15 reasons to stop this war

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by aaaphen256 *
**1. The American people do not favor this war:

According to the latest Zogby poll only 39% of Americans favor this war if “thousands of casualties” is included in the question. Some people chalk this up to “spoiled Americans”, but I prefer to believe that Americans sense that if there are thousands of casualties something is wrong. And something is wrong.

1. Demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a war will result in thousands of casualties.

2. War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point:

Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and 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.

1. U.S. national security is not defined by whether US personnel have been attacked with WMD.
2. Provide from history examples of “other ways to stop this.”

3. Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda:

It goes against common sense to think so. Saddam cares about Saddam, not Islamic fundamentalist revolution. He fought a war against the Ayatollahs of Iran. He has killed mullahs in his country. And the evidence of links are puny.

Granted.

4. Bush’s war talk is a political mistake in the Arab world and; therefore, a mistake in the war on terror:

Arabs often watch Israeli solders killing and maiming Palestinians on al Jazeera tv, pictures we never see. Arab anger at Israel and the US is at fever pitch. Bush’s war talk fuels this anger. This is bound to favor al Queda recruitment.

1. Demonstrate that Al Qaeda “recruitment” has been increased due to talk of war with Iraq.
2. If you are able to do so, demonstrate that the increased numbers of Al Qaeda recruits present more of a threat than Iraq.

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. Besides there is a better way, see number 15.

Demonstrate that failure to do the right thing in other situations should prevent you from doing the right thing in another situation. Your argument is that “we’ve screwed up in the past, therefore we are obliged to screw up again in the future.”

6. We will not bring democracy to Iraq:

We have never wanted democracy in Iraq because the most populous group is Shiites, a southern group likely to align with Iran. The “federation” the white house proposes would be difficult in the best of circumstances. It will likely end when we leave.

1. Demonstrate that the religious affinity between Iraqi Shi’ites and Iran is a greater force than the ethnic differences between the Arab Iraqis and the Farsi Iranians.
2. Demonstrate that the U.S. never wanted democracy in Iraq in the past;
3. If you do so, demonstrate that current geopolitical events - i.e. that repression breeds terrorism - has not changed U.S. strategic thinking;
4. Demonstrate that the “federation” “will likely end when we leave.”

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.

Demonstrate that the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to pursue the war on terror and a war with Iraq at the same time.

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 before he goes to the U.N., 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.

Demonstrate that Bush’s preparations, even if insensible, have any impact on the propriety of a war with Iraq.

9. The war will not be like Desert Storm:

In Desert Storm, Saddam’s troops fought in the open desert. All indications are he is not going to make that mistake again, reference 9. Baghdad, with its suburbs, is 9 million people. The urban combat is going to involve high casualties on all sides, reference 10.
We will not have the support of large revolutionary forces on the ground, the urban combat will be nothing like Afghanistan, and we will not be welcomed the way we were there. The people of Iraq blame the UN sanctions on us, not Saddam. As a journalist who recently traveled in Iraq says, “They hate Saddam, but they hate us more” (reference 8). These sanctions have caused real hardship and many Iraqis believe the propaganda that children have died for lack of medicine etc. Few Iraqis believe we are doing this for them. They think we are after their oil. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t true. They believe it, and Saddam is now forming civilian “martyrs brigades” who will likely fight. Many Iraqi civilians have rifles at home. We may find that our troops will have to deal with sniper fire even after the “war is won”.

You state all these predictions about the future as fact. Provide your evidence.

11. Iraq is not like Japan or Germany of 1945:

Japan and Germany were conquered, demoralized nations in 1945, ready for change. An attempt had been made on Hitler’s life. Nothing like that has happened in Iraq. Iraq has not been conquered and the people of Iraq are more angry than demoralized.

Given that Saddam repeatedly uses body doubles, uses multiple motorcades, and rarely sleeps in the same place two nights in a row, demonstrate that there hasn’t been an attempt on Saddam’s life.
In any event, of course Iraq is not like Japan or Germany of 1945 - it hasn’t been conquered yet. Demonstrate that, after Iraq is conquered, it won’t be like Germany or Japan of 1945.

12. Iraq is like Germany after world war one:

Humiliated by defeat and forced to disarm, if we force a chaotic democracy we will complete the analogy.

Actually, no. The analogy would only be complete only if we tried to impose democracy without conquering the country. If we conquer the country, the 1945 analogies are more apt. (if any of the WWI/WWII analogies apply at all).

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.

You realize that both of those “alternatives” are war, right?

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 get as much international help as possible. We would seriously 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? But it is just a dream, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I prefer no, to his war.

1. We did that in Afghanistan in the 80s. Didn’t turn out well.
2. If you want war for purely humanitarian reasons (as do I), explain the morality of getting others to fight and die to fulfill our goals.

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. Yet a number of articles have come out indicating this is taking place, references 1, 2, and 3. Even Bush’s honesty is being questioned. His war speech was full of holes, reference 4, and our national media is beginning to wonder, references 5 and 6.

Again, demonstrate how Bush’s alleged screw-ups affect the morality of the possible war (which you desire, though just in a different way).

Sua

[yojimbo]

*Originally posted by qersys *
**

All of your references are the (far left) liberal media. One, the guardian is even farther to the left. Not what you would call unbiased reporting. Most of them tend to report only news relevant to their way of thinking.

The Guardian is just left. It’s just that it’s UK left as oppose to US left which IMO is basically right

Anyhoo why don’t ya throw some right ref.'s back that blow away the bias shown in these links. Actually wouldn’t they be bias aswell? What source do you see as unbiased? It wouldn’t be a source that you agree with would it?

[aaaphen256]

SuaSponte

On 1, 3, 9, 10, and 13 I think my references do the trick.

On 2, I think our non-proliferation program claims a number of successes, but I don’t have any references handy, I you don’t mind maybe you could find some.

On 4, I don’t know of any surveys would back this up. If it means anything Mubaric of Egypt has warned about Arab anger and a war with Iraq.

On 5, I should probably reword this, it’s a valid reason to go to war, but I want to point out the hypocrisy.

On 6, I need to find and post the sources I have on this.

On 7, I’m not arguing we don’t have sufficient resources, only that resources have been diverted.

On 8, I think the difference in the size of the coalition fighting Desert Storm and the size of today’s coalition make this obvious.

On 11, Germans and Japanesse had no thoughts of resistance in 1945, I doubt the Iraqis will feel that way. A better analogy might be the west bank. Of course, all these analogies are opinion.

On 12, Germany had a Kaiser. He was ruthless and ambitious. He started WW I. Germany lost feeling conquered and humiliated. By a treaty they hated they we’re forced to disarm and a chaotic democracy with 30+ partys formed. I think the analogy fits, but it’s just my opinion.

On 14, no point in pursueing my little ideas here, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I chose to work to stop this war.

On 15, Using false information and propaganda is immoral and certainly reduces the “reasons” to go to war.

[aaaphen256]

Here’s a link that discusses why Bush’s policy is not working. It’s from the Guardian, so one is free to dismiss it on that basis if you wish.

Have no doubt: terrorist leader is very much alive and more dangerous than ever

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by emarkp *
The only reason he didn’t use WMD’s on our troops was because of the thinly veiled threat of a nuke pointed at Baghdad if he did.

In other words, deterrence. If Saddam didn’t use WMDs on troops invading his country out of fear of a nuclear response, why would he use them to unprovokedly attack the U.S. or its allies? I mean, if ever you’re going to use them, it’s when you’re being invaded, right?

Sua, the OP has asserted opinions based on both facts and (in my view mostly reasonable) assumptions about likely outcomes. For example, increased Al-Qaeda recruitment is dangerous to the U.S., that Bush’s alienation of the international community during his initial discussion about war with Iraq damaged the image of the war as a truly international effort, etc. Many of these predictions are by their nature unprovable, but they are not unreasonable concerns to raise.

The burden of proof about whether a war is just or worthwhile lies with those who would make war, not those who question it. How about you prove the OP wrong? Prove that this war will improve the situation in Iraq, without increasing the United States’ danger from terrorism. Prove that Saddam has WMD and intends to use them against us or our allies, even in the face of certain nuclear retaliation by us. Prove that setting a precident of pre-emptively invading another sovereign nation to prevent a hypothetical future attack will make the world safer in the future.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by aaaphen256 *
SuaSponte

On 1, 3, 9, 10, and 13 I think my references do the trick.

Oh, really?

Your point #1 was an assertion that a majority of Americans oppose war with Iraq. Your evidence was that a poll that a majority of Americans oppose war with Iraq if it results in thousands of casualties. On its face, those are not the same things.

Your point #3 I agreed with.

Your points #9 & 10 consisted of predictions about the future, primarily about the will to fight of the Iraqi army and people. Where is your evidence? All you’ve presented is anecdotes by reporters. Do you trust such anecdotes as conclusive, in a country so scared of its leader that he won 100% of the votes in the election a few weeks ago? Do you have any polling data on the attitudes of the Iraqi army and people?

Your point 13 wasn’t an issue of “references.” Instead of “war,” you proposed bombing or capture of portions of Iraq. Both of those options are “war.”

On 2, I think our non-proliferation program claims a number of successes, but I don’t have any references handy, I you don’t mind maybe you could find some.

Nope, that’s not how this works. You made the assertion; you back it up.

On 4, I don’t know of any surveys would back this up. If it means anything Mubaric of Egypt has warned about Arab anger and a war with Iraq.

Well then, you were expressing an opinion. Please use opinion phrases like “I think” or “it is possible”

On 5, I should probably reword this, it’s a valid reason to go to war, but I want to point out the hypocrisy.

Where is the hypocrisy? America acted badly in the past. It wishes to act properly in the future.

On 6, I need to find and post the sources I have on this.

Go ahead.

On 7, I’m not arguing we don’t have sufficient resources, only that resources have been diverted.

Then what is the problem? If the non-diverted resources are sufficient to prosecute the war on terror, who cares?

On 8, I think the difference in the size of the coalition fighting Desert Storm and the size of today’s coalition make this obvious.

Actually, it doesn’t. The case for war in 1990 was easy to make - Iraq had engaged in a war of aggression. Here, Iraq has been in violation of compulsory UN resolutions for 11 years, but hasn’t actually attacked anyone. Of course it is going to be harder to build a coalition.
Second, we have no idea what the coalition will look like. Many countries have said that they will follow the lead of the UN. Well, the UN just passed a resolution on inspections. If Iraq impedes the inspections, it is very likely a resolution authorizing force will pass, and then many of those countries will join the coalition.

On 11, Germans and Japanesse had no thoughts of resistance in 1945, I doubt the Iraqis will feel that way. A better analogy might be the west bank. Of course, all these analogies are opinion.

Again, express opinions as opinions. Why do you think that a conquered people led into a losing war by a dictator will act differently in this case?

On 12, Germany had a Kaiser. He was ruthless and ambitious. He started WW I. Germany lost feeling conquered and humiliated. By a treaty they hated they we’re forced to disarm and a chaotic democracy with 30+ partys formed. I think the analogy fits, but it’s just my opinion.

Well, the analogy doesn’t fit because your facts are wrong.
First it is decidedly arguable whether the Kaiser started WWI. Most people blame the Austrians, though they acknowledge that Germany was foolish to give the Austrians a “blank check.”
*Second, * the Germans were not forced to form a democracy after WWI. The Kaiser abdicated and a democratic government was formed before either the Armistice or the Versailles Treaty was signed.
Third, the chaos of the Weimar Republic was largely caused by the Constitution the Germans themselves drafted and ratified. The two biggest problems was pure proportional representation, which led to the 30+ parties, and decree powers given to the Chancellor.
Fourth, Hitler came to power because of the Great Depression, not the Versailles Treaty. The Versailles Treaty certainly made his task easier, but had there not been a Great Depression, there would not have been a Nazi Germany.
Fifth, Nazi Germany became a threat to the world not because Germany had been forced to disarm after WWI, but because Britain and France failed to act when Germany started to rearm in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. Had either acted when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, occupied the Ruhr, or announced it was going above the 100,000 soldier limit, Germany would not have been able to launch WWII.

So, a defeated country that was not actually conquered, that was required to disarm but whom no one stopped when it started to rearm, managed to lead the world into the largest and most deadly war of all time.
Hmmm. Maybe that’s the appropriate analogy here?

On 14, no point in pursueing my little ideas here, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I chose to work to stop this war.

You’ve lost your moral high ground here. You are in favor of a war to overthrow Saddam, but you would rather have Iraqis die in that war than US soldiers.
So, why do you choose to stop this war again?

On 15, Using false information and propaganda is immoral and certainly reduces the “reasons” to go to war.

Um, you have already conceded that there are sufficient reasons to go to war (see your point #14). How does allegedly false propaganda about other reasons affect those reasons?

Sua

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by aaaphen256 *
A little suggestion: edit your post, try again without the impudent sarcasm, try adding some common courtesy, and I’ll be quite happy to respond.

Sorry for the lag in responding–it took me that long to stop laughing.

Understand that courtesy here is calling somone’s argument a steaming pile of crap (which I did), rather than calling him that. If you can’t refute my comments, courtesy is the least of your problems. Also note that posts cannot be edited on this board.

As far as “impudent” goes–you’re the one throwing around baseless assertions, sweeping generalizations, incorrect facts, and propaganda for imperialism.

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by Giraffe *
In other words, deterrence. If Saddam didn’t use WMDs on troops invading his country out of fear of a nuclear response, why would he use them to unprovokedly attack the U.S. or its allies? I mean, if ever you’re going to use them, it’s when you’re being invaded, right?

That would make sense if we’re discussion someone rational, all things being equal. It’s a two-edged sword, however. Once Saddam Hussein gets nukes (and he will if we don’t stop him) what’s stopping him from using that threat as deterrence against us? Let’s say there’s a second invation of Kuwait (or aggression against Israel), and when we make moves to stop him, he says New York, Miami, LA, and San Francisco will be nuked if we try? What’s to stop him if he thinks a coup will be successful from sending WMD’s at the US or Israel by way of Al Qaeda?

Again, those are the real nightmares, and I have yet to see anyone who’s against an Iraqi conflict address them. Any takers?

[ElJeffe]

elucidator:

The Security Council resolution could as easily be intrepreted as an attempt to stall, and hopefull corral, the American war impulse. I wish them well, but have scant real hope for thier success. Our Leader has invested too much into this to get out without a clear triumph. Backing out without any of the goals acheived would be a political suicide note. It would also be an act of humane intelligence I fear is quite beyond his capacity.

I would doubt it. The Security Council members showed their true colors by letting us know what it would take to get them to tag along. France and Russia wanted assurance that their oil contracts with Iraq would be honored. Russia and China wanted free reign to kill their Chechen and Uighur populations, respectively. We gave them what they wanted, and they returned the favor by signing on to out war effort, effectively. I wouldn’t be surprised if when Saddam stalls again, and the US decides to attack, SC members step forward to make a few more demands before we attack. Short of that, though, I don’t expect them to stand in the way.

aaaphen256:

I wasn’t aware the Houston Chronicle is far left, is it? Is the LA times?

I don’t know about the Chronicle, but the LA Times is pretty lefty. It’s not as bad as the NYT or anything, but it’s no slouch, either.

I don’t think Saddam is suicidal, if he gets one and uses it he knows he’s dead. We lived with the Soviets having TND and worse.

Saddam is an entirely different beast than was the cold war-era Soviet Union. We were (more or less) safe from Soviet nukes because of MAD, which worked because Soviet leaders had a vested interest in the long-term viability of their nation. They were concerned about more than simply their own behinds.

Saddam may not be suicidal, but he’s not always rational. He attacked Kuwait, for example, knowing damn well that we would come a-runnin’. He may very well try something stupid, thinking he can get away with it. He probably also believes that the US is the same as Europe when it comes to hemming and hawing about his lack of compliance with SC resolutions (which, prior to GWB, wasn’t far from the truth). His perception of where that Firm Line Drawn In the Sand lies may differ wildly from ours. Maybe he thinks that if he attacks Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again, or lobs a few bio-weapons at Israel, we’ll send some more cruise missiles his way, and call it a day. Heck, maybe he thinks he could get away with a little nuke here or there, as long as it wasn’t anything we cherished too dearly, as long as he maintains the threat of irradiating New York.

More importantly, Saddam doesn’t give a rodents patootie about the viablity of his nation as separate from his own maintenance of power. Saddam cares about Saddam, the end. So what if some team of revolutionaries manages to hunt him down, and he believes he’s going to that fabled Palace in the Sky? Is it entirely ridiculous to think he may just send something our way, as a nice little departing “screw you”? Or towards Israel? After all, he’s got nothing to lose, and if we respond with every carrier group we’ve got, what’s it to him?

I can guarantee you one thing, though. The very second that Saddam gets his hands on a viable nuclear weapon, he’s taking Kuwait again. And there won’t be much we can do about it, this time. Except for maybe giving him a thoughtful scowl as we threaten to sign another Security Resolution.
Jeff

[DrDeth]

What war? I don’t see any war. Look, Bush may not be a rocket scientist- but he hires plenty of them as advisors. The only way to get Saddam to agree to Inspections was a real threat of uS Military action. Now, I have no doubt that Bush was willingto back up his threat- it wasn’t a bluff, but it seems the purpaose was NOT to go to war, but to force inspections- Inspections mandated by the UN (not to mention common sense).

Now, here is my prediction- Saddam has agreed to Inspections. But then he’ll waffle, and renege. Bush will ratlle the saber again- SH will agree, but then start putting limitations. Bush will then use a few smart bombs where they do the most good. Real inspections will then start.

At WORST- I imagine something like “Operation Desert Shield”, with US pilots having a field day bombing Iraqi targets without any real opposition. We’ll lose a few thru crashs (but you know, they lose several pilots every year in training exercises anyway), and maybe the Ack-Ack might get lucky once or twice. At most- “dozens” of casualties, not “thousands”. Then Saddam will roll over like the dog he is.

Sure- we CAN go in with ground forces, and overthrow him- but then there will be some significant US casualties. This will make the war very unpopular- however, my guess is that the Iraqis will crumble like cheap tinfoil (they did in our prior attack, and they were in much better shape then), and someone will shoot SH if he doesn’t run & hide somewhere. SH knows this- and he won’t call our bluff.

But- I really hope it doesn’t get to that point. The problem is that SH has intelligence analysts too- and they advise him on US resistance to a War. The more resistance they see (like the OP here), the more likely Saddam will resist- and thus the more likely there WILL be a war. Thus, the more dudes protest the war- the more likely one becomes. Ironic, ain’t it?

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Giraffe *
**In other words, deterrence. If Saddam didn’t use WMDs on troops invading his country out of fear of a nuclear response, why would he use them to unprovokedly attack the U.S. or its allies? I mean, if ever you’re going to use them, it’s when you’re being invaded, right?

“According to Khidhir Hamza, one of Iraq’s defecting nuclear scientists, soon after invading Kuwait Saddam ordered a crash programme to build at least one nuclear weapon that could be flung at Israel if the coalition marched on Baghdad. If this is true, says Mr Pollack, ‘this was not deterrence, just sheer revenge.’” This week’s Economist, p. 88.
In any event, even if deterrence works, you forget that deterrence works both ways. A nuclear-armed Iraq may be deterred from dropping nukes on Israel by us and Israel, but the rest of the world would be deterred from preventing Iraq from engaging in conventional aggression. Imagine Saddam invading Kuwait again, and threatening to blow up Tel Aviv if anyone tried to liberate that country.
Another bit from the Economist to ponder:

For although the Iraqi dictator may indeed shrink from actions he knew would risk his own survival, the real issue is whether he would take other actions in the mistaken belief that he was not risking his own survival. He might assume, for example, that possessing a nuclear deterrent would free him to conduct conventional agression with impunity.

Sua, the OP has asserted opinions based on both facts and (in my view mostly reasonable) assumptions about likely outcomes. For example, increased Al-Qaeda recruitment is dangerous to the U.S., that Bush’s alienation of the international community during his initial discussion about war with Iraq damaged the image of the war as a truly international effort, etc. Many of these predictions are by their nature unprovable, but they are not unreasonable concerns to raise.

But my objection wasn’t that. My objection was that the OP didn’t even attempt to present evidence that the possibility of increased Al-Qaeda recruitment presented a greater threat to US security than Iraq does.

The burden of proof about whether a war is just or worthwhile lies with those who would make war, not those who question it. How about you prove the OP wrong?

Well, I believe that I’ve long since met that burden. Saddam Hussein has led two genocidal campaigns against portions of his own people, one of which - against the “Swamp Arabs” (I’m blanking on their formal name) - is ongoing. Under the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, that is a sufficient causus belli by itself. Add to that Saddam’s defiance of numerous UN Security Council resolutions - issued under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which means they are compulsory, and you have a slam-dunk legal and moral case for war.

But anyway, in responding to the OP, I don’t have to make this case. At Point 14 of the OP, the OPer stated he was in favor of war to overthrow Saddam, just not Bush’s type of war. So the OPer conceded that a war against Saddam is just and worthwhile - we’re just quibbling over the means.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

Found it - the ethnic name for the Swamp Arabs are the Ma’dan, and here are some links that discuss Saddam’s ongoing genocidal campaign against them.

http://www.culturalorientation.net/iraqi/ihist.html#11
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/projects/edenagain/

But you needn’t take my word for it.

It was only in early 1995 that the European Parliament officially designated the Ma’dan a “persecuted minority” and called the Iraqi government’s actions “genocide.”

http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/jul98/marsh_arabs.html
So, why exactly are so many Europeans opposed to a war that would stop what their own representatives have deemed a genocide? Do they think that genocides should continue?

The only thing I get from the anti-war side is “war bad.” Yeah, war is bad. Genocide is worse.

Sua

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by emarkp *
**That would make sense if we’re discussion someone rational, all things being equal. It’s a two-edged sword, however. Once Saddam Hussein gets nukes (and he will if we don’t stop him) what’s stopping him from using that threat as deterrence against us? Let’s say there’s a second invation of Kuwait (or aggression against Israel), and when we make moves to stop him, he says New York, Miami, LA, and San Francisco will be nuked if we try? What’s to stop him if he thinks a coup will be successful from sending WMD’s at the US or Israel by way of Al Qaeda?

Again, those are the real nightmares, and I have yet to see anyone who’s against an Iraqi conflict address them. Any takers? **

You argued that it was the threat of a nuclear attack on Baghdad that prevented him from using WMD against our troops in the Gulf War. If this is the case, then we know that he’s not so crazy that the threat of nuclear annihilation doesn’t stay his hand. It doesn’t make sense to assume that he would now use WMDs against his neighbors or us in some crazy land grab or revenge scheme, if he didn’t use them then, when for all he knew we were headed for Baghdad.

But let’s say he did have nuclear weapons. How could we stop him from nuking Israel? Or New York? The same way we stop Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia from nuking Israel or New York, were they to get such an idea. The knowledge that any country that initiates such an attack will be a smoking hole in the ground about an hour later. Saddam has shown that he values his self-preservation – he’s not a comic book villain. He’s a dictator interested in keeping power.

[aaaphen256]

Well, I’d like to edit the original but the system won’t let me. In the mean time here’s an article about the unlikeness of democracy for Iraq.

http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/bush_doc.html

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by emarkp *
**That would make sense if we’re discussion someone rational, all things being equal. It’s a two-edged sword, however. Once Saddam Hussein gets nukes (and he will if we don’t stop him) what’s stopping him from using that threat as deterrence against us? Let’s say there’s a second invation of Kuwait (or aggression against Israel), and when we make moves to stop him, he says New York, Miami, LA, and San Francisco will be nuked if we try? What’s to stop him if he thinks a coup will be successful from sending WMD’s at the US or Israel by way of Al Qaeda?

Again, those are the real nightmares, and I have yet to see anyone who’s against an Iraqi conflict address them. Any takers? **

You argued that it was the threat of a nuclear attack on Baghdad that prevented him from using WMD against our troops in the Gulf War. If this is the case, then we know that he’s not so crazy that the threat of nuclear annihilation doesn’t stay his hand. It doesn’t make sense to assume that he would now use WMDs against his neighbors or us in some crazy land grab or revenge scheme, if he didn’t use them then, when for all he knew we were headed for Baghdad.

But let’s say he did have nuclear weapons. How could we stop him from nuking Israel? Or New York? The same way we stop Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia from nuking Israel or New York, were they to get such an idea. The knowledge that any country that initiates such an attack will be a smoking hole in the ground about an hour later. Saddam has shown that he values his self-preservation – he’s not a comic book villain. He’s a dictator interested in keeping power.

[Giraffe]

Sua, I would agree with you, if the purpose of this war was to help the Ma’dan. But it is not. If it was, Bush might have, say, mentioned them. The stated purpose is to protect ourselves from a future attack by Saddam’s WMD. Helping the Iraqi people, which I am of course in favor of, isn’t really mentioned as an objective, and we don’t seem to have a clear plan for how to set up a post-Saddam government which will protect them and improve their lives. Without that, even if we intend to help them, we may just make things worse, similar to the chaos of post-Soviet Afghanistan.

As for whether increased Al-Qaeda recruitment is a threat to the U.S., I would point to the two missing buildings and the 3000 missing people in New York as evidence of that. Increasing the number of people willing to die to kill Americans is a bad thing in my view. There is no real defense against suicidal attackers. Is Al-Qaeda a greater threat than Iraq? I’d say yes, as Iraq has done nothing to us in the past decade, whereas Al-Qaeda has attacked us numerous times in the past few years.

(Yes, the OP does advocate war in Iraq, which I find puzzling, as it sort of goes against his first ten or so points. I’m sticking with discussing why the current war plan is a bad idea.)

[elucidator]

The Administration’s response to Iraqs statement of compliance makes it all rather clear: if Saddam bin Laden so much as sneezes without a clearly imploring “Mother May I”, that will be taken as a “material breach”. War. If there is an “incident”, such as the same futile missile launchings of the past several months, that’s war. If he lies to us, its war. The decision as to whether he is lying or not, of course, is entirely Bush’s. War.

[aaaphen256]

SuaSponte

OK, refs 9 and 10 take care of items 1 and 9

Ref 8 takes care of item 10, and of course we cannot be sure in a police state. I feel convinced by Kristof though. I hope you’re not going to ask me to put “In my opinion” in front of every sentence. This is an opinion forum, is it not?

Item 13, I’m against Bush’s war, not necessarily any possible war against Iraq.

On 2, chalk it up to opinion then, do you make the rules here?

On 4, are you serious? You want me to use “I think”, when I say Arabs are angry, the “I have read about angry Arabs and think they are” is understood.

On 5, I’ve reworded it but the editor isn’t working.

On 7, that’s a good question, have you read the source? I wonder why Republicans were complaining to the white house about special forces on terrorism being reassigned to Iraq?

On 8, Bush jr hasn’t even tried to form a coalition the way his father has. He’s thumbed his nose at the international community since he took office, I think, maybe. (I don’t know seems out of place, doesn’t it.)

BTW, you said “it is very likely a resolution authorizing force will pass, and then many of those countries will join the coalition.”

You forgot to say “I think”

On 11, because to them we are Israel playing a West Bank game. And please don’t ask me for sources, if you read anything written in the Arab world you would know that, but of course, due to the police state I may be wrong . . .

On 12, no analogys are ever perfect, I still think this fits better that 1945, which is the analogy the white house is selling.

On 14, “Lost my moral high ground, nah, just no point in discussing what might be, except to point out there are less bloody alternatives.

On 15, the only reason for war I accept in this case is a humanitarian one and only in a specific way. This “war on terror” based on lies and deceit over connections to al Queda that do not exist, I do not accept.

[CyberPundit]

The best reason to avoid a regime-change war is that it won’t produce disarmament assuming that disarmament means not just depriving Saddam of his weapons but preventing those weapons from falling into the hands of hostile parties.

Why is this?
Two reasons:
1)The moment Saddam realizes his regime is toast any incentive he has to not cooperate with terrorists is gone. Since he has nothing to lose he will throw everything he has got to hurt the US and pass on his weapons to terrorists. So a war for regime change makes it more likely to drive Saddam and terrorists to work together. This point has been made repeatedly by Carl Levin, Bill Clinton and the CIA itself.

2)Destrying Saddam is one thing; controlling all Iraqi WMD is another. After the regime falls there will be anarchy in Iraq with WMD lying all over the place. The US forces will be in a race against time against various parties: terrorists,Iraqi rogue elements etc. many of whom will have a much better knowlege of the land and the possible location of WMD. Even if the US captures many of the weapons a few will inevitably leak to various terrorist groups. And even a "few " WMD means possibly hundreds of thousands of US casualties.

In other words the US can have regime change or it can have disarmament(defined broadly) but it can’t have both. What it must do is to use the threat of regime change to force Saddam to cooperate with inspectors. But if it just wants to use inspections as an excuse for regime change it will be the loser in the long run.

[Shodan]

3. Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda:

It’s a War on Terror, not only a war on al-Queda. I don’t think we are, or should be, ruling out attacks on anyone who isn’t directly linked to bin Laden.

Regards,
Shodan