I’m posting from work also, and looking around, I see lots of postings that claim that Sadaam WASN’T cooperating with the inspectors right before the war. Is your point, then, that only YOUR point of view is valid?
And the occupation is only valid if it benefits US? The United States? Be sure and tell that to the relatives of all the Iraqis who were tortured by Sadaam and his henchmen.
Oh, I forgot…the humanitarian concerns are beside the point.
And I don’t have to prove that 10-50-100 years in the future this will have benefited the Iraqis. No one can prove the future. What I would have to prove is that we are at least trying to help them now. You seem to be claiming that since we can’t prove results in the future, there’s no sense in even trying today.
1 - My POV is that the postings which claim that Iraq was cooperating are being borne out by the lack of WMDs. The latter is a fact, and it supports the former. Facts are hard things. Sorry.
2 - American lives don’t get to be spent on an uncertain future for a foreign land. So yes, the occupation is only valid if it benefits Americans. Really. No shit. I won’t bore you with the details of all the places the U.S. intervened to prop up dictators we liked for one reason or another.
Another thing that always bothers me in the arguments is the affirmation that Saddam used WMD on his own people; I don´t think he considered the Kurds his own people, as well as most Sunnis, Chites and whatnot; just as the Kurds won´t call Saddam as a fellow. Just a nitpick, but it bothers me to hear pre-cooked phrases thrown out all the time.
Yes, Saddam used gas on the Kurd towns during the Iran-Irak war, that´s the straight dope as far as I know.
Sorry Wring, I thought everyone had already noticed that particular bit of spin.
Well Brutus, that would depend on whether they could prove that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the US with just the intelligence they had before the invasion. Lacking such proof, the war would be unjustified, and likely illegal.
It’s irrelevant if they do. WMDs were not a legal justification for the invasion. They would be a violation of the UNSR but that’s an issue for the UN, not Shrub. Also, anything found after the fact is “inadmissable evidence” as it were, for a causus belli. They had to know it and be able to prove it before they started killing people in order to justify it. Lastly, the mere existence of a couple of vans (or let’s say hypothetically, they find a few SCUDS equipped with anthrax) does not constitute an “imminent threat.”
In order to cover his ass at this point, W has to not only find weapons capable of damaging the US (to satisfy “imminent threat”) but has to prove that he specifically knew about those weapons before he started blowing the arms off 12 year olds. Good fucking luck, Shrub, ya war criminal.
Brutus, you’re back!
Are you imitating your fellow traveler, december, in utter gutlessness and dishonesty, or did you just miss this direct question I posed to you? I just want an answer, I really don’t care if you have the last word:
from somewhere up above, posted by yours truly in answer to your reply to me.
In the real world, no WMDs have been found. No threat to the U.S. has been uncovered.
In your world, what, exactly, would be the justification for invading a country that posed no threat to the U.S.? Just curious.
pantom, much like certain religious figures, I am always among the faithful of my flock. I just missed your question.
Taking Iraq (liberating, whatever) has several long- and short-term benefits for America:
[ul]
[li]Iraq is centrally located to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Those three are more of a threat to America than was Iraq, IMO. Now that we have a central position to move from, we can ‘exert pressure’ as needed against those three. Perhaps the first dividend will be reduced support for Hamas and Co. from Syria and Iran, now that Abrams are cruising distance from their capitals?[/li]
The ‘War on Terrorism’ is indeed going to be a long-term affair. We are going to have to do more than topple some half-wits in Afghanistan and a Stalin-wannabe before it is over. Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia will have to be ‘liberalised’. Don’t know if that means making them democracies, don’t know if that means making them protectorates. Obviously, the status quo sucks ass. A central position gives us options for the future.
[li]Middle-Eastern oil will be well guarded. Iraq and Kuwait are safe, as are some of the Gulf States. If the House of Saud ever is toppled, look for American intervention from our newest base, post-haste. Like it or not, a steady flow of reasonably priced oil is crucial to all western economies, especially given the intermingling of economies. [/li]
[li] Even I have a heart. Saddam was a butcher at least at the level of Milosivic. Worse, IMO. Getting rid of Saddam, and his associated Baath regime, is a Good Thing in and of itself.[/li]
[li]Saddam was rumored to have had WMD ;)[/li]
[li](More of a fringe-benefit than a proper reason) A wonderful show of stregnth. When America tells Eastern Slobovia, “No, really, stop sponsoring group X or else…”, the E.Slobovians will jump to, right quick. Whatever people may think of Bush, I doubt any dictators think he is fucking around. [/li][/ul]
My list of reasons is rather PNAC-ish, I realize. Then again, I rather like PNAC.
Why not save the question until those WMDs are actually found? I mean, if we’re going to play “answer the hypothetical,” we’ll be here all night:
[ul]
[li]“Hey, Brutus, if George W. Bush confesses on national TV tomorrow that he lied out of his ass for an excuse to invade Iraq, would you finally admit the guy’s a scumbag?”[/li][li]“Just curious, Brutus, if Dick Cheney admits tomorrow that the only reason for the war with Iraq was so the U.S. could grab Iraq’s oil fields and Halliburton could get juicy multi-billion-dollar contracts, would you still defend the guy?”[/li][li]“Yo, Brutus, if the Associated Press breaks a news story tomorrow about the GOP’s secret plans to fake a terror threat next November as an excuse to cancel the 2004 Presidential election and declare Bush Grand Poobah For Life, would you admit that your support for the guy was grossly misplaced?”[/li][/ul]
I mean, geez, I know you’re already busy enough madly backpedaling about the whole Iraqi WMD thing, but why ask Squink questions about stuff that hasn’t happened yet, and probably won’t happen any time soon?
[quote] from Brutus:
[ul][li]Iraq is centrally located to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Those three are more of a threat to America than was Iraq, IMO. Now that we have a central position to move from, we can ‘exert pressure’ as needed against those three… Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia will have to be ‘liberalised’. Don’t know if that means making them democracies, don’t know if that means making them protectorates…[]Middle-Eastern oil will be well guarded… Like it or not, a steady flow of reasonably priced oil is crucial to all western economies, especially given the intermingling of economies.[]Even I have a heart. Saddam was a butcher…[]Saddam was rumored to have had WMD ;)[][Fringe benefit] …A wonderful show of stregnth… Whatever people may think of Bush, I doubt any dictators think he is fucking around.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Brutus, that was a refreshingly honest (and, I believe, quite accurate) summary of neoconservative pro-war justifications. Thank you.
And if anybody can explain to me how the first and last bullet points are consistent with democratic principles and international law (such as it is) - or inconsistent with imperialism- I’d like to hear it.
Or perhaps the E. Slobovians will think, “Holy Shit, we’d better get us some nukes before those American loonies decide to come after us.” Think North Korea. Maybe not the most desirable result.
Ale, good point. Thanks. Rjung, some good thoughts also, especially about wanting to fake out his neighbors.
Will we find WMD’s? My own thought is that we won’t; but that we will find out that WMD’s have been moved to other countries. I have no basis in fact to base that opinion on; it’s just my opinion.
I just wanted to highlight this, because there are so many people of apparently reasonable levels of intelligence who are complete shit heads when it comes to this. They appear to be able to comprehend that others in the Arab world regarded Hussein with awe and respect because he launched SCUDs at Israel during Bush the Elder’s Gulf War. Yet they cannot at all envision why it would be to Hussein’s benefit to try hard to hide the Viagra from the neighbors after 1998. For some reason, this possibility is completely elusive. Yet, if one were paying any attention at all, one could see this pattern played out repeatedly during the prelude to the war. The Iraqi parliament (which everyone knew was simply and completely controlled by Hussein) would make some outrageously brash statement about non-compliance, with Hussein coming in at the last moment to acquiesce. It was exceptionally important for him to appear as powerful as possible, even while he was opening up his own homes for inspection and destroying his missiles. The moment he started doing that, I thought for sure there was no further way Bush could not pursue inspections as a means of resolving the problem. Of course, I thought his trial balloons last August on the topic of war in Iraq were outlandish and would be regarded as ludicrous. I wholly underestimated what a cunt he is.
Of course, if you are a fisherman who can’t catch fish, you visit the fresh fish section of the supermarket on the way home to the wife, don’t you?
