I’m looking in quiet amazement at this new wreck ‘elucidator’ has wrought upon his own side. In this thread, there was enough egging and taunting of Bush for being too timid, to give Bush a carte blanche to take over the rest of the world besides US and Iraq. Do you realize what you are saying? In toto, you are basically demanding of POTUS to invade everywhere on a whim. That’s what your denial of sufficient grounds to invade Iraq amounts to, combined with hyping of perceived threats from all other countries.
I was warning you before: look at the History! History is very important. The facts are on the surface, the only way to ignore them is to borrow head first straight underground. Which was the latest country to defy US on the battlefield? Which Middle East country is responsible for hundreds of US soldiers killed during the war in 1991? Which ME country didn’t make peace with US? The plain lesson is, if you go to war with US, if you don’t make complete and satisfactory peace with US after the war, if you keep US military tied in on your borders for 12 years, sooner or later US will take you out. Lybia didn’t do that, nor Iran, nor any other Middle East country except Iraq. There was a solid case built against Iraq and it was long overdue. Right now, similar cases are being built agaist Sudan, Syria and Iran, and all those three are very careful not to bring matters to a breaking point, unlike Saddam has done.
The only valid case anti-Bush people can make is against any kind of invasion, in principle.
Instead, what are you doing? You are ridiculing Bush for not invading Lybia, Iran, Syria & Sudan. On your cue, others are calling Bush a coward and a sissy boy for not taking on North Korea and Pakistan immediately! If this is not insane, what is?
Invading Iraq with no solid evidence that the country posed a threat to the US, no firm international support nor a plan for dealing with the consequences of the invasion.
This is not the case.
Consider that for all the other countries mentioned prominently in the thread so far there was not a decision to invade them.
So rather than assume that posters suddenly and non-sensically are advocating that what many view as a “strategic mistake of the first order” be repeated ad infinitum, it seems more reasonable to assume that they are instead highlighting instances where a similar, if not egregiously worse, scenarios were handled by means other than invasion thus demonstrating that the conditions cited for Iraq do not necessitate war.
It was a way of making the case that what was presented as justification as war with Iraq is an insufficient justification.
You choice to assume that posters wanted to have a mistake repeated all over the world was an odd one that should be reflected upon when and where appropriate.
Because you may not seek to adhere conservative principles in the foreign policy arena as I and other realists do, you may not consider the main objection to the invasion of Iraq a ‘valid’ one. However, the main case against the invasion is contingent upon America’s just interests. The invasion of Iraq did not serve the just interests the United States.
From the conservative point of view, until this test can be met there can be no valid case made for this war or any other.
As I mentioned before, this is an incorrect interpretation of the case that’s being made.
Why one would assume that one’s opponent is arguing in favor of repeating actions that he is currently arguing against is a headscratcher.
Instead of advocating the repeated invasions that you’ve mentioned, (and that the US’s NSS implies, and that, conincidentally, several documents authored by members of the GWBTeam also discuss), the argument that’s been presented through comparisons of the threat to the US from Iraq to the threat to the US from other countries is merely an example of the implications of accepting the reasons cited for the invasion of Iraq as valid.
See, what’s being said is that if one accepts the reasons offered for the invasion of Iraq as valid, then there’re also valid reasons for the invasion of these other countries. This is, of course, quite a bit different from what you postulated people meant.
I hope that I’ve been able to clear that up.
If you thought that I was making up or exaggerating a single, solitary, fucking thing in my posts about Pakistan, I would hope that you’d have the temerity to call BS and request specific citations.
Realistically, Iraq wasn’t shit for a relative threat to the US.
Anytime you’re ready, Brutus, you just let me know. You want to start a fight about who has more citeable credibility, National Review Online or Josh Marshalls Talking Points Memo (without which no citizen can hope to be truly informed), I’m your guy. Bring it on. Pit thread, GD, you name it.
We can even start with the item I referenced, about accusing Kerry of being under KGB control during his anti-war days (the other unspeakable debacle, not the most recent…) Got a hankering to defend that assertion?
Tell you what: you go find one, that’s all, just one example of TPM spilling forth the sort of unsubstantiated crapola that is NRO’s stock in trade.
Failing that, you can take your “disingenuous” insinuation and place it such that it will be protected from sunshine.
See, pal, that’s my button. Partisan? You bet! But I fight hard, I fight clean, and you can’t prove otherwise to save your soul.
Shortly, yes, though more specifically with Sudan than the rest.
Your problem is that you define it as “a whim”. I define it as a worthwhile human rights mission. You define it as “tak[ing] over the rest of the world”. I define it as… a human rights mission. You assume that we want him to establish friendly American-style democracy sub-states in all of them. I mean kicking down the door and installing a centralized, socialist state that can run the country.
No, I called him a coward. I didn’t say he should invade North Korea, just that he wouldn’t. The fact that he had to invade a (mostly) defenseless country crippled by a decade of sanctions, put on a cowboy hat, and call himself a “war president” while pissing the blood of 900 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis out his coke-shrunk penis is what makes him a coward, not his failure to invade North Korea immediately and posthaste.
That particular plot of moral high ground is most assuredly not in the sole possession of conservatives. Virtually evryone who hasn’t been seduced into taking the council of their fears owns a piece of it.
Let’s not get distracted. Let’s not forget that OP posed a question, “Why Iraq?”. Well, what other country was causing a drain to the tune of 1 or 2 billion on US treasury to impose military-backed sanctions upon? Add this to my previous list that no other ME country went to war with US, didn’t make complete and satisfactory peace with US after the war and kept US military tied in on its borders for 12 years, except Iraq.
Except that is only one half of the argument that has to be made in order to make that line of reasoning convincing SimonX. You point out that the situtions in Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia are being handled differently – the problem is that you will now have to point out how the situations in Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have gotten better because of the different handling you mention.
Its a self-contradicting argument. By asserting that the situation in North Korea is “egregiously worse” than the situation in Iraq you have given tacit disapproval of the way North Korea is being handled. So you end up arguing against both means of handling that country. Its not an effective argument because although you have pointed out a contradiction in Bush’s policy you did so by contradicting yourself in the process.
See, if you are arguing against someone who believes that the situation in Iraq warranted going to war, then arguing that the situation in North Korea is worse will in no way convince them that the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Instead it will just convince them that they need to go to war with North Korea as well (which they most likely want to do anyway). It, in fact, will more likely convince them that war is the better way to go since the non-war approach has resulted in such a “egregiously worse” situation. Its just an ineffective and seemingly contradictory way to reach the very people you are trying to convince.
It is a much more convincing argument just to say that we (Americans) should set a very high bar for when we decide to go to war with any other country, especially for a full scale invasion and occupation, and that neither Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia have yet passed that bar.
. . . and one other quick thing. I’ve lurked here for a long time and been posting for a month now (I’ll most likely join) and as an opponent of the Iraq war I have to say that we have to tone some of the rhetoric down. I can understand how hatred for Bush and his policies can get you riled up but when we get to the point of defending Saddam Hussein then we’ve taken it too far. Yes, I know, RTFirefly & Elucidator didn’t actually say that Hussein wasn’t a bad guy, but getting your ire up because someone calls Hussein a madman really isn’t the way to go. Don’t let your opponent draw you into an implied approval of one of the most ruthless, despicable figures of modern history.
Quick point - this line of thought assumes that there are only two means of handling North Korea - bombing the holy shite out of them pre-emptively, or doing what we are doing now (AKA, nothing). As I’m sure most of us are familiar, there are other options. What those are and whether any of those are bunk or not is up for debate.
Miscalculating your enemy is a dangerous mistake. Calling Hussein a “madman” is stupid - he was and (arguably) is clearly sane, his actions were those of a sane dictator, and he is no more cruel than dozens of other sane dictators.
Sanity, whatever some people may have you believe, is not a measure of how cooperative you are with the US government.
Well, yeah, but that’s my point. Some people here are focusing on one factor, and saying that based on that one factor, we should be invading other countries. I’m pointing out that because there were lots of reasons in favor of invading Iraq, and because all of those reasons were there, it was probably a good idea to invade Iraq. There is no one, magic factor that forces us to go to war with a country.
No, I didn’t. You stated that Iraq did not support terrorism, did not have operational contacts with terrorists, did not carry out terrorist attacks, and was not actively engaged in acquiring real honest to god WMDs. You stated that as if it were gospel. I said reasonable people can disagree, and then I pointed out that I dispute your statements of “fact.”
So let me say this unequivocally, and I hope you’ll realize the same – reasonable people can disagree on whether Iraq supported or was linked with terrorism and was trying to acquire WMD. I think the evidence is pretty clear on the latter, but the former is certainly debatable.
I’ve always thought this sort of debating technique was pretty odd. Obviously, the Weekly Standard and NRO have their own agendas. But people freely cite to statements by Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke, and SimonX above cites to Juan Cole, and they have their own agendas, too. Why is it ok to cite to one, but not the other?
Moreover, the facts are the facts. Just because NRO or the Standard or Rush Limbaugh say something doesn’t make it false. I’ve cited to NRO and the Standard not for their opinions, but for the facts underlying their opinions. As a source, NRO and the Standard can hardly be considered on par with the CIA factbook or Encyclopedia Brittanica, but it takes more than shouting “But those guys agree with you!” to form an effective refutation. It makes more sense to dispute the facts, like SimonX has been good enough to do.
Then I’ll try and step it up.
SimonX, your refutation of the Zarakawi stuff is interesting. First, you acknowledge that Zarakawi was in Iraq. You imply that Hussein was unable to do anything about him, but given the overtures that Hussein made to terrorists in general, it seems unlikely that Hussein made much of an effort to get rid of him. And even if Hussein couldn’t do anything about him, then why wasn’t it in our interests to go in and root out a terrorist that actually would attack the US if given the chance?
Second, another of your cites acknowledges that “Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.” While the offer was refused, that at least shows that Iraq supported terrorism and had operational contacts with terrorists. It also shows that Iraq housed and allowed terrorists in Iraq, which was what I said to begin with. See also Abu Abbas; And there’s this report from the State Dept. on Iraq’s connection to and housing of terrorism:
Obviously, not all defectors are reliable. However, neither is the absence of Salman/Salmon Pak from the CIA website definitive proof that it didn’t exist (especially since it’s probably not a terrorist training center now that we’ve taken it over). Just because the much maligned CIA doesn’t list something on their website doesn’t mean that they didn’t once think it existed.
So despite the fact that there is corraborating evidence to support its authenticity, including the fact that it was brought to the world’s attention by a Carter appointed judge, it’s false because the Bush Admin hasn’t been shouting it from the rooftops? Wow, that’s grasping at straws.
Iraq does not need to have participated in the 9/11 attacks to support terror or house terrorists. There are other terrorist organizations and activities besides al Queda and the WTC attacks.
Excellent. Please add that to my list of reasons that we should have invaded Iraq.
Also, you might want to link to that transcript because jshore and some others are apparently under the impression that the Bush Admin has never talked about the reasons we invaded Iraq and not NK.
Yes, I do make some reference to his deterrability. And so did Al Gore in his speech to the Commonwealth Club in 2002: “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
But we’re not limited to attacking only those that attacked us. Or at least we shouldn’t be.
It’s always been that way. That’s why Pakistan put so much effort into developing nukes. So it may not be a safer place now, but it’s not a more dangerous place. It’s the same place. That’s not Bush’s fault.
Incidentally, that’s not only true for nukes. The greater a country’s ability to strike back effectively, the less likely they are to be attacked.
But I hope you’re not actually suggesting that we attack NK just to prove to other countries that getting nukes doesn’t make you safe. Are you?
Yes.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. Could you quote the language to which you’re referring?
Your definition of “sane” and mine are obviously pretty different. And I’d love to see your list of “dozens” of “sane” dictators that have ordered rape and putting people into shredders feet first.
Oh, please. We’ve already thoroughly been over the Putin statements, and they have as much validity as the Bush statements (that is to say, they were made up by Chalabi et al to get America to do their bidding so they could regain power in their homeland)
I’m especially glad that El Salvador and Tonga are behind us. With their help, we can accomplish ANYTHING.
Please. Don’t pander off a few developing nations and puppet governments blowing Bush for international favors as “international support”, especially when half of the countries on the list have populations wildly against the policies or pulled out in the middle.
Yea, if I was running Tonga, I’d grab a few guys off the dirt path and put them on a rowboat towards Iraq too, if it meant development deals.
Yea, the CPA, and their brilliant strategies like “disbanding the Iraqi military and police before disarming them or training replacements” - I’ll take my chances in the lion cage, thanks.
I gave you two of the most obvious. If you want me to dig up the names of every dictator on the planet, well… no. Go to wikipedia and do it yourself. I can name a few places to start you off. Sudan, DRC, Serbia, Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, Timor, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan (mostly run by local warlords)… F* it, you have some reading to do. http://www.amnesty.org/
Now come back and tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of Sudan.
Good comeback.
Blanketly calling everyone who disagrees with our policy “madmen” (Iraq) or “cowards” (France and Spain) is childish and stupid.
The USA was going to hammer Iraq whether there was “WMD” or not. Like Iraq in 1991, it was a “leadership with a firm hold over the military and a good internal propoganda machine” in a position where attacking someone outside their borders was a quickie solution to what was going on inside their borders, or more precisely, inside their checkbook. They had to do SOMETHING to solve The USA’s problems, and when you’re George W Bush, “something” can quite possibly be invading a helpless country.
I do not believe that we absolutely had to invade Iraq. I clearly see that there were other options. I stated many times that an argument for peace must be held at least as valid as an argument for war.
In fact, that is exactly the debate that I was trying to start many times before. I’d very much like to get all the honest arguments on the table, pro-war and contra. Let’s weigh them against each other, that’s all I want. The problem I have is that the other side flatly denies any validity of any pro-war arguments. For them pro-war arguments are absolutely inadmissible. They would load their side of the scales with anything they can come up with, true or false without distinction, and will refuse to consider any of the other side’s arguments.
We aren’t standing in the center of a dividing path choosing which branch to take; you don’t need (in most civil societies) justification to NOT go to war. A state of war is the EXCEPTION, and you have to have a good reason to engage therein.
Untrue. We (I take liberty in speaking for many people on this side of the fence, not all) merely demand a good reason to go to war, some of us take more convincing than others (ie, some of us don’t like the idea of invading other countries unless they attack us first. Some of us take less convincing. Some of us are hawks and take very little convincing. Some of us, like me, are radical human rights activists who say, “you want war? Fine. Lets go to Sudan.”). We’re not a homogenous group, and we don’t have an “agenda”. We are merely unconvinced by the rhetoric spewed forth thus far.
You cite is hopelessly innacurate and out of date; the coalition is shrinking and shrinking fast. Of the countries listed, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras have already pulled out, the Phillipines will pull out at the end of the month, Norway has withdrawn most of its forces, and New Zealand and Thailand appeared poised to do the same.