I am accusing the hard left in the US and across the world of being strategically short-sighted, isolationist, reflexively anti-American and pro-appeasement, and almost breath-takingly stupid. I am accusing them of attempting to force implementation of tactics similar to those used to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, and Hitler to abandon his program of conquering Europe.
Sorry to be unclear.
Don’t know about liberals in general. I do know that the hard Left/American Communist party opposed Nazi Germany until she signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Then they opposed war with Nazi Germany until after Hitler invaded Russia.
And the record of liberal opposition to communist expansionism in Europe, or in Cambodia, is not a stellar one.
december characterizes this as conservatives learning from their mistakes. Perhaps so. But liberals in this thread have claimed, in the teeth of the evidence, that Saddam does not have WMD, or that he has been contained and poses no particular threat.
We learn from the times we were wrong. Do you?
Perhaps it is common where you live. I have never heard such an argument, from anyone, and would reject it as obviously impossible that FDR could have orchestrated Pearl Harbor, which brought an end to American isolationism pretty much overnight. Even Lindbergh abandoned the Bund as of about Dec. 8, 1941.
I have heard the argument, on this message board, that Bush is fomenting war with Iraq to cover up the failures of his Presidency. I reject this argument as equally absurd. Do you?
I am not sure of your position. Are you saying that opposition to dictators invading and threatening their neighbors is a good thing, or not? Would it have been good for conservatives to oppose Hitler in 1937? Would it be good for liberals to oppose Saddam now?
Nope. Not for a second. I think he had this war in mind from the minute he was standing at a podium announcing his run for the presidency. I think he had this war in mind when he claimed that Clinton had US forces spread too thin. I think he had this war in mind when he claimed that the US armed forces were undermanned, underpaid, and ill-equipped. I think he had this in mind when he bitched about the US being Peacekeepers, and Policemen to the world.
I think he actually had an opportunity to go through with it when 9/11 happened, and he became so popular that he was able to cash in on some of his political capital. I think Bush is the luckiest SOB ever to sit in the Oval Office, and that all of this just fell into his lap.
But I don’t think he planned it to distract the American people from his domestic failures, he just used it that way.
IMHO, the issue isn’t whether Powell was convincing or not. The critical question is whether what he described rises to the level of requiring a military solution. I think he was failry convincing that Iraq is not complying with inspections. But it’s a long, long road (I hope) from that to a decision that Iraq poses an imminent threat and the only alternative is military.
Nice tactic DCU; make your opponent provide proof of assertions not under wide dispute. The extra work will distract him from argument, and he might just concede you the point (y’never know).
However, having a few spare minutes myself, I’ve done elucidator’s work for him. (Note that I’m no UN expert or internet wizard and these were pretty easy for me to find.)
UNSCR 242 of 1967, requiring withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories and affirming the need for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.”
UNSCR 338 of 1973, calling for a cease-fire and concurrent implementation of UNSCR 242.
UNSCR 1397 of 2002, recalling all previous resolutions “in particular” UNSCR’s 242 and 338, and calling upon Palestine and Israel “to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell Report recommendations.”
UNSCR 1402 of 2002, calling for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities and reiterating the call for implementation of the Tenet work plan Mitchell recommendations.
UNSCR 1403 of 2002, reaffirming 1397 and 1402 and demanding implementation of UNSCR 1402.
UNSCR 1405 of 2002, reaffirming all the resolutions above.
You may have trouble opening these documents directly. If so, they can be found by searching UN Security Council resolutions on this page.
If you still have problems, you could do what I did and start at the UN home page: www.un.org It’s a slow site, but confirms Israel’s violations of these resolutions. (Here’s a nice letter to that effect from the President of the UN Security Council, dated 10 April, 2002.)
“They don’t “destroy” jack shit–they use evidence provided by Iraq to confirm that Baghdad itself has destroyed the weapons in compliance with its international obligations”
No, you are completely wrong. Check out this article for a long list of weapons which UNSCOM destroyed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/53125.stm
“Ask yourself: why does Saddam want to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even at the expense of isolating his regime and living under sanctions?”
He wants those weapons so that he can retaliate if attacked. Alternatively to use them against weaker powers like Kurdish guerillas who can’t retaliate with massive force. No has ever produced any reason to believe that he would ever initiate an attack against the US with biological or chemical weapons. He has good reasons to not do this including the threat of massive retaliation if suspected. In fact he has possessed these weapons for more than 20 years and hasn’t attacked the US with them. Why would he start now unless attacked first?
OTOH if the US invades he certainly will use them and there is no way to stop him from passing them to terrorists.
The bottom line:
If the US doesn’t invade, Iraq has good incentives to not initiate the use of bio/chem weapons against it.
If the US invades Iraq has every incentive to use its weapons as widely as possible including supplying it to terrorists.
So an invasion makes it more likely that terrorists will get their hands on bio/chem weapons and use them against Americans.
So when you ask “How much would you like to encounter on the subway going to work this morning?” that is the best argument against invasion.
Welcome to the SDMB, arrbeejay. Reasonable opinions are always welcome. It’s spelled “fairly.”
I don’t think the whole imminent threat argument is relevant to a WMD - Smoking Gun debate, but I too hope a peaceful solution can be worked out. I doubt it. You must understand that over some months now the term “no smoking gun” must have been used thousands of times. Thus, I think that topic is worth debating by itself.
Of course, the Smoking Gun has been right under our noses all along.
Again, you’re citing sloppy journalistic usage as evidence. Not very impressive. UNSCOM’s web site affirms that it has “supervised the destruction” of the materials cited inthe BBC article, which is consistent with my assertion that without Iraq doing the actual destruction work, the inspectors can accomplish precisely jack shit.
That must be news in Tehran.
How reassuring.
So that Gulf War business is just a matter of forgive and forget for him, huh?
Which would naturally lead him to look to terrorist allies as a proxy.
Is there anything to stop him from doing so if we don’t invade?
Does anyone have an actual cite for this latest excuse for not overthrowing Saddam? Or did it just come to you in a bad dream?
So we just leave Saddam alone, and we’ll have peace in our time. Where have we heard that before?
Not so. Not so in the least. Despite the snide references and the apparent assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is either a fool or a knave, it continues to be my judgement and opinion that a great power, in fact THE great power, does not go around the world looking for a fight. If a fight comes to us, fine. North Korea, given express intentions, capability and present rhetoric poses the clear and present danger to the national interest that, it seems to me, is now lacking in our defugelty with Iraq.
God knows I want to take Secretary Powell at his word. He was a good and honorable man 30 years ago and I want to think he is one now. He has made a persuasive demonstration that Saddam is playing games with the UN inspectors. I am willing to take it that Saddam has nerve gas and bio agents and wants nukes. I am not willing to accept that as an adequate basis for war. It seems to me that we need a compelling reason before we send our youth into combat. Those of you who have endured artillery bombardment, have wrapped the corpses of friends in their own ponchos and washed the blood and flesh out of aircraft cockpits may understand this.
Just because we are THE great power doesn’t mean that we get to go around bitch slapping everyone who has offended us or who we think may offend us in the future. Give me a realistic and imminent, if not present, threat to our national interests and I’ll think differently. As between Iraq and North Korea, North K. comes a lot closer to meeting my criteria than Iraq.
There’s a great possibility that very few of his people will really fight for him when push comes to shove - on our way in, they know it’s all over, and simply surrender - why defend a pig like Hussein?
“UNSCOM’s web site affirms that it has “supervised the destruction” of the materials cited inthe BBC article, which is consistent with my assertion that without Iraq doing the actual destruction work, the inspectors can accomplish precisely jack shit.”
That site says that UNSCOM has “directed and supervised” the destruction of weapons facilities. What is the problem with this? UNSCOM finds weapons, orders them destroyed and they are destroyed. Sounds like containment to me. Obviously the inspectors don’t physically destroy the weapons with their own hands.
“Which would naturally lead him to look to terrorist allies as a proxy.”
This is problematic. Terrorists might easily turn around and use the weapons to blackmail Iraq. Also there is a good chance the US will eventually find out that Iraq was the source of the weapons and strike back.
“So that Gulf War business is just a matter of forgive and forget for him, huh?”
I don’t think Saddam will commit suicide in order to get revenge for the Gulf War. Besides he has had 10 years. How come he hasn’t supplied bio/chem weapons to terrorists in that period?
“Is there anything to stop him from doing so if we don’t invade?”
Deterrence and the aforementioned problem with working with terrorists. The fact is that unless it is desparate it would be a really bad idea for any regime to pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists especially if they want to use them against the US. Of course an invasion is precisely what would make a regime desparate.
Besides you are evading the issue. How does invasion prevent Iraq from passing its weapons to terrorists?
“Does anyone have an actual cite for this latest excuse for not overthrowing Saddam?”
Well the CIA said as much in a statement to Congress that Iraq was unlikely to work with terrorists unless attacked first.
This article has the relevant quotes: http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/101002_corn.htm
Ultimately it’s a matter of common sense and a look at incentives.
“So we just leave Saddam alone, and we’ll have peace in our time”
Not at all. You have an energetic inspections regime which makes sure that Saddam’s arsenal is steadily destroyed year by year. Just like in 1991-98.
Or maybe – just maybe – I was seriously asking for information. Everytime I’ve heard people bleating about Israel being in serious breach of a UN resolution, it’s been a non-Security Council resolution. Please forgive me, oh wise one, for asking for data to back up an assertion. Next time I’ll just glibly accept what is stated without question.
At any rate, the modern resolutions noted (I’m not going to relitigate the Six-Day War or the Yom Kippur War) basically boil down to “Hey Israel, quit occupying the territories! Hey Palestinian Authority, quit blowing up innocent Israelis!” If Israel is in breach, so is the PA. Key question: who has to go first?
At any rate, if you’re suggesting UN-backed military action in the Occupied Territories to enforce those resolutions – well, yeah, that would show the UNSC is serious about enforcing its resolutions, even though I doubt it would improve the situation. But somehow I suspect that isn’t what you are suggesting.
Possibly - that’s the debate. But wait, this post gets better:
The left is isolationist? There’s a new one.
Same old same old.
Go back and study your history some more, then.
Clarity isn’t your problem.
Calling you on that one. Who here has flatly said he does not? The evidence says he may or may not. And when, for that matter, did soberly looking at the facts before making a judgment become something only liberals engage in?
The facts of the last 12 years of him being contained apparently being a fantasy? “Poses no particular threat” is also not a claim being made by anyone here - it’s a relative question. Another misrepresentation.
If it’s absurd, why do so many people think so, IMHO? Is the whole world stupid but you?
The inapplicability of your Godwin handwaving as an analogy to today’s situation has been done to death and I won’t repeat it. You might, however, acknowledge that you have misrepresented the views of those who disagree with your belligerence. That approach convinces no one but yourself.
Um, maybe to deter anyone from messing with him so he can stay in charge of his regime? And do you think he personally cares about sanctions? They don’t affect him; they affect “his people”.
Since you say that was the reason, I apologize. It seemed unlikely to me at first blush, but I should have been a gentleman and just posted the information without comment.
The point was that, since we’re not pressing feverishly to uphold these particular UNSCR’s (and in fact, we’re quite keenly defensive of Israel’s violations and mute on the Palestinian Authority’s violations), our argument that we must defend the Security Council against “irrelevance” caused by Iraq’s apparent defiance of UNSCR 1441 seems rather unserious and self-serving.
I quite agree that military force against Israel and the Palestinian Authority would fail to improve the situation in the Middle East, and is not justified on humanitarian or diplomatic grounds. Many believe a military course in Iraq is similarly unjustified and will be similarly ineffective.
So the idea that FDR started WWII to cover up the failure of the New Deal is just a paranoid, right-wing fantasy, but Bush running for the Presidency for no other purpose than to start a war is reasonable. Interesting thought. In the same sense, that is, that “Alien Autopsy” is an interesting program, and the Secret Conspiracy of the Illuminati is an interesting concept.
I was particularly struck by this:
You seem to be saying that Bush is tired of the US being the policeman to the world, and so he wanted to start a war to force Iraq to abide by international law. Doesn’t this strike you as just a teensy bit problematic?
“Effectively contained”? He’s been demonstrated to be amassing a large variety of chemical and biological weapons, and there’s strong evidence to suggest that he’s trying to get nukes, with little to stand in his way. How is that “contained”? He has prototype unmanned aircraft with a range of 300 miles, that can be fitted with bio/chem weapon delivery systems. Once he gets that perfected, he could deliver an effective weapons strike pretty much anywhere he wants. This is contained?
With conventional weapons, he’s a problem only to his own area. With WMDs, he’s a problem for the world.
I was specifically addressing questions of the nature “Why don’t we invade these people, since they’re bigger threats?” The Bush administration is often accused of hypocricy for wanting to invade Iraq, but wanting to negotiate with, say, North Korea. I was summarizing why a militaristic approach wasn’t suitable for all of these other nations.
Since we’re exploring a number of non-military solutions with all of the aforementioned nations, clearly a hammer isn’t the only tool in our belt. We deal with problems in the most effective ways we can. The most effective tool for Iraq appears to be an invasion. For Iran, pressure on the Mullahs and support for the discontented citizens. For Pakistan, political pressure. For North Korea, there is no tool - we’ve been effectively checkmated for the time being.
We shouldn’t keep madmen from obtaining nukes, because that will make everybody want them more? So what would you suggest we do - just hand them out to whoever wants them, as a way of keeping people from getting them? Sorry, the logic just doesn’t follow. It’s not like this isn’t already common knowledge, anyway. Nuclear deterrence has been with us for half a century, now.
Yes, see above.
I doubt that Bush has much respect for the UN, given that it’s completely ineffective and unwilling to back up anything it says with a credible threat of force. However, European nations revere it as a utopian ideal of diplomacy - which is why you hear such nonsense about how the European triumph of discussion has effectively outlawed war, and blah blah blah. Since Europeans believe the UN is sacred, it’s in our interest to try going through it, as it will gather allies. In that respect, using Iraq’s violation of UNSC resolutions was a wise choice.
However, you’re right, in a sense - this isn’t about UNSC resolutions. It’s about the terms of the cease-fire. Iraq invaded Kuwait, we bitch-slapped them back into their own nation. Saddam was considered a threat, and thus we made an agreement with him - he disarms, and we don’t force him out of power. Saddam agreed. Then he went back on his agreement.
If we - we as a nation, and we as a global community - accept that, and give Saddam a pass, it sends a message to the world that we are unwilling to back up our demands - whatever they may be - with force. We are the parent who tells the child, ad nauseum, “You stop that right now, or else!” The smart child will discover, as Saddam believes he has, that the “or else” is simply another reiteration of the same idle threat. If we let Saddam walk on this, our ability to credibly threaten dangerous nations devolves into, “Behave, or else we’ll frown at you thoughtfully while passing an ineffective condemnation of your actions.”
In a way, our strategy here has been an attempt to force the UN to assert its own validity. Either the UN, as a construct, means something, and should be acknowledged as an authority (at least in matters of security), in which case it should take responsibility in the matter of Iraq, and back up its words with effective actions. Or, it’s a paper tiger, and the world should realize it. It’s a modern-day League of Nations, effective only to the extent that nobody questions its authority, because in reality it has none.
It’s put up or shut up time for the UN. If it backs a war against Iraq, it will establish itself as a force to be reckoned with, if only because of the backbone of the US. Other nations will realize that you cross the UN only at your own peril. If it balks at the Iraq situation, and pushes for ever-more laughable inspections for inspection’s sake, then it will lose all credibility, and will follow the League of Nations into the dustbin of history. And good riddance.
Jeff
It has, unfortunately, gone way beyond the point of sober reflection. Some liberals now are attempting to deny reality. To claim that the evidence is ambiguous that Saddam “may or may not” have WMD is to take that step.
Has it? I don’t recall any instances. Indulge me, if you will.
What would you say were the historically significant differences between these two power-hungry, aggressive, armed, neighbor-invading, human-rights-violating, imperialist, war-mongering, ethnic-group-targetting, absolute dictators?
And just maybe our problem lies here. There may be a fair argument that some of the people beating the war drums might just have some other agenda than suppressing a chronic disturber of the peace. For them maybe it is about Arabian Light Crude. Maybe it is about unfinished business. Maybe it is about providing an object lesion about the consequences of back-talking the biggest dog in the county. Maybe it is about embarrassment because Bush the Elder, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. called off the dogs too early in 1991 and an attempt to atone for that. Maybe it is an unnaturally low tolerance for puffed up tin horn emperors. Maybe it is about embarassing the UN. Maybe all that stuff. If so, shame for advancing personal and selfish objectives by risking the young people who wear our country’s uniform.
All I want is a demonstration of clear and present threat to the vital national interests before we resort to the ultimate and final arrow in our quiver.
