15 reasons to stop this war

Great Debates
101

What is more important to you, the justification or the result? Bush may well be dead wrong about all his justifications for attacking Iraq. The result will be the end of a genocide, the end of totalitarian rule, the end of efforts to acquire WMD.

As I said earlier, I don’t refuse to purchase furniture from a salesman because his goal is to make money off me.
Bush and I may have different reasons for supporting a war with Iraq. I don’t care what his reasons are, so long as my goals are achieved.

Sua

102

“What is more important to you, the justification or the result?”
Ah but the problem is that if you are thinking about deterring future genocides the justification is absolutely critical. If no one believes that Bush is attacking Iraq to stop genocide (and of course he isn’t) no one is going to be deterred.

As for stopping the current “genocide” it means fighting a war that will kill thousands and likely tens of thousands of civilians to save a few hundred Maadan Arabs which doesn’t sound very “moral” at all.

The problem is that your whole case rests on deterring future genocides and a war on Iraq isn’t going to do that.

103

I have posted this at least twice.

It is a War on Terror, not simply a War on al-Queda. Why are you ruling out attacks on terrorists other than al-Queda? And what evidence do you have that Bush and the US government have ruled all terrorists off limits unless they were directly involved in 9/11?

We know where a bunch of them are - six feet under, and no longer running the government of Afghanistan.

We seem relatively certain that bin Laden is still alive, and we know that Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreements at the end of the Gulf War. Also that Saddam is a liar, mass murderer, torturer, etc., etc.

Which makes him an entirely appropriate subject of the War on Terror.

I guess I did understand you after all.

This is almost breathtaking silly. You are claiming that we were never in any danger from the al-Queda terrorists in Afghanistan?

And mine is that it happened in September, not August, and about a year earlier than you think.

I can’t shake the idea that I am misunderstanding you. Are you really serious about this? Your posts are usually correctly spelled, grammatically correct, and brimful of a bizarre kind of wackiness at which the mind boggles.

It strikes me more as some kind of put-on. And I don’t get the joke.

Regards,
Shodan

104

Why do you keep putting “genocide” in quotations when you refer to the Ma’dan? Is it to assuage your conscience?
What is happening to the Ma’dan is genocide pursuant to international law. It is also genocide pursuant to Merriam-Webster: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”

Sua

105

::Sigh:: as I said, unbridgeable. You are insistent on granting Saddam the right to deter the rest of the world from upholding international law, stopping genocide, and disarming him by the simple expedient of putting his own people at risk.

One more time. A war won’t kill thousands or tens of thousands of civilians. How Saddam chooses to fight that war may risk civilians.

OK, fine. Then the issue is upholding international law and the authority of the United Nations. If Iraq is not attacked, then no one will be deterred from violating international law and defying U.N. Chapter 7 resolutions.
And since international law and Chapter 7 resolutions deal with little things like aggressive war, genocide, “ethnic cleansing”, etc., the recent past demonstrates that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians will die if countries think they can violate international law with impunity.

And that is explicitly what this war is about. You did read a copy of Bush’s September 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, right?

Sua

106

And I thought I made long posts. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Elucidator’s analogy is “crap”; nice. Then my “Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda”, gets a “so what?”. Tell it to Bush, he seems to think it’s important. My “war with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point”, gets “why are we only concerned about americans?”. Again, ask Bush, this is how he’s selling the war. On “Saddam is a horrible dictator but:”, you quote Sua’s objection, which I handled with my new posting of the 15 reasons on page 2. Thanks for pointing out the number 15 problem for “better ways” to fight the war, should have been 14. You say “I think 6 has been addressed by others”. Really, who?

For my “7. Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror”

You say: “I thought you’d retracted this argument. have you revived it?”

I hope you will explain this. Do you equate the war on terror with war on Iraq? I just don’t get this and Sua’s arguments, seem to me, to have missed the point entirely. These are reasons that an intelligent person, in my opinion, might list for not pursuing Bush’s war against Iraq. They also, hopefully, counter much of what the conservative right wing is saying to sell this war, nothing more.

For my: “8. Bush has not prepared for this war in a sensible way:”

We here: “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.

And we here: “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.”

And: “you also talk about this initially being a debate ‘just among the members of the administration.’ 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.”

No, no, and no. This item is about Bush being inconsistent and making a mess of things. You don’t start by having a public debate within your own administration. If I remember correctly, Bush Sr. spent a great deal of time on the phone, before he went to the UN or Congress, building the largest coalition in history. Has Bush Jr. done that? We’ve seen dubya thumb his nose at international agreements, talk about us “going it alone”, and then asking for help; how ridiculous and unfortunate.
For: “13. There are other ways to punish Saddam for non-compliance:”

You say: “i think you need to drop this point unless you can come up with some realistic “non-war” alternatives.”

This is a war alternative I’ve heard an Iraqi expert talk about. Is he being unrealistic? I like this alternative. Am I advocating it? Bush has made any such advocacy moot. Either we will have war, his way or the anti-war movement will succeed. Is this a reason not to go to war? Yes, Bush defining this war as “get Saddam with urban combat in Baghdad” and excluding reasonable alternatives such as this, is a very good reason to oppose this war.
For my: “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? “

Why do you stop quoting me here? Let’s finish what I said:

“But it is just a dream, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I prefer no, to his war.”

So after not quoting me completely you say:
“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.”

We haven’t been “dreaming”, we’ve been bombing and enforcing no-fly-zones and sanctions. What are we doing to develop revolutionary armies? Where are they? What is their strength? What has Bush done for the peace process? But yes, I agree, finally, now, after irritating the international community, Bush is trying to get support.

Then you accuse me of advocating a “wait and see” approach, which isn’t true.
Finally for: “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.”

We get:
“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?”

I need to rewrite this item to make it more clear. Yes it is sinister. It’s outrageous. This administration has pushed the intelligence services hard. They want these services to find links between al Queda and Iraq and to make the conclusions they want to hear. They’ve tried to compromise the objectivity of these services and the information they produce. It’s a scandal that should be front page news. Did you read my links on the subject?

107

“It is also genocide pursuant to Merriam-Webster: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.””
Depends on what you mean by “destruction”. What’s going on in Iraq appears to be more a case of displacement rather than large-scale killing so I wouldn’t call it a genocide. In any case as I said it doesn’t really matter; if you want to dilute the meaning of the word “genocide” I would simply say that there are different degrees of genocide and the one in Iraq doesn’t justify a big war.

“A war won’t kill thousands or tens of thousands of civilians. How Saddam chooses to fight that war may risk civilians.”
Well this is just your peculiar ethical system in play here. According to me the war is partly responsible for killing the civilians. Same goes with the policeman who shoots at a crowd to kill a fleeing murderer (regardless of legal responsibility). I suspect most people would agree.

“And that is explicitly what this war is about”
So just because Bush talks about UNSC resolutions in front of the UN that means that is the real reason? Right. And how much did he talk about UNSC resolutions before that speech?

The fact of the matter is that the reason for the war, if it happens, will be a perceived national security threat to the US coming in an economically vital region.

Do you seriously believe that if there is a Chapter 7 resolution in the future against a genocide,say, in Africa, Bush is going to commit large numbers of troops to stop it? Do you think that there is any potential dictator out there who believes that the war on Iraq is part of a principled support for UNSC resolutions and that in the future the US is going to send troops for that purpose.

108

what part of ‘unfettered access’ do you not understand - Iraq has violated the treaty he signed - at which time we have the option of reverting to the former state of war.

He has also fired at our planes which is an act of war.

I think there is no doubt he is trying to get nuclear devices and he has shown a tendancy to use WoMD in the past. One of his own security experts who defected has said that S.H. is 6 months to 2 yrs away from a bomb.

If it is an urban war I would think our strategy would be more like a seige then urban fighting - cut off power and water and wait (occationally letting loose a bomb or 2 off a plane that is flying over).

109

Sua says:

“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?”

And I say, sure; but for now it’s good enough to know your still talking to me.

110

No, Shodan i’m not joking. You don’t get it, true enough, but not because its a joke. You don’t get it because you refuse to address the premises.

In your first paragraph, you make this abuntantly clear. If the War on Terror needs be expanded to include a war on Iraq, then simply define Iraq as “terrorist”. This works for you. But despite exhaustive attempts to do so, no connection has been shown between Al Queda and Iraq. The simplest explanation is that there is none. Hence, the war on Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

And again! Bin Laden is alive, Iraq has violated UN accords, and Saddam is an evil, evil man: Therefore: the war on Iraq is a war on terror. Premise, premise, premise, leap of faith!

You dont seem to get this, heres how it works: your premises should connect to each other in a clear and meaningful way, and the conclusion should follow from those premises, not be pulled out of thin air. Want me to talk slower?

No, I’m saying that they are not one and the same as the Taliban. If I had meant to talk about Al Queda, I would have said “Al Queda”. When I say “Taliban”, that means I’m talking about the Taliban. I’ll review that for you if need be.

And again with that bull-pucky! I’ll say this very, very slowly. Iraq…had…nothing…nothing…to do…with…9/11. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

I know, I know. The Leader has said so. I hate to impose on such a charming, child like faith, but it has to be done. There is no Santa Claus, and sometimes politicians say things that are not entirely true. Sorry to be the one to break this.

He’s lying to you. He has lied to you, in all probability, he will continue to lie to you. Its not a put on, its about death and dying, and it damn sure ain’t no joke.

111

Thanks to comments from matty, sua, and others I’ve added some references and changed the wording of reason 15. Thanks, all.

  1. Far too few Americans support this war.

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, 10, and 16. A recent Pew Center poll shows that support for the war has slipped to only 55%, reference 13.

  1. 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. Predictions that he’s about to get the atomic bomb have been discredited, references 4, 17, and 18. Even if true, there are other ways to stop this, references 19 and 20.

  1. 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.

  1. 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, reference 11 and 14.

  1. 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 14.

  1. 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, reference 12.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Iraq is not like Afghanistan:

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”.

  1. 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 yet been conquered and the people of Iraq are more angry than demoralized.

  1. Iraq is like Germany after world war one:

Humiliated by defeat and forced to disarm, if an unworkable democracy is imposed the analogy will be complete. Of course, an analogy the Arabs use is Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, and we know how well that’s gone.

  1. 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.

  1. 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? But it is just a dream, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I prefer no, to his war.

  1. This administration has some explaining to do:

What could be worse than a president or his aides trying to push our intelligence services to certain conclusions so they can justify a war. They have tried to compromise the objectivity of our intelligence services and that is outrageous. A number of articles discuss this, 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 as well, references 5, 6, and 15.

References:

  1. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

  2. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story

  3. White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' | World news | The Guardian

  4. "Bush Would Have Nominated Garland" - accuracy.org

  5. http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/thenote_oct22.html

  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html

  7. Bush aiming at wrong target, US critics fear | World news | The Guardian

  8. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04KRIS.html

  9. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/international/middleeast/10MILI.html?pagewanted=1

  10. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20020925.htm

  11. Have no doubt: terrorist leader is very much alive and more dangerous than ever | World news | The Guardian

  12. foreigncorrespondent.com

  13. http://www.pewtrusts.com/pubs/pubs_item.cfm?image=img5&content_item_id=1327&content_type_id=18&page=p1

  14. http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/October/world/028BB5FE71.html

  15. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=alterman

  16. ARIANNA ONLINE - Arianna Huffington

  17. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

  18. http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4375878,00.html

  19. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fp/b19ch2.htm

  20. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021001-29737072.htm

112

Matty you alluded to the idea that some of my arguments should perhaps be removed because they “don’t hold water” due to comments made by Sua. I’ve been looking at those comments and I’d like to ask your help. I’m not going to ask you to go through all 15, but if you or Sua could pick one that you feel I have not sufficiently addressed or changed I would appreciate it. If there is one you feel I should remove, I’d like to know.

Thanks

113

** aaaphen256!
You are a real debator!**
I take off my hat for You!

I do not know how long You have been here before posting, but You are the first one that I see that is really looking for the truth in a discussion.
Usually, in almost every thread there is:

  1. Someone who does not read the posts before answering.
  2. Many that ignores the questions and just pulls forward their “truths”.
  3. Believers, that believes anything someone has taught them, told them and is strengthening their former believes.
  4. And when cornered with logic or facts, jumps to the next tread and begins to “believe” there again.

Now we have one that is ready to back out from the earlier position, if (s)he is overpowered with facts.
Not just beginning the Yes! - No! - Yes! - No!-discussion in order to thecnically prove her/himself that he knew “the truth” from the beginning.

Yes, these debates should bring, and many times brings, the debators nearer the truth.

Hurray for aaaphen256!
Thanks!!!

That’s the spirit! (And I little bit envy You! ;))

114

Aaaaphen256

Let me be the first to say that so many people don’t read the other posts before responding. I would also point out that most of your arguments are not entirely without merit.

115

Echoing Hank’s remarks, but with some temperence.

Not bad for a newbie. Not bad at all.

116

Thanks all, I appreciate it. I’d like to make some comments on the humanitarian/genocide debate. I believe Thomas Jefferson once said “People deserve the government they get.” A harsh sentence, but not completely without merit. Suppose all other reasons pale, and the only reason left for “regime change” in Iraq is the humanitarian one. Should we go to war? Perhaps, but I do not accept that America is responsible for Saddam Hussien. He was helped to power by quite a few Sunnis, many of whom we’re shot for their trouble. They had to know they were helping a gangster.

Should we kill Saddam in order to help the Kurds, Shiites, and Ma’dan? One could argue that “other peoples problems are not our responsibility”. I don’t like that argument, but I think it’s a valid one if that’s your philosophy. I would advocate helping the Kurds, Shiites, and Ma’dan without “going after Saddam”. The CIA seems to be pretty good at helping people help themselves. A military invasion could come later, after middle east tensions have cooled down a bit. And that invasion could help the Kurds, Shiites, and Ma’dan without a conquest of Baghdad.

On the Ma’dan let us agree to call it genocide, but also agree that not all genocides are the same. Saddam does not hate the Ma’dan, in my opinion. In the past, he has created “human free zones” in the north for “security reasons”. Unfortunately, the marshland of the Ma’dan seems to be suffering the same fate. However, when Ma’dan leave they apparently avoid this slaughter. They have to learn a new way of life, but this is not the same thing as Nazis hunting down and killing Jews because they are Jews. We know there are people suffering and dying all over the globe. How much of it are we going to take responsibility for? How much of it are we going to try to stop with military force?

117

I doubt that this will ad much to this debate, none the less:

In the absence of a clear and unambiguous threat to the physical security of the United States or a clear and unambiguous threat to the physical security of a treaty ally we have to rely on fortune telling to justify a military attack on Iraq. To this point I don’t see anyone saying any more than that it is likely that sooner or later Iraq will have nuclear weapons and the ability to use them against countries that are for the time being America’s friends. That is we are talking about committing the prestige and power of the United States to deal with a probable future capability.

An assumption that because the Gulf Campaign went well a future full scale invasion of Iraq will also be a milk run may well be a false assumption. For one thing, at this point we cannot depend on the assistance of neighboring countries. For another thing we have to think that Iraq learned something from the late unpleasantness. For another thing, the Mid East is hardly as stable now as it was in 1991–Does anyone think that the Saudis can give substantial aid and still stave off a palace revolt as things stand now. Consider how a friendly regime in Jordan or in Egypt keeps power if the balloon goes up.

If we are to go to war I wish that decision was fully joined in by people with real experience of war. It is one thing to have the President and the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense and the various advisors dependent on them and allied with them to run around rattling their sabers. It is another thing for men who once had to write letters reading "I was your son’s platoon leader…"concurring in what seems to be a political-economic decision. I see Colin Powell being a good soldier who knows which side his bread is buttered on. But I also see him busting his hump to get the UN involved and to slow down the precipitous rush to the brink.

If we are going to do this the President owes us a persuasive and credible explanation of why war is a necessity, and why now.

118

Sending our forces over there: 50 billion dollars. Sustaining our troops: 1 billion a day. Bringing it all back home: 40 billion. Getting a second chance to dick around in the White House for another 4 years: priceless.:cool:

119

You say 55% is “far too few.” What is “enough”? Generally speaking, in a democracy 50% +1 is “enough.”

a. Predictions he’s about to get the atomic bomb have been disputed, not discredited. Huge difference.
b. You still don’t give any examples of the “other ways to stop this.” Your reference is to the NPT. The NPT doesn’t work if it doesn’t have teeth, as your reference 20 makes clear. After all, Iraq signed the NPT, as did North Korea. And the NPT, by its terms, has no teeth.

It is probably correct that Saddam doesn’t have nukes, and is at least a few years away from getting them. But you ignore why that is so. It isn’t because Iraq signed the NPT, or through “other ways to stop this”; it is because twice now violent military means have knocked the stuffing out of Iraq and caused serious damage to its nukes program. The first was the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor, and the second was the Gulf War.

c. Whether U.S. personnel is attacked does not define U.S. national security. If that were the case, the US wouldn’t have kept troops in Western Europe for the past 55-odd years.

Again, agreed.

Ahh, grasshopper, your attempt to link Palestine and Iraq avails you not. If Arab anger at Israel and the US is at a fever pitch, and if that is a bad thing (both of which I concede, but others may differ), that says nothing about the pros and cons of our Iraqi policy. It says scads about our Palestinian problem.
You do not propose the logical solution to the anger problem - change US policy towards Israel; instead you demand no war with Iraq. Why fix the peripheral cause of the anger rather than the prime cause?
As for the recruitment issue - if anger at the US is already at a fever pitch, before a war with Iraq, wouldn’t Al Qaeda recruitment already be at its peak? “OOOOhh, I’m boiling mad. Now I’m madderrer.”
Finally, you still haven’t responded to the key criticism of this point - you haven’t provided any evidence that this putative increase in al-Qaeda recruitment would present more danger to US interests and security than Iraq will.

Actually, we don’t. We can say that we have decided on a new policy, in which we fight wars on a humanitarian basis. If anyone asks us to explain when we’ve done little about humanitarian crises in the past, we can respond by saying, “well, that was under the old policy. We have a new policy now.”

Mr. Margolis’ opinion piece has the same problem as your point #5 - both assume that the U.S. can’t change its policy. Mr. Margolis also ignores the lesson learned from 9/11 - that the old policy of supporting stability at the cost of repression in the Mid-East harmed U.S. interests. The 9/11 attackers came from U.S. allies in repressed but “stable” countries. We’ve learned that stability for its own sake hurts us.

But you have still not answered the question - does this “taking away resources” harm the war on terror? As your own reference 7 notes:

Diverting resources is not a problem if the task can be performed without them.

“He goes to Congress just before an election, then tries to form a coalition; instead of the other way around.”

“President Chirac, this is Dubya”
“Bon jour, my friend, how may I help you?”
“Welp, I’d like to form a coalition against Iraq.”
“Very good. I assume that you have gone to your Congress and gotten authorization for an attack on Iraq? Because if you haven’t, you are wasting my time by asking me to join a coalition that, it may turn out, Congress forbids you to join.”
“Er…”
“Yes?”
“Chirac, can I call you back in a few days.”
“But of course.”

OK, fine.

Doesn’t this rule out your point #14? If the Iraqi people are so united against us, why do you think we’d be able to rally large revolutionary armies to do our fighting for us - and expect them to have any support, instead of being looked at as U.S. puppets?

  1. As I stated earlier, there have been numerous attempts on Saddam’s life.
  2. In any event, why do you think an assassination attempt is a prerequisite? There was no such attempt in Japan.
  3. To be a conquered, demoralized nation, you must first be conquered and demoralized. Of course, Iraq is not like Japan or German of 1945 - we haven’t invaded yet.
    What you fail to do is provide any evidence that, after a successful invasion, Iraq will not be like Germany or Japan of 1945.

Precisely - that is the current status of Iraq. And what changed Germany after WWI into Germany after WWII? Invasion and surrender.

So, an invasion of Iraq will futher anger Arabs and increase Al-Qaeda recruitment, but bombing and/or conquering parts of Arab (Iraqi) land won’t??!!
Either of these options, we get the worst of both worlds: increased Arab anger and Al-Qaeda recruitment, without any decrease in the threat posed by Saddam.

A “better” way is generally limited to those “possible” ways. This was tried before and didn’t work.

Again, I’m not seeing the connection between the questions of “is Bush acting properly?” and “should we fight this war?”

Sua

120

I don’t quite get the point about Iraq not being conquered like Germany in 1945. Don’t you have to go to war before your conquered? Weren’t we at war for years before 1945?

I also don’t like the “He had WMDs for 19 years and hasn’t used them.” point at all. Like the stock market, past performance is not indicative of future performance and after a WMD is unleashed there is no opportunity to recoup losses. We haven’t had a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility or a water supply either but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to defend it.

Decisions of war should not be made necessarily on the number of casualties outright but to the casualties of war relative to the possible casualties of no war.