Beagle:
Isn’t that a speach to a CLOSED session of the Security Council? Maybe I heard wrong.
What point is there in always mentioning Pakistan? It sits on the brink with India over Kashmir. It’s WoMD, though dangerous, are obviously pointed at India.
Recently there has been a huge contingent of US troops on the opposite border. If the pinch is enough to get Pakistan to play ball, better than getting in a war with them. Need I point out that Saddam does not play ball?
The Hornet’s Nest Argument
It has already been poked with a stick dozens of times. The Islamic world is inflamed with anger at the United States all the time. If, a big one, the US could help establish a less horrifying state in Iraq, that might make a difference in other countries.
Revolutions (violent or not) seem to come in groups. The Arab dictatorships and theocracies are ready for some democracy. Some have moved in that direction, others need to be poked.
If we don’t support democratic reform now, down the road that reluctance itself will become a strong reason for criticism. Especially if Saddam manages to do something really (James Bond villain type) evil.
Whatever may happen as a result of attacking Iraq, saying that we shouldn’t because of that is kinda weak, John, unless you’re willing to make the claim that Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) is not now, nor has it ever sponsored terrorism, created Weapons of Mass Destruction, or murdered his own people.
Believe me, I understand where you’re coming from. I really do. I’m willing to concede that there is a possibility that your scenario may happen. Should that possibility stop us, though? Maybe. I dunno. I’ll get back to you on that, after the war. I don’t think anything like that will happen, but I’m not a fortune teller.
Remember, though, whether I agree with it or not, I’m going. I think we’re doing the right thing. That is sufficient, at least for now. I don’t really have the luxury of contemplating the big picture anymore.
As Mr. Begala is fond of saying, your are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
The antipathy of Mr. Bush, and most particularly his closest advisers, to Iraq precedes the war on terrorism by at least a decade. Mssrs. Wolfowitz and Perle have been advocating military adventures in Iraq with unrelenting fervor for years. Despite feverish effort, no plausible connection between Al Queda and Iraq exists, nor is any likely to be found.
Al Queda is an extension of fundamentalist Islamic puritanism, most closely akin to the Wahabbist sect prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Saddam is a secular Islamist at most, an Islamist in much the same nominal sense as Hitler was a Catholic. In truth, all cynics are atheists. Blaming him for the actions of bin Laden makes as much sense as blaming the Unitarians for the actions of snake handling Pentecostals. It is nonsense.
Sharing a common enemy might very well lead to a cooperation between mortal foes. In that case, it will be we ourselves who have forged the alliance, and will have only ourselves to blame. We won’t, of course.
Yes, Clinton is gone now. However did we manage to endure those dreadful years of peace and prosperity, led by a man who lied about sex?
Probably. Whoops.
I wonder about the increased terrorism argument. It seems as though, being Great Satan already, we are number two on the list already.
The “fatwa” was declared by OBL in 1996. Plenty of radical Mullahs have already come out for terror against the U.S. I’m afraid we are in this for the long haul. There is no quick way out.
Having said all that, there had better be some proof that Saddam has substantial prohibited weapons programs, and some fairly clear links to terror would be nice.
Correction:
I am aware that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq is barely even euphemistically “democratic reform.” I was thinking long term. Looking at those words now, it looks like I think invasion = democratic reform. That was not my intent. Obviously it is a war followed by an occupation. It is a war that could get very bloody if the worst case scenarios play out.
By ignoring a lot of what was going on in the world around us - resentment, terrorism, military concernswise.
“unless you’re willing to make the claim that Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) is not now, nor has it ever sponsored terrorism, created Weapons of Mass Destruction, or murdered his own people.”
Can’t argue with that, except maybe on the sponsor terrorism front. Seems like our facts there are pretty weak to support any significant terrorism link. I just ask myself, will America be safer with or without a war on Iraq. I think we’ll be safer without the war. And I’m not saying that out of cowardice. If I look in that region, I see Saudi Arabia being more of a threat to the US (esp wrt terrorism) than Iraq. That is the breeding ground. That’s the center of hatred for the non-Muslim west, and that’s where most of the hijakers, as well as ObL himself, came from.
This may sound cold-hearted, but I frankly don’t give a shit about rescuing the Iraqi people. They’ve left Saddom in power for all these years. I don’t think they’re worth sacrificing American lives for.
But let me assure you, Airman, that I have a US flag flying outside my house every day. I’ll proudly keep it flying when (and I think it is 99% sure) the war begins, and fully support our troops in any way I can. Best of luck to you!
Mr. Powell, we are given to understand, will present “intelligence”. One of my particular historical interests is the history of spying and intelligence. I remember in particular one book (I believe it was titled Second Oldest Profession) with the dramatic thesis that spying and intelligence is generally useless, since leaders regard rumors that agree with their preconceptions as “intelligence”, and hard facts that contradict those assumptions as “rumor” and “disinformtion”. The classic example was Stalin, who stubbornly refused to believe that Hitler was going to invade, despite the brilliant work of such intelligence agents as Richard Sorkin (sp?) and the legendary Red Orchestra.
A recent example of this is our own Fearless Leader: just last night he once again made reference to the Dreaded Aluminum Tubes, asserting, once again, that they were incontrovertible proof of a nuclear weapons program. As is surely known to all here, this is in direct contradiction to the testimony of experts in the production of nuclear arms.
Previously, he offered such undeniable facts as the Report That Didn’t Exist. And now he claims, with a straight face, that he hasn’t made up his mind to go to war, and seeks peace. This is a stunning excercise in mendacity. Baron Munchausen would faint dead away, P.T. Barnum would weep with frustrated jealousy.
After all these lies, tell me, friend Beagle, why should I ever believe a word these men say, so long as I live?
I’ll give you that one. The burden of proof is on the one asserting the existence of something, in this case a prohibited weapons program and links to terrorism. I honestly do not know about the “lies” part.
I’ve avoided this whole tube dispute. I’ve heard that they might be for prohibited rockets, nukes, or some civilian purpose. I don’t know much about aluminum tubes vis-a-vis centrafuges, nukes, or rockets.
Amazing. I’ve read most of the posts in this thread and am simply awed: this is obviously an articulate, well-read group that is so uninformed. Almost CATEGORICALLY uninformed.
You all speak of Al Qaeda and Saddam like they’re the villains from a GI Joe cartoon. “Go in and get 'em” is the refrain of the Simpleton.
I am not pheasant-hunting here, just throwing out a statement. One of these days you folks will wake up and understand there’s a machine we’re all a part of: learn, earn, fuck, then die.
Do you think we’re in Afghanistan to “root out terror?” Do you think there’s any difference between Saddam and Chavez? Since the Gulf War, do you think our hands have been clean with regard to Iraq? Do you really think the Kurds with weapons in northern Iraq (our current smoking gun) are a threat to us?
Just curious.
Norman Schwarzkopf has yet to be convinced that Iraq poses a credible and imminent threat. If Bush actually wants support on this war, he’s got to stop peddling misinformation, and deliver some proof rather than this continuing stream of vaporware promises.
Mr. B:
Can you run that by me again???
I didn’t understand a word you said. How about taking one part of your post and giving us some more detail. I’m lost…
<shrug> My apologies. Forgive me for interrupting the flow of bluster. Perhaps you can point me to the non-deluded version of this posting?
>>>This may sound cold-hearted, but I frankly don’t give a shit about rescuing the Iraqi people. They’ve left Saddom in power for all these years. I don’t think they’re worth sacrificing American lives for.<<<
Yes. I see. They’re just objects. So are we cops, or are we accomplices?
Mr. B
Do you have any idea of the level of hate you’ll get if even one innocent dies?
But that’s collateral damage right!?
The ends justifies the means maybe?
As usual, jingoistic, militaristic, myopic and plain stupid.
The definition of evil is a bunch of stupid but powerfull people inflicting “collateral” damage.
The U.S. should include itself in the axis of evil … more people than those who died in 9/11 have already died since in the world because of the GREED in the North … ignorant focks.
Dear Panji,
At last, a voice of reason. “4,000 dead Iraquis per day because of our sanctions” says it all. When Greed is God and Lust is the Idol, there’s no longer any religion, any value to the society. Compound those crimes with ignorance and we’re going down in history as one of the most corrupt civilizations since Rome.
Mr. B
Well, yes, I do.
Would you care to elaborate on your question? Having been to Venezuela, I have my own off-topic thoughts about the situation there - comparing Saddam to Chavez is comparing apples to oranges.
You can always seek refuge in France, they would just LOVE that …
Perhaps you could EXPLAIN what it is YOU are TALKING aBouT.
There is nothing more refreshing than someone who rushes in with vitriol and bluster, a desire to educate, yet nothing new.
Ah, more discussion of “collateral damage,” the term. How much collateral damage should Saddam be allowed to cause at home and abroad to justify the loss of one life to topple him? If he tortures and mutilates 5,000 dissidents, is it worth one life to get rid of him?
Yes, Bush cooked up the whole Iraq mess. No, there was no Gulf War, the ensuing UN resolutions, Iraqi weapons programs, connections with terrorists. Thank goodness we have some truth tellers to lead the way.
Here is just one page of the thousands you can access through the link I provided to PBS “Saddam.”
Spertzel is just one of five on that one page.
For those who counter with Ritter: find someone credible who agrees with him.
When did Saddam stop being just a few months away from getting a nuke and therefore needing immediate deposal? It was just a few months ago, wasn’t it?
And even while Schwarzkopf is pulling his punches, hinting but not actually saying that Bush is being imprudent, Mandela is letting Bush have it.
At what point should the reflexive Bush supporters have to step back and reconsider the situation and its consequences?
This may be the strongest anti-war argument available. I would re-state it as: Even if war is eventually necessary, it’s not immediately necessary, so we should wait. Bush responded to this argument in the SOTU, pointing out that Iraq could give WMDs to terrorists who could use them against us, all without our knowledge. So, we don’t don’t really know whether Saddam needs immediate overthrow.
Bush also hinted at another argument. He said he wouldn’t leave problems for other Administrations. The trouble with doing so is that they might not deal with them either. In other words, it took great commitment by Bush personally to even get inspections re-started. If we don’t get a regime change, the world will eventually lose focus on Iraq, and Saddam will be free to amass a WMD stockpile.
Furthermore, if we back down now, our side will be more timid the next time. Saddam will be emboldened, as will other terrorists. This description of how Hitler was not opposed early is a parallel.
The opportunity to stop Saddam will end as soon as he acquires a nuclear arsenal.