[BlackGriffen]

NYT Article with the same title as this thread.



I'm sure the young soldiers coming home in 'transfer tubes' and those on extended tours would love to read this.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
NYT Article with the same title as this thread.



I'm sure the young soldiers coming home in 'transfer tubes' and those on extended tours would love to read this.

BlackGriffen

read carefully in the article how Perle (a founding neocon) attempts to blame the CIA for turning down the offer, and the CIA states that every credible lead or offer, and even some noncredible leads were chased down. Those two assertions are mutually exclusive.

Again, the neocons are trying to scapegoat the intel community for the decisions made by the administration under neocon influence.

One has to wonder why?

[eklipse]

....Mr. Obeidi explained that the Iraqis wanted to cooperate with the Americans and could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists, Mr. Hage said. The Iraqi seemed desperate, Mr. Hage said, "like someone who feared for his own safety, although he tried to hide it."

Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."

Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.

He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.

If the story is true, it seems that Iraq was willing to concede an awful lot (much more than they ever offered publicly) in order to avoid a war - such concessions should definitely have been taken seriously and pursued further if there was any opportunity or desire to prevent a military conflict. Unfortunately, this did not appear to be part of Bush's game-plan - he was intent on having his war. Well, now he has his war, he can deal with and suffer the consequences.

Also of note: yet another source claiming emphatically that there were no longer WMDs in Iraq.

This 11th-hour-deal scenario sounds very much like the eventual resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis - too bad Bush wasn't/isn't as pragmatic a politician as Kennedy was.

[Spliffdaddy]

remember...

Saddam wasn't willing to make ANY concessions until there were a few hundred thousand US and British soldiers knocking on the gates of Baghdad.

The answer was a military one either way.

You act as though mere words would have had any effect.

[Troll]

People, people, people. WMD, terrorism and freeing the Iraqi people are just the icing. The decision to invade Iraq had been taken before the Bush Administration even came to power. Invading Iraq was about this. It should have been clear to anyone watching that nothing Blix or Hussein or Schröder or Putin or Chirac or anyone else could say would stop the war machine. Hussein's biggest mistake was not realising that - thinking he could play brinksman with someone who had already decided to go over the edge. Iraq was on a hiding to nothing from the start. Let's just be glad that's it's been enough of a failure to put on hold some of the other plans you'll find if you follow that link!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
remember...

Saddam wasn't willing to make ANY concessions until there were a few hundred thousand US and British soldiers knocking on the gates of Baghdad.

The answer was a military one either way.

You act as though mere words would have had any effect.

you're completely missing the point...

remember...the entire war could have been avoided, and everything Bush said he wanted could have been granted with no bloodshed.
Think about it...no american soldier deaths at all, no Iraqi civilian deaths at all...assistance in the mideast peace process...full independent access to verify the lack of WMDs.

Why, do you think, Bush attacked anyways?
Do you have an answer for that?

[Spliffdaddy]

Are you saying the Ba'ath party and Hussein would have been removed from power with NO bloodshed?

Not even a small chance of that happening and you know it.

I'd suggest that the the regime change took place with LESS bloodshed than the scenario you so adamantly promote.

As far as "independent access to verify the absence of WMDs" - may I remind you that it wasn't anyone's obligation except Iraq's to verify their WMD compliance to the UN.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
People, people, people. WMD, terrorism and freeing the Iraqi people are just the icing. The decision to invade Iraq had been taken before the Bush Administration even came to power. Invading Iraq was about this. It should have been clear to anyone watching that nothing Blix or Hussein or Schröder or Putin or Chirac or anyone else could say would stop the war machine. Hussein's biggest mistake was not realising that - thinking he could play brinksman with someone who had already decided to go over the edge. Iraq was on a hiding to nothing from the start. Let's just be glad that's it's been enough of a failure to put on hold some of the other plans you'll find if you follow that link!

precisely.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As far as "independent access to verify the absence of WMDs" - may I remind you that it wasn't anyone's obligation except Iraq's to verify their WMD compliance to the UN.

....which they did - and Bush promptly stuck his fingers in his ears and recanted: "NANANANANA! I AM NOT LISTENING!! NANANANA!......"

[finboy]

Of course Baghdad offered a quick settlement at the last minute. Sure they did. Why not?

[kvm_mkdb]

Baghdad bent over backwards 12 years long in order to get the sanctions lifted.

[Lerkfish]

soooo....let me get this straight. spliff and finboy think its better to have invaded and incurred needless deaths? Even if they don't value the lives of Iraqis...

That means these patriotic right wingers that love god and country and support the troops would rather hundreds of americans die than have them live....

do I have this straight?

[Spliffdaddy]

sooo...let me get this straight

You are saying the Ba'ath party and Hussein would have been removed from power with NO bloodshed.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
sooo...let me get this straight

You are saying the Ba'ath party and Hussein would have been removed from power with NO bloodshed.

Why did the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein need to be removed?

[Spliffdaddy]

Because they were too kind and compassionate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Because they were too kind and compassionate.

I think Troll's point was the the stated justifications for invading did not require the removal of Saddam or the Ba'ath party.
True, that's probably the only good thing the war accomplished as a side effect, but regime change in and of itself was not supposed to be the goal.

It became one of the goals later, of course, but if you'll recall, the ORIGINAL justification was to get Saddam to report on his current WMD status. As it turns out, he was being truthful about his WMD status, but even if he had not been, a brokered deal allowing the US to come in independently and have free run to inspect everything would have addressed the original stated goal of the Bush administration.

The regime change goal, as stated by Bush, ONLY came about as a retributory act for what he perceived as dishonesty about WMD reporting (which ironically appears to have been honest reporting). Therefore, if independent verification were allowed via the brokered deal, regime change would NOT have been a goal.

and ultimately, therefore, a REASONABLE world leader would have avoided armed conflict when given an opportunity to achieve the stated desired goals without risk to his own troops or others.

So, why did this happen?

Obviously, because the stated goals of the bush administration do not square with the real goals of the bush administration.

The goal, even before the election, was to overrthrow Iraq, and use it as a base of operations to reshape the middle east and control their oil.

In fact, this last minute offer would have thrown the publicly stated goal in direct conflict with the hidden agenda, forcing the neocons to abandon their overall plan in favor of addressing the stated goals.

And that, my friend, became obviously what Bush would never do. He made it clear that even if Saddam did everything requested, and even stepped down, he would be hunted down and killed and the regime change would have happened regardless. Now, I for one do not shed a tear for Hussein himself, but if there were a way to avoid bloodshed or at least minimize it to some great degree and THAT WAS PASSED UP due to either sheer arrogance or the hidden neocon agenda, then the blood of those people are on the hands of the Bush administration, pure and simple.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
sooo...let me get this straight

You are saying the Ba'ath party and Hussein would have been removed from power with NO bloodshed.

The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

I'm willing to concede it might have come to naught. Are you willing to admit it might have worked?

Shouldn't it have been pursued? Is war really the last resort or isn't it?

I'm recalling all those countless threads before the war when I kept saying Bush was going to invade no matter what, and all of his supporters (especially Simey) kept telling me Bush was just leveraging Iraq and wouldn't be crazy enough to invade if he could get what he wanted without invading.

So it seesm that Bush was sooooo good at playing Good Cop, Bad Cop to bully Saddam that he didn't even realize he had won without firing a shot. I suppose it might mean he's more gifted at diplomacy but much dumber than we thought. Or it might mean he's even more inept at diplomacy but considerably more ruthless than we thought.

Curioser and curioser.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Because they were too kind and compassionate.

SINCE WHEN DO YOU CARE???????????
SINCE WHEN DO YOU CARE???????????
SINCE WHEN DO YOU CARE???????????
**HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spliffdaddy]

yay.

Glad to finally have somebody representing the gradeschool point of view.

So tell us, do you like animal crackers?


*waits for Lerk to point out the obvious 'personal attack'*

[tie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Glad to finally have somebody representing the gradeschool point of view.

Where have you been?

I think the Administration should have at least looked into it. Nothing to lose, and the possibility of a lot to gain. But we'll never know, since they didn't even bother.

However, Bush never gave the impression that there could be any other possible scenario other than the invasion of Iraq. For example, even before Iraq submitted its weapons report, Bush was attacking Iraq for not complying.

What's new about this story is that Bush wasn't only signalling his intentions to invade no matter what publicly -- which posture could perhaps be justified as tough diplomacy -- but his private policies were also to ignore any alternatives to war. At the very least, they should have looked into it. Willfully ignoring it is just stupid.

Some Bush quotes, March 17..

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
..
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security.
..
With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:

Again, the neocons are trying to scapegoat the intel community for the decisions made by the administration under neocon influence.

One has to wonder why?

Perhaps they don't want anyone with intelligence to remember this:

"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.

Note the original date of Bush's statement. A full year before he got his take out order filled.

google search: "We're taking him out." George Bush on Saddam, Time Magazine, March 23, 2003

BTW, George, where's Saddam now? Still serving up nasty take out meatballs, eh?

Oh, and all the WMD? They all now seem to have two legs and a heap of RPGs.

One last question for ya: Remember Osama? I'm sure he's thinking of you too.

[Hash]

There is a very ancient, wise saying "Bad peace is better than good war". I think that this is precisely the situation. Both US and Iraq would be better off without this war, even being on verge it still was better than fighting.

US would have ALL of its soldiers returning home alive healthy and happily reuniting with their families, Iraq would have its infrastructure working, and thousands people alive, there could be detailed UN-USA joint commission verifying that Iraq indeed had no WMD; US still could retain its European allies and we would never hear about freedom fries; Bush would keep his reputation intact and Blair would not lose his face totally. Kelly would be still alive and not committing suicide for telling truth (or was he made to do it..). US still would be looking as a reasonable and rational world power and not as warmonger... it could go on and on..


but of course Bechtel would not then count Iraq dollars and oil corps would not share oil revenue from future privatized Iraq oil, there would be less US public money to divide among Bush cronies..gm.. consultants.. and other holy reasons why US NEEDED this war

[Spliffdaddy]

Sure. Everything was great when the Iraqis were oppressed under Saddam's rule.

You didn't have to worry your pretty little head.

As long as the suffering is centralized and hidden from view you're just fine with it.

Don't want to risk anything to improve some lives of people you don't know.

No, 'bad peace' is not much different than war. It's quite the same.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sure. Everything was great when the Iraqis were oppressed under Saddam's rule.

well actually it wasn't, but if they had opposed it, they would have done something about it right?

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy in It's payback time in Tikrit :
Yes, it would be the Kurds fault - to the extent they were liable for their failure to support their own best interest

if it had been in the US's interest to promote human rights in the world, we would be in a whole lot more countries than we are in currently. i think there is a reason that we went into iraq, but humanitarian reason were not it. it happens to be a fortunate consequence for the kurds and iraqi's, though.

and, you never explicitly say that our actions were not about oil.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Don't want to risk anything to improve some lives of people you don't know.

should we be liberating all the oppressed people of the world?

spliffdaddy, are you for universal health-care? welfare? or would the extra money (mind you not the risking of life and/or limb) be too much to improve the lives of people you don't know.

adam

[edit: fixed formatting]

[Spliffdaddy]

well actually it wasn't, but if they had opposed it, they would have done something about it right?


Some Iraqis actively opposed Saddam and were gassed, tortured, etc. Some quietly opposed Saddam. Some supported Saddam. Some lived and some died no matter what they believed. I guess it's fair to say that freedom from Saddam and his party wasn't worth the price else he would have been removed by the Iraqis. "But, Spliffdaddy, the citizens couldn't fight against an army." Nope. Reckon they couldn't. Still, it's the collective fault of the Iraqis for getting themselves into that predicament in the first place. I didn't say life was fair. I never implied that people don't make mistakes. Bottom line: Their best interests weren't adequately defended. This happens every day, every minute somewhere in the world.

if it had been in the US's interest to promote human rights in the world, we would be in a whole lot more countries than we are in currently. i think there is a reason that we went into iraq, but humanitarian reason were not it. it happens to be a fortunate consequence for the kurds and iraqi's, though.

and, you never explicitly say that our actions were not about oil.

You're right. Human rights violations are a widespread problem. The US does make efforts to promote human rights. After all, it's in our best interest to be viewed as 'human rights friendly'. We create alliances with other 'human rights friendly' nations in order to further promote human rights. Oppressed, impovershed people are not beneficial to a capitalistic society. Wealthy, comfortable people are. Sometimes it's in our best interest to 'liberate' people and sometimes it's not. Best interests have differing priorities.

Certainly the humanitarion aspect of our liberation/occupation of Iraq is a compelling reason to be there. Another reason would be the fact that Iraq has a lot of money from oil - money is power, after all. Money can do good things. Money can do bad things. The Iraqi government chose to do things with their money (and the power they obtained from it) that infringed on the best interests of the US. If the economy of Iraq was based, instead, on olive production - then it could be assumed that Iraq would not have an economy capable of supporting a WMD program or the 4th largest army in the world. And we would never have heard of a country called Iraq. So yeah, it's about oil. Not that we need it or want it, though, but for the fact that they used for it things that conflicted with OUR best interests. We don't want their money (we have enough, thanks) and we don't want their oil (France does, though). We want our best interests defended.

should we be liberating all the oppressed people of the world?

spliffdaddy, are you for universal health-care? welfare? or would the extra money (mind you not the risking of life and/or limb) be too much to improve the lives of people you don't know.

adam

Yes, ideally we should be liberating every last oppressed mofo on the planet. We could sure use some help, though. Seems we can only do a handful every decade. I think we're losing ground.

"Universal healthcare"? define that term, please. I'm for making sure that everybody who needs medical care gets it. Wait. They already do. The non-payers are subsidized by the payers, whether through insurance premiums or direct billing from the medical provider. The people that can pay are already paying and the people that cannot aren't paying. Are you suggesting that we keep doing the same thing - only we'll be letting the federal government manage it? Oh yeah. That'll ooze with efficiency. Or something. It costs what it costs - no matter how you re-arrange the numbers.

Welfare? be more specific. I'm for keeping 'needy people' fed and clothed and housed. Who isn't?

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You're right. Human rights violations are a widespread problem. The US does make efforts to promote human rights. After all, it's in our best interest to be viewed as 'human rights friendly'.

i may be reading too much into it, but there is a difference between being 'human rights friendly' and being viewed as 'human rights friendly'.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We create alliances with other 'human rights friendly' nations in order to further promote human rights. Oppressed, impovershed people are not beneficial to a capitalistic society. Wealthy, comfortable people are.

we may do this, but we also make alliances with some countries with known human rights violations, in the name of capitalism (Asia), and more recently, security (Pakistan, S.A. et al.)

these actions may be in the US's interests, but they also are contradictory, and this is noted by people in other countries, primarily by those who get the short end of the stick.

i recognize that countries have interests (and i disagree that the US doesn't need iraqi's oil. maybe, technically, not today, but we will) however, IMO, the interests of a country is best served through consistent policies. this involves acknowledging the interests of others as well, and insuring that they do not feel threatened by your actions.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Universal healthcare"? define that term, please. I'm for making sure that everybody who needs medical care gets it. ...

Welfare? be more specific. I'm for keeping 'needy people' fed and clothed and housed. Who isn't?

that is basically what i was thinking of...
making sure that everybody (in the US) is properly fed, clothed and housed and can get medical attention. i'm glad to hear that you are for it. though, i wasn't aware that i can go visit a doctor free of charge...

my main point for asking about this was to clarify what appeared to me to be two contradictory statements: "Yes, it honestly IS every man for himself." and "Don't want to risk anything to improve some lives of people you don't know." the first justifies a self-centered, step on your neighbor attitude, while the other suggests that one must/should help out ones neighbor.

adam