Well well well.....

[Natoma]

Weapons of Mass Destruction my friend. That's why we went to Iraq. That was the casus belli, the tipping point reason that got us into the war in the first place. Yet now we have the Bush Administration admitting that, "woops, the uranium purchase we used as part of building the case to the american public was completely false, and we knew a good four months before stating it to the american public."

Well the question really is did the President manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Or did someone in the Administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Or was it a mix up of inept managers not getting the information to the right people?

To be honest I don't care who knew. I just know that whoever knew needs to be punished for this massive lie perpetuated to the american public. That's why I explicitly stated the Bush Administration, and not Bush himself, or anyone else.

And frankly, if this is a problem in the administration, then there are major issues that need to be resolved. Who knew what, when, and to what extent.

They impeached Clinton over lying about his marital infidelities (which I think anyone in that situation would have honestly done to save themselves the embarrassment). If this turns out to be anything like that, or watergate, or any other political scandal, examples need to be made. Even if it is president of the united states.

Interestingly enough from the British report:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/935946.asp?0cv=CB10

The commission’s report issued yesterday found that Blair and his other key ministers “did not mislead†Parliament in describing the threat from Iraq’s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But the panel did find that the Blair government mishandled intelligence material on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs.
The panel said it is too soon to determine whether the government’s assertions about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs will be borne out, but added that the government’s actions “were justified by the information available at the time.â€

So there appears to be justification based on the information available at the time. Hell, even the UN thought Iraq had wepons of mass destruction. Again, however was the information manipulated?

You didn't bold the most interesting part in my opinion.

But the panel did find that the Blair government mishandled intelligence material on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

Last sentence of the first paragraph.

Mishandling, misleading. It's the same difference as Futuremark saying Nvidia 'optimized' their drivers incorrectly vs Nvidia 'cheated'. One is politically correct and won't bring the dogs out. The other is the truth, bared out.

Imo the statement from the Brits is wordplay in order to try and salvage the situation, i.e. spin. You don't get to where you are, that high in government, without being extremely intelligent. These were basic problems that anyone should have seen.

Such as the signature on the uranium purchase from Niger. It was a dignitary who had not been in office for over a decade. You could google that and in 5 seconds find out that it was fake. And these guys want us to believe that this was a simple "mishandling?" I'm sorry but I just don't buy that.

Interestingly, Blair stands firm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3054240.stm

Obviously. His political future is at stake.

Finally, the question I have for others here is this: If the above was never claimed in Bush's State of the Union address would the war in Iraq be justified based on the information available at that time?

I never said that we didn't do the right thing in terms of removing a sadistic dictator. But the means to get us there is what I am at odds with.

1) Faulty intelligence, Faulty "handling" of the intelligence, outright lying, or downright incompetence are at fault here, or maybe a combination of those.

2) We were led to believe that Iraq was amassing tons of WMD. We were led to believe that Iraq was such a dire threat that we'd see mushroom clouds in US cities (Thanks Condoleeza Rice. I'm sure that drove up the prescriptions to Prozac real fast.).

3) We were led to believe that Iraq had deep ties to Al-Qaeda. So much so that by the start of the war, more than 50% of the US populace believe that it was 19 Iraqis, by order of Saddam, who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon, to not mention the downed plane in Pennsylvania.

We're now finding out that the ties to Al-Qaeda were extremely tenuous at best. Basically the CIA had an iffy photograph of someone they thought was one of Saddam's ministers of defense having lunch with Mohammed Atta. That's where the whole "connection" came from.

I'm not even a spook but it doesn't make sense for Al-Qaeda to form an alliance with Saddam. Why? Saddam is one of the people they're trying to take down. They want to establish hardline muslim states in the holy land. You honestly think Osama would align himself with Saddam then? Saddam is enemy #1c next to Israel and America, enemies #1a and #1b

4) The aluminum tubes that Iraq purchased were reported to the american public to be weapons grade for use in processing Uranium. Factored together with the supposed purchase of uranium from Niger and you have the pieces for the making of an atom bomb.

But it turns out that even before Colin Powell gave the UN the information about the aluminum tubes, the CIA knew that they were not high enough quality to process uranium. They could only be used in short range missiles, i.e. less than 200 miles.

In conclusion:

The trail of "mishandling" is too extensive for this to be all chance. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the people in our government are that stupid to mess up like this. I don't have a degree in spying or criminal psychology or whatnot, but this is pretty basic stuff. Google for half an hour and you can come up with the answers to all of these "mishandlings" that the British and American governments supposedly had.

I simply do not believe that.

 

[RussSchultz]

Its going to be tough for all the Bush haters to keep this up until re-election time.

 

[Natoma]

Its going to be tough for all the Bush haters to keep this up until re-election time.

You're not addressing the truth of the situation. Please do so. This has nothing to do with disliking Bush (because lets be honest. I don't "hate" bush, but i *really* dislike his policies), but a serious dislike for being dragged into a war when it turns out the reasons for that war were dubious at best, spurious at worst.

 

[Stvn]

The trail of "mishandling" is too extensive for this to be all chance. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the people in our government are that stupid to mess up like this.

First, I disagree, there are some people that "stupid" in our government. Its amazing what politics will motivate people to do. Its amazing how much of a hold the concepts of "power" and "money" have on some seemingly very intelligent people.

Just because Daddy paid your way through the Ivy League does not mean ya'll learnt 'ah fucking thang whyle yah wuz thar.

Much dumber things have been done but also seemingly smart people for very similar reasons the world over. Never under estimate the ability of highly educated and politically charged people to manipulate the world around them for their own gain. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

Secondly, I agree with you.

Negligence points to complicity.

As President of the United States, it is your responsibilty to ensure that information you talk about in a speech that is being watched by millions of people, is correct beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt. If you are in anyway unsure, you shouldn't use it.

That is clear to me, it is his responsibility as a publicly elected official to double, triple and quadruple check his information. He has the means, he has the manpower, he has much more his disposal than Google thats for damn sure.

So I say that regardless of what he believed or was lead to believe regarding this information, he was negligant in not verfiying it to the absolute best of his abilities (which given that he has the NSA, CIA, FBI and the shared intelligence of most of the world largely at his disposal is pretty large).

In his negligence, he becomes complicit in the misleading of the world, not just the American public. Even if somewhere in the darkened rooms deep in the Pentagon Rumsfeld and Cheney sat up late one night forging those documents then leaking them, it was still Bush's responsibility to have them checked over.

I think Joe Strummer of the Clash said it best:

When I was young I thought that authority had wisdom. But as I got older I realized that authority was just a system of control and it had no intrinsic widsom at all.

-stvn

 

[RussSchultz]

I do believe that it was a just thing to do (topple a dictator)
I do believe Saddam was hiding things
I do believe Saddam was pursuing chem/bio/nuke weapons

I do believe, in general, there was puffery when it came to the WMD "imminent threat" claims.

I also believe the general american populace really doesn't give a rats ass about "being lied to" with respect to Iraq, or is willing to overlook the fact.

Its come down to being the right thing for reasons other than the pure WMD claims.

And that is what "Bush haters" are trying to fight against--not the system, but a majority of the populace that essentially agrees with the policy and was willing to swallow the imminent threat pill to support the war. Afterwards, they're willing to forgive/forget that WMDs haven't been found because what happened in Iraq was the "right thing" (according to the general populace). Believe it or not, the general populace believes the US is a force for good in the world--regardless of the "outside" claims of unilateralism, exploitation, world domination, etc.

Essentially, right or wrong, the US populace doesn't buy into the extreme leftist viewpoint claims of the US government and military being an evil junta out to dominate the world.

There are two percieved threats to the Bush Re-election (well, actually, I see three)
-Super big fallout of WMD (or lack thereof)
-Economy going way further down the commode
-(somebody like John McCain going independant)

The "bush haters" are hoping to make the first a real issue. I've heard democratic senators want to table it until next year (co-incidentally close to election time) and left wing hopefuls like Dean is beating this drum as loud as he can--because its his only ammunition.

I personally believed from the beginning that the imminent threat claims were only claims of a potential threat, with a distinct possibility that it would turn out not to be true. And I didn't care. I believe people all over the world should have the right to live a life free from fear. I agree with the "neocon" charter--that the US should strive to install democracies around the world. I believe that Iraq was a good starting point.

I've got my fingers crossed that tomorrow (July 9th--anniversary of Iranian Student uprising) another domino will begin to fall.

 

[Stvn]

I don't mean to imply that the "sole motivation behind the "War in/on Iraq" was to disarm him". I've allways believed that there were numerous reasons to go to war, some of which you have suggested. Those reasons were always part of the equation. Taking all that into consideration, the WMD threat, the politics, the oil, Saddam's brutality, past history, strategic interests, ect....is that not enough?

Yes, it is enough.

But you and I might know/somewhat understand the politics behind it.
Possibly even between the both of us, we might have signifagant knowledge of Saddam's brutality.
Stategic interests, I bet that we are both smart enough to have a decent grasp on that concept too.

From our more intellectual viewpoint, the war was justified (as much as any war can be justified).

But lets not forget:

Shortly before, and in the initial weeks of the war, a poll indicated that over 50% of the american public believed that "all if not most of" the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi.

In fact, none of them were Iraqi, and most of them were middle-class (some college) educated Saudi Arabians, and Egyptians.

That cast some doubt for me as to weather I beleive the American public is both smart enough and interested enough to grasp the political motivations behind the war.

Next:

While I dont have any figures on this one, I would guess that as many as 50% of american high-shoolers would not be able to find Iraq on a map much less have any clue about the surrounding countries. And lets not even start to talk about the geographical knowledge of your average mid-western housewife.

Given this speculation of mine, I would find it doubtful that the general american populace would understand the stategic interests behind the War in/on Iraq.

Next:

Oil.

We'll I am not a fan of the whole "Blood for Oil" retoric. But fact is, oil is a stategic interest, and Iraq has oil. What that means on a deeper level, we will have to wait and see.

But given the amount of SUVs on the road, I think that Americians do understand that motivation for the War in/on Iraq.

Next:

Saddam's Brutality.

Well, I did watch a few things on the Discover Channel regarding this. So while I am no expert, I do know that it was pretty bad living in Saddam's Iraq if you weren't pro-Saddam.

I would say that the majority of Americans only know one thing in realtion to this:

"He gassed his own people" - George W. Bush

While I don't question its authenticity, I do question the motivation for hammering that into our collective minds given the source.

Lastly, the good ole WMD:

Well, havent found 'em yet.

'nuff said

Sure, the world can't be run by stupid ignorant people who care more about who gets kicked off the next island/blind date. But popular support is part of how politics works. If you are going to defy the UN and in part the whole world, you need popular support at home.

Fear mongering (WMDs, Oil, Saddam's Brutality) was a major means of garnering public support for the war. We all watch those planes slam into those building over and over and over again. We are all still a little bit scared/nervous/freaked out (well at least those of us New Yorkers) when it comes to the idea of WMDs and Terrorists. The Bush admin waged a campaign to push the American public into seeing the need for war out of fear, with the occasional bid for the moral high ground (good democracy vs. Evil dictator).

Thats not information, thats manipulation.

Again, I beleive that the war was justified (as much as a war can be), and that we did it for alot of reasons, some good some bad. And in the grand scheme of human history (a minor blib in the cosmos i might add), it will no doubt be viewed positively.

But then again, I didnt vote and I dont believe in the American political system. So maybe all that rhetoric wasnt meant for me then.

-stvn

 

[Stvn]

I do believe that it was a just thing to do (topple a dictator)
I do believe Saddam was hiding things
I do believe Saddam was pursuing chem/bio/nuke weapons

I do believe, in general, there was puffery when it came to the WMD "imminent threat" claims.

I also believe the general american populace really doesn't give a rats ass about "being lied to" with respect to Iraq, or is willing to overlook the fact.

So what you are saying is that its okay to mislead and lie to people if they are too stupid to know or care? Funny thats not how i learned it in Sunday School.

Its come down to being the right thing for reasons other than the pure WMD claims.

And that is what "Bush haters" are trying to fight against--not the system, but a majority of the populace that essentially agrees with the policy and was willing to swallow the imminent threat pill to support the war. Afterwards, they're willing to forgive/forget that WMDs haven't been found because what happened in Iraq was the "right thing" (according to the general populace). Believe it or not, the general populace believes the US is a force for good in the world--regardless of the "outside" claims of unilateralism, exploitation, world domination, etc.

The general populace thinks that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi.

The general populace can't find Iraq on a map, much less their own home state.

The general populace watches "Survivor".

The general populace is the reason why Star Search is back on the air, and Arsenio Hall is hosting it.

Aside from all that, the general populace beleives that we are a "force of good in the world" because that is what is taught in most schools. Much like the rest of the world believes we are "unilateral, exploitive, and bent on world domination" because they are taught it in their schools, places of worship and homes.

You can't fault the sheep for following the herd.

You know, I actually agree with you (and the neo-cons) that the U.S. is in a unique position in history whereby we can spread freedom and democracy across the globe. Unfortunately though American corporate interests have poisoned that moral ideal.

-stvn

 

[micron]

I do believe, in general, there was puffery when it came to the WMD

"puffery"......what an excellent new word

 

[RussSchultz]

I do believe that it was a just thing to do (topple a dictator)
I do believe Saddam was hiding things
I do believe Saddam was pursuing chem/bio/nuke weapons

I do believe, in general, there was puffery when it came to the WMD "imminent threat" claims.

I also believe the general american populace really doesn't give a rats ass about "being lied to" with respect to Iraq, or is willing to overlook the fact.

So what you are saying is that its okay to mislead and lie to people if they are too stupid to know or care? Funny thats not how i learned it in Sunday School.

Funny, your conclusion does not follow from what I said.

I stated what I believe, and I stated what I percieve the American populace to believe and support.

Its also my belief that the people attempting to crucify the bush administration over this are attempting to "lie" to the american public to further their own agenda. They're reciting assertations that the administration never made or they're coloring history with the crystal clear vision of hindsight.

I don't believe that anything the Bush administration stated should have encouraged people to believe that the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi or that the WMD were the only reason we went to war. It certainly didn't border on outright deception.

Its people like you and Natoma that are hanging their lynching ropes on that item because it turned out to be not as bad as our intelligence suggested or feared. In general, the populace doesn't care to listen to you.

Or, as you suggest, are they just sheep if they don't come to the conclusion you do?

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

I never wanted to say it, but one word: oil

 

[Natoma]

Its also my belief that the people attempting to crucify the bush administration over this are attempting to "lie" to the american public to further their own agenda. They're reciting assertations that the administration never made or they're coloring history with the crystal clear vision of hindsight.

I don't believe that anything the Bush administration stated should have encouraged people to believe that the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi or that the WMD were the only reason we went to war. It certainly didn't border on outright deception.

Its people like you and Natoma that are hanging their lynching ropes on that item because it turned out to be not as bad as our intelligence suggested or feared. In general, the populace doesn't care to listen to you.

Or, as you suggest, are they just sheep if they don't come to the conclusion you do?

Ahem. While you're suggesting that the administration did not parrot things that border on outright deception, the article, and the administration, apparently say otherwise. Or did you not read it?

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have claimed in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

......

The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a “bald claim†that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush’s speech included the claim as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

I've been stating for months that the Uranium Purchase from Niger was a Fraud. I've been stating for months that the Aluminum Tubes purchase being a precursor to a nuclear bomb was a fraud.

Now the administrations of the US and Britain officially admit it, and *I'm* the one who's coloring history and trying to crucify people? Please. This just confirms what I've been saying for months, right from the horses mouth.

The fact that the populace doesn't give a damn that their government has lied to them, or at the very least grossly misrepresented the facts, is completely disturbing. I don't care who's in power. I love Tony Blair as a person and a politician. But he deserves to get heat over this since everything he hung his hat on is now coming out to be false or grossly distorted. If we don't hold people accountable for the actions that lead millions into war, then what good is our government? What good is accountability worth from our elected officials?

People wanted to crucify Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky. Uhm, hello. That affected him, his family, and Monica Lewinsky. Yet those same people couldn't give a hoot about over 100 soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, dying in a war that was sold on Weapons of Mass Destruction?

I'm sorry, but if I lost a family member over there I'd be completely pissed off if it turned out the reason they went over there was fabricated. Or at the very least a gross failure in our intelligence community. Considering the environment post-9/11, I simply cannot dismiss this. Our intelligence failed us on 9/11, and it seems that our intelligence failed us with regard to Iraq.

Reasons given by the Bush Administration for going to war, and their truthfulness:

1) Saddam has killed his own people: True
2) Saddam has 500 Tons of Chem-Bio agents: False
3) Saddam's army can arm themselves with Chem-Bio agents in 45 minutes: False
4) Saddam purchased weapons grade Uranium from Niger in violation of UN Sanctions: False
5) Saddam purchased high grade aluminum tubes for use in Uranium reprocessing to make a Nuclear Bomb: False
6) Saddam was one year away from having a Nuclear Bomb: False
7) Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda: False

You think this is all made up or revisionist history on "our" part? Google Bush's State of the Union Speech. That is where I got #1, #4, #5, and #6 from. Straight from Bush's mouth. #2 was from Colin Powell during his speech to the UN. #3 was from England's Intelligence Community.

And with regard to Saddam's ties to terrorism. He gave money openly to the Palestinian suicide bombers, but has no ties with Al-Qaeda. The CIA has admitted this, that their only link, a photograph between Mohammed Atta and someone they think, but are not sure, was Saddam's defense minister. That was their only link.

Lest I remind you that right after 9/11, the Bush administration took this and ran with it, trying even then to forge a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which was shot down by the CIA as false. Yet somehow, that eventually grew to more than 50% of the american populace believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11, *not* Al-Qaeda. That had to come from somewhere to convince 140 Million people that Al-Qaeda was responsible. That sort of thing doesn't just fall from the sky and suddenly become common belief.

As I have said before, I am glad that Saddam was gone. He was a tyrant who deserved what he got. I am not trying to defend his regime. However, I do find serious fault in the reasoning used to push us into war. For christ sake Russ, thousands of people lost their lives over the past couple of months, and continue to lose their lives, on premises that have been proven lately to be false, or tenuous at best. Try telling the families of those lost in Iraq that "Hey, sure the administration/intelligence community grossly lied and/or failed in their duties to your son/daughter, but really. No one cares. Attack bush and you're on a witch hunt. We got rid of a terrible man. So what he didn't have any WMD. So what they made up all of this. Be happy and don't complain."

Yeesh. I don't like being lied to, especially when those lies lead to a war I helped finance, but did not support in any way shape or form because of the means used to justify that war. The means do count for something right Russ?

And before you say anything, I want to stress what I have been saying as well for months. I could not care less about Iraq. I'm scared shitless about North Korea.

Today's Capabilities:

Long range, *accurate* ballistic missiles capable of taking out Japan, China, and South Korea

Capabilities by year end:

3-6 Nuclear Bombs

Capabilities by 2005 end:

Nuclear tipped ICBM capable of taking out California

Capabilities by 2008 end:

Nuclear tipped ICBM capable of taking out the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Source? CIA.

Who controls these capabilities? Crazy man Kim Jong Il. I could say Saddam was a cold hearted, calculating bastard. Kim Jong Il is a cold hearted, insane bastard. Replace Saddam and Iraq with Kim Jong Il and North Korea in Bush's State of the Union address, and I'm behind this war completely because North Korea represents the true threat to this country.

They are *extremely* poor and have said time and time again that they have absolutely no issue selling their Nuclear Material and/or Bombs to the highest bidder. Gee, who's our friendly neighborhood Billionaire-on-the-run-with-a-grudge-against-the-US-and-her-allies currently? Osama Bin Laden. Condoleeza Rice wants to scare people with talk about Mushroom clouds in US cities? Point the finger straight at North Korea.

This is not "hate bush." This is common sense.

1) Kim Jong Il has killed his own people: True
2) Kim Jong Il has ordered reprocessing of spent Nuclear rods to build Nuclear bombs: True
3) North Korea is one year away from having a Nuclear Bomb: True
4) North Korea has the capability to wipe out all their neighbors: True
5) North Korea will very soon have the capability to wipe out the western seaboard: True

North Korea is why Japan is rearming, and seriously considering tearing up their "No War" Constitution.

Sorry for the rant, but frankly I can't see why people are so dense when it comes to things like this.

 

[Vince]

Natoma, Perhaps you should have spent longer in school studying Eastern Culture and the basic history of Korea and the long standing geo-political tensions that reside there.

You sound... well, I'll be nice. Eastern Culture and it's unique politic (atleast in the modern 1st world) with it's traditional values that put concepts such as "face" and "respect" as tantamount is quite different than that which your accustomed to in the Western World and that you think you can apply to the Korean Peninsula. Not to mention the interesting dynamic that factors in the historical and cultural divide/hate/fear of the Japanese that is taught throught the country and sees this [military/defense] as a role for the North to provide, to save "face" in light of the South's amazing paradigm shift that gave rise to it's socio-economic prosperity that has far outstripped the more populace North.

I and several others here addressed this issue very well in the days before the Iraqi Liberation. Please, refrain from wasting out time again.

PS. I would recommend you refrain from bluntly stating that WMD and it's associated items don't exist. We shall see....

Again, that you (someone with obviously little knowledge of the US/UK defense apparatus) can even make these remarks and do it with authority as if you know what your talking about is what is dangerous.

When intelligent people in the field say to wait; when out of the blue an Iraqi scientist comes forward with nuclear components after you, yourself, already stared round 1 of your criticisms; When you give the UN 12 years and push for more but then badmouth the US after 3 Months.... it reflects badly. I'm going to stick to the message from the people in this field... when I need advice on dealing with gay guys, I'll listen to you.

 

[zurich]

Sorry for the rant, but frankly I can't see why people are so dense when it comes to things like this.

Because NK is China/Japan's problem, not America's. Or, simply because NK has the fear of a Vietnam war instilled into US Brass? Or even more simply, cause there's no oil?

 

[RussSchultz]

NK has a valid deterrant. Definately conventional bombardment that would level a city of several million and devestate one of the larger export economies in the far east.

That is why we don't militarily intercede in that situation.

Nobody said they bought weapons grade uranium. You characterize the actions of the administration as lying, but all of your "falses" are really "we don't know" and/or misunderstandings of the assertations on your part.

 

[Stvn]

Natoma, Perhaps you should have spent longer in school studying Eastern Culture and the basic history of Korea and the long standing geo-political tensions that reside there.

You sound... well, I'll be nice. Eastern Culture and it's unique politic (atleast in the modern 1st world) with it's traditional values that put concepts such as "face" and "respect" as tantamount is quite different than that which your accustomed to in the Western World and that you think you can apply to the Korean Peninsula. Not to mention the interesting dynamic that factors in the historical and cultural divide/hate/fear of the Japanese that is taught throught the country and sees this [military/defense] as a role for the North to provide, to save "face" in light of the South's amazing paradigm shift that gave rise to it's socio-economic prosperity that has far outstripped the more populace North.

Vince, please correct me if I am wrong, but what i understand you to be saying is that North Korea is just posturing to save "face" in light of the prosperity of South Korea.

This may be so, you obviously know a good deal about Eastern Culture, at least more than I do.

But doesnt it worry you just a little that North Korea is posturing to save "face" by offering seriously destructive weapons to the highest bidder, and holding the threat of nuclear weapons over other countries?

Culture be damned, I could give a shit less at this point. The man/regime is insane, and there is absolutely no excuse that can be made for his behavior.

If someone was just posturing to save "face" while holding a gun to your/your wife/your childs head. Would you be okay with that if they were asian?

Seriously, it seems a little illogical to justify North Korea's behavior as cultural phenomenon.

PS. I would recommend you refrain from bluntly stating that WMD and it's associated items don't exist. We shall see....

I will agree with you there, this "history" has yet to be written. Despite what Russ seems to think.

Again, that you (someone with obviously little knowledge of the US/UK defense apparatus) can even make these remarks and do it with authority as if you know what your talking about is what is dangerous.

Can you please state your qualifications on knowledge of the US/UK defense apparatus?

I mean in order to discount Natoma's, you must have a reasonably well rounded knowledge of it yourself, and no doubt you do. But for the benifit of this discussion, can you qualify it.

When intelligent people in the field say to wait; when out of the blue an Iraqi scientist comes forward with nuclear components after you, yourself, already stared round 1 of your criticisms; When you give the UN 12 years and push for more but then badmouth the US after 3 Months.... it reflects badly. I'm going to stick to the message from the people in this field...

Again, I agree, you never know what might come out of the woodwork. It is presumptious to state "facts" in either direction.

when I need advice on dealing with gay guys, I'll listen to you.

Now come on, this type of stuff just really seems childish. All that you have said, and everything you stand for was just undermined by a silly little sideswipe at someone's personal life. It degrades an otherwise intelligent (or not intelligent if you feel that way) conversation into name calling trash talk.

Just because no one can see you doesnt make it anymore okay to be an asshole. Stick to the discussion please, all other banter is a waste of everyone's time.


-stvn

 

[RussSchultz]

What history do I think has been written? You're confusing me with somebody else.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, Perhaps you should have spent longer in school studying Eastern Culture and the basic history of Korea and the long standing geo-political tensions that reside there.

You sound... well, I'll be nice. Eastern Culture and it's unique politic (atleast in the modern 1st world) with it's traditional values that put concepts such as "face" and "respect" as tantamount is quite different than that which your accustomed to in the Western World and that you think you can apply to the Korean Peninsula. Not to mention the interesting dynamic that factors in the historical and cultural divide/hate/fear of the Japanese that is taught throught the country and sees this [military/defense] as a role for the North to provide, to save "face" in light of the South's amazing paradigm shift that gave rise to it's socio-economic prosperity that has far outstripped the more populace North.

I know a lot about "eastern" culture. But an atomic bomb is an atomic bomb is an atomic bomb.

Besides, I also happen to know a lot about arab/muslim culture. They're way more pissed at us "infidels" for bringing our troops into the holy land. Why was Al-Qaeda born primarily? In response to our troops in Iraq and Kuwait during Gulf War I.

Culture definitely didn't stop us from going into Iraq a second time around.

I and several others here addressed this issue very well in the days before the Iraqi Liberation. Please, refrain from wasting out time again.

Whether or not you discussed it doesn't mean that it's relevant to the discussion. As I've pointed out, there are serious culture clashes between us and arabs/muslims, but that hasn't stopped us from occupying two countries in the region with a full military force. Al-Qaeda was born because of the Gulf War I, even with its limited scope in terms of occupation. Considering what has happened in the past, it can no doubt get far worse with the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

PS. I would recommend you refrain from bluntly stating that WMD and it's associated items don't exist. We shall see....

I bluntly stated that the Uranium purchase from Niger was a fraud. I bluntly stated that the aluminum tubes purchase was a fraud. The 500 tons of chem-bio agents? That has also been proven fraudulent.

Given the track record of the intelligence community, in cooperation with this administration, I'm not particularly holding my breath.

Again, that you (someone with obviously little knowledge of the US/UK defense apparatus) can even make these remarks and do it with authority as if you know what your talking about is what is dangerous.

I don't need to do all the talking. This is out there from the CIA and the Bush Administration and the British Parliament. The article I linked to to begin this discussion is just the tip of the iceberg.

When intelligent people in the field say to wait; when out of the blue an Iraqi scientist comes forward with nuclear components after you, yourself, already stared round 1 of your criticisms; When you give the UN 12 years and push for more but then badmouth the US after 3 Months.... it reflects badly. I'm going to stick to the message from the people in this field...

The UN found and destroyed, their own words, the bulk of, if not all of, Saddams weapons, by the time they were kicked out in 1998. The UN Inspectors did not spend months hawking and harping behind the scenes saying "this will never work. we need to take out saddam now. we have the intel for where the weapons are, but we won't share it with you."

The administration stated that it had the intel on the WMD, yet was unwilling to share even the slightest of that with the weapon inspectors. Now that they have control of the country, it turns out that intel was falsified in quite a few instances, or "mishandled" in others.

This is not badmouthing. This is telling them to put up the goods. Rumsfeld and Cheney, then Bush, Rice, and Powell later on, had been sniping at the UN Inspectors. Now it's time to put their money where their mouth is, and hope they don't insert foot.

I wanted to give the inspectors this one last chance in order to try and avoid a war that would cost the lives of american soldiers. I have family in the military. I have absolutely no reason to want a war and risk the possibility of them getting called up. The Bush Administration showed no predilection toward supporting the weapon inspectors and spent every waking moment trying to undermine them. Well, they got their war. Where are the goods?

That's what I'd like to know.

p.s.: Components do not 500 tons of chem-bio weapons make. Components do not "Nuclear weapon within 1 year" make. There is a difference between buried-for-10-years components and having nuclear/chem-bio weapons. Big difference.

Besides, here's a quick question. What happens when they start talking about Syria having WMD. Or their intelligence stating that some other rogue state has WMD and are about to strike. If they can't prove this one right, who's going to believe us next time?

We need to find those WMD, if not to justify this war, but at the very least to restore our credibility wrt these things on the world stage. As much as some of us like to believe we're all powerful and can do whatever we want, we simply cannot. We're dependent on the world system economically as much as we are independent militarily.

 

[Chris]

Please read: (all of it)

http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

And remember that this was written over two years ago...

I was laughing then.

Regards, Chris.

Not speaking for Beyond3D

 

[Dave H]

Sorry for the rant, but frankly I can't see why people are so dense when it comes to things like this.

Because NK is China/Japan's problem, not America's. Or, simply because NK has the fear of a Vietnam war instilled into US Brass? Or even more simply, cause there's no oil?

Because a conventional war with North Korea would likely result in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Because a nuclear war with NK (assuming they have several nuclear bombs already as the CIA has estimated is a reasonably high probability) could possibly result in upwards of a million civilian casualties, or even several million.

Because North Korea's actions fit a pattern of openly seeking WMD as a bargaining chip for economic gains, while Iraq's actions fit a pattern of covertly seeking WMD as a means of expanding regional power.

Because Iraq was in violation--and had been continuously for 12 years--of the cease fire agreement they agreed to to end the first Gulf War, while North Korea was in violation only of a bilateral framework agreement which the US was arguably violating as well.

Because a liberated and democratizing Iraq could provide the shock to break the logjam in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as in fact it has.

Because a pacified and friendly Iraq provides the US the strategic opportunity to withdraw their troops from, and lessen its political and strategic dependence on, Saudi Arabia, as we have already announced plans to do. (Note that the presence of American troops in Arabia was Osama bin Laden's original complaint which led to the founding of Al Qaeda and the declaration of jihad against the US. Note further that Saudi Arabia is the primary sponsor--both within its borders and around the world--of the Islamic fundamentalism which forms the ideological breeding grounds for Islamist terrorism. And it's already been noted that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.)

Because a liberated and democratizing Iraq has the potential to put into motion liberalization and democratization in neighboring states and throughout the Muslim world, as we have already seen some tentative signs of, particularly in Iran.

And because, if things go well in the long run, establishing a free, liberal democratic Iraq has the potential to offer the Arab world a third alternative other than the kleptocratic dictatorships they have known and the nihilist terrorism that has emerged as a counterweight. Indeed it's clear that the threat of Islamist terrorism against the West will never be over until liberalism takes root throughout the Muslim world, but particularly in the Middle East.

The neocon argument for war against Iraq was and is that deposing Saddam and helping Iraqis liberalize and institute democracy is the most effective plausible way to bring about the conditions that could one day end (and win) the "war on terror". I am generally persuaded by that argument, although it is easy to find those who take it too far and simplify too much.

Of course, that was not the argument that Bush (and Blair) used to justify the war. Not that modern political rhetoric ever matches the rationale actually justifying the policy in question, especially when the explanation has some complexity to it. (Hence the political discourse on economics in particular is chock-full of arguments disproven by the most basic Freshman-year economics.)

And I should point out that I always (and most neocons seem to agree) viewed the Iraqi WMD program as an important part in the rationale for war, besides just providing the legal fig leaf that Iraq had never complied with the Gulf War cease fire agreement. But the argument is not that Iraq posed an imminent threat, particularly to the US; but rather that their ongoing WMD programs posed a destabalizing threat to the region, one that could only be partially contained--and even then only to a questionable degree--by the permanent imposition of a sanctions regime which killed tends of thousands of civilians every year and may even have solidified Saddam's grip on power.

The argument was never (for me, at least) that Saddam was just around the corner from getting nuclear weapons, but rather that there was no permanent way to prevent him from eventually getting them (the inspection regime proved both toothless and unstable, and was eventually kicked out by Saddam), and the only way to slow him down imposed a tremendous human cost.

So that's the difference between Iraq and North Korea. Some of the same arguments apply to NK; but most of them do not. Certainly one does not have to stoop to "W. wants to steal all that oil!" in order to find compelling reasons to have fought this war.

That's not to say that the presence of oil in the Middle East doesn't have a large indirect role. In particular, the reason the political and social structures of the Arab world are as backward and screwed up as they are has primarily to do with its nearly entirely oil-based economy. And, second, the reason we could not just abandon Saudi Arabia to a militaristic Iraq is that doing so would precipitate a world economic depression.

 

[Pete]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/935946.asp?0cv=CB10

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have claimed in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

......

The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a “bald claimâ€￾ that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush’s speech included the claim as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

Hmm... So this comes out and still no hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Yea we got rid of a bad guy, but what was that dang blasted reason again that we went in?

Hi there. Apologies if this was already said (I'm loathe to repeat the obvious), but at least two unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions give "us" the "authority" to do what's necessary to enforce compliance. I say "us" in quotes because my young and impressionable mind thinks only the U.S. and Britain have the stones and means to enforce their mandates. I say "authority" in quotes because I don't think the UNSC represents a supremely moral voice--at least, not more so than some others. I think the Americans and British dying in Iraq now, after the major offensive, are partly a result of French and German two-faced politicians who value their popularity (and, thus, influence and kickbacks) more than they value fixing fixable wrongs.

And I think anyone still arguing that this war was not justified needs to open their eyes to the justifications (both idealistically "international" and fatally historical) in plain sight that they're choosing to ignore.