US officially gives up looking for WMD in Iraq

[Davros]

Be that as it may, Azred, but it doesn't show how the guy making the decision came to the decision. It was a decision of war - of life and death for many. Was he eager to pounce on anything that pitched things the way he wanted, or did he weigh the inputs both favourable and negative before taking the most heavy decision that any public leader can make?

Methinks the former, and you (I suspect) think the latter. There in lies the difference and the truth that neither of us are sure of (neither can we be sure of as much as supporters may want to cheer and detractors boo). To the neutral outside observer in American politics I was all prepared to believe that George was telling us the truth a year ago, but more and more information (dirt if you like) has emerged over that last 12 months.

That sifting and collation tells me that wee George (or the younger G Bush if you prefer) got the info he wanted to hear because he shaped the agenda of the administration to achieve this very result - the one that was the most important to him of all. In my heart I know that removing Saddam was of itself an important positive. Was it achieved without a bunch of spin and deception - nope - you bet yer ass it weren't.

Winners write the history, so that is GW's one big hope - that the focus shifts off how he achieved it but instead to what he achieved. His defenders are for the most not at all interested in the road that led them into Iraq - they use the "end justifies the means" philosophy.

Fortunately humanity doesn't accept the ongoing and continual use of that philosphy. For those who would say bullshit - the ends always justify the means then I refer you to the torturings at Abu Ghraib, be it pre or post Saddam. That shows (once it was made public) that the US and the world does not idly accept that the ends always justifies the means.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Now where's Magik's infamous apology demand thread when you need it...

Someone did find it for me Groj - gave me a few chuckles reading back through it too. There were some real gems

[Animal]

Originally posted by John D Harris: So the search has ended, and the Intell was incorrect, Sorry. Don't that sound nice Personally I have said all along SoDamn Insane needed his rear end kicked, I don't care what the reasons for kicking his rear end were, as long as his rear end was kicked. Yes, as far as I'm concerned the end did justify the means, make of that what you will. Sham, I'm not so sure it is incompetence on the part of the Pentagon, as much as it is the fact Humans run the Pentagon. We, humans aren't in possession of omnipotence. This has been a perfect example of "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Who amoung us can see every move an opponent makes ahead of time? Having writen that, it does not mean there were/are not incompetent indidivuals in the military. "Hale" the world is full of incompetent people, you can only do what you can do.

I wonder if you would be so eager to except the "humans make mistakes" excuse if it was George W. getting his ass whipped?

It's a real shame that the troops in Iraq are still dying. I wonder if they know what they are dying for, other than the fact that their Commander in Chief told them to.

Just because the US decides to do something doesn't make it right. How much did this "hunt for WoMD" cost your tax payers? How many of your own people went hungry because of it? How many were denied medical service?

So why exactly isn't Bush decreed a war criminal? Oh yes, I remember, because he said he's not.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Davros: Sorry Azred - when it's war and there are thousands of people about to die for a mistake then the guy deciding needs to be more accountable than just accepting accepting a consultant's report.

That would be nice if things did work thusly; however, in a military campaign most decisions are made by consultants, especially when you consider that military strategists/generals are merely military consultants. In short, all military decisions are made by consultants.
That may sound cold because human lives are at stake, but sometimes life is cold and harsh. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I do have to deal with reality as it is. [/QUOTE]Again, I wonder how you would feel if you were on the other end of the stick? Would you be so aloof? Would you find it "cold and harsh, but life nonetheless" if your family was being gunned down because they were suspect of terrorism?

So exactly who is responsible for the misinformation that cost thousands of lives? Shouldn't the Man in charge be held accountable for his actions? Yes...HIS actions. Whether or not he was provided with misinformation, he still has a responsibility to insure he is taking the correct course of action, does he not?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Animal: I wonder if you would be so eager to except the "humans make mistakes" excuse if it was George W. getting his ass whipped? It's a real shame that the troops in Iraq are still dying. I wonder if they know what they are dying for, other than the fact that their Commander in Chief told them to. Just because the US decides to do something doesn't make it right. How much did this "hunt for WoMD" cost your tax payers? How many of your own people went hungry because of it? How many were denied medical service? So why exactly isn't Bush decreed a war criminal? Oh yes, I remember, because he said he's not.

Well Animal, I would feel the same way. In my 43 years of life I have been on the "ass whipping" side of "Humans make mistakes" many times, and knowing what I know about humans, I'm willing to bet I shall be on that side again before my time on this side of the grass ends. Does that mean being on that side doesn't irritate me? No, it just means I recognize it.

Yes it is a shame that troops are dying, it is a shame that anybody dies. Do the troops Know what they are dying for? YES they know, now the reasons they are dying may or may not be the ones stated by the government. I'll bet there are many of the troops that don't agree with the government stated reasons, that are still fighting, killing and dying.

Nobody, said that just because the USA did anything, that made it right. I don't know the figures off the top of my pointed little head but, having watched the way the government opperates it probibly cost more then it should have cost. I doubt a single person went hungry because of it, there are many private (outside of the US government) ways for people to get food. We've got charities coming out the ying-yang, that will and DO feed the hungry. Zero people have been deined medical services here in the USA because we are spending our money on this war.

Bush can be declared a war criminal, for all I care, by the rest of the world. Declaring something doesn't make it so. Just like the position that is trying to be put forward about President Bush and the hunt for WoMD's.

Now my question to you: If you believe President Bush is a War criminal what are you willing to do about it? The World can talk about what ever they want to talk about, talk is cheap. Until troops attempt to land on our shores, it is so much noise. People can call me what ever names they want to call me, but if they step into my yard and take a swing at me, that is an entirely differant ball game. I don't care what people say, if I want to be able to say what I want, I must alow others to say what they want. Read what I wrote about the KKK, http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=001738

As for the KKK and their abopt a Highway mile, I will say the same thing I told the elders of our church, when they wanted to have "girly magazines" removed from store shelves in town: In a free society if it is OK to ban/limit one thing, you must be prepared to have somebody else ban/limit you, and accept their ban/limits, politicly speaking. That is not making a moral judgement on the KKK, or their worthiness. If one wishes to be free one must also extend the same to others, no matter how reprehensable they are as long as they are legal.(Within the bounds of laws that apply to all)

Now if somebody wants to convince me of something, I'm going to ask questions. To convince me, they had better be willing to answer, I'm willing to answer questions ask of me. Just because something is said doesn't make it so, That is true for me also. To the best of my knowledge the only times I have not answered questions is when I have either not seen the question, or when I see the other side is not willing to answer questions, and they ask questions after I have made the choice to discontinue the conversation. The other side may chose to discontinue the conversation at anytime they wish, if it is good enough for me it is good enough for them.

One of my favorite sayings is from Clear and present danger "Not black and white, but right and wrong"(paraphrased by me) I try to seek to be right, that is why I ask questions. I've read alot here on this board about the evils of following blindly this or that. Many who would rail agianst following blindly, are the very ones that get upset when their positions are questioned (not followed blindly). There's a reason the statements were made "Get the log out of your own eye before you try to get the speck out of your brother's eye.", and "they'll swallow a camel, but choke on a nat.".

As always those are my opinions, anybody is free to make of them what they will.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Animal: Again, I wonder how you would feel if you were on the other end of the stick? Would you be so aloof? Would you find it "cold and harsh, but life nonetheless" if your family was being gunned down because they were suspect of terrorism? So exactly who is responsible for the misinformation that cost thousands of lives? Shouldn't the Man in charge be held accountable for his actions? Yes...HIS actions. Whether or not he was provided with misinformation, he still has a responsibility to insure he is taking the correct course of action, does he not?

Yes. Reality is cold; if my family members suffer because of someone else's actions I would realize that even though I might be in the process of seeking revenge. My emotional state does not change reality, only how I choose to react to it.

I doubt anyone can be certain who might be the one person responsible, but the person "in charge" is ultimately responsible. Truman had the phrase "the buck stops here" on his desk to remind himself of this.
However, if the person in charge has put people with the appropriate training and capabilities to funnel information to him, then the person in charge is going to figure that information is correct, unless other information that contradicts it arises.

It is a shame that deaths are still occuring in Iraq. However, if all the insurgents would quit derailing the rebuilding of their own country then the death toll would fall dramatically. Lay the blame at their doorstep, not anyone else's.

[Animal]

A very intelligent and well thought out response.

Is Bush a war criminal? Not in the direct sense, but his actions sure seem to fit the description. I don't subscribe to the "mis-information" excuse that's been passed, I fully believe that he knew full and well that Iraq was not the threat he painted it to be. Can I prove it? Of course not, but I doubt that US Intelligence is actually that inept. If US satellites can pinpoint a flea on a dogs back, I'm sure they have no problems tracking troop and weapon movement anywhere on the planet.

I find Bush's actions deplorable. His position is one of complete power, and such a position demands total accuracy. When dealing with the lives of hundereds of thousands of people, a mistake isn't acceptable.

I do agree that the war had little or no effect on the condition of the homeless, or those living below the poverty line, but that money spent on the war effort could put to better use be feeding and housing those same people.

The war on Iraq and the so-called "Liberation of the Iraqi people," in my eyes, is wrong. There should be accountability for the lives lost needlessly. I am in no position to demand such, only the citizens of the US can. The re-election of Bush indicates they have no intention.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Animal: Again, I wonder how you would feel if you were on the other end of the stick? Would you be so aloof? Would you find it "cold and harsh, but life nonetheless" if your family was being gunned down because they were suspect of terrorism? So exactly who is responsible for the misinformation that cost thousands of lives? Shouldn't the Man in charge be held accountable for his actions? Yes...HIS actions. Whether or not he was provided with misinformation, he still has a responsibility to insure he is taking the correct course of action, does he not?

Yes. Reality is cold; if my family members suffer because of someone else's actions I would realize that even though I might be in the process of seeking revenge. My emotional state does not change reality, only how I choose to react to it.

I doubt anyone can be certain who might be the one person responsible, but the person "in charge" is ultimately responsible. Truman had the phrase "the buck stops here" on his desk to remind himself of this.
However, if the person in charge has put people with the appropriate training and capabilities to funnel information to him, then the person in charge is going to figure that information is correct, unless other information that contradicts it arises.

It is a shame that deaths are still occuring in Iraq. However, if all the insurgents would quit derailing the rebuilding of their own country then the death toll would fall dramatically. Lay the blame at their doorstep, not anyone else's. [/QUOTE]We could easily start a circular discussion here regarding the chicken and the egg. Would Iraq need rebuilding if the war hadn't occured?

I lay the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders.

[John D Harris]

I can see where you are coming from Animal. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would agree that as President of the USA mistakes have far reaching consequences.

I'm not so sure I can agree about the quality of the Intel. Satelites may be able to pick up fleas on a dog. But, seeing what is inside a truck, or building is a differant story. Pictures can tell us where the troops are but no what the intent of the troops. Then there is the politics, not the Rep-Dem type, but the office politics that goes on in any orginization. The CIA is pushing for one thing the NSA, DoD intel another. Each wants to be the goldenboy so they get more money out of the budget or glory for themselves. Look at Richard Clarke, right after the Clinton administation left office he was telling anybody that would listen that he was the only one paying attention to what Al Queada was doing, Then the poop hits the fan. He turns around and say he was the only one in the Bush Administration that was paying attention to Al Queada, and the Clinton Administration was doing a good job. On top of that add the preasure from the Why didn't we connect the dots, crowd. And the fact that since the dots weren't connected and 3,000 people died, there is going to be a whole lot of folks connecting dots that don't go together. The whole thing is a "Charlie Foxtrot"

I believe there will be an accountability, but do to the ban on, why I believe it to be true, that's all I can say on the matter.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Animal: A very intelligent and well thought out response. Flatterer. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Is Bush a war criminal? Not in the direct sense, but his actions sure seem to fit the description. I don't subscribe to the "mis-information" excuse that's been passed, I fully believe that he knew full and well that Iraq was not the threat he painted it to be. Can I prove it? Of course not, but I doubt that US Intelligence is actually that inept. If US satellites can pinpoint a flea on a dogs back, I'm sure they have no problems tracking troop and weapon movement anywhere on the planet. I suppose we would need to classify what offenses make someone a "war criminal". Normally, war crimes are things like attempted genocide/ethnic cleansing, purposefully targeting civilians, torture, etc. I highly doubt Bush is giving these sorts of orders. Normal wartime goings-on, however personally detestable, don't rise to the normal level of "war crimes". History may or may not agree; we'll have to see in 30 years. I find the "misinformation" line a little shady, as well. These people are supposed to be trained to sort through data and separate wheat from chaff, so to speak. The only plausible explanation is that they are spreading misinformation: "hey! we're inept and don't know what we're doing!", in an attempt to "fake out" their enemies and lull them into a false sense of security. I find Bush's actions deplorable. His position is one of complete power, and such a position demands total accuracy. When dealing with the lives of hundereds of thousands of people, a mistake isn't acceptable. I appreciate your position, but honestly neither of us could really do too much better. I do agree that the war had little or no effect on the condition of the homeless, or those living below the poverty line, but that money spent on the war effort could put to better use be feeding and housing those same people. Too true. Although, are those people doing anything to help themselves? The war on Iraq and the so-called "Liberation of the Iraqi people," in my eyes, is wrong. There should be accountability for the lives lost needlessly. I am in no position to demand such, only the citizens of the US can. The re-election of Bush indicates they have no intention. Well, at least some of them have no such intention. However, the American population can be rather fickle. One wrong move in their eyes and the entire situation could change almost overnight--just ask Nixon. *************** We could easily start a circular discussion here regarding the chicken and the egg. Would Iraq need rebuilding if the war hadn't occured? Yes. Hussein had run the country into the ground. He knew how to take power, but didn't know how to use it wisely once he had it. I lay the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders. At least you're honest about it. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]