# 15 reasons to stop this war **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2002, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646 "2002-11-13T23:57:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![aaaphen256](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@aaaphen256](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaaphen256)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/81 "2002-11-16T01:16:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Giraffe \* > \*\ ***SuaSponte** has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you. \*\* I agree. Also, we don’t need to go into the cities to help the Ma’dan. Their “genocide” is due to war and one could argue that it doesn’t fit the definition of genocide. Did you read my earlier post to Spont? ---
**Author:** ![aaaphen256](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@aaaphen256](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaaphen256)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/82 "2002-11-16T01:24:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ScoobyTX \* > \*\*If the Iraqi army flees to the cities & doesn’t engage the US army, I’m sure we have contingency plans for laying on blockades or sieges of the cities. Then it becomes a waiting game- with the US dropping leaflets over every city saying “Hand over Saddam & we’ll give you food.” \*\* This is the rub, if we do a siege of Baghdad, Saddam can just wait us out. I don’t think he’ll let the 4 million inhabitants of Baghdad leave. So when they start to starve, what do we do? We’ll have to feed them. Anything else is politically unfeasible. Meanwhile, Saddan just waits. It just doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/83 "2002-11-16T01:48:20Z")
Well, we now have our [incident](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_84): > [@](#): > > Iraq fired on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling a no-fly zone Friday, an act the United States considers a breach of a U.N. Security Council resolution ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/84 "2002-11-16T02:39:21Z")
The weird part is, they’ve been popping off missiles for weeks, but if they turn on the radar guidance, they get clobbered. So they’ve been firing “blind” and have about as much chance as Stevie Wonder shooting down a duck with a .22 pistol. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/85 "2002-11-16T03:19:39Z")
According ABC radio-news, ‘sources’ in the administration are quoted as saying that they do not see this is an incident that will be the trigger for war. I haven’t seen a web-cite for this or other confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/86 "2002-11-16T03:47:21Z")
Trouble is, though the UN is commited to an inspection regime, Bush isn’t. He has said over and over he is not going to hand this over to them to decide whether war is justified or not. He expects the UN to dance to his tune, not the other way around. Also, scuttlebutt has it that the US wont be ready for the Big One before December anyway, so he can look like he’s being patient and peaceful while he gets ready to pull the pin. I still think he’s going to do it, regardless. Being a pessimist, I love being wrong, suprises are usually pleasant. Just infrequent. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/87 "2002-11-16T08:30:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Giraffe \* > Just to be clear, I should point out that I understand that civilian casualties are a regrettable but unavoidable part of any war. However, we should be realistic about the fact that those deaths are part of the cost of our actions, and decide if the goals of the war justify the cost. **SuaSponte** has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you. I think that’s not an apt analogy. You and **SuaSponte** simply disagree about the cost. You refer to any civilians as part of the cost (which I would be **Sua** agrees with and I certainly agree with), but **Sua** rightly (IMHO) points out that there is an additional future cost if genecide isn’t countered–specifically, future genecide. You **must** consider in your cost analysis the future actions of a killer undeterred, as well as the actions of potential killers who think they might get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![mattymillhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@mattymillhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mattymillhouse)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/88 "2002-11-16T11:45:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _by elucidator:_ > The weird part is, they’ve been popping off missiles for weeks, but if they turn on the radar guidance, they get clobbered. So they’ve been firing “blind” and have about as much chance as Stevie Wonder shooting down a duck with a .22 pistol. your analogy is crap. first of all, the iraqis in this case weren’t firing “blind.” they were firing with the aid of radar. second, when the iraqis are firing without radar, they’re not actually firing blind. firing without turning on radar is not exactly the same thing as firing without the aid of any type of sight/tracking. third, aren’t ducks that are being fired upon. they’re american and british humans. if stevie wonder was firing at people with a .22, i doubt you’d say “no harm, no foul.” despite your crude analogy, i doubt that you’d volunteer to get in a plane and fly over an iraqi military installation that’s firing “blind.” it’s no picnic. and every missile that’s launched has the potential to kill people that are acting pursuant to UN mandates. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > According to the latest Zogby poll only 39% of Americans favor this war if “thousands of casualties” is included in the question and “thousands of casualties” is likely, reference 9 and 10. A recent Pew Center poll shows that support for the war has slipped to only 55%, reference 13. do i get to add words to the poll question? if so, i’d add the numbers of civilians being killed by the current iraqi regime, both by murder and by starvation. i’d also add in the chance of nuclear blackmail. i’d also add in the chance that, if iraq is able to procure nuclear weapons, that they would be used against iraq’s enemies, including the US, and the number of casualties that would result from that. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 3. Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda: so what? why are we only allowed to stop al queda? > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 2. War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point: > > Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and has never used them on US personnel. There’s no reason to think his behavior will change, unless we go to war. The report that he’s about to get the atomic bomb has been discredited. Even if true, there are other ways to stop this. the fact that saddam hasn’t used WMD on american personnel doesn’t mean that he won’t in the future. he’s certainly showed a propensity for using them on his own people. and why are we only concerned about americans? as pointed out by **Sua** , the point is that he’s trying to get WMD. he’s not doing that for personal satisfaction. and i still haven’t seen any proposed methods for stopping his WMD programs other than war. we’ve been trying inspections and sanctions for 11 years now, and that hasn’t worked. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 5. Saddam is a horrible dictator but: > > If we are going to start fighting wars on a humanitarian basis we have a lot of explaining to do. We’ve done little about the humanitarian crises in Somalia, Rwanda, Tibet, etc. Some might say it is not our responsibility, but if you want a war to free Iraq there are better ways, see reason 15. again, as pointed out by **Sua** , just because we haven’t taken action for other humanitarian causes doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do so here. is this an argument in favor of military action in Rwanda and Tibet (as well as renewed action in Somalia), or against military action in Iraq? also, you cited to reason 15 for “better ways” to free Iraq, but i don’t see any reference to “better ways” to fight the war in reason 15. i think 6 has been addressed by others. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 7. Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror: > > Republicans have complained that special forces have been reassigned from anti-terrorist to Iraq duties, reference 7 below. This is probably just the tip of an iceberg. i thought you’d retracted this argument. have you revived it? i don’t mean to be rude, but your editing has just added arguments. **Sua** and others have already addressed many of these arguments. perhaps you also need to look at taking out some arguments that don’t hold water. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 8. Bush has not prepared for this war in a sensible way: > > Why he refuses to learn from his father is beyond me, get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition you can. Instead, we first get a public debate among members of the administration. Then he practically tells the world we really don’t care if they help or not. He goes to Congress just before an election, then tries to form a coalition; instead of the other way around. First inspections have been a failure, now we will give inspections another chance. He even pretends disarmament is the same as regime change. this is interesting for a couple of reasons. first of all, you appear to be criticizing bush for advocating the continuation of inspections, despite the fact that you argue in favor of inspections elsewhere. again, he _has_ tried to “get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition [he] can.” i thought you agreed with this point. you also talk about this initially being a debate “just among the members of the adminstration.” i think this debate has been public from the beginning. and as **Sua** pointed out (and i thought you agreed), debate among the administration, followed by talking to Congress, followed by going to the UN seems like the logical course of action. also, it’s worth pointing out that the arguments in favor of regime change didn’t come about “just before an election.” it’s been the official US policy since clinton in (if i remember correctly) 1998. (if you need a cite for that, let me know). the debate on invading iraq has been going on since then, and it’s something that bush talked about while campaigning for president. it certainly wasn’t in the forefront of our agenda while we were in afghanistan, but that’s hardly support for a “wag the dog” scenario. and surely you’re not arguing that presidents can only talk about war in odd-numbered (and thus, non-election) years. when was he supposed to broach the subject? > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 13. There are other ways to punish Saddam for non-compliance: > > Such as bombing or my personal favorite, take pieces of his country away from him until he complies. again, i think you need to drop this point unless you can come up with some realistic “non-war” alternatives. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 14. If you want war, and I do, there is a better way: > > I want war for purely humanitarian reasons, but not this war. In my version we would slow down and take the time to help the Kurds, Shiites, and interested Sunnis develop large revolutionary armies. We would restart the middle east peace process. We would get as much international help as possible. We would consider splitting the country into thirds, a Kurdistan in the north, a country for the Shiites in the south. I know there are problems with this, but if your going to dream, why not? we’ve been dreaming since before Desert Storm. we _are_ working to develop revolutionary armies. we _are_ working on peace in the Middle East. we _are_ getting as much international support as possible. the “wait and see” approach is dangerous because it allows Hussein time to continue his WMD development program, which is one of the problems that we’re trying to deal with. it also allows him to continue his massacre of his citizens and his efforts to repress those who we would like to see come to power. it also allows him to continue to repress and fight against our efforts toward peace in the Middle East, and our efforts to provide stability to the region. i’m also not sure how you propose that we divide Iraq into 3 countries without deposing the current Iraqi government. surely you don’t think they’ll just agree to that. > [@](#): > > _by aaaphen256:_ > 15. This administration has some explaining to do: > > What could be worse than a president or his aides demanding the “information” they want so they can justify a war. how about an administration that doesn’t demand the information they want to support a war? this statement is dripping with sinister overtones, but i just don’t get it. are you arguing that the bush administration’s attempts to gain information and intelligence is bad? > [@](#): > > _by Giraffe;_ > SuaSponte has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you. i disagree with this analogy. i think a better analogy is a bank robber who takes hostages. he threatens to kill hostages unless the cops leave the area. the cops don’t leave, so the bank robber starts killing the hostages. are the cops to blame? for those who are worried about collateral damage, i have another example. in WWII, british agents trained a couple Czech agents, and then parachuted them into Germany. the agents assasinated Reinhard Heydrich. > [@](#): > > In retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich, Kurt Daluege ordered the destruction of the village of Lidice. The village was razed to the ground and its 173 male inhabitants were murdered. The 198 women were sent to a Concentration Camp in Ravensbueck. Another 256 Czechs were condemned to death for aiding the assassination plot. Thousands of Czech people were also deported to other concentration camps in Austria and Germany as a result of Heydrich’s death. see this website: [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERheydrich.htm](http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERheydrich.htm) so who was responsible for these civilian deaths? the british/czechs? or the nazis? > [@](#): > > _by Giraffe:_ > If the United States was invaded, would we blame the Army for civilian casualties because they didn’t put all troops in the middle of Kansas so that no civilians would be hit? No, we would blame the invaders who actually blew things up and killed people. i’d be willing to bet that plenty of people would blame the America for that. however, i think it depends on the reason the US has been invaded. if there wasn’t an ample reason for invasion, then the invaders would be blamed. in this case, there is ample reason for invasion: massacre and repression of citizens, increase stability in the region, humanitarian aid to the starving citizens of Iraq, put down the attempts of a madman to gain WMD, protect American interests in the region, etc. nobody’s saying that saddam has to come out into a great big, wide open area to fight. but he’s not just stationing his troops in cities for defense. he’s putting them there hoping that the likelihood of civilian casualties will make the war more unpopular, and more difficult to fight. he knows that coalition military forces will have to slow down and be more deliberate because of the surrounding civilians. he knows that the coalition military will be put in danger because of their caution. he’s stationing his troops in cities because he knows our caution about civilian casualties (a concern he doesn’t share) gives him an advantage. that’s bullshit. while the number of civilian casualties is something that should be considered, it can’t be the only factor in our determination. bad guys like saddam can’t be allowed to act with impunity just because they choose to increase the likelihood of civilian casualties. saddam has killed thousands of people. he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that just because he’s using the people that he hasn’t killed yet as human shields. [quote] _by Giraffe:_ SuaSponte has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you. [quote] no, it’s not. i’m not aware of any war plans that provide for laying siege to innocent civilians. look, i have friends and family in the military (american, british, australian, canadian, german, and french). and frankly, between taking out a few innocent civilians and seeing my brother come home alive, i’d rather rather send flowers to iraq and have my brother around for Christmas. but i have faith that the coalition military will do everything within its power to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. i haven’t seen any evidence that our war plans include the indiscriminate carpet bombing of cities. > [@](#): > > _by Cyberpundit:_ > And anyway there is no reason why inspectors can’t find and destroy Iraqi nuclear weapons considering that they did so last time. they did? i thought they found evidence of WMD, but were kicked out before they could either find them or the type of smoking gun the anti-conflict crowd seems to feel is necessary. > [@](#): > > _by Cyberpundit:_ > BTW do the propoments of the “nuclear blackmail” scenario also believe that South Korea is now doomed? After all N Korea probably has a few nukes. So it could threaten Seoul and then attack South Korea with impunity, right? Strangely enough few, if any, people seem to believe this is likely. actually, you should do more reading. i think lots of people are acknowledging this as a possibility, and one that we’ll probably have to deal with eventually. but why do we have to deal with every problem right now? unless you’re in favor of making hard and fast rules like “we have to attack every country that’s developing nuclear weapons” (vs. “we should never attack countries that are developing nuclear weapons”?), we ought to address these situations on a case-by-case basis. > [@](#): > > _by Cyberpundit:_ > Surely at some point you have to take into account the practical consequences,like possible nuclear war, which would lead to far more innocent people dying. i couldn’t have said it better myself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/89 "2002-11-16T11:53:15Z")
That much is certain. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/90 "2002-11-16T13:29:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Giraffe \* > \*\*What do you mean “threatens to make the war an urban war”? A war to capture or kill Saddam is by definition an urban war, since Saddam doesn’t currently live by himself in a shack out in the middle of the desert. It’s ridiculous to say that he is choosing to have a lot of civilian casualties because he lives in Baghdad. At some point, we have to take responsibility for our actions. If we decide to oust Saddam, we are choosing to kill thousands of cilivians to do so. Actually, Saddam doesn’t live anywhere. He doesn’t spend two straight nights in one bed, uses body doubles for most public appearances, etc. If the US were attacking Baghdad, I strongly doubt Saddam would be in the city. And yes, Saddam is threatening to make the war an urban war. His threat to station his troops within the cities is improper under the Just War Doctrine - it does not increase his odds of victory, and therefore the increased risk to noncombatants is not justified. > [@](#): > > _by aaphen_ > I agree. Also, we don’t need to go into the cities to help the Ma’dan. Their “genocide” is due to war and one could argue that it doesn’t fit the definition of genocide. One could argue that. One would be wrong. The definition of “genocide” is not up for debate. Genocide has been defined by the Genocide Convention, for which I have provided a link. What is happening to the Ma’dan falls under that definition. BTW, there is nothing in the Genocide Convention that says that if a genocide is due to war, it’s OK. Do you have a point? > [@](#): > > _by Giraffe_ > SuaSponte has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you. Thank you for the analogy. You have proved my point. You see, in American jurisprudence, if a criminal resists arrest, the criminal is legally responsible for any deaths that occur in the attempt to capture him/her. And it is not “overkill” if the force used is the force necessary to capture the criminal. The police (and the military) must do what is feasible to avoid innocent death, _while still capturing the criminal._ Unavoidable deaths are the responsiblity of the criminal You see, you are starting from the assumption that Saddam has the **right** to defend himself. Under the UN Charter, he doesn’t have that right. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/91 "2002-11-16T13:37:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*This isn’t about the War on Terror. Its about almost everything _but_ the War on Terror. > \*\* I am not willing to take your word for it. Could you prove either or both of these statements? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > The first and most important, and ultimately most short sighted, goal was to be seen as Doing Something. Protecting America. And, yes, the election was the dominant factor in that decision. > \*\* See above. My crystal ball of telepathy doesn’t work as well on Bush as yours does. And how does Bush get Saddam to help him win elections? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* We clobbered Afghanistan because that was a target, after a while the people began to see victory over the Taliban as a victory over Terror. It was no such thing, the Taliban were little more than a bunch of narrow minded ignorant religious bigots. > \*\* In this case, I suspect “terrorist regime” and “bunch of narrow minded ignorant religious bigots” are more or less synonymous. The purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to break up the terrorist networks they were running. Osama bin Laden was hiding there, remember? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > America cannot lose the War on Terrorism either. > \*\* We can if we don’t do anything against terrorists. I must be misunderstanding you; this seems so obviously mistaken that I find it hard to believe you meant it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > Terror is a political weapon, a propaganda weapon. But as a strategic weapon it is useless. Worse than useless, it enrages an enemy without weakening him. One hundred repeats of 9/11 would be horrible, and tragic. But it would have no real effect on America’s power. Terror is the expression of power of the powerless, and it is futile. > \*\* We were talking about Iraq. If, as you say, military action to enforce inspections has nothing to do with the war on terror, why are you bringing terror up? Perhaps one hundred 9/11s would not affect American power. I question your strategic thinking, to say the least, but let us assume for the moment that you are correct. Don’t you think Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction would weaken US power? Don’t you think he might use them to attack Israel, or re-invade Kuwait, or blackmail Saudi Arabia, or generally start World War effing Three? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > There will be a “material breach”, there will be an incident, there will be war. > \*\* Possibly. I would expect that this is because Saddam will do what he has been doing for the last ten years - “cheat and retreat”. The difference is, you seem ready to blame this on Bush, and I on Saddam. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > Even if he has to stand there and tell bald faced lies, he will do it. He already has. > \*\* You keep repeating that. Maybe if you do it enough, it will be true. Or maybe not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > 2004? He’d be lucky to escape impeachment. \*\* Wishful thinking. I wouldn’t hold my breath. YMMV. In fact, I expect it will. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/92 "2002-11-16T15:23:21Z")
Not about the War on Terror? Well, because it isn’t, is it? Despite feverish insistence, no evidence has surfaced that connects Iraq with Al Queda. Indeed, as recently reported, when the CIA failed to come up with such, Bush instructed Rumsfeld to conduct another investigation, apparently in hopes of a more desireable result. Nonetheless, the innuendo and implication have wrought more effect than truth: many American’s believe that such a connection exists, despite the paucity of evidence. If you have such evidence, you should forward it to Our Churchill at once. Have you such? I rather think not. Al Queda has proved to be a fog, we don’t know who they are, we don’t know where they are, we don’t even know if they still exist in any meaningful way. But Fearless Leader must be seen as proactive, he must be Doing Something. Iraq is the nail that fits our hammer. > [@](#): > > In this case, I suspect “terrorist regime” and “bunch of narrow minded ignorant religious bigots” are more or less synonymous. Suspect whatever you like, prove what you can. The Taliban as sophisticated terrorists? Booshwa! Those guys couldn’t organize a Haddasah luncheon, as was once remarked about the Yippies. Now, the Taliban is defeated. Are we demonstrably safer? Perhaps. It could also be that it is as effective as the gaboon viper repellent I have in my front lawn, thus far, no such tropical snakes have threatened my Minnesota home. Take that as proof of effectiveness. > [@](#): > > The purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to break up the terrorist networks they were running. Osama bin Laden was hiding there, remember? So where’s he hiding now? Baghdad? Cleveland? Oceania? > [@](#): > > Don’t you think Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction would weaken US power? Don’t you think he might use them to attack Israel, or re-invade Kuwait, or blackmail Saudi Arabia, or generally start World War effing Three? According to Our Leader, he already has them, oodles of Nuclear Anthrax and Intercontinental Drone Aircraft to deliver them. Has had them for years and is feverishly determined to use them against them at his earliest opporunity, crisis, emergency, AAArrrooooga! Code Red! Piffle. Then why hasn’t he? The desperate urgency of the situation eluded Fearless Leader until the elections loomed on the horizon (“You don’t bring out a new product line in August”) So riddle me this: what changed suddenly, dramaticly in August of this year such that 10 years of complaisance tuned into an immediate crisis that must be dealt with at once. My answer is: nothing. Yours? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/93 "2002-11-16T15:32:25Z")
“actually, you should do more reading. i think lots of people are acknowledging this as a possibility” Can you give me examples? We are talking here about North Korea attacking the South, making nuclear threats to Seoul and the US backing down in the face of such threats. Who is saying that the US would respond in such a manner? . “we’ve been trying inspections and sanctions for 11 years now, and that hasn’t worked.” Actually inspectors worked just fine when they were on the ground and they succeeded in largely destroying Iraqi nuclear facilities. Obviously if they aren’t even in Iraq they won’t “work” . This just suggests that the correct way forward is to get them back on the ground. More importantly no one has showed how regime change will “work”. How will the US prevent Saddam from passing his weapons to terrrorists after he realizes his regime is finished? How will the US control every weapons facility in Iraq after the war when it doesn’t even know their location for sure? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/94 "2002-11-16T15:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _by Elucidator_ > Al Queda has proved to be a fog, we don’t know who they are, we don’t know where they are, we don’t even know if they still exist in any meaningful way. Of course, **elucidator.** The Bali explosion was caused by a natural gas leak. The tanker truck that blew up the synagogue in Tunisia exploded because the driver was carelessly smoking a cigarette. The French tanker off Yemen developed a big hole in it after it was attacked by sperm whales. The people who shot at the Marines in Kuwait thought they were carrying water pistols. We don’t know if Al-Qaeda still exists in any meaningful way. Putting that aside, I agree with you that there is no proven connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the Bushies are idiots to try to push that argument. 'Course, I’m concerned with the probable results of an invasion if Iraq doesn’t disarm, not the rationales set forth by the Bushies. Sua ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/95 "2002-11-16T15:55:28Z")
Well, **Sua** , despite the snideness of your remarks, they bring up an interesting point. These incidents have occured, and you take that as proof that they are were orchestrated by the dreaded Al Queda. Says who? Which are _inspired_ by Al Queda, and which were _directed_? Do you know? Does anyone? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/96 "2002-11-16T16:02:13Z")
“You see, in American jurisprudence, if a criminal resists arrest, the criminal is legally responsible for any deaths that occur in the attempt to capture him/her.” Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not the same thing. And legal responsibility is never the sole criterion for making decisions about life and death. For instance if there is a choice between letting one murderer get away and killing ten innocent by-standers I doubt there is a single policeman in America who would choose to kill the bystanders . Apparently you would choose the opposite; which just makes me hope that you avoid a career in the police force or , for that matter, in the foreign-policy business. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/97 "2002-11-16T16:03:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Well, **Sua** , despite the snideness of your remarks, they bring up an interesting point. These incidents have occured, and you take that as proof that they are were orchestrated by the dreaded Al Queda. Says who? Which are _inspired_ by Al Queda, and which were _directed_? Do you know? Does anyone? \*\* What’s the difference, in pratical terms? If they were directed by Al-Qaeda, we need to take out Al-Qaeda. If they were inspired by Al-Qaeda, we need to take out Al-Qaeda. In any event, that’s not how Al-Qaeda ever worked. It was a source of funding and, yes, inspiration, for affiliated groups and cells. There were very few attacks that were directly controlled by Al-Qaeda. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/98 "2002-11-16T16:14:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > “You see, in American jurisprudence, if a criminal resists arrest, the criminal is legally responsible for any deaths that occur in the attempt to capture him/her.” > Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not the same thing. Do you argue they are different in this circumstance? > [@](#): > > And legal responsibility is never the sole criterion for making decisions about life and death. For instance if there is a choice between letting one murderer get away and killing ten innocent by-standers I doubt there is a single policeman in America who would choose to kill the bystanders. And the death of innocents is never the sole criterion, either. If that murderer is likely to kill 11 more people if he gets away, or if the escape of the murderer encourages other people to commit murder in the expectation that if they are about to get caught they can escape by putting more innocents at risk, it is better that the policeman open fire. > [@](#): > > Apparently you would choose the opposite; which just makes me hope that you avoid a career in the police force or , for that matter, in the foreign-policy business. Oh, fine. I note **CyberPundit,** that you have _never_ responded to the assertions by myself and others that allowing Saddam to get away with his genocides, development of WMD, etc. will encourage others to do the same. This is not a theoretical concern; there have been at least four and probably five genocides that I can recall in the last decade alone. Your willingness to let a committer of genocide to dictate whether or not the rest of the world will stop a genocide, I submit, will teach future leaders that they can get away with genocide if they threaten enough innocents. Thus, **you** are the one who is willing to let more innocents die than I am. You are opposed to stopping this genocide because you believe that more civilians will die than will be saved. **More** innocents will die if your approach is adopted. It just makes me hope that you avoid a career in the police force or, for that matter, in the foreign policy business. Sua ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/99 "2002-11-16T16:43:18Z")
Well, **Sua** , you might have a point if the Bushista’s primary justification for war were the moral highground of genocide. But the primary justification offered is the alleged threat that Iraq poses to America, moreover, it is the _immediacy_ of that threat. An international court of justice to adjudicate and punish acts of genocide might be a fine idea. But we already have laws against preemptive and/or aggressive war, which we seem perfectly willing to bat aside if it suits our purposes. Note as well that America has consistently undermined the World Court by insisting that no surrender of American soveriegnty will be permitted. Without American recognition of international law, without an American willingness to defer its judgement in favor of an international one, this is nothing more than sanctimonious posturing, and will be seen as such by our enemies and potential allies alike. The threat of war with Iraq did not originate in the UN, it originated in the US. Our Leader has made it abundantly clear that his “my way or no way” approach to international relations has not been modified in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646/100 "2002-11-16T17:15:26Z")
“And the death of innocents is never the sole criterion, either. If that murderer is likely to kill 11 more people if he gets away, or if the escape of the murderer encourages other people to commit murder in the expectation that if they are about to get caught they can escape by putting more innocents at risk, it is better that the policeman open fire.” But that’s precisely my point. You have to weigh the possible loss of innocent life from taking an action and compare it with the loss of innocent life from not taking it. Till now you have been avoiding facing such trade-offs and been asserting that as a matter of principle murderers/genocides should be stopped regardless of what the cost in human life is. I don’t want to discuss the trade-off in the police example in detail so long as you now accept in principle that the trade-off has to be made. “I note CyberPundit, that you have never responded to the assertions by myself and others that allowing Saddam to get away with his genocides, development of WMD, etc. will encourage others to do the same.” First of all I dispute without further evidence the idea that there is a “genocide” going on. The problem is that different people have different threshholds for what a genocide is. I would restrict it to situations like the Holocaust and Rwanda where there is massive loss of life. Clearly nothing of the kind is going on in Iraq right now. You point out that there is a looser defintion in the Genocide Convention. That’s fine but conventions don’t decide, by themselves, the defintion of political terms. If you insist on using a loose defintion then I would say that you need to distinguish between major genocides(Rwanda) and minor genocides(Iraq today). Obviously in the latter case, outside military intervention is much less justifiable especially when serious collateral damage is likely. Apart from that you seem to be under the impression that attacking Iraq is going to stop future genocides. The problem is that this is only true if the war on Iraq is being fought as part of a policy to fight genocide wherever it happens. Since that is obviously not true and nor is it believed to be true there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will deter future genocides. Can you give any reason at all why any future genocidal leader would be deterred because of an American attack on Iraq? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/15-reasons-to-stop-this-war/136646.md?page=6)