[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied overIraq?Onwhatbasis?

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
>>him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
>>    
>>
>
>Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
>invasion was illegal.
>

His characterization of questionable intelligence as legitmate is 
precisely at issue.  Instead of saying "we know there there and we know 
where they are" the administration should have said "we think they might 
be there because of some questionable intelligence and we may know where 
they might be keeping them".  Note the difference is emphasis is 
significant for intelligent people.

An analogy for -people like you-.  Say I say "I have a gun in my 
pocket."  You may be inclined to do what I ask of you if I say it in a 
threatening voice.  Now say I say "I may have a gun in my pocket."  You 
may be inclined to reply with "show me the gun, then we'll talk."  What 
kind of crazy person carries around a gun and threatens people with 
maybe they have one?  The point, MAYBE is a lot less threatening than DOES.

Maybe I'll get cancer.  Maybe I'll get run over by a truck.  Maybe a 
homocidal maniac will kill my in my sleep.  Maybe the sun will explode.  
Maybe the Iraqi's have nuclear weapons.  You see how that goes.

NONE OF THESE CONSTITUTE A MATTER FOR WAR.

Maybe doesn't buy soap.  The President knew this and was unable to sell 
his war with maybe either.  He needed "does" and he pulled the trigger 
DESPITE what the CIA had advised.  Remember "Hadly did it" (look it up 
on thetip.org if you've forgotten).  Hadley is the fall-guy for who put 
the Niger/Uranium story into the state of the union.  But now we have to 
buy that the President didn't review his speech with his staff which, 
though plausible for a complete imbecil, isn't likely.  And frankly, I'm 
soooo tired of the complete imbecil excuse for the President's actions 
that I simply won't hear it any more.

> Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the arms
>inspectors, for instance, plus an entire decade of violations of the
>Gulf War cease-fire agreement, were far more important IMHO.
>

But neither of these were the reasons given for the war and neither of 
them were sufficient cause to go to war, both of which were solved by 
political means before we actually went in. The weapons inspectors were 
readmitted for months and the only people flying incursions across the 
neutral zone were Americans taking out communications stations near the 
borders in preparation for the not-yet-approved war.

> Bush (as
>well as every other UN SC member) was obligated to enforce all UN
>resolutions being violated by Iraq, including a number that had nothing
>to do with WMD.
>  
>
And how they enforce them IS UP TO THE UN.  The UN specifically didn't 
authorize military action in Iraq this time.

>  
>
>>IF you didn't support him but didn't oppose him either would you 
>>be a thug coddler?
>>
>>IF you participated in his re-election would you be a thug coddler?
>>
>>I am mindful of something that Spike said. Iraq may be on the
>>eve of construction. I am mindful that democracy is a good thing
>>or certainly a better thing than most of the alternatives.
>>
>>But if someone runs into your clubroom and kills or chases away
>>the president and committee members of your club then arranges
>>a new election. An election in which the club members that were
>>chased away or fled in fear of their lives did not agree to
>>participate in. Then is the result democracy?
>>    
>>
>
>Your analogy is bad. If someone holds a gun to the head of every member
>and says, "vote for me or die", wins his 'election', and is then
>deposed by an outside group that then ensures free and fair elections,
>is the result democracy? Sure it is.
>  
>
It's unconvincing if the "free and fair elections" are supervised by an 
occupying military force of upwards of 100,000 people and heavy artillery.

>>What about if they run into your house, shoot you, frighten your
>>wife away and set up an election amongst your shocked children?
>>    
>>
>
>Where Saddam is in the role of Big Daddy? Your strawman is hardly representative.
>

Lorry, please, please, please resign from the Libertarian party, you're 
idiocy is just making an already beaten-down hunk of political rhetoric 
even more tired.

Robbie Lindauer