CLICK HERE IF YOU SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION (*WARNING*GRAPHIC*)

[Wonk]

Say hi to Ali Abbas. Maybe you've seen him before.




Now say hi to Ali Hussein. You probably haven't seen him before.




Amazingly, he survived.




Some new toys make it all better?



A Tale Of Two Alis 148 M vp3 video

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/feature_150304.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.org /




Now tell me again how you rationalize the 10,000 some Iraqi civilians killed and countless others wounded like these poor children were.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1242161
The other thread on this that was locked due to not having *WARNING*GRAPHIC* in the subject line.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

1. Is this a Kerry slam???

Backhanded?? Hope not, time to unite against Shrub*

[specter]

4. Normally

with the amount of posts tells this

[Guaranteed]

73. No...Bush, of course.

Bush is bad. He started a war.

[HFishbine]

98. Should it be?

You tell us.

[jpgray]

2. As always, I hope you only supported Kucinich or Sharpton.

Otherwise this reeks of hypocrisy.

[Wonk]

7. Dean and Clark also spoke out against it. nt

[sangha]

8. And so did Kerry

just another example of selective memories

Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/quotes.html

[Wonk]

12. I'm not the one who turned this into a thread about candidates.

Notice which forum it's in? GD, not GD 2004. Notice my originating post? Not a single mention of any of this year's Dem candidates. This thread is directed at the supporters of the war and the apologists for the warmongers who are posting on DU.

[sangha]

14. No mention of anything in your OP

and who are these supporters of war on DU?

[For PaisAn]

19. Yes but in the end he sanctioned it.

Empty words.

[sangha]

48. So would you have preferred an invasion of the entire Mideast?

How strange that you are so eager to post the same argument several times in response to my posts, yet reluctant to answer this question

[For PaisAn]

65. I keep answering it but you're not listening.

You keep writing something that is incorrect.

Again,
Kerry voted to authorize invading "the entire Middle East". The IWR does NOT limit the invasion to only Iraq. Senator Byrd offered an amendment to limit the IWR to only Iraq and Kerry voted against Byrd's amendment. BTW, Byrd's amendment failed.

[sangha]

68. You keep ducking the question

IWR did not authorize an invasion of the entire ME as demonstrated by the fact that we didn't invade the entire ME.

Sen Byrd's amendment was voted down, and then Kerry and Daschle succeeded in getting from the Repukes in exchange for their votes.

You didn't like this deal, so you must have preferred that IWR was not limited to Iraq

[HFishbine]

100. "Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent"

This is the kind of head in the sand mentality that is only going to be confronted, apparently, when a response is necessary to RNC TV commercials that will rightly point out the falacy of this statement.

[sangh0]

128. More predictions?

I'm sorry, but so far all of the negative predictions regarding Kerry have proven to be false, so forgive me if I doubt your predictions

[Tennessee_tarheel]

11. Clark?

Which day of the week? He was all over the place like Kerry & Edwards.

[Crunchy Frog]

170. September 2002

Clark testified to Congress about the impending war, the likely costs and consequences of it (remarkably prescient), and about the importance of exhausting all diplomatic possibilities and having a strong international consensus before resorting to war.

Following Clark's testimony, Richard Perle had this to say about it:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

His position has been consistent all the way through.

[jpgray]

15. Under Biden/Lugar, Bush could have followed his exact same path

All Biden/Lugar required was a further UN resolution condemning Iraq, as the IWR asked for, to authorize war. That resolution (1441) was approved by the UN. Biden/Lugar still left the door open for unilateral invasion without ANY UN resolution, but as was the case with the IWR, that particular route wasn't necessary. The major difference between Biden/Lugar and the IWR was Biden/Lugar's definition of the authorization as limited exclusively to disarming Iraq. That, while an important difference, unfortunately would make no difference to the mutilated children whose pictures you posted on this board.

Bush up to this point has done nothing under the IWR that he could not have done under Biden/Lugar. Reading the two resolutions will tell you that much.

Clark praised the 'leadership' of Bush and Blair during a time when these injuries may well have been inflicted.

Kucinich above all has the moral high ground here. Dean and Clark, along with Kerry of course, show telltale signs of political posturing on the resolution. Kucinich just made the right decision. Next time you feel you should lecture me on morality, take a look at yourself.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

96. this is not a canidate thread! and wonk is absolutely right

[sangha]

3. I guess you forgot about the IWR vote

I guess you forgot about how shortly after the Bush* admin said that Bush* would have Congress vote on a resolution, 49 Repuke Senators, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman announced that they would vote in favor of the resolution SIGHT UNSEEN, giving it the 51 votes it needed to pass. This was the version of IWR that would have authorized an invasion of the ENTIRE Mideast and did not require Bush* to even TRY to get UN approval. Would you have preferred that version?

It was only because Dems like Kerry were willing to trade their votes in exchange for modifications to IWR that made it less loathsome that the original IWR didn't pass. Would you have preferred that these Dems all vote "No" and watch as a resolution that authorized an invasion of the ENTIRE Mideast pass with 51 votes?

IOW, there was no possibility of shutting it down. The idea is just another example of how some people's politics are based on flights of fancy and emotional appeals. That's why you can't make any argument other than a propogandistic "appeal to emotion"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

It's funny how you make the IWR vote the only important issue, yet you don't seem very familiar with the facts surrounding the vote.

[IronLionZion]

5. excellent point

don't slam Kerry now for his vote. At the time he did what in his heart was best for America. hindsight is 20/20.

[For PaisAn]

26. He did what was best for Kerry

Politics determined his vote.

[sangha]

32. So did you prefer that we invade the entire Mideast?

Because that what No votes from the Dems would have led to.

BTW, in another example of selective memory, someone seems to have forgotten that Kerry, along with Daschle, were the ones who led the fight to weaken IWR.

I gues you were rooting for some other team

[For PaisAn]

41. No

see my post # 37

[sangha]

44. see my post #42

.

[DerekG]

36. "Hindsight is 20/20..."

I get it. We can only admonish Bush and the neo-cons--Democrats are off-limits. Like it or not, Kerry is complicit in a campaign of mass murder.

This thread is akin to hearing people decry Charles Manson while defending Ted Bundy.

"Hindsight is 20/20...Hindsight is 20/20...Hindsight is 20/20..."

[sangha]

39. Did someone chop off your hands?

Then why complain about what you're not allowed to do while doing it at the same time?

So which IWR did you prefer? One of them were going to pass

[DerekG]

57. Here's what I would have preferred...

That Kerry stood up like Senator Robert Byrd--our Cicero--and denounced this imperialist war. Kerry knew full well--for Heaven's sake, WE KNEW--that Bush would circumvent the U.N. if the Council had not complied.

Kerry was saving no one's behind but his own.

[sangha]

61. So you preferred they "stood up" and watch the entire Mideast invasion

IWR be passed.

I prefer to skip the "stand" and limit the invasion to one nation at a time. Less people die that way, and I think that's more important than taking a stand. But maybe that's just me

[Tennessee_tarheel]

18. wrong ...

Kerry never made a peep about any of that stuff. He voted for the politically advantageous position at that time (as most Dems did). he's been running from that vote (with disingenuous rationalizations) ever since Dean made it a liability. Give Joe, Dean, Kuc. & Sharpton their kudos for being consistent - not Kerry.

[sangha]

20. Nope. I'm right

Kerry's position has been consistent throughout.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/quotes.html

So did you prefer that we invade the entire Mideast? I noticed you somehow overlooked responding to that question

[Tennessee_tarheel]

38. huh?

no dis respect but I don't get it. he voted for a resolution that was pretty explicit and then says he didn't like parts of it? he's not a country mouse who just fell off the turnip truck OK? He KNEW what he was voting for and could have voiced a different opinion on the senate floor or introduced different language or endorsed Lugar/Biden. I lost all respect when he said in S. C. that he"voted for the threat of the use of force" which is absolutely 100% BS. he voted his career - not his conscious.

[sangha]

40. You are confused

For someone who seems to think that IWR was a pretty important vote, I'm surprised you seem unaware that there were at least TWO versions of IWR

[For PaisAn]

37. I see

so he voted for a kinder, gentler war? Please. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and when it counted, Kerry didn't. A vote for IWR sanctioned the resolution. Kerry is complicit.

And actually Kerry voted against the Byrd amendment that would have limited the IWR to just Iraq. And Byrd's amendment failed. So, no, Kerry didn't vote on the IWR in order to prevent a resolution that would involve the entire Middle East.

[sangha]

42. So you preferred "taking a stand" and invading the entire Mideast?

I preferred a smaller war. Less people die that way. I think saving lives is more important than taking a stand, but that's just me

[For PaisAn]

49. Wrong

Kerry voted to authorize invading "the entire Middle East". The IWR does NOT limit the invasion to only Iraq. Senator Byrd offered an amendment to limit the IWR to only Iraq and Kerry voted against Byrd's amendment. BTW, Byrd's amendment failed.

[sangha]

63. More selective memory

Byrd's amendment failed, but the negotiations that Kerry and Daschle led succeeded in limiting iWR to Iraq. For someone who thinks IWR is an important issue, I'm surprised you don't even know what it said

[For PaisAn]

67. At this point

please provide a link or text (in context)to where in the IWR there is a stipultation that it is limited to only Iraq. I'm surprised that you keep repeating something that is false.
I'll have to check back tomorrow as it's time for me to get some sleep.

[sangha]

69. Simple - what does IWR stand for?

.

[For PaisAn]

150. The resolution is not as simple as the title implies

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(b)
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

This ties the IWR in with September 11th, international terrorists and terrorist organizations. It leaves the determination of what/who is a threat up to Bush and therefore expands the resolution to encompass actions against locations other than Iraq.

If the original IWR truly did limit the authorization to Iraq only then why on earth would Byrd have felt the necessity to present an amendment specifying limiting the authorization to Iraq only?! He presented the amendment because the limitation was NOT in the original IWR.

[kiahzero]

97. That's easy enough:

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[HFishbine]

103. Don't stop

Keep pasting so we can see some of the other things Kerry agreed with:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

<snip>

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[kiahzero]

106. A vote on a bill doesn't signal verbatim agreement

It means you support the overall bill. I'd note that you're not questioning my point that the bill did in fact limit operations to Iraq - does that mean you will be apologizing to the parent-poster?

As for your highlighted sections:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Indicated by the bad intelligence coming out of OSP.

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

This statement has never been in question - the question was whether Saddam was responsible for them or not. Seeing as they were in the Kurdish portion of Iraq, the answer to that question would be no.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

To wit, other terrorist organizations do exist in Iraq. I will admit, however, that I am fuzzier on this than on other things.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

What's wrong with that statement?

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Let's look at what's actually being said:
1) Iraq is willing to use WMDs: Accurate - they were used in the past, when we were selling them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
2) There is a risk Iraq will use the weapons or sell them: Assuming the hypothesis (the weapons exist), this is an accurate statement. The selling was more likely, if only because it was a source of revenue that circumvented the sanctions.
3) If Iraq were to do either, it would expose the United States to a large risk of attack: An accurate statement - we've plenty of enemies who wouldn't hesitate to attack in such a manner.
4) The United States is hence justified in defending itself: The fairness of this statement depends on how you read "defending itself." If you see it as compelling action to ensure that all WMDs in Iraq are removed, it's a perfectly reasonable sentiment. If you see it as compelling a unilateral war before we determine if, in fact, there are WMDs in Iraq at all, then it's not a reasonable statement. Kerry has been on the record since his vote as reading the IWR of saying the former (disarmament).

By the way, we don't know whether Kerry agreed with all or any of these passages. We just know he voted for the resolution.

[HFishbine]

108. Fabulous

You've just defended Bush's war. I guess we'll just debate about lead emissions.

[kiahzero]

109. Um, no

Perhaps you might want to actually read someone's argument, rather than assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must completely agree with someone else.

I am and always have been against the War in Iraq. Unlike some others, however, I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize the truth, rather than pretending that it doesn't exist, because it makes my argument harder to defend.

[sangh0]

113. Moral absolutism often leads to misportraying the recitation of facts

as a justification for demonization.

Just as Bush* misportrayed anyone who recited the US's support for Saddam as being on the side of Saddam and OBL, some DUers seem think that reciting undeniable facts concerning Saddam's brutality is "defending Bush*'s war"

This whole thread is an emotional ploy meant to portray a Yes vote as an immoral act. In order to do that, moral absolutism must be strictly enforced, which leads to the need to misportray any recitation of fact as "support for" the other side. To recognize a fact as nothing more than a fact (and not an indication of support/opposition) would be recognize that there are both good and bad aspects to both sides. Moral absolutism withers in the face of ambiguity.

[For PaisAn]

149. You left this section out of your post

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(b)
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

This ties the IWR in with September 11th, international terrorists and terrorist organizations. It leaves the determination of what/who is a threat up to Bush and therefore expands the resolution to encompass actions against locations other than Iraq.

If the original IWR truly did limit the authorization to Iraq only then why on earth would Byrd have felt the necessity to present an amendment specifying limiting the authorization to Iraq only?! He presented the amendment because the limitation was NOT in the original IWR.

[sangha]

155. I don't see anything about any nation besides Iraq

.

[For PaisAn]

158. It does not specify other nations by name but again

did you read this?

This ties the IWR in with September 11th, international terrorists and terrorist organizations. It leaves the determination of what/who is a threat up to Bush and therefore expands the resolution to encompass actions against locations other than Iraq.

That is what the resolution authorizes.

Also, you didn't answer answer the following question:

If the original IWR truly did limit the authorization to Iraq only then why on earth would Byrd have felt the necessity to present an amendment specifying limiting the authorization to Iraq only?! He presented the amendment because the limitation was NOT in the original IWR.

[RapidCreek]

90. I'd prefer no war

and I'd prefer a candidate who had the balls to say the same and forcefully work to that end. The fact is, is that Kerry did not have those balls. You can rationalize and dance around this fact until you're blue in the face it doesn't change this simple fact however. Kerry and a whole bunch of his Democratic team mates buried their heads in the sand for political reasons....and no...there is no excuse. Your kinder gentler war shtick is pathetic, weak and tired.

RC

[sangh0]

114. 51 votes

IWR had 51 votes on the day it was introduced in the Senate. This fact is something that those who condemn the IWR vote avoid addressing at all costs, even if it means ignoring facts, and tryting to demonize those who are not so close-minded.

You can rationalize and dance around this fact until you're blue in the face it doesn't change this simple fact a resolution authorizing war was going to pass no matter how Dems like Kerry voted and if they did as you wished, an even wider war would have taken place. I really dont understand why you prefer a wider war.

I would prefer if it rained chocolate syrup, but that's not about to happen, no matter how strong a stand I take.

[RapidCreek]

160. So we have 51 senators who are either

stupid, nutless or more concerned with their own political futures than what is right or all three...what's your point? This hardly validates what they did. If everyone in the room climbed up on the roof jumped off and landed on their heads does this mean such an act is based in logic, well thought out and highly advisable?

An even wider war would have taken place? With whom? Your argument makes no sense. If, as you assert this particular resolution was going to pass no matter how Dems like Kerry voted...it stands to reason that the resolution you claim bush preferred would have, as well...which begs the question...why didn't it?

What you would prefer is irrelevant if you don't stand up for it....because no one else will. You see, that is why I employ Democrats....to stand up for things. If I were paying them money to do bush's bidding we could save a whole lot and employ Bill Frist alone, as the sole Senator.

RC

[CalebHayes]

6. This REALLY reminds me of those photos that the pro-life folk use.

[sangha]

17. Both exploit images of death and violence

to forge a propogandistic appeal to emotion

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

[Guaranteed]

72. That's entirely different.

There's no justification for THIS.

[RapidCreek]

93. They do?

How so? Tell me exactly. How about this one?


Your tax dollars hard at work.


What does this remind you of?

RC

[Mattforclark]

9. Death

I was against, but I don't think the post is 'fair and balanced' (sorry fox for infringing on your copyright). You should also include some pictures of Iraqi heads Saddam put up on pikes in front of drug stores. If we had not invaded Iraq, that sort of thing would still be going on, but on the other hand the two Ali kids would most likely still be alive. So I don't think that either side has a real claim to moral superiority.

If you want pro-war people to take responsibility for these pictures, you should be willing to take responsibility for heads on pikes in front of drug stores (I am).

And I doubt that this thread is a dig at Kerry.

[sangha]

23. I wonder if it's a dig at Liberman

It's important to criticize Lieberman

[JNelson6563]

88. America is responsible for those heads

After all we were pals with Saddam. Remember?

Then, after we went to war under Daddy Bush, we incited an uprising in the north. Remember that? We told 'em "you guys get ready to overthrow Saddam and we'll be right behind ya to finish him off." They kept their part of the bargain and we took off.

Those mass graves? Many are thanks to that double-cross we pulled. Do we bear responsibility for much of Saddam's carnage? Oh you bet.

But that doesn't vindicate us for having caused lots of carnage ourselves, it merely adds to our list of wrong-doings.

Bottom line: this war was wrong and the Dems should have all stood in unison and denounced it. They didn't. I saw little bravery through those dark days when so many cowered under their desks in the face of rising fascism in America. Shameful.

Julie

[RapidCreek]

102. I'm not

My tax dollar didn't fund Saddam's murder of his people....it has however funded the murder of 15 to 20 thousand Iraqi civilians. Talk about a fallacious argument.

RC

[tinanator]

105. how wrong are you?

Might want to thank Henry Gonzales for revealing what you fail to know.

[RapidCreek]

162. I'm well aware of who put Saddam Hussien at the Helm of

Iraq and I'm well aware of our "exports" to his country items he chose to use to kill Iraqi rebels. That said, my tax dollar did not employ him to do what he did. My tax dollar does however pay the salary of those who were and are being sent to Iraq....being sent to Iraq with one purpose and one purpose alone to kill Iraqis.

RC

[tinanator]

163. your tax dollars were transmuted into ag credits used for weapons

I dont think you can make the distinction I am getting from your statement. Not that we arent on the same page. Clearly we are.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

10. what's the point? Are some lives more important than others?

1- how many died from Saddam's brutal reign?
2- How many will now live who wouldn't otherwise?
3- Pitting the loss of some innocent lives against others is useless and an intellectually dishonest way to make your point.
4- which was ...?

[DrWeird]

24. Yeah, yeah.

And how many babies would have been pulled from incubators if Saddam hadn't been deposed? And how many people would he have killed with those WMD?

[Wonk]

25. Saddam's brutal reign was set up by the CIA in the first place.

He was a bad man but he was our bad man. Let's not forget that.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

(snip)

Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.

Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.

"This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability ....

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Prevention+of+genocide+act%22

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html

In the end, the Prevention of Genocide Act ran into its stiffest opposition at the White House. The Reagan administration believed that the sanctions were 'premature'. Galbraith was stunned.

"What would have made it ripe for action? The killing of all the Kurds? It was an absurd statement."

President Ronald Reagan thought that Saddam would respond better to a carrot than a stick. He was prepared to use his presidential veto to kill the Bill. The House and the Senate haggled over it until Congress adjourned and the Prevention of Genocide Act disappeared.

The Kurds were disappointed; Saddam Hussein would go unpunished. In fact, within the next year business with Iraq increased. Barham Salih the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government--Sulaymania feels that at the time Saddam thought he could get away with just about anything.

[sangha]

34. So it was OK if Saddam kept killing innocent Iraqis?

The CIA was involved, so let's forget about them?

Your outrage, like your memory, is also selective

[Wonk]

46. That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that, imho, the blame for those innocent Iraqis killed under Saddam's regime ultimately rests with the American intelligence services that helped bring him to power in the first place and helped keep him there for so long because he was being friendly with US corporate interests.

Using that (since that's the latest "real reason" we bombed the hell out of them) as a reason to kill even more innocent Iraqi civilians doesn't sit well with me.

[sangha]

50. Saddam is blameless?

Maybe you should stick to the pictures. At least they're accurate

[Wonk]

60. I'm not saying that either. Keep trying.

Blowing up the country, killing thousands of civilians and maiming tens of thousands more, just to overthrow him once we decided it was time for another regime change in Iraq wasn't the only possible course of action, imho.

I didn't support it last year and I still don't.

[sangha]

64. So you preferred that Saddam did the killing?

I guess the deaths of innocents isn't what's really bothering you. It's who did the killings that matter to you.

[dpibel]

86. Do you know...

How many people Saddam Hussein killed in the five years before the invasion?

How many people died in the invasion?

If you don't, you should find out before you lean too heavily on your "It was a mission to save lives" argument.

Edited to add: Oops! I see this was already done, and you have the answers. Note to self: Read the whole thread before you post.

[sangha]

92. I'm sorry but

I haven't ever made the argument "It was a mission to save lives"

It's those who criticize the IWR vote who are relying on the argument that voting "No" would represent an effort to sabe lives, when the truth is, a "No" vote would have led to a wider war.

[dpibel]

139. Well, you've got me baffled

Right now, you say, "I haven't ever made the argument 'It was a mission to save lives'"

But a mere two posts up, #62, you ask whether the previous poster would "prefer that Saddam do the killing." I find it hard to understand that in any other way than, "We had to stop the killing." Would you care to give me another read on that?

And then there's:

sangha (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-16-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. So it was OK if Saddam kept killing innocent Iraqis?

Again, help me understand this some way other than a statement that the US was stopping those killings.

Now, Bush never said the very words, "imminent threat." But he sure left people with that impression You've never used the exact words, "It was a mission to save lives."

But if you can tell me the distinction between stopping killings and saving lives, you'll be a fine parser, indeed.

BTW: I know you've never used the exact words "stopping killings," but the two posts quoted above indicate that ongoing killing by Saddam constitutes some sort of justification for you.

[sangh0]

145. I'll try to clarify

but first, go review the original post in this thread. Though it's short on words, it's meaning is clear - Anyone who voted for or supported IWR is responsible for the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Now go read my first post in this thread. ISTR it being post #3. I criticize Wonk for making such an emotional appeal without making any sort of argument for why he was holding all those people, including DUers, responsible. I also point out how a "No" vote on IWR could have led to even more deaths because it would have led to a resolution that authorized war throughout the ENTIRE Middle East instead of limiting it to just Iraq.

Basically, my position is that people who say "A vote for IWR was a vote for war" are simpletons. IMO, there are a lot of reasons for voting both for or against IWR. A reasonable and objective analysis of this issue REQUIRES that we look at the costs and the benefits of ALL potential actions to see what the consequences might be. That means that we should not ignore

1) The lives that were saved by removing Saddam
2) The lives that were saved by limiting IWR to Iraq

[Wonk]

147. Ali H thanks you for his cool new sunglasses. nt

[sangha]

154. And the people who weren't killed

thank you for not giving a shit

[Wonk]

165. Translation: The ends justified the means. IOW, might as well vote Bush.

Thank you for explaining how you rationalize it to yourself.

I do give a shit, btw.

[RapidCreek]

168. Here's an idea

Just to keep your moral relativism on an even keel. You know, so and you your fellow moral reltivists can judge for yourselves. Let's have a mandatory pole to determine who in the US supported the Iraq War Resolution. Next for those individuals who did let's have a lottery and randomly pick 20,000. Those who are picked will be blown to shit. It would be a testement to just how much you and your compatriots give a shit...in a morally relativistic way.

RC

[RapidCreek]

167. Alli thanks you for your astute cost benifit analysis

Now can I poke out your eye?

RC

[rman]

117. No. It is hypocritical of US govt

to liberate a people who have been oppressed for decades by a dictator who was installed by the US. It's not like we didn't know about the oppression, but it was convenient to look the other way.
Why wait that long? Why is it only now that dictatorship is a reason to go to war? Why only this dictator, and not dictators who are willing to enter in trade agreements with the US?
And why was it not presented as the main reason before the war started, but only afterwards when it turned out all the other reasons were false?

[sangh0]

129. Straw man

I haven't said that Saddam's brutality justified our aggression.

[Oilwellian]

51. Here are your answers

The United States and Britain had no justification for invading Iraq either on the grounds of alleged threats from illicit weapons and terrorism, or as a humanitarian mission, an international civil rights group said yesterday.

The failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction has left President George Bush and Tony Blair claiming that the invasion was on humanitarian grounds, said a hard-hitting annual report of Human Rights Watch. It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

The report claimed that the US and British occupation forces had "sidelined human rights... as a matter of secondary importance. The rule of law has not arrived and Iraq is still beset by the legacy of human rights abuses of the former government, as well as new ones that have emerged under the occupation." The reasons given for war by Mr Bush and Mr Blair - WMD and Saddam's alleged links with international terrorism - hadnot been proved, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the organisation.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=485143

Year 2000
In Iraq, hundreds of people, including possible prisoners of conscience were executed. Arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of political opponents continued. Although the human rights situation in Iraqi Kurdistan had gradually improved since the cease-fire declared in 1997, cases of human rights abuses, such as arbitrary arrest and political killings, continued to occur.
http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/reg/27f43cfc8a8247df802568f2005a7622

Year 2002-
In Iraq which remained under stringent economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council since 1990, scores of suspected anti-government opponents were arrested. The death penalty continued to be applied extensively while torture of political detainees was systematic. Scores of people, including armed forces officers, were executed and in some cases the bodies bore evident signs of torture.

Civilian deaths resulting from air strikes by the US and UK forces against Iraqi targets were reported. The civilian population of Iraq continued to suffer severe hardship as a result of the sanctions.

In Iraqi Kurdistan, controlled by the two Kurdish political parties, prisoners of conscience were detained and armed Islamic groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/regMDE/regMDE?OpenDocument

In essence, in the year 2000, Saddam killed "hundreds" of his people. By the year 2002, Amnesty Int'l changed it to "scores." That hardly equals the thousands of innocents we've killed so far. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died thanks to the sanctions.

[sangha]

59. Now multiply that by the thirty years Saddam was in power

then add in the Kurds and Iranians he gassed and the entire city that he destroyed because it's citizens rebelled. Add in all the Shiites who were killed in the swamps of southern Iraq, and the lives ruined and lost when Saddam drained the swamps that those Shiites depended on to support their families.

But that's not war, so who cares if people died, right?

[Guaranteed]

75. YOU'RE DEFENDING THE G.D. WAR??

And THEN you come along with your fucking ABB??? Which is it??

[sangha]

94. Nope

I am refuting a argument that is used to criticize the IWR vote. S subtle difference, but a significant one

[HFishbine]

104. And, if nothing else

you're pointing out how inefective Kerry will be in critisizing Bush for the war. When Kerry supporters must borrow administration rhetoric about why the war was good in order to defend their candidate, they are conceeding the issue for the election.

[sangh0]

115. Yeah, right

Before the primiaries started, I remembered all the people who predicted that Dems who voted for IWR didn't have a chance of winning the nom, so forgive me if I discount your ability to see the future.

[dpibel]

87. Well, now, wait a sec, here

You're counting Iranians in the death toll? That was during war. So I guess you'd like to add in the 200,000 or so Iraqi soldiers who died in DaddyBushGulfWar. And don't forget the million or so who died under the US-imposed sanctions (Madeline Albright thought it was worth the price). And you realize, of course, that whatever killing of Shiites was done happened after Daddy Bush told them we'd have their back if they rebelled and then he had to go play golf or something. Seems like a pretty close race between the US and S. Hussein for who's killed the most Iraqis.

Does that make Saddam a nice guy? Of course not. But why is it that we can't acknowledge that the US pulls some pretty nasty shit, too?

What is with people and their need for demons?

[sangha]

95. Are Iranian lives worth less tha Iraqi lives?

and I've never denied that the US has pulled some nasty stuff, nor have I ever said that Saddam was a demon. It's just that some want to present a one-sided story and so all they talk about are the people who were killed or injured in the invasion, while ignoring the ones Saddam killed.

[RapidCreek]

99. Yea that makes sense Sangha

That's an excuse to murder 15 to 20 thousand innocent civilians. Absolutely brilliant. If your next door nieghbor were John Wayne Gacy I guess you'd be happy to come home and find the cops had blown up his house....and yours too along with your family....I mean after all we gotta keep in mind all the young men he murdered right? The murder of your family would be an acceptable loss in stopping this madman, correct? What a typically American, sanctimonious, hypocritical load of crap.

[sangh0]

116. Moral absolutism is what Bush* uses

I have not said that Saddam's brutality justified an invasion. I pointed out that focusing on the deaths caused by the invasion, while ignoring the deaths of innocent Iraqis under Saddam was intellectually dishonest, and a sign of moral absolutism. And in an absolutely brilliant line of argument, you claim that I am excusing war merely because I've recited facts, just like Bush* says people are supporting the terrorists when they recite facts like how the US supported Saddam for many years. Then you finish it off with name-calling.

God forbid you consider ALL of the facts, including the inconvenient ones.

[rman]

118. so what's your conclusion after considering

the deaths of innocent Iraqis under Saddam

and

the deaths caused by the invasion

and

the genocide of Iraqies by the US under the veil of UN sanctions

?

Should the US occupation of Iraq continue because Saddam to caused many deaths?

Is morality on the side of the one who is the lesser of all these evils?

[sangh0]

119. My conclusion is

that the decision to vote for or against IWR was not as simple as "voting for or against war"

Should the US occupation of Iraq continue because Saddam to caused many deaths?

I think we need to do everything we can to get the UN to take over the task of returning Iraqi sovereignity to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Once the UN agrees to do that, we should withdraw.

Is morality on the side of the one who is the lesser of all these evils?

That is morally ambigous, and IMO is something for each of us to judge for ourselves. IMO, no one has a lock on morality here. The real world rarely presents us with black and white choices.

[RapidCreek]

159. My conclusion is

The decision to vote for or against the IWR was as simple as voting for or against a war. For what other reason was the resolution introduced, particularly considering the very well known desires of the administration it enabled? To pass the time of day? As a vote of confidence for an administration who had as yet...and has as yet done NOTHING to inspire such confidence? The resolution was as ambiguous as the desires the administration it empowered, an administration which made effusively clear their sentiments that the UN was irrelevant and quite obviously lied, again and again....in other words...not at all.

As to your answer addressing the question - Should the US occupation of Iraq continue because Saddam too caused many deaths?-it wasn't an answer at all....but spin. We need to do everything we can to get the "irrelavant...at the singing of the resolution" UN to clean up the mess we have made? How convenient. Evidently you feel the UN is and always has been relevant which means the impetus for the resolution and rational of those who voted for it was disingenuous at best and incontrovertibly WRONG at worst.

Moral ambiguity is not something each of us must judge for ourselves when that moral ambiguity results in the deaths of 15 to 20 thousand civilians whose morality one way or the other had no effect on their end. Moral ambiguity is not something each of us must judge for ourselves when we ask those, whom via that moral ambiguity we have asserted are irrelevant, to clean up our messes, messes that are a direct result of that very same moral ambiguity.

No sir...when your own moral ambiguity affects another it is not up to you to be your own judge....and the fact is you won't be. The judges will be the friends and relatives of the 15 to 20 thousand innocent civilians we killed. We can only hope they're not as blindly vengeful as the average American. We can only hope that they won't decide to murder as many of those who murdered their loved ones as the Average American might if the shoe were on the other foot. In other words we must hope that they are better people than we are. I'm curious will you defend with your argument of self judged moral ambiguity their acts of retribution upon our service men and women and on us?

The real world does present us with black and white choices. The IWR was wrong. Those who voted for it were wrong. The resultant actions which lead to the deaths of our service men and women and 15 to 20 thousand Iraqi civilians...not to mention soldiers, were wrong. Asserting that the UN was irrelevant before the war and relevant afterwords is wrong. Spending my tax dollars to clean up an unnecessary mess at the expense of health, education and infrastructure in this country is wrong. Their is nothing morally relativistic about it. You can spin yourself into the ground...but you ain't fooling me or 2/3rds of the rest of the world and your attempts to do so only piss us off more than we already are. There is nothing more irritating than someone who attempts to assuage the effects of their dishonesty, violence and/or ignorance with arrogant rationalizations based upon moral relativism. After all it indicates a motivational tendency to do the same shit again, over and over and over.

Moral absolutism is what Bush uses? On the contrary, he uses the same sort of morality you do. Do what ever the fuck you want, to who ever the fuck you want, then fall back on moral relativism as an excuse, when you are called on the results of your actions.

RC

[Vladimir]

111. Actually

according to some calculations, civilians have been dying in Iraq at a rate 20% greater than druing Saddam's time. So that argument could be made too, although it isn't very pertinent. What is important, is that had sanctions not been imposed, or been lifted, Saddam would probably have been toppled from within. That's why the war was wrong, IMO.

As for Kerry's vote... yeah, its not nice. But two wrongs don't make a right, and not voting Bush out would be wrong.

V

[proud patriot]

13. Great thread wonk

I was against this invasion .

I wonder what else I could of done to keep the bloodshed
from happening .

The children are innocent angels .

[Mattforclark]

21. Innocent people get killed all the time

Many of them are children.

Some kid was probably tortured fairly recently (in the past 24 hours) in Uzbekistan, maybe being boiled alive.

Unless you are calling for an immediate invasion of Uzbekistan or a rescue mission on Uzbek prisons, do you take full responsibility for that?

Because the continuance of such torture is a direct result of your inaction. Just as dead people quite like the Ali with whose picture we have been graced would be the direct result of invading Uzbekistan.

[tinanator]

107. Only one thing

Gore could have assumed office. That was not in the interest of those who support this aggression and slaughter. And they arent just Republicans, are they?

[For PaisAn]

16. Well I for one think those pictures need to be shown and seen.

All those who voted for the IWR are complicit.
Thank you Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Congressman Kucinich et al for not sanctioning this vile act.

[Mattforclark]

31. Of course they do

But it doesn't hurt to include some pictures of people Saddam killed as well. It's not as simple as "you supported invasion, so you approved of the deaths of these people you bad person, you" and trying to paint it as such weakens (imho) the anti-war arguments and opens it to caricature. I don't see much difference from the "you anti-war folks are responsible for Saddam's mass graves" type rhetoric we hear from the right.

[not systems]

45. Your tax dollars didn't maim the children Saddam killed...

at least not since 1989 or so.

Those famous pictures of the dead Kurds from the
chemical weapons attack were subsidized by me and you
and other American tax payers.

So if we show those you might need to know that they
died on your dollar also.

If you can find some pics of kids Saddam maimed or killed
after 1989 but that were not among the 500,000 that starved
or died of lack of medical supplies during the decade of
sanctions then you might find some that you could show
without considering the gross disregard for human life
that us Americans have.

[RetroLounge]

125. Then start your own thread.

eom

[jpgray]

43. Me too. I'm not sure this is the most dignified vehicle for them (nt)

[For PaisAn]

62. Yes, but.

These innocents deserve some measure of dignity. But in the end we need to see them by any vehicle available. Those who supported this action need to face the results of that action. I hardly think they will seek out these pictures of their own volition. They're so unpleasant. Reality sucks.

[jpgray]

78. Well, better by this than by nothing, true. (nt)

[For PaisAn]

126. jpgray

I always appreciate your honest, reasoned replies. Sincerely.

[jpgray]

161. Don't worry, I can be as petty and ignorant as the next DUer :-) (nt)

[PoundSiO2]

22. Any pics of maimed and deformed Israeli children from terror bombers?

It might help balance this montage.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. What does that have to do with the Iraq war?

[PoundSiO2]

47. All war is bad. No need to focus on just one

The innocent that have died or suffer in Israel are just as important as Iraq. Why focus just on Iraq?

[sangha]

52. Yes, let's just forget Iraq

I bet Bush* would love if we did that

[Pobeka]

54. Because we started this one? And it's ongoing?

Call it a wild guess...

[jpgray]

56. Because there is an entire forum dedicated to your topic

This is a thread that tries to encompass the enormity of suffering in Iraq. That's tough enough without throwing in I/P on top.

[DrWeird]

29. What does Israel have to do with Iraq?

nt

[PoundSiO2]

53. What does Israel have to do with Iraq?

Saddam would give tens of thousands of dollars to the suicide bomber families for killing or maiming innocent Israeli kids. That's what.

I doubt Saddamn is still sending money to kill innocent Israeli kids.

[DrWeird]

58. Yeah, and you're paying the families...

of the terrorists who blew up the above kids.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Yes all terrorism will end now that Saddam has gone

oops! wrong again! and as a Jew, I am not particularyl swayed by this argument...Israel under Sharon as a Prime Minister and as a military leader does NOT have clean hands....he supported terrorism via Christian Philangists a few years back...

[PoundSiO2]

70. Well I've been a Jew for 50 years

I have my own opinions on who is or was trying to kill me. I'll take Sharon over arafat and his hamas terrorists any day.

see: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/sprj.irq.poll/index.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. So then you must think Bush is doing a great job, right?

[PoundSiO2]

76. Wrong

You must think Arafat is really great because he uses proxies to kill Jews. Right?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. I think you just answered my question with a question

[Guaranteed]

77. I'm glad to see that you're arguing

this side of this issue. Seriously.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. My posts in the matter have been consistent on this issue

[ElsewheresDaughter]

101. and the US and CC is paying russian and european jews to occupy

new settlement houses in west bank and gaza palestine...both sides are guilty...both sharon and arafat need to hurry up grow old and die before their oldman sins and hatred kills us all

[specter]

30. How

about the palestinian children?

[jpgray]

33. This thread isn't about I/P problems, let's not drag them into it

And that goes much less for you than the flamebait post you responded to. :hi:

[specter]

35. Not

a problem :)

[PoundSiO2]

71. Ask hamas or arafat

they are the ones giving their children bombs to kill innocent Jews.

[The Traveler]

55. It would look much the same ...

The similarities among mutilated children vastly outweigh the differences in race, creed, or nationality. The objective should be to discover strategies, tactics, and methods which quench the fires of war, and at the very least minimize breakage.

And we are talking war here. What is "terrorism"? I prefer the more precise term, "asymmetrical warfare" .. a war engaged by a militarily inferior force (e.g. the Palestinians) against a superior force (e.g. the Israelis) using stealth, deception, and unorthodox tactics. What is the difference between a bomb delivered by courier and a bomb delivered by Apache helicopter? Not much to the poor bastards on the receiving end. Oh, and by the way, no army of the 20th Century eschewed a target simply because there were civilians in the way. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ... it is actually a long list ... we also have targeted civilians.

Declaring a "war on terrorism" is much like declaring a "war on flanking maneuvers". What we are really fighting is a war against a theocratic ideology ... a war of survival against a group of people who believe they know the Truth, and that this knowledge justifies any atrocity that might advance their cause.

The solution to this situation does not involve installing our own theocracy here in America, nor a policy which sacrifices our honor by justifying any atrocity which advances OUR cause. We want to neutralize their goons. We certainly don't want to be burdened by goons of our own.

Instead, we must engage asymmetrically ourselves ... I am talking about black ops here, precisely targeted to destroy our enemies and minimize the breakage of innocent bystanders. And, while we're at that, we really need to look at the question: "Why do they hate us?" An honest look will reveal a mixed bag of justified and unjustified causes. A possible conclusion to that revelation: We gotta fight, we gotta kill .... but we must be ready to make peace at the earliest real opportunity.

[jpgray]

79. In the spirit of this thread, don't forget the March 20th protest!

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136

These photos at least, whatever the reasons for their being posted here, should compel you to attend.

[mrdmk]

82. Here is the real blame

Since it is very easy to say an enemy of an enemy is a friend of mine and it was our tax dollars that supported this ongoing onslaught in Iraq starting in 1963, we are responsible. Lets do the math 2004 – 1963 = 41 years. Yes folks the killing has been happening for 41 years with the support of our money and resources. Can we take responsibly for this ongoing death?

Of course we all can sit back and say that these problems started after tossing of the Ottoman Empire and the swath of the British Empire. Of course there have horrendous hostilities before the turn of the last century in this area. Of course we all need to take a course in Middle East history if we do not want to be accused of having a selective memory.

The Middle East has been a hotbed of killing, power and money ever since its inception. The idea that the United States has done everything correct within its powers upon becoming a sovereign state is a joke. There are forces in the United States that like the idea of making money from another persons demise is in my opinion is an ongoing problem in this country. The other problem is that something unfamiliar to the U.S. citizen is a treat to our well-being. Being open to the fact that other people have ways of doing things that are constructive to themselves and others may just prove to useful in this situation.

As far as the Bush Jr. Administration and the Neocons foreign polices go, these people are a nightmare for us and the rest of the world. We need strong leadership in the arena of worldly politics and this leadership needs to come from the day-to-day people such as you and I. The government knows best attitude has brought everybody to this point and has been a miserable failure. We need to be involved.

[nolabels]

83. For the first time, in a long time I agree with sangha, thanks

I did not like the vote, but as we have seen so many lies were put forth, you really have check closer, this really was a ringer, and they didn't ring anyone. This whole thing is on * and the cabal

If someone gives you a license to drive a car and you run someone over while doing it, does that mean the guy that gave you the license needs to be charged with manslaughter also ?

[G_j]

89. I still don't get it

given this train of reasoning, half the people I know would be better qualified than the members of Congress who voted yes.
Here at DU and across the country (and world no doubt) many were asking Congress to allow Scott Ridder to testify, but he was not allowed to.
Then there is the matter of just WHO the players were in the Bush admin. We knew who these folks were and the shenanigans they had pulled in the past.

-------
A BIGGER, BADDER SEQUEL TO IRAN-CONTRA
Jim Lobe, AlterNet

Just like Ollie North and his cohorts, a small network of officials are pursuing a covert foreign policy agenda -- except their aims are vastly more ambitious.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16597

The specter of the Iran-Contra affair is haunting Washington. Some of the people and countries are the same, and so are the methods, particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy.
Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an "off-the-books" operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. The picture being painted by various insider sources in the media suggests a similar but far more ambitious scheme at work.

Taken collectively, what these officials describe and what is already on the public record suggests the existence of a disciplined network of zealous, like-minded individuals. Centered in Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's office and around Richard Perle in the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon, this exclusive group of officials operates under the aegis of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.

This network includes high-level political appointees, such as Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who are scattered around several other key bureaucracies, notably in the State Department, the NSC staff, and most importantly, in Cheney's office.
...more..

[sangh0]

120. Hans Blix also thought Iraq had WMD's

Is he another incompetent?

What you are ignoring, in the same manner some are ignoring Saddam's brutality, is that Bush* was not the only saying Iraq had WMD's and/or programs to develop WMD's. The intelligence services throughout Europe also assumed that this was true. Even if Bush* never uttered a word about Iraq, there would still be plenty of people saying they thought Iraq was developing WMD's.

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that if someone believed Iraq had WMD's or WMD programs then that person MUST HAVE been fooled by Bush*.

[redqueen]

124. Wrong.

The existence of WMD's isn't enough. Even if there were, they were no threat to us. THere was NO IMMINENT THREAT and therefore NO REASON TO RUSH TO WAR.

It is not enough to simply say they may have had WMD's -- you have to then be so gullible (:grr:) as to believe they were a threat to the US.

[sangh0]

130. No, you're wrong

Even France and Germany agree that Iraq's possession of WMD's would create an imminent threat and would justify an invasion of Iraq if Saddam would not disarm.

And, to repeat a point you refuse to address, Hans Blix thought Saddam had WMD's or a WMD program and even Dean thought that Saddam was a threat to the US.

[redqueen]

134. Nice try, but you're still wrong

Even those great nations thought Iraq would create something, eh? At what point? Was it imminent?

Uh huh.

And the point which bears no addressing is that whether Blix thought there were weapons OR a program, there was STILL no immiment threat!

Whether or not Dean, as Kerry, echoed bush's WMD threat lies is of no consequence.

[sangh0]

136. Hans Blix thought Iraq had WMD's

and that's a point you have never addressed because it directly contradicts the false claim that Kerry was fooled by Bush* and that Kerry was "echoing" Bush*. Kerry was echoing what EVERY intelligence agency in the western world was saying.

[redqueen]

144. So what!

Does the very existence of WMD's in Iraq justify an invasion?

[sangha]

156. Yes, it does

and the UN agrees. Even France and Germany agree.

[dpibel]

146. When?

Did he think that before or after the last round of inspctions?

A link would be cool, since you keep saying this.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

148. Read the Blix Reports - it is there-

read HIS reports:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

The Jan report essentially says:

1- Without US pressure there would be no inspections and,

2- as before this is a sham with no real substantive cooperation lots of deception and even harassment - same old song and dance for the last 12 years - we cannot verify weapons we KNOW existed have been destroyed or decommissioned, AND we have found new items in violation, and

3- I would like more time -- again.

in February he said, things really haven't changed but I still want some more time ---again

    "At the meeting in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers, e.g. regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX and missile production.  Experts who were present from our side studied the papers during the evening of 8 February and met with Iraqi experts in the morning of 9 February for further clarifications.  Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues."

"How much, if any, is left of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes?  So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.  Another matter – and one of great significance – is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.  To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”.  One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist.  However, that possibility is also not excluded.  If they exist, they should be presented for destruction.  If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."

And much much more <no real interviews, etc.)

Iraq , to nearly everyone's agreement Iraq DID have <insert long list of weapons , etc. > After such along time of this BS why would anyone have given him the benefit of the doubt? It wasn't an issue of his having them or not - just what to do about it.

Play the game longer and let international pressure wan (as was already occuring before the troop build up)? Or put the hammer down for action? The SC chose the former - the US & Britain the latter. Time will tell.

Look I am not saying that we had all the knowledge we needed to go after the guy, obviously we had some pretty spotty intel. BUT we, as well nearly everyone else THOUGHT he did and had no evidence to the contrary, and given the stakes I would've taken him out as well. The world's a better place - including the thousands and thousands of poor children who died under his regime, the hundreds of thousands of adults who died because of him etc.

[sangha]

157. Repeat: Blix said "Without US pressure there would be no inspections"

.

[dpibel]

164. More time???? Again????

Wow, dude. That's a slick put down. Poor old Hans Blix, just puttering along asking for more time.

It's a good thing we went 'n invaded 'n bombed because that allowed us to whip right in, search unimpeded for imaginary weapons, and be assured that they're gonna find 'em if we just give 'em (all together now):

More time -- again.

Surely you can do the talking points better justice than this.

And what in the world is the meaning of this: "Iraq, to nearly everyone's agreement Iraq DID have <insert long list of weapons , etc.>"

Now I'm hip to the "DID have" dodge. Of course he did have them--the US has the receipts for when he bought them. What does that have to do with anything? Surely you don't mean nearly everyone agrees (or is it agreed?) that SH had massive weapons of destruction at the time of the Fierce Warrior Chieftain's latest war? Because right now, everybody except the emperor's tailors have pretty much round-filed that one.

But, then again, you might mean that he DID have: rusted WWI carbines, scimitars, crossbows, throwing stars, pikes, lances and bolos. If that's what you mean, then, so what? He had some conventional weapons. We've got a huge row to hoe if we're going to go around the world imposing complete disarmament.

Then you up and say, "BUT we, as well nearly everyone else THOUGHT he did and had no evidence to the contrary, and given the stakes I would've taken him out as well." For starters, who's this "we" you're talking about. I didn't think so. I daresay there's 3-4 people around this forum who didn't think so.

"No evidence to the contrary"? C'mon. If nothing else, there was Scott Ritter's information. There was also the fact that the reason Blix asked for more time -- agaaaayun was that, well, gosh, he wasn't turning up any wickedies. Now I'm hip to Rummy: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But, let's be honest here: At some point the absence of evidence becomes pretty damned strong evidence that there aren't PILES AND PILES AND TONS of the stuff.

Then you say, "given the stakes." Well, what were they? The magic drones of death will fly the Pacific to strew anthrax across our landscape? (Oops! Forgot: anthrax is the local product.) That SH would have a sudden change of heart and start handing his imaginary nookyular weapons out?



Now I'm going to do what you didn't think I'd do: I'm going to read the Blix report. I'll get back to ya.

[dpibel]

172. Atlantic. So hard to keep those oceans straight. nft

[dpibel]

171. Doncha Just Hate It?

Edited for a grotesque typo.

It's kind of a PITA when you're doing a tad o' shuck and jive and somebody takes you up on your offer of a link. I know it's not supposed to work that way, but, around here, there are actually people who like to read! I mean, read more than forum posts. Actually read source material. You might want to keep that in mind.

But do help me out here as I look at your summary of the Blix report:

You sez:

"1- Without US pressure there would be no inspections and,"

But Hans Blix sez:

"For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions."

Do you see any difference at all between those two statements? Look really, really hard. See it yet?

If you do see the difference (and I'm not assuming that you do) I suppose you will say that Blix (the toady) was just sucking up to that Annan fella, and those Ayrab States; as a matter of fact, he probly made all that other stuff up, and he really knew it was just the US that mattered, just like you said.

Whatcha think?

Then you up and say:

"2- as before this is a sham with no real substantive cooperation lots of deception and even harassment - same old song and dance for the last 12 years - we cannot verify weapons we KNOW existed have been destroyed or decommissioned, AND we have found new items in violation, and"

Now I'll tell ya what sport, I'm not gonna go cut and paste all the stuff from that report. I'm gonna tell you, and everybody who reads this that at no point in that report does Blix even remotely indicate that "this is a sham" or that it is the "same old song and dance." I mean you really just pulled that stuff right out your butt. What Blix actually says is that procedural cooperation has been excellent--the inspectors are allowed full and immediate (with a single exception) access to anywhere they want to go.

Sez Blix:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

The "harrassment" stuff amounts to some demonstrations in front of the UNMOVIC offices (can't have that! if it's not allowed in the US, can't have it in Eye-rack) and allegations that the inspectors were gathering intelligence (what would possibly make them think a thing like that).

And on the "more time -- again" shit. Man, you really should be a little more discreet. I only ever heard that bullshit coming from one place, and it wasn't here. But what's the reality? They had been back in Iraq, after an absence of 3 years (betcha can't remember why they got kicked out, can ya?), and they'd been there for three months. Friend, I gotta tell ya, if a supposedly civilized country, the supposed world bastion of freedom, liberation, etc. ad nauseum, can't wait longer than three fucking months to see about saving 30K or so lives (10K civilian, 20K, so I've heard, military), then it needs to goddamn grow up.

Frankly my dear Tarheel, I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd like you to give me an honest answer: Did you really even read that report, or did you get this summary off the net or from some other source.

And if you're offended by anything I've said here in terms of factual allegations, let's do this: let's set up a DU poll, and we'll post my version, verbatim from this post, and your version verbatim from your post, and we'll post the link. Then people can vote: Whose version is closer to Blix's version. K?

[nolabels]

121. Bigger than that, they don't just want to do foreign policy in your name

They seek to extract every vestige of your ability to have any say in government. Most of the them seem pretty heartless, and wouldn't give a damn about any logic put forth as long as they could get what they want. This is more a definition of a mental condition than a way to run a government.

You can't deal with crazies on the level you encounter them, you must prove to them their incoherence to matters at hand will be of no benefit in any negotiation. If you give into any part of it, then you must wait for another time in the future for reality to prove you correct. Essentially the same mechanisms used by a fraud, but it uses the deception of belief rather than the use of slight of hand.

The goals of the neo-cons were not accomplished and are now starting to slip into the sand. I don't disagree with your position, but you must understand the problem is people will not want others to see the truth if it damages their person, position or livelihood (thats why they bought up the media much faster than anything else). This is also the weakness that must be highlighted to get them to go belly-up, not that their character will change, but the focus on how people see them will be changed. The unwillingness to compromise always leads to Hubris. They will not be humbled as long as that is the focus by any smaller group. Hubris with larger groups against you is usually detrimental.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/stanmoore16.html

Divide and Conquer: Proven Tactic of U.S. Military
by Stan Moore
(snip)
It is instructive to take a look to the past to understand the present. It is useful to examine the colonization of the North American continent and the expulsion (even historic genocide) of the native inhabitants to see how the U.S. military has a proven history of conquering peoples by dividing them and turning them against their own people.

For instance, perhaps the single most freedom-loving human ever spoken of in recorded history of the North American continent was Crazy Horse, the warrior of the Oglala Lakota people. Crazy Horse saw the invasion of huge armies of white people into his native land. Crazy Horse loved his land and he loved his people. He was perfectly willing to sacrifice his own basic needs of food and shelter to provide for his people, sometimes going hungry for days so that others could eat food he had obtained by hunting. Crazy Horse surely knew that military victory against such huge numbers of heavily armed invader/colonizers was improbable. But he loved his freedom. He loved his Lakota way of life, and he refused to surrender his freedom, or to sell out his people. But, ultimately his people sold Crazy Horse out. The U.S. Army was able to recruit Indian Scouts, not only from the hated Crow nation to fight against the Lakota, but Lakotas were recruited as scouts into the U.S. Army. Crazy Horse and his small band could probably never have been tracked, much less captured by U.S. soldiers working alone. But with the aid of Indian Scouts, they were tracked and trailed and pursued until they were captured. In prison, at Camp Robinson, Nebraska, Crazy Horse was ultimately bayoneted and killed by U.S. soldiers. No, not by white soldiers, but by Lakotas enlisted in the U.S. Army. Crazy Horse lost his freedom and then his life under the U.S. military' policy of divide and conquer.

(snip)

To be inclusive and get a whole lot of people against it is how we can win. Ridicule and shame will not work if the party that is doing egregious act against others can ignore any consequences or gets none to pay.

No one person can heal the world but one united people engaged to the world can heal many people. Letting go of the minutia in detail, who do you really think is the most culpable here?

I don't think half of the people that I know would be better qualified to run the government than the current members of Congress, I think it would be more like 98%. Unfortunately working in reality is all we have today

[G_j]

123. thoughtful post

"No one person can heal the world but one united people engaged to the world can heal many people. Letting go of the minutia in detail, who do you really think is the most culpable here?

good question..

I don't think half of the people that I know would be better qualified to run the government than the current members of Congress, I think it would be more like 98%. Unfortunately working in reality is all we have today"

though I do hope the unprecedented number of calls and letters did have some impact, somewhere.

[nolabels]

132. Really all I am saying, is when all them crunch times come

That I hope I also will be on the same side as you, fighting for your idea

http://www.abcme.com/peacesigncollection/peacesigncoll.html

[e-mail]

Please help my collection grow.

The history of the PEACE SIGN

By David J. Danowitz 1-22-98

There are Many stories that I have heard, But, The one I LIKE the most is the one below. ( I do believe that this is not 100% true but it has been told to me by many old hippies) Who knows, she could have been involved with the CND and was never mentioned.) Will we ever know the truth ???? :-}

In the late 50's a young lady started (or was involved in) a movement to stop the use of Nuclear Power. She was starting to get a following and wanted Eternal Nuclear Disarmament. To reach her goal she decided not to have a name for her organization, actually it is said that she didn't want an organization just the realization that Nuclear Power is dangerous and needs to be used in a much more controlled environment. Weapons do not fall in this category yet.... but I digress................ She asked her father if he could help her come up with a symbol that she could use to show what they (the organization that isn't an organization) (Later to become the CND) wanted. Her father worked for the railroad for a long time and he told her that on the railroad trains go by signs so fast that they can't read words so they use semaphore. Semaphore is the use of a symbol instead of a word so the driver can see, read and react to the Semaphore symbol from a great distance. He asks his daughter what she wants to say in her symbol. She wants Nuclear Disarmament. So her father said that a strait line through a circle stands for No or N. And a Curved line stands for D.

Buy putting them together, moving and shaping them a little, you get the modern day Peace Sign.
(snip)

[G_j]

140. I am one who strongly believes

that a time MUST come when war is no longer considered an option at all. I think that time is here, given the types of weapons that exist in the modern world. I know many people think this is unrealistic but so it is with most quantum steps in 'evolution'.
Coming down to a matter of survival,it is certainly worth working for.


I really enjoyed your info on the peace sign!
btw, the second link doesn't work.

Peace

[mdmc]

84. Support the war, support Bush. He is your candidate

I wish Kerry oppossed the war, but then I would never have goten to know Howard Dean.

[bpilgrim]

85. I doubt any here will be in favor of an illegal war

cept a few trolls or whatever...

even politicians should be running from this illegal preventive war now that we all know they were spinning from the start to get their war on.

sure, the neoCONs see themselves as patriots, securing americas future by securing the ME oil come what may, but they must be stopped before it brings even greater harm upon our interest or worse wwIII by proxy till the nukes start fly'n.

peace

[Jacobin]

91. Thank you Wonk

It is critical when we engage forces that people know what the consequences are. It's not a video game. Its not neat and clean. It is a ghastly unholy scene of carnage, and you DAMN well better have a fucking good reason to do it. :evilgrin:

[dennis4868]

110. all is not lost....

halliburton stock went up yesterday....:-(

[Snivi Yllom]

112. kick

[redqueen]

122. So sad

We should all be moved by those pictures to work harder for peace and to end wars of aggression, not to defend the democrats who disagreed with Byrd and Kucinich.

:cry:

May God forgive us.

[WillyT]

127. I Marched Against It Then... I March Against It Still...

With others...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...

And... After saying that...

I weep...

...

[rinsd]

131. Horrifying.....

As these photos are intended. This is emotional blackmail similar to the nonstop showing the planes crashing into the Towers. Or as someone else mentioned pro-lifers showing aborted fetuses. The only differences is the politics. If one of the few prolife people here asked a question "Who had an abortion? " accompanied by aborted fetus phtotos I would be aghast.

I understand your point and the propaganda is powerful, maybe I'm just a little too squeamish for such tactics.

[bpilgrim]

133. and DAILY reality

not like 'the nonstop showing the planes crashing into the Towers' thankfully

peace

[rinsd]

135. ....

"not like 'the nonstop showing the planes crashing into the Towers' thankfully"

Scary stuff indeed

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evil Intruder]

138. I agree with the war

To use these photos and then say that this is the fault of the war is wrong. I could easily show photos of the mass graves where thousands more Iraqis were shown that were killed by Saddams regime and they post "How can you NOT agree that this needed to be stopped"

Yes, there will be collateral damage in a war, but the end result for the Iraqi people is SO much better. How can you not agree with that. To disagree is to say that you think Saddamn should still be in power and that to defy the UN is just Okay and should not be dealt with.

[Q]

141. Collateral damage...the overused rationale...

...for killing brown people that get in the way of US bombs.

- There is no fucking 'war'. Bush* and too many Demcrats used 9-11 as an excuse for an ILLEGAL aggressive war. Repeating Bush's* talking points to excuse the murder of thousands of innocents doesn't change the reality that Saddam had nothing to do with the reasons for attacking, invading and occupying Iraq.

[Jacobin]

142. So, when do you suppose we should invade Israel,

China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran...........well perhaps you get my point. Then again, I doubt it.

By the way, don't you think you should sign up? Lotsa work for you soldiers to do in the world

[dpibel]

166. I call. Think yer bluffin'

Tell ya what. It would damage the posturer's sensitivities if you posted these photos of which you speak. So just post a link. Since you can do it easily, that should represent no problem. Where's the pics?

You are aware, are you not, that the only mass killings associated with SH are war related? A big bunch of Iranians, and a big bunch of Shiites (the latter killed during the post-DaddyBushBigWar rebellion when BigDaddyBoosh told the Iraqis to take matters into their own hands, and then stood by while they were slaughtered.

But that latter was a civil war. There was one of those in this country once, in which large numbers of people were killed: that's generally what happens in rebellions.

This idea that SH just rounded up a few hundred thousand Iraqis a year and killed them for sport has just got to stop, around here, anyway.

To take the words right out of your mouth: No, I'm not a Saddam supporter; no, I'm not a Saddam apologist.

But you are the one who's invoking beeeelyuns and beeeeelyuns of Iraqis that we have saved from a death worse than the death they got from American bombs.

Lemme ask you this: Let us assume a middle ground figure of 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed during the American invasion and occupation. How does that compare to the number of people Saddam Hussein killed in the 12-month period before the invasion?

Do me a favor: Just give your answer without looking it up. I just wanna see what you believe.

[CthelightBthemass]

143. Has John Kerry clicked on this thread yet?

Maybe he had a staffer click it.

[JOE T]

151. I agree the war is terrible

I agree that that war is horrible, but the fact remains that these people would be in worse shape if Saddam was still in power. I am not taking Bush's side but didnt the former president and his people say several times that Iraq had WMD? I found these quotes, if they are incorrect I will remove them, but after reading this wouldnt you agree that Iraq had or was thought to have WMD?
Joe

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from , but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest ecurity threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

[Columbia]

152. I think you are looking for this one

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

[Hippo_Tron]

153. Sure, but that doesn't mean we need an all out invasion...

Bush is liable because he got our soldiers killed and spent billions of dollars on intelligence that said that there were WMD's. Clinton ran a series of air raids to get Saadam to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, that was a necessary step.

[Dogmudgeon]

169. I don't rationalize it at all.

I was wrong and I have come clean about it many times. Not that someone with your superb ethical intelligence would waste your time by listening to your inferiors.

I can sense that you're getting a real thrill from your new-found moral altitude. And isn't that what morality is all about? Feeling good about yourself and your position in God's Order?

Now tell me again how Progressive you are.

--bkl

[MAlibdem]

173. though that may be an effective argument...

it's not particularly rhetorically advanced...some here have criticized the President* for seeing the world in black and white...