And as a Sioux brave sawed away Custer’s scalp, he was heard to utter: “Boy, now you’ve done it! Now you’re really going to get it! I’m pissed now…”
Let’s face it, Starving Artist, what you are left arguing here is that some vague threat might have existed that might (or might not) have been prevented or diminished by our actions. This sort of thing could be used by anybody under the sun to justify any sort of action.
If it turned out that oral sex didn’t count as sex after all, would Rush Limbaugh and all the other Clinton-bashers take back every bad thing they said about him and admit he’s a capital fellow?
Did the fact that the bloody glove appeared not to fit prove that OJ Simpson was innocent?
Don’t let the mot spectacular aspect of an issue eclipse all the others.
I do not now believe that the war was justified.
I currently believe that Bush wanted to go kick some ass in Iraq, and that he fully intended to do so, for any reason or no reason, period.
It therefore became necessary to provide a sop to the American people (and, to a lesser extent, the world). This sop was “WMDs.”
These beliefs of mine are based on the available evidence as of the moment. What would cause me to change my mind? Well, I would need ALL of the following:
-
WMDs would have to be found.
-
Some manner of delivery system capable of reaching more than a couple hundred miles would have to be found. Bush implied like mad about how WE, the UNITED STATES, faced IMMINENT PERSONAL DANGER if Saddam was not dealt with extremely harshly, IMMEDIATELY! If this was not a lie, it was certainly a wildly misleading statement, and I find it hard to believe that HE believed it. If so, our intelligence over there is a complete joke, and we went to war on it!
-
If no delivery systems were to be found, there would need to be SOME kind of compelling evidence that Saddam intended to sell these precious WMDs to terrorists, rather than keep them himself, for use against evil invading Americans, or perhaps to launch at Tel Aviv, just for grins.
So far, I ain’t seen none of this. Mostly, I’ve just seen Bush squawking about how “it’s all there, yup, yup, just take my word for it, and vote Republican in November. Oh, and did I tell you how I singlehandedly saved the economy?”
Near as I can tell, Bush wanted to kick ass, Bush manufactured and/or solicited the evidence that would make this allowable, and then when it became clear that he COULD go kick ass, he rushed our boys and equipment over there against the explicit advice of his own professional military men, in his wild eagerness to treat the armed forces of the United States Of America like a rich kid treats his Christmas toys.
Hey, I’d love to believe otherwise. Somebody gimme some hard evidence to convince me I’m wrong.
This simply is not true. This idea that I’ve been reduced to arguing that some vague threat is the basis for my support of the war in Iraq, and that this same threat and basis for invasion could be just as easily be made in regard to any number of other countries is hogwash.
In the first place, the threatof al-Qaeda obtaining WMD from Iraq is not my fall back position! It is my primary position and always has been. And I certainly don’t view it as “vague.”
Secondly, I will agree that the same could be said of any other country provided that you can point out to me another country that meets the following criteria:
a) Has developed and used WMD against its neighbor and its own people.
b) Is the next door neighbor of the country where al-Qaeda has been firmly entrenched until recently and still has numerous connections and supporters.
c) Has an abiding hatred of the U.S. for thwarting its expansionist plans in its region of the world.
d) Has defied the U.N. and its numerous resolutions for more than a dozen years.
e) Is said and widely believed to have attempted an assassination of a former U.S. president.
f) Has a history of playing hide and seek with its weapons programs.
g) Has harbored the terrorist Abu Nidal and guaranteed payments to support the families of suicide bombers in Israel so as to overcome one of the impediments to the recruitment of said suicide bombers.
If this sounds like “Jamaica,” as some poster has suggested as an equally likely target, or any other country you can think of, then I’ll agree our action could just as easily (and justifiably) be applied to them.
If you can’t, and I’m sure you can’t, then kindly drop this bullshit that my reasons for supporting the invasion of Iraq can be applied anywhere.
b) Iraq is not the next-door neighbor to Afghanistan, was, indeed, sseveral hundred miles from Afghanistan, and the Ba’ath government had no relations with the Taliban.
The only “connections and supporters” of al Qaida that are in Iraq are the ones that we let into the country when we destroyed their borders and failed to provide the manpower to keep them secure.
e) North Vietnam is said and (was) widely believed to have attacked U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. No reliable evidence actually support the “kill the former president” story.
g) Abu Nidal had “retired” from terrorist acvtivities when he moved to Iraq. Granted, giving him shelter was not a “nice” thing to do, but he had been involved in no terrorist activities for several years before he moved to Iraq and there is not even a rumor that he continued involvement in terrorist groups after moving to Iraq. The famil;y payments, while bad, were little more than publicity ploys for Iraq. Not every bomber’s family received such payments and Iraq generrally made a payment after the fact on a few occasions when they needed good publicity.
Your other talking points can be aimed at other countries, as well.
To pick just one: The U.S. has encouraged and funded terrorist activities in Nicaragua and El Salvador, Angola, and a number of other countries. The U.S. has threatened neighbors (even invading Panama and Grenada). The U.S. has engaged in experiments with biological and chemical weapons which were already banned by international treaties (and has hidden their experiments even from its own citizens who were harmed by leaks). The U.S. (in the person of G.W. Bush) had an abiding hatred for Iraq that was expressed openly during his campaign for the presidency and that irrationally dominated his desire to find the perpetrators of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. The U.S. has tried to assassinate a nearby national leader on multiple occasions and arranged for the coup that resulted in the death of Salvadore Allende (among others.)
So, your seven rationalizations for invading Iraq have gaoing holes on their own–and the ones that remain can be used to justify a hostile takeover of the U.S. (if we were not so large as to make such an attempt unworkable).
What distinguishes your (now falsified) argument for Iraq as an imminent threat from an identical argument being made for Iran or Pakistan?
If that’s your primary position you are on weak ground indeed. Never mind that the weapons are fictional, Iraq had no connection or collaborative relationship to al Qaeda and nothing to gain by giving them their fictional weapons.
Moreover, al Qaeda could just as easily get weapons from Pakistan (which has the bomb and is very friendly to al Qaeda) or Iran.
Would you support a full scale invasion of Pakistan? If not, why not?
-irrelevant to making a case for imminent threat and unproven in the case of Iraq.
Pakistan
“Abiding hatred” does not constitute an imminent threat and there’s not enough room on this page to list all the countries that hate the US.
Since when does GWB have the authority to enforce UN resolutions?
Irrelevant to making a case for imminent threat and not especially true for Iraq either- at least not in a way that constitued anything more than some minor, symbolic leg kicking. The US exercised a much more egregious and significant defiance of the UN by invading Iraq.
Unproven and already avenged by Clinton in any case. Also not an imminent threat.
What weapons programs?
Unproven and still irrelevant to imminent threat against the US. (If you look on a globe you will find that the US and Israel are two entirely different countries in different parts of the world).
You set up a premise that Iraq posed some sort of vague, hypothetical threat to th US. It was pointed out by several posters that the same could be said of any number of other countries. You then listed a number of allegations (with varying degrees of accuracy) against Iraq which had nothing to do with your premise of imminent threat. Your only feeble argument for Iraq as a threat to the US was that maybe they would give their make-believe weapons to al Qaeda. The rest of your alphabetical list is just a noisy filibuster unrelated to your premise.
Pakistan is known without a doubt to be friendly to al Qaeda and ObL and Pakistan has nukes. Should we invade Pakistan, yes or no?
If you can’t, and I’m sure you can’t, then kindly drop this bullshit that my reasons for supporting the invasion of Iraq can be applied anywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Starving Artist, your list provides sufficient justification for Bush’s sabre-rattling which–to his credit–presuaded Saddam to re-admit the weapons inspectors. But there was no justification for cutting that process short and proceeding with the invasion anyway. Obviously Bush had already made up his mind to invade and was just going through the motions.
“a) Has developed and used WMD against its neighbor and its own people…”
As its neighbor (I presume you are talking about Iran?) did precisely the same thing as well. If there is some innocence and harmlessness implied by the term “neighbor”, it hardly applies. The bloody fiasco that was the Iran-Iraq war was entirely devoid of any civility. And, as has no doubt been pointed out to you already, Iraq had at least the tacit acceptance, if not approval, of the US.
As to “his own people”, that is artfully worded. If one’s own people is defined by such persons residing within one’s formal borders, whether willingly or not, then I suppose you could make the case that the Kurds were Saddam’s “own people”. I shouldn’t try to make that case to the Kurds themselves. At any rate, the persecution and massacre of minority ethnic groups is a game played out with wild enthusiasm throughout the region, and throughout history. I have Cherokee ancestors with such complaints, to cite one of many.
“b) Is the next door neighbor of the country where al-Qaeda has been firmly entrenched until recently and still has numerous connections and supporters.”
Israel is “next door neighbor” to Syria. Pakistan, to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, to Iran. These accidents of geography mean precisely squat. We are next door neighbor to Canada, and Heaven only knows what skullduggery is afoot there!
“c) Has an abiding hatred of the U.S. for thwarting its expansionist plans in its region of the world.”
Oh, dear. Brace yourself, this is going to come as a shock. We are not, I fear, the beloved of the nations. Less so now than before, to be sure, but never the focus of admiration and affection in the region. Whether or not this is a result of thwarting expansionist plans is rather beside the point, don’t you think? If the source of thier violent hatred is Brittany Spears CD’s, does that really matter?
“d) Has defied the U.N. and its numerous resolutions for more than a dozen years.”
(cough)…Israel. And had it not been for the US’s adamant use of its veto in the Security Council, would hold the all time record for defiance of UN resolutions. Hands down, bar none, no competition.
“e) Is said and widely believed to have attempted an assassination of a former U.S. president.”
Very artfully worded. “Is said and widely believed”. One notes with approval that you do not suggest that the charge is true, which is quite wise. Since, of course, you cannot prove such a thing. It is “said and widely believed” that the US invaded Iraq simply to get our grubby mitts on their oil. Does that make it true, or even something to be taken seriously?
“f) Has a history of playing hide and seek with its weapons programs.”
Well, yeah, I guess. The went to ultimate lengths to hide their nuclear weapons program, by not existing in the first place. Crafty devils! And, in the final days before our noble crusade, began publicly dismantling missiles that were judged to be in technical non-compliance. Cunning rascals! Taking on the appearance of complying by actually complying! Does their perfidy know no bounds?
“g) Has harbored the terrorist Abu Nidal and guaranteed payments to support the families of suicide bombers in Israel so as to overcome one of the impediments to the recruitment of said suicide bombers.”
Dont personally know that much about Abu Nidal. Pass. Perhaps you can make a case for war out of that alone. Perhaps you can blow up a Japanese condom into a Graf Zeppelin. Perhaps. As to financial aid offered to terrorists, this is not unique to Iraq. At any rate, while this might be cause for Israel to make war, it is hardly cause for us.
Is that it, then? Is this the sum of your case for war? Are you sure you don’t want to throw in the Iraqi soldiers tossing Kuwaiti babies out of thier hospital bassinets in order to steal them? Don’t want to bring in rumors of Satanism?
This is all you got?
Good point. Also, I find it quite remarkable how all those people trashing Bush for Iraq immediately shut up like clams as soon as the subject of Kosovo is raised. Why? Because, if one opposes Bush on Iraq invasion one must have opposed Clinton on Kosovo operation; if one supported Clinton on Kosovo one must support Bush on Iraq; the one who supported Clinton on Kosovo and opposes Bush on Iraq is a phony.
You know, New Iskander is right. I oppose Clinton on Kosovo. I demand that we get our troops out of there right now, and throw that bum Clinton out of office immediately.
What?
Please explain why supporting Clinton on Kosovo implies that one must support Bush on Iraq.
You’ve asserted it, but you haven’t even made a cursory attempt at logically connecting them.
I’m still waiting for the Bush apologists to tell me why it was perfectly acceptable to rake Clinton over the coals for Kosovo, but criticism of Bush’s Iraq misadventure constitutes “aiding and abetting our enemies.” :rolleyes:
While many posters have already deflated this specific argument, let’s review the basics of logic:
- A ==> B (statement, assertion)
- B ==> A (converse)
- ~B ==> ~A (contrapositive)
- ~A ==> ~B (whatever)
An assertion and its contrapositive are logically equivalent; its converse and the ‘whatever’ (can’t remember the name; it’s the converse’s contrapositive) are also logically equivalent. But the truth of a statement doesn’t imply the truth of the converse, or vice versa, for a host of reasons.
So let’s look at the statement “No WMDs ==> no justification for war”. Or “~WMDs ==> ~JfW” for short.
It’s the contrapositive of “JfW ==> WMDs”, which is what it’s logically equivalent to.
There’s absolutely no expectation that it should be equivalent to, or even imply, its converse, “WMDs ==> JfW”.
But that’s what you’re asserting: that “No WMDs ==> no justification for war” ==> “WMDs ==> justification for war.”
And now that I’ve reduced it to nice symbolic logic, any freshman logic text you care to consult will back me up on this.
End of argument.
The important elements of the case made by the WH et al against Iraq are very true of Pakistan. But, I already posted such info.
“This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned other countries that better fulfilled the criteria given for selecting Iraq to come down on.
Unlike Iraq, Pakistan’s ties to aQ and the Taliban are substantial, significant, myriad and well documented. There’re many sympathies in both the Pakistani intelligence services and the Pakistani military for both aQ and the Taliban. Pakistani General Hamid Gul warned UbL that Clinton had sent missiles after him. IIRC, Khalid Sheik Mohamed was arrested inside the Pakistani version of a gated community that’s home to many of Pakistan’s top brass. Combine these sympathies in crucial places with the dictatorial government, frequent assassination attempts on government officials, and the Father of the Islamic Bomb and the world’s greatest illicit nuclear technology proliferator, Abdul Qadir Khan and the threat from Pakistan looms mightily over the one that was emanating from Iraq.”
I’d not say that they could be applied anywhere, but rather the criteria used for justifying the invasion of Iraq are more substantively fulfilled by other countries. Pakistan is the poster child for this.
Diogenes:
That would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
i think that someone should be in charge of interrogating Heaven until we know what sort of skullduggery’s going on up there.
It is to laugh. I find it quite remarkable that opposition to Bush’s grand, foreign policy, military ventures is so often equated with some sort of approval of Clinton. What a big, fat, crock of shit you’re serving there.
I’m from AR and odds are I was tired of Clinton’s BS long before you even heard of him.
While, I’m not familiar with the Kosovo affairs, I’d be willing to bet that a discussion of the accuracy of the argument by comparison you just made between Iraq and Kosovo would deserve its own thread.
Starving Artist:
Simon X (blessed be!) has replied to most of the arguments you last addressed to me better than I could have myself, so I apologize if this response seems a bit redundant. Rather than go through the issues point for point, I’m simply going to respond so as to reiterate, and possibly expound upon, what he’s written. Continuing from your post # 58:
This is another good example of the rhetorical usefulness of the acronym “WMD.” What sort of “WMD” are you referring to here?
It is true that many intelligence agencies suspected, perhaps even strongly suspected, that Iraq possessed a stockpile of chemical weapons. On the other hand, none of these agencies seriously believed these stockpiles represented a serious threat to US (or international) security (as Simon has documented with direct quotes from the October 2002 NIE). In addition, there was a significant amount of debate within the intelligence community regarding these allegations. In other words, the judgement that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical weapons was not unanimous within the intelligence-gathering sector; many doubted this assessment. Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst, documents the objections to this judgement in his article Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong:
Rolf Ekeus, former executive chairman of UNSCOM, wrote in a WP article (now archived):
Thus the intelligence community was already aware, in the early 90s, that Iraq’s capacity for producing chemical weapons was crude and limited.
The story regarding biological agents is similar. David Kelly, one of the world’s foremost experts on Iraq’s weapons programs, estimated that there existed a “30% chance” that Iraq was pursuing an active chemical weapons research program. He judged the chances for a biological program to be “slightly higher,” because such a program would be easier to hide. (I hope you trust me on this; I read it in an interview with David Kelly ages ago, and I fear the reference has disappeared into the cyber-mists of time.)
Finally, no intelligence agency seriously believed that Iraq had a nuclear weapon.
So, when you write that Bush “believed” that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” along with Europe, the FBI, the CIA, and Clinton – well, you’re employing a good deal of emotionally potent simplification. The actual picture was considerably more complex.
Simon has also replied to your argument here in some detail, so I won’t belabor the point.
I refer again to Simon’s excellent rebuttal of this argument. I also want to point out that your specific concern appears to be the assumed “synergetic” relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq. You speak of a risk here without substantiating how large a risk it is (you call it “very real,” but that doesn’t tell us very much) and how one might appropriately respond to it. In doing so you also seem to ignore all the arguments that mitigate against Hussein’s regime pursuing a reckless course of action like that of giving away “WMDs”.
I can think of several historical examples in which nation-states have supplied “terrorist organizations” with weapons, money, and logistical support. US support of the contras leaps directly to mind, as does covert CIA support of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, Iranian support of Hizbollah, etc. But I cannot for the life of me come up with a single historical example in which a government has palmed off state secrets involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to a group that operates, essentially, beyond its control. The “blow-back” potential – that is to say, the chances that the terrorist group will turn around and use those weapons on its patron – seems so large as to virtually prohibit any sane policy-maker from taking such a step. This argument appears to be the consensus judgement of most policy experts. Regarding Iraq in particular, the Carnegie report WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications notes:
(Please note, this is in the judgement of the NIE itself: the very document the Bush administration relied upon to bolster its case for war.)
What “synergy” affect could possibly overcome all these obstacles?
Others have pointed out in this discussion that your argument boils down to simply asserting there existed a risk of undetermined proportion that Iraq might some day give some sort of weapon to an unidentified terrorist group (possibly al-Qaida), which might in its turn use the weapon against the US. One can hardly draw upon such an attenuated argument to justify the unprovoked invasion of another sovereign state.
Now, to conclude, I want to address this final point of contention:
As a number of other posters have also noted, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be employed to justify virtually any military action on the part of the US. Judging by the assertion above, the US doesn’t even need evidence of wrong-doing on the part of an assumed foreign enemy. In short, I hold that you’ve set the threshold for war too low. I also submit this observation is borne out by the historical facts. Prior to the war, many people believed that Iraq constituted a severe threat to US security; very few people believe that now. From a security standpoint at least, this war does not appear to have been necessary.
A related question is whether or not I, and others who opposed the invasion, set the threshold for war too high. I would answer that as a member of a free, democratic society, I have a right to expect my elected government to make a strong, evidentially-based, compelling case for the necessity of war before it commits troops. I submit that this case was never made by the Bush administration. War should be the absolute last resort, a decision taken only in the extremity of self-defense (or the defense of allies). I cannot condone a war conducted in the name of the US on the basis of some vague sense of “synergy.”
More later.
I opposed both. I do think that one would have to admit that Iraq is a larger fuck up however.
How silly!
Yugoslavia had already broken up and Serbian troops were actively carrying out massacres in Kosovo that (eventually) came to an end after the bombing campaign.
Hussein was already contained and not attacking anyone in 2003, his massacres were over ten years old at that point.
You might make a case that anyone that supported the Kosovo action must condemn the failure to conquer Iraq in 1990, (although I think there are numerous reasons why that argument would fail), but equating the bombing of Serbia in support of an already separated fledgling nation to the all-out assault on Iraq is nonsense.
The actions in Serbia and Kosovo are more similar to (not the same as) the enforcement of the no-fly-zone and the periodic lobbing of a cruise missile into Iraq as punishment for various violations than the full-scale invasion and occupation of the country with the destruction of its army and political structure.