Bush lied, people died...

[scrambler]

" is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

~John Stuart Mill

 

No arguments there. Just seems that you and Rodchester serve as political advocates (cheerleaders) for the Bush administration’s agenda for the rush to war over the objections of those who proposed the extension of nonviolent means to assess the WMD issue. Now the chameleon like nature of the Bush administration has been to downgrade using the potential presence of WMDs as a justification for war to a non-issue and to assert that the real issue was regime change to dispose the repressive Baathist government.

 

My guess is that most of the political debaters on this thread have never been in a fight, never had the threat of danger (other than the real fight or flight kind associated with climbing) hanging over their head. The kind where someone is stalking you, and you have to figure them out before they get to you first or find you in a vulnerable position.

 

You seem to be implying that one who has not seen combat is not fit to comment on matters of war. By this reasoning, one would assert that the ideal choice for Commander-in-Chief would be someone who has actually seen combat such as Clark or Kerry. Bush does not have the qualifications for this role and, I might add, his advisors with the exception of Powell fall well short of the requirements. The men driving the war policy are chicken hawks (and I’m not talking about the tactical logistics that are executed by the military brass). I’m talking about the rationale espoused for war in Iraq as opposed to what our intelligence indicates as the greater threat of real danger from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.

 

If you distill this debate down to it's simplist form it amounts to would you would fight for something you believe in no matter what the reason, or you would refuse to fight for something no matter what the cost. If the causes of the war were indeed fabricated (which is unlikely, and since I am the only poster on this board posting from Iraq I guess I have all of you on trumps for being here to begin with) then might the ends ultimately justify the means?

 

There will always be justifications for war and, in this case, if the justifications were fabricated, it doesn’t matter as it pertains to events in Iraq because the war is already in progress. It only matters if there was a pattern of deception in the rush to war as it affects the fate of the current Presidential administration and what changes may be effected on the future course of projection of American military might. So, justifications aside, it would be like placing some idealistic goals on one side of an imaginary scale and American lives on the other side. How many American lives will be sacrificed in the name of bringing a different order to the Iraqi people? (And notice that I didn’t necessarily say ‘bring our Western ideals of democracy or freedom or justice to the Iraqi people.’)

 

Personally, I believe that war in the name of ideology is often a lie and that we fight wars for more base matters. Sure, wars are fought as ideological struggles but it often boils down to an issue of control whether we proclaim freedom to the oppressed or not. Witness the fact that we have not given the Iraqis complete autonomy to hold entirely free elections.

 

It seems like you are debating a dead horse created in an election year by those intent on building a case for their OWN AGENDA's. Namely a weakened democratic party. Looking backwards at this point serves nothing to bring this war to rapid fruition. We are in it. It is going on right now, even as you read this. I know. Not more than 2 hours ago I was flying over Baghdad watching the beginnings of a sizeable firefight and rocket attack. Another one of those nameless, faceless events that matter little to you, because to you the big picture is endlessly debating far from the actual events that in many many many ways do not REALLY effect you whatsoever.

 

But it does matter. Just as you are a cog in the military machine or, to give you your share of humanity, you are like a cell in the military arm of the American body. We here are acting as the conscience and the reflective mind of the American body. It’s a necessary process. Your job is to follow your superior’s orders. We didn’t take a similar oath to a commander to obey. Our allegiance is to the US Constitution not to a particular imperial president’s agenda.

 

Despite your angry grumblings and regal sounding edification you all end up right back where you began. The whole title of this thread seems to be misinformed because there is no way to prove that GWB lied.

 

The question is, is the administration justified in perpetrating a pattern of deception for political gain? Remember, politics in its basic form is quite simply the business of getting other people to do what you say assuming that you alone know what is good for the people.

 

True, people have died. I have seen some of them since I've been here with my own eyes. Good men and women. Young and filled with hopes and I am sure every one of them believed that they would not be the ones to be killed. I know I think about it everyday. It comes close, but close seems far away.

 

Then maybe you will come to an understanding closer to that expressed by Senator Kerry’s statement expressed in his speech in 1971 concerning the Vietnam War. In this speech, he asked a question, which I modified, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq?" And, you keep telling yourself that you are doing good deeds and you are. But aren’t we also preparing the ground for the same thing we claim to be fighting against? Are we not invoking the reasons for the generation of terrorist minds, in other words, does our occupation and its support for a single unified Iraqi state paradoxically create the primary seeds for violent fanaticism?

 

I hate to see you all arguing over something that seems to be nothing more than trivial bickering. What would seem better would be to contribute something to the people of Iraq who have suffered, but do not suffer anymore. This is by far the most beautiful of all the Muslim countries I have seen so far. There are riches here, and history, culture, rivers, forests of date palms. Beautiful women and strong able minded men. They have been freed from a dictator that has driven them to the brink of utter poverty with cruel policies and self centered ambitions. Many Americans, British and coalition troops have died to give these people something that you take for granted. Yet, you argue and bicker and divide amongst yourselves over the name of a party or an idea. There is no hope in this. There is no peace in this. Sometimes we have to do the right thing no matter what road we take to get there. We have done the right thing in this case, and in Afghanistan, and in many countries in the past. All of these news items are just words written by people who get paid to make words. The real Iraq is here. The real reasons for the war are here. I guess I really don't know exactly what I am trying to say other than you all should stop arguing over right and wrong and just try to be in this moment instead of outside of it.

 

God, this reads like some kind of fairytale story, black and white so clearly defined. Don’t you know that this world of absolute good and evil doesn’t exist? Your idea of what’s good is someone else’s evil. It comes down to the legitimacy of might and those who win, write the history books so that the official explanation of good and evil aligns with the victor. The statement, ‘do the right thing’ is a slogan and an infectious meme that carries no information content. It is a mantra to hypnotize you to ease your conscience. I am saying that you should have some doubt as a thinking person rather than a completely clear conscience that indicates a simplistic understanding of the world we live in and the complete uncritical acceptance of authority, the latter of which is the function of a soldier.

[tele_nut]

I guess under your reasoning then you most likely would have opposed the United States entrance into the 2nd World War? Time and more information seem to point towards some shady conspiracy theory that allowed us to be driven into that conflict. Time and actual events showed that to be a just war with favorable results no matter the catalyst. Once again I see this current situation as merely political rhetoric in a political year.

 

You seem to imply that we should have taken on the threat that Korea poses first. This would be like taking on the World Cup champions without even playing a few pick up games with your team first. A certain recipe for disaster. In a larger strategic sense the war can be justified simply as a message to rogue nations to toe the line we set or feel the effect of our disdain. Tactically Iran is now pincered and contained without having to fight in the mountains. Korea in my opinion should be taken care of by Japan and China with our support.

 

As far as fairytales. I CHOOSE not to see the world through the ambiguity of shades of gray. I choose sides and make stands even if I am able to see the fallacies. Personally, I did not believe the reasons why it was stated that we go to war. I am not saying that it was an outright lie either. The intelligence community had been seriously degraded under the ho-hum politics of Clinton. During his tenure we were bombarded by continuous terrorist action and that president did little to tackle the issue except cut spending to important agencies. The CIA had their hands tied by being under budgeted. I do support military strategic goals as they relate to insuring the integrity of our nation. As far as creating a more palpable terrorist culture...brother...it's on and has been for a long time. Russia's Vietnam is now a legacy conflict. Massoud told us this would happen over 14 years ago. Now, giving them a place to come try their luck and die is a smart move. Let me also remind all of you that Iraq fired on coalition Iraq in restricted airspace defying UN resolutions for 13 years. This alone could have justified us bombing them to the stone age. If you've ever seen the effect of a JDAM strike, and I have, you will realize that we used great restraint.

 

Failure to choose sides and endlessly debate is more of a miasma than your so called 'mantra'. You take the red pill and I'll take the blue pill. Personally I would rather be so far down the rabbit hole that I'll never see the light of some of this apathy again. Give me hard realities with dire consequences any day. I do not bow to many authorities and a statement like that would be better spoken if we had met first.

 

John Kerry is a good man, with some common sense values. He has "been there" to some extent. However, sending a dove to do a wolves work when the enemy is at the gates is a fools move. Perhaps after 4 more years we can take a good hard look at this guy again, but not this time around. Our enemies are simply waiting for a 'regime change' via popular vote to once again start their insiduous attacks in earnest.

 

Thanks for your comments. They were very well thought out and appreciated. I remember that this country was founded on civil disobedience (not saying that having an opinion compounded by principal is disobedient), and most people recognize that there will always be alternatives to the prevailing mindset. Sgt Alvin York is a prime example of a someone who provided service to the nation despite his beliefs (Religious).

[Rodchester]

No arguments there. Just seems that you and Rodchester serve as political advocates (cheerleaders) for the Bush administration’s agenda for the rush to war over the objections of those who proposed the extension of nonviolent means to assess the WMD issue.

 

Just because I said early on that I have no problem justifying the war...that means I'm a Bush cheerleader?

 

Too funny.

[Peter_Puget]

Busy day but here are my thoughts:

 

"Imminent" is a term of international law, as well as a word used in ordinary English. Reporters/advocates confused the two meanings. The administration as representatives of the US uses the term in its narrow “legal” meaning. They do this because it is an essential part of their effort to reshape international law in the post 9/11 world. The administration admits, in fact it has argued, that under existing international law the attack on Iraq would be illegal. Iraq was simply not an imminent threat. The administration believes that 9/11 was a wake-up call showing that the world has changed and the old conventions not only do not apply but that for a government to cling to them would be the morally and ethical wrong thing to do. The fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat is an integral and vital part of their argument. This is a bold and aggressive assertion.

 

Tenet when using the term imminent was certainly using it in its narrow sense. Chuck (& Mattp) by applying the broader meaning of the term is making an unfair comparison and making it appear as if the Bush administration is lying by word games and not by serious debate and examination of the facts. What is to be gained by such word games? Well for one thing it moves the debate from an examination of the new vision of international law completely. It sets up a bogus argument confusing the narrow international law definition of the tern and the broader commonplace meaning of the term. One in which the administration bound to use the term in it narrow legal sense cannot help but look goofy.

[lummox]

the bush doctrine is lame.

would you tolerate the police kickin your ass because you might present a threat?

[skykilo]

That's happened to me before, on Sixth Street in Austin. WTF. They had big guns, so I just kinda went along with it. So I guess my answer to you, Lummox, is yes. It didn't sit well with me, but I did tolerate it.

[Norman_Clyde]

So Bush and Co. want to redefine international law, stating that unilateral action is justified before a threat is imminent. Fine. Only remember that "International" law is supposed to be applied equally to all nations. I'm sure this means the USA will not protest if North Korea then states that the USA's actions represent a soon to be imminent threat to its existence, justifying missile attacks on the USA. After all, the threat was soon to be imminent. Or perhaps China will feel that our coddling of Taiwan represents a soon to be imminent threat against Beijing's sovereignty, justifying their crossing the globe to attack us. This sort of behavior follows logically from the Bush Doctrine, when applied by other nations besides the USA. A morally vacant argument, obviously wrong when made by any other nation, does not become right when the United States makes it.

[Rodchester]

Only remember that "International" law is supposed to be applied equally to all nations.

 

Actually this statement is incorrect. "International law" only applies to those that wish to subject themselves to it. Remember, there is no legislature or judiciary that has sovereignty over all nations (also the term nation means “people” from the Latin natio, it does not mean governments or states, but I get what you mean). A state (call it a country) decides it wants to participate, or that it does not. There is no enforcement mechanism for any legal action taken in the world court: it lacks jurisdiction.

 

Put simply, international affairs are in a state of anarachy. We're on our own. Where international law form, it is one of agreement and based on function. It is a constant state of flux and change.

 

As far as acting unilaterally goes, it is totally incorrect to say that this is something new, or to label it the Bush Doctrine. Clinton did so in Haiti. Carter did so in Iran. Bush I did so in Panama. Reagan in Grenada. Both Argentina and Britan did so in the Falklands. France did so in Algeria and Indo-china. And the list goes on and on.

 

Actually this statement is incorrect. "International law" only applies to those that wish to subject themselves to it. There is no legislature or judiciary that has sovereignty over all nations (also the term nation means “people” from the Latin natio, it does not mean governments or states, but I get what you mean). A state (country) decides it wants to participate, or that it does not. There is no enforcement mechanism for any legal action taken in the world court: it lacks jurisdiction.

 

The VAST majority of times countries at unilaterally, or with limited 'Allied' support, as opposed to true International support. There are VERY few instances in history when true international support for war, or a police action, were gathered prior to the action. Korea and GWI are the only two that come to mind. Though one may argue that WWI qualifies.

 

I amnot commenting on if acting with UN approval is better or worse that acting unilaterally, just pointing out the reality.

 

I am a student of law, National Security Policy, military history, and my favorite topic, nations. I actually hold degrees in National Security (focused in nations) and law. I say this not because I am trying to brag or act high and mighty, but rather to point out my basis. The statements I make here are one of observation, not of partisan politics. This is the position from which I make these observations. I do not claim to be an expert.

 

That said, I find it curious that some here assume that anyone not on their side is automatically a Bush Cheerleader.

 

So lets .

[Jim]

Would have to agree with Rodchester on this in general. This is not the first time the US has meddled with other countries in a unilateral manner. However, the scale of this present action, completed with only a premise (lie) that this country is an imminent threat brings in a new level of chutzpa to the issue when other options were clearly available.

[murraysovereign]

You seem to imply that we should have taken on the threat that Korea poses first. This would be like taking on the World Cup champions without even playing a few pick up games with your team first.

 

So this whole business of the U.S. telling the international community to go Fuck themselves, driving huge wedges between Washington and all their erstwhile allies, and totally alienating most of the world's population, was meant to be a "team-building" exercise?

 

Why didn't they just say that at the start? It all makes perfect sense now

[jack_johnson]

You seem to imply that we should have taken on the threat that Korea poses first. This would be like taking on the World Cup champions without even playing a few pick up games with your team first.

 

So this whole business of the U.S. telling the international community to go Fuck themselves, driving huge wedges between Washington and all their erstwhile allies, and totally alienating most of the world's population, was meant to be a "team-building" exercise?

 

Do you believe that this is by design? If you don't then you are a fool. I have been in the hell holes, I have seen the other side and I know what is in store for either side. It ain't pretty. So far Canada, USA and even Mexico have been lucky. Wait my friends it will get worse and it will get bloody on all sides of the oceans.

[erf]

A little refresher about how it went down (for those among us with poor memory) and the role played by the 'liberal' media:

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922

[chelle]

Here's a portion of an article on the issue in the current Economist.

 

Leaders: Just the facts; The WMD inquiries;

London: Feb 7, 2004. pg. 13

"The inquiries can, however, get to the bottom of what British and American spies and politicians knew (or thought they knew) about Iraq's WMD and terrorist connections. David Kay, the ex-weapons inspector who forced a probe on Mr Bush, who in turn thrust one upon Mr Blair, told Congress that Iraq was indeed a danger. The spies may yet turn out to have done a better job in 2003 than in 1991, when they underestimated Mr Hussein's nuclear progress. But given the apparent absence of any actual WMD in Iraq, the new panels must ascertain where the CIA, MI6 and other agencies went wrong. Did they invest too little in on-the-ground agents--a conclusion reached in a different context by a congressional inquiry into September 11th? After the UN inspectors left Iraq, did they wrongly extrapolate from old information? Were they over-reliant on defectors, exiles and inconclusive satellite images? Did senior officials gloss over uncertainty, or quail in the face of demanding politicians?

 

As for those politicians: when they dragged intelligence into the light, did they exaggerate, whether by omission of caveats and provisos or otherwise? We think they did--and that Vice-President Dick Cheney has, reprehensibly, continued to do so until very recently. But only up to a point: even the dissident voices within intelligence circles say only that the two governments firmed-up analysts' conclusions, not that they made them up altogether. In particular, did Mr Bush's team allege a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda that the data didn't substantiate? Did they lean on the spies to come up with the "right" answers? Some say they did; others, including Mr Kay, say they didn't. If he is right, why did some American assessments of the Iraqi threat become gloomier, even, as it now appears, as the sources for those assessments became weaker?

 

These are the questions that can and should be answered. That will require the Bush administration to co-operate more fulsomely with the new panel than with the one investigating September 11th."

[erf]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

 

Where is the puking graemlin when you need it most?

[scrambler]

Regarding your quote of John Stuart Mills, I have no qualms about his statement. The distinction I’m making is not whether war should be waged or not, it involves the rush to war , in this case involving Iraq. I fully understand that war is a necessary ‘evil’. I also understand the necessity of periodically using military force to back up diplomacy.

 

Theodore Roosevelt said it best: “You are probably acquainted with the old proverb: ‘Speak softy and carry a big stick – you will go far.’ If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble; and neither will speaking softly avail, if back of the softness there does not lie strength, power.”

 

Roosevelt also said: “a bold front tends to insure peace and not strife… Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master of the soldier.”

Although I do feel some objection to the latter part of his statement.

 

I guess under your reasoning then you most likely would have opposed the United States entrance into the 2nd World War? Time and more information seem to point towards some shady conspiracy theory that allowed us to be driven into that conflict. Time and actual events showed that to be a just war with favorable results no matter the catalyst. Once again I see this current situation as merely political rhetoric in a political year.

No, my beliefs are quite the opposite. The Axis Forces in WWII directly attacked us. Once that occurred, we saw the elimination of a basis for arguing the justification of our continued postponement of entry in that war in favor of inaction for further intelligence or negotiation.

 

It becomes a matter of the question, “Will things get out of control with regard to the power of the military and its actions so we eventually find ourselves living under a different authoritative structure?” Is this the natural evolution of our world under technological and social change to end up under the aegis of a totalitarian system? Is this an unthinkable question?

 

One only needs to review the history of countries that embarked on long and ever expanding military campaigns as militarism became the driving force. The disastrous course of the German and Japanese military as initiators of aggression is evident. O.k., you argue that we did not initiate the event of 9/11 so we are not the initiators of active aggression. I'm just taking a distant look at the road that stretches out from here. It's a possible future.

 

You seem to imply that we should have taken on the threat that Korea poses first. This would be like taking on the World Cup champions without even playing a few pick up games with your team first. A certain recipe for disaster. In a larger strategic sense the war can be justified simply as a message to rogue nations to toe the line we set or feel the effect of our disdain. Tactically Iran is now pincered and contained without having to fight in the mountains. Korea in my opinion should be taken care of by Japan and China with our support.

 

I agree that the tactical strategy of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would possibly be misguided, while 'softer' targets such as Iraq are to be exhibited as examples to the world.

 

I do not know if I agree with the efficacy of the idea of Iraq as a ‘beachhead’ where we may extend the reach of democracy in the Middle East. At first glance, this appears to be extremely idealistic, perhaps designed to appease the folks back home.

 

As far as fairytales. I CHOOSE not to see the world through the ambiguity of shades of gray. I choose sides and make stands even if I am able to see the fallacies. Personally, I did not believe the reasons why it was stated that we go to war. I am not saying that it was an outright lie either. The intelligence community had been seriously degraded under the ho-hum politics of Clinton. During his tenure we were bombarded by continuous terrorist action and that president did little to tackle the issue except cut spending to important agencies. The CIA had their hands tied by being under budgeted. I do support military strategic goals as they relate to insuring the integrity of our nation. As far as creating a more palpable terrorist culture...brother...it's on and has been for a long time. Russia's Vietnam is now a legacy conflict. Massoud told us this would happen over 14 years ago. Now, giving them a place to come try their luck and die is a smart move. Let me also remind all of you that Iraq fired on coalition Iraq in restricted airspace defying UN resolutions for 13 years. This alone could have justified us bombing them to the stone age. If you've ever seen the effect of a JDAM strike, and I have, you will realize that we used great restraint.

 

I would not be surprised if I found myself agreeing with you upon developing certain points because this process is essentially doing that.

 

Failure to choose sides and endlessly debate is more of a miasma than your so called 'mantra'. You take the red pill and I'll take the blue pill. Personally I would rather be so far down the rabbit hole that I'll never see the light of some of this apathy again. Give me hard realities with dire consequences any day. I do not bow to many authorities and a statement like that would be better spoken if we had met first.

 

No comment.

 

John Kerry is a good man, with some common sense values. He has "been there" to some extent. However, sending a dove to do a wolves work when the enemy is at the gates is a fools move. Perhaps after 4 more years we can take a good hard look at this guy again, but not this time around. Our enemies are simply waiting for a 'regime change' via popular vote to once again start their insiduous attacks in earnest.

 

I would like to think that all of the candidates including Bush are coming from good intentions whatever each candidate may see as such. I offer no opinions at this time on whether one or the other would make the most effective leader during wartime or during military actions.

 

The function of the military is to defend the nation against aggressors and as far as tactical strategy, the military brass should have full reign to plan and execute their actions. However, I do not believe that the military should overrule the civilian government. I’m not saying that civilians should determine military strategy rather what I am saying is that military strategy should not dictate the future course of this nation. In other words, it's my belief that the civilian government upon receiving and reviewing intelligence, in conjunction with the military, should have the final say in the decision to wage war. O.k., we haven't seen any internal conflict yet but is it a future possibility if we continue down this road?

 

This appears to be the case in the proposed mission to Mars via the Moon where a large part of our strategic strength will derive from technological superiority and preeminence in orbital space, and the military mission of our space program may begin to overtly supercede the civilian application.

 

Thanks for your comments. They were very well thought out and appreciated. I remember that this country was founded on civil disobedience (not saying that having an opinion compounded by principal is disobedient), and most people recognize that there will always be alternatives to the prevailing mindset. Sgt Alvin York is a prime example of a someone who provided service to the nation despite his beliefs (Religious).

 

I don’t believe in civil disobedience (or rebellion as some see it) for its own sake. I do believe that the good fight doesn’t necessarily mean one has to take up arms immediately. Often, there are ‘wars’ of debate before action. But I have to agree with you that when the time comes, action has to be taken.

 

The question is whether we live in a world today where we no longer have the luxury of foreseeing and stopping danger. The Bush administration would have us believe that we live in a different world where danger is ever present and pre-emptive strike is a necessity (‘shoot first, ask questions later’).

 

Does every case for war require a rush to wage it? I do believe that some people have blood lust as expressed in their need to support a rush to war.

[Norman_Clyde]

RE: my previous simplistic statement about international law:

 

International law is "supposed" to apply equally to all nations in a moral sense. I suffer no delusion that it carries any real force. The USA seems to have less respect for the Geneva convention than many less powerful nations. Bush and co. are not the first administration to put forth a general "we don't care-- we don't have to" attitude. My point is that this does not elevate our global moral position, or the respect of our global peers for us.

 

Yes, I do believe we have global peers, not just global underlings and servant nations, I may be hopelessly idealistic in this regard, but I believe that human beings of all nations are potentially our peers and allies. We should not act unilaterally in a fashion that sets half the globe against us. I fear that the harvest of hatred this country has sown, we may reap horribly in some foreseeable future.

I have not forgotten 9/11. Some people hate us regardless. This deep international conflict calls for moral leadership and intelligence on the order of Abraham Lincoln. But we have no Honest Abe in the White House, to the detriment of not only nation, but of the entire world.

 

Actions speak louder than words. The USA's invasion and occupation of a foreign nation, lacking direct provocation or attack, remains morally reprehensible in its substance. IMO the possible presence of WMD, the history of their use in conflict, and the refusal to admit international inspectors was reason enough for the civilized world to demand intervention of some kind. In this case, in order to possess adequate moral authority to attack, the civilized world needed to show consensus, including among a significant contingent of Islamic leaders. My own feeling that this was necessary comes primarily from what I know of medieval history, the Crusades, and the legacy of hatred and conflict between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations. While most Americans may be utterly clueless as to the symbolic significance of this country's recent actions when viewed in a historical context, I would bet that most Islamic peoples had an immediate, visceral grasp of it; a visceral reaction that is very difficult to overturn with any intellectual or moral argument. I fear that any relatively weak moral argument this country has made in favor of invasion is pathetically small compared to the scale of visceral hatred we have inflamed in the hearts of millions of people.

 

Of course, if there is only one right action, and it unfortunately involves inflaming visceral hatred of the USA among millions of human beings, a nation must do what is right. But the leaders better be DAMN sure they are right before they act in this way. Yes, the USA has invaded other nations on relatively flimsy pretexts before. But the symbolic and historic significance of this invasion is much greater. Bush and co. showed the kind of appalling hubris that, when all is said and done, is not all that different from having evil intentions. I don't believe they examined their own intentions any more than the morally bankrupt CEOs at places like Enron did. The record now reflects a scheme to invade Iraq predating 9/11. Our leaders did not act out of any moral or ethical principle. First they decided what they wanted to do; then they looked for a moral argument to match the action. This is the cheapest kind of human behavior. IMO this kind of decision making is exactly what NOT to expect from a leader of the free world.

[Rodchester]

Norm:

 

Well said... though I do disagree with some of your statements.

 

"The record now reflects a scheme to invade Iraq predating 9/11."

 

This one, often said by so many, is very puzzeling to me. We have had an active scheme to remove Sadam for years. This policy was put into place by Clinton. Notice that Clinton, the one man that could complain, doesn't on this point?

 

Paul O'Niel, if you cactually listen to what he says (as compared to what the media puts out) makes it clear that the Bush policy early on was to remove Sadam, which as O'Niel admits was simply a continuation of the Clinton policy.

 

Also, on a finer point. Iraq is not a nation. or a nation-state. It is a mutli-national state. This means a geographic area with a government over mutliple nations (Peoples) i.e. Arabic Sunnis, Kurdish Sunnis, Arabic Shites, and of course eveyone's favorites, the Bedouins. That said, your point on the issue was clear.

 

"Bush and co. showed the kind of appalling hubris that, when all is said and done, is not all that different from having evil intentions."

 

This one I find a bit crazy. Many people want to compare a preeptiove action such as GWII with Hitler, WWII, evil, etc.

 

Granted, it is concerning ANYTIME we take the offense without first being attacked. But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke.

 

"and the refusal to admit international inspectors was reason enough for the civilized world to demand intervention of some kind."

 

If by the civilzed world, you mean the UN, I'd question your choice of words. Take a hard look at the human rights commision/committe. Civilized?

 

I hardly think a good foregin policy should be based upon Lybia, Cuba, and Syria's opinions.

[Norman_Clyde]

Yes, I know, I was foaming at the mouth a bit last night. The statement about hubris being akin to evil intentions, as I said it, is quite a reach. I meant to say what Anthony Lewis of the NY Times said in his farewell column. He said that, in his judgment over the portion of history he had followed, the greatest harm had come from people who were absolutely certain they were right. He specifically cited Osama Bin Laden and John Ashcroft. Once someone takes the fundamentalist path of being so sure of oneself that the facts can be ignored, then good intentions no longer count for much.

Yes, creating international consensus is difficult. As Mrs. Krabappel said to her students on the Simpsons: "Children! Do you want to portray the United Nations? Or do you just want to squabble and waste time?"

[Rodchester]

Hey..I know something we can ALL agree on...Dan - lied...and the board sprayed.

[mattp]

Rodchester-

 

Do you actually believe that we will allow a democratic government in post-war Iraq? I'm not an expert in Iraqi politics, but I would guess their FIRST priorities would be to evict the U.S. military and nationalize all oil industry infrastructure in the country and they'd likley be for Islamic rule and suppression of minority sects like Sunni's and Kurds. I have a hard time believing that "democracy" is what were after -- if by that you mean "one man, one vote."

[erf]

"But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke."

 

If you don't want to pass for a Bush cheerleader, you'll have to do better than this.

[cracked]

Interesting article from the WSJ, sorry it's so long:

 

Saddam's Global Payroll

 

By THERESE RAPHAEL

 

On Dec. 5, during a trip to Baghdad, Claude Hankes-Drielsma faxed an urgent letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Mr. Hankes-Drielsma, the U.K. Chairman of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, had recently been appointed to advise the Iraqi Governing Council. What he saw in Baghdad left him shocked. "As a result of my findings here, combined with earlier information," he wrote, "I most strongly urge the U.N. to consider appointing an independent commission to review and investigate the 'Oil for Food Programme.' Failure to do so might bring into question the U.N.'s credibility and the public's perception of it. . . . My belief is that serious transgressions have taken place and may still be taking place."

 

Just how serious these transgressions were became clear late last month, when the Iraqi daily Al Mada published a partial list of names, compiled by Iraq's oil ministry, of those whom Saddam Hussein rewarded with allocations of Iraqi oil. Mr. Hankes-Drielsma, who says he was among the first to see the list in early December, says it is based on numerous contracts and other detailed documents and was compiled at the request of the Iraqi Governing Council.

 

The list, a copy of which has been seen by the Journal's editorial page, is in spreadsheet format and details (in Arabic) individuals, companies and organizations, grouped by country, who oil ministry and Governing Council officials believe received vouchers from the Iraqi regime for the purchase of oil under the oil-for-food program. Mr. Hankes-Drielsma said the recipients would have been given allocations at below-market prices and then been able to pocket the difference when a middleman sold the oil on to a refinery; 13 time periods are designated and with indications of how much crude, in millions of barrels, each recipient allegedly received.

 

The list reads like an official registry of Friends of Saddam across some 50 countries. It's clear where his best, best friends were. There are 11 entries under France (totaling 150.8 million barrels of crude), 14 names under Syria (totaling 116.9 million barrels) and four pages detailing Russian recipients, with voucher allocations of over one billion barrels. Many of the names, transliterated phonetically from Arabic, are not well-known or are difficult to identify from the information given. Others stand out. There's George Galloway, the Saddam-supporting British MP recently expelled from the Labour Party, who has always denied receiving any form of payment from Saddam. Other notables include Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (also listed separately as the "daughter of President Sukarno"), the PLO, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Russian Orthodox Church, the "director of the Russian President's office" and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua. Some -- including Mr. Pasqua, the Russian Church and Ms. Megawati -- have denied receiving anything from Saddam. Patrick Maugein, a close friend of Jacques Chirac and head of Soco International oil company, says his dealings were all within "the framework of the oil-for-food program and there was nothing illegal about it."

 

 

His program....

 

 

The list's breadth, and the difficulty in reading and interpreting it, has slowed its exposure. There's also the question of authentication. Mr. Hankes-Drielsma (who is not an Arabic speaker) is convinced it is authentic and will be followed by more detailed evidence as the Iraqi oil ministry and Governing Council conduct further investigations. "I've seen the documents that have satisfied me beyond any doubt that we're dealing with a genuine situation," he told me.

 

One of the most eye-catching names on the list is easy to miss as it's the sole entry under a country one would not normally associate with Iraq -- Panama. The entry says: "Mr. Sevan." That's the same name as that of the U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, a Cyprus-born, New York-educated career U.N. officer who was tapped by Kofi Annan in October 1997 to run the oil-for-food program.

 

When I tried Mr. Sevan for comment, a U.N. spokesman wouldn't put me through to him directly but offered to pass on emailed questions. In an email reply to questions about Mr. Sevan's apparent inclusion on the list and interest in the Panama-based business that allegedly received the discounted oil, the spokesman quoted Kofi Annan's statement Friday: "As far as I know, nobody in the Secretariat has committed any wrongdoing. If there is evidence, we would investigate it very seriously, and I want those who are making the charges to give the material they have to me so that we can follow up to determine if there has been any wrongdoing and I would take necessary action. So far statements are being made but we need to get facts." The pro forma U.N. response certainly seems inadequate. Mr. Sevan should take the opportunity to defend himself against the inference that the presence of his name on this list could help explain how Saddam was able to get by with so much influence-buying around the world with little apparent objection from the U.N.

 

* * *

In the seven years that Oil-for-Food was operational, (it was shut down in November and its obligations are being wound up) Saddam was able to skim off funds for his personal use, while at the same time doing favors for those who supported the lifting of sanctions, supplied him with his vast arsenal of weapons, and opposed military action in Iraq. Indeed, it was clear from the outset that Saddam would be able to use the program to benefit his friends. The 1995 U.N. resolution setting out the program -- Resolution 986 -- bends over backwards to reassure Iraq that Oil-for-Food would not "infringe the sovereignty or territorial integrity" of Iraq. And to that end it gave Saddam power to decide on trading partners. "A contract for the purchase of petroleum and petroleum products will only be considered for approval if it has been endorsed by the Government of Iraq," states the program's procedures. Predictably, Saddam exploited the program for influence-buying and kickbacks, and filled his coffers by smuggling oil through Syria and elsewhere. With Oil-for-Food and smuggling, he was able to sustain his domestic power base and maintain a lavish lifestyle for his inner circle.

 

 

...and his oil.

 

 

The system was ripe for abuse, in part because a divided Security Council gave Saddam far too much flexibility within the program. Oil-for-Food not only gave Iraq the power to decide with whom to deal, but also freedom to determine the official price of Iraqi oil, revenues from which went legally into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food account. U.N. rules did not allow it to order Iraq to deal directly with end-users and bypass all those lucky middlemen who got deals from Saddam. Nor was the U.N. allowed to view contracts other than those between the oil ministry and the first purchaser, so it had no way of verifying that surcharges were being imposed by the middlemen on end-users. That enabled him to add surcharges to finance his own schemes while still making the final price competitive.

 

U.N. rules were ostensibly devised to prevent pricing abuses, but in one of the many indications of administrative failure, those safeguards appear not to have been enforced. In response, the U.S. and Britain tried often from 2001 to impose stricter financial standards, but Russia blocked changes. Then the U.S. and Britain instituted a system of retroactive pricing -- delaying approval of the Iraqi selling price so that they could take account of the market price when giving their approval. This too met with grumbling from Friends of Saddam and while it reduced oil exports, it didn't end the corruption.

 

Throughout most of the program's life, Mr. Sevan's office seemed to see no evil. When overwhelming evidence finally surfaced that Oil-for-Food had become a gravy-train for the Iraqi regime, U.N. officials acknowledged some of the abuses but refused any of the blame. Criticism is routinely portrayed as politically motivated. "The [program] has existed in a highly politicized environment from day one," explains the U.N. Web site. "The scale of these operations has also made it a rather large target." Its last line of defense was to punt to the Security Council, whose sanctions committee (authorized by the 1990 sanctions resolution and composed of Council members) was meant to oversee the program, receive reports and review audits.

 

The record of systemic abuse of the program lends credence to claims that the oil ministry list is genuine and should be investigated. The Iraqi Governing Council says it's considering legal action against anyone found to have profited illegally from Oil-for-Food. The U.S. Treasury's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is investigating possible violations of U.S. law. But the U.N. has resisted calls for an independent investigation into abuses. Says Mr. Hankes-Drielsma: "I would urge the U.N. to take the high moral ground and instigate a truly independent investigation."

 

To this end, he wrote a second letter to the U.N. secretariat on Feb. 1, this time addressed to Hans Correll, Under Secretary for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel of the U.N., with a copy to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He catalogs questions on areas "which need urgent investigation," e.g. "Why did the U.N. approve oil contracts to non-end users?" His letter alleges that "not less than 10% was added to the value of all invoices to provide cash to Saddam . . . why was this not identified and prevented?" The letter also asks "What controls were in place to monitor BNP [the French bank] who handled the bulk of the LCs, the total value of which may have [been] in the region of $47 billion?"

 

In a June 2000 statement on Oil-for-Food, Mr. Sevan said, "As [Mr. Annan] put it recently, we, as international civil servants, take our marching orders from the Security Council." It might have been more accurate to acknowledge the U.N. took its marching orders from Saddam.

 

Gee, I wonder why France didn't like our invasion!

[tele_nut]

Do you actually believe that we will allow a democratic government in post-war Iraq? I'm not an expert in Iraqi politics, but I would guess their FIRST priorities would be to evict the U.S. military and nationalize all oil industry infrastructure in the country and they'd likley be for Islamic rule and suppression of minority sects like Sunni's and Kurds. I have a hard time believing that "democracy" is what were after -- if by that you mean "one man, one vote."

 

No disrespect, but you're way off on this one. The majority of commoners as well as clerics would prefer for the US to stay put for the time being. This is verified via opinion poll right here in Iraq. The oil industry will be a commodity that will not be nationalized. Private sector. Elections are being discussed again, but it's probably going to be an appointed council for the time being.

 

http://iraqcoalition.org/

 

There is currently not enough infrastructure in place to be able to allow the Iraqi's some of the more basic freedoms we associate with democracy. The Baath party was a secular party and the people here are not fanatical Muslims like most of you are not fanatical Crusading Christians.

 

There is only one major cleric in the south right now who opposes CPA's current plan to put a governing council in place. After the Iraqi's are in a better position to control their own security and basic functions there will be a lessening of US control. Already in Baghdad there is less and less of a military presence and the current deployment plan is for 1st CAV to patrol only in soft vehicles.

 

If the Shiites tried to suppress the Kurds they would be slaughtered by a much more capable ethnic group. No one wants to mess with those guys anymore. Everyone here hates the Sunni's.

 

I really honestly believe that what I am reading here reflects more on what you are all being led to believe by liberal/right wing news sources than by actual facts and events.

[erf]

We went there for the WMD, but we could not find any!

 

... bait and switch ...

 

We went there to give them democracy but "they were not ready for it" (read "they would have elected the wrong guy")

 

What next?

 

Note: From the get go we were told this would happen. Why did not we listen?

[Rodchester]

ERF:

 

Well, one of Bush's stated goal/intentions at the very beginning, and that has always stayed roughly the same, has been to eventually bring some form of democracy to Iraq. The fact that this goal has been stated, and continues to be stated, has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone for that matter, is a supporter of the war or of Bush. It is a fact that it is the Administration’s stated intention. Now, whether or not it succeeds or whether or not that was just a lie remains to be seen. I cannot understand how you extrapolate that this makes me a Bush cheerleader. I take it this is a politically partisan discussion for you?

 

MattP:

 

Oddly enough, this is a point that the NeoCons and the Left generally agree upon: Democracies don't fight each other. History demonstrates that this is generally correct. Do I believe they will allow a democracy? Yes, I think they'll try. It is cheaper and easier to manage a region in peace than it is in its present state.

 

Of course it SHOULD be a democracy with some form of a guarantee of individual rights (i.e. Bill of Rights). Though I think it will take a considerable amount of time and it will likely not look much like a Jeffersonian democracy. Look at what the Kurds in the north did prior to the invasion.

 

Keep in mind we in the USA have existed under at least four governments (the crown, The Continental Congress, the Articles, and Constitution) before we got it right. And even then we still had that thing called the civil war some 70+ years into the constitution.

 

Making an assumption that they don't want democracy based on the actions of the reactionary right wing in Iraq is a bankrupt assumption. (not saying you're saying that MattP, just a statement).

 

I'm not so sure I'd bank on the Islamic rule thing (although clearly a possibility). Iraq has a long and rich history (and sometimes troubled) of being secular. While the Shites are getting huge pressure from Persia (Iran), they are not Persian Shites, they are Arabic Shites. They speak a different language, and have a separate (though related) heritage. They are distrusting of the USA, but hey are distrusting of everyone. They've been screwed so long it only makes sense.

 

Events in Iran could greatly effect the Iraqi Shites. This remains to be seen, but it is clear that MANY in Iran are pushing for more democracy, not less.

 

All that said, I think it is going to be a difficult road with a good possibility of failure. Remember, Germany failed when it elected a nightmare who proceeded to take away individual rights, disarm the masses and then sack the judiciary before he unleashed hell upon the world.

 

I will comment that I believe that the potential good is outweighed by the potential bad. Is it worth the risk? I don’t know. We’ll find out in about 25 years. I’ll be REALLY old then.

 

Can I still post on cc.com when I’m too old to climb?