A non-exhaustive list. [ul]
[li]UN Peacekeepers and Humantarian aid to the camps/areas where the Kurds are[/li][li]Continue the “no-fly zone” over the Shia populations to prevent Saddam from sneaking troops/bombers into those areas and killing them[/li][li]Airlift or otherwise import food and medicine for victims of the regime[/li][li]Offer asylum to refugees[/li][li]Financial aid to reputable infrastructure contractors and watch the books to be sure Saddam doesn’t divert the funds.[/li][li]Push for a UN resolution barring sale of even conventional weapons to Saddam at least until human rights abuses cease.[/li][li]Continue inspections and pass a resolution saying that if Saddam ever USES WoMD on ANYONE that he will be tried as a mass murderer in the world courts with a UN force to enforce the sentence if necessary.[/li][/ul] This is just off the top of my head, and it can be argued as to what is “effective” and what is not. Still I’d guess these, and whatever else people could come up with, would have some impact. Some of them would aid the Iraqi people without helping Hussein much, most would limit his ability to hurt his people.
So, if accurate, this would explain why such a compound was guarded by generals and 30 soldiers, and booby trapped when captured by American forces. Because it wasn’t; rather, it appears that it was captured by “open source reports.”
Debaser, you are clearly struggling to understand the use and meaning of the word, “if”. Don’t worry, I remember a President that struggled with “is”, so you are in good company.
The DtC quote you use to try and refute Mandelstam’s (and my previous) assertion uses a hypothetical. You do see the word, “if”, don’t you? Do I need to explain hypothetical?
DtC’s point, I believe, is that you can’t prove a negative. His OP, and posts in that thread, are consistent with that point. I did not find anywhere in that thread that DtC claimed that Iraq had no WoMD.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology, I’d hate for you to turn blue.
This just makes me giggle. I would ask for a cite, but I believe it is close enough that the distinction doesn’t matter. As I suspect you are aware, the support from the public for US intervention without UN authorization only went above 50% after Bush’s gauntlet tossing. Until that point, opinion polls were on the other side of this particular argument. How do I know that? I used to quote the polls to show exactly the opposite point which you now make.
What does that mean? It means the public is a bit fickle. It means that public opinion can change on a dime, depending which way the wind is blowing. Are polls useful or important? I think so.
But it also reasonable to speculate that the approval for the war will have peaked in its first couple of days. I predict that US support will begin to drop. It may cross back under 50%. What will your position be if/when they do?
Mandelstam’s position statement reflects my position as well. Yet, starting after the gauntlet toss, I too began to support military action. We had passed the point of no return, and at that point, I think turning back was worse than going forward.
But that doesn’t excuse the decision to cross the point of no return.
Cite? The opinion polls clearly show much lower support of the administration’s position by Democrats than what GW1 had. I think you have your percentages, at least, mixed up. And then how do you explain my position - someone who agrees with the position Mandelstam staked out, yet who (now) supports military action?
Thanks, AZ Cowboy, I haven’t opened this thread for a while and didn’t realize that Debaser was using one of my threads to bolster an argument.
Here’s something else I said in that thread that Debaser didn’t see or chose to ignore:
This was the crux of my OP and my argument in that thread. I never asserted as a fact that Iraq had no WMDs, I just said repeatedly that we had yet to prove it (and, to date, we still do).
Even if we had found WMDs, that still would not have given the US any legal authiority for an invasion.
I’m wondering what the US will do if they really don’t find any WMDs. It is absolutely crucial, politically, for Bush to to do so. I have no doubt that, in a pinch, the US will seize a mouthwash factory somewhere and claim it was a covert lab for anthrax.
If Mr. Clinton or Mr. Cynic just clearly stated exactly what it is that they believe such analysis of thier statements wouldn’t be needed.
Ah, he went back to the thread in question and made a follow up post with the comments that it was “hypothetical”.
Well, he was still making the argument that we shouldn’t invade iraq because “The US currently has no compelling evidence whatever that Iraq has either WMD or the missile technology to threaten the the US.”
Even if this was stated hypothetically, what’s the point of stating it? We find out later that compelling evidence did exist and he responds that it doesn’t matter and it’s still not justification for an attack.
Because he did make that follow up post stating it was hypothetical, he isn’t being dishonest about it. However, it does make the entire issue moot. Why debate the existence of WMD’s at all if their existance doesn’t matter on your aguments about not going to war?
Well, you admit to using the polls when they were on your side. Do you expect me to not use them now that they are on mine?
The same as it is now. It’s bad enough to have presidents making decisions based on them. It would be worse if we, the public, started making decisions based on them.
Debaser, sorry I have been slow to respond, but your post didnt’ register, the list still showed DtC as the last poster (now why I came back, I don’t know).
My comment about the hypothetical was not related to his later post, it was strictly based on his use of “if”.
I will agree that the point is moot. In fact, I agree with DtC that even if WoMD were found, it would not authorize the US to use force (I am willing to elaborate, should you desire).
However, I do have an interest in making sure that positions aren’t misrepresented. Mandelstam apparently shares that interest.
When you say that DtC was still making the argument that we shouldn’t invade Iraq because “The US currently has no compelling evidence whatever that Iraq has either WMD or the missile technology to threaten the the US,” if that is his position, I would say it is arguable and supportable (but that reasonable people could disagree on what constitutes “compelling evidence”). If he had said that no compelling proof exists of Iraq’s WoMD, I would agree.
I would also argue that timing is important, from a legal justification perspective. I would further agree that if compelling and irrefutable proof of WoMD in Iraq is found, it won’t matter, and that Dubya will be vindicated in the eyes of world opinion (and the legal matter would simply be irrelevent, as no claim would ever be brought - spoils to the victor, and all).
With regards to the polls, yes, I used them, and yes, I have no problem with you using them. Just be careful in basing arguments on them. They can turn and bite your ass. I know from personal experience.
Oh, and my cite request wasn’t to support the 75% number (I saw that poll), it was to support your assertion that 20% wouldn’t support war under any conditions, and 5% were of the mindset described by Mandelstam. I’m not hung up on it, but I sincerely doubt that characterization.
