http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=474598

What do you think? Saddam is barely arrested, and Mr. David Kay, after fruitless earch, returns to the US, only 40 of the original 1400 weapon searchers are still at work today. How comes?

Pressed to explain why his administration had asserted Saddam possessed weapons, when at best fragmentary evidence of programmes had been found, Mr Bush replied: "So what's the difference? "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," he said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.Good ol' Texas cowboy style: Shoot first, ask questions later! Or, in this case, just shoot and don't bother with the questions later. Only those who are not with us ask uncomfortable questions.

Opinion polls point to the strategy working. The US public has forgotten what it was being told every day only nine months ago about the "imminent threat" the former Iraqi leader posed to the US, while the capture of Saddam last Saturday had boosted the President's approval ratings to a healthy 60 per cent-plus.This is what it is all about, really. Bush & Co. simply have to provide more fresh BS, and the old BS will be completely forgotten by the public. And when the current BS starts to smell bad, even more fresh BS will be delivered, ad infinitum.

Pressed to explain why his administration had asserted Saddam possessed weapons, when at best fragmentary evidence of programmes had been found, Mr Bush replied: "So what's the difference? "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," he said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.
If this isn't a classic response, I don't know what is. "What's the difference?" ?? Most of the economically solvent countries in our world (and some that aren't) have WMD "systems" or at least the fixins' to be considered a potential threat to neighboring countries and the world at large. Since when do we wage war on countries that are, simply put, "dangerous"? "What's the difference?" I would love to see Bush stand before the UN and give that response to its members. The only excuse we haven't heard yet is the "bad seed" rationale. :rolleyes: But wait...(I'm sure that's next.)

The difference is that Iraq was a proven threat to its neighbors and was ordered by the UN to disarm.

BTA, I'm certainly not debating that point. It was hashed out ad nauseum here in the Alley and the arguments don't bear repeating now.

What gets me about the "What's the difference?" line is the assumption that Americans aren't supposed to remember - or, perhaps, CARE - that our national credibility was put at stake for the sake of weapons that have proved to be ephemeral. But I guess that credibility with other nations doesn't really matter once our "Imperial/Emperical Aspirations" have been achieved and there ARE no other nations for us to be concerned about. :(

Well it seems like the WMD's werent such a big issue after all. Atleast Bush II dont think so, now it seems that Saddam might have been able to create WMD's sometime in the future. Heck, I could maybe create a bunch of WMD's in the future. Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html?ex=1072774656&ei=1&en=edaa7b66df3a0191

Pressed to explain why his administration had asserted Saddam possessed weapons, when at best fragmentary evidence of programmes had been found, Mr Bush replied: "So what's the difference? "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," he said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.I consider that a tacit admission that this is a war of aggression.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I take the "What's the difference" comment in a different way than you seem to be.

You seem to take it as a comment of indifference over the situation because American's won't care about or won't remember the past statements.

To me it means what I have said in the past: It doesn't matter whether they currently had WMDs or not because they had the technology and ability to build them any time they wanted. They demonstrated their unwillingness to cooperate with the UN over their disamament.

So, what to do? I can think of three things in general:

1) Let them do as they please until the next time they decide to invade a neighbor, or perhaps give/sell their technology to our enemies.

2) Continue with the sanctions and inspections indefinitely, all the while causing great hardship to the Iraqi people.

3) Replace the government with one more cooperative, inflicting temporary hardship on the Iraqi people in the process, but hopefully providing a better Iraqi government for the Iraqi people and the world in the near future.

3 is my choice, though I believe most don't agree with me.

I think most believe 2 was the way to go, at least until Saddam died, hoping that his successor would be more compliant (though I'm not sure why one would think so). I would have been satisfied if my government chose this path since it was OK for 12 years, but I don't think it was really a "solution".

And I think there are many who believe 1 is the way to go, but I would never agree with them.

When having enough military power and ambitions, who needs a valid reason for war? :(

:bang: BTA, that's not the point! Getting rid of Saddam does not justify Bush lying about the reasons for going after him, and further more dismissing those who insist he answer for the case HE made. The fact that no WMD have been found and the ease with which we toppled Saddam's regime makes it screamingly clear that Saddam, though probably a danger to his middle-eastern neighbors and certainly a criminal, was never a danger to the United States. What's so wrong with holding the Bush administration accountable for it's own claims? "Sure that's what I said. So what? We all know he COULD have been dangerous." This is a respectable position the leader of the free world should take? Spare me!

We all know Saddam was evil, dangerous and had a black history. He needed to be taken out - no question. But that doesn't excuse the misrepresentation of motives. The end does not justify the means or the price we've paid.

This has now become a classic case of the boy who cried wolf. Our credibility is now shot. So now, in the future, when we really DO have concrete evidence that anothe nation poses an imenant threat, who in the world will believe us?

I don't believe the claim was that Iraq was directly dangerous to the US. It was however dangerous to allies of the US, which amounts to the same thing.

The claim was that the UN passed many resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq which Iraq would not cooperate with. A final, final resolution was passed, calling for "serious consequences" if Iraq did not immediately comply with all resolutions to date. Iraq still did not comply.

The US went to the UN in a very ham-handed way to get those "serious consequences" going, which made it almost impossible for certain countries to agree. The US understandably couldn't get UN approval, but many countries thought that it was still the right thing to do, so it was done without UN approval.

Note, however, it was not done without UN sanction, since there was never a call for the coalition to leave Iraq. In fact there was a resolution legitimizing the occupation.

So, bad, bad US, but well, we won't tell you to stop.

Death Rabbit -- well said.

We all know Saddam was evil, dangerous and had a black history. He needed to be taken out - no question. But that doesn't excuse the misrepresentation of motives. Why must it always be the US's responsibility and initiative to take these people out? Does this country truly wield the moral yardstick for the world at large?? Every country in the world must measure up to our version of morality? Where is it mandated that the US always leads the charge? I just don't see why this country ALWAYS has to try to assimilate other country's ideologies and political/economic systems into our own, in the guise of "making it better for all".

Why must it always be the US's responsibility and initiative to take these people out?Because the world makes it the US' responsibility. Just observe what happens when the US does not take part... recriminations galore!

I don't believe the claim was that Iraq was directly dangerous to the US. It was however dangerous to allies of the US, which amounts to the same thing.
Well, I can't resist. Did these allies ask the U.S. to invade Iraq? No, quite the opposite. So if The U.S. wasn't trying to protect itself, and was actually "helping" nations that didn't ask for the help, where's the justification now?

Edit: BTA, there's a difference between not helping when asked, and getting involved when not asked.

Just observe what happens when the US does not take part... "Taking part" is a little different. I have no problem with that...in a balanced multi-country initiative. What I was referring to is the need to lead the charge....almost like by divine order.

Well, who is asked to come to the rescue when things go wrong? It is American fighting men and women who are placed in the forefront of harm.

So, if a little preventive medicine now can save major surgery later, I'm all for it.

I realize I'm in the minority here and my opinions differ from yours, so I will once again shut up so that harmony may once again return to the Alley of Dangerous Angles :)

Harmony? Without us at each other's throats, it'd be no fun. :D

On the contrary BTA! It's the differing opinions that MAKE a debate and enjoyable reading....no matter how popular they be. If everyone had the same opinion here, it'd be pretty damn dull. :D (There's only so many times you can agree with someone.)

So, if a little preventive medicine now can save major surgery later, I'm all for it. Interesting analogy, BTA. Try mine.

If your doctor tells you that you will die of cancer if you don't have surgery to remove your arm, right now and without a second opinion, you would do it? And once your arm is off, and the nurses can't find a tumor or cancerous cells anywhere in your arm, the doctor tells you "What's the difference? You COULD develop cancer in that arm. You're better off. In fact, you should thank me."

I'm sure you would find that acceptable. :rolleyes:

Note, however, it was not done without UN sanction, since there was never a call for the coalition to leave Iraq. In fact there was a resolution legitimizing the occupation.

So, bad, bad US, but well, we won't tell you to stop. This is true. Not even the harshest anti-war people demand the immediate withdrawl of the occupation forces from Irag - because it would invite desaster. For no other reason.
Now, that the old regime has been ousted, civil war would be likely to ensue without a stabilizing presence. This most certainly doesnt legitimize the lies we have been fed.

The viewpoint of the people here is: We were against it, we were not heard, but the deed is done and now we must make the best of it. However, this does not ease the frustration and anger many feel.

DR - The better analogy is my arm has had cancer several times in the past and the doctors are worried that it will spread. Then yes, take my arm, please.

Yes - take your arm. Ignore the fact that you have no insurance and will be paying the expense out of pocket. Ignore the fact that other options (such as chemotherapy, exploratory surgery, asian remedies, etc.) could have been exhausted first, but weren't. Ignore the fact that nearly every one of the doctors colleagues thought his evidence was shotty at best and wanted more compelling evidence to be presented for a proper diagnosis. Ignore the fact that the doctor's ethics will forever be in question from here on out.

But by all means - hack away. Arms are overrated.

You're forgetting that all the other remedies were tried for 12 years and failed to keep the cancer from recurring.

You're forgetting that there were plenty of doctors who agreed with the diagnosis.

You're forgetting that I believe the doctor's ethics are just fine the way they are.

Edit:
Besides, hopefully I'll be getting a better replacement arm... after some pain and torment of course. :)

@Death Rabbit - *cough* straw man *cough*

Perhaps you're forgetting the cancer was dealt with back in 93, and there is no compelling proof the cancer ever came back. In fact, the doctor admitted there is no proof, despite his previous claims your arm was chock full of cancer.

Perhaps I feel it's wrong to call only 3 doctors "plenty."

Perhaps I'm wrong because I don't think our leaders should be given a blank check for the integrity of our nation's word. Perhaps it's wrong to request honesty from the government who is supposed to represent you.


Or, we can call people names like "straw man." Wny not throw in "traitor" and "Saddam-lover" in while your at it? It seems to be the "right" thing to do these days. Rock on, fellas.

That's where we differ in our opinion. I don't think the cancer was dealt with, it was merely beaten back a bit. It was always there threatening to resurge.

Also, I don't think anyone was dishonest, though of course we disagreee there too.

Try 49 doctors.

But as this is not really going anywhere, and I'm just repeating myself for the umpteenth time, I'll leave you to have the last word if you so wish.

Oh, Jack was calling your argument a straw man, not you...

Fine, we can agree to disagree and believe what we want. We both will anyway. Thanks for playing.

And I know what he meant, thanks. Insulting my point of view is the same as insulting me. But I'll try not to cry about it.

Did you know that cancerous cells replenish the telomere ends of DNA molecules that are normally reduced each and every time a cell undergoes mitosis?

Work THAT into your analogy...

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'Working with the cancer analogy- you think you may have had cancer at one point, but it went away, and now you're not sure, but you don't care if you have cancer; because you want to hack off that arm anyway and replace it with one from robo-cop, so you can rule with an iron fist, (I can't believe how well this analogy worked) while pretending that you aren't doing the same old things with the new arm that the old arm did.

All other means were far from exhausted, the only things they really tried were resolutions and sanctions, that is two other things, and handled badly anyway. I think right now that the US Admin is more of a threat to the neighbouring countries of Iraq than Iraq ever was.

New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.That's an editorial. ie. Somebody's opinion. That's no more valid than any of the arguments presented here.

I think right now that the US Admin is more of a threat to the neighbouring countries of Iraq than Iraq ever was.The US never tested Biological and Chemical weapons on the Iraqis. The US never committed greivous harm to the Iraqi economy simply because we were having a bout of insanity. If anything, we're trying to rebuild Iraq. Oh, and if you call the nation-building skills of the US into doubt, look at Japan and Germany.

Working with the cancer analogy- you think you may have had cancer at one point, but it went away, and now you're not sure, but you don't care if you have cancerThat's the point, the cancer never truly went away. It was merely in remission.

That's the point, the cancer never truly went away. It was merely in remission. I agree. However (and this is the last point I'll make on this before I cancer myself silly) what I have a problem with is that it appears our doctor knew damn well the cancer was in remission, but instead insisted the arm was crawling with tumors. Surgery has to happen now, and no it can't wait. But what do we find when we look? - No cancer. I'm simply asking, "So, where are all the damn tumors you promised?" And the Doctor is simply saying "Cancer, no cancer - what's the difference?" Sorry, but that bothers me.

We can let the cancer analogy die now I think. :)

We are back to arguing the same things again. That Saddam used chemical weapons was fine with the US while he was fighting Iran. In fact we sold him some of the chemical WMD that he used in the Iraq/Iran war. Also, let's not forget that while we were asking our allies not to sell weapons to the Iranians, guess who was? I can still remember Ronald Reagan, another prez who had no regard for the truth saying, "I don't seem to recall that."

So the US sold weapons to both sides, not really caring who received them or who was using them on whom. Now, there's all this crying over the Kurdish population that their old buddy Saddam used them on. But that's a good plan - sell weapons to a "friend," then attack him for using them. Makes sense to me!

[ December 20, 2003, 07:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Just to be clear to everyone (BTA already pointed this out, but...) my use of the term "straw man" was not name calling directed at Death Rabbit, but a reference to the straw man fallacy (http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson9.html) that I felt DR was guilty of commiting.

DR, you can complain that "Insulting my point of view is the same as insulting me", but that is nonsense. I called you on a logical fallacy.

Is that against the rules?

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate...