Half of America is Wrong

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
Kraut said:
One of the major war-arguments came from the german intelligence service (the infamouse mobile weapon labs) yet by January 2003 the BND revoked their assessment as they found out how unreliable their only! source was. But that didn't stopped the US in still using it as an argument at the UN in February, despite now knowing that it was based on nothing.
I do remember the German government's statements, that's why I didn't include them in my list above.
EDIT: Oh, and nobody ever said that Iraq was an immediate threat (except the USA), all that was speculated that there could be WMDs in Iraq, but I think most nations never though that even if there were WMDs in Iraq that there was ever a danger of them beeing used against the USA, even more unlikely was any 'immediate' threat.
I'd have to review the old newspaper articles etc. about that; based on my memory, I don't agree with your statement.

My memory is that UK also thought the threat was immediate, and France may have as well (obviously France thought that a different method of dealing with Iraq was appropriate).
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Richa333 said:
AP article via local newspaper reports the following, regards a country that did NOT choose to fight jihadis in foreign countries, instead prefers to fight them at home:
Rich,
There is no way that lone attack can be used to illustrate any of your points. The Dutch haven't somehow opened themselves to attack at "home" because they have refused to fight them "over there". This was a single murder - a hit squad if you will and does not equate to either a vindication of the "Bush Doctrine" or an indictment of the Dutch position either.

Richa333 said:
Fight 'em in Baghdad or Boston. But not fighting them is not an option.
You keep saying this! But I've never said,"Let's not fight them". Terrorists do need to be defeated. But my central arguement, which has never ever changed, is that the job in Afghanistan (where the 9/11 terrorists are) was never finished. We started a war on the flimsiest of excuses (that many within the government were already starting to question in Feb 2003) and we are now in CYA mode by lumping that operation into the war on terror.

And if you insist on including Iraq in the "War on Terror", then that shoots your whole Bush Doctrine in the foot. The terrorists in Iraq continue to operate, we have not impacted their infrastructure, we have not diminished their capability, and they are still receiving funding from somewhere. Obviously there are those who have not been frightened into submission by our display of military might.

And while we're on the subject, let's stop calling it the "Bush Doctrine". That name imparts far too much credibility to the half-formed plan to fight terrorism. Instead, let's start calling it, "Plan A" which I think is appropriate because Bush seems incapable of shifting to a "Plan B" when this one runs into problems.

We have to agree to disagree on Plan A, Rich! I just don't see it the same way you do.

Peace.

- Rick
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Richa333 said:
To my knowledge, no Iraqis attacked us/America. However way back just prior to the invasion of Iraq, ALL of the following publicly stated their belief that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US & allies:

--American government itself (naturally)
-- Including John Kerry, John Edwards, etc etc
--Russian government (with its own network of spies)
--UK government
--French government (but disagreed about "what to do")
--Major western newspapers with their own sources

The entire thrust of the Bush Doctrine is not necessarily to "get it right 100% of the time" as Rick would like. The idea is to change the mindset of the enemy (terrorists, governments & rich families that support them).

In the case of Iraq, the facts we NOW know are very heavily in favor of "America, UK, Russia, Germany, France & major western newspapers got it all wrong -- there were no WMDs in Iraq that threatened anybody."

However regards the Bush Doctrine, the Iraq invasion continues to play a very useful role. The overwhelming majority of the terror apparatus that had been "pointed" at the US ("Boston") is now pointed at Iraq ("Baghdad").

Also the Bush Doctrine & Bush's re-election demonstrates to terror-supporting governments that we (America & allies) really don't care about "getting it right 100% of the time." They have to be very worried, because we (Americans) have demonstrated our support for the Bush Doctrine - right or wrong, we're gonna kick some major butt if another government supports another attack on American soil. THAT is the point of the Bush Doctrine.
Or maybe it sends the message to the rest of the world that the US is willing to manufacture any evidence to support an attack on another soveriegn nation, even if that nation has never thought or attemted to attack America, THAT ,my friend, is how the Bush doctrine is seen by the rest of the world not commited to the Co-alition of the willing. Congrats on your stunning influence in the world!
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
The Doctor said:
It is Groundhog Day!!! ;) Stefan, we've been down this same road before. We would accept Iraqi warplanes over US airspace, no more than we would accept Luftwaffe aircraft over the USA after WWII.

We were enforcing the cease fire. Saddam Hussein was on 'probation' and he continually violated that probation.

Now I know you don't recognize the legality of the NFZs, but the USA and UK did.

It will always be a frame of reference issue here.
You are an absolute joke! You think because the Anglo/Saxon world accepts the NFZ that it is a law unto itself! The US cannot legally and arbitrarily inflict a no fly zone on another soveriegn nation. But this is what happened, and this is what was used, among others, to legitimise the invasion of Iraq. Please explain, and therefore understand, the terms of the ceasefire before coming out with this stuff.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
The Doctor said:
Now I know you don't recognize the legality of the NFZs, but the USA and UK did.

It will always be a frame of reference issue here.
But Doc, remember that the actions of other countries throughout history have always been viewed as "legal" by the country committing the act. Saddam's occupation of Kuwait was recognized by Iraq. It is certainly all about your frame of reference.

- Rick
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
purdyrc said:
But Doc, remember that the actions of other countries throughout history have always been viewed as "legal" by the country committing the act. Saddam's occupation of Kuwait was recognized by Iraq. It is certainly all about your frame of reference.

- Rick
And Rick, remember that the assumption of moral equivalency doesn't work:

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the USA are equally bad as nukes in the hands of the USSR.

A gun in the hand of a law abiding home owner is equally bad as a gun in the hand of a criminal.

The allied invasion of France in 1944 is equally bad as the Nazi invasion of France in 1944.

The Coalition invasion of Iraq in 1991 = the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Saddam's assumption of legality in retaking the lost province of Kuwait is equivalent to the US and UK assumption of legality in enforcing the cease fire through the NFZs.

I know you do not fall for the moral equivalency arguement, but many people do.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
The Doctor said:
And Rick, remember that the assumption of moral equivalency doesn't work:

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the USA are equally bad as nukes in the hands of the USSR.

A gun in the hand of a law abiding home owner is equally bad as a gun in the hand of a criminal.

The allied invasion of France in 1944 is equally bad as the Nazi invasion of France in 1944.

The Coalition invasion of Iraq in 1991 = the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Saddam's assumption of legality in retaking the lost province of Kuwait is equivalent to the US and UK assumption of legality in enforcing the cease fire through the NFZs.

I know you do not fall for the moral equivalency arguement, but many people do.
I definitely agree that none of these are morally equivalent, but my point was that morallity is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas we thought we were enforcing a UN mandate by establishing the no-fly zones, the rest of the world thought we were poking a dangerous dictator with a stick and potentially destabilizing the region and the security of the western (non Islamic) world. Frame of reference.

- Rick
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
We're going to have to leave this one here. While I don't think true morality is in the eye of the beholder - the concept of right and wrong is dependent on frame of reference.
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
The Doctor said:
We're going to have to leave this one here. While I don't think true morality is in the eye of the beholder - the concept of right and wrong is dependent on frame of reference.
You're right about morality. I think "right" or "wrong" was what I was after, but I didn't make that clear.

- Rick
 

MajorH

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
866
Reaction score
1
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
Temujin said:
Was just wondering when an Iraqi attacked the US?
It doesn't matter now. The thing that amazes me the most about these discussions is the continuation of arguments about whether the coalition should have gone into Iraq or not. The coalition is there. Why not move on to talking about what to do now?
 

MajorH

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
866
Reaction score
1
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
purdyrc said:
Re: Restoring Saddam to power - Of course not. How would you even begin to infer this from anything I've posted?
Just trying to find some common ground. We seem to agree that we should not immediately withdraw from Iraq and that Saddam should not be restored to power. That is a start. :)

So what coalition strategy do you propose for the next year or two in Iraq?
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
MajorH said:
Just trying to find some common ground. We seem to agree that we should not immediately withdraw from Iraq and that Saddam should not be restored to power. That is a start. :)

So what coalition strategy do you propose for the next year or two in Iraq?
I recommend that strategy that accomplishes our goals with a minimum loss of American life and money and that results in the Iraqis hailing America as its champion for generations to come.

But if that's too much to hope for, then I recommend offering concessions to our European allies to sweeten the deal for them in to help out in Iraq. Allow them to come in and rebuild Iraq. Pay France, Germany, and Russia the money owed them by Iraq, or at least allow them to collect through lucrative rebuilding contracts. The idea that they shouldn't share in the reward because they didn't share in the risk isn't working. Nothing is being rebuilt and we certainly aren't sharing in the reward (unless you count Haliburton - which has succeeded in convincing some people that they actually lost money last quarter despite a 900% increase in business since the start of the Iraq war). And besides, it's plenty risky in Iraq now. So if France, Germany, and Russia want to share in some of that risk in order to secure their reward, I say better late than never. And the shared suffering of the US and our allies may even draw us closer.

- Rick
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
purdyrc said:
I recommend that strategy that accomplishes our goals with a minimum loss of American life and money and that results in the Iraqis hailing America as its champion for generations to come.


- Rick
When did you turn into Don Rumsfeld? ;)
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
The Doctor said:
When did you turn into Don Rumsfeld? ;)
I ran into Rummy at the store. We were buying the exact same pair of rose-colored glasses. Quite a coincidence, huh? ;)

- Rick
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
This is too much fun...

Rick posted:
And if you insist on including Iraq in the "War on Terror", then that shoots your whole Bush Doctrine in the foot. The terrorists in Iraq continue to operate, we have not impacted their infrastructure, we have not diminished their capability, and they are still receiving funding from somewhere. Obviously there are those who have not been frightened into submission by our display of military might.
Ah, but my point is this: the terror infrastructure (what's left of it -- again, I don't think that insurgents & terrorists are the same: they're not) is now pointed almost exclusively at Iraq, none at America itself. THAT is the Bush Doctrine's point.


Temujuin posted:
Or maybe it sends the message to the rest of the world that the US is willing to manufacture any evidence...
I believe that you are correct: most in the world (& less than 1/2 in America) believe we "made it up." However as I posted above "we" made NOTHING up. Being wrong is different than deliberately lying. We were (probably, the desert's a big place & Saddam has hid entire weapons systems before in other countries) wrong ... not the same as lying.


MajorH posted:
So what coalition strategy do you propose for the next year or two in Iraq?
It almost (almost!) doesn't matter. The main idea is to draw what's left of the terror leaders' attention to Iraq & away from much of anything else.

It would certainly be a great bonus if the Iraqi government & security forces actually stood up after the elections. But that is ultimately their decision, not ours.
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
MajorH said:
It doesn't matter now. The thing that amazes me the most about these discussions is the continuation of arguments about whether the coalition should have gone into Iraq or not. The coalition is there. Why not move on to talking about what to do now?
When the self righteous admit it was a mistake and vote out the shitheads that caused this miss, or at least till people in forums stop stating that it is the truth.

Don't like your argument tho, why not nuke China then next day hold up your hands and say 'whooaa we stuffed up, anyway lets not discuss that, lets discuss what we are to do now'
 
Last edited:

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
Temujin said:
When the self righteous admit it was a mistake and vote out the shitheads that caused this miss, or at least till people in forums stop stating that it is the truth.
I do believe that the Moderators of this forum, have requested that (since the elections are done) we all cease & desist with the name calling. How about you start the "cease & desist" for the rest of us, kind of show us the way & all that?
Don't like your argument tho, why not nuke China then next day hold up your hands and say 'whooaa we stuffed up, anyway lets not discuss that, lets discuss what we are to do now'
Because there is no current government that is stating "China is an immediate threat," whereas there were dozens that so stated prior to Iraq invasion, based it's true on flawed intelligence -- however that was multiple flawed intelligence.

I think we're in a Military History forum, not a Peace Forum? I could be wrong, let me check the title ... no, we really are in the "Political" sub-forum of the Military History forums. OK, just checkin'. ;)
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
I must have accidently clicked on the subforum in the warmongers section.

Funny to see that you think peace has no room in a politics section. I thought that was one of the main goals of politics, i obviously know nothing.

PS, sorry bout the language, was having a bad day yesterday.
 

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Richa333 said:
I do believe that the Moderators of this forum, have requested that (since the elections are done) we all cease & desist with the name calling. How about you start the "cease & desist" for the rest of us, kind of show us the way & all that?
I don't think he was calling anyone here "shitheads" He was directing that at the people who 'caused this mess'. He was calling some self-righteous, which is probably valid.


Richa333 said:
I think we're in a Military History forum, not a Peace Forum? I could be wrong, let me check the title ... no, we really are in the "Political" sub-forum of the Military History forums. OK, just checkin'. ;)
Actually we are in the politics subforum of the current events forum - oh but that is part of the WAR :surprise: - forums. But remember war cannot be separated from peace and vice versa.
 
Top