Reality is often complex and nuianced. Speaking for the non-conservative part of the country, sorry if we don’t have easy-to-swallow, predigested, simplistic jingoistic answers to your problems.
“For every problem there’s a solution that’s quick, simple, and wrong.”
Reality is often complex and nuianced. Speaking for the non-conservative part of the country, sorry if we don’t have easy-to-swallow, predigested, simplistic jingoistic answers to your problems.
“For every problem there’s a solution that’s quick, simple, and wrong.”
This is a very hard point to refute. Because you are making it a personal/criminal issue - SADDAM MUST GO, you are correct that in the absence of WMD’s, WMD programs, a credible conventional threat, or ongoing large scale human rights abuses, or any figleaf generally considered to legitimate military action, it is unlikely that the UN or most countries would okay military action. Strangely enough, it has been some time since “I really hate that guy” has been considered a legitimate cassus belli.
However, if you wish to argue that there was never any intent on the part of the international community (I’m looking at you, France) to take any action whatsoever to deal with Iraqi WMD’s (which were considered both internationally and publically within the administration as the only or most legimitate reasons to go to war) you are incorrect:
From http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430-184677_A_809403,00.html
In retrospect it does seem unlikely that 30 or 60 days would have produced much evidence of WMD’s, given that we have been looking for somewhat more time with dubious success. But if WMD’s are not the issue than nothing would have changed (except that it might be harder to keep domestic war drums booming if no WMD’s are found).
Further, it should be noted that while removing Saddam might be your goal, it was considered an insufficient step for Iraq to take to avoid invasion (or at least occupation):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/18/iraq/main544517.shtml
IIRC this policy was somewhat of a suprise to Blair.
So apparently nothing would have stopped us from going into Iraq - not Saddam Hussein and kiddies dead or exiled, not a clean bill of health on WMD’s.
Given that our goal was to occupy Iraq, regardless of Saddam or WMD’s being present, I reiterate, you are correct that it is unlikely that the UN would back us.
[hijack] Thanks glee. I point this out to the “we saved the world from Hitler” crowd again and again and all I get are blank looks. I’m tired of saying it after so long so someone else will have to carry the message.
I’m of the opinion that the false impression that “we won the war” is responsible for the seeming enthusiasm on the part of many for reckless military adventures like Vietnam and Iraq.
If I thought there was a military solution to terrorism I might change my mind about “Operation Iraqi Freedom”(PR blurbs abound) but I don’t think there is any such solution.[/hijack]
Good questions.
Thanks.
I am reading a book about Churchill… especially the 1940 period soon after the fall of France. Its incredible how many Americans didnt want to help Britian in any way… how many actually thought Hitler was a good thing since he was a menace to the URSS… (Many thought Saddam was the answer to Iran… so this is an old tradition.)
History books sometimes sounds like the US was just a bit delayed due to some internal quirk when in truth they would clearly have prefered to let Europe with Hitler.
That’s more than a bit unfair, Rashak Mani. The isolationist view, then prevalent in the US and periodically resurgent since, wasn’t a “preference for Hitler”, but a feeling that it wasn’t the US’s concern to the extent that American lives needed to be lost over it. Even so, there wasn’t all that much resistance to FDR’s supplying Britain and the USSR with floods of materiel so their own people could fight for their own countries. Perhaps it’s part of our national character, then and now, that we value lives more than money.
Its not that unfair actually… isolationism was a major factor in delaying entrance to the war of course. Still there was a feeling that Hitler was something new and strong that would hold communism in check. Many were against ANY involvement be it money or otherwise. FDR got some legal precedent to go around congress in doing that destroyer deal… he didnt want to risk putting it before Congress. The US ambassador in UK was pretty much into Hitler too… as were many prominent americans.
To be strictly fair... many Britons were still pro-germanic before Hitler started Poland... much of it related to a dissapointment with democracy.I agree with you that the US began fighting Hitler later than they should have. However, they did contribute a great deal to stopping him.
Frankly, I think the whole civilized world ought to have attacked Hilter in the mid-1930s when he began re-arming, thus contravening the peace agreement that ended WWI.
They shouldnt have put such a severe Peace Treaty in fact… the strangle on the German Economy and the humiliation were major reasons for Hitler taking power.
Short Term prevailing over Long Term again.I know that’s a popular theory. However, I once read a book arguing against that theory. It pointed out that Germany found the wherewithall to rearm up the kazoo, so their economy couldn’t have been that severely hampered.
Hitler did get the economy running very well… but the trauma of past economic hardships was still very strong among the population.
One book did mention that Hitler increased the defense/military budget so much the first time he did so that the military were unable to spend it all !
Naturally military armaments increase helps industry somewhat even if its financed thru budget deficits.
The theory that the severe treaty at the end of WWI would lead to war was very well argued by the famous economist John Maynard Keynes, in his 1920 book. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. A response was produced by Entienne Mantoux in his book The Carthaginian Peace.
This statement is true and I think is well supported by the facts.
but
This one isn’t and I think is overly broad and bombastic.
In any case your OP asks whether or not a report justifies a preemptive war. Based on the identified source of the report and all of the pro and con posts regarding it in this thread I still say no. I have a hard time finding a justification for preemptive war short of “imminent clear and present danger” which is lacking in the Iraq case.
If I may take part in this hijack for a moment, I think this is a good point. Furthermore, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was in some respects far more lenient than the situation after World War II - after all, Versailles did not require that Germany surrender unconditionally to be dismembered by a foreign occupation.
To me, the problem with the Treaty of Versailles has always seemed to be the same one associated with wounding a grizzly bear: it caused Germany just enough pain to want revenge, but not enough to keep it from actually carrying out such revenge. On the other hand, the 1945 peace (at least from the Western point of view) was focused on completely removing Germany’s ability to threaten the world while causing the German people the least possible degree of unnecessary suffering.
As I see it, Treaty of Versailles was humiliating without being strict, while the post-World War II occupation was intended to be strict without being humiliating.
With a crucial difference: we put Germans and Japanese on trial for crimes against humanity, defined as waging aggressive war. We hanged Tojo, and others, for that crime. It was we, ourselves, who established the principal of international law that war undertaken for any cause other than self defense was a crime against humanity.
Radon:
Certainly, Hussein was at one point committed to developing a nuclear weapon – but the Iraqi regime had paid a terrible price for that commitment. We have no way of knowing how Hussein evaluated the destruction of his programs; he might very well have concluded that they were not worth the effort in time and money.
I’m personally wary of arguments such as the one you promote above, which are based on assumptions about the motivations of a leader and may or may not be accurate.
While I might agree with you that Hussein was “more violent” than Iran, I’m not sure I agree regarding North Korea. I am not convinced that there is a “list,” nor am I convinced, by your mere assertion, that the primary motivation for invading Iraq, as opposed to Iran or North Korea, was that Iraq was somehow “more violent.”
Seems like a reasonable point to me.
Iraq had an active nuclear weapons development program in place from the 1970s; for over thirty years it tried, unsuccessfully, to covertly develop a nuclear weapon. That must tell the lay reader something about how difficult it is to develop such a weapon.
As your own cites point out, after UN inspectors discovered how far along Iraq had advanced in its programs the IAEA implemented sweeping reforms to augment the inspection process. It must by any standard be much more difficult today to hide a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA than it was in the 80s.
I don’t think it is as easy to ship and sell nuclear material undetected as you seem to imply. Your claim is an oversimplification; just to start with, as we know, North Korea doesn’t have any nukes to sell to the highest bidder. (Do they “bid” on nukes? Wow, I didn’t know that. What, have they got some kind of “nuke auction?” Do you honestly think that countries build nuclear weapons and then “sell” them to “bidders?”)
Of course, it would be unwise of anyone to rule out the possibility that Hussein and al-Queda might, at some point, begin to cooperate with each other. But to date I have seen no credible evidence whatsoever of such cooperation, and given the extreme differences in political philosophies it does seem unlikely that they are, or were, in cahoots. If this argument is intended as one supporting US actions in Iraq, it fails. IF credible evidence existed of such a link, your point might be valid; but the US can’t go around invading countries merely because it suspects there exists a highly unlikely possibility that they will begin cooperating with Al-Queda.
First off, I admit I’m curious: what, exactly, constitutes a “pseudo terrorist attack”?
Aside from that, I think this argument is weak. The US has always been vulnerable to terrorist attacks – remember the Oklahoma City bombing? This “vulnerability” could not have been news to Hussein. But are you seriously arguing that he would be so bone-headed as to attempt a terrorist attack against a nation that possesses the world’s most powerful and technologically advanced military? To what end? What could he possible win from attacking the US?
Quite the contrary: I think it was very much in Hussein’s interest to be in America’s good graces – especially if he hoped to develop a nuclear weapon at some point in the future. Without those graces he had slim hope of getting the sanctions lifted or the no-fly zones revoked.
Even if, as seems likely, his strategy was to thwart the US and play the various members of the SC against each other, with the hope of eventually squirming out of the sanctions, an attack against the US would still be nothing less than disastrous, as it would provide the US with a morally legitimate and internationally recognized pretext for retaliation.
What is your basis for this assertion? It would appear that Bush is following the neo-con game plan to the last note. The majority of his closest advisors are members of PNAC. Wolfowitz has a compelling and cohesive global strategy to hand, one particularly appealing to those who suffer under the burden of American patriotism.
I think you’re underestimating the reach, influence, and determination of PNAC.
So it takes 20 years for the US to act?
Funny, I thought there was a US coalition which drove Iraq out of Kuwait about 12 years ago. Led by a president called Bush.
But now his son uses exactly the same reason to invade. Do you really think this justifies invading in 2003?
So you think that the quality of leadership affects Bush’s choice, not whether the country has nukes.
Why doesn’t Bush invade China? - plenty of human rights abuses there and a dictatorship prepared to crush dissent with tanks.
Perhaps you could explain how you would solve the Northern Ireland crisis with your simplistic idea - would you wipe out all the Protestants or wipe out all the Catholics?
Next please settle the Middle East.
Do please explain how Bush could have ‘done it another way’.
Do please explain why only a few Republican-linked companies have a monopoly on the profitable rebuilding contracts, and how a US-backed government in Iraq will not benefit American oil companies.
Well you could start by estimating how well Bush negotiates with the rest of the World. Include his UN policy, his attitude to international law and his success in linking Al-Quaeda and Iraq.
Let me just refresh your memory on WW2.
In 1939 Germany invaded Poland. The British, who had a treaty protecting Poland, declared war.
Pretty soon we had Britain, Canada, India, Australia, France etc fighting Germany, Italy and Japan.
The US felt unable to join in, but was benevolent to Britain.
Around 1941, Hitler double-crossed the Soviet Union and invaded.
This of course led to the US joining the war to help its ‘ally’. :rolleyes:
Oh. Apparently not. Funny, because you seemed quite sure above that the US were allied to the Soviet Union. Are you still sure about that?
Anyway, back in the real world:
Japan attacks the US in 1941, who therefore enter the war. They are of course technically allies of all the nations on the British side.
But of course they are not happy about the Soviet Union, and when WW2 finishes, there is a division of Germany with the US and the USSR on opposite sides. Before long, the Cold War is in effect, and McCarthy is denouncing Reds.
Over the next few decades, the US spends billions to cope with the Red menace.
So where did the beautiful frienship between the US and Stalin go wrong?
Or is your contention they were allies rubbish?