• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

Pardon?
I haven't said that interests shouldn't be the reason behind a war, but that interests don't justify a war.
Click to expand...

What does justify war?

Those are two different things.
The same reason why the USSR worked so hard to spread communism.
If they share your ideology, they share your values; and if they share your values, there's a good chance for them to side with you in any future conflict, or simply on the international ground.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent, but sometimes other interests prevent us from spreading our idealogy. For instance if we pushed Democracy on Saudia Arabia we would loose vital geopolitical position in the region, and the Democracy could bring a Taliban style goverment into power. Democracy is only as valid as the circumstances on the ground dictate. Hitler was Democratically elected dont forget.

You don't know how waiting a year would effect the area.
It might have done better and it might have not.
Click to expand...

It couldnt have gone worse thats for sure. There was no risk to delay the war, Saddam possed no direct threat to the US or our interests no more then in 2000 1999 1998 1997 etc.

I believe the people at the top who take the decisions had an access to the best intelligence resources, unlike us.
Click to expand...

Actions prove they were either cherry picking their intelligence, or were just purely incompetent.
 
kaya'08 said:
Im yet to see evidence of this. Your summing up the heat between the USSR and the US purely on communism/capitalism. They where both superpowers in a region they both shared an interest in, which caused the friction.
Click to expand...
I never referred to the cold war in my post, I gave an example for a nation who had the interest of spreading its ideology.
Please refrain from changing topics.
You also cannot say the US doesnt have better interests then spreading democracy, such as combating terrorism and ending war crimes and violence everywhere.
Click to expand...
I never said that the US has no better interests.
I clearly used the term "one of the biggest interests".
 
OxymoronP said:
What does justify war?
Click to expand...
For the international community?
BS-morals that would be accepted by the common European pacifist, apparently.
I agree with you to an extent, but sometimes other interests prevent us from spreading our idealogy. For instance if we pushed Democracy on Saudia Arabia we would loose vital geopolitical position in the region, and the Democracy could bring a Taliban style goverment into power. Democracy is only as valid as the circumstances on the ground dictate. Hitler was Democratically elected dont forget.
Click to expand...
I kinda got tired from people who declare elections as the ultimate proof for Democracy.
Democracy is far bigger than mere elections.
Iran isn't a Democracy, Lebanon isn't a Democracy, the Gaza strip is not a Democracy.
It couldnt have gone worse thats for sure..
Click to expand...
It can always go worse.
Saddam possed no direct threat to the US or our interests no more then in 2000 1999 1998 1997 etc.
Click to expand...
Actually he did.
There was no knowledge of his nation's nuclear capabilities, even though it happened to be a bluff, they haven't known it back then.(I assume)
Actions prove they were either cherry picking their intelligence, or were just purely incompetent.
Click to expand...
Actions prove nothing, results do.
 
For the international community?
Click to expand...

No for a particular nation.


It can always go worse.
Click to expand...

I dont see how.


Actually he did.
Click to expand...
How so?

There was no knowledge of his nation's nuclear capabilities, even though it happened to be a bluff, they haven't known it back then.(I assume)
Actions prove nothing, results do
Click to expand...

They knew he didnt have a Nuclear program, the WMD story was a made up excuse. Or in better lingua they embellished to get a reason to get their way.
 
OxymoronP said:
No for a particular nation.
Click to expand...
I was obviously speaking about a justification for the international community.
I dont see how.
Click to expand...
They never do. :(
How so?
Click to expand...
I just explained it one line below the part you quoted.
They knew he didnt have a Nuclear program, the WMD story was a made up excuse. Or in better lingua they embellished to get a reason to get their way.
Click to expand...
That is your own opinion.
 
That is your own opinion.
Click to expand...

Not just my opinion, but granted it is an opinion. Saying the reverse is also an opinion. Yet based on other evidence like the actions of AG, the double talk of Chenney, the mishandling of the reconstruction and occupation. It certainly wasnt the lack of good intelligence provided to them, it was a lack of intelligence on how the intelligence is to be understood.
 
OxymoronP said:
Yet based on other evidence like the actions of AG, the double talk of Chenney, the mishandling of the reconstruction and occupation. It certainly wasnt the lack of good intelligence provided to them, it was a lack of intelligence on how the intelligence is to be understood.
Click to expand...
Intelligence organizations' job is to collect intelligence and to understand the collected intelligence.
Only then do they report on it to the government officials.
 
Apocalypse said:
Intelligence organizations' job is to collect intelligence and to understand the collected intelligence.
Only then do they report on it to the government officials.
Click to expand...

On this point, Cheney clearly made himself a home at the CIA and stood over analysts as they wrote their reports. He clearly had an agenda.
 
tlmorg02 said:
On this point, Cheney clearly made himself a home at the CIA and stood over analysts as they wrote their reports. He clearly had an agenda.
Click to expand...

And by ignoring or ridiculing contrary information like that found by Joseph Wilson, Cheney obviously crafted the result he wanted and used his position to silence all disagreement.
 
Apocalypse said:
Intelligence organizations' job is to collect intelligence and to understand the collected intelligence.
Only then do they report on it to the government officials.
Click to expand...

Right, but the goverment officials picked and chose what intelligence to use. For example the Yellow cake situation.
 
WillRockwell said:
And by ignoring or ridiculing contrary information like that found by Joseph Wilson, Cheney obviously crafted the result he wanted and used his position to silence all disagreement.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

Understanding that you will never be 100% certain about something secretly going on in another country, what -do- you do when you have conflicting information?
 
Goobieman said:
Sigh...

Understanding that you will never be 100% certain about something secretly going on in another country, what -do- you do when you have conflicting information?
Click to expand...

Apparently pick the info you favor and invade.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Apparently pick the info you favor and invade.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Or are you just being partisan?

If one point of view is supported by 19 pieces of information and one is supported by 1, are you "picking the one you favor" by choosing the view supported by the 19?
 
Goobieman said:
Are you sure? Or are you just being partisan?

If one point of view is supported by 19 pieces of information and one is supported by 1, are you "picking the one you favor" by choosing the view supported by the 19?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there was more info supporting the invasion than against? I am not partisan at all on this War. I feel that there were multiple mistakes, but if a democracy can be created, then who in their right mind would be against it.
 
Goobieman said:
Are you sure? Or are you just being partisan?

If one point of view is supported by 19 pieces of information and one is supported by 1, are you "picking the one you favor" by choosing the view supported by the 19?
Click to expand...

I would go with 19, and thus not invade.
 
Gibberish said:
I would go with 19, and thus not invade.
Click to expand...
Can you show that the available information supported such a decision, to such a degree?
 
Goobieman said:
No, I am asking you a question.
Click to expand...

Fine, I will play along. If I were about to send in thousands of American troops into a war zone and had 19 pieces of intel saying Iraq had WMD's, which of course, we knew for years, since we sold them to them along with Russia, and one saying no, I would wait and be sure that the other 19 were solid. The one doubt would be enough to save thousands of lives. War should be last resort.

That said, if Saadam would have made a move to attack the U.S. or our allies, then I would have taken the same action as GW. Iran has nuclear intentions and we have not invaded. Why? This was not about intel or anything else, it was about finishing what his father started. This administration wanted to create a democracy in the Middle East and I truly feel trumped-up the intel to support doing so.

If it turns-out and a democracy lasts, great and good job. If not, then thousands have died needlessly.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Fine, I will play along. If I were about to send in thousands of American troops into a war zone and had 19 pieces of intel saying Iraq had WMD's, which of course, we knew for years, since we sold them to them along with Russia, and one saying no, I would wait and be sure that the other 19 were solid. The one doubt would be enough to save thousands of lives. War should be last resort.
Click to expand...
IOW...you'd wait for 100% certitude.
And so, you'd never go to war, over anything, except only AFTER we were attacked, and only then after, with 100% certitude, that we knew who attacked us.

Sadly, today's geopolitical situation does not allow for this. The weapons available to certain people and certain countries does not allow for this luxury. Imagine, had GWB decided to not do anythig, and then a WMD from Iraq been used to attack us or our allies - one that "Bush should have known they had and done something about it, as the intel he had clearly pointed in that direction".

The point here is that when you're dealing with something being done by another nation in secret, you ALWAYS act on incomplete information -- you make with the best guesses you can with what you have and act accordingly. If the large majority of your information points you one way, and a small portion points you another, you have to act on the perponderance, and you have to act according to the haste dictated by that perponderance.

Citing the two or three things those inflicted by BDS like to hang their hats on does nothing but illustrate a failure to understand this.
 
Goobieman said:
IOW...you'd wait for 100% certitude.
And so, you'd never go to war, over anything, except only AFTER we were attacked, and only then after, with 100% certitude, that we knew who attacked us.

Sadly, today's geopolitical situation does not allow for this. The weapons available to certain people and certain countries does not allow for this luxury. Imagine, had GWB decided to not do anythig, and then a WMD from Iraq been used to attack us or our allies - one that "Bush should have known they had and done something about it, as the intel he had clearly pointed in that direction".

The point here is that when you're dealing with something being done by another nation in secret, you ALWAYS act on incomplete information -- you make with the best guesses you can with what you have and act accordingly. If the large majority of your information points you one way, and a small portion points you another, you have to act on the perponderance, and you have to act according to the haste dictated by that perponderance.

Citing the two or three things those inflicted by BDS like to hang their hats on does nothing but illustrate a failure to understand this.
Click to expand...


I never said I would wait for 100% certitude. The UN and others asserted that Iraq posed no threat. We had outdated intel that said otherwise. Why is it impossible to make sure that your intel is good before invading and occupying another country.

Do we know that Iran has nuclear aspirations? Yes.

Do we know they support terror? Yes.

Have we invaded as we did Iraq? No.

So how is it that the geopolitical situation with Iran creates a different outcome, when we are much more sure here than in Iraq?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom