http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

No. I'm not hiding anything behind my back. You have nothing to worry about.

 

Or, maybe "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly." is more appropriate. Suuuuuuuure! We were supposed to believe them.

No. I'm not hiding anything behind my back.  You have nothing to worry about. 

 

Or, maybe "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly." is more appropriate.  Suuuuuuuure! We were supposed to believe them.

 

Because our other intel was so 'dead on'.

Because our other intel was so 'dead on'.

 

Ours, and everybody else's.

Ours, and everybody else's.

 

Yeah, those Downing Street memos and the German BND really supported our WMD claims.

Yeah, those Downing Street memos and the German BND really supported our WMD claims.

 

Saddam's defiance supported our WMD claims.

Saddam's defiance supported our WMD claims.

Not a good enough reason to go to war.

Not a good enough reason to go to war.

 

That's your opinion.

That's your opinion.

And would be yours if your son died in this meaningless war.

And would be yours if your son died in this meaningless war.

 

Again, you are spouting nothing but opinions. And as for the death of a son, you might not want to be so quick to throw that out so cavalierly. Just saying.

Again, you are spouting nothing but opinions.  And as for the death of a son, you might not want to be so quick to throw that out so cavalierly.  Just saying.

Turns out my opinions are now part of the overwhelming majority of American's opinions in this war. Just saying.

Turns out my opinions are now part of the overwhelming majority of American's opinions in this war.  Just saying.

 

Still, it's only an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

Still, it's only an opinion.  And you know what they say about opinions...

 

That, of course, cuts both ways.

That, of course, cuts both ways.

 

Of course. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

Turns out my opinions are now part of the overwhelming majority of American's opinions in this war.  Just saying.

Is it REALLY the majority of American's opinion? I'd answer carefully on that.

And would be yours if your son died in this meaningless war.

 

What about all of the Iraqis whose family members were murdered by Saddam? I don't think they see it as "meaningless."

Not a good enough reason to go to war.

 

while it remains at this point unproven that he actually had WMDs, look to the testimony from a multitude of former saddam officials. saddam ordered his men to purposely go out of their way to create the impression that they had WMDs. and our intel reflected this.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1271

(before you criticize this guy, he is a respected columnist who is published around the country's newspapers, both left and right leaning)

 

are you going to argue that saddam was justified in creating this impression to gain tactical advantage over the US and other countries? when you continually threaten and allude that you are going to shoot me and go out of your way to create the impression that you have a gun in your pocket, i could reasonably believe that you are going to shoot me. what did saddam expect? you cant have it both ways, saddam, and thats why you are where you are now- in a jail cell awaiting a death sentence.

 

 

so what was unreasonable about our intel's conclusions? perhaps something was wrong with the german intel that was mentioned above (namely that they had a latent anti-american socialist running the country who i personally think was doing business with saddam, like the french were). thats the euro way, to pussy out until you absolutely have to act and you barely avert dissaster.

What about all of the Iraqis whose family members were murdered by Saddam?  I don't think they see it as "meaningless."

Now they're being murdered by fellow Iraqi's. Hooray! What a victory!

Edited March 21, 200620 yr by BigSqwert

while it remains at this point unproven that he actually had WMDs, look to the testimony from a multitude of former saddam officials. saddam ordered his men to purposely go out of their way to create the impression that they had WMDs. and our intel reflected this.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1271

(before you criticize this guy, he is a respected columnist who is published around the country's newspapers, both left and right leaning)

 

are you going to argue that saddam was justified in creating this impression to gain tactical advantage over the US and other countries? when you continually threaten and allude that you are going to shoot me and go out of your way to create the impression that you have a gun in your pocket, i could reasonably believe that you are going to shoot me. what did saddam expect? you cant have it both ways, saddam, and thats why you are where you are now- in a jail cell awaiting a death sentence.

so what was unreasonable about our intel's conclusions? perhaps something was wrong with the german intel that was mentioned above (namely that they had a latent anti-american socialist running the country who i personally think was doing business with saddam, like the french were). thats the euro way, to pussy out until you absolutely have to act and you barely avert dissaster.

 

Daniel Pipes is a guy who says he has an "internal radar" to pick out people that want an Islamist government in the US. Coincidentally, that happens to be anybody who raises even the slightest criticism of him. What Saddam was doing was posturing -- just like Bush and his "We'll shoot first and ask questions later" foreign policy of pre-emptive strikes (the doctrine of pre-emption was, oddly enough, negated as a legal basis for starting a war in the Nuremburg Tribunals) It is posturing...

Now they're being murdered by fellow Iraqi's.  Hooray!  What a victory!

 

Not in the numbers that they were under Saddam. Ironically, a stable Iraq under Saddam was more of a health risk to the average Iraqi than an unstable Iraq in the middle of a regime change.

Honestly, I don't place much stock in the statements of ANY former Saddam regime personnel. That means this guy, and I felt the same way about Chalabi and others. That intel is and was far too soft to be used as a reliable indicator one way or the other.

Not in the numbers that they were under Saddam.  Ironically, a stable Iraq under Saddam was more of a health risk to the average Iraqi than an unstable Iraq in the middle of a regime change.

Now that is just plain untrue. Rates of violent crime of all sorts are many times over what they were under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurdistan region, which is relatively stable). Those numbers are all over the internet, including through reliable channels. I'l go scrape some up if you'd like (they've been posted here before as well).

 

Not that I think that is an argument to leave, by the way. Just want to head that off at the pass. I do not favor getting out of Iraq. To do so would be as irresponsible as the initial war was, if not more so.

Now that is just plain untrue.  Rates of violent crime of all sorts are many times over what they were under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurdistan region, which is relatively stable).  Those numbers are all over the internet, including through reliable channels.  I'l go scrape some up if you'd like (they've been posted here before as well).

 

Of course, the big difference is that people expect random violence in the middle of a war. They don't expect to have their doors broken down and to be rushed off to a torture chamber at 4 am during a time of peace. Nor do they expect to be shelled with sarin by their own government.

interesting. the only way that the the link i had to the daniel pipes blog was argued against was to personally attack pipes by lowercaserepublican that had no validity (if pipes is such a loose cannon, why is he allowed to regularly contribute to the NY post, the philly enquirer, etc?) and to say that former cadres and defectors of saddam should never be believed (without any reason stated; hey, didnt saddam himself say that at his trial recently? who believes a defector anyway, right? remember when we believed what some soviet defectors said back during the cold war? we were idiots for doing that too, because they were all liars and you can never believe defectors).

 

way to address the merits!

Edited March 21, 200620 yr by samclemens

Now that is just plain untrue.  Rates of violent crime of all sorts are many times over what they were under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurdistan region, which is relatively stable).  Those numbers are all over the internet, including through reliable channels.  I'l go scrape some up if you'd like (they've been posted here before as well).

 

Not that I think that is an argument to leave, by the way.  Just want to head that off at the pass.  I do not favor getting out of Iraq.  To do so would be as irresponsible as the initial war was, if not more so.

 

I would like to see those rates, and I am also curious as to how they were arrived at before and after the regime change. Would incidences have been reported more or less often under the old regime? I would tend to think that there is more freedom to report (and someone to report to) things that are happening within their country.