Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > US admits War Guilt      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 1
view profile
History
US admits War GuiltPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
Gates: Iraq war premise 'not valid'
During surprise trip to American base, US defence secretary says outcome of the war will remain 'clouded'.

Barack Obama said at Fort Bliss that his address to the nation should not be taken as "victory lap" [AFP]

A few hours after Barack Obama, the US president, declared it is "time to turn the page" on the American-led war in Iraq, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said the effort there had been based on flawed premises.

"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid," Gates told US soldiers and reporters during an unannounced visit Wednesday to Camp Ramadi in Iraq. "Even if the outcome is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it'll always be clouded by how it began".

....

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201091114455216711.html

So... Now it is official...

The US gov't did not have a valid basis for it's war of aggression against Iraq... A fact that is clearly admitted by the gov't of the US...

The questions now are...

Doesn't America now owe the Iraqi's war reparations, just as the US demanded from Japan and Germany...?

Isn't it now clear, based on the gov't's own admission, that we should be prosecuting the perpetrators for war crimes just as others are for such deeds...?

And what of all the innocent young American lives tragically cut short, the young American men left permanently scarred and disfigured by this now admitted act...? Are they not owed recompense for having sacrificed so much through their acts of good faith and patriotism in the name of an admitted fabrication...? Is this waste how we really view the value of the American soldier...?
 motown cowgirl
Joined: 6/30/2010
Msg: 2
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 9:51:41 AM
o well. you can't win 'em all.

but i found the "even if" statement especially interesting. ..."even if" the outcome is a "good one" from the standpoint of the united states..."

because i'd really like to know more about this alleged "good outcome" that's implicit in gates' blanket declaration. what, we made sure saddam got hung? five minutes ago (in historical terms), he was our bestest buddy.

in the broader context though, wars usually begin with one lie and end with a different one. depending on which side wins, of course. this is otherwise known as, "ideology". "the civil war was all about ending slavery." nope. it was an economic war and more about states' rights than anything else, because slavery was already on the way out. "the russian revolution was all about deposing elitist royals and ensuring the eternal happiness of the proletariat". nope, it was merely about substituting one form of tyranny for another that was 10 times worse. "the vietnam war was all about keeping the NVA's communist mitts off the south." nope. it was about controlling the flow of drugs thru the so-called "golden triangle" of southeast asia. "patriotism" is merely the psychological poker chip that governments use to make people be willing to feel good about killing each other en masse on daddy warbuck's global chessboard otherwise known as planet earth.

as for prosecuting the so-called perpetrators of war crimes... you might find some psychological satisfaction in that idea but note that only the winning side gets to do that and it has absolutely nothing to do with a unilateral and simplistic sense of "good conquers evil" paradigm. the world demanded steep reparations from germany post-WW1, which of course laid the groundwork for WW2. then wall street proceeded to bankroll hitler. so who's guilty and who's innocent???
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 3
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 10:25:54 AM

but i found the "even if" statement especially interesting. ..."even if" the outcome is a "good one" from the standpoint of the united states..."

Well, in Gates' defense... as best as I can muster because I can't see the "good" outcome either... I believe, from the way it was stated, that this was a bit of a barb directed at the warhawks... A conditional statement of "no mater how you view it" the issue will always be overshadowed by that and there is simply no way to paint a rosie picture of it... A sort of "what's done is done and no matter how we proceed from here that reality of "unjustified" will always remain"... And not necessarily a justification for ignoring it (we'll have to see where it goes from that)...

Even if it was said for political expediency, the truth is still the truth... You have to give him that...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 4
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 4:35:07 PM
as for prosecuting the so-called perpetrators of war crimes... you might find some psychological satisfaction in that idea but note that only the winning side gets to do that and it has absolutely nothing to do with a unilateral and simplistic sense of "good conquers evil" paradigm.

But there is nothing in this that prevents the "winning side" from prosecuting their own... Has nothing to do with "good conquers evil" paradigm... More like "what goes around comes around" or get sons and daughters killed for your lie and face the wrath of "mom", if you prefer... Of course, a certain segment needs to get their heads out of their flags and start getting pissed off about real issues rather than the made-up ones the talking heads tell them to be pissed off about...

An article that helps illustrate why admitting the lie and taking steps to deal with the perpetrators of the lie might be just a tad important...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-foulkrod/obama-the-truth-will-set-_b_702773.html

*sings*

"To dream the impossible..."
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 6:41:32 PM

The US gov't did not have a valid basis for it's war of aggression against Iraq... A fact that is clearly admitted by the gov't of the US...

But that’s not what secretary Gates said. The article quotes Gates with saying “that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid,".

Gates did not say the US gov’t had no valid basis to invade Iraq. That would be Al Jazeera (and your) spin. He also uses the word “clouded” which, in this context, means the opposite of “clearly”. Al Jazeera is probably not your best source for “official US government admissions”.

I believe, from the way it was stated…

At least you admit you’re reading with a bias. Of course, Al Jazeera has none.

… (is this) how we really view the value of the American soldier...?

You are forgetting about the British, Spanish, Polish, Australian, Portuguese, and Danish soldiers, aren’t you?

in the name of an admitted fabrication

I know where this is going…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs
Highlights are at 2:10 and 3:42, but the whole speech is enlightening.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 7:27:32 PM
But that’s not what secretary Gates said. The article quotes Gates with saying “that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid,".

Gates did not say the US gov’t had no valid basis to invade Iraq.

Channeling Nixon these days...?

What, exactly, do you believe "premise" means in that sentence...? Be prepared to defend your definition with the rules of English grammar and construction...

Then, perhaps you can explain how it is that your "definition" ties in with the use of "justified", "going to war" and "not to be valid" in the same sentence...

You see, I already know that it means "reason" or "basis"... and I can prove it if you like but I really would like to see how you dance and spin trying to deny that... and to justify contending that "The US gov't did not have a valid basis for it's war" is just spin and not the meaning of what was said...

Good luck... you'll need it...

Al Jazeera is probably not your best source for “official US government admissions”.


I believe, from the way it was stated…


At least you admit you’re reading with a bias. Of course, Al Jazeera has none.

Ahhhh... I see, you actually have no answer...

Perhaps this is better...?

RAMADI, Iraq -- Marking the formal end of the United States' combat mission in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested Wednesday that even if the war-torn country emerges from the chaos and upheavals of recent years in a way that favors U.S. interests, the venture will always be "clouded" by the faulty intelligence the Bush administration cited to make the initial case for war.

"The problem with this war for, I think, many Americans is that the premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid -- that is, Saddam (Hussein) having weapons of mass destruction," Gates told reporters after meeting with troops at Camp Ramadi in al-Anbar province. "Even if the outcome (of the war) is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it will always be clouded by how it began."
....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/gates-sees-iraq-successes-forever-clouded-wmd-issue/

You were saying...?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 8:46:30 PM

… (is this) how we really view the value of the American soldier...?


You are forgetting about the British, Spanish, Polish, Australian, Portuguese, and Danish soldiers, aren’t you?

????

I'm sure there was supposed to be a point in there somewhere... Perhaps it was accidently edited out...? This has no bearing on the part you quoted (or should I say 'misquoted' since you edited and truncated it so much you completely changed the meaning)...


in the name of an admitted fabrication


I know where this is going…

And, once again, I will point you to this...

... the faulty intelligence the Bush administration cited...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/gates-sees-iraq-successes-forever-clouded-wmd-issue/
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 9:44:30 PM
I could be wrong, but I think what HS is trying to point out is that Gates is insinuating that we only realized the faulty premise AFTER we invaded. At the time, before we invaded, the premise seemed valid.

Of course, I would argue heavily to the contrary, but this is about what Gates is admitting to, not what I believe happened.
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 9:54:28 PM
i dont see where theres any guilt to admit to
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 10:05:09 PM
And what war crimes do you think (and who) should be prosecuted, and under what court?
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 11
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:26:41 AM

A fact that is clearly admitted by the gov't of the US...


The fact is the statement was made from one man and does not nessicarily represent the thoughts by the government as a whole. Governments are often internally split on the same issues.
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 12
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 6:12:58 AM
I see no guilt here, nor do I see any admitting of guilt. Considering there is nothing to be guilty about.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 13
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:41:06 AM

And what war crimes do you think (and who) should be prosecuted, and under what court?

Perhaps those things which are crimes under US law, such as invading a sovereign nation outside the scope of the justifications provided by international law (this is a crime in the US and under US law), would be a good place to start...

And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with...

And, really, a US federal court would do, it is within their jurisdiction (or, possibly, one of the international courts established for such purposes)...

i dont see where theres any guilt to admit to


I see no guilt here, nor do I see any admitting of guilt. Considering there is nothing to be guilty about.


The fact is the statement was made from one man and does not nessicarily represent the thoughts by the government as a whole. Governments are often internally split on the same issues.

Imagine our surprise at this... to include the further channeling of Nixon...
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 14
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:06:32 AM
"Perhaps those things which are crimes under US law, such as invading a sovereign nation outside the scope of the justifications provided by international law (this is a crime in the US and under US law), would be a good place to start..."

The US had more than enough justification to invade Iraq. It is not like Iraq attempted to lock on to any of our Jets in the "no fly zone" prior to the 2nd war with them.

"And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with..."

It was known that Iraq had chemical weapons prior, not only that, they had the capacity to make more chemical weapons. Along with not providing enough proof that there were absolutely no chemical weapons, is just as bad as not finding them after the fact. Along with locking onto planes with anti aircraft batteries in the NO Fly zones. All this nonsense about war guilt is a fallacy. And all this talk about US law, or international law is fallacy, considering the US wrote the laws and took part into writing international law, and their are many interpretations of the laws, so just because one interprets it one way does not mean someone else will see it that same way as well. And why would one interpret said laws that were written to not benefit those who came up with them is rather strange.

 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 15
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:15:26 AM
It is not like Iraq attempted to lock on to any of our Jets in the "no fly zone" prior to the 2nd war with them.

Sorry dude, "radar lock" is NOT a casus belli under the law, international or US... If it were we would have been in a shooting war with the USSR, N. Korea, Iran and a number of other countries decades ago...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 16
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:23:33 AM

The US had more than enough justification to invade Iraq.

I will respond to this by borrowing from cooldude:

"The fact is the statement was made from one man and does not nessicarily represent the thoughts by the government as a whole."

And you aren't even a representative of the government. Furthermore, your opinion is certainly in the small minority here in the US and around the world.

It was known that Iraq had chemical weapons prior,

Weak. We supplied the weapons years prior, so of course we knew they had them at one point. Thing is, they have an expiration date... which had passed.

not only that, they had the capacity to make more chemical weapons.

False. Iraq was hanging by a pretty thin thread because of sanctions put in effect by Clinton. Although almost no Republican would ever concede it, Clinton's missile attacks were also pretty effective in destroying Iraq's weapons capabilities.

Along with not providing enough proof that there were absolutely no chemical weapons, is just as bad as not finding them after the fact.

Naive. The savvy ones in intelligence knew that Hussein needed to keep rattling his saber in that part of the world-- in other words, he was bluffing. The Bush admin conveniently ignored that very valid (and proven true) hypothesis in its rush to invade. The admin also cut the inspections short before they could conclude this.

Along with locking onto planes with anti aircraft batteries in the NO Fly zones.

If this were seriously considered an act of war, we would have had a nuclear holocaust decades ago.
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 17
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:25:55 AM
"Sorry dude, "radar lock" is NOT a casus belli under the law, international or US... If it were we would have been in a shooting war with the USSR, N. Korea, Iran and a number of other countries decades ago"

Um wrong, only if you interpret the law that way. Why would someone write a law to punish themselves to begin with. Oh so then by that, it was wrong to go to war against Germany the first and second time, and to go to war with Japan, North Korea in the Korean war, V. Nam, oh and I guess no one got shot during the cold war with the USSR. Whatever, it is a matter how how the law is interpreted, not how you think the law should be interpreted. Once again, the US has not admitted any guilt because there is nothing to be guilty about.

"And you aren't even a representative of the government. Furthermore, your opinion is certainly in the small minority here in the US and around the world."

The small minority? LOL! Not down here, and not to any one that I met abroad, but you can think that if you would like. Minority you say? Oh, okay, sure, whatever.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 18
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:31:51 AM
@flyguy... you would be right. There is certainly nothing wrong with your reading comprehension.

@mungo... It’s funny you keep mentioning channeling because the quote attributed to secretary Gates’ doesn’t presuppose the clairvoyance of the ‘we’, whereas your interpretation of it does.


And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with...

Maybe start with this guy. He was spouting this “false information” as far back as 1992.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1h1wg7LeQ
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:33:21 AM

And all this talk about US law, or international law is fallacy, considering the US wrote the laws and took part into writing international law,

Ha... this reminds me of an old Sylvestor Stallone line: "I AM the law!"

BTW, you tend to misuse the word "fallacy." Just because something is disagreeable does not make it fallacious.
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 20
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:38:11 AM
"Ha... this reminds me of an old Sylvestor Stallone line: "I AM the law!"
BTW, you tend to misuse the word "fallacy." Just because something is disagreeable does not make it fallacious."

I actually agree and just because you interpret something this way, that does not make it so just because you say so.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 21
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:46:24 AM
Whatever, it is a matter how how the law is interpreted, not how you think the law should be interpreted.

Well, what do you know... You actually got one right... The only problem is that you are now applying it bass-ackwards...

Historical application of international law absolutely supports my statement of:

""radar lock" is NOT a casus belli under the law, international or US"

That you should wish to ignore this in favor of your personal interpretation does not render it incorrect... That's the difference, I use fact, history and reality when I say these things rather than an uninformed/misinformed opinion developed in front of the tv in the living room of a 'double-wide'...

Once again, the US has not admitted any guilt because there is nothing to be guilty about.

Point one... having something to admit guilt about has no bearing on the act of admitting guilt itself... One can admit guilt without being guilty just as easily as one can deny guilt while being guilty... Clearly, logic has taken a holiday and it isn't vacationing in the Carolinas...

Point two... Lack of guilt in your opinion, you mean, as you haven't provided a factually/legally correct basis for it yet...

Maybe start with this guy. He was spouting this “false information” as far back as 1992.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1h1wg7LeQ

A red herring of cetacean proportions... "This guy" didn't start an illegal war over his claims, the others did...

There is a HUGE difference in law between making false claims and acting on false claims...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 22
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:48:01 AM

Maybe start with this guy. He was spouting this “false information” as far back as 1992.

Absolutely! But I really don't think W took his marching orders from a 1992 Gore speech. Not even Gore did.

Here's another influential guy who reversed his opinion the opposite way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 23
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 11:54:43 AM
"That you should wish to ignore this in favor of your personal interpretation does not render it incorrect... That's the difference, I use fact, history and reality when I say these things rather than an uninformed/misinformed opinion developed in front of the tv in the living room of a 'double-wide'."

Now that was fecking ignorant and stereotypical but not surprised considering the source. How democratic of you, but considering the source, I am not surprised. But I am sure you could easily relate to those who live in "double-wides." Since you are not a conservative/republican.. You do want to be realistic don't you baldy.

The USA is not guilty of anything and no matter how much you cry bitch, piss and moan there is nothing that you can do about it. Also it seems that you have a major beef with the USA, because every single one of your posts seems to blame this, or that against the USA. I am thinking you need a girlfriend or a new hobby.
 MrLove45
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 24
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 1:03:16 PM
I say every member of the bush administration should fry...all except Gates
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 25
view profile
History
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 1:39:56 PM

I say every member of the bush administration should fry...all except Gates

I'm not sure I agree... The Cheneys and Roves' for sure... but I'm not completely sure Bush could be charged for any criminal complicity, that usually requires things like "forethought" and "competency", I think we might need a new class of offence, like "Stupidity Hazardous to the National Welfare" or something, for him...
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > US admits War Guilt