T.L. talk about historical revisionistism. What was the issue the UN had with Iraq? what was the reason for the vast majority of the UN resolutions against Iraq if not ALL of the resolutions? IT was WoMD's and Iraq's weapons programs So OF course Colin Powell went to the UN to Talk about WoMD's! That's where that purticular issue was being handled. There sure as "Hale is hot" was not any or much talk in the UN about any of the other reasons the US attacked Iraq. Or in the rest of the Civilized world for that matter. So Colin Powell talked to them about the subject they were interested in, BIG Woopdy DOOO.
*side note just to score points agianst you T.L. ;) *
I seem to remember several wonderful posts by you as to why even if there were NO WoMD's Iraq because of it's actions, under the law International and common Iraq acted as if it was guilty and therefore gave a valid reason for invading for the search of WoMD's.


You are entitled to that feeling/position, though you did seperate my coments from the whole of the paragraph, see below quote to put why I don't care into contex.
I got no problem with us kicking the rear-ends of each and every two bit dictator on this planet, as I have said from the begining nearly 3 years ago. I have said it was the Main reason I supported the war, If the President of The U.S.A didn't use that as he main reason, so be it. May it be a cold day in "Hale" before I don't support doing the right thing because the person/persons incharge are doing it for a differant reason. I would rather have that on my soul then then, sitting idly by until a proper reason shows up. As I stated earlier in this thread I'm pissed we waited 12 years, we as a nation sat by for 12 years and allowed people to die and be tortured. I'm certainly not going to cry a river, or even a creek because the USA finally got off it's collective rear-end and did something for what ever reason the Killing and torture at the hands & orders of Sodamn Insane has ended.

"Hale" when I brought up the subject of the Sudan what was the reaction from most if not ALL of the peace/love/brotherhood of man/end human suffering crowd? Was it yes there is a problem in the Sudan and we need to do something about it? NO! Instead it was JD you are trying to change the subject, JD you are trying to score points, JD you are WAAA WAAA WAAA WAAA, that's all they did was cry and whine. Not even willing to address a problem because Heaven forbid they may have to agree with that evil war mongering JD, that something needs to be done about a problem where Humans are dieing.

Now T.L. I've read where you have writen about your upbringing so I know you are aware of the story of the Good Samaratain. I don't know if you are aware of the history of the area and time. 1) Bandits offen possed as injured inorder to rob people that stopped to help.2) the injured man could have been considered unclean and thus a violation of the religous laws that governed the people. 3) It was the custom that if you helped somebody you where then responsible for them ie: you had to take care of them. All valid reason for NOT helping. Yet the men that followed those valid reasons were condemned. And the man that violated those valid reasons was honored. I've staked out my ground and will hold that ground. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Damn fine points you make TL (grumble grumble [img]smile.gif[/img] ), and you have in your own inimitable style made nearly all the points that I would have made in reply.

The only bit that is left for me to deal with is this :
JD - your short answer, at least under the present media rules and watchdogs is NO. The story was reported this way in all news channels and radio. We don't have the extent of media bias that you have in the states. News stations are required to report the facts, and with minimal commentary in their news broadcasts. If any of the news departments of the 4 major networks fall foul of these rules they are reported to our media watchdog thingy that polices this. The media tribunal acts on and investigates public complaints of bias in news broadcasts, and the penalties for bias are substantial. If a station wants to take a political stance they are required to confine those views to shows that are termed current affairs commentaries or by judicious use of theright guests at late night entertainment shows. That is one of the resons that my stomach churns when I watch a FOX NEWS broadcast - it's plenty foxy but it just aint news. Well maybe it's life Jim (I mean NEWS), but not as we know it. I realise that this will be difficult to accept for you, coming from a situation where most of your stations lie their ass off in support of their bosses political proclivities.

Contraty to what you may percieve, we in OZ don't have a rabid "let's knock America" phobia, nor do we have a more than general information level on American politics. We tend to be proud to be on what most of us think is the right side of this fight (and that is the same side you are on John), but that still doesn't stop us from wanting to know the truth - whether we were conned or not and whodunnit. The news reports we heard didn't say that the admin did it, nor did it say the admin was innocent. It said that the CIA blundered, the info was false, and it looks like there never were the significant threats that we were all promised as "most definitely existing". The news report went on to say that the panel had not been allowed to look into the question of potential interference or manipulation by the admin, but that further work would be addressed by the panel in phase 2 due to report back sometime after the November presidential elections.

So just summing that answer up again - well said TL - and JD - NO.

First, JD, I think any quick search will reveal that WMD was reason #1, by far, for going to Iraq. It was also the only reason that would allow us to go preemptively LEGALLY -- more on that below.

Yes, it was a perfectly defensible action legally. Saddam ignored the UN for far too long, and there were numerous resolutions stating that member nations would take all actions necessary, etc., etc. In fact, WMD was the only justifiable action to act preemptively without UN approval, because those resolutions all discussed disarmament of Iraq, and not one said member nations can attack Iraq if Saddam is mean to his people. That is a separate reason to attack that would have needed UN approval -- like Kosovo, Rowanda, etc.

But, just because something is justified legally, it does not necessarily follow that it is justified morally. I'm sure you guys don't need a lawyer to remind you that some things that are legal still just ain't right.

To boil it down, I think I've made these general points, among others, over time:

1. It was not obviously illegal, and was arguably legal, for the US to go to Iraq to force a 12-yr-stale disarmament requirement.

2. It was reasonable to believe Saddam had WMD, because he had used WMD before, had admitted he had them and agreed to disarm, had failed to take promised steps toward disarmament, and because the UN thought he had them.

3. However, if the US had information that Saddam's WMD stockpiles were depleted, insufficient, or basically nonexistent, that should cast a doubt on WMD being used as an ostensible reason to invade. Conversely, any representation that Iraq was known to have such weapons should have been damned accurate -- and they weren't (did we ever find that killer RV Colin Powell cited and showed pictures of?).

4. Barring WMD and/or other egregious violations of the umpteen resolutions against Iraq, the US would need to wait for UN approval to attack Iraq.

5. Even if it was legally justified in attacking Iraq, political and/or moral considerations should have been taken into account. We had a LOT of political support going into Afghanistan, and somehow it all got pissed away in determining to attack Iraq. Regardless of the other factors you can argue about Iraq, it was a colossal mistake politically, that squandered good will.

6. Saddam was bad, mkay, and Iraq is probably better off without him. Iraq may also be better off at the end of this whole affair -- keeping my fingers crossed. However, even when the ends justify the means, it doesn't excuse completely ignoring doing things the right way. Even though it admittedly acts at glacial speed, 30 or 60 more days haggling with the chicken littles at the UN could have changed the political face of this thing 180 degrees.

Ugh... I probably could clarify these a bit or add more, but duty calls at present. I'll check back in, of course.

As per paragraph 6 opening post, from the Guardian: "No evidence was found" political interferance/manipulation So they did look into it, how else could they reach that conlusion? They did not say we haven't looked into it yet, or we will look into it later, they said NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND As per the opening post that came not from FOX it came from the Guardian. I could probibly find what FOX said, or What CNN said, or any other News service. But that would not change the fact that NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND statment was made in paragraph 6 of the opening post to this thread. Please post any links you have to the contrary I'll be happy to look them over in their entirity. It matters not to me, the ground I've staked out is Sodamn Insane needed His Rear-end kicked, I don't care why or what for. I care that it was done.

Did your news services even mention that there has been found and for several months KNOWN to be a memo outlining an attempt by the dems. to turn the investigation into a political thing? Or did they ingor that fact leaving it out? Thus making it look like there is some other reason for 2 phases? Now that you are aware of the memo what are you going to do with the info? You decide for yourself, as for me I'll look at as many things as I can then make my choice based on what I see and two those things stack up. Here's another nuget for you people from what I have been able to gather Ted Copble of ABC Nightline asked the 75 Senators that voted for the War if they would have voted the same way knowing what they now know about the CIA's intel. 72 of them said yes so the war would still have happened.

Well T.L. I'll bow to you legal expertise [img]smile.gif[/img]
But I'll not pass the injured man beacuse legally it would be "Not so right" to help him.

As for the creditability thing here's a couple of thunks:
1) Which is more creditable? A man that says he's going to do something about wrongs then does it? Or a man that says wrongs are wrong and does little or nothing about it? Which one of them would you trust next time they see a wrong to try and set it right?
2) If my house was burning down and I have two neighbors "R" & "L". "R" grabs his garden hose and helps me put out the fire, not because he wants to help but because he thinks My wife has a great rear-end. The next day "L" after doing nothing to help because he also thinks my wife has a great rear-end, or what ever reason he didn't help because his motovation was not "Right". Comes to me and says You Know "R" only did it because He thinks your Wife has a great Rear-End! My answer to him: Where the "HALE" were you? Now if "R" later comes to me and says He did it because my wife has a great rear-end, after he picks himself up off the ground he can access if he wants to pursue that line of reasoning. All I give a rats'rear-end about while my house is burning is putting it out and who helps me do that. The rest of the world will see that same thing in Iraq, when the Iraqis ask where were you and your garden hose?

That is creditability in the real world.

EDIT*Bonus Creditability nuget* Why was it so creditabile that Sodamn Insane had WoMD's? *See UN resolutions to this end* Because he had used them, therefore his actions lent creditability to the danger that he had and would use them again. There's reason our granmothers tell us that action speak louder then words. :D

[ 07-14-2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

John D., despite your interesting narrative (and, I'll be sure to check out your wife's rear end the first chance I get :D ), I think you're making a much more complicated issue out of a very sensible stance. Credibility begins with saying things that are true, does it not?

Remember, the argument that "Saddam needed his rear end kicked" is fine, but action based on that reason would not be legally justified without the UN's approval.

The US wanted to go it alone, and in order to do that within the bounds of the law, it had to be based on WMD. Relying on WMD as reason #1 was a corner Bush painted himself into by insisting on going without UN approval.

Legally, this war was a work of art, you know.

I will do some research this weekend JD. I am still hearing that looking into admin interference was not within the scope of this report - if that is so then it could NOT a finding of the committee JD - it could only be a caveat from a spin doctor. I will see if I can trawl through the worldwide news services over the weekend to clarify this. I have not so clearly staked my ground as you have, and am prepared to remain open to alternate messages.

T.L. I see where you am come'n from, we'uns talkin horse's and pig's on this here creditability. ;)

I see the UN as having nearly 0 creditability, 12 years and all the resolutions nothing much done. Legaly the UN has the Creditability, real world it is like a cop that never gets out from behind his desk, he has no creditability on the street.

Davros, I'm glad you're going to look. I got NO problem pulling up stakes, but before I do so there had better be facts, not theories, not accusations backed by woulda coulda shoulda's.
The evidence presented here on the Senate report said one thing, I'm not going to contradict it with out facts that contradict it. A simple "I don't accept these facts" won't cut it with me unless some facts to support is also presented.

From what I've been able to gather Phase 2 is to look in to what the President did with the CIA intel that was prestented to Him. ie: Did he accept it unquestioning, did he look at other intel if there was any? Why did he dismiss any contradictary intel if there was any? Why did he dismiss any contradictary intel? What was the basis for not accepting the facts presented by conradictary intel?

Phase 1 looked at the intel itself, where it came from how, the conlusions were reached. On what basis did the CIA say these things. Why was it right or wrong.

Here's the conclusions of the Senate Intel. Report, not an news service saying what the conclusions are, but the Senate Intel. Committee saying what the conclusions are.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/ir...onclusions.pdf

*note* page 2 last paragraph, last sentence. "The Committee found No evidence"
As stated by the comittee.

I will check out your stuff tonight after work JD, but I am assuming the conclusions are all good as you say. Our disagreement is really not on that score though - it is on whether the committee has yet looked into the question of admin manipulation. Do you have the committee's terms of reference as well? Until I see them, then what you have there has little to no relevance. You see, there would be no evidence of manipulation IF the committe was restricted from asking those questions or looking into it in this phase (as was reported in our press). The conclusions would all be good at this stage if they are yet to ask those questions. Your view will be totally substantiated if you can show me that the boundaries placed on the committee didn't preclude them from asking those questions, that those questions have indeed been asked, and the evidence received substantiates the belief that the Admin did not exaggerate the risk that Iraq represented for its own agenda.