Do you understand the difference between a lie and a mistake?

Bush and Blair didn't lie about WMD. They, like most everyone else, were mistaken about WMD.

The US did not invade Iraq over WMD or Al Queda btw. This has been discussed to death already.

David Kay testified that Saddam Hussein himself thought he had WMD, and had been misled. If *he* thought he had them, could we be blamed? Regardless, WMDs were not the point. Hussein was actively funding Palestinian terrorism and was a threat to do so everywhere. Both Libya and Iran have now been found to have had active nuclear programs. If Hussein didn't at the time, he would have. He was firing on coalition aircraft daily and the Chinese were supplying materials to make his aircraft batteries networked, making them faster to respond to patrolling planes. Something had to be done before France and Germany finally succeeded in getting sanctions lifted and started pouring their weaponry back in.

As for

"And now people in the US are to be subjected to a humiliating background check every time they board an aircraft, being labeled as a green, yellow or red security threat."

Do you think, maybe, we should be trying to catch Norwegian terrorists? Maybe scary Pygmy terrorists? Call it profiling if you want, but totally random checks are a waste of time. Would you prefer to not hassle people and have a few 9-11 style incidents per year?

"Colin Powell has admitted that there never was a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, yet something like 60% of American people still believe this to be so, a lie that the Whitehouse has done little to address."

Does it matter if it is Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbullah? They are all terrorists. Didn't they find some documentation to that effect in the last couple of weeks?

"Afghanistan is as anarchic as it ever was"

On what do you base this? What understanding do you have of how Afghanistan was previous to intervention, when support and cash for terrorism was pouring in and out? Could you cite some reasons it is more chaotic. None of the interviews or reports I have seen led me to that conclusion. Back it up, if you would.

"As the US troop deaths climb to some 500..."

500 dead to take and hold an entire nation? Do you realize what an impossibility that would have been historically? We've set a date to leave Iraq. It is easy to say we are 'bogged down', but in so doing you are carrying a message that terrorists are killing people to create. Had it been 20 you'd be saying the same thing. No one knows the civilian death count, because half the combatants we fought were technically civilians. Hussein issued automatic weapons to housewives and anyone that wanted them in the last few months of his rule. Also, he placed his weaponry in the vicinity of civilian areas. Tough for them.

At the very least you could try to bring a new perspective, this is the same, predigested, post-defecation yap that has been posted over and over. Have you seen the kind of horrors Saddam put his people through? Did you not see the tapes of torture and executions? Don't you people with a statistics fetish keep track of the mass graves we find there, of the untold numbers of people Hussein killed in his decades of rule?

I hate armchair, intellectual activism. I know the truth, and as for your 'truth', no, I don't care.

Brad,

You: "Do you understand the difference betrween a lie and a mistake"

Yes I do.

You can have it either way, but let's assume it was a mistake.

A mistake that has cost thousands of lives and continues to do so on a daily basis requires responisibility for those mistakes. The best interpretation of the people in charge is that they were grossly incompetent with regard to either the decision making or the competence of their intelligence gathering organisations.

They have presided over an incompetent administration ergo they are incompetent in themselves.

If a CEO presided over a regime of incompetence that cost his company millions of pounds he would be expected to resign.

The value of a human life is far more important, and the fact that the US and Britain invaded on the flimsiest of evidence that turned out to be ultimately false is of paramount importance.

As people continue to die, it is notable that inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic have been set up.

But these inquiries have only been set up because of growing public disquiet, particularly in the UK.

How can such a great mistake that has cost thousands of lives have been made?

It was clear to all asundry that Iraq presented no clear and present danger to the US or the UK, but we were told that intelligence 'that could not be revealed for fear of compromising its source and endangering lives' was sufficient to launch a pre-emptive attack against a country ruled by a tin-pot dictator who was a threat only to his own people.

Not only was this gross incompetence to cost lives, but the perpetrators of the incompetence refused to believe the reports of the people they sent in to measure the extent of Iraqs purported WMDs, before and 'after' the war.

And if they didn't invade Iraq because of WMDs or Al'queda then why did they invade?

What is todays reason?

What will it be tomorrow?

You "This has been discussed to death already"

So we should simply shrug and say oh well, accidents happen, while people continue to be slaughtered as a direct consequence of this gross incompetence?

It most probably has been done to death, but while people continue to die the debate will not go away no matter how bored you may be with it.

yechydda,















Bush and Blair didn't lie about WMD. They, like most everyone else, were mistaken about WMD.

BakerStreet,

You "Hussein was actively funding Palestinian terrorism"

No, he paid money to the families of those terrorists that destroyed themselves innocent victims. There is an important difference.

You "and was a threat to do so everywhere"

How exactly?

You: "Both Libya and Iran have now been found to have had active nuclear programs"

They have not "now' anything, this was known before the war. Britain had been putting pressure on Libya long before the war to forsake its nuclear program in order to remove its pariah state status.

You: "If Hussein didn't at the time, he would have"

If's and may'bes are no excuses to launch a preemptive strike against a sovereign state no matter how repulsive that state is. Especially when the weight of evidence showed that he had no active nuclear program.

You : "He was firing on coalition aircraft daily and the Chinese were supplying materials to make his aircraft batteries networked, making them faster to respond to patrolling planes"

The no-go zones were well policed and effective in their function.

If China was supplying their decrepit air force with 'materials', whatever this might mean, then the appropriate thing to do would be to put pressure on China to desist. Are you seriously saying that we invaded because China was supplying nuts and bolts to Iraq?

You: "Something had to be done before France and Germany finally succeeded in getting sanctions lifted and started pouring their weaponry back in"

Ah, now we had to invade in case those evil twins France and Germany gave them the weapons that Iraq coveted. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Especially considering that France and Germany were right, and the US and the UK were wrong. War is not a joke, amd cannot be waged on a fiction of mights and may'bes.

You: "Do you think, maybe, we should be trying to catch Norwegian terrorists? Maybe scary Pygmy terrorists? Call it profiling if you want, but totally random checks are a waste of time Would you prefer to not hassle people and have a few 9-11 style incidents per year?"

You're forgetting that this is an internal check against US citizens (and tourists that have entered through the immigration procedures). Before you can fly, you will have to be profiled. You may be happy for this to occur, it is your country and your freedoms that are being curtailed and not mine.

You: "Does it matter if it is Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbullah? They are all terrorists"

Yes it does, very much so. Some are a direct threat to the US and some are not. Rigorous scrutiny must be applied to each and every group, to determine the extent of the threat to the US and its interests. Are the people that attack US forces in Iraq terrorists or freedom fighters? Is the US an occupation force or a liberating army? Understanding the context of the actions that the perpetrators of violent acts undertake is essential in ultimately defeating them, or causing them to desist from their actions, be they Iraqi insurgents or US occupiers/liberators.

You: "Didn't they find some documentation to that effect in the last couple of weeks?"

What they found was that the forces in Iraq have NOW tried to make contact with Osama his cronies to crank up resitence against the occupation/liberation US army. Al'Queda is now most probably very involved in Iraq.

You: "On what do you base this? What understanding do you have of how Afghanistan was previous to intervention, when support and cash for terrorism was pouring in and out? Could you cite some reasons it is more chaotic. None of the interviews or reports I have seen led me to that conclusion. Back it up, if you would"

Of course, but before an appropriate link, Afghanistan has always been an anarchic land, before the Taliban succeeded in conquering most, but not all of the land, it was always a land of brutal tribal strife, and continues to be so to this day:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3421259.stm

htp://www.iht.com/articles/125760.html

You: "No one knows the civilian death count, because half the combatants we fought were technically civilians. Hussein issued automatic weapons to housewives and anyone that wanted them in the last few months of his rule. Also, he placed his weaponry in the vicinity of civilian areas. Tough for them"

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

You: "It is easy to say we are 'bogged down', but in so doing you are carrying a message that terrorists are killing people to create."

The UK could not effectively police Northern Ireland with a ratio of troops many times the number of US troops sent to police Iraq. This was evident prior to the war. Rumsfelds own generals cautioned about this. It is plain to everyone that wars cannot be won on wishful thinking of the type that Rumsfeld is guilty of indulging in to the cost of thousands of lives.

You: "At the very least you could try to bring a new perspective, this is the same, predigested, post-defecation yap that has been posted over and over"

So the fact that this has been raised before means that we should now quietly brush it under the carpet, business as usual?

You: "Have you seen the kind of horrors Saddam put his people through? Did you not see the tapes of torture and executions? Don't you people with a statistics fetish keep track of the mass graves we find there, of the untold numbers of people Hussein killed in his decades of rule?"

So this is todays excuse for going to war? We knew what a bastard he was years ago, so why did Bush decide to pick on him now? And there are many more bastards out there that we know of right here, right now.

You: "I hate armchair, intellectual activism...I know the truth"

The last refuge of the blind, an incapacity to engage in logical debate by proclaiming that you and you alone know the truth and that all the facts at your disposal can therefore be safely dismissed.

Activists get things changed, sheep get slaughtered.

yechydda,

"Activists get things changed, sheep get slaughtered."

Activists didn't prevent the war, they didn't stop it, and they won't effect any change now.  You're doing great so far.  Change on, activist.  

This is one of those times that I am not gonna address you point by point, because I don't care what you think.  Each of the statements you discount are circumstantial, yes, but in tandem with someone like Saddam Hussein they were more than enough to take action against him.  You differ, but thankfully such opinion isn't of enough merit to stall what needed to be done.

P.S. An aircraft battery is an installation on the ground armed to shoot down airplanes, not an airforce.  Hussein's were pitifully outdated, but the Chinese were selling internet-style fiber optic networking so that they could work in tandem and lead coalition aircraft.  Not unlike the GPS scrambling equipment he was importing from Russia.

As far as I am concerned the moment he locked radar on patrolling aircraft, the ceasefire was null and void.  The rest of the excuses are gravy. 

Activists didn't prevent the war, they didn't stop it, and they won't effect any change now.

We'll see who wins the election.

BulbousHead: LOL, no, lets see if anything changes regardless of who wins the election. I don't think "activists" have any more of a prayer effecting change with Kerry than they do with Bush.

Ousting the incumbent is a pretty big change...

Bakerstreet

You: "Activists didn't prevent the war, they didn't stop it, and they won't effect any change now. You're doing great so far. Change on, activist."

Why do you assume that my activism wanted to prevent the war? How do you know that I wasn't pro-war but am now annoyed at being lied to? Besides, things have changed, as Bush and Blair have been under pressure by democratic activists they have both initiated inquiries to ensure this fiasco does not arise again.

You: "This is one of those times that I am not gonna address you point by point, because I don't care what you think."

Yes you do, otherwise you would not ahve replied twice to the post.

You: "Each of the statements you discount are circumstantial, yes, but in tandem with someone like Saddam Hussein they were more than enough to take action against him."

I appreciate you acknowledging the veracity of the post, even though we differ in opinion on the outcome.

You: "You differ, but thankfully such opinion isn't of enough merit to stall what needed to be done"

True, the opinion of the rest of the world did not count for the US and the UK in their determination to wage war. The abandoning of the Principle of Universality will have implications for years to come.


You: "As far as I am concerned the moment he locked radar on patrolling aircraft, the ceasefire was null and void."

At least you're original in this, I wonder how long it will be for Bush to latch on to it? After all, he hasn't come up with a new excuse for a few days.

You: "The rest of the EXCUSES are gravy"

Thankyou. I think you've proved my point, we went to war on an excuse.

yechydda,

Bakerhead,



You "LOL, no, lets see if anything changes regardless of who wins the election. I don't think "activists" have any more of a prayer effecting change with Kerry than they do with Bush"

That's a very interesting point, are you saying that there's no real point in voting? That there's an inexorable machine trundling along that we are all powerless to stop?

I thought that Kerry was more Communitaire, more likely to mend fences and build bridges with the International community.

Here's a conspiracy I read the other day, that Osama actually wants Bush to win so that the world will continue to see the US in a negative light and for the Islamic world to rally around hating the great Satan.

Funny old world isn't it?

yechydda,

I am very glad to see this post! And believe me, many here are not bored with it and many think it can't be talked about enough!
I am glad you were at least not greeted with the sigh.

valleyboyabroad: "Bakerhead"... heh, witty.

No, voting matters, but in the end I think you'll find activists have nothing in common with politicians, or the public as a whole. Politicians aren't put in office by activists, but the same grazing Americans that you seem to dislike so much. In that case, who is it in the politician's interest to serve, activists or the average American?

If Kerry goes out on a limb and doesn't carry out the will of the majority of Americans, has he done his job? Do you think the majority of Americans agree with the average 'activist' here? Nah.

What do you really think electing Kerry with change?

Wisefawn,

I do unserstand the fatigue that can set in over such matters, Bakerstreet does have a point.

It is with sadness that I notice reports of now almost daily deaths of soldiers and civilians are already being consigned to the backs of newspapers.

Of course, the last thing that should happen is for the troops to be pulled out, but I fear that that may be the case. We've made the mess, we now have to stay and finish the job, which will take years and not months.

yechydda,

BakerSTREET,

Sorry, that was a Freudian slip, unintentional wit!

You: "No, voting matters, but in the end I think you'll find activists have nothing in common with politicians, or the public as a whole. Politicians aren't put in office by activists, but the same grazing Americans that you seem to dislike so much."

I do not dislike 'grazing Americans', don't forget that Blair had the backing of the electorate, this isn't an anti-American rant, it's an OI! you've fucked up I want some answers pal rant.

Politicians are put into office by activists, they're the ones that are currently digging out this nonsense about Bushs war record and Kerrys involvement with an intern.

Remember the Lewinsky case? No paper would touch it, it was a web-site, sorry can't recall the address, that broke the news and look what happened there.

And don't forget the vested business interests that have their lips pressed to the Presidents ear.

You: "In that case, who is it in the politician's interest to serve, activists or the average American?"

That's often the problem with the system. Assuming that activists have little impact for a moment, Politicians rarely these days go with convictions, they target swing groups, those that may hold the key to an election rather than what they actually believe. I'm not sure that it could be any other way, but it's a poor advertisement for democracy.

You: "If Kerry goes out on a limb and doesn't carry out the will of the majority of Americans, has he done his job? Do you think the majority of Americans agree with the average 'activist' here? Nah."

Well I notice that since the original article, the average American is beginnig to think and question. His ratings have fallen as I understand it. This, at least, would not happen without activists.

Activists, vested interest groups, call them what you will, perhaps these are now the movers and shakers in the democratic process?

You: "What do you really think electing Kerry with change? "

Predominantly a fresh start to mending bridges with the rest of the world. As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, he believes in institutions like the UN.

Perhaps the UN and member countries would be more willing to get involved in Iraqs future security if there was a change at the helm.

yechydda,

"Politicians are put into office by activists"

It was Drudge. I dunno, if that were the case Clinton wouldn't have been elected, or at least re-elected. I don't think you or any real activist would bother with that kind of thing anyway. The Whitewater deals were more damning. It all effects opinion, but in the end I think people pick the one that most resembles their own philosophy and ignores the propaganda.

"Perhaps the UN and member countries would be more willing to get involved in Iraq's future security if there was a change at the helm."

I dunno. If they are keeping out for the reasons they say, I would agree. I think, though, that a declining America is good for them regardless of who is in office. They seem to have angst that a few months of the cold shoulder doesn't make a dent in.