Yes, quite different. We have no realistic method of placing diplomatic pressure on Putin to stop him from doing such things. We wouldn’t be able to get the UN to support any sort of concrete action against Russia. Oh, wait, I’m sorry, you were just erecting this argument as another in a long line of straw-men. Sorry, if I’d realized that eariler, I wouldn’t have wasted the bandwidth.
The bastard! He suspects there may have been a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, and what does he do? He brazenly waits until more evidence is acquired to confirm his suspicions before declaring war. My God, someone fetch me the impeachment papers!
Honestly, 'luci, if you spent one tenth as much time formulating coherent arguments as you did on eloquent prose, you’d be a phenomenal debator. How tragic it is to see talent wasted so…
Jeff
Or maybe it’s none of that stuff. Maybe there’s no conspiracy, no War for Oil, no Vengeance for Daddy, no Exercising Power For the Hell Of It… maybe the war is for exactly the reasons the Administration claims it to be. Is it so hard to believe that the Administration could have perfectly legitimate reasoning for its course of action, even if you disagree with it? Whoa, now I’m talking crazy.
Pardon my skepticism, but I doubt it. At the least, I doubt most people still opposed to war could be convinced by any evidence. There were anti-war protesters who objected to our going to Afghanistan to destroy the exact same terrorist organization who had just killed thousands of civilians. In that case, the “clear and present threat” was obvious, yet the anti-war crowd still objected to military action. Why should we believe that there’s anything that could convince them now?
Jeff
I doubt there is any point in debating with you on this issue, but just in case some reasonable person might be reading this might and wonder about the comparison…
Hitler was the leader of one of Europe’s most powerful and highly-developed nation-states, and posed a direct and credible risk to all of his neighbors. Despite that fact, the US did not advocate a pre-emptive strike against Nazi Germany, and avoided the war for as long as it possibly could – until, in fact, it was itself attacked, at Pearl Harbor. A sound policy for a benign superpower, I might add, because if attacked, at least the US has a strong moral argument in support of retaliation, as well as an internationally recognized right to protect its territory.
Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is the tin-pot leader of an underdeveloped, third-world desert that has been subjected to near-constant bombardment and brutal economic sanctions for well over a decade, after retreating from his last military venture in total, humiliating defeat. He has no significant allies (Hitler had Italy and Japan); even his neighbors (Iran, Israel, Kuwait, et. al.) despise him, and pick on him at will. Unlike Nazi Germany, Iraq presents no – I repeat, for the reading impaired, NO – credible military threat to its surroundings, let alone to the single remaining superpower left on the planet. The US military could, at will, crush the Iraqi government like a gnat, if not for the constraints of public and world opinion.
The idea behind the US government’s propaganda effort is to create, in the mind of the public, an image of Saddam as a much larger and more credible threat than he is in reality. This work is helped along by comparisons such as the one you make above, in which the weak and ineffectual Saddam Hussein, leader of an attenuated and bombed out Third-World rathole, is equated with one of the 20th Century’s worst villains, former leader of one of the most powerful nation-states in Europe. Still, it takes an extra helping of double-think to interpret our decade-long aggression against Iraq as Iraqi aggression against us, and so I pause here to congratulate you. Your duck-speak, good sir, is almost flawless.
On a final note, I will say that, for all intents and purposes, at least as far as I can see, Hussein and Hitler are morally equivalent to each other. That might arguably be a justification for starting an invasion, but the argument is a slippery slope, indeed.
That is more like the standard by which the US president can go to war without congressional approval.
You either place emphasis the context this is all taking place in or you don’t. GHWB ceasing hostilities on condition that Iraq get rid of its WMD, the cease fire resolutions, the disarmament resolutions, the 12 year inspections regime, the WMD shell game, the missile wars in the no-fly zones, Saddam’s atrocities, all of it.
There’s a veritable baker’s dozen of problems I have with your post, Sr. Svinlesha, but I’ll focus on this one for now. Wasn’t Germany pretty far from a “powerful and highly developed nation-state”? Wasn’t Hitler able to rally so much support precisely because Germany, at the time, was a war-torn mess - the economy in the hole, the people poor and miserable? Problems which he was able to succesfully blame on the Jews?
Further, the reason Hitler was empowered to invade half of Europe was because nobody saw fit to stop him, based on the belief that Hitler’s hunger would be satiated after just one more nation. (Countries must be like Pringles - can’t invade just one.) Saddam, on the other hand, has been partially restrained by the internation community, to the extent that his conventional forces no longer work. Hence the need for WMDs. But to claim that Saddam hasn’t conquered other nations because he’s an “ineffectual” leader of a mere third-world nation is inaccurate. He hasn’t conquered other nations because thus far, we’ve been able to keep him reigned in. He plans to use WMDs to change all that.
The Hitler comparison may not be a perfect one, but it’s not completely without merit, either.
Jeff
Well one of the many problems with your argument is that he already possessed WMD for two decades and it didn’t really help him conquer anything. He was kicked out of Kuwait easily even though he possessed bio/chemical weapons.
So your argument is minimally plausible only if you focus on nuclear weapons. One problem is that there is little evidence Saddam is even close to acquiring nukes. Another problem is that even if he did acquire a couple of crude bombs, both US and Israel would still have MASSIVE superiority in both conventional and nuclear weapons. There is little reason to believe that he would be allowed to run rampant across the Middle East.
By contrast Hitler’s Germany in the 30’s had the industrial potential to build the most powerful army in Europe. The comparison is completely ridiculous.
What evidence do you imagine has been acquired? Some guy had his leg lopped off in Baghdad (the capital!) and that means Saddam bin Laden is calling the shots for Al Queda? Suggesting that a secular cynic like Saddam somehow controls a band of religious nutbars like the Al-Queda is like claiming Vladimir Putin controlled David Koresh. True, they like him better than they like us, but not by much. However, it is possible that an alliance can be forged between them, given a common enemy. It seems to be our most fervent hope to do so.
As to the previous reference to UN resolutions, as questioned by Dewey and dug up by Xeno (thanks!), this can be put to rest by the simplest of thought experiments.
Suppose the UN not only does not recognize the blinding clarity of GeeDubyas vision, but actually dares to forbid the US to use force without its approval. Which of you stern advocates of the enforcement of UN resolutions will be the first to say “Well, heck, I don’t agree, but the UN is the boss” In a pigs ass!
The appeal to the sanctity of UN resolutions is pure hokum. The only reason the war hasn’t begun yet is that the pieces are not all in place, the generals arent ready, the troops not fully deployed. The Bushistas are entirely content to dance the inspectors minuet, why not, they have nothing to lose. If GeeDubya can drape UN legitimacy over his actions, he is happy to do so. But as the Woodward quote points out, his mind is made up, he is not one to be confused by facts.
I, for one, don’t care how many tons of useless crap Saddam amasses. All of his dreaded WMD can be rendered moot by the simple expedient of staying here. As to the prospect of his arming his loyal minions in Al Queda, that is perfectly ridiculous. He is not about to empower anyone he cannot control, and he damned sure can’t control Al Queda. Worse still, from his point of view, is that America is already convinced its all his fault. If a biological weapon goes off in Akron, regardless of who unleashed it, Baghdad will be a glowing crater by morning.
Which lends a perfectly dreadful possibility to anyone who hates us both. How many people in the world would be tickled pink to see such a thing? Which of you feverish hawks, so anxious to display your hairier parts in public, would be the first to say “Whoa! Lets be sure about this, don’t want to go off half cocked here.”
No, this is not a situation where there is a lesser standard of need when there is congressional approval. The question is what circumstances short of actual hostile attack justify abandoning all efforts to achieve our ends short of the resort to war. In order to maintain any pretence to moral superiority we need more than a pretext. We need to have so serious a real threat to some important interest that no other response is appropriate.
That Saddam has played games, has chemical and bio agents and is not about to willingly give them up is understood and has been understood for the last ten years and more. That he has nukes is problematic. That he is tied to Osama is doubtful. That Saddam has given the US the figurative finger is obvious. That Saddam presents an intolerable risk is up for grabs.
This thing is becoming tiresome. I have repeatedly asked for a lucid recitation of the vital national interest that is threatened by Saddam. All I am getting in response is “we don’t need no threat to no vital national interest and anybody who think we do is a chicken livered coward.” That just isn’t going to cut it.
I never said that is why Bush ran, I’m saying that he’d always planned to take action against Iraq including when he was complaining about the state of the military. Let’s look at the facts shall we?
From this letter to Clinton in 1998 and signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others:
In a letter to Gingrich in 1998, also signed by Rumsfeld, et al
In a Statement before the House National Security Committee by Paul Wolfowitz in 1998:
I think the policy was clear. If you look Cheney, and Jeb Bush are also part of this Project for the New American Century, and has signed their statement of principal. I prefer to think Bush knew about this policy, but if you prefer to believe he was duped in to following the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, policy then so be it.
I hope that not what I’m saying, because that restatement is about as clear as mud. What I’m saying is that Bush complained about the US being policemen to the world when he knew damn well that he was going to send US troops to a protracted mission in Iraq.
Especially the way you keep quoting some part of what I say, and leave out the parts relevant to your arguments.
You seem to think that all military conflict is tied to a direct threat to US territorial integrity. I cannot think of a single military involvement since WWII - and it barely - which met that standard.
And how do you see that as relevant to the analogy between Saddam and Hitler?
Well, in that case, let us not forget that when Iraq was at war with Iran the US government supported Iraq. This support has been the source much partisan debate since then, but many on the right side of the political spectrum (not that I’m naming any names, Shodan) still defend that policy to this day. If Shodan’s analogy between Hitler and Hussein is correct, such a defense would be the equivalent to promoting US support for German aggression against Poland, or England, in WWII. So which is it?
At any rate, Hussein was immediately rebuffed by the international community, led by the US, when he actually tried to invade a sovereign state last. You may have hear about that; it was in all the papers. I think they called it the Gulf War.
Since then the US government has imposed upon Iraq conditions of surrender significantly more severe than anything found in the Treaty of Versailles, including crushing economic sanctions and near-daily bombing raids. To compare such a situation to Chamberlain-like ”appeasement” is nothing short of ludicrous. Or double-think, methinks.
At least you haven’t lost your charming sense of humor.
I guess that explains his spectacular success in the war against Iran, which he conducted with US financial and military support, as noted above.
Now, now Jeff – have you been channeling Saddam again? I told you not to believe in all that psychic hogwash.
Anyway, I also want to interject a point about the rhetorical use of the letters WMD. They stand for Weapons of Mass Destruction, as you know, and are employed to denote three types of such weapons – chemical, biological, and nuclear. I would like to suggest that while this grouping might in some situations be technically convenient, it also has a powerful rhetorical affect. When you read of WMDs, you think of things that are truly horrifying – or at least, I do. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, radiation sickness, burnt skin, etc. But let us be clear about it; in the context of Iraq, WMD means some old canisters of WWII mustard gas, and possibly some small quantity of nerve agents, along with botulism (can’t grow in air), anthrax (easily treatable), and maybe a couple of other highly ineffective biological toxins. Not very nice stuff, I agree –
Aww, anthrax and VX aren’t that bad, guys . . . true, a teaspoonful can kill everyone in lower Manhattan, but that’s not what I personally evision as “truly horrifying” . . .
. . . so, the argument has progressed from (1) You can’t prove that Saddam has WMDs! :mad: to (2) OK, maybe they do have WMDs, but who are you to question the efficacy of the UN inspectors? :dubious: to (3) well, OK, maybe Iraq has WMDs and Saddam’s making a fool of the inspectors, but c’mon, WMDs aren’t really all that bad, are they? :o At least we can be sure that Saddam will only slaughter defenseless Kurds with them–oh, yeah, and maybe a few million ;j . Big deal.
This is the moral abyss you all put yourselves in defending Saddam.
Hmmmm…I thought that the attack on Pearl Harbor would have constituted an attack on US territorial integrity…so I am not sure how you can say that this “barely” meets that standard. I suppose that the 9/11 attack also would constitute an attack on US territorial integrity. at least of a sort.
My point wasn’t that there exists irrefutable evidence that Saddam and al Qaeda are best buds. There may be an iron-clad of this, but it hasn’t been presented (and if this the case, it hasn’t been presented to protect our sources - the information that Powell did give was at the expense of burning a number of intelligence sources for good). What has been presented is a good body of circumstantial evidence that only adds to the large number of reasons why we should attack, and soon. Saddam is in blatant violation of UNSC resolutions, is trying to arm himself (you might ask yourself why he would risk so much to acquire weapons that he never plans to use), and has made it clear that there is no diplomatic way to alleviate the problem. That is reason to invade. Saddam may also be in cahoots with al Qaeda. That is reason to invade now.
But getting back to my point (and, as Ellen Degeneres might say, I do have one), you seemed to be demonizing the good Pres because he suspected a connection, and waited to amass evidence. Can you please highlight why the Woodward passage of yours is worthy of ridicule? I can find nothing in there that supports any point I can imagine you making.
Nice thought experiment, but it’s completely detached from reality. It would be impossible for the UN to pass a SC resolution preventing us from attacking Iraq. All the US would have to do is veto it. The best the UN can do is refuse to pass a resolution authorizing an invasion. In more general terms, it is functionally impossible for the US to ever be in violation of a UNSC resolution.
Umm… to me, the quote implied that Bush suspected Iraqi compliance in the 9/11 attacks, but didn’t want to do anything until it was sure. Wait, let me parse this statement with my Bush-Is-Pure-Evil filter…
Okay, yeah. Bush wanted to invade Iraq for purely personal reasons, and was just trying to find enough “evidence” to spoon-feed his war to the people, and that quote is proof positive. Good call, 'luci!
Good point. Our staying out of Saddam’s business certainly kept him from invading Kuwait. Oh, wait…
Honest question, elucidator: Do you honestly believe that there is no reason for the US to go to war for any reason other than a direct threat to our own citizens? If Iraq said, for instance, “Tomorrow I’m going to nuke London”, would you give him your fondest blessings?
You’re perfectly correct about one thing: If we were to suddenly tell Saddam he could do whatever he wanted, and we wouldn’t stop him, he would never personally lift a finger towards us. He would simply systematically conquer the entire Middle East. However, if we wish to have any reign on him whatsoever, we cannot let him tromp around with a nuke or an 8-ball of anthrax in his pocket.
And that’s where the “threat to our citizens” bit comes in. We have decided, as a country, that we don’t like to watch people get slaughtered. We didn’t like seeing Hitler have his way with Europe. We didn’t like seeing Russia have her way with Europe, either. We didn’t like watching North Korea give South Korea a good rogering. And if Iraq were to start amassing a modern-day Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, people would die - even more than are slaughtered by the dictators currently in charge. And what could we do to stop it, if Saddam has SCUDs laced with Anthrax pointed at France? Or if he threatened to send some unmanned aircraft with nukes to greet New York and Washington?
And here, let me stop you, 'luci, because I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to blather about US policy with dictators in the past. We created Saddam/We allied with Stalin/We support Saudi Arabia/blah blah blah. Assuming you even had a point there - which I would undoubtedly disagree with - that’s not what I’m asking. For the purposes of this argument, assume that the US is the saintliest of saints, and has never done wrong. Stop using claims of hypocricy as a substitute for a good argument, and address this question on its own terms:
Would you find it acceptable to have Saddam conquer the Middle East?
Jeff
Jeffe I simply cannot answer your blinding clairovoyance. Not only can you read GeeDubya’s mind, but Saddam’s as well!
Woodward’s quote doesn’t indicate suspicion, it indicates certainty! And please note: he says he is staying his hand from an attack because he doesn’t have the evidence yet! Not “I’m suspicious, and if I have evidence, I will attack”
Your analysis of the restrictions on the Securty Council are quite correct, of course, but more emphasize my point than rebut it. Of course, the Security Council cannot pass a resolution condemning the US’ action. You might ask yourself how this might be viewed by someone with the scurrilous opinion that the USA is not always the paragon of every thing that is right and virtuous. (I know, hard to accept…but stretch a bit).
And last, of course, you conduct your very own premptive strike: you already know what I’m going to say, how I’m going to say it, and suggest, for the purposes of argument, that the US is St. Francis of Assissi? Huh? You then invite me to debate your assertion that Saddam Hussein will conquer the Middle East as a given!
Well, gee, guy, since you put it that way, what can I do but bow to your superior rhetorical gifts! But lets put it another way:
If pigs fly, would you be well advised to buy an umbrella?
Yes? Well, then, my case is proved. Or, if you prefer, with less rhetorical flourish and pointless eloquence:
“Barely,” as I said. Hawaii became a territory around 1900, and became a state after WW II. The Japanese put some troops in the Aleutian Islands and the Germans landed some commandos on the East Coast. Oh, and some Japanese balloons with bombs landed on the West Coast and inland. Good thing Unit 731 never armed the balloons.
I just don’t think it is legitimate to try to define a smoking gun which is commonly understood as clear violation of the terms of the various disarmament amendments as some kind of impending invasion.
Things are different now, I guess. I don’t mean post Sept. 11. It is much easier to deliver weapons which can kill millions than ever before. As much as I would love to think that we would nip a Smallpox epidemic in the bud, I’m pessimistic.
You claimed that Germany was a proud and proseperous nation, whereas Iraq is a third-world crapheap with a rag-tag and ineffectual army. That was the specific point I was addressing.
A more accurate analogy than the US supporting German agression would be as follows: Suppose we allied with Stalin’s USSR in WWII, and then later pointed thousands of nukes at him and worked our asses off trying to keep him from spreading his influence across the globe? In the 80’s, we saw two nations, Iraq and Iran, competing for dominance. We imagined an Iranian victory - something which seemed likely, at the time - and saw absolute horror. We imagined an Iraqi victory, and saw horror, yes, but of a more benign sort. Did we make the right choice? That’s a valid question. However, it must be realized that sometimes, we see it fit to pick allies that we don’t really like. Such is the world of diplomacy.
We live in more dangerous times, today. In 1920, a nation needed an enormous army to pose a serious threat to anyone. Nowadays, you can kill thousands with a vial of Death Juice, millions with a well-placed atomic bomb. More serious times call for more serious measures. And no, the Chamberlain analogy isn’t perfect, by any means. The UN is at least putting up a facade of keeping Saddam unarmed, whereas Europe in the 30’s didn’t lift a finger. But if you imagine Chamberlain saying, “Now Hitler, if you conquer another nation, we’re going to be very disappointed in you,” ad nauseum, the comparison becomes significantly more accurate.
Why thank you! I try.
Bah, I’m not channeling Saddam. I’m simply going off the advice of Miss Cleo.
Jeff
