# Noble to "liberate" French from Nazis, but not Iraqis from Saddam? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816 "2003-03-16T18:51:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/41 "2003-03-19T02:24:54Z")
Perhaps. But the converse is not necessarily true: that if we take out Saddam it **can’t** and **won’t** happen again. Therein lies the flaw. Furthermore, deniability doesn’t enter into it. Not in the slightest. We are already going to war with Saddam over weapons we _assume_ he has. Not weapons we know he has, because however many times we repeat ourselves, the fact is we don’t know. Any one with more brains than cole slaw knows that if anything happens that looks even _remotely_ state-sponsored, Iraq will get blamed. Frankly, I’m surprised that one of Iraq’s many enemies hasn’t already pulled something like that. Iraq is our enemy. Likely. Our _only_ enemy? Oh, no. Not by a long shot. 'Cause when Al Jazeera starts streaming videos of Iraqi widows and orphans on every Moslem TV set in the _world_ Al Queda won’t remember what a recruitment problem was. Who’s the happiest guy in the world today? Osama bin Laden. Who can he thank for that boundless joy? Ah, you know that one already, don’t you. ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E.Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Wile\_E.Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E.Coyote)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/42 "2003-03-19T03:25:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Perhaps. But the converse is not necessarily true: that if we take out Saddam it **can’t** and **won’t** happen again. Therein lies the flaw. > \*\* Look, I personally cannot solve all of my own problems, let alone all of the problems of the world. What I **can** do is solve the ones I am currently able to solve. No, we cannot defeat all of the enemies of the human race. But we do what we can, when and where we can. Case in point. I am not able to build houses for all of the homeless in Mexico. But my church was able and did go down and we built three homes. We didn’t solve all of the problem, but I got to help a little girl have a home. We made a difference. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Furthermore, deniability doesn’t enter into it. Not in the slightest. We are already going to war with Saddam over weapons we _assume_ he has. Not weapons we know he has, because however many times we repeat ourselves, the fact is we don’t know. Any one with more brains than cole slaw knows that if anything happens that looks even _remotely_ state-sponsored, Iraq will get blamed. Frankly, I’m surprised that one of Iraq’s many enemies hasn’t already pulled something like that. > \*\* “sigh”. Look, we do know that he has them. This is one place where I get chapped. People like you wouldn’t believe that Saddam has these weapons unless he shoved them down your throat. Quite frankly, good people would die if we revealed our intel sources to people who have a vested interest in disbelief. And I don’t think that those good people should die because you are politically committed to disbelieving our current administration. The speech that Secretary Powell gave to the United Nations already endangered people who risked their lives to get us necessary information. Of course, you’re gonna tell me I’m wrong. And unless you can show me that **your** military security clearance is higher than **my** clearance, etc, I’m going to ignore you as ignorant. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Iraq is our enemy. Likely. Our _only_ enemy? Oh, no. Not by a long shot. 'Cause when Al Jazeera starts streaming videos of Iraqi widows and orphans on every Moslem TV set in the _world_ Al Queda won’t remember what a recruitment problem was. Who’s the happiest guy in the world today? Osama bin Laden. Who can he thank for that boundless joy? Ah, you know that one already, don’t you. \*\* This last is actually a valid point. However, I have been taught that moral courage is doing the right thing, even when it is hard or you stand to lose something for doing it. Saddam Hussein is a danger to our country. Saddam Hussein is a danger to that portion of the world. Saddam Hussein is a danger to his own people. After 12 years of trying diplomacy, something has to be done. We’re the ones with the ability and the will to do the right thing. I thank God that our president has that moral courage. **That** is a trait that GWBush has that Clinton did not. ---
**Author:** ![Fugazi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f08c70/32.png) [@Fugazi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fugazi)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/43 "2003-03-19T04:11:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > We are already going to war with Saddam over weapons we _assume_ he has. Not weapons we know he has, because however many times we repeat ourselves, the fact is we don’t know. \*\* You are correct. We don’t know. Why? Because Hussein has ignored every Security Council resolution requiring that he cooperate with inspectors to prove he doesn’t have them. So let me ask you some questions \*\* elucidator \*\*. Lets assume Saddam has no prohibited weapons. Why has he jerked the inspectors around for 12 years? Why put up with sanctions when if he had just cooperated with the inspectors, they probably would have been lifted 11 years ago? Why, even knowing the U.S. is coming to take him out, he still doesn’t fully cooperate with the inspectors? Even without proof, I find it impossible to believe he has nothing to hide. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/44 "2003-03-19T05:49:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fugazi \* > \*\*So let me ask you some questions \*\* elucidator **. Lets assume Saddam has no prohibited weapons. Why has he jerked the inspectors around for 12 years?** Well, as someone pointed out in another thread, compliance shows weakness. At least, that’s how many will see it. So Saddam has to try and balance the risk of US invasion with the risks of being seen as weak. Dictators rely on the perception of their strength to remain in power, not to mention the risks of being viewed as a “weak” nation in that region… ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E.Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Wile\_E.Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E.Coyote)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/45 "2003-03-19T18:54:28Z")
Hm… [The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html) seems to think that the French have ulterior motives for not wanting us to go into Iraq: > [@](#): > > France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles. > > We’re not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels. > > If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project, where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is among the best binders for solid propellant? > > Answer: to 116 DaWu Road in Zibo, a city in the Shandong Province of China, where a company named Qilu Chemicals is a leading producer of a transparent liquid rubber named hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, familiarly known in the advanced-rocket trade as HTPB. There’s more about other equipment and supplies, but this gives you the gist. Interesting that it comes from a notoriously left-leaning paper. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/46 "2003-03-19T19:48:22Z")
_“Interesting that it comes from a notoriously left-leaning paper.”_ Not half as interesting as the notion of the _Times_ as “notoriously left-leaning.” According to whom? The rightwingers who edit the _National Review_? The excerpt you cite is from the _Times_’s most prominent conservative columnist, William Saffire,who has been affiliated with the paper decades. This is not the least reason to invalidate your characterization of this largely centrist newspaper as “notoriously left-leaning.” The _Times_ also publishes columns by centrists (e.g., Keller, Friedman and usually Dowd), and by liberals of a fairly moderate stripe (e.g., Kristoff and Krugman–though Krugman has become more markedly liberal since the Bush administration began to diverge from the Clintonian policies he largely supported.) FTR, it is not appropriate to attribute the views of a columnist directly to the newspaper that publishes the columnist. The _Times_ has it’s own editorial page and, as a matter of fact, France does figure a bit in [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18TUE1.html), its most recent editorial on Iraq-related matters. Here’s the relevant excerpt: _“There is no ignoring the role of Baghdad’s game of cooperation without content in this diplomatic debacle. And France, in its zest for standing up to Washington, succeeded mainly in sending all the wrong signals to Baghdad. But Washington’s own destructive contributions were enormous: its shifting goals and rationales, its increasingly arbitrary timetables, its distaste for diplomatic give and take, its public arm-twisting and its failure to convince most of the world of any imminent danger.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E.Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Wile\_E.Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E.Coyote)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816/47 "2003-03-19T21:08:17Z")
All right, I’m not too proud to admit when I make a mistake. I had the _Times_\* confused with another paper. I apologise for the “notoriously left-leaning” remark, it was not accurate. I still stand behind my stance that Saddam needs to go for our safety and that of the rest of the world, however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/noble-to-liberate-french-from-nazis-but-not-iraqis-from-saddam/161816.md?page=2)