Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Analyais of Mass Confusion

I've always been kind of suspicious of people who do total 180s. Whether it's people like Jerry Rubin and David Horowitz who go from hard-core left to hard-core right or people like Arianna Huffington and David Brock who go from hard-core right to hard-core left, it always seem exceedingly pathetic (people feeling the need to grab onto some sort of ordered and ideologically driven universe) to me. And that's exactly why I kind of get a queasy feeling over this Scott Ritter fellow. The dude went from being absolutely certain that Saddam Hussein had WMD....to being absolutely certain that he didn't - all in the span of a couple of months. And there was nothing in terms of an explanation, either. Strange, very strange...........................................................................................And, no, I haven't changed my mind about the Iraq War. I still think that we had Saddam relatively bottled up and that his presence (or at least the presence of the Ba'athist regime) in the region was possibly a slight net-plus. But the fact there was at least some ambiguity on WMD after 9/11 (a time in which literally everybody wanted to prevent it from happening again) prompts me to want to see both sides here. That and the fact that Hussein attempted genocide on the Iraqi Kurds also makes for a compelling humanitarian argument (Hussein made Gadaffi look like a frigging camp counselor)...................................................................................................I still say that the best eventuality for Iraq would have been to blow Hussein and his sons to smithereens and then try and push for a far more sane member of the Ba'athist Party to take over. That way we would have eliminated one of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century and still retained a Sunni buffer against Iran. But, hey, what's totally done is done, right?

19 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Hussein provided stability and a buffer, even being the murdering thug that he was. We simply created a much more unstable region.

Thanks for that GWB and team.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Like I say, Les, if there had been a way for us to have killed him and still left the Ba'athists in power, that might have been the better way to go. If it was ever possible, I'm saying.

w-dervish said...

Will: ...Arianna Huffington and David Brock who go from hard-core right to hard-core left, it always seem exceedingly pathetic... people feeling the need to grab onto some sort of ordered and ideologically driven universe...

No, it's people coming to their senses. But if it's from Left to Right I think the explaination is they've gone crazy... some kind of brain damage or disease.

Ronald Reagan went from Left to Right, then later he succumbed to Alzheimer's. I think there might be a connection.

Will: ...Scott Ritter... went from being absolutely certain that Saddam Hussein had WMD... to being absolutely certain that he didn't... Strange, very strange...

Strange? dmarks says (absent any proof at all) that Scott Ritter was paid off. Are you saying you disagree with dmarks?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have no idea why he did a 180 in the span of a couple of weeks.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

He must have "come to his senses".

dmarks said...

there is massive proof that Ritter was paid off. Check into it.

w-dervish said...

Will: He must have "come to his senses".

Exactly.

dmarks: there is massive proof that Ritter was paid off. Check into it.

Actually there is zero "proof". There is only wild conspiracy theories put forward by cranks who refuse to accept the fact that Iraq had no WMD. These wild-eyed cranks cling to this insane conspiracy theory absent any real proof because without it the justification for bush's illegal war is obliterated.

The fact is containment was working... there was no need to spend trillions or send thousands of US soldiers to their deaths.

dmarks said...

You keep referring to an illegal war. Yet, there was none.

w-dervish said...

The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. The UN articles forbid preemptive wars of aggression. Look it up.

dmarks said...

.... which is an uninformed opinion. The experts disagree with you.

"The UN articles forbid preemptive wars of aggression. Look it up."

That's a big change of subject. There's simply no preemptive aggression involved in the US retaliating against a country that had attacked us many times in violation of the cease-fire agreements. I did look it up.

With your entirely false and imaginary interpretation of UN articles, it's a wonder that the experts involved don't give these ideas the light of day.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...which is an uninformed opinion. The experts disagree with you.

I'm referring to the actual text of the UN charter. What it says isn't an "opinion".

Also, the experts, such as Kofi Annan (former Secretary-General of the UN) and Mohamed ElBaradei (former IAEA chief), agree with me.

Regarding the legality of the Iraq war, Kofi Annan said, "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal". [Source: 9/16/2004 BBC News Article]

In his memoir, "The Age of Deception", Mohamed ElBaradei said, "the Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the shame of a needless war in Iraq". ElBaradei called the invasion of Iraq "aggression where there was no imminent threat", and suggested that international courts should investigate it as a possible war crime.

"Should not the International Criminal Court investigate whether this constitutes a 'war crime' and determine who is accountable?" the former IAEA chief stated. ElBaradei wrote that the Iraq war taught him that "deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators". [source: 4/23/2011 PressTV Article].

dmarks: There's simply no preemptive aggression involved in the US retaliating against a country that had attacked us many times in violation of the cease-fire agreements. I did look it up.

You did not look it up. Otherwise you'd know that "the 2003 invasion of Iraq was claimed as a preemptive war by the Bush administration".

These are the criminals you're defending, and even they don't agree with you!

dmarks: With your entirely false and imaginary interpretation of UN articles...

I've presented an accurate and reality-based "interpretation" (in that I've quoted the actual text, so the word "interpertation" does not actually apply).

dmarks: [Iraq] attacked us many times in violation of the cease-fire agreements...

Nowhere in the cease-fire agreement does it say that if it's violated the UN steps out of the way and leaves it entirely up to the United States to determine what is to be done.

Your interpertation is the one that is entirely false and imaginary.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I'm still waiting for your spin on Scott Ritter cyber-masturbating to a person who he thought was a 15 year-old girl. Surely, you can come up with something.

w-dervish said...

That shit isn't defendable. You can wait for infinity, because I'm not going there. He's guilty. And fuck you for suggesting I'd attempt a "spin".

Although he didn't rape anyone, as dmarks suggests. And the raping Iraqi kids charge is total bullshit.

But he was absolutely 100 percent right about Iraq having no WMD. Mohamed ElBaradei (and all the other UN weapons inspectors) confirmed Iraq had no WMD right before bush illegally invaded.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Kind of like LBJ illegally invaded Vietnam?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And Hubert Humphrey being right about warning LBJ?

w-dervish said...

Will: Kind of like LBJ illegally invaded Vietnam?

Not at all. We sided with the government of South Vietnam that the North was trying to overthrow.

That said, I think sending troops was a bad idea and should not have been done.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Especially since we didn't have a U.N. authorization.

dmarks said...

Will said: "Especially since we didn't have a U.N. authorization."

WD earlier insisted strongly that if it didn't have a specific UN authorization, it was a war crime. He caved on this when I pointed out Clinton's actions in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, retreating to a sort of mushy argument where it is a war crime if it is not authorized by some sort of international organization.

The only thing clear, of course, is what what makes it a "war crime" to WD is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after someone's name. The rest is inconsistent and constantly shifting, as you have pointed out.

w-dervish said...

bush lied about Iraq having WMD, directly contradicting IAEA weapons inspectors who were on the ground when he lied! bush sought approval from the UN and the UN said NO!

Clinton told the truth about the war crimes being comitted by Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton sought approval from NATO and NATO said YES!

bush is a war criminal and Clinton stopped a war criminal.

dmarks: WD earlier insisted strongly that if it didn't have a specific UN authorization, it was a war crime.

No, I only pointed out that the UN said no.

dmarks: The only thing clear, of course, is what what makes it a "war crime" to WD is whether or not there is a (D) or an (R) after someone's name. The rest is inconsistent and constantly shifting, as you have pointed out.

Not at all. The clear thing is that bush lied about WMD.