Britain, US shelve report on Iraq banned weapons: report

September 14, 2003 11:54 AM

Britain, US shelve report on Iraq banned weapons: reportWe'll keep on looking and we know they will turn up...just you wait and see. And meantime, make sure Congress foots the bill for Iraq needs.
posted by Postroad (61 comments total)

Er... who else would you have foot the bill? Other than Halliburton, that is.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:28 PM on September 14, 2003

Speaking of the bill: Vice President Hints at Further Requests for Money to Finance Iraq Occupation
posted by homunculus at 12:33 PM on September 14, 2003

I've been waiting for this. This past summer Bush kept naysayers at bay by telling us that we would be surprised by the report coming out in September. Well, I'm not surprised they found nothing. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and then charged with war crimes... Oh wait... Bush pulled us out of that treaty. Ok - impeachment will do.
posted by ALvard at 1:01 PM on September 14, 2003

The report will be published -- the day after Bush and Blair issue an apology to Hans Blix.
posted by riviera at 1:06 PM on September 14, 2003

So who is surprised by this? Can the rest of us finally open up the big can of I TOLD YOU SO, now? Anyone who still believes a word from this administration needs a psychological evaluation.
posted by nads at 1:06 PM on September 14, 2003

Innocent until proven guilty
Guilty until proven innocent
Guilty cause we said so

Ahh...American Justice
posted by fatbobsmith at 1:08 PM on September 14, 2003

Hey, something by Postroad that I actually like...!

Sorta bad about the link, though. Tries loading Chinese fonts on your system, too. I found the original story in the Sunday Times of London, but it is paid only. Anyone out there have a subscription?

Fortunately, an Indian newspaper picked up the story, and it appears to be something close to the full Sunday Times piece. The Age in Australia also gave it a mention.

So, when will US papers mention it, I wonder...
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:19 PM on September 14, 2003

it's weird--i just heard Powell say today on CNN that Kay was in DC "working" on the report (in response to a question on whether he had met with Kay or his team while in Iraq)...maybe they'll do a bait-and-switch?

This will be the nail in the coffin for this administration, i bet. Too many people trusted that Iraq was an imminent threat due to wmds.
posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on September 14, 2003

So, when will US papers mention it, I wonder...

No one seems to care about the Bush administration's chronic "goal post moving" when you have Ben and J-Lo are splitting up.
posted by machaus at 1:27 PM on September 14, 2003

What, no Admin apologists yet? Must have all had a good wank at Rumsfeld on "Meet the Press" this afternoon and had a good snooze with their thighs wrapped around their spooge-filled "Osama" dolls...

What good does "We told you so" do when these imbeciles go ahead and pitch 200 Billion dollars into a war even with a fictitious basis? The Republican part of the citizenry has to wake up and realize this chimp has no business wearing a suit and claiming to represent the will of the citizens of this country.
posted by Perigee at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2003

/bad grammar
posted by machaus at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2003

An excerpt, for those behind the subscription wall:

British defence intelligence sources confirmed last week that the final report, which is to be submitted by David Kay, the survey group’s leader, to George Tenet, head of the CIA, had been delayed and may not necessarily even be published.

In July Kay suggested on US television that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that Saddam Hussein had had a programme to produce weapons of mass destruction. He expected to find “strong” evidence of missile delivery systems and “probably” evidence of biological weapons.

But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been “kite-flying” and that no hard evidence had been uncovered.

posted by riviera at 1:30 PM on September 14, 2003

Saying "I told you so" to anyone who still supports Bush is like beating a dog at 3-dimensional chess. Where's the thrill of victory when the idiot bandwagon flies triumphantly toward the precipice?

And, Fatbobsmith... what are you saying?

On preview, kite-flying + mass death = resignation + charges.
posted by squirrel at 1:39 PM on September 14, 2003

Squirrel, I think what he was pointing out was that Chimp threw out "Innocent till proven Guilty" when they called a halt to the UN Blix search because it was holding up the war timetable. Then it was "Guilty until proven Innocent," meaning we could pre-emptively invade the country and prove their evil-ness later. Now, there is no proof, the country is under occupation and control, Chimp has no solid justification for his actions, but the Admin still insists it was the right thing to do. Because they say so.
posted by Perigee at 1:49 PM on September 14, 2003

Perigee, of course I have no objection to your points, but please, please stop slandering the chimps.
posted by soyjoy at 1:53 PM on September 14, 2003

This will be the nail in the coffin for this administration, i bet

It'd be nice if it were so, but these guys have slimed their way out of similar embarrassing predicaments before without a scratch. I have no doubt they'll do the same this time around.
posted by 40 Watt at 2:07 PM on September 14, 2003

Insomnia--sorry to have spoiled my record for you. I will try harder to continue to post stuff you dislike.
posted by Postroad at 2:16 PM on September 14, 2003

I think it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The reasons for getting him our where humanitarian, and for the security of the region and indeed the world, as Saddam's reign was a disaster in every sense of the word.

That being said, people like GW don't launch wars for humanitarian reasons or to protect the world. They do it for $$$, the reason behind virtually every war in history. People will profit greatly from the invasion, at the expense of 99.9% of the rest of the country and the world.

The fact that the lies used to sell the war are slipping out slowly surprises no one-- most Americans who supported the war did so because Bin Laden and Hussein share the same religion and race, and like most people the world over, including supporters of Bin Laden and Hussein, think that violence will solve problems.

So those left in the middle who actually care about reasons, consistency and morality are left holding the bag no matter what course of action they supported vis a vis Hussein's Iraq.
posted by chaz at 2:19 PM on September 14, 2003

I have faith in the public on this...when you connect it with all the other lies and shifting rationales, the billions wanted, and the hurting economy and job loss here at home, we may be hitting critical mass. This administration has been leaking support all along, and is now back to pre-9/11 levels.
posted by amberglow at 2:21 PM on September 14, 2003

most Americans who supported the war did soBin Laden and Hussein share the same religion
dont forget the people who supported the war because they seem to believe that Hussein was also behind the 9/11 attacks.
posted by Iax at 2:48 PM on September 14, 2003

From TPM, when Cheney was asked if he was surprised if 69% of Americans believe in a link between Al Queda and Hussein -- he tried to defend the link. He basically rattled of a list of widely discredited claims or claims with very little evidence. See: http://www.msnbc.com/news/966470.asp
posted by nads at 3:18 PM on September 14, 2003

I think it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The reasons for getting him our where humanitarian, and for the security of the region and indeed the world...

I don't think you'll find many people anywhere in the world that are going to cry a tear for the loss of Hussein.

However, the ends don't justify the means: the USA rode lone-cowboy to dish out vigilante justice.

That isn't acceptable: we're trying to have a civilization, which necessarily requires all nations work more or less together to achieve our collective goals.

Were every nation to run about higgledy-piggledy like the USA is wont to do, we end up with chaos and international wars. That just ain't no way to get ahead in this game.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:31 PM on September 14, 2003

The Story of Bill and Bob

Bill: Hey, you know that big redwood in the lot behind our houses?

Bob (Bill's neighbor): Yeah.

Bill: Run get your axe and help me chop 'er down. I want to build a deck--er, I mean it's endangering my, uh... it's a danger to us all.

Bob: How's that?

Bill: Look, you know my kid has dyslexia. Are you going to help me chop this tree or are you siding with the dyslexia people?

Bob: Whatever. You want that tree chopped, chop it yourself.

[Next Day]

Bill: Hey, Bob, give me the keys to your truck.

Bob: Why?

Bill: That redwood landed on my truck, I need to... that is WE need to go get a chainsaw and cut it up.

Bob: Are you asking me or telling me.

Bill: I'm saying it's in your best interest... and your duty. And I'm driving. And you're buying lunch.

~Fin
posted by squirrel at 4:34 PM on September 14, 2003

I'm not sure about the Hussein:Redwood bit.
posted by goethean at 4:40 PM on September 14, 2003

five fresh fish: I think it's a mistake to expect nations to behave according to the categorical imperative. Our nation does what it does because it can, to some degree. That's what being a sole superpower is all about. Historically, that's always what sole superpowers have done - why should anyone expect us to be any different? I think that an argument could be made that we're far more altruistic than previous sole superpowers, too.

That's not to say I agree with the motives or actions of this administration, but I do think there's quite a bit to be said in its defense. Before the war, there was little doubt anywhere within the West about the existence of WMD within Iraq. I think the administration can be blamed for exaggerating the threat posed by these weapons, but that's not the same as blaming the administration for making the situation up out of nothing.

As for the administration's overall strategy, I have to say that there are some things in its favor as well. The problems in the Middle East have long seemed intractable, haven't they? It's clear that we have to do something, but what? One of Osama bin Laden's complaints against us was that we have troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of the holiest sites of Islam. We had troops there because of Iraq. If we fix the problem of Iraq, we no longer need a troop presence in Saudi Arabia, presumably.

I don't like being played, or lied to, as the administration may be doing here and there, but I can sympathize with them for doing this. Let's say that they were motivated by the desire to change something, ANYTHING, about the current Middle East situation. Could they really be expected to come out and say, "We're going to depose Saddam Hussein because we're desperate to break the stalemate of Islamic fundamentalism versus corrupt state governments in the Middle East - we're tired of being caught in the middle of someone else's fight, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to change things." Honestly, I thought that was the underlying motive all along, and a lot of people I've talked to feel the same way, more or less. I don't know anyone who thought that Saddam was going to start launching attacks on the US if we didn't invade right now.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:50 PM on September 14, 2003

so the ends justify the means, no matter what?
posted by crunchland at 5:13 PM on September 14, 2003

and for the security of the region and indeed the world...
...because he had W'sMD and he wasnt afraid to use them ... erm oh no. I don't see how pissing off the whole world is helping you.

afyer 9-11, you had the perfect opportunity to hit a home run, by bringing the perpertrators and their backers to the Hague for trial, just like Lockerbie. You had the perfect opportunity to prove that you do in fact stand as a model for justice and freedom. you had the perfect opportunity to say "we will not sink to your level, we are civilised". you could have hit that curve ball into the stands of true humanity.

Instead, foul bat.
posted by carfilhiot at 5:17 PM on September 14, 2003

I don't know; I do think that there's a difference between applying moral principles to the actions of individuals and those of states. I also think that pithy phrases like "the ends don't justify the means" are inadequate to describe the morality of either individuals or states.

As for "hitting a home run", I don't think it was ever likely that we'd have been able to succeed. The direct perpetrators were, well, dead, and their backers are most likely spread throughout the Middle East - some backed by states. I think we'd have to invade Saudi Arabia, too, to achieve that goal. The fact is, the power of a state is an extremely blunt instrument, and while the destructive power of "civilization" far exceeds anything that Osama bin Laden has up his sleeve, it's next to impossible to apply that power the way you imply.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:24 PM on September 14, 2003

I don't know anyone who thought that Saddam was going to start launching attacks on the US if we didn't invade right now.

Countless millions of Americans believe -- on no evidence whatsoever, merely because they want to believe -- that Saddam already attacked America. And there's no persuading them otherwise, because they simply aren't interested in facts. (Click the "rather excellent political cartoons" link.)

What baffles me is why they want to believe it, and why they continue to make excuses for the Administratin's coddling of the bin Ladens and other very probably complicit Saudis, and its ongoing misdirection of our outrage for its private purposes. One thing I'm certain of -- they are not patriots, and they obviously don't give the slightest damn who really killed 3000+ Americans that day. I think they're secretly rather glad it happened, in the "go on, give me a reason" sense.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:32 PM on September 14, 2003

(Correction, that first link should be this.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:34 PM on September 14, 2003

Countless millions of Americans believe that angels are all around them, too, from what I've read, but I don't think they're a majority of the politically active people in this country, and oddly enough I've never met any of these people, to my knowledge.

As for why they want to believe it, the answer seems pretty obvious - Saddam is a "bad man", Osama is a "bad man". It doesn't matter that they're not working against us as a team, they're both bad men from the same part of the world, with ambitions that reach beyond the borders of their own states. I'm not convinced that people really think, in the rational part of their minds, that Saddam is any way related to 9/11 beyond that.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:43 PM on September 14, 2003

The direct perpetrators were, well, dead
well if they were dead then i guess that is as much justice as can be dealt out, unless you are the mafia and seek to hold their families responsible too.

I don't think it was ever likely that we'd have been able to succeed. [...] and their backers are most likely spread throughout the Middle East - some backed by states. I think we'd have to invade Saudi Arabia, too, to achieve that goal.
you are either a defeatist or naive. noone had to invade anyone to bring the lockerbie bombers to justice. libya handed them over. i think your government has a much better relationship with Saudi Arabia than Britain has with Libya.
posted by carfilhiot at 5:44 PM on September 14, 2003

I'm not convinced that people really think, in the rational part of their minds, that Saddam is any way related to 9/11 beyond that.

they really do, me & my monkey, they really do--millions of people have bought each of the rationales for attacking and invading iraq in turn, but now they're realizing it's a fool's game. The reasons keep changing, and there's no plan or anything, and we don't have either osama or saddam--those "bad men". It's also costing us lives, and enormous amounts of money we can't afford to spend, and people are realizing that the economy and homeland defense aren't given the attention they deserve.
posted by amberglow at 5:50 PM on September 14, 2003

I'm not convinced that people really think, in the rational part of their minds, that Saddam is any way related to 9/11 beyond that.

What you're stating is your belief. What differentiates it from the one about angels that you refer to? Numerous polls conflict with your belief. And as for their political activity, they would appear to vote, if outcomes are anything to go by.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:53 PM on September 14, 2003

well if they were dead then i guess that is as much justice as can be dealt out, unless you are the mafia and seek to hold their families responsible too.

So, by your logic, there's no appropriate response to suicide bombers, because they kill themselves!

you are either a defeatist or naive.

Perhaps I'm both, but I like to think that I'm neither. The thing that surprises me the most when reading these political threads is the overall naivete exhibited by many who see everything so clearly. I envy them that clarity, but I think it's an illusion.

noone had to invade anyone to bring the lockerbie bombers to justice. libya handed them over. i think your government has a much better relationship with Saudi Arabia than Britain has with Libya

Yes, well, that's a fine example to hold up. How many years did that take? How's the replacement government doing in Libya? Oh, wait, you mean that the same state that sanctioned the Lockerbie bombing, and others, is still in power? Well, I guess we showed them, didn't we.

As for our relationship with Saudi Arabia, well, there's a lot that could be said about that. Each side needs the other, but neither side really shares the same interests, and wouldn't mind seeing the other take a fall.

they really do, me & my monkey, they really do--millions of people have bought each of the rationales for attacking and invading iraq in turn, but now they're realizing it's a fool's game.

Do they really? I've seen the polls, but I know that polls don't always accurately reflect the polled, enough so that I don't take polls at face value, immediately. I don't know they're realizing it's a fool's game, either. I suspect that, if you took a poll and clearly worded the questions, that people would generally support a long-term engagement in Iraq, if the casualty rate remained relatively low.

It's also costing us lives, and enormous amounts of money we can't afford to spend

Both costs seem, now, to be relatively low. These "enormous amounts of money" are a small percentage of GDP, and the casualty rate is still pretty low.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:59 PM on September 14, 2003

What you're stating is your belief. What differentiates it from the one about angels that you refer to? Numerous polls conflict with your belief.

Um, how about anecdotal experience and the ability to find an alternative explanation? I've never seen an angel, but I've talked to plenty of people, and haven't met one of these folks yet. I haven't seen the poll questions myself, either, and am a bit suspicious of polls and statistics in general.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:03 PM on September 14, 2003

"Insomnia--sorry to have spoiled my record for you. I will try harder to continue to post stuff you dislike."

No need, really. Still, I am curious what you think about elements in the Israeli government who are advocating the killing of Arafat.

I heard about that and thought "Maybe this will be the issue that shows to the world just how rabidly violent and insane the Israeli government can be at times. Nobody in America could support such a position!"

And then I thought of you. ;->
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:08 PM on September 14, 2003

The USA is spending about a billion a week to get its soldiers killed over in Iraq. How long can that continue before Americans begin questioning WTF it was all for?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 PM on September 14, 2003

Both costs seem, now, to be relatively low.

-when we're spending more to fix iraq's electrical systems than our own rickety grid and transmission problems, it's too much money
-when we're rebuilding schools, roads and bridges in iraq instead of the infrastructure that needs it here, it's too much money
-when we're giving the iraqis healthcare instead of the millions of uninsured here, it's too much money
-when we're making sure iraqi oilfields are secure, but not our ports and air cargo and power plants, it's too much money
the list is really long...
(short form: it's about priorities)
posted by amberglow at 6:34 PM on September 14, 2003

sorry for the bombast, but i do believe it...now i'm off to sell that little speech to the dem candidates : >
posted by amberglow at 7:24 PM on September 14, 2003

Anyone who still believes a word from any administration needs a psychological evaluation.
posted by a3matrix at 7:31 PM on September 14, 2003

short form: it's about priorities

amberglow, I admire and usually (almost always) agree with you. And I know you're trying to address monkey's bizarre argument. But: the U.S. spent more than a decade decimating Iraq's social services and human security (yes, yes, with help from Saddam) through the economic sanctions that it insisted on sustaining, even though they were ineffective. That being the case, I find your 'charity begins at home' argument a bit difficult to take.

Another important fact is that there is a huge bias in the U.S. against collecting and spending money in ways that serve the long-term 'enlightened self-interest' of the U.S. (as distinct from Halliburton) - whether domestically, or in terms of security from external threats. It is about priorities, indeed: but to argue that priorities 'over there' are either distinct from, or morally inferior to, priorities 'over here' is, I think, dangerous.
posted by stonerose at 8:11 PM on September 14, 2003

Countless millions of Americans believe -- on no evidence whatsoever, merely because they want to believe -- that Saddam already attacked America.

Wolfowitz retracts Saddam-al Qaeda claim
"'We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with?Al Qaeda?in particular, and we know a great many of bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime to attack in Iraq,' Wolfowitz said Thursday on ABC's Good Morning America. ... But Wolfowitz -- an architect of U.S. policy in Iraq -- said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press that he had misspoken.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:13 PM on September 14, 2003

Before the war, there was little doubt anywhere within the West about the existence of WMD within Iraq.

Because the intelligence had been cherry-picked to make it appear so, perhaps? And for all the smears aimed against him, Scott Ritter appears to be borne out by the facts on the ground. 'We cannot go to war on guesswork, hypothesis and speculation. We go to war on hardened fact. So Tony Blair says he has a dossier; present the dossier.' And now we all know about the selective presentation of evidence that went into that dossier.

Wolfowitz retracts Saddam-al Qaeda claim

That's the equivalent of a tabloid newspaper splashing its front page with a false story, and putting the apology in small print in the bottom corner of page 47.
posted by riviera at 8:28 PM on September 14, 2003

I think you're right about our bias against our own self-interest, stonerose, but when it comes to security, no one is complaining that we're spending too much to keep ourselves safer at home--from money for first responders (firemen, emergency medical service, etc) to infrastructure strengthening, people have said we're not devoting enough money for these, and realized how important they are--i don't know if that will last, but it's true for now. Our government is spending money in Iraq like it's going out of style, so why not spend it on the things that actually will make us safer, and are used everyday anyway? I think it is about priorities.

As for our responsibility to rebuild what we harmed through sanctions, weren't those internationally agreed-upon years ago? Maybe it shouldn't just be the us taxpayer's responsibility. I think the money spent containing saddam for all those years was well-spent, and we should have just kept on doing that, instead of invading. As for what we destroyed, i don't know...what's the usual protocol for rebuilding after wars?
posted by amberglow at 8:37 PM on September 14, 2003

Both costs seem, now, to be relatively low. These "enormous amounts of money" are a small percentage of GDP, and the casualty rate is still pretty low.

Dizzying Dive to Red Ink Poses Stark Choices for Washington

When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents.

Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be borrowed, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the next generation of taxpayers and the generation after that. The $166 billion cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known.

U.S. troops wounded in Iraq reach 10 a day

Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received nonhostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill...

Flights home with wounded One night last week, a C-17 arrived at Andrews with 44 patients from Iraq. Ambulances arrived to take the most seriously wounded to the nation's two premier military hospitals, Water Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.

Kiley said rocket-propelled grenades and mines can wound multiple troops at a time and cause "the kind of amputating damage that you don't necessarily see with a bullet wound to the arm or leg."

The result has been large numbers of troops coming to Walter Reed and National Naval Medical with serious blast wounds and arms and legs that have been amputated, either in Iraq or at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where virtually all battlefield casualties are treated and stabilized.

"A few of us started volunteering (at Walter Reed) as amputees in 1991, and this is the most we've seen ever," said Jim Mayer, a double amputee from the Vietnam War who works at the Veterans Administration.

Public Support Wanes for Bush Foreign Policy, Poll Shows

A majority of Americans disapprove of President Bush's request to Congress for an additional $87 billion to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, amid growing doubts about the administration's policies at home and abroad, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Six in 10 Americans said they do not support the Bush's proposal, which the president first announced in his nationally televised address last Sunday night. That marks the most significant public rejection of a Bush initiative on national security or terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a second rebuff to the administration, more Americans said that, if Congress decides to approve the additional money, lawmakers should roll back the president's tax cuts to pay for the increased spending, rather than add to the federal budget deficit or cut government spending.

posted by y2karl at 8:43 PM on September 14, 2003

Advantage: y2karl.
posted by squirrel at 9:07 PM on September 14, 2003

And something tells me that this WMD report is going to get out, anyway.
posted by squirrel at 12:13 AM on September 15, 2003

I would disagree with the contention that ten people wounded per day is a high casualty rate. I don't like it, and I wish those ten people, and the rest of our soldiers, weren't in harm's way, but it's certainly pretty low, compared to the worst-case estimates bandied about before the war.

As for the NYTimes quote, y2karl, well, yes, anything we spend now gets added to the deficit. That doesn't mean that the amount is particularly high, it just means that the current administration already screwed up our economy with tax cuts.

I never thought I'd be confused for a Bush fan. I'm just trying to point out that things may not be as simple as they seem.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:47 AM on September 15, 2003

i don't think people are thinking you're a Bush fan; we just have no appetite as a nation, i think, for 1 dead and 10 wounded every day, whether it's historically low or not.
posted by amberglow at 6:02 AM on September 15, 2003

#mefi irc transcript
April 23, 2003

<steve _at> Look, if they DON't find WMD... I am going to be just as pissed as you.
<crunchland> I'm holding you to it.
<steve _at> in fact, crunch, I will be the loudest voice to criticize Bush
<steve _at> But I am willing to give them time, it has been WEEKS, and in the grand scheme of things, that is not much time...
<mr _crash_davis> Doesn't it bother you that Powell told the UN we KNEW they had them, and WHERE they had them, and when THEY couldn't find them we weren't willing to give them any more time?
<mr _crash_davis> But now that WE control the territory it's "Oh, we need MORE TIME"?
<crunchland> Well, if they do, how will you know they won't be something planted there?
<steve _at> Come 6 months from now, if they don't have squat for evidence,,, then I am going to be pissed off

I post this only for informational purposes, and to point out that the 6 month anniversary of this conversation is only days away.
posted by crunchland at 6:26 AM on September 15, 2003

Flawed Assumptions About Postwar Iraq

Oil Would Fund Reconstruction
Iraqi Troops Would Help Keep the Peace
Resistance Would Fade Quickly

From Time.
posted by y2karl at 7:44 AM on September 15, 2003

I don't think we had any appetite for World War II either, but we sacrificed quite a bit for that. We look back on our involvement then with rose-colored glasses, but there was quite a bit of controversy about it at the time, and our government made lots of huge mistakes then as well, which cost many thousands of lives.

Almost as many people died in one day at Dieppe, in 1942, than have been wounded so far in Iraq.

I think that in the long run, two of y2karl's "flawed assumptions" will turn out to be true: if resistance fades in, say, a year, that's pretty quick, and I suspect that Iraqi troops and police will help keep the peace. Again, these things might take longer than the few months that have gone by so far, but if in the end it takes several years to bring stability and democracy to Iraq, I think it would be worth the price.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:23 AM on September 15, 2003

I don't think we had any appetite for World War II either, but we sacrificed quite a bit for that.

I don't have an appetite for apples, but I'd quite like an orange.
posted by riviera at 9:41 AM on September 15, 2003

So, by your logic, there's no appropriate response to suicide bombers, because they kill themselves!
who else would you also seek vengence upon? and don't tell me their backers, because i've already explained how to bring them to justice.

How many years did that take?
Yeah, it;s a bummer that justice doesn't fit into your mcdonalds lifestyle eh? bummer that CNN wouldn't be able to bring you all those cool pictures of people getting their faces blown off either.

Well, I guess we showed them, didn't we.
Oh so this has all been about "showing them" has it? jesus christ.
posted by carfilhiot at 2:19 PM on September 15, 2003

who else would you also seek vengence upon?

Justice != vengeance.

and don't tell me their backers, because i've already explained how to bring them to justice.

Yes. I'm surprised that your two easy steps to justice haven't been followed more often. You just ignore the real enemy, and wait for a scapegoat to be found, or you wait for a payoff. Then, you proclaim a just outcome. I think you're ready for a career in politics. You've also got that selective quotation ability working in your favor.

Yeah, it;s a bummer that justice doesn't fit into your mcdonalds lifestyle eh? bummer that CNN wouldn't be able to bring you all those cool pictures of people getting their faces blown off either.

Well, I'm more of an NPR guy than a CNN guy, I don't go to McDonalds because I'm a vegetarian, and I'm not fond of people anywhere getting blown up, but yeah, it's a real bummer. If you think justice has been done with respect to Lockerbie, that's pretty sad. The author of the attack is still in power, his innocent subjects have suffered from sanctions, the henchmen who followed his orders have been turned over to the West (I think), and all those people on the airplane that blew up are still dead. If that's your justice, welcome to it.

Oh so this has all been about "showing them" has it? jesus christ.

What is the use of force ever about, if not as a deterrent to bad action? Yes, it's always about "showing them". I'm sorry you're just discovering this. Welcome to Earth! Enjoy your stay!
posted by me & my monkey at 3:27 PM on September 15, 2003

Sorry, but I wouldn't use the Lockerbie 'bombers' as an example of international justice. Seems to me that they didn't do it, there is only one man who has been locked up, and he numbers Nelson Mandela as one of his prison visitors. Wierd, no?
I mean, according to the translation of Gadafy that I saw recently, he has made it plain to the population that the compensation deal is a sanction lifting deal for Libya. Lifting sanctions should account for the Lockerbie deal pretty rapidly, I can't remember the figures.

'The case against Megrahi was also tainted by the fact that his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, originally charged with conspiracy to murder, was acquitted after a "star" witness provided by the CIA turned out to be a fantasist and a liar, solely motivated by a desire to live the rest of his life at the expense of the American taxpayer.'

Anyway, Mr Monkey considering the US' involvement in the Middle East (one example) over the past 50 years or so, maybe Bush feels responsible for the mess. He's just trying to help, but he's getting all the wrong advice, right?
Everyone knows violence begets violence, don't they?
/end snark

Having not checked your posting history I am assuming you are a troll, or devils advocate to put it politely.
posted by asok at 6:46 PM on September 15, 2003

asok, the only reason that i brought up lockerbie was to try to prove the point that carpet bombing countries is not the only solution, granted it may not be a shining example of justice, but it is an example of how to track down terrorists, bring them to trial and sentence them in a hopefully fair manner, without creating another generation of suicide bombers.

as for monkey brains :
Justice != vengeance

Yeah right, welcome to earth, enjoy your stay! YHBT HAND.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:16 PM on September 15, 2003

Again, I say that if you're going to use Lockerbie as an example of how to deal with state-sponsored terrorism, that doesn't bode well for anyone. And if you think that justice is the same as vengeance, I pity you.

Having not checked your posting history I am assuming you are a troll, or devils advocate to put it politely.

Asok, no, I don't think I'm a troll. I just don't think that things are as clear as everyone else seems to think.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:43 AM on September 16, 2003

Well, in the spirit of deceased equine pummeling I will respond.
monkey, I did not suggest that you thought you were trolling, just that i had got that impression. Some of the things you have written could result in your being labelled a 'devils advocate', IMHO.

'things are not as clear as everyone else seems to think'.

OK - what do you suggest would be the 'solution' to the Iraq 'problem'?
posted by asok at 2:22 AM on September 18, 2003

Asok, no, I don't think I'm a troll. I just don't think that things are as clear as everyone else seems to think.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness, m&m monkey. Illuminate us. Some of us have advanced degrees, so you can get as complicated as you want. Take your time.
posted by squirrel at 12:01 AM on September 19, 2003