What This War Has Boiled Down To

The opening post of this thread made no assertion about why the war was started, Brandon.



You, however, jumped on the opportunity to shift to your favorite topic, as quick as possible, even though the thread wasn't about that at all.

You're all wet, again, unsurprisingly, you thread-hijacker

Cycloptichorn

May I remind you that my views on this subject are shared by millions of other Americans.

If you ever tire of listing the reasons why you don't have to support any of your conclusions and develop the ability to do so, let me know.

Since you pretty much forfeit the argument, I will reiterate the truth of the matter, as stated in my posts above:

1. The actual reason for the invasion was fear of superweapons in the wrong hands.
2. The reason why we stay now is an unwillingness to abandon a fragile democracy to barbarians.

So?

If millions of other Americans jumped off a cliff, would you join them?

An argumentum ad populum is certainly one of the most compelling modes of reasoning.

Well, it's good to know that that method is now dead on A2K and no one will try to use it again.

If it were really millions, maybe their dead bodies would form a cushion or something.

Don't bet on that--there's still plenty of rightwingnuts around here . . .

It has never been an appropriate method of reasoning.
Our resident, and champion, masterdebater shold know that.

You'd be right had my point been that millions of people believe it and therefore it's true or likely to be true. However, that wasn't my point. I was merely pointng out that your characterization:



of my assertion as a fringe view that only a few nuts believe is false. However, this actually is an argumentum ad populum on your part, since you're saying that my assertion is false because few people believe it. It's pointless, though, to point out a debating error in a post of yours, since your posts consist almost solely of debating fallacies, e.g. comments about the opposing poster, claims that the assertion you oppose has already been disproven in some unspecified place, claims that everyone knows your opinion is correct, statements that you won't lower yourself to play your opponent's "game," etc. Everything, that is, but simple, on-topic rebutals to support your opinion, which apparently you cannot provide.

In fact, millions of people do deny that the holocaust took place. Therefore, Cyclo's use of it as an example of argumentum ad populum is warranted.

You Brandon, however, are in fact a representative of a lunatic fringe, in that few people are still claiming that the invasion of Iraq is justified on the basis of the threat of womds.

WoMD was one of the reasons to justify the invasion of Iraq Setanta. Do you deny that?

That we didn't find any hardly stops that being a justification. It merely shows what a fool Saddam was to not cooperate with the UN sanctions and weapons inspectors when he had the chance. He could still be in power if he did not obstruct and deceive the various UN weapons inspection teams.

I am sure one of you will show how Iraq was fully cooperating just prior to the invasion, but too little, too late.

The justifications for invasion haven't changed. They are now part of history.

You're making **** up. Like Winston in 1984, you're re-writing history in order to retroactively justify current policy. Hussein was cooperating with the newly imposed weapons regime, and the sanctions program was a joke in which Americans more than any other single national group were looting the oil for food program for personal gain.

The alleged justifications haven't change, but history now records that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad had fudged the data, had, in fact, lied to justify what the PNAC had planned for and called for since the establishment of their organization in 1997, and since they wrote to President Clinton in 1998.

I know that lock-step supporters of this administration don't intend to acknowledge that fact that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle and a host of other neo-cons called for the invasion of Iraq long, long before the Shrub was elected, and without regard to the flimsy justifications alleged in the state of the union address in January, 2003.

WAKE UP McG . . . you're dreamin' . . .

Just because it was a reason used to try and justify the invasion,

Doesn't mean that it does justify the invasion. Not at all.

As Set said, you Righties have engaged in the worst sort of historical revisionism; the sort in which you attempt to justify your own errors, not only to show anyone else that you were right, but to try and prove to yourself that you were right.

Cycloptichorn

That's a good point, Cyclo--self-delusion is essential to the continued support of the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad among the shrinking group of conservatives who have not become to embarrassed to attempt to excuse his un-excusable and disastrous military adventurism.

Hmmm... seems appropriate at this juncture.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | [url=http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html]Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

All because Bush and PNAC lied and planned an invasion of Iraq? Hardly.

Yes, it was all because of that.

Those who made those quotes werew also incorrect, also grandstanding for the most part and definately had nothing to personally lose in case of war. It's quite easy to take the 'tough guy' angle when it doesn't impact you personally.

Many of the 2002 quotes come from intel that was given to the Senators, free of any of that nasty dissenting opinion which may have changed their words... but that's neither here nor there.

The fact remains that it doesn't matter who agreed with them, the PNAC had a plan for going to war in Iraq, worked hard to get their boy Bush elected, and then executed said plan. Noone else's tough words mean diddly squat when compared to that.

You have merely shifted tactics in your attempt at self-justification: show that 'a bunch of other people were wrong too, so it can't just be our fault.' Doesn't fly.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

None of the people whom you have quoted urged the invasion of Iraq, and Clinton made no move to invade Iraq.

By contrast, the PNAC has advocated the invasion of Iraq, and clearly stated that one of the prime reasons would be the establishment of military bases in southwest Asia--since before the Shrub was elected.

So you have proven nothing with your quotes. Without the disaster of September 11th, and the manipulation of American public opinion, up to and including knowing lies about womd programs in Iraq, the Shrub and his neo-cons would never have gotten authorization to invade Iraq.

No, you are wrong Setanta. The quotes show that even in 98, before Bush was in office to execute anything in Iraq, American and International intelligence said Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs.

9/11 was certainly the main impetus for invading Iraq. I completely agree with that. No 9/11, no war in Iraq. You are very wrong about the lies though.

An argumentum ad populum is always an invalid debating technique. He was using it, I was not. My point was only to counter his specific assertion that my opinions regarding Iraq are shared by only a tiny percentage of lunatics - although, of course, this has nothing to do with correctness.

In this thread, I made assertions specifically about why we invaded and why we stay. However, although not related to that, to address your comment, my belief that the invasion of Iraq was justified at the time it occurred because of the incomplete state of our knowledge at the time about Iraqi WMD, is pretty mainstream. If you're implying that I believe that our current presence in Iraq is justifed by concerns about WMD, that is certainly not my opinion. As stated above, I believe that we stay now so as not to abandon a fledgling and weak democracy to barbarians.

No, i am not. There was no other justification for asserting that the Iraqis had an active nuclear arms program than the two allegations about aluminum tubing and yellow cake uranium--and both stories were discounted by Central Intelligence before the Shrub elliptically referred to them in his state of the union address. Those who called for action against Iraq did so after the inspectors were thrown out in 1998, and the call came because, without inspections, we could not know if there were on-going womd programs or not.

But the inspectors went back, they found no evidence, and they publicly stated that Iraq was cooperating. Poodle Blair has been shown to have knowingly lied when he stated that Iraq had a womd delivery system which could launch within 45 minutes. No evidence was ever available that Iraq had any reliable delivery system which threatened the United States or Europe. International intelligence agencies were not stating that they knew Iraq had womd programs, they simply pointed out that, absent inspections, the evidence were inconclusive.

Only the Shrub and blind Bush supporters continue to assert that there was evidence, and then lamely suggest that they were mistaken, but honorably motivated. The schmucks who bought the Shrub's line of bullshit might have been mistaken, and have been deceived. There is no good reason to believe that the CIA, the NSA and the administration did not know better, and damned good reason to believe that they knowingly lied.