote: We already had rather good reason to understand we could not conquer North Korea. Were we to have tried it anytime since that previous fiasco (where we effectively lost, you may recall).
Yep. And you know why we lost? Chinese intervention. The north was completely occupied at one point. And of course, no one is suggesting we try to invade N Korea now, as they now pose a very real threat to S Korea and millions of people. Until we can insure that N Korea will not be able to nuke those people, we can gain nothing by invading. The Clinton agreement gave N Korea the international cover it needed to continue its development of nukes. The US sent them cash to prop up their 2 million man army, and the UN provided food for this army while the people of N Korea starved under in the state run economy.
quote: Kim Jong-Il cannot put himself into situations that make him look weak; it would undermine his ability to rule, and he knows it.
I would then ask what would your strategy be? Continue to pay for their military? This idea that we must avoid confrontation at all cost is part of the problem. Jong Il is part of the problem as well, supporting his regime supports his quest for nukes.
quote: which was progressing until Bush botched things.
Show me how. I think you are just looking for a club to bash bush with. There are no facts that can possibly back up this position. The only thing progressing was N Korea's nuke program.
quote: I'll concede that the N. Korea situation was a "direct result of the Clinton/Carter deal in '94" if you can say that the capitalist Saddam lied to good old Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, and company?
Saddam's militarism was a direct result of the Regan and Bush41 administrations, no doubt. Of course none of that makes what he has done correct. Those administrations provided Saddam with weapons and technology and likely the suggestion to attack Iran. It is of course a mistake to call Saddam a capitalist in reaction to my correct labelling of Jong Il as a communist. Saddam was a Fascist, he believed in the right of the leader of a country to do whatever it took to further his own agendas. He has absolutely no respect for the rule of law or the workings of capitalism. Most of the major industries in Iraq were state owned.
As far as China is concerned, they want N Korea to have nukes about as much as we do. They currently have a monopoly on nukes in east asia, they would like that to continue to be the case.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, I was making a point that Jong's communism-ness was irrelevant to any argument here. It's neither here nor there, though it is invariably brought up by conservative debaters/critics/writers as an inseparable part and cause of dastardliness. There are some horrible fascist/capitalists out there too, and some rather communistic/socialistic nations that are benign (hello Scandanavia!).
I'll take the flip side of your admission (and further, will concede, as I promised, that Clinton had a direct impact on the N. Korea situation today), and say also that just because Clinton gave money to try and convince N. Korea to build non-weapons reactors, doesn't make Jong's actions correct.
In otherwords, you Clinton commentary is simply a non sequitor interjected into your post as a result of a bias, and was just an opportunity (conciously realized or not) to take a cheap shot at liberals (ignoring the fact that Clinton isn't a liberal darling, but since democrat and liberal are inseperably tangled these days, it's a de facto assumption), basically attempting to claim, "Well, those liberals who are criticizing the current administration didn't do exactly well themselves." Which is irrelevant to the point of whether our president has done a good job.
If Clinton had done a better job, perhaps President Bush wouldn't have had to deal with it. Likewise if that Conservative darling Reagan had done a better job, we wouldn't be where we are with Iraq.
-Bok
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Here's what is scaring me about North Korea, and it's not just the maniacal leader with a bad perm in Pyongyang.
Let's step back in history to 1951. When the North Koreans poured across the border, we sent a ton of our troops there, green, untested troops. They promptly got their teeth kicked in and pushed back to the brink of losing the war. We then forcibly re-upped a number of junior officer and NCO veterans from WWII and used them to leaven the green troops we sent in. The combat records for UN forces quickly escalated in our favor.
See where I'm going so far? Three years ago, the number of veterans serving within the US Armed Forces was closing in on negligible levels. Bosnia/Haiti/Somalia weren't actual combat situations when it comes to developing veteran troops. In the last three years, however, we've had Afghanistan and Iraq, both featuring large numbers of conventional and covert forces, air assets and naval projections of power.
I'm just a bit afraid that someone in the Pentagon has been making sure we're ready to go back into Korea. Not that this whole situation has been a ruse, but if I were planning on taking down the Axis of Evil, I'd start off with a warm-up in the near-neolithic Afghanistan, then tackle Iraq which has proven itself to be historically the second worst military power. Third would be Iran which features tons of ground forces and some higher end air power (remember the spare parts we sold them during Iran-Contra, they were for American-made helicopters and fighter planes bought by the Shah). Iran being close by Iraq makes it short hop and the nuclear wrangling recently makes it all somewhat suspect.
To use football terminology, you've got an early training camp exercise, followed by a scrimmage with the practice squad, then a pre-season game of little importance, then the real season begins.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: a cheap shot at liberals (ignoring the fact that Clinton isn't a liberal darling, but since democrat and liberal are inseperably tangled these days, it's a de facto assumption), basically attempting to claim, "Well, those liberals who are criticizing the current administration didn't do exactly well themselves." Which is irrelevant to the point of whether our president has done a good job.
First of all, no where do I label Clinton as a liberal, darling. He seems to be devoid of any principle, liberal or otherwise.
As far as my claims that Clinton/Carter are a major source of this problem being not important to this discussion, well the title of the thread is "The real reasons for the Iraq war..." So I would say that examples of past US presidents dealing with rogue nations should be available to the discussion.
We see the end result of the Clinton administration's policy of appeasing Saddam Hussein. In 1998 when Clinton did basically the same thing Bush did, just short of actually attacking, we sent the message to Saddam that we would allow him to play us through the UN. We also sent the signal to all other nations that we were not really serious about stopping nuclear proliferation. Clinton may have talked about it, but Pakistan and India both became nuclear nations under his watch, and we see the result of his appeasment in N Korea. This all applies to international politics and the reasons for war in Iraq. The whole point is, you don't wait until you know the enemy has nukes, at that point you lose all your options that don't involve burning 100,000's of people to death.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Sopwith, if that's the case then at least we're getting ready. Would you prefer we invaded North Korea with green troops again?
Posted by Kimo (Member # 5933) on :
And I am sure that the fact that Bush was Govenor of an OIL State and Chenney work for a big OIL company and the cost of OIL here was really high, and France had big OIL contracts with Iraq and Iraq has a lot OIL had nothing to do this.
Silly me.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Oh, no, Kimo. Oil never had anything to do with this. It's only our primary energy source that keeps our economy and gobs of our technology working, and the people who have it love us to death and give it away so we don't have to live in misery.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
How do falling oil prices help oil companies? I can see how they would hurt Russia, where 60% of their exported produce is oil. But as far as helping Bush and Cheney, I don't see it. And yes, the Iraq war did cut france off at the knees by eliminating their 3rd largest trading partner, the Hussein regime.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
When people talk about the US helping Iraq in its war with Iran, they need to remember that most of Saddam's major backers during that war were other countries in the Middle East that were really scared of Iran. On of Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait was to get rid of his massive war debt to them.
[ November 18, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Hazen ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kimo said: And I am sure that the fact that Bush was Govenor of an OIL State and Chenney work for a big OIL company and the cost of OIL here was really high, and France had big OIL contracts with Iraq and Iraq has a lot OIL had nothing to do this.
Silly me.
Capitalization and repetition – the rhetorical tools of the new millennium.
Could you outline some coherent theory that ties together your rambling into a conceivable motive for the invasion? My tinfoil hat is blocking your psychic emanations.
Dagonee
[ November 17, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Emphasis and repetition make good rhetoric? Lets see...
Oh, please. Kimo stated some unconnected facts and suggested that the war was motivated by oil. He used the oh-so-clever tactic of capitalizing oil over and over and over again. He also conveniently omitted any details of how Iraq’s oil motivated the administration.
It’s like saying Sadaam breathes oxygen, and Bush breathes oxygen, so the war must be about oxygen.
I’ve never seen a description of what exactly Bush and Cheney have to gain from the oil in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Powell have given detailed, reason arguments about the justification for the war. You may not agree with them, but at least there’s substance there.
Kimo’s statement had no substance, just innuendo and bluster. I asked for substance, but still haven’t gotten any. I suppose I just want a motive before I’ll believe our President started this war for oil.
Silly me.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Personally, I'd like to see us quit invading nations. While it does make it logically consistent with our current administration's efforts, it is something that is being taken a bit too lightly.
A decade ago or so, they came up with the idea of changing America from the world's policeman to something more akin to being the lone sheriff in a rough and ready cow town. The hallmark of this change was the acknowledgement that there were some real villains out there, predatory nations that were bad for their neighbors and for their own citizens. The shift in thinking was to take the US from the diplomatic realm of trying to keep these nations bottled up to one of moving to actually take them out. It makes a case for world peace in a Pax Romana sort of way, but the steps leading up to it require the spilling of a lot of blood. You've seen steps one and two of this process. I, for one, am slightly uncomfortable with what has happened already and very nervous that there is more to come.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: some real villains out there, predatory nations that were bad for their neighbors and for their own citizens. The shift in thinking was to take the US from the diplomatic realm of trying to keep these nations bottled up to one of moving to actually take them out.
The US acts in its own self interest, as it should. The US does not go around taking out nations that pose a threat to their neighbors. If this were the case, Syria would be toast, and probably 15 sub-saharan countries too. To characterize the US as the world's policeman is not correct. The US does not conduct foreign policy from the standpoint of protecting the people of the world, it is concerned with protecting the citizens of the US.
Of course there is room for debate about how best to serve the interests of the US.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
For those of you who critisize Bush so much, did you forget that our government voted for action in Iraq. That means that Democrats as well as Republicans voted to go to war. Do not credit the failure or success(however it ends up) to one man, our whole body of representatives agreed to go to war.
Did this slip your minds? We cannot declare war without a majority vote. Bush is not the sole problem or solution, our government is a team, even if some of the players dont always agree.
[ November 18, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Robes, I was pointing out a position paper that was published a few years back by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfwitz that called for just this sort of foreign policy...
Wolfowitz has been quite prevalent in policy making over the last few years in the Republican Party.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:I was pointing out a position paper that was published a few years back by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfwitz that called for just this sort of foreign policy...
I am not an apologist for Wolfwitz, so I wont' defend him. If that is what he said should be the US policy, then he needs to be fired right now. I think we have some common ground here, the US should not be getting involved in conflicts that do not directly effect its self interest.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: We cannot declare war without a majority vote. Bush is not the sole problem or solution, our government is a team, even if some of the players dont always agree
Promethius. The US has not formally declared war since WWII, IIRC. Congress did vote to authorize force against Iraq.
But if intelligence and public opinion was manipulated to excess by the administration, citizens and their representatives have a right to feel betrayed by Bush and his people. The question is, how much was the intelligence hyped up? Very few now believe the administration's pre-war claims that Iraq could use WMDs in an hour's time.
Whether they had effective WMD programs remains to be seen. This spring and summer I was convinced the administration's claims were overly hyped up. Now I am unsure, despite the lack of smoking gun WMD evidence. I feel it is probable that Saddam had an active disinformation campaign going on about his WMD programs, while publicly denying everything. This has led me to have more sympathy for US intelligence and the Bush adminministration.
I have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. I don't really know what the real, underlying policy reasons for the war were, too many reasons have been put forward and withdrawn to make sense of. . .
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Robespierre, my "liberal darling" terminology was me modifying the old "media darling" term, not my description of you. It seems you may have been unclear and thought I was being patronizing.
While I agree that using previous president's weakness as evidence of series of actions and policies to avoid, that doesn't mean that President Bush's (GWB) policies are the only alternative, or the best of a myriad of alternatives.
In essence bringing up Clinton's failures is an implicit strawman, since even if you can agree on his failures, it does nothing to support the current administration beyond the fact that he is doing something different.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It seems you may have been unclear and thought I was being patronizing.
My mistake.
quote: In essence bringing up Clinton's failures is an implicit strawman, since even if you can agree on his failures, it does nothing to support the current administration beyond the fact that he is doing something different.
There is no strawman here. I am arguing that the current situation is a result of mistakes made by Clinton. Explain how that is a strawman.
There is no way to know what course of action to take without understanding how we arrived at the point which we are currently at. Discussing Clinton's failure to contain N Korea is right on topic. It can even be related in a very cogent way to the Iraq situation.
Posted by edgardu (Member # 242) on :
Bin Laden got away. I think that if the war in Afghanistan ended with Bin Laden dead or captured, the Iraq war would very likely not have happened. At worst the US would have waited for a UN mandate.
After 9/11, the US felt threatened. The gut reaction was to strike out somewhere. Osama's escape was not a satisfactory result. There was no immediate increase in the feeling of security. Bush had to keep on showing that he was doing something and Saddam was a convenient target. So he first convinced himself that Saddam was a imminent threat then set out to convince the rest of the nation.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Interesting idea edgardu. Do you know of any facts or real world events that support your idea? Its not a bad theory, if there is anything backing it up.
Posted by edgardu (Member # 242) on :
It was mostly speculation on my part. Since Bin Laden did escape, I doubt if anyone can prove one way or another what would have happened.
The first time I can remember Bush giving a hint of his intentions regarding Iraq was when he mentioned the "Axis of Evil" during the Jan. 29, 2002 state of the union address. The afghan campaign ended mid-december 2001. Does anyone know if Bush talked about going after Iraq from the time between 9/11 and 12/31? If yes, then that should invalidate my theory.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Interesting theory Robes, what mistakes did Clinton make in regards to North Korea?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's a strawman because you are casting an implication that any critics would proffer up the Clintonian policies as the alternative to dealing with N. Korea. That can't be true for every critic. Like I said before, the Clintonian policies are only useful in order to learn what to do, or not to do, in the current situation, depending on the success or failure, in the current light, of those policies. It doesn't lend any validity to Bush's policies, just because he is using non-Clintonian policies, because this isn't a problem that has only binary solution paths.
You are bringing it up (I presume) to show that Bush only can act with the policies he is using as a result of Clinton's bungling. I have posted earlier, however, that this is almost certainly false. There are likely a myriad of things he could and still can do, other than his current actions. If not, then N. Korea is a much more dangerous situation than Iraq ever was. It doesn't follow that just because Clinton's appeasement methods don't work, Bush's militarism/gunboat diplomacy/cold shoulder techniques are the most correct manner to address the issues, either in Iraq or N. Korea.
You are also conveniently ignoring 3 years of Bush policies on the situation. Yeah Clinton had 8 years, but Bush hasn't exactly just arrived on the scene. The current situation is partially attributable to him.
--- AN ASIDE: Bush has cast everything so much in black and white, I think, because it allows defenders to equivocate for him. N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran are all equivalently in the Axis of Evil, officially according to Bush, no one of them is more evil than the other. Of course, to people who have studied the situations, there are big differences in the situation. So despite creating this weird equivalence, his more sophisticated defenders can set the context from the other side. Thus, if any of the AoE do something aggresive, the AoE meme is already out there, otherwise anyone who is a critic who is using this statement to cause the president to be consistent in dealing with this special class of nations will be under cut by defenders from the other side, who will essentially say, "Well, it's really not the same."
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
edgardu, the group NPAC (aka the "neo-cons") which included people such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and perhaps Cheney, have been advocating invasion of Iraq since the cessation of the first Gulf War, pretty much. THey even conjectured that given the US electorate, it would require a "Peral Harbor" type event to mobilize the people. I think that is some evidence that lends creedence to a variant of your argument, if not you argument as presented here.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Interesting theory Robes, what mistakes did Clinton make in regards to North Korea?
Very clever.
quote: Clinton basically just gave up, offered them cash if they promised not to build nuclear weapons.
quote:They have been providing missle technology to Pakistan, they have been an international supplier of weapons for terrorists, etc. Their nuclear program is not only 2 years old, they have been working on it since the early ninties.
quote:The Clinton agreement gave N Korea the international cover it needed to continue its development of nukes. The US sent them cash to prop up their 2 million man army, and the UN provided food for this army while the people of N Korea starved under in the state run economy.
quote: We also sent the signal to all other nations that we were not really serious about stopping nuclear proliferation. Clinton may have talked about it, but Pakistan and India both became nuclear nations under his watch, and we see the result of his appeasment in N Korea.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Like I said before, the Clintonian policies are only useful in order to learn what to do, or not to do, in the current situation, depending on the success or failure, in the current light, of those policies.
Basically... its very important to know what happened and why? This is pretty much what I have been saying. If we don't know how we got into this situation, we will not be able to get out of it. Also, we risk repeating the mistakes of the Clinton admin. if we don't learn what it was that was done, and why it didn't work.
quote: It doesn't lend any validity to Bush's policies, just because he is using non-Clintonian policies, because this isn't a problem that has only binary solution paths.
I totally agree with you.
quote: You are bringing it up (I presume) to show that Bush only can act with the policies he is using as a result of Clinton's bungling.
While Clinton's past mistakes do effect how Bush must now handle the situation, as you admitt, the actual reason I brought it up was to make the point that we cannot wait for a nation to develope nukes before we get serious about stopping them. We have to learn the lesson from the Clinton mistake. The second gulf war can be viewed as a direct result of learning that lesson.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Curious as to where the quotes came from...
Both India and Pakistan had nuclear programs leading back to the 1980s, I believe that would be in Pres. Reagan's watch.
Strangely enough, paying North Korea to not build nuclear weapons was working. As bad as it was for the Romans to pay the Huns to not sack their lands, it did work, for a while.
I'm not sure you can hold Clinton responsible for North Korea selling technology to Pakistan. Are you sure?
Clinton didn't send NK money to prop up its army or food to specifically feed its soldiers. He sent money and food, along with many members of the UN, to provide humanitarian aid to the North Korean people. Do you find it easier to blame Clinton than the North Korean leadership for how that aid was used?
Lastly, see the first part of this post. If I recall, we're just one nation in this world and one part of the governing body for nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear power. But hey, if you feel more comfortable with the blame on one man's shoulders, so be it.
Edit to add: I've always found it interesting how quickly Clinton is blamed for so much as if he were some evil boogey man orchestrating some sinister disaster during his two terms in office. Let's see the track record: economy, best ever; peace levels in US, average; employment, excellent; international relations, good, but not great. Would you like to put Dub the Shrub's record up against that?
[ November 18, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Curious as to where the quotes came from...
Scroll up, my friend.
quote: Both India and Pakistan had nuclear programs leading back to the 1980s, I believe that would be in Pres. Reagan's watch.
Maybe so, but both detonated test nukes in 1998. If they were working on them in the 80's, it was a small program.
quote:As bad as it was for the Romans to pay the Huns to not sack their lands, it did work, for a while.
You illustrate why Clinton's actions were a mistake. Paying off the barbarians never solves the problem. As you said, it works for a little while. However, when dealing with nukes, we are not just looking at being attacked by Huns, but burnt to death by the millions.
quote: Clinton didn't send NK money to prop up its army or food to specifically feed its soldiers. He sent money and food, along with many members of the UN, to provide humanitarian aid to the North Korean people. Do you find it easier to blame Clinton than the North Korean leadership for how that aid was used?
Imagine a father giving his 10 year old son a shotgun. When the kid hurts someone, the father is at fault. No matter what Clinton's intentions were, sending N Korea money and food was an idiotic idea. No one thought that this money or food would actually go to the people. He paid off the barbarian.
quote: Let's see the track record: economy, best ever; peace levels in US, average; employment, excellent; international relations, good, but not great.
Yes indeed, lets look at those things. Mr.Clinton kicked the can on down road reguarding Iraq, North Korea, and other issues. The economy took a nose dive during his last year in office. However, Clinton himself had little to do with the economy, good or bad.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well then, I didn't parse your arguments well, I admit. If that is all that you are saying, then I can agree to that, though it's sort of an inert point, since it doesn't prescribe any remedy, and certainly not such specific actions as Bush took in Iraq, or the diplomatic policy taken early on with N. Korea. While I can see that one could draw the same conclusion as the Bush administration in response to the results of Clinton's actions, I don't see why it is the only reason, and I think, in part, the excuse of Clinton is a red herring, given the prominence of NPAC/Strauss disciples in the DoD, who were advocating Iraqi invasion before Clinton had much of a chance to present a foreign policy.
I guess what I am saying is that, given that Clintons policies weren't successful in stopping N. Korea from producing WMD, and didn't stop Saddam from abusing his people, so what? How do you feel that this justifies the policies of Bush, or do you?
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Robespierre, your analogy of father/son with gun to USA/N. Korea is patronizing, don't you think? Certainly not conducive to finding a solution. A nation is not so naive to the world as a child.
-Bok
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Don't worry, Robes is naturally patronizing, he can't help it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Certainly not conducive to finding a solution. A nation is not so naive to the world as a child.
Perhaps the analogy was not the best choice. I would say though, that North Korea is run solely by one man, whom the people worship as a godhead. Giving this man a blank check is foolish, no matter how you look at it.
quote: I guess what I am saying is that, given that Clintons policies weren't successful in stopping N. Korea from producing WMD, and didn't stop Saddam from abusing his people, so what? How do you feel that this justifies the policies of Bush, or do you?
So what? So learn from that lesson, and stop appeasing dictators. The North Korea situation is not a justification for any Bush policy, merely a good illustration of the workings of international nuclear politics. Especially when the UN is involved.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fine, we shouldn't use Clintonian appeasement. No one was necessarily advocating going back to that. I wasn't at least (I honestly don't have a strong grasp of the nuances of international diplomacy). I also don't advocate the pick-and-choose method of Bush, since I think it belies the true motives (of which I'm sure there are many, including some that ultimately contradict others) for the Iraq war. And that these true motives contradict some of the public, official motives. I used N. Korea as an example of a contradiction that I saw, and then you blame Clinton. All I can say is that I don't care if Clinton caused it, I just think that the difference in treating the two cases (Iraq and N. Korea) differently shows paradox from what our president is saying. If you are going to lump nations together using stark language, then treat them similarly.
It seems to me that all you are saying is that we shouldn't do X. However, this thread is about why our president is doing Y and Z. So can you understand my confusion, and attempts to connect X to Y and Z?
-Bok
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: No matter what Clinton's intentions were, sending N Korea money and food was an idiotic idea. No one thought that this money or food would actually go to the people
Mr.Clinton kicked the can on down road reguarding Iraq, North Korea, and other issues. The economy took a nose dive during his last year in office. However, Clinton himself had little to do with the economy, good or bad.
Robespierre. You may have a point about sending N. Korea money. Certainly the money/food in exchange for Kim's giving up his asperations to join the nuclear bomb club deal could have been brokered so as to protect Nato and UN interests in general better, with more aggressive international nuclear inspections and agreed upon sanctions for non-compliance.
But if Clinton is guilty of a bad deal there, Bush Sr. is twice as guilty for his non-resolution of the Saddam situation. The cease-fire agreement allowed Saddam to snatch a partial victory from the jaws of a crushing military defeat, by not forbidding helicopter use to the Iraqi military. This was a major factor in Saddam's crushing of the Shi'ia and Kurd revolts immeadiatly after Gulf I. The US is still feeling the distrust that screw-up engendered. Then the treaty that followed the cease-fire agrrement was not much better, directly leading to Gulf II.
"sending N Korea money and food was an idiotic idea..." ummm, so we should have just let as many N. Koreans starve as possible? Not sure what our options were, other than sending some humanitarian aid. If we send aid and a dictator diverts it (as happens far, far, too often ), is that the president's fault??
Clinton's management of the economy was probably his best legacy. The Clinton administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, balanced the budget, which allowed capital to go to the private sector, instead of being Hoovered up by the federal government. This led to the best US economy in my lifetime, probably even longer. As a capiatalist, I thought you would think that was a good thing, Robes?
Of course, there was a market correction when the internet/tech bubble burst. Atlanta has been hit very hard by this. Bush inherited a bad economy, but by supporting record deficit spending he has hardly helped it, not to mention his tax cuts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is no mystery here. Key members of the Bush adminstration have been vocal for years about their motivations for invading Iraq. I recommend that you check out the Project for the New American Century. Dating as far back as 1997, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and other key figures in the Bush administration were argueing that the US need to invade Iraq and they state their reasons clearly. Their goals were to establish a permanent US military presence in the middle east and to privatize Iraq oil. Don't take my word for it, read what they wrote.
You should also check out the web site for the National Security Council, where the Bush administration states in National Security Goals. Most prominently, the goal is to prevent any nation or group of nations from threatening US economic and military superiority. The Bush administration antagonism with Europe is not superficial and it is not about Iraq. It is about the Euro and the Bush administrations stated goal to prevent the Euro from rivaling the US dollar.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But if Clinton is guilty of a bad deal there, Bush Sr. is twice as guilty for his non-resolution of the Saddam situation.
I agree absolutely. Please don't get the idea that I am a defender of Republican presidents. Regan made a mistake in allowing the mujahadeen fighters to be armed by the CIA. Bush should have finished the job in Gulf War I. Bush should not have befriended Manuel Noriega! There are plenty of mistakes to spread around for all the recent and past presidents.
quote: so we should have just let as many N. Koreans starve as possible?
Did the money and food we sent them prevent any North Koreans from starving? If anything, it has caused the deaths of more North Koreans by prolonging the regime's life, and allowing Jong Il to continue without reform.
quote: Clinton's management of the economy was probably his best legacy. The Clinton administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, balanced the budget, which allowed capital to go to the private sector, instead of being Hoovered up by the federal government.
This is the best attempt I have yet seen at crediting Clinton with the 90's boom. I agree that balancing the budget was a good thing. However, the rise of the late 90's was fueled by technology and technology speculation. Any wealth that was created during that time, was created by the private sector. Bill Clinton did not create the boom of the 90's. Nor did he create the bust the followed. I don't want to get too deep into why the Bush tax cuts are the only reasonable medicine for this economy, because this is a foreign policy discussion.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Morbo-
The use of military action was approved by congress.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Promethius, I don't think you're saying what you MEAN to be saying.
Are you familiar with the way this "military action" was approved, when it was approved, and how it's since been applied?
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Congress caved in like a bunch of idiotic cowards -- which they did -- the actual "approval" you keep harping about fell well short of a declaration of war OR authorization for the continued occupation of a foreign country.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Promethius, I was just making the point that Congress did not make a formal declaration of war, though they did authorize military force. There is a difference.
It's one of my pet peeves, that Congress has allowed the presidency to usurp the power to declare war, a power specifically reserved for Congress in the US Constitution . Congress has basically rolled over and ignored their duties spelled out in the US Constitution re declaring war, hence the US has not declared war since WWII, despite being in 4-5 major wars.
The War Powers Act passed some years ago was a weak, lame attempt to go back to more constitutional methods of force authoriztion, but I think it has already expired without renewal.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), is that the president's fault?? ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)