Did Bush / Blair invent the cause for war?

[Bill Glasheen]

chewy

Good points made by you.

I wanted to address what you seem to be implying here: that there was indeed some sort of Iraq-Terrorist link that helped justify invasion of the country.

No, not as you stated.

No ONE reason justifies invasion of Iraq. Detractors of the action want to box the whole thing up like this:

* We invaded Iraq because of X

* X was found not to be true.

* Therefore the invasion was a mistake (we were lied to, etc., etc.)

I never have nor never will say this. There were MULTIPLE reasons to invade. Saddam worked really hard to get into the position he was in before Operation Iraqi Freedom happened. If the U.N. was an effective peacekeeper, there would have been real consequences about 10 Security Counsel resolutions ago. But that didn't happen. It was both ineffective and corrupt with regards to SH and Iraq.

What I AM refuting are the following:

* Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (this and funding of Palestinian bomber families are 2 good examples),

* Iraq had nothing to do with al qaeda (on the contrary, he was giving refuge to al qaeda leaders fleeing Afghanistan)

* Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (last I checked, the 19 homicidal bombers were trained by al qaeda in Afghanistan)

Do I think 9/11 was a reason to get Saddam Hussein? No. Do I think Saddam Hussein's actions caused 9/11? No. Was Saddam Hussein involved in the aftermath? One could easily argue that.

If you read the article carefully you'll see that the camp was in a part of Iraq that the Iraqi government had no authority over. Since the 1st Gulf war the entire Northern 3rd of the country was out of SH's control.

Not true. The upper and lower third were no-fly zones, but SH certain had ground troops and had influence. To wit - we faced them in the south when invading from Kuwait. In addition, he still managed to exterminate thousands of Shia in the south in spite of the no-fly zones.

If SH really didn't want them there, he would have found a way to get rid of them.

I will admit there is a "link", but not the one used to justify our invasion

No, not by itself. In this we agree 100%

It is a fairly large leap to say just because Clinton agreed with a Bush policy, that a Bush detractor's agruments are moot.

Any argument that Bush and Blair unilaterally tried to make a case to invade de novo is flawed. That's my point. Blaming the philosophy of regime change on Bush is flawed (jorvik did it earlier). That's another point.

Clinton and Congress in 1998 was just one of many points in a spectrum of activity that led to the second war with Iraq. That's my point.

Cxt has done a pretty good job listing many other reasons.

I'm simply trying to get everyone to think twice about the reliability of their sources.

Forget OUR sources... U.S. intelligence in the region ***** big time. How come?

That in itself would be a great thread. And the guilty parties go way back to the post-Watergate era.

I have a feeling it will be many generations before we fully understand all the whos, whats, wheres, whys, and hows.

That's ALWAYS the case. Sometimes it's bad intel. Sometimes it's information deemed too sensitive to release to the public.

In researching the Cuban missile crisis, I just now learned that Kennedy made a secret agreement with Khruschev not ever to invade Cuba. That was above and beyond his agreement to remove U.S. missiles in Turkey. That little bit of information wasn't released to the public in 1962. Instead, we were all led to believe that Kennedy had brass balls and "Khruschev blinked." Apparently not... In the end, Khruschev probably got exactly what he wanted in the first place when he sent his missiles to Cuba.

Go figure...

You are right, chewy, the truth will take decades to come out. And I'm pretty certain that not even Hussein himself knows everything. Even his own people lied to him to save themselves and their families.

This is one very unusual place in the world. Our own standards and patterns of behavior do not hold. And where will it go from here? Who knows? But I'd rather stay the course. And I certainly would not want to give aid and comfort (propaganda, etc.) to our enemies.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Well stated.

- Bill

[chewy]

Bill,

Agreed on many points, but I still believe there were:

A) Far more dangerous regimes (i.e., greater threats to our national security) to send our troops after.
B) Other ways to take care of SH.

Not sure how you feel about these statements, so I'll leave the floor open.

Concerning our air-superiority versus SH's ground control - the Northern 1/3rd of the country was far different from the other no-fly zone (Southern 1/3rd), because the Kurds were effectively operating as an autonomous nation within a nation in the Northern region. One only has to look at the infrastructure in place in N-Iraq to see how little his corrupting influence spread: schools, hospitals, roads, water, electricity, and a booming economy (near 0% unemployment). I'm sure SH still could have had some influence in the regions you speak of though; after all it is a vast country with many sparsly populated areas. I do find it more likely, however, that Iran was protecting this terrorist camp and asking them to stay just over the border so as not to implicate Iran.

I also have no disagreements with the point that SH paid the families of terrorists for their acts of violence. That is a matter of record, but let me just say that:

1) He didn't "sponsor" the acts in advance (we can give credit for that to our "allies" in Saudi Arabia), but "rewarded" them after the fact because....

2) He was only using the payments/rewards for political gain among segments of Iraq's population that had fallen under the influence of extremists. Let's face it, Al Queda was not a big SH fan and, in fact, WANTED him overthrown. He was, in affect, trying to convince Al Queda converts in his country that he was on their side by making these symbolic reward gestures.


Oops! I missed something in Bill's post that I felt needed clarification:

This is one very unusual place in the world. Our own standards and patterns of behavior do not hold. And where will it go from here? Who knows? But I'd rather stay the course. And I certainly would not want to give aid and comfort (propaganda, etc.) to our enemies.

Without a doubt, we would look like even bigger losers in the eyes of the world if we pulled out now. To say nothing of the fact that it would be just plain "wrong" of us to leave Iraq high-and-dry without preparing them for self-government. I'm not sure what you meant by your last statement, however. Are you implying that those who speak out against the war and/or ask for accountablility on whether the US made and honest case for war, are somehow attacking our own soldiers? I hope this isn't the case, Bill. Please clarify.


cheers,

chewy

PS- Let me just say that this thread is pleasantly surprising. I can't count the number of other organizations I'm involved with who have their own message boards and how uncivil those boards have become.

[Valkenar]

No ONE reason justifies invasion of Iraq.

Fine. But why keep repeating the reasons that get shot down? Just because there are multiple justifications doesn't make those that are invalid more valid. It seems to a certain extent like the argument ends up going like this:

1: X, Y and Z are reason for invading
2: Well, X is false.
3: Well don't forget Y and Z
4: Well, Y is false too
5: Yes, but don't forget X and Z

Can we label the reasons once and for all so that if they're eliminated one by one we can see whether there are any left?

* Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (this and funding of Palestinian bomber families are 2 good examples),

The US has a history of funding what we would call terrorists (south american guerillas) if they were opposed to us. And we're not the only first-world country to do this, nevermind all the other third-world countries that fund terrorism in some way. Also, do you know anyone who has bought a diamon? If so they've almost certainly funded terrorism personally, though unknowingly. DeBeers basically owns the diamond market and the UN Court has corroborated their link to al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Now this is a bit of a red herring for me to bring up, but the point is that funding terrorism is not a rare occurance.

* Iraq had nothing to do with al qaeda (on the contrary, he was giving refuge to al qaeda leaders fleeing Afghanistan)

This list is smaller than the list of countries having to do with something

* Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (last I checked, the 19 homicidal bombers were trained by al qaeda in Afghanistan)

Sadam had as much to do with 9/11 as the people who cheered when it happened did. He had no causal connection that I have heard anything about. The 9/11->Afghanistan->Iraq connection is extremely tenusous. How many people in the US do you think have fled from countries that have terrorist/al Qaeda ties? I'm not saying it's okay for SH to house al Qaeda leaders, but doing so does not constitute having had "something to do with" 9/11 in the sense people usually use it..

Was Saddam Hussein involved in the aftermath? One could easily argue that.

Fine, he was involved in the aftermath, but let's be clear here. It's exactly this kind of vaguery that ends up convincing people that Saddam really did contribute to the occurance of 9/11, when he didn't.

If SH really didn't want them there, he would have found a way to get rid of them.

Really? We don't want the terrorists/insurgents to be in Iraq now, and we're having a hell of a time getting rid of them. Given his overall situation I don't see why you think it would be so easy for him to do something about it, even if he wanted to (which maybe he would maybe he wouldn't).

Any argument that Bush and Blair unilaterally tried to make a case to invade de novo is flawed.

That is not the argument. The argument is he said he was trying not to go to war when he was very much trying to go to war. There are two totally different issues here. One, were we justified. That's not what Ian was even reallly bringin up originally. Two, did Bush lie?

You are right, chewy, the truth will take decades to come out. And I'm pretty certain that not even Hussein himself knows everything. Even his own people lied to him to save themselves and their families.

I agree with this quite strongly. We probably don't know. Call it raw bias if you want, but I suspect that as time passes Bush will look more guilty rather than less.

And I certainly would not want to give aid and comfort (propaganda, etc.) to our enemies.

It is a bad, bad thing to obediantly keep your mouth shut while your government does things you think are wrong. I'm sure I don't need to point out the obvious example.

[Bill Glasheen]

chewy

Those who drop into these threads to flame tend to be sent on their ways. Furthermore, the crowd who stay in tend to know each other. Ian is my karate student from way back when he was an undergrad and med student at U.Va. And I've visited his location twice (San Diego) in the last year for business. Justin (Valkenar) is someone I met at camp while training with Rory Miller. Very cool, idealistic kid just now into the job market (as a programmer) from college. And jorvik is jorvik.. We have an understanding about his feelings for politicians, and an appreciation of his own personal British point of view. I can't say that I blame him when he starts bashing politicians. Not sure who cxt is, but he seems to know his stuff and can be counted on to back his position with facts.

the Northern 1/3rd of the country was far different from the other no-fly zone (Southern 1/3rd), because the Kurds were effectively operating as an autonomous nation within a nation in the Northern region. One only has to look at the infrastructure in place in N-Iraq to see how little his corrupting influence spread: schools, hospitals, roads, water, electricity, and a booming economy (near 0% unemployment). I'm sure SH still could have had some influence in the regions you speak of though; after all it is a vast country with many sparsly populated areas. I do find it more likely, however, that Iran was protecting this terrorist camp and asking them to stay just over the border so as not to implicate Iran.

I agree with your assessment.

One thing that is clear though is we were obligated to track down and deal with the al Zarqawi camp. I can say that comfortably now with 20/20 hindsight as he and his followers (a mix of Sunni Triangle disaffecteds and foreign fighters) are hell bent on the "Iraq experiment" failing. Zarqawi has officially declared even Muslims to be targets for the bombings if it means destroying the government that Iraqis and the U.S. are trying to put together. So at the end of the day, it matters not who was the keeper of the al Zarqawi camp. As I've said many times, Bush is nothing if not consistent. Shortly after 9/11, he made a speech where he said he would go after the people (al qaeda) who caused that terror and the countries who harbored them. Whether welcome or unwelcome, some the Afghani remnants of the al qaeda camps fled to Northeast Iraq (as the WSJ article documented). They needed to be hunted down and captured or killed. Unfortunately for everyone, it's been too little too late. They will likely wreak havoc for years.

A) Far more dangerous regimes (i.e., greater threats to our national security) to send our troops after.

But none with the long list of Security Council violations. None with a history of USING WMDs - even on their own people. None with the history of having annexed another country, and then trashed its oil reserves on the way out.

I've heard many state this. I don't agree that Iraq comes close to comparing to China, Iran, or even North Korea. We may not like those countries, but right now they are pretty much minding their own business. And as much as NK is rattling the saber, all they really are trying to do is shake down their neighbors for some cash to prop up their failing economy. Some of our "allies" do the same, no?

B) Other ways to take care of SH.

Other EFFECTIVE ways to take care of SH? Nothing worked in the past. If anyone wants to call the status quo (before invasion) working, well then I have to disagree.

Reasonable people will argue on that one. And without an ability to rerun "the experiment" many times over with many scenarios, we'll never really know for sure.

At the end of the day, it gets down to opinions and political points of view.

Are you implying that those who speak out against the war and/or ask for accountablility on whether the US made and honest case for war, are somehow attacking our own soldiers? I hope this isn't the case, Bill. Please clarify.

Here's the way I look at it.

1) We are in Iraq - period.

2) Bush and Blair are re-elected - period.

So when people complain and/or protest the war, my resonse is 'To what end?'

* Character assasination? Many politically-motivated people indeed do this. With Clinton it started with an investigation about his wife's real estate dealings, and his enemies turned it into a public soap opera about his sex life. Meanwhile, the controversy left him asleep at the wheel while bin Laden was training the very people who caused 9/11.

I don't find the present-day shenanigans any more entertaining and any less threatening to our national security and economic interests. When you have the likes of Dick Durbin whining in Congress about how Gitmo is like the Nazi death camps, the gulags of the Soviet Union, and the killing fields of Pol Pot, well that just feeds the propaganda machines of the whacho extremists. I can understand that playing Christina Aguilara music is cruel and unusual punishment but... The A/C being too cold? That's a Nazi death camp? This is bloody friggin nuts!!!

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera just plays all this crazy stuff on their networks (yes, that happened), and that feeds the propaganda machines that recruit extremists who kill our troops trying to set up a democracy in Iraq. Recent DNA analyses of suicide bombers who have killed troops, men, women, and children now find them coming from as far away as Africa and Spain.

We've got work to do. The elections are over; get over it. We've got a democracy to fix in Iraq, my social security to deal with, an economy to keep running, terrorists to deal with, etc.

* I personally have no patience for people who comiserate over things when there is nothing to gain by it. Imperfect decisions get made every day with imperfect information. If you hate a politician, well I feel your pain. But being effective means being decisive and moving on. Those who record history need to do so, but only to the extent that we are enlightened and don't repeat mistakes of the past. "The opposition" is more effective trying to pass laws - or even STOP the passing of laws - to address the needs of their constituents.

Professionally I make mathematical models. The very best mathematical models I build do far better than humans at making decisions, and yet we can quantify the degree to which they are imperfect. Some people it seems have this idea that things should have been perfect to proceed with this or that. Sorry...that's not the real world.

Speak out if you wish. Express yourself! But do so only to the extent that it causes positive change. Otherwise you are just part of the problem, no matter how "perfect" your point of view.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Justin

You and Ian are looking for Bush and Blair to have said things in a manner that you think is right. Ain't gonna happen! Presenting a case to the U.N. and to Congress is like defending someone from charges. You put your best foot forward, and don't give any ammo to your enemies.

Look at the grand scheme of things for the truth, and not to testimony in front of this or that political body. The latter is politics, and that is not necessarily synonymous with "the whole" truth. Never was, and never will be.

- Bill

[IJ]

Just typed a lengthy and satisfying post, only to have it killed by the computer. In brief:

--I don't feel that criticizing the president is character assassination or non productive. In fact, I think its patriotic.

--The whole thrust of things these days is "don't criticize the US or its actions when a war is on--support the troops!" Well, Orwell postulated long ago that the best way to get the subjects of a state to fall in line and control dissent and independent thought is to create a never ending war. He couldn't come up with a logical way a war would go on forever, though. NOW, we have that war. We will be at odds with terrorists for generations. And if we heed the pleas to just fall in line until it is over, we might as well just sign the country over to Bush Co indefinitely. We already granted him the power to declare war... I prefer not to go farther.

As evidence of the sneaky, malicious activities of our current administration, I cite George Annas' ""unspeakably Cruel--torture, medical ethics, and the law," from the may 19 2005 NEJM (352(20):2127-2132). I will paste a link or text when i get access to their site (at home at the moment). This is part of the case that our country is headed in the wrong direction and in our efforts for military superiorty over our foes we are killing the things that makes our country great. Annas concludes, "Toture begins by dehumanizing the victim but ends by dehumanizing the torturer. as Telford Taylor put it at Nuremberg, "a nation that deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably sicken and die."

[Bill Glasheen]

Orwell postulated long ago that the best way to get the subjects of a state to fall in line and control dissent and independent thought is to create a never ending war.

Here's one for you, Ian. Want to know how to create a never-ending war in Iraq? Give al Zarqawi and his merry murderers a reason to believe that hope for a representative government is losing ground amongst the Iraqi people and the troops attempting to maintain order.

Want the troops to come home sooner and our men and women out of Iraq? Then support every effort for the Iraqi people to rebuild their infrastructure, finish their second constitution, hold a second round of elections next January, and defend their OWN people and government. That takes real work - a lot more than the work it takes to criticize others for doing a less-than-perfect job.

Do it in the name of the Democrats. Do it in the name of Allah for all I care. Just do it, and let sleeping dogs lie.

I know many will never see that, but then their anger over "the past" probably never will let them see practical SOLUTIONS to today's issues.

We will be at odds with terrorists for generations.

Newsflash - we always HAVE been. We've been so lucky due to geography. Europe (particularly the U.K.) hasn't been so lucky.

The only difference between before 9/11 and after is one highly successful event. That woke everyone up.

Fear not... Their obsession over Michael Jackson and fattening food will lul them back to their sleep.

... NEJM (352(20):2127-2132) ...

Sounds to me like a good topic for another thread.

as Telford Taylor put it at Nuremberg, "a nation that deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably sicken and die."

Borrowing a line from Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, chewy, with the Dick Durbin example (Tuesday testimony in front of Congress). Here we are with the Nazi talk. All this does is shut minds off, and feed the propaganda machines of those who would kill Americans here and abroad. It's irrelevant, and inflammatory.

This is a wonderful country. Everyone has the freedom to make an ass of themselves, and I will be the very first to defend that right. But just how effective is such language? Who is convinced by it? Certainly not those whom you would criticize or hope to sway.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Then support every effort for the Iraqi people to rebuild their infrastructure, finish their second constitution, hold a second round of elections in the fall, and defend their OWN people and government.
...
Do it in the name of the Democrats. Do it in the name of Allah for all I care. Just do it, and let sleeping dogs lie.

Who has said a word against any of that? Not anyone that I've heard. One thing people do speak out against is whether it was good to go or not, and here's why that's good.

If nobody ever stands up and says "hey, this is bad", then that increases the likelihood of a repeat. Group-think is powerful. If everybody seems to be going along with things, that has a strong effect on an individual'ss opinion of a situation. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a sheep, but the fact is that we're all more likely to look positively on a situation if everyone around us is gushing about how great it is. And if people are looking positively on this one, they're just that much more likely to go with it next time. To the extent that the government cares what people want, I'd rather have public opinion dissuading them from war rather than encouraging them.

Furthermore, what kind of society do you have if we just swallow the government kool-aid and smile nicely for the cameras?

Obviously the election is a moot point, and nobody's arguing that. However, to the extent that there's a political interest in the protest, the point would be to make people realize that we shouldn't elect any more presidents like this one. Yes that's a rather insignificant effect, but it's still better than the opposite situation where people's mindless compliance causes voters to think that this kind of president is great for unifying the country.

Those are just two reasons. Another reason would be to show people that it is okay to be an individual and express your opinion. As with Ian, I think it's far more patriotic to stand up to the government than to pretend like you agree with things you don't for the sake of putting on a good show.

I'm sure I can think of more if neccesary.

That takes real work - a lot more than the work it takes to criticize others for doing a less-than-perfect job.

Less-than-perfect? I take your point about human fallability, I think you use the phrase "less-than-perfect" very differently than I do.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment earlier. (Though I've worked at this same job for 8 years now).

[IJ]

Bill, you may feel that anyone who has concerns about how we fight our wars and make our decisions is making an "ass" of him or herself and might as well don a turban and pick up an AK-47, but I simply don't buy it. We hand the reigns to Bush Co for the duration, and what I love about this place is cooked.

Let me turn this on its head and ask where your outrage was when Bush called this a crusade, challenged insurgents to attack our troops, failed to respond effectively to a series of public relations disasters such as forcefully condeming torture and taking responsibility for the climate (and I don't mean the AC) at our prisons, instead of exempting himself from the Geneva convention?? Believe me, Bush makes enough ammunition for the propagandists on his own. Whereas, if americans are discontent enough with his behavior that we STOP mistreating prisoners and fight this war according to our own standards, we may reduce outrage about our actions and reduce the duration of this war.

Now, as far as the "irrelevant" nature of the quote from Nuremberg, let me point out:

1) the quote is about excusing the inexcusable / illegal during war
2) the two main defenses proposed by Nazi doctors were that they were following orders and that usual medical ethics had been suspended. And do you know what two arguments have been raised to defend the participation of American medical personel in torture, i mean coercion, of our prisoners of war, i mean enemy combatants?

The article will be posted in a new thread; I have nothing else to add here.

Brief aside: we may have been at war with terrorists long ago, as per your "newsflash." My assertion is that using that conflict as an excuse to circumvent US and international law and stifle dissent in the states is a new and clever manipulation from a group that is supposedly a champion of individual rights.

[cxt]

Chewy

But see your parseing here--your stateing that WHEN he paid money to terror groups is the issue--and its NOT.
He was supposed to be paying NO MONEY TO TERROR GROUPS PERiOD.
He was to having NOTHING to do with terror.

Kinda like saying "I did not actually rape her--I just held her down while OTHER folks raped her."

In for a penny and your in for a pound so goes the saying.

Plus you overlook the medical treatment and the safe houses and the international wanted terrorists that were found hideing out in Iraq after the war.

[cxt]

Valkenar

I have done so already, at least in part above.

As far as SH listed violations of UNSCR 687--mutipage doc available on-line.
I only delt with the ones I felt were the LEAST techniqual--there were many more he was guilty of that are more complex.

Debeers has NOT signed a ceasefire agreement swearing to give up ties to terror--SH DID.
Overly simplistic example.

I also find it telling that the same folks that are grasping at every possible straw to "prove" that Bush lied."

Seem to have NOTHING to say about SH corruption of the very international body that was supposed to be keeping him on the stright and narrow.

The fact that he bribed nations NOT to act-by way of proffered future oil contract is not in despute.
The fact that UN has started "scapegoating" for corruption is not in despute.

Tell you stright up--Bush lying or not lying does not really bother me--SH was a murderous madman, and he deserved what he got---I don't think Bush lied, and I sleep just fine at night.

Bush is gone in any case, guy can't run again.

What DOES scare me is the same group of corruptable, bribe taking, rapeing, let stand around and watch the Sudanese genocide, UN folks ARE NOT LEAVEING.

That should outrage and scare you far more than anything Bush may or may not have done.

I eagerly await the lengths folks that have been chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied" will go to show that accusations about the UN have not been "proven."

Since its clear that accusations about Bushs actions are to be taken with the upmost seriousness and in-depth discussion.
Accusations of an equally serious nature conerning the conduct of the world body specifically set up to handle such matters, however are clearly NOT TO BE DISCUSSED.

Perhaps different rules apply?

[cxt]

IJ

I understand where your coming from--its just that your wrong.

To steal a posit/phrase--

Your posit only makes sense if yout talking about the "middle of the road" jihadists.
The guys sittting around watching them behead innocent people on Al Jezera trying to decide weither or not to take out the garbage or strap on a belt of explosives and kill Americans.

Let me think, let me think, exactly whom were we "torturing" in Abu Grabe when terrorists blew up the Cole?
Whom were we "torturing" when terrorists blew up the Kobar Towers?
Whom were we torturing when terrorist borded a ship, killed some folks--including an elderly Jewish man in a wheelchair--the same guy we found in Iraq after the war BTW?
Whom did we have locked up in Gitmo when terrorists flew planes into the Towers?

Answer no-one, dude these guys do not need reasons to hate and kill.

Lets look at the situation logically for a momment, forget your notions of being cultutrally "better" for the nonce and think this thu.

What is the "norm" of the cultures we are dealing with with?
What is expected and accepted of how criminals and killers are treated where there are from???

Well, torture and abuse is common, incredibly harsh punishment for stealing a loaf of bread are the norm-AND NO-ONE OBJECTS--THEY EXPECT IT.
Which is exactly why the family of some of the folks in Gitmo are trying to stop their release.

SH remained in power for decades thu the use of mass murder and torture--he even invaded another Muslim nation and until we came-NOBODY LIFTED A FINGER TO STOP HIM.
In fact he was RESPECTED for his strength and power.
OBL publically called him an "apostate that deserves death"
BUT SIGNIFICANTLY he DID NOT mount a misison to fly planes into one of SH mansions.

Not saying we should adopt his methods--what I am suggesting is that MORE force rather than LESS may be exactly in our best interests.

I have a buddy of mine whose family fled Afganistan when the Taliban took over.
We were talking the other day about this same topic/Gitmo/ etc.

He told me two things:

1-An old Afgan saying "you beat the dog to scare the lion" meaning, were he is from if folks know your "hard" they don't bother you--were being seen as "weak" can get you killed.

2-Gitmo is the best food and medical treatment these guys have ever had--the "punishemnts" are FAR lighter than ANYTHING they are used to.
What makes you think think that giveing hot chicken and rice, good medical treatment and copies of the Koran are going to make a group of hardend killers like you?

Why are American so obsessive about being "liked?"

You should be worried about being respected, and the only thing these people respect is strength.

[IJ]

CXT, your argument appears to be, correct me if I am wrong yet again, that because these people were violent / hated us BEFORE abu ghraib, that it does not matter what crimes we commit against them, evidently because it could not possibly provide them any recruitment or propaganda advantage, perhaps because "they" are all violent and hateful, and there isn't anyone on the fence about taking up arms against the USA or on the fence about whether or not to aid us in our efforts, anywhere in the world? Because if that is the meat of your argument I don't see a need to respond. Bill, for one, has already cast his vote on the side that bad PR does matter.

CXT, one last thing... can you link to any, even one mention where someone on the forum argues that we shouldn't investigate UN errors and crimes or hold them responsible. You seem to invoke some phantom conspiracy to protect that organization, and I for one believe that corrupt people wherever they come from, even France, should be jailed. If people are instead railing on about the purity of that organization, I shall be chagrined, and I will eagerly join your condemnation of them.

[Valkenar]

Accusations of an equally serious nature conerning the conduct of the world body specifically set up to handle such matters, however are clearly NOT TO BE DISCUSSED.

Post a thread about this and I'll discuss it. What's more, I won't be focusing on Bush's shortcomings in that thread just like I'm not focusing on the UN's in this thread. The UN being corrupt doesn't make Bush an honest person. We can talk about what we should do about the UN and how and if there's any way to get it back on track. But that's not the subject of this thread. Ian already made the point that I think is relevant about the UN earlier.

Namely, the UN either has some credibility or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. If the UN has credibility then we can't just ignore the fact that we're acting in defiance of them. If they have no credibility, then Iraq defying them is irrelevant. It comes down to this: If we the UN has enough credibility that we expect Iraq to do what it's told, then the UN has enough credibility that we can't totally ignore it when they tell us what to do.

It doesn't make sense to use SH's defiance of UN resolutions as a justification for invadubg Iraq if you're also going to say that the UN is too corrupt for us to have to pay attention to.

I'll try to make a concise list of all the reasons people have mentioned (in this thread) for invading Iraq myself, in a day or two.