My Take On The War

[David Sklansky]

I believe some of the dissension between pro war and anti war people could be eliminated if we recognized that there were good reasons to go to war but that those reasons were not the ones we used.

The good reasons are that Iraq knows how to makes weapons of mass destruction, is likely to do just that given the fact that they send money to the family of suicide bombers, and that they are brutal toward internal dissent.

Unfortunately we could not use those reasons since lots of other countries would fear being targeted next for the same reasons. Therefore we had to use reasons we were less sure of. That they have WMDs right now and that the man in the street hates their regime so much that they would welcome our incursion. Undoubtedly the US was not really sure of these things but pretended to be, figuring it was 80% to be true and even if it wasn't the war was right anyway. The problem of course is that if the 20% shot comes in we will be reluctant to admit that the reasons we gave were not our real ones.

[brad]

iran is next. the draft is coming. liberties are going/gone (patriot act/ homeland security/ coming patriot 2). globalism is destroying american worker (nafta/gatt etc.).

saying no to the war is saying no to all of the above.

[David Sklansky]

I meant to say that Iraq can easily make WMDs in the future and that their support of suicide bombers makes it likely that they will give them to terrorists.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps. Note however that

a. The Cheney, Wolfovitz, Rumsfelds type have wanted to do this much before 9/11 so the funding of suicide bombers in Israel reason is suspect
b. It is quite likely that N. Korea, Libya, Pakistan, India, Iran, possibly Syria/Cuba have acquired or are interested in acquiring WMD, so why Iraq?
c. Brutality in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Syria (and depending on your view point i suppose: Palestine by Israelis) continues and will continue unabated. Where is voice of america in these places? It is probably most in Iraq at the moment, but I would suggest that this reason by itself as there is no US interest.

The question therefore is a> why Iraq and b> why now?

The cynic would say follow the money trail, the fearful would say brutal regime may be involved in subsequent attacks (pre-emption argument). The administration has covered all bases by publicly invoking every possible reason -- so something will be right at the end.

[BruceZ]

I agree with that, that the reasons we gave we are not sure of, but they are the most convincing, and the war was right for other reasons which would be less convincing. There is also the matter of Iraq being in violation of terms of surrender from a previous war for 12 years, which makes it a convenient and convincing target for a just war.

Now, do you feel that this should be a total struggle for survival which should have no rules of war or Geneva Convention rules as you say in Poker Gaming and Life?

[Stu Pidasso]

Since they have a history of attacking their nieghbors(Iran, Kuwait, Suadi Arabia, Isreal, etc) it makes the case for war to prevent them from obtaining( disarming if they already have them) even stronger. Iraq has also tried to assinate a former president of the United States. It is extremely difficult to say this is not a dangerous regime.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

and depending on your view point i suppose: Palestine by Israelis

If it were not for the United States, the Arabs would push the Isrealis into the sea. If it were not for the United States, the Isrealis would push the Palistinians into the sea.

The Cheney, Wolfovitz, Rumsfelds type have wanted to do this much before 9/11

President Clinton advocated a policy of regime change in Iraq as well. He lacked the motivation to go to war over it though.

The question therefore is a> why Iraq and b> why now?

Iraq is the button and we are in the cutoff. The real threat to us comes from Iran and Suadi Arabia. In the poker game of geopolitics, the war in Iraq is a position raise.

Stu

[David Sklansky]

I stand by my Geneva convention statement. We can discuss that in another thread. That doesn't mean that I believe that all acts are justified. But setting out rules beforehand is ridiculous. Would you cheat at cards if your family died if you didn't? Abiding by certain rules only makes sense if both sides gain from abiding.

[Chris Alger]

1. Iraq’s provision of money to the families of all Palestinian “martyrs,” without distinguishing between Palestinian murderers and Palestinian victims, hardly suggests any likelihood that Iraq will in the future provide WMD to terrorists. (You are aware that it is not only the families of suicide bombers to whom Iraq sends money?) Iraq has had the ability to give WMD to terrorists for about 20 years but has refused to so (given the likely assumption that the suicide bombers would prefer them). One could argue with equal force that Iraq’s track record indicates that it draws a line between compensation for death and the actual provision of weapons, and therefore that Iraq is no more likely than any other country to give WMD to terrorists (and in fact is less likely to do so than “country X”).

This is plausible for a number of reasons, not the least of which are (1) Israel’s overwhelming retaliatory power; (2) suicide bombers aren’t likely to be motivated by money, so giving their families money isn’t likely to increase the overall level of terror, a fact that has some empirical support; (3) WMD are a sanctions issue that Iraq ostensibly would like to go away, but giving money to Palestinians is not; and (4) Iraq is doing the same thing that other US allies do, so Iraq has little reason to believe that it has crossed some line. “Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar – both U.S. allies – pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.” CBS News, 4/3/3. This last point strongly suggests that US and Israeli officials don't believe that "money for martyrs" is much of a negative, and that the issue has prominence only because of its ability to manufacture consent for war.
http://216.239.57.100/custom?q=cache:PmyjLfL1AlYC:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml+"associated+press"+"suicide+bombers"+"april+3"&hl=en&start=4&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.57.100/custom?q=cache:PmyjLfL1AlYC:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml+)

2. Recent history and common sense show that knowing “how to make” WMD doesn’t imply a WMD threat and that war is not necessary to eliminate such a threat if one arises. It is not disputed that the bulk of Iraq’s WMD’s and facilities for making them were destroyed prior to 1998. Nor is it disputed that subsequent inspections have not revealed any evidence of current WMD stockpiles or reactivated WMD facilities. Even after inspections stopped in 1998, the available evidence suggests that Iraq’s WMD program remained destroyed. According to UNMOVIC (March 7), “No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections.” http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf (The central inspections issue is Iraq’s accounting for weapons manufactured in the 1980's). Defense experts have been saying for years that terrorists are at least as likely to acquire WMD from countries the US supports (e.g., Pakistan and Russia). War and regime change are therefore neither the exclusive nor preferred method of limiting their proliferation, apparently according to, among others, the US officials prosecuting the current war.

3. The better argument is that Iraq’s record of domestic brutality justifies regime replacement. I agree and in fact don’t think it's even arguable. However, the US record of ignoring and even supporting domestic brutality, particularly in the Middle East and including in Iraq, and including most cases where the US has “changed regimes,” strongly suggests that the US will do little to improve Iraq’s domestic politics in the long term and in fact could worsen a situation that might well improve if Saddam were replaced or superceded by more legitimate forces from within. Vague notions that the US might improve human rights or “install(?)” a democracy no more justify the guaranteed horrors of war than similar sentiments by foreign actors justify violence against the US. For example, since 1990 far more Iraqis perished as a result of the Gulf War (not including sanctions) than have perished at the hands of Saddam and his henchmen. Despite the surface appeal of the endless Hitler analogies, most people sensibly consider mass violence to be a dangerous and counterproductive method for advancing the cause of human rights.

4. Your statement “Unfortunately we could not use those reasons since lots of other countries would fear being targeted next for the same reasons” makes no sense. Either the “real” or “better” reasons for the war are apparent, or they aren’t. They either suggest that the US is inclined to attack other countries or they aren’t. The reasons that the US invokes to justify its actions have little to do with the motives that other countries ascribe to the US and their tendency to act according to their perceptions.

5. No discussion of this war is complete without referencing the domestic fallout from 9/11. The people prosecuting this war were on record as favoring it before 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet because of 9/11 the war is now being fought. These facts are the starting point for any honest discussion about why this war is happening.

[Cyrus]

I agree with your argument, although I happen to believe that there's more in the reasoning for the invasion of Iraq than the points you mentioned. But I am interested in the following statement you made : "Iraq knows how to makes weapons of mass destruction, [and] is likely to do just that given the fact that they send money to the family of suicide bombers."

Sending money to suicide bombers' families means that they are ready to use nuclear weapons?! There is a little difference of scale, if I'm not mistaken. This looks like quite a big leap of logic.

(On the issue of priorities, the Iraqis do not place at the top of the list of those giving money to suicide bombers' families. The Saudis and the Iranians have first and second.)

[Cyrus]

1. Possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction outside international law and treaties? CHECK

2. Forbidding inspections by the UN or the IEA? CHECK.

3. Repeatedly invading neighboring countries? CHECK.

4. Conducting illegal activities, including assassinations, in other countries? CHECK

5. Conducting espionage against the United States? CHECK

6. Ignoring and/or continuously violating UN Security Council's Resolutions? CHECK

...Would you agree to have the above as the criteria for characterizing a nation as a rogue state and for intervention, by the UN or the US, in that nation's affairs with measures that may include military action? I'm not talking against superpowers. Think carefully.

[Tuco]

"Nor is it disputed that subsequent inspections have not revealed any evidence of current WMD stockpiles or reactivated WMD facilities. Even after inspections stopped in 1998, the available evidence suggests that Iraq’s WMD program remained destroyed."

I generally enjoy reading your posts, and even agree alot of the time, but you have really backed yourself into a corner with this statement Chris. Do you really believe that Saddam has no WMD? There are lots of credible Iraqi ex-pats who tell of the "shell game" that Iraq played with WMD and the UN inspection teams.

In any case, we will find out shortly.

Tuco.

[Cyrus]

"iran is next. the draft is coming. liberties are going/gone (patriot act/ homeland security/ coming patriot 2). globalism is destroying american worker (nafta/gatt etc.). saying no to the war is saying no to all of the above."

I agree with the thrust of your points but I would like to point out something about the draft : In my humble opinion, an army that's based on general conscription is far better for democary than is an army of mercenaries or professional soldiers. The reasons should be obvious.

[brad]

well its gonna be a universal draft, no exemptions, although if you are CO you can dig ditches here in US.

men and women btw.

basically its slavery. so you can see how it fits into the above.

[B-Man]

Sending money to suicide bombers' families means that they are ready to use nuclear weapons?! There is a little difference of scale, if I'm not mistaken. This looks like quite a big leap of logic.

Different scale, sure. But the thinking behind those actions is the same. Anyone who directly or indirectly supports terrorists and promotes the murder of innocent civilians, for reasons based on nothing more than hatred and prejudice, is a very sick individual (there are some people who post on this board that fit this description, but I digress... I am talking about Saddam). The man is a maniacal killer. If he would promote terrorist killings in Israel, there is no reason to think he wouldn't promote them in the U.S., which is a far bigger threat to his regime than Israel.

[Clarkmeister]

Since Iraq hasn't given or sold chemical weapons to terrorists in the 20 years of Saddams regime, it is quite a leap to suggest that suddenly they are likely to do so in the future.

In fact, this strikes me as one of the least persuasive reasons to invade.

[Cyrus]

"Anyone who directly or indirectly supports terrorists and promotes the murder of innocent civilians, for reasons based on nothing more than hatred and prejudice, is a very sick individual."

I agree completely -- and, what's more, without your qualifier about the basis of "hatred and prejudice". Even when someone makes a logically-sounding argument in favor of murdering innocent civilians, that someone is a very sick individual. And maybe even more so.

"The thinking behind [using nuclear weapons and the suicide bombers] is the same. I am talking about Saddam. The man is a maniacal killer. If he would promote terrorist killings in Israel, there is no reason to think he wouldn't promote them in the U.S., which is a far bigger threat to his regime than Israel."

I do not doubt that Saddam is a scumbag, that he's behind lots of terrorist activities and that he would gladly do more if allowed to. The point is not about any of that, however. The point is whether Saddam would ever use nuclear weapons. David Sklansky considers this as a certainty on the basis of Saddam's financing of the suicide bombers' families. I believe that nukes are in another league entirely and that Saddam, being the wily and cautious fox that he is, would not commit suicide. (Not him!)

Of course, all this assumes that Saddam already possesses nukes, as the United States insist.

[Clarkmeister]

"Of course, all this assumes that Saddam already possesses nukes, as the United States insist."

I haven't seen any US officials make this claim. The most aggressive thing I recall hearing US officials state is that Saddam, if left alone, could develop a nuke in 3-5 years.

[B-Man]

I do not doubt that Saddam is a scumbag, that he's behind lots of terrorist activities and that he would gladly do more if allowed to. The point is not about any of that, however. The point is whether Saddam would ever use nuclear weapons. David Sklansky considers this as a certainty on the basis of Saddam's financing of the suicide bombers' families. I believe that nukes are in another league entirely and that Saddam, being the wily and cautious fox that he is, would not commit suicide. (Not him!)

I agree nuclear weapons are in a different league, but I also think Saddam would, given the chance, provide a nuke to terrorists to sneak into New York or Washington. Of course this is a matter of opinion neither of us can prove, but I agree with Sklansky. Furthermore, given that the stakes are so high, why would you even take the chance of allowing this nightmare scenario to happen? The world will be a safer place when Saddam is removed; furthermore, the Iraqi people will be much better off. This isn't the justification for the war, but it will be one of the effects.

Of course, all this assumes that Saddam already possesses nukes, as the United States insist.

The U.S. has never insisted that Saddam possesses nukes. If you have a source for this, please cite it. I think you are mixing "weapons of mass destruction" with nukes; WMD includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. We know Saddam had chemical (which he actually used) and biological weapons in the past, and he has not accounted for his huge stock of chemical weapons which was to have been destroyed. I suspect we will find out very soon what happened to it; this morning it was reported that chemical-protective suits and a tank were wound inside an Iraqi hospital.

[Chris Alger]

As far as I know, the statements I made above are entirely accurate. "We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet," one unnamed UNMOVIC official told Los Angeles Times Baghdad correspondent Sergei Loiko (12/31/02), who added: "The inspector said his colleagues think it possible that Iraq really has eliminated its banned materials."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-weapons.html

This doesn't imply that Iraq complied with 1441, or failed to deceive (the old) UNSCOM inspectors, or is unlikley to have hidden some prohibited weapons somewhere. On the face of things, however, it appears that Iraq has no WMD at all.

The subject is purely academic because the US launched the war while Iraq was cooperating with inspectors and before the inspections could finish their job. Weirdly, the media spin on this decision is that if the US finds any WMD anywhere in Iraq, that the US will have been proven right.

It's interesting that the same source that revealed Iraq's pattern of deceiving the UN also claimed that all Iraqi WMD were destroyed years ago. His statement surfaced with scant media attention only last month although it has been known for years both by US and UN officials. The same weapons that he claims were secretly destroyed are the ones that Iraq has not been able to account for.

The source was Gen. Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, who defected in August 1995, returned to Iraq in 1996 and was executed shortly thereafter. He claimed that "all" WMD were destroyed in order to have sanctions repealed, and that they were destroyed in secret in order to reinvigorate the program at some later date.

Here are some statements about Iraq's WMD program that were based on his revelations:

Bush, 10/7/2: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."

Powell's 2/5/3: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."

Cheney, 8/27/02: Kamel's story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."

Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, 2/16/3: "because of information provided by Iraqi defector and former head of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation commitments."

Kamel nevertheless told the UNSCOM on 8/22/95 that ""All weapons-- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." Accoridng to Newsweek, Kamal told the CIA the same thing. Here's a link to the transcript of Kamel's interview: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf

Here's a more readable link analyzing the disclosure:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html
.

[Clarkmeister]

"The subject is purely academic because the US launched the war while Iraq was cooperating with inspectors and before the inspections could finish their job. Weirdly, the media spin on this decision is that if the US finds any WMD anywhere in Iraq, that the US will have been proven right."

I'm against the war and disagree that finding WMD will justify the war. However, Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors is utterly meaningless if it is proven they lied about having no WMD in its posession. In fact, if it is proven they did lie about posessing WMD, it follows that they didn't , in fact, cooperate with the inspectors. So I don't think the media spin is particularly 'wierd'. Based on the terms in which Bush has defined the issue, their spin is actually correct. I just happen to disagree with the terms in which Bush has defined the issue.

[Chris Alger]

I might have put it badly. I meant that the media is spinning the story as if any discovery of WMD will vindicate the war, although this is plainly untrue (unless one accepts the premise that war is a "reward" for the US if it catches Iraq lying). Blix pointed out that even if Iraq had disarmed, proving this to the UN's satisfaction would take months and even years. If this process had continued, and if during it the inspectors discovered a final cache of weapons and destroyed them, leaving Iraq effectively disarmed, then that will have proven that no war was necessary to disarm Iraq. IMO, this is the likely reason that the White House was determined to go to war before the inspections process could play itself out.

As for whether Iraqi lies makes their cooperation meangingless, it depends on how big the lies are compared to the degree of cooperation. Iraq's disarmament would make prior lies meaningless, by definition. Lies and obstruction failed to prevent UNSCOM from discoverying and destroying vast amounts of WMD stockpiles, production facilities and from effectively terminating Iraq's nascent nuclear weapons program. There is no reason to believe that additional delays by Iraq would prevent the process from coming to a satisfactory conclusion, unless of course one wants a war for different reasons.

[MMMMMM]

In David's post entitled "I Left Out A Sentence" he clarifies:

David Sklansky: "I meant to say that Iraq can easily make WMDs in the future and that their support of suicide bombers makes it likely that they will give them to terrorists."

[MMMMMM]

1. It's certainly debatable just how likely Saddam is to give WMD to terrorists, but it cannot reasonably be ruled out given his hatred of the USA and Israel, and his sympathies with terrorist suicide bombers. I don't think we should be dependent on Saddam's good graces or on his sanity for our security. If WMD are provided to terrorist organizations we will be facing enormous dangers and it therefore behooves us to prevent this scenario to the extent we can.

2. While the bulk of Iraq's WMD was destroyed, there are still many thousands of liters of the worst toxins unaccounted for. Do you really believe Iraq destroyed all these unilaterally as it claims.

3. The human rights argument is strong. I have more confidence than you that we will not install another brutal dictator to lead Iraq. This is not the 1970's during the Cold War. The geopolitical picture is very different, plus I believe we have learned from some of our past mistakes.

4. You state categorically that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, IMO it probably didn't, but it is a mistake to totally rule out that possibility. Just a minor detail since I don't think that argument is necessary to justify the war.

5. Iraq will be an excellent staging ground from which to assist the people of Iran in overthrowing their Mad Mullahs and instituting a democratic-style government. Iran is actually fairly ripe for such a revolution, and the people are more Westernized and progressive than in many other Arab countries. Also, from Iraq we can force Syria to stop supporting terror, and we can disarm Hizbollah. With secure flow of Iraqi oil, we will be less dependent on the Saudis and can work more actively to encourage them to reform their hard-line Wahhabism which they are currently exporting all over the world, and which is a major ideological component of many jihad warriors. I consider these worthy goals although many will disagree with me.

6. Appeasing rulers such as Saddam never works. Appeasing militant Islam never works either. Neither should be permitted the chance to threaten us or our allies with weapons of mass destruction.

[Chris Alger]

Cheney in particular has repeatedly insinuated that Iraq is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Here he is on Meet the Press last week:

NBC: "And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?"

Cheney: "I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. … We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong."
http://216.239.39.100/custom?q=cache:sWgkxKUadWYJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Khadduri_Cheney-BogusNuke.htm+cheney+iraq+nuclear+weapons&hl=en&st art=10&ie=UTF-8

But if you look at what the CIA actually says, Cheney is the one who's guilty of deception: "Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

If Iraq acquires weapons grade plutonium, it can build a bomb fairly quickly. Many countries can. The problem is that Iraq and many other countries have been trying for years to do this but haven't succeeded.

Here's what Scott Ritter, UNSCOM inspector says about Iraq's nuclear program prior to 1998:

"Of the four categories, nuclear is the one that was most thoroughly eradicated; two aspects of the program, weaponization and enrichment. Enrichment is 100 percent eradicated. We destroyed the facilities. We destroyed the means of production. And of all the aspects of weapons of mass destruction, this is the one that's most difficult to reconstitute. It would require a major reacquisition of technology, almost all of which is controlled technology, very difficult to obtain even under the most favorable of circumstances, especially not easy when you have economic sanctions and the entire world's collective intelligence apparatus looking at you. And then you'd have to rebuild the facilities, which again is eminently detectable, not something that's done underground or in a basement or in a cave. And again, void of any data or facts that show Iraq has done this, don't need to worry about enrichment."
http://216.239.39.100/custom?q=cache:JzZ_dGO0m48C:www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm%3FitemID%3D2293%26sectionID%3D21 +cheney+iraq+nuclear+weapons&hl=en&start=6&ie=UTF-8

Here's what the IAEA said (March 7) about the results of its most recent inspections, which included sites flagged by US and UK intelligence agencies:

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
http://216.239.39.100/custom?q=cache:sWgkxKUadWYJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Khadduri_Cheney-BogusNuke.htm+cheney+iraq+nuclear+weapons&hl=en&st art=10&ie=UTF-8

The problem with claims that Iraq is within 3 years of acquiring nukes is that Iraq has been within 3 years since 1991.

[Chris Alger]

"The U.S. has never insisted that Saddam possesses nukes. If you have a source for this, please cite it."

Cheney on Meet the Press last week: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
http://216.239.39.100/custom?q=cache:sWgkxKUadWYJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Khadduri_Cheney-BogusNuke.htm+cheney+iraq+nuclear+weapons&hl=en&st art=10&ie=UTF-8

[B-Man]

I suspect what he meant was that Iraq has a nuclear program and parts (including the aluminum centrifuges that have been publicized).

I have heard many claims of Iraq having chemical and biological weapons (indeed, we know they had both of those in the past), but have not heard the U.S. or anyone else accuse Iraq of actually possessing functional nuclear weapons.

[Chris Alger]

1. War is only justified as self-defense. You can't justify war because of your inability to "rule out" a future attack based on some despot's cheap rhetoric.

2. The same source to provided UNSCOM with the evidence that these weapons existed claimed they were "all" destroyed. Justifying war on the grounds of WMD that can't be identified and might not exist is no more defensible than war mongering for its own sake.

3. Name one leader who thinks the US made any "past mistakes" regarding human rights and how they propose to avoid repeating them. The US right remains unrepetent for its support for pro-US dictators and terrorists. Mainstream liberals acknowledge "mistakes," but never crimes.

4. See 1.

5. This is a more likely reason for the war: so the US can use Iraq as a staging ground to conquer the Middle East, and then perhaps much of the rest of the world. That the US would try to acquire such unprecedented power in order to surrender it to the Arab masses is unbelievably naive and, frankly, stupid. You don't seem to have any understanding of why imperialism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.

6. Appeasement is not the only alternative to war. If it is, then the US "appeased" a terrorist, expansionist and aggressive dictatorship in S. Africa (that had WMD) and the denouement worked out rather well.

[Jimbo]

"5. This is a more likely reason for the war: so the US can use Iraq as a staging ground to conquer the Middle East, and then perhaps much of the rest of the world.

Chris I agree with you here, this is a very good reason to pursue the war in Iraq.

That the US would try to acquire such unprecedented power in order to surrender it to the Arab masses is unbelievably naive and, frankly, stupid. You don't seem to have any understanding of why imperialism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.

Unfortunately you are mistaken here. We will replace the regime in Iraq and perhaps pressure Iran as well. At the same time we will use our new-found influence to find an equitable solution of the Palestine/Israeli crisis. Then we will do as we promised, pack up and leave the region (other than a minimal military presence such as we have in the past) and watch the region go to hell again in a few short years. If only we were smart enough to occupy the Middle East permanently, alas we are naive and stupid when it comes to allowing others to determine their destiny. Remember "America Knows Best!"

[MMMMMM]

CA: 1. War is only justified as self-defense. You can't justify war because of your inability to "rule out" a future attack based on some despot's cheap rhetoric.

M: On the contrary, I think that is an excellent justification for pre-emptive strikes especially if WMD attacks are threatened. North Korea will either deal or or have their nuclear reactors "pre-empted";-) In fact I would take the administration's doctrine a step further perhaps and even consider forcing China to de-nuke once we have a missile shield capable of stopping their two dozen or so nuclear weapons.

CA: 2. The same source to provided UNSCOM with the evidence that these weapons existed claimed they were "all" destroyed. Justifying war on the grounds of WMD that can't be identified and might not exist is no more defensible than war mongering for its own sake.

M: See 1.

3. Name one leader who thinks the US made any "past mistakes" regarding human rights and how they propose to avoid repeating them. The US right remains unrepetent for its support for pro-US dictators and terrorists. Mainstream liberals acknowledge "mistakes," but never crimes.

M: Jimmy Carter?

4. See 1.

CA: 5. This is a more likely reason for the war: so the US can use Iraq as a staging ground to conquer the Middle East, and then perhaps much of the rest of the world. That the US would try to acquire such unprecedented power in order to surrender it to the Arab masses is unbelievably naive and, frankly, stupid. You don't seem to have any understanding of why imperialism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.

M: Actually, Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. Nevertheless there is hope that the Arab world will someday choose to secularize...if only for pragmatic reasons. Until such time, a strong U.S. presence in the Middle East is necessary, and hopefully the Middle East can be led in the direction of democracy and human rights instead of dictatorships and Islamofascism.

CA: 6. Appeasement is not the only alternative to war. If it is, then the US "appeased" a terrorist, expansionist and aggressive dictatorship in S. Africa (that had WMD) and the denouement worked out rather well.

M: We are embarking on a slow step-by-step process to rid the world of dictatorships and fascism. Welcome democracy, freedom, and "might for right"...and good riddance to totalitarianism. Despots the world over had better rethink their positions. No longer can ruthless gangs of thugs count on hiding behind the veil of "sovereignty" to protect their non-representative regimes, their illicit and immoral reigns. Terrorists too will increasingly find it more difficult to hide.

[brad]

lets remember that iraq got chem/bio wmd straight from US.

now lets think about that.

[Mark Heide]

David,

Your percentages are interesting and I would like to know how you came up with these figures.

Anyway, I don't see this conflict as a new war, but a continuation of the original conflict that started with Kuwait. When Kuwait started flooding the market with cheap oil, they were strongly urged to comply with OPEC. They didn't. Iraq perceived this as a threat to their economy, since they had just finished up the war with Iran, and wanted to keep the price up oil up. When Kuwait didn't listen, Saddam Hussein decided to invade, just like any other third world military type leader. His mistake was that he didn't figure the US to get involved. Once he realized that he would be defeated during the gulf war, he negotiated with the US to keep them out of Baghdad. I believe the negotiation on the US part was a mistake, and they should have settled it then by invading Badhdad and getting rid of Hussein then.

I think that it was these past events that were never resolved properly. The US has found it impossible to deal with Hussein. If you look at all the other Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, you will see that they are led by leaders that know how to negotiate with the US, even if they are the breeding ground for terrorists.

In my opinion, the real reason for war is to eliminate the Hussein regime, and replace them with a regime that is willing to work with it's neighboors and the West, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Futhermore, it already has been said in the past that the Iraqi oil will be used to pay for the war and rebuild Iraq.

Mark

[MMMMMM]

And after we think about it?

[Cyrus]

When all is said and done, I would rather have David Sklansky as National Security Advisor than anyone else. Honestly.

(Mason Malmuth would head State, on the basis of his inter-personal skills.)

[Cyrus]

"We will use our new-found influence to find an equitable solution of the Palestine/Israeli crisis."

Excuse me but what is that "new-found influence"? You must be suggesting that the war in Iraq will somehow make the United States more popular and influential with the rest of the world's governments and peoples. I do not see where such a speculation can be based.

Relations with Arab nations, in particular, which are key to peace in the region, are already at an all-time low, since there's no reasonable resolution to the central Middle East issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in sight.

How lower can you get?

"We will replace the regime in Iraq and perhaps pressure Iran as well."

Any chance of pressuring also Israel ? (Pretty please?)

[Jimbo]

"Excuse me but what is that "new-found influence"? You must be suggesting that the war in Iraq will somehow make the United States more popular and influential with the rest of the world's governments and peoples. I do not see where such a speculation can be based."

Our new found influence will be force and 250,000 US troops sitting on their doorstep. How hard was that to figure out? The middle Eastern countries understand forceful diplomacy quite well, much better than diplomacy alone. As far as popularity contests we should leave those to past democrat presidents, they seem most interested in winning these.


"Any chance of pressuring also Israel ? (Pretty please?)" Wasn't that clear when I said we would attempt to resolve the Palestine/Israeli conflict?

[Cyrus]

"Our new found influence will be force and 250,000 US troops sitting on their doorstep. How hard was that to figure out? The middle Eastern countries understand forceful diplomacy quite well, much better than diplomacy alone."

Oh. I see. That kind of influence! The military influence. Well, it doesn't seem like a promising recipe for peace in the Middle East, seeing as it has been tried for some five decades now, again and again, one way or another. But you never know.

"Wasn't that clear [that Israel must also be pressured] when I said we would attempt to resolve the Palestine/Israeli conflict?"

Well, forgive my apprehension but past attempts by American administrations did not exactly involve any real pressure towards Israel. The sole, if mild, exception had been George Bush Sr and see where that got him with the Jewish-American vote in 1992 !

If an American President suddenly decides to confront the Israeli-Palestinian issue head on and truly resolve it, he has a formidable opponent at home to deal with, first and foremost. Good luck with that.