U.S. Diplomat Resigns in Protest

[MMMMMM]

Thanks Chris.

In considering the other parts of the scenario such as Iraqi WMD getting into the hands of terrorists (there are many scenarios whereby this could possibly occur; it doesn't necessarily have to be directly from Saddam to al Qaeda for instance--just one alternate scenario might involve, say, Hizbollah acquiring them through Syria or Lebanon, if these countries are acting as custodians for Saddam), obviously you and I assess the chances differently. I don't think it's 100% that Saddam's WMD will reach terrorist hands (if they haven't already), and I doubt you think it's zero percent. I'm sure we both agree that if it does somehow occur the results could be catastrophic.

Regarding Iraqi casualties of war, we'll just have to wait and see whether it's a huge bloodbath or a relatively controlled defeat for Saddam, possibly supported by many military defectors. There are enough unpredictable factors that I don't think much can be completely ruled out. Specifically, if Iraq does not use WMD in defense, I think casualties will probably be relatively low, but if Iraq does use their WMD and the US retaliates the carnage could be immense. Hopefully, Saddam will retain some degree of rationality and dignity to the end.

[Chris Alger]

I don't think that the likelihood of Iraqi WMD ending up in terrorists hand is at all relevant to the issue of war. It seems obvious to me that the whole discussion of this issue is designed to connect Iraq's WMD to the mass fears created by 9/11 with as much logic as trying to connect Iraq's WMD to fears of witchcraft.

First of all, we're not talking about the chances of WMD "ending up in the hands of" terrorists. The only government I know whose WMD have been stolen and used by terrorists is the U.S. (Ames strain weaponized anthrax), and nobody thinks we should be invaded because of that. The US is happy to support governments with WMD that could do the same. The issue is deliberate support of terrorism.

The propaganda connecting Iraqi WMD to terrorism rests on an untenable assumption that WMD create either the inclination or the ability of a state to foment terror. It makes no sense because WMD create neither.

Consider the ability to cause terror. With simple weapons like conventional explosives or even matches and gasoline and box cutters Iraq could wreak havoc throughout the U.S. and kill tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people over a short period of time.

Since the ability to forment terror exists without regard to possession of WMD, the fundamental discussion, if this were indeed a serious issue, would be Iraq's propensity to support terror. If that propensity exits, then action should be taken regardless of inspections, the UN, whatever. Indeed, if that propensity existed, the message from Washington would emphasize the evidence of Saddam's willingness to support terror against the US, and that this issue must be resolved independently and without regard to anything the inspectors find. Anything less would make US officials grossly negligent in their duties to protect the public.

The reason you don't see the issue framed like this is that Washington's evidence that Saddam is inclined toward terrorism is neither unique to Iraq nor timely. In fact, it refers mostly to incidents more than 20 years old. Here's the list from White House website:

a. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

b. Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

c. Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

Note how the cite ignores that the PLF expressly renounced terorrism after Oslo (1994) and hasn't been invovled in terror since, or that Abu Abbas was allowed into Gaza by Israel itself. Both Abu Nidal and his organization are dead and have been inactive since the 1980's.

The other incidents cited consist of the purported attempt to kill Bush the elder, the evidence for which is absurdly dubious (although accepted at face value throughout the corporate press), a supposed "training facility" for terrorists to which no actual terrorist has been linked, and Saddam's promise to compensate families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Regarding this last the site (and other official statements) misleadingly gloss over the fact that Saddam has promised compensation to any Palestinian killed for any reason in that conflict.

In short, you find the same partisanship toward Palestinian terrorists that you can find in many Arab countries, but that has nothing to do with terror against the U.S. The undeniable reality is that since Saddam came to power in 1979 there has not emerged a shred of evidence suggesting that the government of Iraq is responsible for any act of terror or attempted terror against the US or any of its citizens or property abroad.

It seems clear that the US is fanning 9/11 hysteria in order to conquer Iraq for unrelated reasons that it believes the public will find less persuasive. As a result, the public not only considers Iraq a terrorist threat, more than 80% of the U.S. public believes that Saddam is linked to Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

I would never support a government that used such cheap propaganda to manufacture consent for war.

[MMMMMM]

Well if that's all there is to it, why do Australia and Great Britain also claim that Iraq has links to al Qaeda?

Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't. I think it's better that Iraq not have that option.

[IrishHand]

Far as I can tell, Great Britain was bright enough to give up that hollow angle a while ago.

"Claims that the Iraqi regime is linked with al-Qaida were dropped when ministers failed to provide the evidence."
Richard Norton-Taylor article, The Guardian

Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't. I think it's better that Iraq not have that option.
What about basically every other country in the world? They all have "WMD". Maybe when we're finished with Iraq, we will purge the world of every country which might possibly, maybe, if they wanted give WMD to terrorists or use them themselves. Truly, we won't be safe until there isn't a single nation which might do so. (The fact that none have chosen to do so thus far doesn't matter, apparently.)

[MMMMMM]

All totalitarian governments should have to give up their WMD eventually--unless they reform and become elected governments. Totalitarianism/despotism are the scourges of humanity.

It really amazes me how you continually take positions seemingly supporting totalitarian, non-elected governments and leaders.

[IrishHand]

I don't support totalitarian governments - I just acknowledge their right to exist in the states in which they exist. I understand how many of them came into being, and I don't share your violent prejudice that any government not like ours is a "scourge" against humanity. Everything has it's time and place - and if democracy is destined to sweep the globe, I have great faith that it will do so in its own time. Going around forcing it on nations that either don't want it or don't have the infrastructure (economic, political, whatever) to support it is a waste of time and resources. (Nevermind the fact that no nation has demonstrated that it's actually intersted in or able to do so.)

And what on earth does a nation's government have with it's right to have WMD? One would think that every nation has a right to arm itself (or that none does). Whether my nations' ruler is Hussein, Bush, Chirac or Blair, as a citizen, I'd like to have a sense that I'm not going to be overrun by another nation and have my life upheaved. The reality that you choose to ignore is that no matter how the government is run, the choices to make and/or use WMD are made by a select few. You've noted that Bush should go to war regardless of what his people think - what makes a dictator any different? Because he's less accountable? Perhaps - but we've had Republicans make some of the most disgraceful decisions in this nation's history, and they still get elected (same for Democrats). Despite this, politicians don't get elected on personal virtue or merit - they're chosen generally by party affiliation with a touch of "personal platform" thrown in. Such are the joys of a two party system. We have two choices instead of the one that totalitarian states get. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Personally, I'd be happy if there were no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. As for governments...so long as the average citizen is able to live a happy, fulfilling life, I'm not too concerned. I have firsthand knowledge of countries governned by some of those dictators you hate (Cuba, Egypt), and the average citizens in each seemed to live positive lives. The information we get about Cuba in this country is particularly galling in light of what I learned about life there, but that's another matter. Certainly, there are advantages to living in the US, but there are also reasons that a reasonable person would prefer to live in those other countries (culture and community jump to mind, but there are others).

[MMMMMM]

"I don't support totalitarian governments - I just acknowledge their right to exist in the states in which they exist."

Existentially perhaps, but not morally.

" -and if democracy is destined to sweep the globe, I have great faith that it will do so in its own time. Going around forcing it on nations that either don't want it or don't have the infrastructure (economic, political, whatever) to support it is a waste of time and resources."

Let's not confuse the desires of the populace with the thugs in power: in Iran, most citizens want regime change but can't have it (yet). In China, look at Tiananmen Square. In Cuba, Castro imprisons dissidents who support democracy. I do agree that we can't force it on all nations, notr all nations ready for it--but morally speaking, Stalinists, Maoists, Castroites and Saddamites have no right to rule.

"And what on earth does a nation's government have with it's right to have WMD? One would think that every nation has a right to arm itself (or that none does)."

Everything. If you think a band of totalitarian thugs have as much right to nuclear weapons as do responsible democracies, we're miles apart in perspective.

"Whether my nations' ruler is Hussein, Bush, Chirac or Blair, as a citizen, I'd like to have a sense that I'm not going to be overrun by another nation and have my life upheaved."

If you lived under Hussein you would most likely WANT your life upheaved temporarily so that you could later live without constant fear of arbirtary arrests and torture for yourself or your loved ones. I certainly would. I recently read a statement by an Iraqi exile in Europe who said that she believed there is probably not a single family in Iraq which has not had some member or close relative "disappear" never to be heard from again.

"The reality that you choose to ignore is that no matter how the government is run, the choices to make and/or use WMD are made by a select few. You've noted that Bush should go to war regardless of what his people think - what makes a dictator any different?"

You really can't figure this one out?

"We have two choices instead of the one that totalitarian states get."

That's incredibly significant--sorry if you can't see why.

"As for governments...so long as the average citizen is able to live a happy, fulfilling life, I'm not too concerned."

Freedom above comfort. Maybe you wouldn't mind being a slave or a prisoner in your own country if you could lead a "happy, fulfilling life"--but I and many others sure would. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, those who are unwilling to sacrifice or die for freedom are doomed to eventually be conquered or enslaved. That's the sad history of the world--and allowing the worst tyrants to flourish (assuming we have it in our power to prevent them), or according their governments "equal rights" is sheer nonsense unless you would happily submit to slavery and imprisonment yourself. To support the "moral right" totalitarian governments to exist is an affront to the human rights, liberties and human dignities of the entire human race. By so doing, you are ideologically supporting slavery and worse.

[IrishHand]

Do you realize that there isn't a single argument in your post? You use colorful words like "thugs" or "responsible", you label your position as "morally right", and you express deep sorrow that I don't share your perspective. Do you really think you're arguing something?

How about I make it easy for you - I know what you think, I have a vague idea of why you think it, and I have yet to see good reasons to agree with much of it. You really don't need to be stating your position over and over again. The moment you want to offer actual reasons why it's ok for democracies to have WMD and not non-democracies, let me know. Same goes for why you think it's consistent to preach that democracy is the only morally correct approach, while thinking it's ok for an elected administration to follow policies which are opposed both by it's constituency and the majority of the world (both democratic and otherwise).

[Chris Alger]

No, the only issue is why Australia and Great Britain also claim that Iraq has links to al Qaeda despite the absence of any additional evidence? There's an interesting question of dependency and "junior partner" relations, but it has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Otherwise, do you suppose the leaders of Australia and G. Britain have some special ability to discern facts that no one else can see, but cannot share them with a world, or even their constitutents, even as they are denounced as lapdogs and liars?

"Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't."

Since same applies to Syrian or Japan or the U.S., this is a meaningless statement. More importantly, the absence of hard evidence suggesting a propensity for Iraqi terrorism means the US leadership is lying about the justification for war. We either reject this perversion of leadership in a democracy, or are no better off than the subjects of a dictatorship.

"I think it's better that Iraq not have that option."

Iraqi refugees and dissidents to the war will both retain that option and have more reason to use it. A war based on lies is more likely to create terrorism than prevent it.

[MMMMMM]

If you want to support the "rights" of murderous tyrants, that's your (sorry) business. All the people living under their heels apparently don't matter to you anyway. The dictators have "rights" to execute or imprison all dissidents and yet still vote at the U.N.-----I'd LMAO if it weren't so sad, tragic and absurd. It's as absurd as Islamists refusing to allow women to vote, attend school or drive in their own countries, and making it a capital offense to proselytize other religions, yet in the U.S. these same Islamists cry out against the slightest whiff of discrimination--as if much worse discrimination doesn't exist in their home countries against Christians and Jews?It's illegal in these countries to preach another religion, but it's wrong for the FBI to count mosques here? Don't the words double-standard mean anything to you?

Elected officials don't always do what the majority wants on every single issue--that's why we elect them instead of holding national referendums on everything. It's an imperfect system, but it's less imperfect than anything else that's been tried so far. Also, if you cast out the votes of all totalitarian governments in the U.N. I bet the remaining vote would be in favor of war. Most of the European governments are, certainly.

I'm not going waste further time attempting to convince the unconvincable, and I'm becoming inclined to follow suit with Tom Haley.