Right wing justification for Iraq...

[Keith from Canada]

I've been scanning some of the right-wing articles as of late and I continually find arguments being made that the whole world was convinced that Iraq was storing-up and building WMD's. Funny, but I seem to recall that Canada's rationale for not going to war was that the US did not provide sufficient proof that the WMD's were there. I know for a fact that Canadian politicians, after the big debrief from Powell et. al. at the UN came away saying that the only responsible course of action, given a fundamental lack of intelligence proving otherwise, was to allow the inspectors to continue searching for WMD's before taking military action. The biggest piece of evidence came from British intelligence but, even at the time that the evidence was presented, it was commonly known to be false (apparently even US intelligence argued that their claims were untrue).

[JSE]

It's all clear now. "WWCD?"

JSE

[piece-it pete]

I've been scanning some of the right-wing articles as of late and I continually find arguments being made that the whole world was convinced that Iraq was storing-up and building WMD's. Funny, but I seem to recall that Canada's rationale for not going to war was that the US did not provide sufficient proof that the WMD's were there. I know for a fact that Canadian politicians, after the big debrief from Powell et. al. at the UN came away saying that the only responsible course of action, given a fundamental lack of intelligence proving otherwise, was to allow the inspectors to continue searching for WMD's before taking military action. The biggest piece of evidence came from British intelligence but, even at the time that the evidence was presented, it was commonly known to be false (apparently even US intelligence argued that their claims were untrue).

I've been meaning to post "Eating WMD crow" for a while now, as I was very vocal about it and somewhat wrong.

However, not only the President but also Congress was presented with the evidence and voted a go, including most of the libs (including Kerry) in that august body, so I figure it must have been pretty convincing, not to mention that the UN, Germany, and France all BELIEVED the butcher had them, per Saddams' own records, so I really don't feel all that bad about it.

All the good reasons for taking him out, and the fact it is a STUNNING success, ease the blow further.

Between Iraq and other things, like the Sudan, we (the US) are proving that we are NOT the Arabs' "natural" enemies, as taught to them by the haters in their society. This, is addressing the root causes in a way the Dems could never do. Except Blair .

When Canada (and most of Europe, for that matter) steps up to the plate and spends the same percentage of GNP is when they'll have a larger say, it sucks but it's the way it is.

'Till then (partic. Europe, it's a larger economy than the US now), if they don't walk the walk ....

So if you feel strongly about this, which you obviously do, I suggest you call your legislator and urge him/her to increase military spending.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Keith,

I don't mean to sound harsh, you're obviously a good guy who cares. I would say that's typical of the Canadians I've met (yes, a true compliment.).

It's that we get second guessed all the time, sometimes it IS frustrating. Keep in mind that we do basically police the world, at great cost, both financial and personal. The whole world benifits. We're not perfect, but really try to do our best, and don't WANT to hurt anyone unneccessarily. This is tough, and when we have to kill some people, or put our own boys (and girls) in harms' way we try to be careful.

So please consider this. Right now, if we don't do it, no one will.

Pete

[FLZapped]

I've been meaning to post "Eating WMD crow" for a while now, as I was very vocal about it and somewhat wrong.

However, not only the President but also Congress was presented with the evidence and voted a go, including most of the libs (including Kerry) in that august body, so I figure it must have been pretty convincing, not to mention that the UN, Germany, and France all BELIEVED the butcher had them, per Saddams' own records, so I really don't feel all that bad about it.

You can add Russia to that list plus President Clinton and General Tommy Franks as well.

-Bruce

[Justlisten2]

I've been scanning some of the right-wing articles as of late and I continually find arguments being made that the whole world was convinced that Iraq was storing-up and building WMD's. Funny, but I seem to recall that Canada's rationale for not going to war was that the US did not provide sufficient proof that the WMD's were there. I know for a fact that Canadian politicians, after the big debrief from Powell et. al. at the UN came away saying that the only responsible course of action, given a fundamental lack of intelligence proving otherwise, was to allow the inspectors to continue searching for WMD's before taking military action. The biggest piece of evidence came from British intelligence but, even at the time that the evidence was presented, it was commonly known to be false (apparently even US intelligence argued that their claims were untrue).

C'mon Keith, you know it was just a personal vendetta, cleaning up daddy's mess, don't you? You can't be that naive. Of course Canada doesn't have the financial gain to be made out of it that the US does, war is our top industry, so you probably wouldn't understand. War is business, plain and simple.

[skeptic]

It seems that Saddam Hussein's generals believed it. Each knew that his unit didn't have any but belived many other units did. Saddam Hussein may have believed it himself. Why otherwise would he have prevented inspectors from doing their job for so long and why would he have played a cat and mouse shell game if he had nothing to hide? Opening up for the inspectors would have ended the sanctions and allowed him to sell oil freely again. Just prior to the war, there were reports in the media that Israel advised that the WMD weapons were being moved to Syria. That is entirely possible. It is also possible that they are still burried in caves or the desert. Given the size of Iraq and the unwillingness of many of its top weapons scientists to talk openly, that is still possible. It is true that American intelligence was flawed not having enough "people on the ground." But in the closed society of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, better intelligence may not have been possible either and so they assumed the worst.

Nobody less than Vladimir Putin warned President Bush that Iraq was planning an attack on the US. Had he ignored the warning and such an attack taken place, there would most likely have been a military coup in the United States and he would have been assassinated. If you think it can't happen, read accounts of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when President Kennedy himself considered a coup a very real threat. Unpalatable as it was, a pre-emptive strike on Iraq regardless of the consequences was the only rational option he had. Nobody should discount the possiblity that further attacks on the US like the one on 9-11 or worse would result in the overthrow of our democratically elected government and its replacement with a dictatorship or quasi dictatorship run by the military. But overthrow or not, more attacks will result in a very different United States and however much you don't like the current one, its replacement will be far more ready to use force and far more dictatorial. They are not going to listen to appeasers and will strike down any and every perceived threat both internal and external with as much force as it takes. Not a pretty picture.

[dean_martin]

Nobody less than Vladimir Putin warned President Bush that Iraq was planning an attack on the US. Had he ignored the warning and such an attack taken place, there would most likely have been a military coup in the United States and he would have been assassinated. If you think it can't happen, read accounts of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when President Kennedy himself considered a coup a very real threat. Unpalatable as it was, a pre-emptive strike on Iraq regardless of the consequences was the only rational option he had. Nobody should discount the possiblity that further attacks on the US like the one on 9-11 or worse would result in the overthrow of our democratically elected government and its replacement with a dictatorship or quasi dictatorship run by the military. But overthrow or not, more attacks will result in a very different United States and however much you don't like the current one, its replacement will be far more ready to use force and far more dictatorial. They are not going to listen to appeasers and will strike down any and every perceived threat both internal and external with as much force as it takes. Not a pretty picture.

Are you saying that in addition to the belief that Iraq had WMDs, our President decided to invade Iraq because (1) he had information that Iraq was planning to attack the U.S. and (2) if he didn't act, the military under his command would have assassinated him and taken over upon an attack against the U.S.? Please explain the coup by our military, i.e., names of leaders, motivation, etc. Who are the THEY that are not going to listen to appeasers, etc.? Are you talking about our military? If you've already explained this then I apologize.

[piece-it pete]

People in the US and most of the western world have this illusion that we are permanent, somehow outside of history.

It is a bonafide miracle that democracy has survived, let alone flourished, in light of all human experience. Skeptic MAY be jumping the gun, maybe not!, but this is serious business.

All societies are only three meals away from revolution. Perhaps three major attacks? How much would it take for the henny-pennies that control so much of our republic to clamor for the sense of security that dictatorship (be it defacto or actual) gives?

Pete