Thread: Iraqi Defector Admits to Lying About WMDs, to Kick-Off the War in Iraq

It is because our government doesn't care. There are a lot of countries with WMD's we don't bother many of the others, because we don't care. Iraq would never have used them against us.

Originally Posted by Alric

It is because our government doesn't care. There are a lot of countries with WMD's we don't bother many of the others, because we don't care. Iraq would never have used them against us.

Yeah, I know. My 'it makes no sense' comment was somewhat satirical. Without what you just said being true, there is no logical reason that we would not be going after the guy. It's just that I know there are still going to be people who deny it.

Can you not see this from any other perspective? Saddam had blood on his hands. He and his regime were killing and torturing fellow countrymen. And this guy did the best he could to stop that. To paint him black without even considering the other shades at play here seems very naive for you, O. After all, what do you think he stood to gain from this?

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you not see this from any other perspective? Saddam had blood on his hands. He and his regime were killing and torturing fellow countrymen. And this guy did the best he could to stop that. To paint him black without even considering the other shades at play here seems very naive for you, O. After all, what do you think he stood to gain from this?

Of course I can see it from another perspective. That does not change the fact that the man should be tried, now does it?
If my daughter is being held hostage and threatened to death, in a school, does that mean I can go into the school with guns blazing, and kill everyone inside - men, women and children - to get to the man that's holding her hostage? We simply do not have that luxury. (That doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.)

Do you think Iraq was the only place living under murderous conditions? What about all of the other places in the world? Do you think the U.S. didn't know what was going on in Iraq, before the war? Do you suggest that we invade every country that is living under dictatorial rule, guns blazing, exacerbating the deaths of scores of men, women and children? I don't believe that it was this man's decision to make. Do you?

And again, to be clear, I understand why he did what he did, but do I think it was the right thing to do? I'm not so sure about that.

As they say, The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He is as guilty as Saddam. I really do not have any sympathy for a person like that. Some death reports the number of death in Iraq has gone over a million. you can't really excuse that many deaths, no matter the reason.

What do all of the other places in the world have to do with the Iraqi? The Bush doctrine is really another argument, and is certainly not this man's cross to bear.

The outstanding observation at the Nuremberg trials was that nobody took responsibility for what had happened; they were all just performing orders. In this case we do not accept the 'it was not my decision to make' thing; we except people to have some degree conscientious autonomy. This man had the choice to support or defy the regime and for selfless reasons chose the latter. No, I don't really think we can reprimand him for that.

Originally Posted by Xei

What do all of the other places in the world have to do with the Iraqi?

The simple philosophy that this man having a reason to drop an Atom bomb (so to speak) on the country to oust the dictator makes what he did justifiable. If it's ok for him, then the U.S. (or any other country) should be able to invade any unjust country, at any time, right? There is a matter of precision inherent if one is going to take it upon his/herself to right a wrong, so as not to create 100,000 other wrongs, in the process. If it was a matter of simply fighting off the Republican Guard, then I might be a little less critical, but someone who honestly applauds the peaceful protests in areas such as Egypt, to oust their dictator, cannot honestly defend sparking the deaths of countless civilians, for that same end.

Originally Posted by Xei

The outstanding observation at the Nuremberg trials was that nobody took responsibility for what had happened; they were all just performing orders. In this case we do not accept the 'it was not my decision to make' thing; we except people to have some degree conscientious autonomy. This man had the choice to support or defy the regime and for selfless reasons chose the latter. No, I don't really think we can reprimand him for that.

There is a difference between "defying a dictator," and taking it upon yourself to press the button to practically nuke an entire country (which is, in a sense, what he did), to overthrow said dictator.

This is old news, it was know 5 years ago that the Bush administration lied about WMDs, there were a bunch of people who defuncted from the administration that exposed that

Originally Posted by ninja9578

This is old news, it was know 5 years ago that the Bush administration lied about WMDs, there were a bunch of people who defuncted from the administration that exposed that

I've heard mounds of speculation, but I don't think I've ever actually heard from anyone in the administration who straight-up exposed it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you not see this from any other perspective? Saddam had blood on his hands. He and his regime were killing and torturing fellow countrymen. And this guy did the best he could to stop that. To paint him black without even considering the other shades at play here seems very naive for you, O. After all, what do you think he stood to gain from this?

The argument doesn't really hold its water. Saddam wasn't behaving much differently before, just that as long as he played the US puppet, his behavior seemed to have been perfectly acceptable. To suggest that what has happened in Iraq was for humanitarian purposes to overthrow the evil dictator, in my opinion, is an insult to the thousands of civilian casualties, the diminished quality of life in Iraq for future generations to come and quite frankly, to our intelligence.

Originally Posted by dajo

The argument doesn't really hold its water. Saddam wasn't behaving much differently before, just that as long as he played the US puppet, his behavior seemed to have been perfectly acceptable. To suggest that what has happened in Iraq was for humanitarian purposes to overthrow the evil dictator, in my opinion, is an insult to the thousands of civilian casualties, the diminished quality of life in Iraq for future generations to come and quite frankly, to our intelligence.

QFT.

We basically just sent the country back to the stone age. But hey, at least they aren't making anymore nuclear weapons.

I think you should read my posts more carefully, I've never defended what the US did or their motives.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The simple philosophy that this man having a reason to drop an Atom bomb (so to speak) on the country to oust the dictator makes what he did justifiable. If it's ok for him, then the U.S. (or any other country) should be able to invade any unjust country, at any time, right? There is a matter of precision inherent if one is going to take it upon his/herself to right a wrong, so as not to create 100,000 other wrongs, in the process. If it was a matter of simply fighting off the Republican Guard, then I might be a little less critical, but someone who honestly applauds the peaceful protests in areas such as Egypt, to oust their dictator, cannot honestly defend sparking the deaths of countless civilians, for that same end.

There is a difference between "defying a dictator," and taking it upon yourself to press the button to practically nuke an entire country (which is, in a sense, what he did), to overthrow said dictator.

No he didn't... he had no idea what the response would be, or how many would die, or by what means. Saddam had mass murdered and tortured hundreds and thousands of his fellow countrymen. He had the choice between letting that continue, or encouraging the international community to do something about the regime. How is this morally obvious? And if you think about it, all he did was turn all of the crimes that had terrorized him and nobody else had cared about into crimes that could potentially affect the rest of the world; the fact that only then did anybody sit up and give a damn is actually their moral failing.

oops... nevermind.

Originally Posted by Xei

No he didn't... he had no idea what the response would be, or how many would die, or by what means. Saddam had mass murdered and tortured hundreds and thousands of his fellow countrymen. He had the choice between letting that continue, or encouraging the international community to do something about the regime. How is this morally obvious? And if you think about it, all he did was turn all of the crimes that had terrorized him and nobody else had cared about into crimes that could potentially affect the rest of the world; the fact that only then did anybody sit up and give a damn is actually their moral failing.

I understand your point, and like I said, I understand why the guy did what he did - and I suppose you are right that nobody really could have anticipated what would have happened next. But an any other situation, any other person would have been brought to trial for falsifying evidence, especially when that false evidence lead to a full-scale war. I'm not a big fan of "the ends justify the means" because it is that kind of think that might have justified the alleged conspiracy theory that the Gov'ment either caused 9/11 or allowed it happen, in order to garner support for the "greater good" (the War on Terror).

It's something to think about, though.