Anti-War protesters change their minds...

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

...will anyone here follow their lead? Scroll down a few paragraphs in this story, and we find this:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Let's repeat this part, just for emphasis:

Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Any of you "Bush is the ultimate evil" types around here want to rethink that? Before you answer, read this story: I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam

Both of these stories are about people who, virtually by definition, were more committed to stopping the war on Iraq than anyone here. They were actually willing to go to Iraq to be human shields. And by virtue of having been there, they've been able to witness with their own eyes things no one here has been able to see.

People have opposed this war largely because innocent people will die because of it. But, as the Iraqi guy pointed out in the talk show referenced in this thread, innocent people will die if we don't invade Iraq. And they will die in some pretty ghastly ways, like, well, one more time:

put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

So...anyone want to take this opportunity to back down from the "Impeach Bush for this illegal, immoral war!" fever swamps? You just know that more stories like this are going to leak out as we take more ground, and there'll be a flood of them after the regime falls. The longer you wait, the worse you'll look...

[RandySpears]

Well, my friend....

We all agree that Saddam is a nasty Son-Of-A-Bitch.

But it seems that the opinions of f. e. exile Iraqis are very mixed. Some are pro-war; some are anti-war. And these are the people that has fled Saddam's regime.

Seems to me that leaves enough room for un-tortured, priviliged westerners like me and you(?) to hang on to our views of the war?

[Milum]

Well Randy Spears, "nasty Son-of-a-Bitch" seems mild words for someone who shreds living human beings into small bloody pieces in a plastic shredder. Ever seen a plastic shredder?

Now, pray tell, what room or reason do you have left to hang onto your view and sue for our troops return to America.

Please sum up your reasons. Sometimes clear thinking gets lost in gobbledegook.

[jjimm]

Any peace protester who thinks Saddam isn't a murdering sociopathic motherlover is woefully ill-informed. Not all of us are knee-jerk anti-war, and many of us will be delighted to see the end of Saddam's regime. Some of us have other reasons for opposing the war that aren't to do with opposing the end of his tyranny. Like the current geopolitical climate and the rise of Islamist terrorism.

[RandySpears]

Well Milum,

Let us have a new law then that allows us to convict anyone who speaks about Saddam or Hitler or Stalin and forgets to include the words "massmurdering dictator". I guess i'm guilty of "profanity", let's say 20 years?

Thanks for helping fight ignorance!

I'm against the war (as waged by the US) because:

I. I believe it to be a huge gamble with civilian life.

II. I believe the reasons for US intervention to be shady at least.

III. I believe that the US history in "humanitarian intervention" and the likes, in general and in the middle east in particular deprive the US of any credibility whatsoever.

[Mandelstam]

Weird, this link has been posted before, by Sam, I think. I'm guessing this kind of narrative must be circulating widely in pro-war circles where it provides soothing relief for the manifest unpopularity of this war among the world's people: look, the antiwar crowd are finally seeing that Saddam is really a bad guy and this war is about gaining freedom for an oppressed people! Next maybe the French will figure it out!

Well guess what, just about everyone knows Saddam is a really terrible guy. And this issue has been discussed widely lot by people who oppose Bush's war. Contrary to your implication that anti-war protesters thrive off a single-minded notion that "Bush is the ultimate evil" we are, on the whole, well aware that there is plenty of "evil" (if such an emotional and, ultimately, not very descriptive term must be used to describe different kinds of wrongs, inhumanities and injustices that arise from within very different social contexts).

Here is an excellent article that was published in The Nation back in January, entitled The Moral Quandary. The title of the article refers precisely to the predicament posed by those who live under Saddam's oppression. No one on the left or the center or in Europe is opposed to helping the Iraqi people.
I suggest you read the article, which is not narrowly partisan at all.

Although the Iraqi people have indeed suffered hugely, there are many reasons why this war may do more harm than good. I mean that both in the large extra-Iraqi scheme of things (b/c it will institute a pernicious preemptive doctrine, b/c it will foment anti-Americanism and terrorism, b/c it will create distrust between the US and its allies and thereby thwart international cooperation), and in more regional terms that directly concern the wellbeing of the Iraqi people.

There is no guarantee that this war will "liberate" the Iraqi people. Right now, in fact, it is quite possible that situation for Iraqi Kurds is about to grow worse as they face a greater threat from the Turks than they have (recently) from Saddam himself. Iraqi democracy could result in a tyranny of the majority in which a fundamentalist regime is imposed over all the rest; or it could mean years of ethnic infighting a la Yugoslavia, or years of foreign occupation. In the meantime AlQaeda gains recruits and in countries throughout the Arab world, militant Islamic fundamentalism gets a giant boost.

On the whole, the best chance to "liberate" the Iraqi people would, at the very least, have involved a UN-based effort involving Western and Arab nations, not a US/British invasion with a superficial coaltion to disguise the obvious unilateralism. From the global perspective, US goals are not perceived as humanitarian but as self-interested, and neo-imperial. The so-called "coaltion of the willing" is a transparent sham.

If you don't understand these problems as being fundamental to concerns among the antiwar "crowd," then you simply don't understand that crowd at all. You might want to consider asking questions rather than leaping to misguidedly generalized OPs and redundant links.

[jjimm]

By the way, though I marched against the war, I realise now that it's started, there's no way that the coalition forces could pull out until the job is finished. I am still opposed to the war, though. Can you understand that?

[elucidator]

Totally. I agree. Once we started the ball rolling, the only way out was through. As far as conducting the war goes, I think it is being done better than I could have expected, certainly better than I dreaded.

GeeDubya has bet our asses he can throw double-sixes three times in a row. If he suceeds, good. If he does not, there will be hell to pay.

And if we can't find any warehouses full of anthrax and VX, we had better come up with some. I mean that. Lie if we have to. The consequences of not finding them are too dreadful to contemplate. Though, in truth, it hardly matters. No one is going to believe us anyway, after all the lies and half-truths we have spewed. Who can blame them?

The real consequences of this won't come home to roost until long after GeeDubya has combed the ticker tape out of his hair from his Victory Parade (actually, there will probably be about 10).

[Beagle]

Let me take this opportunity to completely agree with both elucidator and jjimm in their last two posts.

I was scared this war might go horribly awry, or be over quickly. As usual, it looks like it will be some of both. Of course, the war may never really end depending on your criteria for peace. The region looks to be destabilizing somewhat already. I don't see the sky falling, but some clouds are losing air pressure.

[Beagle]

If we don't find the weapons of mass destruction we can always just apoligize, I don't see the problem. I'm not conceding that we won't truly find any by the way. But, so far, we haven't, right? Anyway, the way things have been going the last several days, I better go look at the news before I post anything else.

[Sam Stone]

I don't think it was the stories of Saddam's horrors that caused the human shield to re-think his position. It's that he came out with 14 hours of video of Iraqi citizens themselves wanting this war. Almost begging for this war. Willing to have their homes destroyed in the war for the chance to live free of Saddam's tyranny.

How do you oppose a war of liberation when the citizens of the country you are invading are begging you to come? Doesn't that kind of yank the rug out from under the moral argument against the war?

[mrblue92]

The longer you wait, the worse you'll look...

How long do you intend to wait? The effects of this war won't end when the tanks stop rolling, nor will they be confined to Iraq proper.

Yes, if there are people out there who want to impeach Bush over this, they are severely misguided. But blatant appeals to emotion do not a logical argument make. Sure, there's sympathy for the victims of Saddam, just as there is sympathy for the civilians who accidentally end up on the receiving end of our bombs. Where you can argue that we are acting as we must, others may argue that two wrongs won't make a right. There is an impasse between the points of view depending on concepts of virtue.

Personally, I find the debate as presented unproductive--I do have an opinion between the two poles, but there are too many hidden premises when you actually start that discussion. Instead, step back and look at the wider analysis. Granted, that article is slanted in some sense, but it does present a fairly reasonable risk assessment from the opposing point of view.

Arguing that "no blood for oil" protesters are naive is child's play. Arguing that Saddam is "bad" is like shooting fish in a barrel full of dead fish. But arguing that the war was the best response in the situation is something entirely different. We may free the Iraqi people in the next week or two, but that does not mean they will remain that way, nor does it mean the world will be safer. To the contrary, there are plenty of indictations that the opposite is true--that the world will become an even more dangerous place because of current US foreign policy.

[elucidator]

Well, its a bit worrisome, isn't it? Heres our troops, going through the Iraqis like a hot knife through butter and......no nerve gas, no anthrax. So far.

One thing nags at me, and I can't resolve it sensibly. There was a 60 Minutes some weeks back, about how our gas masks and such were weak and wouldn't be effective. Now, I know the Bushistas are aware of what goes on 60 Minutes.

So they decided the risk of massive US casualties was worth it? No way, not buying that one. Or did they decide, based on some inside information, that there really wasn't much of a risk?

That worries me. The repurcussions of this are likely going to be pretty bad under the best circumstances, but if it turns out that they knew he didn't have these things......

God help us.

[RandySpears]

Well Sam, let's give you a camcorder and send you south of the border, and see if you couldn't come up with someone begging the Canadians to liberate Chicago.

Now, just to make myself perfectly clear:

I do not claim that most Iraqis don't hate Saddam.

I do not dispute that many Iraqis may welcome an invasion.

But I do require better support for your claim that "the citizens of [Iraq].... are begging [the US] to come", than that some Iraqis have said so on camera.

It is a matter of how you can safely generalize from individuals to the population of a country.

[AZCowboy]

Sam Stone wrote:
How do you oppose a war of liberation when the citizens of the country you are invading are begging you to come?

But the real question is: What proportion of the population is begging us to come?

I have no doubt that many Shias and Kurds want us to come in. I suspect the mix is significantly different among the Sunnis. They may hate Saddam, but they REALLY hate the US.

You must feel that if there were a true, free election of the Iraqi populace, that most would vote to have the US invade to overthrow Saddam. Frankly, I doubt that.

Now, if they were given full and complete information, it may be different. But do we really know that?

[Sam Stone]

You'll notice that there has been lots of reporting in the South, and some in the North, but none in the west? That's because almost all the operations in the west are 'special ops', reportedly centered around destroying WMD facilities.

And it makes no sense for Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction right now. The American forces are fairly well protected, and the minute the Iraqis use those weapons the world opinion turns against them even more.

And this is no small matter - France did us all a big favor by making an announcement that it would join the coalition war if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons. Since the only hope Iraq has is that the U.S. loses the will to fight, France effectively hamstrung them.

But this idea that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction that you guys keep floating around is a very marginal position in the first place. I guess it just shows how extreme some of the people here on the SDMB are. Because everyone else agrees that Saddam has these weapons. The U.N. agrees, France agrees, Russia agrees, Britain agrees... everyone knows he has them.

Except the radicals on the SDMB, of course.

[tilly]

Al, I totally agree with you on this and milum for that matter...

As for the large support for the war it is less than 30 nationally and shrinking by the moment, same for those protesting in England. Tony Blair is on the rebound at a record breaking speed...

The only thing that these anti war protesters are proving is that ...

One... Most can not actually debate the issues with any grasp of the facts, even the facts they could use to bolster their position.

Two... They are far more belligerent than those that are pro war..

So much for protesting using peaceful demonstration...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...tics-headlines

It is a free country. That is what makes ours so great because there is no way in hell you could get out and act like the idiots they are acting like without going straight to the plastic shredder...

[Sam Stone]

AZCowboy: I think you underestimate the level of terror in Iraq. I have read that MOST families have lost someone to Saddam's regime. Certainly everyone knows someone who 'disappeared' or been tortured. For such crimes as, "Suspicion of saying supportive things about Iran", or "Disrespect of the Iraqi goverment". Or even, "For being the nephew of a man who said disparaging things about the state."

One of Saddam's tactics to control the population is to not just kill dissidents, but to kill their entire extended families.

And this young guy, if he drove out of Baghdad towards the Jordanian border would have been going through Sunni territory.

[Mandelstam]

Sam:"How do you oppose a war of liberation when the citizens of the country you are invading are begging you to come? Doesn't that kind of yank the rug out from under the moral argument against the war?"

Why don't you read the article I posted and decide for yourself? It's a response to some well-known Iraqi dissidents who were publicly making the case for war. (Bear in mind some of these same dissidents have since begun opposing the Bush administration's plans for the war's aftermath.)

I think it would naive to conclude from this one article that the citizens of Iraq are mainly begging for this invasion. At the present moment, those who live near the bombardments are sitting in shelters hoping they survive.

I've read and listened to as much as I could get my hands on regarding opinion inside Iraq. As I pointed out above, the Kurds in particular have much to fear from the way this war is developing. Other Iraqis I've heard interviewed on the radio sound skeptical: possibly b/c their experiences have given them very little grounds to trust anyone. One man who opposed the invasion said that at least Saddam had already killed most of the people he needed to kill, and had lined his pockets. For him a new regime would involve yet another wave of killing political enemies and lining new pockets. It's hard to know how to respond to something like this. Do any of us, even those of you who truly support this war and believe in its humanitarian potential, beieve that his skepticism won't be well founded? I for one do not trust the Bush administration either to consult such individuals, or to make decisions primarily based on their well-being.

As to the war itself, as I've said in other threads, of course, I hope it is short. And if it's aftermath is better than I fear that's good too (though personally I feel that is only possible via bona fide international effort.) If Bush suddenly becomes committed to internationalism, if he makes sure the Kurds and others don't end up screwed, if he follows through on his humanitarian rhetoric--all of these things will make me respect him more than I do now.

But I have to say that I am skeptical. There are already predictable signs that the big economic beneficiaries of rebuilding what we rushed to destroy will be old cronies of the adminstration such as Halliburton. It's possible that in addition to such political and economic self-interest that Bush will see some stake in making sure this is also a job well done. But so far I see no signs of this kind of savvy in this President who tends almost never to look beyond his own conservative base--much less the world.

Still, if there is some good in this for the majority of Iraqis, and not too much loss of life, I will certainly see that as a silver lining in what I will always persist in seeing as a dark cloud that need not have been.

[Zoe]

You must feel that if there were a true, free election of the Iraqi populace, that most would vote to have the US invade to overthrow Saddam.

And sadly, there would be no women voting. How democratic can that be anyway?

[AZCowboy]

Sam Stone wrote:
But this idea that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction that you guys keep floating around is a very marginal position in the first place.

Cite? Please show me at least three SDMB posters who claim that Iraq has no WoMD (versus speculating that they may not, or emphasizing that no proof exists).

This is the most despicable of the recurring pro-war strawmen, and I for one, am getting tired of hearing it.

I've been reading GD war threads for a few weeks now, and I cannot remember a single poster who claims that Iraq does not have any WoMD. Please back up your statement, or retract it.

On the issue of the general population, I do not believe that I underestimate the terror in Iraq. But they have also been innundated with anti-Amerian propoganda. I suspect they distrust America even more than Saddam.

I saw an interview with a refugee in Jordan. She was a mother with two small children. The interviewer asked a five year old girl what she thought of Americans. She replied, "they're bad, they bomb our homes. We love Saddam."

Depressing, yes, but reality for some, nonetheless.

[Sam Stone]

U.S. Forces Capture Chemical Facility

[AZCowboy]

From Sam's link above
It wasn't immediately clear exactly which chemicals were being produced here, but clearly the Iraqis tried to camouflage the facility so it could not be photographed aerially, by swathing it in sand-cast walls to make it look like the surrounding desert.

Should be interesting to see what follows on this story.

What's your point?

[elucidator]

Sam, you got a bumper sticker on your car, says "George said it, I believe it, and that settles it"?

I second AZ's remark. Prove it.

Do you ever consider alternative explanations? 'Cause I've got on for you. You see, I tend to think he's got them too, mostly based on the certainty that he's an evil old bugger. But there is a plausible case for an evil old bugger destroying those weapons precisely because he's an evil old bugger. To wit:

Since WWI we have known that chemical and gas weapons are very unreliable and subject to the vagaries of weather. Any number of these things don't work at all in hot weather, and if the wind changes, well, its your ass, isn't it?

Conjecture: Saddam used WMD's in his war against Iran and found them unreliable. Perhaps even (and this is a stretch) he unleashed them against troops in the field and inadvertently wiped out a village. Not that he wept for them, but they weren't the target, he was aiming to wipe out Iranians.

So EOB (evil old bugger) says "These things are for shit. You can't trust them, you can't rely on them. But they do make dandy threats, they scare my enemies as long as my enemies are convinced I will not hesitate to use them. Hmmmmmmm."

After Gulf War I, he's sitting, thinking, "Jeeez, that was close. I'm gonna have to walk a careful line here. Got all this nasty shit, which doesn't help me much, and the UN says get rid of it or else. Why keep it? Well, to scare the Iranians. Why get rid of it? Ain't worth shit, and if I get caught, it might be trouble. Probably not, but why risk it. Plus, what happens if somebody turns me in, rats me out, and the Americans drop a bomb on it and it spreads all over. Hmmmmmmm

OK, heres the plan. Get rid of the shit on the QT. That way, theres no risk the UN will find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. No way the Iranians will believe I destroyed it, so they will stay scared. I dump a weapon thats not very useful, keep it quiet, so I get the benefit without the risk.

I know! I'll put my useless son-in-law in charge of getting rid of it. He hasn't got the balls to rat me out."

And, as you know, his son-in-law did, in fact, run to the west and tell the story of how Saddam destroyed his WMD's in 1991. Was he lying? Who knows? What we do know is the Bushistas rather conveniently airbrushed this part of the story out. Then, of course, the chucklewit went back to the welcoming arms of his father-in-law, thus advancing the cause of Darwinism.

So: it is plausible that he did, in fact, destroy his WMD's precisely because he is an EOB! Not from motives of humanity, which he damn sure ain't got, but for reasons of cunning and treachery.

Do I know this is true? Of course not, it is conjecture. But then again, so is your position. Do you know your left foot exists? Can you show me? Of course. Do you know Chicago exists? Can you show me. Righty-o. Do you know Saddam has WMD's? Of course you do, GeeDubya says so. Well, can you show me? GeeDubya says so. But where are they? GeeDubya says so. How come the UN inspectors havent found them, if GeeDubya is so sure? GeeDubya doesn't want to compromise an intelligence source. (You are aware, of course, that the inspectors made public complaint about being sent on wild goose chases by US intelligence? You knew that, right?)

But before you get to answering all this, if it pleases you, be so kind as to answer AZ's question first. Please cite all these "radical" SDMB posters who swear up and down that they know that EOB doesn't have any WMD's. I've got some microwaveable crow in the freezer.

[elucidator]

For the record, with the demise of Chumpsky, I am probably the closest thing to an actual "radical" on the SDMB. One meaningless label is as good as another, I suppose, and being called a "liberal" sets my teeth on edge.

Be that as it may, I'm pretty damn sure I never said EOB doesn't have WMDs.

[Mandelstam]

Sam: "I have read that MOST families have lost someone to Saddam's regime. "

I'd be interested in reading this article if you can provide a link to it.

[Mandelstam]

Actually, so far from ruling out that Saddam has chemical, biological weapons, many anti-war people (on and off of the SDMB) have been arguing that war would give Saddam a reason to use them; or to hand them off to other hostile nations or terrorist groups. Inspections, in other words, were seen as the best way to deal with the problem to the extent that it existed.

[monstro]

The reason initially given to us by Prez Dumbya et al. for going to war was that Saddam Hussein had dealies with the guys behind 9/11.

Then they said it was because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, all aimed at the US.

Now the reason we're out there is to liberate Iraqis.

Surely the pro-war contigent can understand why everyone else is a bit impatient and confused. To be sure, none of the stated reasons are mutually exclusive, but I have a hard time believing that we'd be going to war to "liberate" the Iraqis if 1)Iraq was not strategically located, 2)many of the folks influencing our government (and in a few cases, actually running it)
don't stand to profit substantially from all this mess, and 3)we had actually captured Osama Bin Laden.

Am I glad that some of the Iraqis are grateful for our presence? Yes, because at least I know that not all this shit is going to be in vain. But this ain't a "feel good" war, IMHO. I think the liberate-the-Iraqis card is being played as insurance just in case we don't find any WOMD. It's there so that this war can be said to be a "success" even if it really isn't, and Dubya can come out looking like the Second Coming.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by elucidator
Totally. I agree. Once we started the ball rolling, the only way out was through. ...

The real consequences of this won't come home to roost until long after GeeDubya has combed the ticker tape out of his hair from his Victory Parade (actually, there will probably be about 10).

Originally posted by Beagle

Of course, the war may never really end depending on your criteria for peace.

There are some who seem to imply that once that evil Sadaam is gone we will all live happily ever after in the city on the hill.

Whatever happened to the right wingers' incessant calls for "an exit strategy?"

[elucidator]

That was last week. You didn't get the memo, apparently. Its now the "Citadel on the Hill". And a strategy of peace through world domination does not need an "exit strategy".

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Again, the issue of whether the war is justified based on liberating an oppressed population from a terrible ruler comes up, and many posters here seem particularly upset by this. I ask again, not rhetorically, but looking for an answer, and trying to see to the horizon: Which people do you feel we should liberate next? I just don't remember the groundswell of fervor for liberating Iraq until late last year, so I would like to be ahead of the tide the next time around. Since liberating the Iraqi's mandated our actions, oppression of others also mandates our intervention. Who is next?

[Mandelstam]

elu: "And a strategy of peace through world domination does not need an "exit strategy"."

No--it just needs a buzz word of choice such as the Bush doctrine, or the Pax Americana.

monstro, I agree with you on the flip-flop, but just want to add that there is still a steady flow of misinformation emanating from the administration, assuring us that Saddam was indeed connected to 9/11 and that this war will therefore make us safer from that kind of terrorist threat.

At a recent press conference Fleischer was asked about Bush's sentiments towards Iraqi civilian deaths. Here is part of his reply:

"The other portion of what the President remembers when he thinks about the innocents are the 3,000 innocents who lost their lives on September 11th in the United States. And if it were not for the worries that the President had about an Iraqi regime, in defiance of the United Nations, possessing weapons of mass destruction, which he fears could again be used against the United States, you might not see this developing." (my emphasis)

As I said in this thread, notice how this reply indicates that the Iraqi regime has in the past used weapons of mass destruction against the United States, and implies that 9/11 was the episode in question. Here again, Americans are misled into believing that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when there is no such connection. And they are further asked to believe that 9/11 involved WMD when in actuality 9/11 involved the use of box cutters and lax airport security measures. That is simply shameful as well as an insult to our intelligence.

It's stuff like this that makes it hard for me to be optimistic about the outcome of this war. Although I dislike characterizing people in terms of evil intent, or of painting them with too broad a brush, it's hard for me to see sometimes whether the Bush administration sees any important difference between authentic improvement in Iraqi lives and spin that would create the appearance of it.

Aside to elucidator: too busy to read the link that mentions Halliburton? Or just tired that old summertime hobbyhorse?

[Beagle]

Whatever happened to the right wingers' incessant calls for "an exit strategy?"

I'm assuming since you juxtaposed my comment below elucidator's you are referring to me.

How should I know?

I hate the term "exit strategy." We had no exit strategy in WWII, except unconditional surrender. Who knew what would happen with the captured German and Japanese populations?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Milum
Well Randy Spears, "nasty Son-of-a-Bitch" seems mild words for someone who shreds living human beings into small bloody pieces in a plastic shredder. Ever seen a plastic shredder?

No, I haven't, which leads me to this question:

Does anyone have a link to concrete evidence that this is true? (Not that I doubt Saddam is capable of it; I just remember the outrage over the Iraqi-soldiers-dumping-babies-from-incubators story which turned out to be untrue.)

[Ace_Face]

Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian
Who is next?

Iran

[Mandelstam]

Beagle: "We had no exit strategy in WWII, except unconditional surrender. Who knew what would happen with the captured German and Japanese populations?"

No one knew. But then we had a number of compelling reasons to go to war, not least of which was Pearl Harbor. Whereas now we pretty much chose to go to war, and without taking the necessary steps to persuading our allies outside of the UK to join us either with significant troops or financial support. Then we had a vision of nation-building through the Marshall Plan. Just about no one believes that our commitment to nation-building will measure up to that standard now; and it's not clear that Americans would be willing to pick up the tab even if there were the political will to do it.

[elucidator]

We're not picking up the tab. It was subtle, you might easily have missed it. Koffi Annan came out last week and made the moral point that an invading force was obligated for the repair and reconstruction of the conquered nation. (Trans. from diplo-speak: OK, do your thing, but without specific and explicit permission from the UN, you're on your own. mazel tov, and much good may it do you.)

Then we said that Iraq's oil would be held in trust by us in order to finance the reconstruction, contracts for which had been let to certain reliable corporations*. Previously the line had been "held in trust for the Iraqi people". A subtle distinction, to be sure.

They'll be lucky if we don't make them pay for thier "liberation".

*reliability verified by thier wisdom and probity in campaign donations

[Gorsnak]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
And this is no small matter - France did us all a big favor by making an announcement that it would join the coalition war if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons. Since the only hope Iraq has is that the U.S. loses the will to fight, France effectively hamstrung them.

Okay, this is just false. Come on, Sam, you know your history better than that. Chemical weapons are effective against civilian targets, but they have never been effective against prepared military targets. Hell, they aren't even very effective against unprepared military targets. Read up on 2nd Ypres, for example. The first use of chlorine gas in WWI, and no one was prepared, but French and Canadian troops held the line after a few small German gains during the initial shock of things. It seems to me that the initial use of mustard gas was slightly more effective, though not by a lot. Once troops had masks, gas was just an annoyance - occasionally a deadly annoyance, granted, but not one which swung any battles.

Saddam's bio and chemical weapons, if he has them in significant amounts along with effective delivery systems to begin with, are barely more strategically significant than his short range ballistic missiles. They do not contribute one iota to his chances of winning, even without their downside of bringing more countries into the coalition.

[Mandelstam]

elu, I am aware that there is much discussion about using Iraqi oil profits in order to rebuild Iraq (in fact the link I posted mentions this.) I predict that they will, in that sense, pay for their "liberation." But I think a bona fide Marshall Plan-scale nation-building effort would require more than that source alone. The costs of occupation itself are, IIRC, astronomical. (It's possible the EU may pitch despite the pre-war problems: undoubtedly there maybe some political trades involved. But, tobe honest, I haven't really been following this issue closely enough to post with any authority on it.)

[Sam Stone]

I disagree. He may not kill a lot of soldiers, but forcing them to fight through gas would slow them down a lot.

And there is precedent. Saddam used gas against Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war.

[RandySpears]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2432337

Civilians streamed out of Umm Qasr and the city of Basra. Reuters correspondent Rosalind Russell, south of Basra, watched dozens of trucks and battered cars pass, crammed full with household belongings.

Machinegun and artillery fire echoed behind them.

"There is fighting in the center, on the streets. It is terrible," said Hussein, a 24-year-old engineer who works for the state-run southern oil company in Basra.

"We don't want Americans here. This is Iraq."

One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by.

But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to scowls.

"We don't want them here," said 17-year-old Fouad, looking angrily up at the plumes of gray smoke rising from Basra.

Anyone still wan't to make an argument that all Iraqis are begging the US to liberate them?

[Mandelstam]

Sam, I know you are busy elsewhere on these boards finding greener pastures in the neverending struggle against SDMB "extremism." But could you possibly tie up a few loose ends? So far in this thread AZCowboy has queried your characterization of the "radicals" on the SDMB on the matter of WMDs, and I've asked you, if possible, to back up another of your assertions with a link. You wouldn't just be ducking these things, now would you?

[Sam Stone]

Sorry, Mandelstam: I'm not ducking anything, but sometimes it's tough to keep up with the onslaught. It seems I can't say that I've dressed myself for the day on here without someone demanding a cite these days, and judging by the "Tree Pollution" thread, even that doesn't seem good enough these days.

Let's see... Where were we? Oh, people claiming that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction....

Okay, I just posted about a dozen quotes from past threads of people either questioning whether Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, or flat-out claiming that they don't. Then I deleted it all, because I decided it wasn't fair to those people. Some of them said it, but I remembered that they didn't have that position later. Others are continually questioning it, but it seems clear to me that they're just acting as foils and probably have doubts themselves.

So, I'm not going to post names. Instead, I suggest that you search for "Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Scott Ritter", and other related threads. There are plenty of examples.
'

[Mandelstam]

Sam, I respect your decision not to humilate posters by dredging up material from old threads. As the request was AZ's I leave it to him to have the final word on the subject; but my own sense is that you have seen enough of the arguments by the posters in this particular thread to have not represented their views so crudely. Still, as far as I'm concerned, we can let it pass.

I'd be still be genuinely interested, though, in reading any article that claims that most Iraqi families have lost someone to Saddam's regime if you can provide same.

[AZCowboy]

Sam, far be it for me to suggest that any good poster's name here should be soiled by the comments they submit, so, no problem, don't worry about backing up your claim.

I've read a bunch of those threads recently, and I don't remember anyone taking that position. I'll let the readers decide for themselves.

Having just scanned the tree pollution thread, I certainly don't want to see that start up again.

We've got plenty of others stuff to disagree about!

[Evil Captor]

Oh, looky!

The right has discovered that some dictators are evil bastards who torture and kill their political opponents!

I'm with ya, babies! That is, if you REALLY want to go after ALL the evil dictators who torture and kill political opponents, not just your hand-picked opponents. I'll be proud if we do this! I'll wave the flag, declare America the best of all nations and lead the charge for American intervention around the world ... as long as we do it consistently.

In many cases, all it would take to dump some of these evil bastid dictators would be dropping US support of them.

I don't think this will EVER happen. The right likes its tame evil bastards far too much. I think fighting oppression is just the rationale du jour for the current war.

I hope you don't find me unduly cynical, but see, the U.S. has a long and evil history of propping up guys just like Saddam, as far as their people are concerned. Look it up, if you can spare a moment from the spin machine ...

[Milum]

I'd be still be genuinely interested, though, in reading any article that claims that most Iraqi families have lost someone to Saddam's regime if you can provide same.

Math, Mandelstram, math.

Iraq has a population of 23,000,000.
The Iraqi people have a culture of a large, almost tribal, extended family...i.e. 46 or so members in the family group.

This maths out to 500,000 Iraqis base figures who have lost family members.

But then add 100,000 Kurds gassed in one fell swoop, plus miscellany Iraqi murders throughout the last 20 years estimated at 250,000.

This totals 350,000 murdered. Ha! An estimate that cries for the recognition of the million or so other dead, but no matter, this minimal count still constitutes a "better than most", "50%", component of the torture and eventual elimination of Iraqi people. Hence... "Most Iraqis have lost someone to Saddam's regime."

Is this enought murders to appease your objection?

[Mandelstam]

Milum: "Is this enought murders to appease your objection?"

I guess my politeness might have been lost on you, Milum, but I have no objection to "appease." I have read whatever I can find on the subject of Iraqi sentiments in the mainstream publications I read on a regular basis (and there is frustratingly little of it), and I was genuinely curious what Sam, who reads different stuff than I do, might have come across.

As to your math analysis. The problem is that political dissidence doesn't tend to be randomly distributed across a population. Undoubtedly, some families are close to 100% loyal to Saddam (though I know the guy is pretty rough on his own associates), while others are close to 100% resistant. (And some will fall elsewhere on the spectrum in between.) Such patterns will probably vary regionally as well. So while I'm not at all rejecting Sam's assertion out of hand and would be genuinely interested in reading about it, I don't see that your mathematical analysis constitutes some kind of prima facie evidence for it.

But thanks for trying!

[wedgerat]

Originally posted by Lissa
Does anyone have a link to concrete evidence that this is true? (Not that I doubt Saddam is capable of it; I just remember the outrage over the Iraqi-soldiers-dumping-babies-from-incubators story which turned out to be untrue.)

I think this is a very good question, and one I would like to see an answer to. I've heard other people mention the plastic shredder story, but no cites, and the mention in the OP sounds almost like a friend-of-a-friend story.

So, I'm not doubting it, but I'd still like to see evidence.

[Lissa]

DarkMika, I started a thread in GQ about this subject. Let's see if anyone posts anything there instead of taking up more space in this thread.