The War In Iraq (and WMDs)

[redfarmer]

In the wake of the war on Iraq, it appears that more and more of the reasons that President Bush gave for going to Iraq are turning out to be either false or complete fabrications from the beginning. Among those reasons:

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction. There apparently are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor does it appear there have been any there since the first gulf war.

2. Iraq's "connection" with Al-qaeda. Hussein and bin Laden were never affiliated and, in fact, are mortal enemies. In fact, recent evidence points to the fact that the Bush administration was looking for a reason to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11.

When a president lies in order to raise public opinion to go to war, can that war be justified, regardless of the results, good or bad?

I agree that the cause of liberating the Iraqi people was a noble one and that Hussein would have eventually proved a threat to the United States again, thus millitary action was probably needed. However, I have a hard time that Bush hid his true motives, whatever those may be.

What do you think?

[RadCap]

On what basis do you make the claim that "no wmd" = lied about wmd?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the leaders of essentially the entire free world, even those who disagreed with war, were all lying about the existence of such weapons - as well as Iraq's intention to produce them? Because almost to a man they all stated wmds existed - and programs to build wmds existed. QUITE a conspiracy theory you have there.

On what basis do you say that terrorism had no connection to Iraq?

On what basis do you say that al-Qaida was the only target of the US?

On what basis do you say that Bush said he only would target al Qaida?

As to your question whether lying can be justified in order to attain the defense of one's country, the answer is yes. Lying is perfectly acceptable.

On what basis do you say that Bush HID his motives for demolishing the Iraqi regime - ie engaged in deceipt.

I think you REALLY need to do some research on this. I also suggest your research NOT be limited to major liberal publications because, as it stands, you have accepted their party line hook, line and sinker.

[Bearster]

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction. There apparently are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor does it appear there have been any there since the first gulf war.

No. There were merely sites with inexplicably high intensity radiation, buried biology labs, chemical stashes, and a number of scientists who came forward about their former boss. Should the US wait until a mass-murdering despot like Saddam actually has his hands on WMDs before attacking?

2. Iraq's "connection" with Al-qaeda. Hussein and bin Laden were never affiliated and, in fact, are mortal enemies. In fact, recent evidence points to the fact that the Bush administration was looking for a reason to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11.

This is begging the question: was Bush' mandate limited only to pursuing bin Laden? Iraq had been inviting another invasion for years, as it violated repeatedly the terms of its cease-fire after the first war, not to mention it was shooting at US planes!

I have a hard time that Bush hid his true motives, whatever those may be.

I don't like that he hung the whole case for doing Iraq on WMD. There are a number of other reasons, not only punishing them for violating their cease-fire, but for being a murderous dictatorship, and a state who sponsors terrorism.

Why didn't he do Iran first?

[y_feldblum]

as it violated repeatedly the terms of its cease-fire after the first war

Though the agreement was signed with the UN, the US has always been the only member nation with a military - an end of military operations agreement needs two military parties to sign. Formally, moreover, that's all that's needed legitimately to start a war.

There are a number of other reasons, not only punishing them for violating their cease-fire, but for being a murderous dictatorship, and a state who sponsors terrorism.

I just read (maybe at Allah's blog but I can't remember) that Hamas is starting to have financial difficulties and can't keep pace organizing new operations inside Israel what with Saddam, their big financial backer, down a spider-hole and into GI hands.

Also, I like to think that one reason for going isn't that Iraq was a murderous dictatorship, but a murderous dictatorship intent on murdering us and our allies.

[redfarmer]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the leaders of essentially the entire free world, even those who disagreed with war, were all lying about the existence of such weapons - as well as Iraq's intention to produce them?  Because almost to a man they all stated wmds existed - and programs to build wmds existed.  QUITE a conspiracy theory you have there.

No, I didn't say that. However, even by Bush's estimates, it appears as if Iraq only had the desire to create new wmd's, not that they had them already.

On what basis do you say that terrorism had no connection to Iraq?

On what basis do you say that al-Qaida was the only target of the US?

On what basis do you say that Bush said he only would target al Qaida?

I never said any of these things. However, Bush and Colin Powell repeatadly asserted that Iraq was connected to al-Qaida based on a few bits of intelligence, namely the supposed deal that was going down in Africa.

As to your question whether lying can be justified in order to attain the defense of one's country, the answer is yes.  Lying is perfectly acceptable.

But what if it turns out that it wasn't for the defense of our country at all? People said Vietnam was for our defense.

On what basis do you say that Bush HID his motives for demolishing the Iraqi regime - ie engaged in deceipt.

I didn't say it was concretely clear that he had lied. I only meant if it turns out he did lie.

I think you REALLY need to do some research on this.  I also suggest your research NOT be limited to major liberal publications because, as it stands, you have accepted their party line hook, line and sinker.

Granted I am just getting over a major liberal background, that is what I am trying to do right now: read other sources.

[redfarmer]

Why didn't he do Iran first? 

Exactly. I never felt that Iraq posed the most immediate danger to us. Everytime he touted his humanitarian reasons, which were perfectly justified, I just kept thinking to myself, "What about Iran? Or China? Or Cuba? Why only Iraq?"

[y_feldblum]

I didn't say it was concretely clear that he had lied. I only meant if it turns out he did lie.

Liberals deal with "what-ifs" come "already-ares".

In getting over that background, realize that dealing with known facts is far more necessary than dealing with arbitrary conjectures.

- "Maybe he lied."

- "Maybe he didn't; but if you're going to act on the assumption that he did, either find evidence or evict yourself from the realm of reality."

China and Cuba are not nearly the immediate threats to us that Islamofascists have proven themselves to be. They're threats to their own people, and to us when they're trying to extort money from us as North Korea is doing. But Islamofascists/Islamoterrorists just want to kill because they hate us; they have no higher purpose than jihad for the sake of jihad, 72 virgins, and jihad.

I believe Iraq was a much larger danger to us than Iran was; I don't have all the evidence, but that's my impression anyway.

[RadCap]

"No, I didn't say that."

That was CERTAINLY the implication of your statements. If you meant otherwise, you most definitely should have presented your questions in a different context. As it stands, your post indicates you believe Bush lied about these things and your question is whether it is proper for a president to do this or not.

"However, even by Bush's estimates, it appears as if Iraq only had the desire to create new wmd's, not that they had them already."

This is not true. As I stated, and as any reuptable news source will confirm, the heads of all the Western nations (and even Russia) not only believed Saddam had weapon's programs, they believed he had the action weapons as well. (And apparently so did his troops). As such, there is NO way to say his statements were lies. And since they were not, then the statement has NO place in the context of your question the moral standard of presidential lies.

"I never said any of these things. "

Actually, your statements in #2 require you to not only assert, but to believe these things are true for your statement to stand in this context. Your assertion that you "never said any of these things" does not dismiss them as the foundation for your assertions. If you remove those as your foundation, then your #2 is a pointless statement (and facutally incorect to boot, but I will let that one go).

"But what if it turns out that it wasn't for the defense of our country at all? People said Vietnam was for our defense."

You don't need the word of a president to determine whether or not an action was defensive. However, what is your point? Are you suggesting that a govt should NOT lie about its behavior? If that IS your suggestion, I would you reconsider that position. There are numerous instances where it is quite proper to lie to those around you (friend and foe alike) in order to secure your defense. This suggestion would calim NO lie is appropriate ever - to friend OR foe. (And dont forget too, sometimes that 'friend' can be a foe - or be working to the interest of that foe).

And if it is NOT your suggestion, then what is the point in asking the question? Like the first, it is meaningless in the context.

"I didn't say it was concretely clear that he had lied. I only meant if it turns out he did lie."

As I stated above, that was your implication. You made a claim that it looks like bush lied. You make two assertions in 'support' of this claim. Then you ask if it is moral for a president to lie. The implication here is clear. Bush lied. Was that a moral thing to do? IF your intent was otherwise, you REALLY need to rephrase your question. Better yet, you simply need to remove reference to Bush, because the answer to your question requires NO reference to Bush whatsoever.

[Bearster]

Liberals deal with "what-ifs" come "already-ares".

In getting over that background, realize that dealing with known facts is far more necessary than dealing with arbitrary conjectures.

- "Maybe he lied."

- "Maybe he didn't; but if you're going to act on the assumption that he did, either find evidence or evict yourself from the realm of reality."

That is an *excellent* point!

[Tryptonique]

Here is why I'm doubtful of Bush:

Bush and the religious right (and how it affects his presidency/stance on issues)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

War in Iraq wasn't something that was "new" on the Agenda:

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm <----PNAC encouraged Clinton to invade in 1998. PNAC is made up of Rummy and Wolfowitz

Bush family history:http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2751

Is it that big of a stretch to say that an administration led by a man who COURTS the irrational (religious right) just might have twisted the facts to fit his premise instead of fitting his premise around the facts?

[RadCap]

Yes it is too much of a stretch. That's why we request ACTUAL support of assertions, instead of mere speculation - ie facts instead of fantasy.

[Tryptonique]

Of course.

I was never asserting that Bush is big bad and ugly.

I was just stating that due to his actions, one would be justified in suspicion.

Someone who says that Billy Grahm has planted "a mustard seed" in his heart (and also happens to be president) is just a LITTLE suspect in my book.

I guess you guys are trusting of the government though .

If you were going to actually throw an accusation out (that Bush deliberately invaded with no justification) then you have to warrant that. I took that as a given.

I never made that assertion....so my warrant isn't exactly necessary now is it?

I just asked if it is too much of a stretch to be suspicious based on the Bush record in other areas.

I have yet to see why we shouldn't be examining this issue in more depth (such as an inquiry into what really happened...if for know other reason than to shut the liberals up).

Please enlighten me if I am in the dark.

[RationalBiker]

When a president lies in order to raise public opinion to go to war, can that war be justified, regardless of the results, good or bad?

If you had said "IF" instead of "When", it would have made a significant difference. "When" strongly implies that it did happen.

VES

[Richard_Halley]

I seems to me that those, here, who are arguing (poorly) that Bush lied, are intending for that to imply that we should not have gone into Iraq.

I would like to point out that, even IF Bush lied, that says nothing about the moral nature of the war in Iraq. Incidentally, that moral nature has been discussed on a number of threads in this forum, as well as a number of essays written by Objectivists. Check them out, if there is any doubt in your mind.

[Old Geezer]

Why I think he Chose Iraq first

Strategic Reasons

Iraq as Doctrinal Proving Ground

As of today, and for many years to come, America's leader's are chosen by election. Therefore, it was important that America's New National Security Strategy be sold to the American people, since it should be the Strategy for years to come.

The strategies in this document are scary to accept, (not scary because they are wrong, but scary because they are new and intimidating for many) they include;

Pre-Emption,

Attack the State sponsor not just the terrorist.

With Us/Against us.

The false comfort of believing that terror abroad won't affect us.

There can be no Bending on WMD.

Saddam offered a clear case to sell these Doctrines to the American People. He had used the weopans before, diplomacy had not worked etc etc. It was through the Prizm of Saddam that many people began to recognize the Validity of the Above Doctrines...

Iraq as "Show of Force"

Its one thing to Romp a resource poor Student Run loosely bound theocracy. Its quite another to do the same to one of the world's largest militaries. Hopefully Iran is thinking now, (and I doubt it, but it would be nice if Saudi Arabia were doing the same)

Iraq as Strategic Staging Ground

Maybe it was Karl Rove getting it through W's thick Christian skull using a back door of Christian Morality, but I think that somewhere, someone in the Administration recognized that SA will eventually need to be looked at from a Military Standpoint. This dream relationship with the Saud's just cant last that long.

Also, the advantages in leveraging Syria and Iran seem pretty apparent.

more later

[kesg]

Why didn't he do Iran first? 

Hopefully the answer is because if and when the time came, our military wanted to be able to open a second front against Iran from the West. One of the many benefits of the Iraq operation is a military base of operations from which to keep a very close eye on Iran to the East, Syria to the West, and Saudi Arabia to the South.

[student]

...

"I would like to point out that, even IF Bush lied, that says nothing about the moral nature of the war in Iraq. "

...

Sorry to butt in here good people, I hope you don't mind, but in as far as this quote goes, it seems to me that we ought to keep some things in mind.

...

"I would like to point out that, even IF Bush lied, that says nothing about the moral nature of the war in Iraq. "

...

1. Iraq never harmed or threatened any American ever. (And please don't bring up shooting at military planes flying over its air space).

2. Iraq was a zero threat to anybody, including Israel, as the subsequent war as adequately proven.

3. The USA set the moral tone of the world after WWII by insisting that certain international laws and national sovereignties be respected. Starting with Clintons escapades in Kosovo and now Bush's adventure in Iraq, (there seems to be some uncertainty about Afghanistan’s role in 9/11), the world now knows that all that bluster during the Nuremberg trials was just that, so mush bluster. Might does equal right after all. (Is this in line with Objectivism?)

4. Iraq had Nothing to do with 9/11

5. Bush not only misled about WMD in Iraq, he also lied about why 9/11 happened, it wasn't because "they hate our freedom", it was because he publicly calls Ariel Sharon a "man of peace" and for similar one-sidedness in our foreign policy.

I am a humble student of philosophy and politics and I have a deep reverence for the mind of Ayn Rand, but it seems to me some of you here are nothing more than shills for the Bush administration. I heard today that much of Iraq is like the movie Road Warrior; I believe that. Let me ask you in closing- are the Iraqis that are opposing the U.S. led occupation terrorists? Would you submit to foreign rule?

Thank you for allowing me to pose these challenges to your post about the morality of the Iraq war. I look forward to learning more about these issues with your help and to better understand what seems to me as so very perplexing.

student

[y_feldblum]

1. False; but even so, Hussein was a tyrant, and the justice that he (along with his regime) deserves is execution - long, slow, and torturous.

2. False; firstly, what do you think the nature of a tyrannous regime is? secondly, Hussein was (along with the EU but at least he didn't evade) among the Palestinian terrorists' biggest financial and moral backers.

3. False; the USA set the immoral tone of the war by conceding - on even one point - that self-defense is not an absolute right but something to be negotiated.

4. False; but even so, America's self-defense isn't about one isolated terrorist attack.

5. Flase; it is exactly because they hate our freedom. Islamofascism is a culture of death - their standard of value is death, not life. Here is a notion from Ayn Rand: evil can only prey on the good.

Some of us are shills for the Bush Doctrine. We have the absolute moral right to self-defense, and we mean to use it.

The Iraqis that are opposing are terrorists; it's not freedom that they want, but freedom to oppress the Iraqi populace.

[Betsy]

1. Iraq never harmed or threatened any American ever.  (And please don't bring up shooting at military planes flying over its air space).

2. Iraq was a zero threat to anybody, including Israel, as the subsequent war as adequately proven.

Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for killing people in Israel. Some of the people killed were Americans.

That is a FACT.

[Old Geezer]

If the war was just, it was because Saddam was an eminent threat to the people of the U.S.

A)All Dictator's are eventually threats to larger and larger #'s of people because after eventually crush their country's ability to produce, and must rely on other countries to provide the resources they need to stay in power.

why does the "eminance" of the threat determine the justness of the cause?

[Betsy]

"Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for killing people in Israel. Some of the people killed were Americans."

Israel has killed Americans.  That is a fact.  Does that mean we ought invade Israel?

I hope you see the differences between accidentally killing someone and PURPOSELY killing someone or PAYING someone to kill people.

[Betsy]

Israel is a racist theocracy.  That is a fact. 

No it's not.

In fact, despite its faults, Israel is the only democracy and the only outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East. All other countries are either actual racist theocracies (Iran, Saudi Arabia) or dictatorships. Israel isn't a laissez faire uptopia, but they recognize individual rights -- including the individual rights of its Arab and Muslim citizens -- better than any other country in the region. They are also America's only reliable ally in the Middle East.

[y_feldblum]

It is because of what seems to be blind support for Israel from some quarters that we had 9/11.

That is horrendously wrong. There is absolutely no excuse for evil. Period.

You do know that the only sentence you quoted from my post is the one which is most unrecognizable without its context. It was a parody of one of your sentences, not an argument, and it was not to be taken alone.

[Tryptonique]

I thought Saudi Arabia was the one paying 25,000 to the families of homicide bombers.

Oh well....we probably should invade the bastards....but that probably won't happen anytime soon.

I wonder why?

[y_feldblum]

Saudi Arabia's the one where bin-Laden and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were from.