Thread: What are we doing in Iraq?

We broke it. We bought it.

Bush couldn't gamble on that Saddam might NOT have WMD, and that he might NOT hand them off to a terrorist group, which just MIGHT pull off an attack on US. Too many American lives at stake for him to bet against the available intelligence from CIA and all the other western nations. So he invaded.

We didn't find anything. Good. We were never at danger from this avenue. Now we need to fix what we broke.

But think about the "WHAT IF..."

Militaries around the world operate on the "what if..." principle. They anticipate the worst case scenario because anything less is insufficient.

What if a few terrorists infected with smallpox showed up at JFK in New York? We lose 5000 lives and 15000 permanantly disabled or scarred for life. What will the people say? "Bush cared about Saddam and the UN more than American lives?" "Good job, Bush, for working with our international allies to resolve the matter peacefully?" I bet the words won't be so kind.

Originally Posted by Gio

Lets analyze what we know. The administration said there was WMD

The administration said there was overwhelming evidence of still-extant WMD (and every intel agency around the world for the previous ten years agreed with that assessment) and Saddam had refused to satisfy the UN conditions of showing where his known leftover stocks were. That's enough smoke to start assuming there's a fire in there somewhere. Congress even agreed with me.

, Iraq is invaded on the presumption it has WMD in violation of UN resolutions.

No, Iraq is invaded for failure to comply with the resolutions that demanded he show where his known stocks went.

No WMD are found in Iraq.

Except for all the ones that were found.

Saying something when it isn't true happens to be a lie.

Really? My mommy says she loves me every time we talk. So my mommy loves me. I said so. Now, what if my mommy has been lying to me, does that mean I just lied to you?

Accordingly, only when you know what's being said isn't true. So a big fat plea of ignorance is in order? At this point it's agreed we went into Iraq on a guess or "good-feeling."

Nope, we went in because it was the right strategic move, and we had a good case to back that move up.

Also, just because you deny something and claim media bias, it doesn't shy away from the reality of Iraq's situation.

You mean the purple fingers, the new construction, the success of the Kurds, the freedom of the Iraqis to choose their own future (even a future that slaps us in the face if that's what they want), the growing free market of goods and ideas in Iraq? You mean that reality?

It's a war, death sells, it's the market, get over it. If you don't like it, launch a state broadcaster.

We did - it's called the blogosphere, and it's got the MSM bent over the back of the couch screaming its name.

For a topic you're pretty fired up about, you seem to be pretty ignorant of the facts. Why is that?

-dale

"But think about the "WHAT IF..."

Militaries around the world operate on the "what if..." principle. They anticipate the worst case scenario because anything less is insufficient.

What if a few terrorists infected with smallpox showed up at JFK in New York? We lose 5000 lives and 15000 permanantly disabled or scarred for life. What will the people say? "Bush cared about Saddam and the UN more than American lives?" "Good job, Bush, for working with our international allies to resolve the matter peacefully?" I bet the words won't be so kind."

There are many more threatening "what ifs" than Iraq, no? I don't think we can really justify it in these terms, I don't think we need to. We can justify it in that the world relies on our economy, and we need oil. If we can ever secure their oil, than we made a good move. Also, we have nice, new bases in the Middle East. We can also exert more influence. Just my humble opinion, could correct me if I'm wrong.

If 5 people infected with Variola went around JFK, coughing, sneezing, and wiping snot everywhere, it would start an epidemic that would threaten civilization. It would be ALOT worse than "5000" people. Smallpox epidemics, or anything of the like, in todays interconnected world, would be EARTH SHATTERING. It would kill hundreds of millions of people. It would spread to every spot of the planet. The problem is, that a bio engineered strain of Variola, is not only as easy to catch as influenza, it can have a mortality rate as high as 70%, or worse. Figuring that one persons gives it to 15 people, and the incubation period is atleast a good, solid week, then those terrorists would start an epidemic that would spread, silently, invisibly, for 7 days, only to then show up in every city that has an international airport with a good degree of traffic, with people getting disfiguring pustules all over their body. There are also multiple (natural) strains of Variola, the worst being the kind that doesn't cause pustules, but merely causes the meat under your skin to sustain considerable damage and bruise when lightly touched. Even in beds, these people agonize. It's mortality rate, with good bioengineering, would be as bad as the worst outbreak of Ebola Zaire, or around 90% (potentially).

If Variola is ever used as a weapon, it will set back civilization centuries. The ONLY effective means to combat it would happen to be extremely controversial and immoral: quarantining entire cities, leaving people to die, and the end of global trade and the free movement of peoples. Only a pyschopath would use such a weapon, as it would be more devastating than a massive nuclear strike, and would butcher every people, not just the target people.

If properly distributed, such as through an aerosol or powder (and Variola might be relegated to one delivery system, so I could be wrong...), you could infect millions in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles... without anyone knowing until a week later, when they've already passed it on the millions more... and millions more... it would be in all the major cities of the world.

Pray to God we never have to weather that storm. It would certainly kill tens of millions, if we were lucky. Probably more. Smallpox is no joking matter.

During the Cold War, the Soviets developed (according to their leading defector) a strain of Yersinia Pestis that had around a 95% mortality rate, and was extremely contagious. Interestingly enough, the Soviets wouldn't necessarily rely on sheer nuclear output to destroy America, many nukes were loaded with delivery systems to rain these bacteriological and biological weapons down upon unsuspecting populuses. They also had a strain of Variola that had as close to a 100% (who's really to say?) mortality rate as a modified strain of virus is going to get.

The fear is, alot of these strains are poorly guarded in Siberia. One of the factories for producing these weapons now produces in its biological vats, vodka

If anyone wants to harangue me for being incorrect, I'm getting most of this from Richard Prestons books on viruses, and bio weapons. Laurie Garrett is another source, for non modified strains. So, take it up with him/her, but mostly him. My memory is not perfect, so I am probably wrong in one way or another. But I am not the one who was suggesting hundreds of millions could die with Variola. It is that scary. It's the most effective population control device I can think of, besides maybe Ebola, which kills most people, and then burns, leaving a few people. Consider this: many historians now figure fully HALF of the European populus was decimated by Yersinia Pestis. Imagine, today, with international travel, and a biologically engineered super virus...

Originally Posted by Gio

Lets analyze what we know. The administration said there was WMD, Iraq is invaded on the presumption it has WMD in violation of UN resolutions. No WMD are found in Iraq. Saying something when it isn't true happens to be a lie. Accordingly, only when you know what's being said isn't true. So a big fat plea of ignorance is in order? At this point it's agreed we went into Iraq on a guess or "good-feeling."

Well, we know from interviews with all of Saddam's top aides and Generals that Saddam was deliberately trying to mislead us into thinking he had them.

Unfortunately for him...it worked.

Originally Posted by Gio

Also, just because you deny something and claim media bias, it doesn't shy away from the reality of Iraq's situation. It's a war, death sells, it's the market, get over it. If you don't like it, launch a state broadcaster.

All that is true bro, but we can't surrender. The enemy is not going to stop, even if we pull every troop back to the US, they'll only fill that vacuum and become that much stronger. And one day- probably relatively soon- they'll come for us here.(as they have so many times in the past).

Sure the war was sold on a false premise...but that's irrelevant to the facts now man.

War is not about who's right, it's about who's left.

I am equally interested like Gio on the issues mentioned by him.

Right now all one is seeing is the trotting out of inane right wing vs left wing rhetorics and passing the buck.

Forget right vs left vs centre vs other esoteric tripe.

Analyse the reasons for going to war.

The lacunae in the planning, execution and outcome of the after effects and the present situation, if any.

The chances of a civil war.

And the solution if any.

Also the sad state of "enraged mpotence" wherein Iran co cks the snoot at the US with impunity as also the helplessness displayed in controlling the issue in Lebanon, not to forget that Afghanistan is in the doldrum.

Now don't go raving about the others not helping you. The others of the UN did not help you either for Iraq and yet you walked the floor over Iraq jauntily and full of confidence.

Why has that confidence gone away is my question.

Please approach my above post logically and clinically so that we can come to grips with the reality of the moment, rather than meander into the blues with the inane or beat about the bush like party hacks filibustering endlessly.

War is not about who's right, it's about who's left.

Snipe,

That's a gem.

Yours?

Originally Posted by Ray

Snipe,

That's a gem.

Yours?

That's actually a (subconsciously) modified version of a Bertrand Russel quote.

He said, "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

I generally detest the man(pacifist), but...he did manage a few fantastic quotes during his otherwise despicable lifetime. Of course when i apply them i have a much different message than he intended.

His intent was to convey that war is no way to settle a dispute.

My intent is to convey that "whether war is right or wrong is irrelevant. Once the shooting starts all that matters is that you win."

That one is mine sir, and you can quote me on it anytime you like.

Originally Posted by Gio

Lets analyze what we know. The administration said there was WMD, Iraq is invaded on the presumption it has WMD in violation of UN resolutions. No WMD are found in Iraq. Saying something when it isn't true happens to be a lie. Accordingly, only when you know what's being said isn't true. So a big fat plea of ignorance is in order? At this point it's agreed we went into Iraq on a guess or "good-feeling."

1. Gio, let's examine your claim against the definition of lying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else.

By the standard definition, the Bush Administration did not lie, thereby making your claim wrong (ironically, if we use your definition of lying, then you are lying!)

2. There have been WMD found in Iraq. So, your statement is wrong prima faccia. Now, the quantity of WMD found is negligible, but when evaluated against a WMD/no WMD scale, some WMD = WMD. Furthermore, WMD programs were found and Iraq was only waiting for sanctions to drop to kick start them. Bottomline, Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions.

3. You can choose to ignore the consensus across intel agencies from across the globe, to include those who didn't support the US position (France, Russia), but it was more than a "good feeling decision."

Originally Posted by Gio

Also, just because you deny something and claim media bias, it doesn't shy away from the reality of Iraq's situation. It's a war, death sells, it's the market, get over it. If you don't like it, launch a state broadcaster.

I agree with you here that there has been too much hype over bias (I agree it exists, but feel that energy that is focused on complaining about it could be better used). However, is not gunnut using this forum to combat the perceived media bias, and yet you chastise him for doing that? Just a thought.

Not justified? That's a joke and a half. An enemy blatantly breaks a cease-fire, supports terrorists, tries to kill a president, and fires on our people while slaughtering his own and anything anyone does against that enemy is completely justified. Other than that I'm just going to humbug this whole thread, because I don't want to cuss at my friend Gio.

Originally Posted by Gio

Again, you're off the beaten track. You rant about the leftist media, the leftist media which has Lou Dobbs on CNN fanning anti-immigrant sentiment for ratings, every night. The NY Times who's editorial pages pretty much led the war drums. You have the historically Democratic Left publication, the New Republic, backing Joe Lieberman over the establishment. The media definitely has its agenda, but it is not wholly leftist.

Ha!....there's my sweetie ! You tell'em hon.

Gio, you may also want to check out the thread "The War in Iraq." These two seem to be running parallel with one another.

Originally Posted by Ray

Please approach my above post logically and clinically so that we can come to grips with the reality of the moment, rather than meander into the blues with the inane or beat about the bush like party hacks filibustering endlessly.

Ray-

See my post. It's logical and clinical and doesn't beat around the bush.

-dale

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Dude, charges of nepotism(LORD KNOWS THE LEFT WOULD NEVER DO THAT! LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Um...yeah, right, ever heard of Emporer Daley?) are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Gunnut wrote about yes-men, and I was following up. So please quit your non-constructive antics.