Some months ago, the Iraq Survey Group, the US group set up to find Saddam's missing WMD, reported that there weren't any. NeoCons desperate to justify the war (and start the next one) claimed that that was because they'd all been moved to Syria before the invasion started. Today, the ISG sank that theory as well, reporting that there was no evidence to support the theory. It also criticised military intelligence for botching interrogations of WMD scientists, and recommended that they be released. Some have been detained without charge or trial for almost two years.
So, what were those 21,000 (and counting) people killed for again?
7 comments:
Because Saddam did not allow the inspections to proceed properly. Its rather difficult for the simple public to understand but whether they actually had WMD or not is irrelevant.
It would only be relevant if the UN had agreed before the war that the inspections were unessercary.
Take for example if the police came to my house with a warent to inspect my property for drugs.If I then lets say punched the officer trying to inspect and he was unable to complete the inspection (as per the warrent) it would become irrelevant whether I had drugs or not since that is not information the law even theoretically could have acess to - all that would matter is that I had obstructed the law.
Or more simply if I refused to produce my licence to an officer when driving a car I could expect to be fined for driving without a licence regardless of whether an extensive inspection of my car eventually found one.
The law must worked based on what it can know not on "absolute truth".
Posted by Genius : 4/27/2005 05:29:00 PM
In case you were not watching over the decade of sanctions Iraq was certainly obstructing justice.
Iraq commited the national equivilent of "child rape" followed by to
"assult with intent to kill"
the "police" then saved the life of the victim and a judge put the kid under social welfare told them they were not welcome in the market square and told them there would be some concequences if they started making home made bombs.
Iraq then obstructed attempts to enforce the rulings of the judge.
Strangly some of the public then ran around saying
"but the army/police have bombs"
or
"the police kill people so why can't they?"
or
"the police should check up on criminals because they might not have committed a crime this time."
Posted by Genius : 4/27/2005 08:40:00 PM
Nice work, Genius.. torture logic a bit further and do you reckon you can make it confess?
Invasion apologists live in what must be a beautifully monochromatic world in which:
- Baddies are BAD
- the US is GOOD
Given the evidence, I'd sooner believe in the tooth fairy..
Posted by Anonymous : 4/28/2005 08:54:00 AM
So, Sock Thief, were the WMD irrelevant?
What I remember is that the US and UK goverments justified the war on the grounds of the WMD -- which Bush and Blair let on they "knew" were there -- not because Saddam was an evil dictator. If merely being governed by an evil dictator who kills your own people was grounds for invasion, there would be many, many other countries that qualify, and perhaps further up the list at that.
Posted by stephen : 4/28/2005 09:15:00 AM
If Bush and Blair put forward a case for military action against Mugabe or the Sudanese government then I would look at that on its merits.
This is the nub. B&B DID put forward a case for military action against Iraq. Its principal "merit" was the WMD. Not only has this since proved to be false, but it looks increasingly likely that they knew it at the time.
If B&B made a case for invading Zimbabwe because, I don't know, Mugabe was said to be supplying uranium to North Korea, and then this proved to be false, you'd be a bit cheesed off, wouldn't you?
Posted by stephen : 4/28/2005 11:13:00 AM
If Mugabe were overthrown and free elections held, as they have in Iraq and Afghanistan I would not be terribly upset.
Dear Lord, then why not invent any old reason for invading "bad guys"? Forgive me, am I wrong in thinking that you don't give a damn about launching a war on a pretext?
As to the cost in lives of alternatives, I believe that's irrelevant if the war was launched on different grounds than saving Iraqi lives. Which it was.
Posted by stephen : 4/28/2005 02:25:00 PM
Huskynut,
It is irrelevant whether the US was good or not the relevant issue is if Iraq was bad.
By the way Baddies ARE bad that is why they are called baddies.
> What I remember is that the US and UK goverments justified the war on the grounds of the WMD
the US.UK were just pointing out the potential concequences there is a difference between that and the REASON although the public probably isnt smart enough on the whole to realise that. the reason is a breach of the agreement they made to allow inspections as a result of iraq invading kuwait.
Stephen,
> If merely being governed by an evil dictator who kills your own people was grounds for invasion, there would be many, many other countries that qualify
Are you arguing that we should not stop peopel from massacaring their own people because we dont stop everyone? dont you realise that is applicable to any piece of morality. And to follow that principle is to define yourself as amoral. For example not all murderers are caught, and some are only superficially pursued. Now if I kiled your family would you accept that as a reason for not arresting me? ridiculous isnt it?
Icehawk,
> we have clear evidence now that Blair lied to his nation
If you think he lied you need to have a quote and say this is a lie because.... while some of what he said could be a lie (depends on how you define a lie most people probably lie a few hundred times over the course of a day I doubt blair is all that much better than the average man) but on the central points I dont think they were "lies" I think they were probably things he honestly beleived - ie iraq had WMD and so forth. Posibly because iraq had said it had them earlier.
> Genius is arguing that the UN weapons inspectors were not able to do their job. I'd respect that if it was what the UN weapons inspectors have said. But it isn't.
I think you dont understand my point - my point doesnt rely on the WMD inspectors not being able to do their job - it instead relies on Iraq obstructing the process. They were suposed to have free and full access to al the sites. Iraq breaches the treaty by preventing them from having that access regardless of whether the inspectors think given a decade and a half they might be able to work around it.
> This wasn't the police, this was an armed vigilante.
In the absence of a police vigilanties are the good guys. It is a similar argument to that used by the left to say sadam is better than anarchy. well some enforcement of justice is better than no enforcement.
Stephen,
Dear Lord, then why not invent any old reason for invading "bad guys"?
You might do that, but that doenst mean everyone else would
> As to the cost in lives of alternatives, I believe that's irrelevant
Action should be taken for wholistic reasons surely, in that case nothing is irrelevant.
If you dont take them for wholistic reasons you are accepting that your rules kill people needlessly.
Posted by Genius : 4/28/2005 06:24:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).