Support NeoGAF

[JoshuaJSlone]

Excuse my ignorance but what is Kerry going to do different than Bush if he is elected?

Not get into situations like this in the first place?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Is there 100% proof that he lied an altered information to get into war? Sorry I dont follow politics and GAF is the most exposure I get of it(sad but true).

If there was a democratic majority in the house and/or senate then probably so.

 

[Guileless]

It depends on what you mean by altering information. The Bush Admininstration definitely selectively presented known information, in the fashion that a prosecutor would do so. It's obvious that they had the preconceived notion that Saddam had such weapons, and then used what scant information there was to reinforce that notion.

However, every intelligence agency in the world shared that assumption--not only was it reasonable, it was hard to argue against it. The problems were that 1) it's damn near impossible to get good intelligence in a Stalinist police state, and 2) Saddam had ended UN inspections until a massive army began gathering at his borders.

The problem in the original assumption is that while it seemed reasonable to most of us, we can't really understand how a meglomaniacal dictator thinks or why he does what he does.

 

[Incognito]

Even though I don't agree with the war, more soldiers need to be there to clean up this administration's mess.

Sad, but true. We need all the help we can get. Pulling out, imo, is simply not an option.

 

[Saturnman]

However, every intelligence agency in the world shared that assumption--not only was it reasonable, it was hard to argue against it. The problems were that 1) it's damn near impossible to get good intelligence in a Stalinist police state, and 2) Saddam had ended UN inspections until a massive army began gathering at his borders.

I wouldn't even go that far as the CIA didn't seem to have that evidence at first and pieced together bits and pieces from intelligence agencies abroad that would support that case while putting aside info that would cast it into doubt.

 

[videogamer]

I hope they get punished hard

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I hope they get punished hard

Why? Becasue they don't want go into a f--ked situation after being out to the military for years? I wish more people that are gung-ho about the situation would stop bitching about those who don't want to go and sign up for them.

 

[videogamer]

Why? Becasue they don't want go into a f--ked situation after being out to the military for years? I wish more people that are gung-ho about the situation would stop bitching about those who don't want to go and sign up for them.

Oh no. If they get punished hard, maybe they will resent the situation more. Then they can provide negative commentary on the Iraq War that the rest of us can use.

 

[Guileless]

You're missing my point Saturnman. Nobody definitively knew what Saddam had because of the conditions I noted. The best guess of every intelligence agency in the world was that he had the weapons. An educated guess, based on fragmentary information, was the best anyone outside of Iraq could do.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

But that seems to contridict the investigation of the UN who was on the ground and was doing daily inspections. Everyone points to the IA to say that at the time the WMDs were there but, no one points to the UN, who was on the ground, that was leading to the conclusion that they weren't there.

Oh no. If they get punished hard, maybe they will resent the situation more. Then they can provide negative commentary on the Iraq War that the rest of us can use.

If they are punished the don't go to war, they go to jail.

 

[videogamer]

If they are punished the don't go to war, they go to jail.

Bah, maybe they will be reliable voters after they get out of jail.

 

[RiZ III]

Heh we should all adopt a Spartan kingship body, have two kings - one goes out to fight a war, the other stays home just in case the other dies.

Send Cheney to war!

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Bah, maybe they will be reliable voters after they get out of jail.

They lose their right to vote. Just like most felons.

 

[Guileless]

Here's what Hans Blix told to Jim Lehrer last March:
____________________________________________________________________
"JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time (before the war) that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found?

HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we...there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error."
______________________________________________________________
We know now it was error. At the time though, it was reasonable to think that the weapons existed.

 

[videogamer]

They lose their right to vote. Just like most felons.

That sucks. They are better off increasing the body count in Iraq then.

Desertation is considered a felony?

 

[Saturnman]

You're missing my point Saturnman. Nobody definitively knew what Saddam had because of the conditions I noted. The best guess of every intelligence agency in the world was that he had the weapons. An educated guess, based on fragmentary information, was the best anyone outside of Iraq could do.

I'm not disputing the lack of info, I'm arguing that the methodology was either flawed or slanted. It seems to me they took a bunch of educated guesses and just assumed it was so. At one point, you have to ask yourself what you really know. A lot is at stakes.

Considering chasing terrorists or finding WMD's wasn't really the main aim of the war, I find blaming the intelligence agencies is really deflecting where the blame really lies.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

It's punishable by death so I would say yes.

 

[videogamer]

It's a logical error to "equate unaccounted for with existing." That error should have been avoided at any time.

 

[BlackMage]

Man.. that is real shitty. I hope the draft never happens because I wouldn't ever want to be put in this situation.

 

[Guileless]

I'm not disputing the lack of info, I'm arguing that the methodology was either flawed or slanted. It seems to me they took a bunch of educated guesses and just assumed it was so.

I said that in my original post: the Bush Administration, before looking at any of the intelligence, began working from the assumption that Iraq had the weapons. My point is that such an assumption was reasonable, based on Iraqi behavior to that point. And since the available intelligence was ambiguous, they never abandoned that assumption. They also reasonably believed that the intelligence would never get substantially better.

Considering chasing terrorists or finding WMD's wasn't really the main aim of the war, I find blaming the intelligence agencies is really deflecting where the blame really lies

What was the real aim? Please don't say oil.

 

[MrAngryFace]

I would have been a lot more at ease with the whole thing if Bush simply said, hey saddams and evil fuck thats terrorizing his populace, lets get the worlds help in ending it.

Not this fucking chicken chase fueled at the expense of 9/11. I just want some damned fucking honesty.

 

[Saturnman]

What was the real aim? Please don't say oil.

From what I understand, it was a convergence of aims actually. And yes, it has a lot to do with oil (denying it would be naive) though not how it is usually portrayed:


- Prevent Iraq from switching from $ to Euros.

- Eliminate a security threat to Israel and be able to get concessions from the Israelis in an eventual Palestine-Israel peace treaty.

- Control the second largest oil reserve in the world and gain economical leverage against a certain oil-dependent superpower to be...

- With increasing demand and stagnating supplies, abolish embargo and better exploit Iraq's vast oil reserves in the hopes of lowering/stabilizing oil prices.

- Leave unstable/hostile Saudi Arabia and move troops/bases to a neutralized, friendly Iraq, maintaining ability to police the Gulf region and possibly plan operations against other countries in the region in the future.

Had enough?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Bottom line is every war is about control of resources.

 

[Guileless]

Had enough?

No, I have not. You posted conclusions "from what you understand" but you have not made a coherent, persuasive argument as to why they are true.

The conflict was about oil in the sense that the entire world has a major stake in a reliable oil supply, which was threatened by a dictator with a fondness for invading his oil-rich neighbors. In addition, most dictators are militarily harmless because their inefficient misgovernance leads to a poor economy and poor army. Saddam was an exception because no matter how badly he governed his country and ran the economy into the ground, abundant oil reserves meant that he had a reliable source of revenue with which to buy weapons.

 

[Drensch]

I think soldiers are taking a cue from the "commander in chief" he did the same thing to save his ass.

 

[videogamer]

No, I have not. You posted conclusions "from what you understand" but you have not made a coherent, persuasive argument as to why they are true.

The conflict was about oil in the sense that the entire world has a major stake in a reliable oil supply, which was threatened by a dictator with a fondness for invading his oil-rich neighbors. In addition, most dictators are militarily harmless because their inefficient misgovernance leads to a poor economy and poor army. Saddam was an exception because no matter how badly he governed his country and ran the economy into the ground, abundant oil reserves meant that he had a reliable source of revenue with which to buy weapons.

Fondness? He invaded two countries and that occured well over 10 years ago. If anything, his "fondness" had gone into remission.

 

[Saturnman]

You're joking, right? While Saddam and his inner circle lived luxurious lives in big palaces, the Iraqi army was a shadow of its former self, with the embargo effectively limiting the amount of weapons he could buy. Even before the war, the Pentagon admitted Saddam's forces were weaker than in 1991 while the US had grown stronger.

The points I made show it serves America's long-term strategic interest, all in a single and relatively weak target. But the problem is that they knew they couldn't sell it to the public, too complicated, so they needed something simple to sell and rally people behind and that was the WMD case, tying it all to the war on terror.

 

[DarienA]

Unaccounted for anthrax etc? How about we take a tally of our own nuclear arsenal? Don't be surprise if a few are "unaccounted" for.

 

[Saturnman]

Fondness? He invaded two countries and that occured well over 10 years ago. If anything, his "fondness" had gone into remission.

The first was with the full-blown blessing of the US (direct weapons sales and sharing of intelligence) and the second was with Saddam mistakingly thinking he had US approval.

What matters is really the first one as the US was complicit to the agression so it is highly hypocritical for America to turn around and wage war on Iraq using the argument that he invaded his neighbours.

 

[Guileless]

Still, I'm not persuaded without evidence and reasoning. "Prevent Iraq from switching from $ to Euros." What is that? Why do you think it was a greater consideration for going to war than WMD? How did you come to think this? Can you persuade me that you're right?

An arms embargo has little effect on black market arms sales. People who would sell WMD-related material to Saddam on the black market are not people who obey arms embargoes.

Saddam did not leave Kuwait because the desire to occupy it went into remission, he left because he was forcibly removed. He continued to say that he considered Kuwait part of Iraq and to refer to Kuwaitis as dogs.

 

[videogamer]

Still, I'm not persuaded without evidence and reasoning. "Prevent Iraq from switching from $ to Euros." What is that? Why do you think it was a greater consideration for going to war than WMD? How did you come to think this? Can you persuade me that you're right?

An arms embargo has little effect on black market arms sales. People who would sell WMD-related material to Saddam on the black market are not people who obey arms embargoes.

Saddam did not leave Kuwait because the desire to occupy it went into remission, he left because he was forcibly removed. He continued to say that he considered Kuwait part of Iraq and to refer to Kuwaitis as dogs.

But did he do anything about it? Anyone knows that if Saddam attacked Kuwait again, Iraq would be totally owned by the world. I consider his saber ratting to be about face-- nothing more.

 

[Guileless]

I consider his saber ratting to be about face-- nothing more.

Well that's reasonable. But who knows what he really thought? Not you, or me, or the CIA, or the Bush administration. They had to act on limited information about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.

 

[videogamer]

Well that's reasonable. But who knows what he really thought? Not you, or me, or the CIA, or the Bush administration.

First you say that Saddam has a fondness for invading other countries even though it has been like 10 years, and then you say that no one really "knows what he really thought".

They had to act on limited information about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.

They didn't have to act on whatever information they had. They hyped it up so that they could legitamize their rush to war while ignoring the anti-war people. They didn't even bother letting Hans Blinx continue his investigations of the country... not that US is doing any better right now.

 

[Saturnman]

The 'currency' war is explained in several articles and essays. You can find many on Google and I can provide samples for you right here:

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/idss/Perspective/research_050310.htm

http://www.rense.com/general36/euro.htm

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3193


To put it very simply, the US owes a lot of its current prosperity to the dominance of the US $ in international trade. When OPEC started converting to the Euro, effectively demanding Euros for the oil it sells, this threatened the very prosperity the US currently relies on since WWII.

There are limits to what the US could do against this, but they could invade Iraq, an OPEC member, one with large oil reserves and possibly reverse the trend in that fashion, or at the very least delay its effects.

Now, this is one of the reasons for the war. I can not say if the US would have invaded Iraq just for that, but since other factors were in play, it made Iraq a more tempting target.

 

[Phoenix]

IMO his war was started with a lie... now that we know we should ship his ass over there to take personal command of some of those troops, and make sure to announce to the world that he's going over there to take personal command... if something happens... whoops....

Right, you'd be sending these guys to certain death. Bush is not a battlefield commander nor tactician the same with almost all politicians. This whole line of reasoning is stupid.

 

[Guileless]

Saturnman, those links aren't going to convince me. Do you have anything from a respected journalist or something from a peer-reviewed economics journal? If your theory is correct, surely either an eminent journalist or economist has figured this out and exposed it. If not, you're going to have to explain to me why only obscure internet nobodies have managed to figure out the great issue of our day. Because, honestly, it's hard for me to imagine how that could happen.

 

[Guileless]

egglplant, Saddam attacked 4 different countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel. That's 4 more countries than most world leaders. He certainly never apologized for it or tried to become respectable (like Qaddafi has recently). Maybe he was bullshitting, maybe he was not. You can convince yourself of either option, but nobody knew. Hell even his closest advisors probably didn't know what was going on in his head. That's my point. Nobody knew what he was going to do because he was crazy. He was a crazy person in charge of a large nation-state with copious oil reserves. It's reasonable to worry about that, especially when the crazy person has given numerous speeches about how he wants to attack the country you are in charge of. Especially in light of some other guy who openly talked about attacking the United States for years before he succeded in spectacular fashion.

(sorry for separate posts, technical difficulties)

 

[videogamer]

egglplant, Saddam attacked 4 different countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel. That's 4 more countries than most world leaders. He certainly never apologized for it or tried to become respectable (like Qaddafi has recently). Maybe he was bullshitting, maybe he was not. You can convince yourself of either option, but nobody knew. Hell even his closest advisors probably didn't know what was going on in his head. That's my point. Nobody knew what he was going to do because he was crazy. He was a crazy person in charge of a large nation-state with copious oil reserves. It's reasonable to worry about that, especially when the crazy person has given numerous speeches about how he wants to attack the country you are in charge of. Especially in light of some other guy who openly talked about attacking the United States for years before he succeded in spectacular fashion.

(sorry for separate posts, technical difficulties)

Didn't Iraq attack Saudi Arabia and Isreal during the Persian Gulf? They were with the US during the war, with Saudi Arabia having US troops. They were practically fair game during a war.

Kim Il Jong, China's leadership, Argentina's military during 80's, Iran's ayatollahs, and others have yet to apologize. Yet they have made threatening remarks and have been quite menacing to their neighbors, but apparently they get significantly less attention nowadays.

Again, the US did not have to attack immediately. They could have waited for Hans Blix to finish. Many Americans, without access to government intelligence, doubted that Iraq posed a credible threat to AMERICANS.

Again, if Saddam attacked Kuwait again, Iraq would be owned.

I'm going to repeat what I posted before:

First you say that Saddam has a fondness for invading other countries even though it has been like 10 years, and then you say that no one really "knows what he really thought".

And now you call him crazy. You know, most psychiatrists think that an up-close personal examination would be preferable to call him crazy. Of course, if he gets away from being charged with crimes because he's "crazy", then I'll take that back.

 

[Guileless]

eggplant, what is your point? My point is that nobody knew Saddam's true intentions, but given his track record, resources, and rhetoric he could reasonably be viewed as a threat. If you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt on every point--his intentions, capabilities, past history--then you can reach the conclusions you have apparently reached.

But not everybody gave him that benefit of the doubt. And why would you want to? What did he do to earn that degree of deference from you? The fact that he went a whole 10 years without attacking another country?

 

[videogamer]

eggplant, what is your point? My point is that nobody knew Saddam's true intentions, but given his track record, resources, and rhetoric he could reasonably be viewed as a threat. If you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt on every point--his intentions, capabilities, past history--then you can reach the conclusions you have apparently reached.

But not everybody gave him that benefit of the doubt. And why would you want to? What did he do to earn that degree of deference from you? The fact that he went a whole 10 years without attacking another country?

My point was to respond to your post saying that "The conflict was about oil in the sense that the entire world has a major stake in a reliable oil supply, which was threatened by a dictator with a fondness for invading his oil-rich neighbors". Then you got carried away and started to broach upon other topics. It's about balancing American's needs and resources and the Bush adminstration never pursuaded me with their faulty intelligence that the US NEEDED to spend its resources on Iraq. I never said anything about giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Guileless]

Things you said that give Saddam the benefit of the doubt:

"I consider his saber ratting to be about face-- nothing more."

"If anything, his "fondness" had gone into remission."

"(Saudi Arabia and Israel) were practically fair game during a war."

"Of course, if he gets away from being charged with crimes because he's "crazy", then I'll take that back."

 

[videogamer]

Things you said that give Saddam the benefit of the doubt:

"I consider his saber ratting to be about face-- nothing more."

"If anything, his "fondness" had gone into remission."

"(Saudi Arabia and Israel) were practically fair game during a war."

"Of course, if he gets away from being charged with crimes because he's "crazy", then I'll take that back."

I never said I was giving him the benefit of the doubt though. Sorry, I don't view Saddam as a 1-dimentional character.

1. Even you admit it is a pausible reason
2. see my reasons why I believe so
3. War is war... Saudi Arabia was helping the US and pulling Isreal into the conflict may have helped Iraq's position.
4. If someone is crazy, then they probably won't go to trial over it. Pinochet got away with his excuse of being a senile old man.

What does that have to do with him having a "fondness" for invading his neighbors? They occured in a relatively small time frame and two may have occured during the Iraq war.

 

[Triumph]

How's it going, Lemming?

 

[Saturnman]

Saturnman, those links aren't going to convince me. Do you have anything from a respected journalist or something from a peer-reviewed economics journal? If your theory is correct, surely either an eminent journalist or economist has figured this out and exposed it. If not, you're going to have to explain to me why only obscure internet nobodies have managed to figure out the great issue of our day. Because, honestly, it's hard for me to imagine how that could happen.

Can you consider an argument on its own or or does it only become valid depending on the person making it? And please tell me who is respected in your eye because because I may come up with mainstream articles that are too liberal for your tastes.

Remember, this is not the driving force behind the war, it's only one of many that is speculated on. How many times do I have to repeat that? If you have issues with that particular argument, can you at least tell me where it is wrong in its logic? This is a forum, right? It should be easy to shoot down if there are logical fallacies or if it assumes too many things.

P.S. Hi Lemun.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

egglplant, Saddam attacked 4 different countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel.

You forget to mention who was supporting Saddam when he was attacking Iran. He wasn't doing that all willy nill. I think you can nix that one from your list.

 

[Fatghost]

Even if Kerry is elected, how will the situation in Iraq improve? It isn't like Kerry can just remove every troop from Iraq.

 

[DarienA]

Even if Kerry is elected, how will the situation in Iraq improve? It isn't like Kerry can just remove every troop from Iraq.

Well right now it looks like Bush doesn't even have a friggin plan to bring things under control AND it seems like worldwide he's create alot of distance between himself and other leaders.. MAYBE a new US leader would be able to re-establish some of the relationships that have been strained by this whole fiasco and generate some support i.e. troops, etc....

that's a HUGE maybe BTW... but at least there's a chance there... while right now it doesn't look like there is any chance of Bush re-establishing those relationships... he's stepped on too many feet internationally IMO.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Can you consider an argument on its own or or does it only become valid depending on the person making it? And please tell me who is respected in your eye because because I may come up with mainstream articles that are too liberal for your tastes.

Not only that, but you're unbelievably selective in what you choose to acknowledge, i.e. what suits your argument. You still seem to wholly accept this administration's explanation for WMDs and nilitary action despite the paucity of information supporting that conclusion. So why doesn't it go both ways?

 

[Shogmaster]

Even though I don't agree with the war, more soldiers need to be there to clean up this administration's mess.

Sad, but true. We need all the help we can get. Pulling out, imo, is simply not an option.

True, but that certainly will be harder to accomplish with Bush in office. We desperately need the aid of other UN members to suppliment out effort in Iraq. No way in hell they'd even consider that wih Bush still in office.

With Kerry, we have better chance to get some major help for rebuilding Iraq. With Bush, we'd have to do that practically by ourselves.