103 replies to this topic

[Ogami]

Norville wrote:

Now, Ogami, since Saddam was hardly the only atrocity-freak, there are a lot of other miserable countries under terrible leadership. Don't we need to go after all of those, too? Just a thought (and said pretty sarcastically, so don't lecture me about how difficult it would be to take out, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and, well, numerous others)...

Iran - Didn't every one of Bush's critics unanimously declare it was a mistake to put Iran in the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan - Our relationship seems extremely good considering the hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism going on there. Shouldn't Bush be congratulated for using diplomacy to work with General Musharaff instead? Isn't that what Democrats want? First Bush is a villain for invading everywhere and turning "the world" against us, now you complain he hasn't invaded enough? Which is it?

Saudi Arabia - I think it should be obvious there's been a lot of secret diplomacy on what precisely we "have" on the Saudis, they know it and we know it.

And Norville, have you intellectually considered the ramifications on the Islamic world of America occupying Mecca? Are you serious?

Norville, you've greatly lowered my estimation of the opposition if these are serious complaints that we haven't "invaded" these other countries. I can picture Bush planting Old Glory right on Pilgrimage square, and shipping the black stone of Islam off to Crawford! Yeah, that would go over real well.  

-Ogami

[Shaun]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 02:48 PM, said:

Blair is an honest and decent man.

That statement does not compute.

Quote

is critics are simply crass opportunists who didn't care and still wouldn't care if Saddam was filling those mass graves to this day.

How dare you suggest I or other critics don't care.

Once again you make a blanket assumption without evidence. I detest what Saddam and his henchmen did to his people. Even 1 death at his hands was 1 death too many.

What I object to is Blair stating as absolute fact that 400,000 bodies have been found when that is clearly untrue.

You still haven't answered CH's question BTW. What evidence do you have that the 45 minute claim was valid.

[Ogami]

Cyberhippie wrote:

When did the pacifists take every claim made by Saddam as a absolutely true? Do you have any evidence for this statement?

Did you miss the tens of millions of protesters in Europe leading up to Gulf War II? At every turn, as Powell and Iraq's representatives faced off at the UN, the protesters took the side of the dictator, and instantly dismissed any claims made by us.

The protesters may have a convenient memory, I remember the stance they took, and still take. The side of the dictator.

-Ogami

[Anakam]

I'm gonna regret this, but....

Quote

Ogami:
Where was a single one of these protesters during Saddam's reign, protesting his abuses and murders? They were silent.

... either that or they didn't know any 'unbiased' Democratic journalists.  

I mean, how can ANY of us here lay claim to knowing what all the protesters were doing during Hussein's entire reign?  If one of you is the CIA or FBI director or equivalent please speak up.

Quote

CH:
Did you notice they weren't carryng 'We   Saddam' banners?

Oh, the horror!  The horror of more than two perspectives....

Or is it just the horror of more than one perspective?  I've lost track.

(BTW, CH, that mental image is just *wrong*!)

And thank you CJ AEGIS for bringing some logical and sane explanation for what happened to this... goodness forbid a leader make an *honest* mistake one of these years.  My goodness.  

This post brought to you by my lack of membership in any political party.  Thank you and have a nice day.

[Godeskian]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 04:51 PM, said:

The protesters may have a convenient memory, I remember the stance they took, and still take. The side of the dictator.

no, they took the side against war.

There is a difference.

And what's more i'd appreciate it if you stop telling people i support Saddam, because that's simply a lie. You see, i objected to the war too, but strangely enough, I don't support Saddam.

About that 45 minute claim that you still aren't answering? you know, the one vigorously put forward by my 'honest' prime minister? the one who has (as posted at the top of this thread) already admitted he was wrong about the graves data

[Ogami]

Shaun wrote:

What I object to is Blair stating as absolute fact that 400,000 bodies have been found when that is clearly untrue.

You still haven't answered CH's question BTW. What evidence do you have that the 45 minute claim was valid.

I think he looks honest. Blair seems to be on the level. Is that enough, you might ask? Well then I consider the nature of the opposition:

Saddam Hussein, Al Queda, Bin Laden, peace activists, socialists, anarchists, and the rest of the anti-capitalist/anti-democracy types who show up at "peaceful" protests.

I'll take Blair's word any day over such people.

-Ogami

[Drew]

Cyberhippie, on Jul 23 2004, 09:44 AM, said:

I'm not talking about the American case for war, i'm talking about the British case for war.

Or can you tell me you have evidence that the 45 minute claim that Blair trumpeted was accurate?

It shouldn't surprise me that the media focuses on that single point of the Butler inquiry, while ignoring all the other points on which Blair (and Bush) was vindicated.  

[Drew]

prolog, on Jul 23 2004, 10:17 AM, said:

I agree with Norville.  Why, if we were after Hussein for his atrocities, are we not invading Sudan with its government-sponsored militias genociding the hell out of the country's population?

Once again, France won't even allow UN sanctions.

But this is a distracting argument. I don't believe for one minute that the people complaining about our war in Iraq would fully embrace a military action in Sudan.

[Drew]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 10:51 AM, said:

Did you miss the tens of millions of protesters in Europe leading up to Gulf War II? At every turn, as Powell and Iraq's representatives faced off at the UN, the protesters took the side of the dictator, and instantly dismissed any claims made by us.

The protesters may have a convenient memory, I remember the stance they took, and still take. The side of the dictator.

The phrase "human shields" should ring a bell with some people.

[Ogami]

LOL Good point Drew. Yes, who could forget the "human shields", defending innocent Iraqis from the diabolical evil of Bush and Blair? (chuckle)

I still recall the disillusionment from various human shields, once they found out Saddam wanted to ship them to various missile batteries and bases to defend those.

What a shock to those idiot shields that Saddam was not the epitomy of peace and love and harmony. Some are still crestfallen...

-Ogami

[prolog]

Drew, on Jul 23 2004, 04:19 PM, said:

It shouldn't surprise me that the media focuses on that single point of the Butler inquiry, while ignoring all the other points on which Blair (and Bush) was vindicated.  

Well, why shouldn't they focus on it?  It was central to Blair's claims.  

[prolog]

Drew, on Jul 23 2004, 04:22 PM, said:

But this is a distracting argument. I don't believe for one minute that the people complaining about our war in Iraq would fully embrace a military action in Sudan.

Feel free.  But remember that not all of those who are against the war in Iraq are against all military action.

[Shaun]

Drew, on Jul 23 2004, 04:22 PM, said:

But this is a distracting argument. I don't believe for one minute that the people complaining about our war in Iraq would fully embrace a military action in Sudan.

That would be an incorrect assumption.


Ogami, 45 minutes, got an answer yet?

[Ogami]

Shaun wrote:

Ogami, 45 minutes, got an answer yet?

I thought I did answer that question. Blair was cleared of "sexing up" Iraq intelligence reports months ago. Given any gray area on truthfulness and honesty, I will choose Blair over screaming psycho protesters every time. That trust is earned, whereas the antiwar protesters have deeply suspect motives and agendas.

-Ogami

[Godeskian]

Ogami, on Jul 23 2004, 07:15 PM, said:

I thought I did answer that question. Blair was cleared of "sexing up" Iraq intelligence reports months ago.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/3892809.stm

Quote

The 45-minute claim

The claim that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was should not have been made in the government's weapons dossier without explaining what the claim referred to

MI6 now says the intelligence report on the claim "has come into question", with doubts cast about one of the links in the reporting chain

yes, that sounds like total vindication to me  

[Delvo]

There was one former Iraqi army officer who said his unit was shipped some "special weapons" that weren't precisely identified to him, but which he presumed to be RPG-based, which came with gas masks and instructions for use that sounded like the way you'd want to use a poisonous gas or germ dispersal weapon (zoom in close as a quick surprize on an unsuspecting enemy post, let them loose, and scram fast). He said nevermind 45 minutes, they could have been used in 30. But nobody knew where the boxes were, and I never heard of other people saying they had seen the same thing themselves. (We had a thread about this at Ex Isle.)

The more likely place to find quickly-deployable WMDs would be the places where rockets with empty canisters for warheads were found stored right next to barrels of pesticides and herbicides. Since the chemicals technically had other uses and technically weren't right inside the rockets, nobody counted these sites as discoveries of actual WMDs, but the reasons for this arrangement seem pretty obvious. The catch is that a means of transferring the chemicals into the rockets was not found on site, so no assessment can be made of how rapidly it could have been done.

So, no proof of the 45 minutes, but some support for it of subjective strength, and no real counterindication of it yet either.

But the real question about the 45 minutes is why people are acting like the fact that those particular weapons haven't been found yet equals proof that the claim was a lie. The other logical possibilities are that they were there but haven't been found yet, and that they weren't but intelligence sources had solid, sound reason to think so and the intelligence was good within the inherent limitations of what international intelligence is. Without being able to review the actual original intelligence that Blair was talking about to determine if the available information was credible and really supported such a claim or not, any claim that it was a lie is, itself, a lie of politcal convenience. It's like taking advantage of the fact that when we found WMD toxins in the rivers in Iraq there was no way to measure the amounts that had been dumped there, by saying that the numbers we thought they had must have been wrong or fictitious, just because we didn't have an exact amount to check them against now.

Wanting to see the intelligence and the methods by which it was gathered, in order to judge how reasonable it and Blair's summaries were, is valid, even given the fact that no real holes are actually apparent yet, as long as the request/demand is not accompanied by claims about intelligence holes that there's no evidence for yet. Just blathering about how all the intelligence must be either wrong or a pack of lies just because the exact menu of expected weapons wasn't wheeled out to us the day after the statue fell is dishonest and dirty.

[Ogami]

Cyberhippie wrote:

yes, that sounds like total vindication to me

And this matters why? 43 minutes, 47 and a half minutes, 2 hours, 10 minutes to WMD delivery. Blair's crime is that he didn't have ESP? What a ridiculous expectation.

Saddam was a recognized threat, as repeated UN resolutions state. He gassed entire villages, both in his country and Iran. He invaded two of his neighbors, which in itself is a rather unique accomplishment in this day and age.

Most people forget the man would still be in power today if he had simply cooperated with weapons inspectors and shown that he had nothing to hide. His machismo made him bluff that he had something to hide. We dug his stupid butt out of a hole as a result. Now that's Saddam's fault, not our intelligence, not Blair's, and not Bush's. Saddam bluffed the wrong bluff.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 23 July 2004 - 01:39 PM.

[Godeskian]

again from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/3892809.stm

Quote

The war decision

There was "no recent intelligence" to lead people to conclude Iraq was of more immediate concern than other countries, although its history prompted the view there needed to be a threat of force to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance

Was Saddam a viscious evil bastard? yes,
was he an immediate threat to the security of the US or the UK.

the report disagrees with you.

[Beldame]

Quote Ogami:
Saddam Hussein, Al Queda, Bin Laden, peace activists, socialists, anarchists, and the rest of the anti-capitalist/anti-democracy types who show up at "peaceful" protests.
I'll take Blair's word any day over such people.

Oooh, those evil socialists. You do know that Tony Blair is the leader of a socialist party....?

I supported the war. But I also support the right of those who disagree to protest without being classed as screaming psychos, called anti-democratic or lumped in with Sadam or Osama Bin Laden. They stood up for what they believed in and they should be proud of it.

I'm also inclined to give Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt that he belived he was doing the best thing. But that does not mean I don't want answers about our dodgy intelligence and how it was manipulated or how we were manipulated.

[Ogami]

Cyberhippie wrote:

There was "no recent intelligence" to lead people to conclude Iraq was of more immediate concern than other countries, although its history prompted the view there needed to be a threat of force to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance

I love that line, Cyberhippie. We've distilled and crystalized the debate with that above sentence.

One of the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission report yesterday was that our leaders (that's Blair and Bush) need to be "creative" in anticipating threats in the war on terror. Be pro-active, anticipate possible troublespots and troublemakers, and deal accordingly.

Acting pre-emptively is a crime. Not acting pre-emptively is also a crime, we're now told.

What should Bush and Blair do when faced with such contradictory criticism? That's easy: lead as they have been.

And as for those who felt it was wrong to drag Saddam out of that spider hole, we'll see you at the elections.  

-Ogami