Iraq Rationale Poll

[Tex]

Although it's still a bloody mess, some of the initial fog of war has cleared and we've had some time to contemplate the situation. So what do you think was the Bush administration's primary reason for its dubious decision to invade?

[fishbob]

Other - Saddam tried to assinate his Daddy.

[aerocontrols]

You're poll is flawed in that it doesn't allow us to pick more than one reason.

Also no Planeta Diez option.

[Tex]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You're poll is flawed in that it doesn't allow us to pick more than one reason.

Also no Planeta Diez option.

Yeah, I'm sure there was more than one reason, but I was curious to see what people thought was the most significant.

[Tex]

Originally posted by fishbob
Other - Saddam tried to assinate his Daddy.

Heh, I should have included that one.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by fishbob
Other - Saddam tried to assinate his Daddy.

I was always curious about that one; do people think it's A-OK that a foreign leader tried to assassinate our former President?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I was always curious about that one; do people think it's A-OK that a foreign leader tried to assassinate our former President?

Absolutely not, but do you favour an investigation and possible criminal trials regarding the US assassination attempts on Castro and the successful murder of Alende?

[circuit slave]

Once again, there aren't enough choices in the poll-- only ten to choose.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Absolutely not, but do you favour an investigation and possible criminal trials regarding the US assassination attempts on Castro and the successful murder of Alende?

In what court and under who's law?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
In what court and under who's law?

Would you favour such a trial anywhere?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I was always curious about that one; do people think it's A-OK that a foreign leader tried to assassinate our former President?


Well, no, it was definitely something that would get one removed from a Christmas Card list...;) :p But worth 8,000 casualties and $200B? Even Daddy Bush might consider himself overvalued.

Interesting poll, but there are really two answers; the primary reason for invading Iraq (I believe Bush was absolutely sure there was WMD's there) and the actual historical result of the war (I voted the geopolitical one).

The reasons at the start of any conflict aren't always what they finish......

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Would you favour such a trial anywhere?

It would depend on the answers to my question.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Hutch
Well, no, it was definitely something that would get one removed from a Christmas Card list...;) :p But worth 8,000 casualties and $200B? Even Daddy Bush might consider himself overvalued.


Do you think some/any action should be taken against such an attempt? If so what kind of action?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
It would depend on the answers to my question.

Once again, are there any possible answers to your question that would provoke a positive response from yourself? In other words, Is there anywhere, under any law that you would accept for such a trial?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Once again, are there any possible answers to your question that would provoke a positive response from yourself? In other words, Is there anywhere, under any law that you would accept for such a trial?

The possibility exist but I would need to know specifics before I can provide a definite yes.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The possibility exist but I would need to know specifics before I can provide a definite yes.

So you accept in principle the people who attempted to kill Castro and did kill Alende have a case to answer?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
So you accept in principle the people who attempted to kill Castro and did kill Alende have a case to answer?

Not necessarily, like I said it would depend on specifics.

Although personally, I would cry if Castro caught a couple in the head.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not necessarily, like I said it would depend on specifics.

But the pertinent 'specifics' are the crimes, not the judicial process.

Although personally, I would cry if Castro caught a couple in the head.

So you feel, at least in principle, that murdering a head of state you dislike is acceptable?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
But the pertinent 'specifics' are the crimes, not the judicial process.

Can you rephrase that please?


So you feel, at least in principle, that murdering a head of state you dislike is acceptable?

Not quite but I am sure many people who dies in Castro's re-education facilities would be happy to see him go.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Can you rephrase that please?

Why?

Not quite but I am sure many people who dies in Castro's re-education facilities would be happy to see him go.

Although far from perfect, Castro is far more benign than many dictators who enjoy American support.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Why?

I don't quite understand the question is the reason.


Although far from perfect, Castro is far more benign than many dictators who enjoy American support.

That doesn't make his victims any happier.

[Ian Osborne]

What I'm interested in is why you're so reluctant to condemn assassinations or attempted assassinations conducted by or on behalf of the US government. I get the impression if I were to offer scenarios whereby the perpetrators could face trial, eg. in the Hague or before an American court, you would find fault with the specifics of the suggestion when in actual fact, what you object to is the idea that these Americans should answer for their crimes just like those America seeks to bring to justice elsewhere. Once again, is there any scenario you can think of where putting these people on trial would be the correct thing to do?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
What I'm interested in is why you're so reluctant to condemn assassinations or attempted assassinations conducted by or on behalf of the US government. I get the impression if I were to offer scenarios whereby the perpetrators could face trial, eg. in the Hague or before an American court, you would find fault with the specifics of the suggestion when in actual fact, what you object to is the idea that these Americans should answer for their crimes just like those America seeks to bring to justice elsewhere. Once again, is there any scenario you can think of where putting these people on trial would be the correct thing to do?

Because I view Castro and Bush Sr. a differently.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Because I view Castro and Bush Sr. a differently.

And Alende?

[epepke]

Some days, I think I'm the only person on the planet who remembers Bush as having made statements about wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein during his 2000 campaign.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
And Alende?

I'd have to think about that one.

[peptoabysmal]

Gee, you left out the "Because Bush's wife beats him and he had to take it out on someone" option.

:r:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by epepke
Some days, I think I'm the only person on the planet who remembers Bush as having made statements about wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein during his 2000 campaign.

No surprise there. We wanted him gone since Gulf War I. There was several resolution to support Iraqi National Congress or whatever it was called which basicly meant to recognize them as a government when they take out Saddam.