question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[Chris Alger]

Who's going to liberate them from the guy we replace him with? You insist this is paranoid speculation, but at the same time you profess ignorance or casually dismiss the horrible things the US has done to other countries in pursuit of its interests, tending to define them as "not as bad" and therefore unworthy of concern. The response is obvious: one doesn't engage in something as horrifically destructive and risky as war on the grounds that the new boss will probably be better than the old one.

Here's an example. It was reported today that the quid pro quo for Turkey's support for the invasion was that Turkey itself gets to invade the (now largely autonomous) Kurdish regions of Iraq. The reason for this is that the Turks don't like the idea of autonomous Kurds. The details aren't yet clear, but the Kurds are furious because they're more terrified of the Turkish army than they are of Saddam. What if the Turks do the Kurds in Iraq what they've done to the Kurds in Turkey (i.e., kill tens of thousands of them)? How will the Kurds have been "liberated" by the U.S. under that scenario?

[B-Man]

2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant.

Typical Chris Alger reasoning--two wrongs make a right (or, as usual, any alleged wrongful act committed by Israel means everyone in the world has the right to commit wrongful acts, and the U.S. has no right to do anything about it).

[adios]

"Rhetoric aside, no one seriously believes that Saddam's violation of UN disarmament resolutions, by itself, justifies war."

Oh really? hmmmm........ I disagree but that's ok.

"If his potential for aggression (internally and externally) can be contained without complete disarmament, then it makes no difference whether he's 50% disarmed or 100%."

A big if but you would know for sure.

"As it stands right now, Saddam has remained boxed in a no-fly zone for 10 years, his small airforce is at half-strength, his army is 1/3 the size it was in 1990, his armored divisions are in disrepair and he has no Navy. It is not likely that Saddam's army can even train for an invasion. Contrast this to a large US military presence in the Gulf and surrounding region that wasn't there when he invaded Kuwait."

Enforcing the UN resolution should be easy and painless then if there's no resistance.

"Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred."

First of all your dredging up an over 10 year old war. Second of all if we would have supported him in earnest he would have won the war instead the standoff that resulted with both sides being slaughtered. So methinks you exaggerate and are bringing up something that is irrelevant today and you're just throwing crap against the wall.

"Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred."

Again since he's powerless there won't be much resistance to enforcing the relevant UN resolutions.

'There are three arguments you hear to the contrary:

1. Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S."

Maybe you hear it but I don't.

An interview with Bush today. That's not his position at all.

Bush Presses U.N. to Back Action Vs. Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._wh/us_iraq_28

"2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant."

The implication here is that:

a) the UN acts at the USA's beck and call and is totally controlled by the USA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

b) the UN is a useless organization for imposing international law.

This is perfect example of throwing crap at the wall to see how much sticks. No mention in Chris's words that "the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states makes it irrelevant" by the Security Council members. No linkage for imposing UN resolutions on Iraq and Israel have been proposed by Security Council members either. Perhaps they should be.

"3. We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains."

What's your source for this one? I've never heard this justification.

"Two more points:

1. The US cannot be trusted to refrain from invading Iraq even if Iraq disarms. Complete disarmament of all conventional and WMD would therefore render the people of Iraq as well as Saddam vulnerable to a war of aggression. This is part of the current dispute over the range of Iraq's missiles."

You're entitled to your opinion. It's interesting that you're waffling here. Above your implication that Iraq is impotent as far as having a defense capability so there is no need to disarm and here your implication is that they need their defense capability as a deterrent to the potential for naked US agression. Perhaps they, Iraq, should be allowed to develop a few Nukes and maintain a stockpile of WMD's to further deter the threat of naked US agression.

"2. The disarmament process has only been taking place in earnest for a few years, although it has achieved concrete results. It could take a decade or more, but the trend is for Iraq to become grandually more impotent."

Blix and Annan have drawn their line in the sand. Iraq is refusing compliance. We'll see what happens.

I guess what I take from this is that you believe the UN process isn't worth very much.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "...one doesn't engage in something as horrifically destructive and risky as war on the grounds that the new boss will probably be better than the old one."

Isn't that just what we what we did in Serbia/Bosnia and in Afghanistan? And weren't the replacements better?

Now add to today's equation the likelihood that Saddam's replacement will be better by virtue of the fact that despots generally don't run much worse than Saddam.

[Chris Alger]

I was under the impression that it was the proponents of war that had the burden of proof. Maybe I'm old school. You still haven't explained:

(1) how Iraq's violation of UN resolutions can justify war while Turkey's and Israel's can't even justify cutting lethal aid, much less the slightest attempt to enforce UN resolutions against them; and

(2) how, given the above, that violating UN resolutions can possibly be the real reason this war is going to happen. There has to be some other reason that renders UN resolutions either pretext or only part of the case.

[Chris Alger]

"1) Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions. If countries want the UN to address this issue as well as the issue of Iraq disarmerment perhaps some sort of "linkage" needs to be proposed by those countries that feel that way."

It has been by dozens of countries time and again, it's called "enforcement of UN resolutions," period, as opposed to war as the sole means of enforcing those ones that fit the US agenda and forgetting about those that don't. And Israel isn't the only one.

"Perhaps the UN process is flawed in such a way that it can't be effective."

The only procedural problem with enforcing the resolutions against Israel is the US veto power in the security council.

"However, to ignore the process and put one's head in the sand regarding the UN resolutions that apply seems to be a total repudiation of the UN itself."

Correct. That is what the US has done by its countless vetos.

"If that's the case then those who oppose military action to enforce the UN resolutions need to either come up with an alternative or state that the UN was wrong in passing the resolution in the first place. What I'm seeing is that there are many that simply have an agenda to trash the republicans and Bush. I have literally read nothing from those who are vocal in their denunciation of the USA in this matter say that UN Resolution 441 is wrong and/or the UN is worthless organization and/or Annan and Blix are wrong in their efforts."

There's nothing in any resolution regarding Iraq that says it will be enforceable by war. The antiwar side isn't opposed to enforcement of UN resolutions -- far from it -- it's against automatic war for their violation when war is not the last resort. They are also against hypocritical enforcement of some resolutions while ignoring others because this too renders the resolutions meaningless.

Just once I'd like to see the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times or anyone in the Bush administration argue that the US should consider, for a day perhaps, even the slightest cut in lethal aid to Israel or Turkey as an incentive to get them to abide by international law. It will never happen. This is why it's so gallling to read the same sources soberly invoke the requirements of UN resolutions as basis for US policy.

[Chris Alger]

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't think Iraq has any "right" to violate UN resolutions, or that anyone in the world has any right to commit wrongful acts. I think for the US to declare war on a country for violating UN resolutions is no better than Israel declaring war on a country for violating UN resolutions. Nobody with half a brain would accept Israel's reason at face value, and nobody with half a heart would ever favor war waged on behalf of lies. When it comes to the US, however, there are powerful social taboos that compel people to accept whatever reason, however spurious, however contradictory, that their leaders invoke as the justification for military force.

[MMMMMM]

Well just for the record, I think it's a mistake to tie the approaching Iraq war to U.N. Security Council Resolutions. There are plenty of other good reasons for this war (IMO) and we don't need to confuse the issue with the resolutions of a terribly flawed organization like the U.N.

I believe Bush has sought U.N. approval in an attempt to gain world opinion or to show a non-unilateral approach, but I fear the end result will be that the next time war is justified and necessary, and perhaps vital to our security, we will be expected to jump through hoops to have it OK'ed by the U.N. first.

There are many reasons I feel the U.N. is a fundamentally flawed and anachronistic body, ill-fitted to impose law on sovereign nations or to uphold the principles of liberty or human rights. I won't go into the details of why in this post, however, as I think that would merit a separate thread.

The U.N. also is apparently becoming irrelevant. Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen, but if it does die a natural death as did the League of Nations, perhaps its successor could be better. The concept itself, of an international body, has some merits and some caveats, but surely a better one could be devised than the one currently in existence.

[andyfox]

We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains."

What's your source for this one? I've never heard this justification.

I hear this all the time, most recently in the car a half an hour ago on the Hugh Hewitt Show. There was apparently a refinery fire in Minnesota and Mr. Hewitt said it was an accident, but what if it was caused by Hussein's "drones," do we really want to take a chance?

[andyfox]

Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S."

Maybe you hear it but I don't.

An interview with Bush today. That's not his position at all.

-It's precisely his position. He is calling for complete, 100% disarmorment. Complete means without any trace.