Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

WMDs were a bureaucratic reason for war

  1. May 30, 2003 #1
    WMDs were a "bureaucratic reason" for war

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2840293
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 30, 2003 #2
    In other words, the 'truth' this administration tells is based on focus groups, huh? Whatever the PR guys say will work best?
     
  4. May 31, 2003 #3
    Maybe we should re-acromyn them to "Weapons of Death and Destruction" so they could be W-Dad's....(Dubya-Dad)....snicker, snicker....
     
  5. Jun 1, 2003 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, thats Clinton you're thinking of. Damn near every decision he made was based on an opinion poll. Clinton followed the US opinion. Bush is leading it.
     
  6. Jun 1, 2003 #5

    kat

    User Avatar

    Maybe I'm having problems translating as American English is my first language, but I don't see the statement above as being the exact equivelant of what the quote below is stating.


    It also seems to fall short of what the actual full transcript is showing:

    and after his phone call continued:

    I'm really sick of media distortion, isn't there enough garbage to report without distorting statements?
     
  7. Jun 1, 2003 #6
    That's odd, kat, because of his 'three overriding concerns', two of them turned out to be distorted, misleading reasons to go to war.
     
  8. Jun 1, 2003 #7
    Well, what does it mean when he says "everyone could agree on"? Does he mean that they all believed that it was a legitimate reason, or that they all agreed that it could be received by others as a legitimate reason?

    What I get from this article is that people all had their own reasons for wanting the war, and they just decided upon WMDs as the public front. These people did not come out and say why they each wanted the war. It is a good example of why to be wary of people's, especially governmental people's, intentions.
     
  9. Jun 1, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Nice catch, Kat. I hadn't read the whole thing.

    It really is pathetic.
     
  10. Jun 2, 2003 #9
    It's just the tired old Nazi / Machiavelli idea: frighten the population into hating your prospective enemy. One way to do that is by lying about his weapons. This kind of thing just winds up wasting a lot of time, and is much easier than building a Jeffersonian democracy.

    _____________
    "Accept the vote of a free election." Mikhail Gorbechav 1989
     
  11. Jun 4, 2003 #10
    Credibility Gap, Anyone?


    Food for thought, if nothing else...
     
  12. Jun 4, 2003 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Quick question: If no WMD or evidence of WMD production is ever found, does that mean the war was NOT justified?

    Followup: If yes, what do we do about it/what are the implications of it?
     
  13. Jun 4, 2003 #12

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    It depends on the justification for war that was used. In most people's minds, with the justification based on WMDs, it would no longer be justified. Legally, it would no longer be justified - the invasion is classifiable as a war crime.

    The ones who deceived knowingly can be accused of treason and it undermines all future such acts.
    Further, the moral high ground cannot be maintained as it would be known that the Saddam regime acted faithfully to international law while the US acted as an agressor state.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2003
  14. Jun 4, 2003 #13
    I always thought the WMD 'argument' for war was bunk; while it surprises me that there don't seem to be any, I never thought they were a threat. So I still think it's justified, for the same reasons as before -- getting rid of a brutal and aggressive dictator, asserting US willingness to use force and hence geopolitical credibility, and hopefully taking a step forward in the Middle East.

    If there turns out to have been deception about WMDs -- which is IMHO fairly certain; there was simply so little effort made to secure the suspected sites (many went unsecured for days and were looted before inspection teams arrived) -- then Bush and his administration should be run out of town on a rail, figuratively speaking. There would need to be an uproar a la Watergate; taking the country into a war on the wings of a deliberate deception is not the kind of thing we want to let slide and have future administration feel O.K. about.
     
  15. Jun 5, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    IMO, the four justifications for the war were all equally valid reasons for going to war. I'm surprised that the WMD haven't been found, but while the WMD issue was served up for the ignorant masses, the rest of the population (the republicans) understood that the other three issues were just as valid.
     
  16. Jun 5, 2003 #15
    So, Russ, you are saying you don't mind if a President lies to the people, so long as he is a Republican, and he is supporting Republican goals.
     
  17. Jun 5, 2003 #16
    To me, it DOES matter if the reasons stated for the war were lies...but for us 'ignorant' folks, truth is more important than supporting Republican economic imperialism.
     
  18. Jun 5, 2003 #17
    We already know that evidence of Iraqi nuclear fuel purchases was faked, probably by the CIA. The pentagon pressures the CIA to produce intelligence that serves their purpose, but the CIA is in the business of describing REALITY.
     
  19. Jun 5, 2003 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sigh. Zero I know its been a few months since I explained this all to you and you misunderstood/misconstrued it, but I won't explain it again. You know the FOUR reasons for going to war and you know my opinion of them.

    Quite frankly, most of the country doesn't have the attention span to deal with four simultaneous arguements on one issue. The Republicans understand, a handful of democrats understand but don't listen, and the rest just plain don't understand the issues.
     
  20. Jun 5, 2003 #19
    I do not like your partisan, over-simplifying comments, Russ. To call those who are not Republicans ignorant is ludicrous.

    I don't give the general population a lot of credit, but, apparently, I give them a lot more credit than you do. I think that they can handle four reasons (you can count them on one hand). Even if they couldn't, that does not excuse or justify the lying and forgery that the administration has done.

    Also, they gave at least 3 fictitious reasons--attempting to acquire nuclear materials, buildup of chemical/bio weapons, and a link to al queda--that's a difference of one reason. So the argument, based on number of reasons, fails..unless you think that there is a dividing difference between 3 and 4. Oh, and then they tacked on freeing the Iraqi people, bringing it up to 4. I assume that the fourth is one of your 4 reasons.

    Now, if you get into the specifics of the content of each reasons, I'm not sure of how well the goal of getting troups out of Saudi Arabia would go over with the public. Of course, the goal of that goal (easing tensions in the Middle East) is pretty invalidated by the lying, because of the Arab resentment that this war has caused. If the administration had been forthcoming about that goal in the first place, maybe there would be less resentment.
     
  21. Jun 5, 2003 #20
    This is not an acceptable defense. Believe me, while I understand and mourn the astounding lack of comprehension the public has of geopolitics, this does not justify massive campaigns of deceit by any President or administration.

    You could make the same argument about almost any political issues -- health care, economics, tax cuts, etc; the job of the government and people who advocate some policy is to argue for it, not to lie about it because "people are too stupid/misguided to understand it anyways." What makes a democracy work is a willingness to publicly debate the issues and yield to the final democratic decision; when you start lying because you think your opponents are irrational... it's gonna descend into a free-for-all.

    If you feel it was okay for Bush to deceive on this... just imagine what you would think if it was Clinton cooking intelligence to achieve some liberal policy goal, justifying it 'cause he knew the American people were too dumb to understand what was best for them. Blair is being skewered in Britain over the lack of WMDs, even by those who supported the war; the same thing should be happening here -- not some partisan closing of ranks, and arguments to the effect of "it's OK if we lie, because we know we're right anyways..."
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: WMDs were a bureaucratic reason for war
  1. The reasoning behind war (Replies: 11)

  2. Iraq WMDs (Replies: 11)

Loading...