Forums | MacLife

This notion that our policies can have only direct and intended consequences and not indirect and unintended consequences is completely absurd.

But for American intervention in the region, the current situation would not exist.

Yet resonable people would place the blame where it belongs, with the person who committed the act.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Yet resonable people would place the blame where it belongs, with the person who committed the act.

"Reasonable people" hold their government officials responsible for action (or inaction) all the time, regardless of whether or not their duties require responding to the acts of other people or things.

Incompetent police force?  No problem, they're not committing crime!  Fire department takes 45 minutes to show up?  Why, they didn't set the fire!

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Yet resonable people would place the blame where it belongs, with the person who committed the act.

"Reasonable people" hold their government officials responsible for action (or inaction) all the time, regardless of whether or not their duties require responding to the acts of other people or things.

Incompetent police force?  No problem, they're not committing crime!  Fire department takes 45 minutes to show up?  Why, they didn't set the fire!

You wouldn't call the police force criminal or the fire department arsonists - yet people here are blaming bush for the death of these people. It is not Bush's policies that resulted in their death, he had no policy to kill them, or policy to wait 45 minutes before responding to the fire.

These people are during because of the specific action of criminals who are specifically working against peace in Iraq. Bush is not responsible for the actions of the enemy.

Ribtorus wrote:

Bush can be blamed for the overall policy that launched the war, and the troop levels. And if he wants to claim the role of commander in chief, then a lot more failure can be heaped on his shoulders.

Does Saddam Hussein bear any blame, or just Bush?
What about the people actually doing the killing, or just Bush?

Steyr AUG wrote:

Resonable people dont have the attitude of BlameBushForEverything and realize dispite the best intentions of US and Iraqi soldiers in iraq, bad things still happen, but they continue to work to make things better.

Here's the thing:  Some people don't think we have any business in Iraq.  They don't believe we EVER had any business in Iraq.

You disagree.  Fine.  However, for those that believe we shouldn't have been there at all, any consequence of the invasion will probably be seen as being caused by those who ordered the invasion to begin with.

resedit wrote:

You wouldn't call the police force criminal or the fire department arsonists - yet people here are blaming bush for the death of these people. It is not Bush's policies that resulted in their death, he had no policy to kill them, or policy to wait 45 minutes before responding to the fire.

These people are during because of the specific action of criminals who are specifically working against peace in Iraq. Bush is not responsible for the actions of the enemy.

Our policies directly led to the situation that exists in Iraq today.  If not for our action, the situation there would be different.

You're attempting to simplify the criticism (yes, Bush didn't pull the trigger himself) so that you can attack it as being "anti-Bush."

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

You wouldn't call the police force criminal or the fire department arsonists - yet people here are blaming bush for the death of these people. It is not Bush's policies that resulted in their death, he had no policy to kill them, or policy to wait 45 minutes before responding to the fire.

These people are during because of the specific action of criminals who are specifically working against peace in Iraq. Bush is not responsible for the actions of the enemy.

Our policies directly led to the situation that exists in Iraq today.  If not for our action, the situation there would be different.

You're attempting to simplify the criticism (yes, Bush didn't pull the trigger himself) so that you can attack it as being "anti-Bush."

Saddam Husseins policies directly led to the situation that exists in Iraq today. All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions and there would be no invasion.

Or you could (I'm not) argue that it is Bill Clintons policies.
Bill Clinton pulled the inspectors out so he could bomb Iraq, and never put them back.

Singling out Bush is done out of a hatred for Bush. It's just as silly as blaming Clinton for removing the inspectors in the first place.

resedit wrote:

Maybe JWs should retake their stance on voting.
By not voting, you allowed him to win the 2000 election - which was very close in Florida, and could have been swayed by your participation.

Ephesians 6:12
because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.

John 15:19
"If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you."

John 17:16
"They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."

John 18:36
Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”

James 4:4
Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.

1John 5:19
We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.

resedit wrote:

I'm just saying - that you are sitting there blaming the voters, when you yourself are not part of the process - a process you could impact.

Oh - and btw, Paul had no problem whatsoever using his Roman citizenship to his advantage - so you might want to think about your interpretation of those verses.

I dont need to be "part of the process" to make any comment. If that is how you feel though, I notice you arent serving in the army or helping out in Iraq or Israel while you post your opinion.

Oh, and by the way, Rome killed Paul because they thought his message was subversive to the state. You might want to re-think about what he was using his citizenship for. I use my citizenship to my advantage too. I am glad to live in the US in the nation's capital, but that doesnt change my loyalty or allegiance.

uh... uh... BILL CLINTON!

resedit wrote:

Saddam Husseins policies directly led to the situation that exists in Iraq today. All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions and there would be no invasion.

Or you could (I'm not) argue that it is Bill Clintons policies.
Bill Clinton pulled the inspectors out so he could bomb Iraq, and never put them back.

Singling out Bush is done out of a hatred for Bush. It's just as silly as blaming Clinton for removing the inspectors in the first place.

--------
I'm not at all certain that your claim about the former President holds water:
"16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later."
BBC Timeline WMD Inspections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
UN orders weapons inspectors out. Doesn't seem to reference the U.S.
-----
Here's the end of Judy and friend from Feb '98 NYT:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/ … raqbio.htm
"Inspection teams may have been getting close to those records when Iraq began refusing the United Nations access to some sites last October. The inspectors also agree that as long as Iraq denies the inspectors access and information, they may never be able to certify that Baghdad is harboring no more germ weapons. "I once asked: 'Is there an end game?' " Barton recalled. "We've been lied to so many times, can we ever trust the Iraqis to tell us the truth?""
---
But includes a rebuttal from a Cornell prof which end with this:
..."That shows you the way the mainstream news media work in the United States of America, including and especially the New York Times, which has been mongering for war against Iraq for quite some time. By the way, and most critically of all, she deliberately refused to point out in the article the well-known fact that former UNSCOM inspector Raymond Zalinskas admitted to National Public Radio that UN inspectors had already seen all reasonable weapons sites and had destroyed whatever potential existed. But of course that critical piece of information did not matter to the New York Times that is so hell-bent upon manipulating these biowarfare charges into manufacturing public support for more war against Iraq. I will not bother to review the article and point out all the serious distortions, half-truths, and omissions. But again, this article is nothing more than a piece of pure propaganda mongering for war against Iraq.

All the news that's fit to print? Well in America, the only news deemed fit to print and make it on the television sets are those that monger for war. George Orwell had it right: In America today, war is peace;freedom is slavery;ignorance is strength; we all love big brother; and Ronald Reagan was President in 1984. Miller really works for the NEWSPEAK TIMES.

Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law Author, Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989."
-------
Sounds, looks, feels, tastes the same to me. A duck. No cover.

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-07-25 6:41 pm)

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

resedit wrote:

Saddam Husseins policies directly led to the situation that exists in Iraq today. All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions and there would be no invasion.

"Iraqi Liberation" was not authorised by the UN (nor would it have been for reasons not all good)

Nope - it wasn't.
That doesn't change the fact that compliance with the UN resolution would have prevented the invasion. Saddam didn't comply, and the UN demonstrated once again that it doesn't have balls.

nor was it initiated by Iraq's failure to comply with Res. 1441. Indeed Saddam had promised to comply with it (apparently overruling the parliament)

Um, just how many times did he promise to comply with it?
First he didn't let them in at all, then he wouldn't let them inspect all his sites, he never gave them access to his scientists, nor did he ever let them inspect a place without being chased and having the location called ahead.

Oh - and when they did find some arms that were banned, he stalled on allowing their destruction.

It was all a stalling game for Saddam. The reasoning why he wanted to stall - perhaps that is something you should think about.

; I admit it is probable he was continuing to stall and highly unlikely that he would have fully complied but this was not tested.

How would it ever be tested? He was given ample opportunity to demonstrate compliance, he made it clear compliance was not on his list of options.

There were many reasons to remove Saddam from power and many reasons why the US intended to do so. 1441 wasn't really either and certainly wasn't the latter.

Had he complied, invasion would have been avoided.