The Bush administration’s argument was that Saddam both (a) currently has WMD and is actively trying to develop more and (b) is so crazy and evil that he would not hesitate to use them against the U.S. if the opportunity arose regardless of the consequences. This argument was used not only to justify invading Iraq, but to justify doing so as quickly as possible, without wasting time with diplomacy or trying other disarmament strategies to make our allies happy and maintain strong international support.
If Saddam is truly so calculating and practical as to refrain from using WMD against the invading U.S. army out of concern for international opinion, to me this means that argument (b) is a load of crap, and that casting aside world support and diplomacy in order to rush into this war was a huge mistake.
Saddam is an insane madman, and cannot be “contained” nor can he be constrained. He will use this WMD’s against America at his earliest possible opportunity. If such is not convenient, he will hand these weapons off to fanatics he does not trust and cannot control.
He has had these weapons for at least 10 years. He has done neither.
Conclusion: it is entirely clear that we urgently need to put our soldiers in a position so that they may be subjected to these weapons. Immediatly.
Am I the only person in America who sees a severe case of cognitive dissonance here?
It is taken in case of such exposure because it is a standard broad spectrum antibiotic that coincidentally is particularly effective against anthrax and similar organisms. It is about as convincing as an argument that they have bioweapons as a GI carrying some neosporin is of US intent to use chemical weapons.
How cynically invidious so many in the anti-war crowd are!
I have no way of knowing for certain whether or not Iraqi liberation was predominant among this regrettably rather inept administration’s private reasons for this war, but that question is essentially moot when it comes to the moral decision of whether or not “mere” Iraqi liberation is a sufficient ethical justification for the use of force in this instance. I feel it is, and a great many others feel that way regardless of whether Saddam has WMD or has close links to al-Qaeda or any other proffered reasons.
To so dismissively label the liberation of an entire people from vicious oppression a mere “spin” tells much about the morally befouled swamp most in the anti-war contingent are mired in, even more deeply than we who support the war on humanitarian grounds.
I can just see it in a couple of weeks, when the war’s stilll dragging on and getting more and more expensive by the minute… American black ops in Bhagdad launch a rocket full of VX at allied forces who have been pre-warned about “expected use of chemical weapons”.
The wind would blow it through Bhagdad, killing thousands of innocents. The rest of the world would join in the war saving US money and ending the war quickly, since they would then believe that Saddam has WMD and is willing to use them at the risk of innocent lives.
Having absolutely no faith in the allied leader’s scruples, I fully expect to hear on the news “Saddam’s gas rocket fired from Bhagdad kills thousands of Iraqis - France and Russia condemn his action”
I did not get the impression that X~Slayer(ALE) was in any way trying to diminish the importance of Iraqi liberation, but merely stating his belief that the Bush admin would later try to claim the war was for that reason in the event that no WMDs are found. But even if I am wrong, how do you then take one poster’s opinion and apply it in blanket fashion to “most in the anti-war contingent”?
This is an interesting point. Consider the different approach to Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the U.S. never really bothered with an elaborate campaign to “make its case” or “convince the Security Council” or any of the nonsense that the Administration spent so long (and may have used so many dubious but ominous “facts”) in supporting. Instead, the U.S. went in quickly, more or less unilaterally, and without regard for anyone’s opinions.
And what was the U.S. popular, and world, reaction? No one really let out a peep; the invasion was overwhelmingly approved by U.S. citizens, and even the alleged kneejerk America haters/obstructionists (Gauls, Boche, etc.) had nary an objection. Why? Because there wasn’t much legitimate debate that Afghanistan, or at least elements provably associated with and sheltered by it, posed not just a theoretical, but an already-carried-out threat to American soil and lives. As I noted, the U.S. populace will always be more than happy to deliver a firm majority in favor of strong military force against such a threat to U.S. borders/sovereignty/citizens.
I suggest that the dissent on Iraq from many people/nations that didn’t dissent on Afganistan, and the Administration’s possibly-overreaching attempts to use WMDs, etc. to create a false equation between SH and OBL, are two sides of the same coin, and reflect the fact that Americans are not generally supportive of grand geopolitical schemes or crusades that can’t be clearly linked to American safety, thus raising the stakes for showing (or trumping up) such a threat to win their consent. In that sense, the debate over Iraq was somewhat more illuminating than many political debates are, to the extent it focused on whether there was a clear and present WMD danger (including to the U.S.) from Iraq (the anti-globalization, absolutist pacifist, America-hating elements of the anti-war debate, while I won’t attack or defend their propriety, I found less fruitful, because we already know where they stand).
The President said “Iraq is one of those situations where U.S. safety is directly imperiled, thus justifying war;” a number of people (U.S. and abroad) who are neither reflexively anti-war or pro-war wanted to see proof of this threat, and if it were shown, would be willing to support war; if not, not. So far, so good – issue had been joined, and both sides seem to acknowledge that a direct threat to the U.S. is the primary justification that will persuade Americans (and the world) that the U.S. can act unilaterally. The unfortunate thing would be if, having framed this issue fairly, one side or the other fudged the proof, which is the potential problem with the as-yet-unfulfilled apocalyptic WMD predictions/allegations the Administration felt compelled to lean on.
I recently went to Mexico and bought a couple of different broad spectrum antibiotics (flagyl and ampicillin) which are now just sitting around my house unopened waiting for me to get sick.
If I went to a place like Iraq or a 3rd world country, I would definitely take them with me, because medicine is hard to find. (flagyl treats giardia as well) Owning a bottle of Cipro proves nothing.
Another thing: Someone told me today that they saw on Deutsche Welle (German news program) that 10,000 Iraqi expatriates living in Jordan want to now go back to Iraq to fight the U.S. Can anyone verify?
It seems to me perfectly logical to assume that Iraqui soldiers protecting themselves against biological weapons might well be protecting themselves against an American biological weapons attack. Wasn’t the Anthrax sent to goverment offices in America American military grade Anthrax? (I might be wrong on that one, but my vague memory was that it probably came from American sources.) At any rate, we originally supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons – why would it be so silly for him to suppose that we didn’t give all of our supply to him?
You may “support the war” on any grounds you wish. Lord knows you’ve been given a veritable cornucopia of official reasons to choose from. However the only one that was on the table that mattered in terms of legitimazing this war of choice, is, in fact, the failure to adhere to UN resolution 1441…to the satisfaction of King George I might add.
The rest might soothe some of the more patriotic souls in their quest for justification. But point in fact, 1441 says nothing about regime change. So, if that’s what you really wanted (and who knows anymore) then that’s what should have gone in front of the UN.
Simply put, no one died and made the USA the sole moral/political arbiter and policeman of the world.
Which is why about 40 other countries, including the majority of the countries of Europe, are supporting the U.S. and Britain in this war in various ways.
Several European channels showed Iraqi expats in Jordan going to the Iraqi embassy (even filming inside with hidden camera) to get passports to go back into Iraq. These people were interviewed, and I doubt there’s a lot of Iraqi ‘minders’ in Amman.
Majority of countries of Europe? Where did you get that from?
a)The number of countries in Europe supporting the war is by far inferior to the number supporting it.
b)In practically all countries supporting it, with the exception of Britain, the population is overwhelmingly against the war. And even in Britain, there is a huge number of opponents, and together with those who object to the war, but do not voice any objections anymore now that it has started, they pose a majority, too.
c)Of those 40 countries, many governments have been blackmailed, given that a recent law states that a country receiving US foreign aid does not engage in any behavior jeopardizing US security or foreign policy interests.
Incidentally, one of Bush’s most vocal supporters will soon disappear. Spain will hold elections next year, and that will be the end of the Aznar government.
European countries that are supporting the U.S. and Britain: Spain, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Turkey, Italy.
You DO realize that Slovenia was an inch away from not joining NATO because the population feared being used as a US military base? Nope, those COUNTRIES are not supporting the US. A few, but by far not all of the governments are, and even fewer parliaments. But given that the US demonstably doesn’t care for the people or their elected representatives, that is of no consequence for you, no?
I would suggest you look at a map of Europe. There’s a bunch of other nations over there.
…while the other 150-some-odd nations of the world are going (sic) “Will you American nutjobs knock it off already??” ~ rjung
Chill* rjung**, the odd nations of the world are not nations. Nations without balls are ephemeral desert flowers that bloom prettily one wet night and then they are gone. *~ an americian nutjob