Iraq...forgotten?

[CSpindizzy]

What of the other several hundred resolutions still out there? North Korea? Iran? I mean you now have NK sending nuclear and bio parts to Syria. Iran is waging a direct war in a small number against the US. US soldiers are dying due to Iranian citizens and their weapons. Not to mention the nuclear program that continues to grow while UN agencies play the same footsie they did with Iraq. Iraq had outdated parts and not even the beginnings of a program. Iran actually has functioning equipment and production proceeds.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

What of the other several hundred resolutions still out there? North Korea? Iran? I mean you now have NK sending nuclear and bio parts to Syria. Iran is waging a direct war in a small number against the US. US soldiers are dying due to Iranian citizens and their weapons. Not to mention the nuclear program that continues to grow while UN agencies play the same footsie they did with Iraq. Iraq had outdated parts and not even the beginnings of a program. Iran actually has functioning equipment and production proceeds.

Conscription?

:blink:

 

[CSpindizzy]

If we are to be consistent? Guess so. We can't be showing the world we enforce rules and UN resolutions but only with certain nations. Iraq gets overrun but Iran gets a pass and invite to speak. You know Saddam's downstairs thinking "Why didn't I get invited to Columbia to speak?" He'd be hiding with the homeless in the Bronx by now.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Once again you don't follow a post. Shocking. I didn't even bring up the "maroon" you reference but somehow, and I know this is hard to believe, but you assumed this is what I was referring to. News flash....my comment was all encompassing and even acknowledged those who actually served.

Being for the war means nothing. Since this whole war has shifted meanings and positions, it means the followers have had to dance around and redefine what they are in fact for. We were for ending a terrorist threat. Removing WMD's. Regime change. Enforcing the UN resolutions. Establishing democracy. Protecting democracy. Fighting terrorists that were not there originally. Etc. Etc. Given how events tend to go in cycles I can't wait to see what the next talking points are on how this event is somehow a good thing and we're realy there to (fill in the blank).

Oh, I was just kidding.

 

[therealUT]

What of the other several hundred resolutions still out there? North Korea? Iran? I mean you now have NK sending nuclear and bio parts to Syria. Iran is waging a direct war in a small number against the US. US soldiers are dying due to Iranian citizens and their weapons. Not to mention the nuclear program that continues to grow while UN agencies play the same footsie they did with Iraq. Iraq had outdated parts and not even the beginnings of a program. Iran actually has functioning equipment and production proceeds.

If we are to be consistent? Guess so. We can't be showing the world we enforce rules and UN resolutions but only with certain nations. Iraq gets overrun but Iran gets a pass and invite to speak. You know Saddam's downstairs thinking "Why didn't I get invited to Columbia to speak?" He'd be hiding with the homeless in the Bronx by now.

So, your stance appears to be "If you can't tackle every issue/problem, then don't tackle any?"

Sounds pretty reasonable...

 

[rwemyss]

The hope was to make an example of Iraq, showing that UN resolutions aren't as worthless as they have become... but with all the spineless people that have undermined that authority, it really hasn't worked.

It was well worth the attempt, in the name of making the US, as well as the rest of the world, a safer place.

 

[Plano Vol]

The hope was to make an example of Iraq, showing that UN resolutions aren't as worthless as they have become... but with all the spineless people that have undermined that authority, it really hasn't worked.

It was well worth the attempt, in the name of making the US, as well as the rest of the world, a safer place.

The rest of the world really has our backs on this, don't they?

Not snapping at you, just frustrated that the U.S. is basically the only enforcer for the U.N.

 

[rwemyss]

The rest of the world really has our backs on this, don't they?

Not snapping at you, just frustrated that the U.S. is basically the only enforcer for the U.N.

I totally agree. It seems that most governments would rather continue to allow the UN to be a sham.

 

[TennTradition]

The hope was to make an example of Iraq, showing that UN resolutions aren't as worthless as they have become... but with all the spineless people that have undermined that authority, it really hasn't worked.

It was well worth the attempt, in the name of making the US, as well as the rest of the world, a safer place.

I would really like to believe this. But, why make up the stuff about weapons of mass destruction if you have a legitimate reason to go in. Why lie to the UN if all you have in mind is the best interest of the enforcement of their resolutions?

I suppose one could say because the American public would not support going to war over something as small as a UN resolution - but I don't think this administration give a rats behind about UN resolutions either. I believe very firmly that this administration believed that Iraq was a real threat to our security - many, many people throughout the administration were obsessed with Iraq and Hussein.

But, they were not turning up very good evidence to back up their obsession carried over from the 1st gulf war. One man at CIA makes a good catch on the purchase of aluminum tubes and looks into it. His limited background in nuclear processing makes him think it could be used for centrifuges - and it is a heck of a connection, exactly what you pay your intelligence officers to see. But, then, practically every intelligence agency says that they are for conventional artillery, not nuclear processing - yet the administration ignores it. Flat out ignores it for the original, smart but too uninformed, assessment. I just can't help feeling very lied to - and it really p's me off.

It isn't so much that if you can't fix all the problems then fix none. But, Iraq was not breeding terrorists (yet, I will concede) as far as I have seen and they were not pursuing nuclear weapons with any sophistication whatsoever. North Korea was. Iran is. There are other places where our influence would address these threats than in Iraq. The money alone that has been spent on Iraq could have been gone towards helping Iran develop proliferation resistant nuclear technology and then clamping down on the distribution of non-proliferation-resistant products to take away that avenue for them.

We're in Iraq now, for better or worse. Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorists if we don't fix the problems that exist there now. I don't know how to fix it - I just hope to God that there are smarter people in our military who do have a clue how to fix it ... and I hope most of all that they are not lying to themselves as much as the government lied to itself and us in the first place.

 

[rwemyss]

I would really like to believe this. But, why make up the stuff about weapons of mass destruction if you have a legitimate reason to go in. Why lie to the UN if all you have in mind is the best interest of the enforcement of their resolutions?

It isn't lying when you believe it to be true... it was the whole reason the UN resolutions were drawn up in the first place. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians if there were WMD (which include bio and chemcial weapons) in Iraq. Sadly they could not be found.

I suppose one could say because the American public would not support going to war over something as small as a UN resolution - but I don't think this administration give a rats behind about UN resolutions either. I believe very firmly that this administration believed that Iraq was a real threat to our security - many, many people throughout the administration were obsessed with Iraq and Hussein.

This paragraph proves my point that the UN has become a worthless sham when we are talking about UN resolutions as being "a little thing".

But, they were not turning up very good evidence to back up their obsession carried over from the 1st gulf war. One man at CIA makes a good catch on the purchase of aluminum tubes and looks into it. His limited background in nuclear processing makes him think it could be used for centrifuges - and it is a heck of a connection, exactly what you pay your intelligence officers to see. But, then, practically every intelligence agency says that they are for conventional artillery, not nuclear processing - yet the administration ignores it. Flat out ignores it for the original, smart but too uninformed, assessment. I just can't help feeling very lied to - and it really p's me off.

But there was plenty of other evidence as well, such as the use of chemical and biological agents against the Iranians, and the Kurdish rebels. It is pretty hard to use those sorts of things if you don't HAVE them.

It isn't so much that if you can't fix all the problems then fix none. But, Iraq was not breeding terrorists (yet, I will concede) as far as I have seen and they were not pursuing nuclear weapons with any sophistication whatsoever. North Korea was. Iran is. There are other places where our influence would address these threats than in Iraq. The money alone that has been spent on Iraq could have been gone towards helping Iran develop proliferation resistant nuclear technology and then clamping down on the distribution of non-proliferation-resistant products to take away that avenue for them.

See the last answer. WMD isn't just nuclear. Although the refusal to allow international inspectors in your facilities was taken as admitting guilt. While I don't completely agree with that specific line of thinking... there are too many assumptions to it, the logic behind it is good. "You refuse inspections and to follow resolutions of a body which you are a member... you have to be hiding something."

We're in Iraq now, for better or worse. Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorists if we don't fix the problems that exist there now. I don't know how to fix it - I just hope to God that there are smarter people in our military who do have a clue how to fix it ... and I hope most of all that they are not lying to themselves as much as the government lied to itself and us in the first place.

Historically Iraq has, and will always be a breeding ground for islamic fundamentalists. We hadn't been dealing with them before because they were too busy either A)Fighting amongst themselves or B)Having one ethnic group reign above the other two with an iron fist.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So, your stance appears to be "If you can't tackle every issue/problem, then don't tackle any?"

Sounds pretty reasonable...

Not at all. Tackle the ones that are considered relevant to current events. Don't spread yourself out/thin on things that are not relevant to current events. Considering there was a group who attacked us on 9/11/01, our complete priority should have been this. Our undivided attention should have been to focus on this one event and the group responsible. What is the point in getting involved with an event that has no ties to this? Why involve a bulk of our forces on a nation when clearly there were several other priorities ahead of this?

I'm guessing getting distracted on a side show while allowing the main focus to rebuild, regroup, and refocus is more reasonable? And in the process subjecting yourself to other growing threats such as North Korea and Iran is more reasonable as well? I guess you're not a stickler for priorities?

 

[CSpindizzy]

The hope was to make an example of Iraq, showing that UN resolutions aren't as worthless as they have become... but with all the spineless people that have undermined that authority, it really hasn't worked.

It was well worth the attempt, in the name of making the US, as well as the rest of the world, a safer place.

If there was some thought on making the world safer, why not deal with the single threat that had attacked us? Why not keep a focus on that rather than get tied up with some side show? Clearly Saddam was contained. We had him bottled up and could have easily taken care of him any time we wanted to even with other means besides invading him. When the guy posed no immediate threat, why bother? Clearly if the focus was on an emerging weapons program, he was years behind the curve. If you need more reason we could have waited, see the garbage we use for excuses with Iran and North Korea. Both are and have been MUCH farther along than Iraq was (and we knew this) and yet we say "Iran is still a year, six months, etc. away" and thus we can still give diplomacy more time. Why in the comparisons did we not give an infant program more time but yet Iran and North Korea's fully developed programs are still seeing footsie games?

 

[TennTradition]

rwemyss...

I guess my basic feeling is that important people in the administration were so blinded by their fear and hatred of the Iraqi regime that they were willing to lie to themselves and accept only the arguments that fit into their view of what Iraq was.

Yes, they may have believed it, but if they were lying to themselves in the process, then I felt lied to as well. I was bringing up the nuclear points because I am much more well informed bout those than others. But, I have read information about the other aspects that bothers me. For example, the mobile bio-weapons labs we were so afraid of were based (as I recall) on reports from "witnesses" turned up by the Iraqi National Congress ... who themselves had such a vested interest in Sadam being removed it isn't even funny. The administration wanted to believe them, so they did - despite having no other credible sources that I have ever heard of (and of course, there could be sources I haven't heard of).

I know that the past existence of weapons of mass destruction is undeniable. I know that the administration likely felt that this was enough. Maybe they were right. But...the other stuff really seems like it was nothing but trumped up crap.

Oh well....it's probably not worth getting worked up again over. I feel crapped on because I was. Perhaps they thought the ends will justify the means, and perhaps they will be right - but right now it doesn't make me feel any better.

 

[allvol123]

I guess my basic feeling is that important people in the administration were so blinded by their fear and hatred of the Iraqi regime that they were willing to lie to themselves and accept only the arguments that fit into their view of what Iraq was.

Yes, they may have believed it, but if they were lying to themselves in the process, then I felt lied to as well. .

So when man made global warming is shown not to ever have occurred, this will mean all these scientists and their hangers on lied to us?

 

[therealUT]

Not at all. Tackle the ones that are considered relevant to current events. Don't spread yourself out/thin on things that are not relevant to current events. Considering there was a group who attacked us on 9/11/01, our complete priority should have been this. Our undivided attention should have been to focus on this one event and the group responsible. What is the point in getting involved with an event that has no ties to this? Why involve a bulk of our forces on a nation when clearly there were several other priorities ahead of this?

I'm guessing getting distracted on a side show while allowing the main focus to rebuild, regroup, and refocus is more reasonable? And in the process subjecting yourself to other growing threats such as North Korea and Iran is more reasonable as well? I guess you're not a stickler for priorities?

Priorities as of 03/2003:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea (aka, THE PAPER TIGER)

I believe that by having forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it actually reduces the threat posed by Iran...

 

[therealUT]

If there was some thought on making the world safer, why not deal with the single threat that had attacked us? Why not keep a focus on that rather than get tied up with some side show? Clearly Saddam was contained. We had him bottled up and could have easily taken care of him any time we wanted to even with other means besides invading him. When the guy posed no immediate threat, why bother? Clearly if the focus was on an emerging weapons program, he was years behind the curve. If you need more reason we could have waited, see the garbage we use for excuses with Iran and North Korea. Both are and have been MUCH farther along than Iraq was (and we knew this) and yet we say "Iran is still a year, six months, etc. away" and thus we can still give diplomacy more time. Why in the comparisons did we not give an infant program more time but yet Iran and North Korea's fully developed programs are still seeing footsie games?

You sure about that???

 

[TennTradition]

So when man made global warming is shown not to ever have occurred, this will mean all these scientists and their hangers on lied to us?

It could, depending on what evidence is uncovered later. My guess is if global warming does not occur, then it will mean that they missed some important details in the modeling.

Obviously, your point is that people make mistakes, particularly when they have a one-track mind. And, in that case, my answer is definitely yes. If scientists are failing to include factors that could decrease the effects on temperature of increased CO2 in the atmosphere because they are so focused on showing that global warming can happen - then I will be really miffed.

 

[allvol123]

There is a difference to me in a purposeful lie that is intended to fool someone and information presented that turns out to be false in the future. I don't feel like I have been lied to.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Priorities as of 03/2003:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea (aka, THE PAPER TIGER)

I believe that by having forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it actually reduces the threat posed by Iran...

Afghanistan - still there and a resurging Taliban. No bin Laden.

Iran - still breaking international agreements, resolutions, etc. Still supplying and training Hizbollah. Still building up a VERY viable weapons program. Somehow being on both sides of Iran has not really had a deterring effect. Somehow I don't see being around them has them quaking in their boots.

North Korea - paper tiger? Wow. Paper tigers are shipping equipment and know-how to other nations. Odd how Israel is bombing locations in Syria that have North Korean equipment and advisors. Paper tiger has a profound effect on proliferation of items we call a threat to humanity. Odd.

 

[TennTradition]

There is a difference to me in a purposeful lie that is intended to fool someone and information presented that turns out to be false in the future. I don't feel like I have been lied to.

You're right there is a difference. If the administration was truly provided with all the evidence, and that information logically believed them to the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction under production and a terrorist threat - then I would not feel lied to either. I would rather that be the case, without a doubt.

However, I don't think that is what happened. I think that more evidence pointed to no weapons of mass destruction evidence than to it. I strongly believe this to be true in the nuclear arena. The little evidence we had was told to the administration to be wrong (for example, aluminum tubes and Niger).

 

[allvol123]

You're right there is a difference. If the administration was truly provided with all the evidence, and that information logically believed them to the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction under production and a terrorist threat - then I would not feel lied to either. I would rather that be the case, without a doubt.

However, I don't think that is what happened. I think that more evidence pointed to no weapons of mass destruction evidence than to it. I strongly believe this to be true in the nuclear arena. The little evidence we had was told to the administration to be wrong (for example, aluminum tubes and Niger).

I am not necessarily defending anyone or anything here, but intelligence is what it is. It is information gleaned from sources that are on a sliding scale of believability. If it were handed over matter of factly, then it would not be so called "intelligence".

 

[rwemyss]

rwemyss...

I guess my basic feeling is that important people in the administration were so blinded by their fear and hatred of the Iraqi regime that they were willing to lie to themselves and accept only the arguments that fit into their view of what Iraq was.

Yes, they may have believed it, but if they were lying to themselves in the process, then I felt lied to as well. I was bringing up the nuclear points because I am much more well informed bout those than others. But, I have read information about the other aspects that bothers me. For example, the mobile bio-weapons labs we were so afraid of were based (as I recall) on reports from "witnesses" turned up by the Iraqi National Congress ... who themselves had such a vested interest in Sadam being removed it isn't even funny. The administration wanted to believe them, so they did - despite having no other credible sources that I have ever heard of (and of course, there could be sources I haven't heard of).

I know that the past existence of weapons of mass destruction is undeniable. I know that the administration likely felt that this was enough. Maybe they were right. But...the other stuff really seems like it was nothing but trumped up crap.

Oh well....it's probably not worth getting worked up again over. I feel crapped on because I was. Perhaps they thought the ends will justify the means, and perhaps they will be right - but right now it doesn't make me feel any better.

Well, like I said, I don't terribly agree with how it was handled, but my opinion is that it was/is important to show that when the UN makes a resolution it isn't just an idle threat.

Of course, the same argument can be made about how we handle things here at home. Making laws about citizenship and immigration, then not enforcing those laws... idle threats.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You sure about that???

So says our government....are you saying our government is lying to us? I mean the ability to produce large amounts of uranium is a developed program. The means to build bombs and load them with nuclear material capable of causing mass destruction is pretty deadly is it not? A program capable of launching missiles in very large distances is concerning. Shocking that both nations have programs that FAR surpass anything we knew Saddam was dreaming up. Odd how we invade nations, overthrow governments, and replace leaders we later kill who have a desire for a weapons program but yet the nations who not only HAVE said programs but are spreading the wealth around are given forums before the world and allowed to pursue said programs. What's even more concerning is that the nation that you say should be cowering in a corner because we surround them is IN FACT sending personnel and equipment to KILL OUR SOLDIERS.

It's quite odd that the bar set in 2003 was surrpassed by both nations then and are even BY FAR even more surpassed now. That same US President who set that bar has even allowed both nations to continue this process and even Iran has been allowed to in fact engage in combat operations against US forces.

All in the meantime we see Zawahiri and Osama making beautiful propaganda videos in high quality studios (at least Zawahiri is) while rebuilding al Qaeda to the level if not greater level than in 2002 as per our own government's comments.

 

[TennTradition]

I am not necessarily defending anyone or anything here, but intelligence is what it is. It is information gleaned from sources that are on a sliding scale of believability. If it were handed over matter of factly, then it would not be so called "intelligence".

While I'm upset that we don't have better intelligence, I'm not upset at the conclusions that were drawn by, say, the CIA in this case. You make the intelligence call based on the information at hand - despite how much you really wish you had better intelligence.

I am upset that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence from CIA, DIA, State, and Energy to meet the picture that they preferred for Iraq. I point back to the case of the aluminum tubes as a perfect example of listening to one agency's interpretation while ignoring another, more informed and knowledgeable group's conclusion.

 

[rwemyss]

While I'm upset that we don't have better intelligence, I'm not upset at the conclusions that were drawn by, say, the CIA in this case. You make the intelligence call based on the information at hand - despite how much you really wish you had better intelligence.

I am upset that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence from CIA, DIA, State, and Energy to meet the picture that they preferred for Iraq. I point back to the case of the aluminum tubes as a perfect example of listening to one agency's interpretation while ignoring another, more informed and knowledgeable group's conclusion.

It wasn't just the US admin. using this intelligence in such a manner though. There has to have been some sort of general consensus in the UN about it for them to have issued the resolutions.

Unless of course, you think we strong armed Britan, Russia, China, and France to "do what we say!"