Ahh, but Jeff, I’m talking about deterrence, in which one must assume the opponent is a touch crazy.
As for getting our army there pretty darned fast, I agree, but it is about 20 miles from the DMZ to Seoul. Don’t think they’d get there fast enough.
Sua
SuaSponte, I respect your argument, but maintain that NK’s acquisition of nukes makes them a more difficult to deal with than if they didn’t. If you feel differently, than I think we must agree to disagree. Further, I would argue that deterrence is dependent on the opponent being more rational than crazy. It relies on the opponent desiring his own self-preservation, which is a rational response.
Anyway, the NK quibble would seem a small one, as I think we can agree it’s better to have an opponent without nukes than an opponent with nukes, especially in the case of Saddam 
Jeff
The argument seems to have split into two, largely irrelevent, sub arguments. First, is Scott Ritter an asshole? Myself, I respond rather negatively to his personality. I suspect it may have to do with Lingering Jarhead Syndrome. Guys can be in the Army, the Air Force, etc., and resume relatively normal lives. Something about being a Marine appears to leave a permanent attitude.
Why do I find him at all credible? Because certain people hate him out of all proportion, loathe him, despise him, jump up and down foaming at the mouth hate him, hate his Momma, hate his dog, hate his shoes… And those people tend to be closely associated with the Perle/Wolfowitz conspiracy. So he must be doing something right. Got the right enemies.
But its on the wrong tack, ultimately. The whole inspection/WMD is mostly built on posturing. The UN is attempting to gain some control over the situation, trying to buy time. They are pretending to be relevent, pretending that Bush cares what they think. Even though he has made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t.
On the other hand, Bush would like to have the UN on board, it looks good that way. But no matter how many times the inspectors say they are making progress, he insists that they aren’t. Based on what information, we are not advised. Probably one of those “gut feeling” things that really great leaders are known for. Bush would like to have the opportunity to claim that the UN sanctions are the cause for war, but he won’t let the UN be the deciding factor. And that’s the nub of it.
If it is Iraq’s defiance of the UNs authority that is to be the cause for war, then that recognizes the UN’s authority. Hence, the UN could say “No war today, thank you very much” and Bush would be bound to respect that. No way he will do that. No chance in hell he will put UN authority above the US.
If the UN agrees with US, peachy, he’s tickled pink. UN disagrees, he’s going anyway. Right now, the preparations are underway. When the preparations are completed, the cause will be found, be it inspections, sanctions, WMD’s, or whatever. (I personally expect a US destroyer, cruising in international sand in the Godforsaken Desert, will be attacked by anthrax armed PT boats).
The UN is hoping to stall war long enough for the madness to die down, it is a worthy attempt, but almost certainly doomed. Our Leader cannot back down now. The Hawks would go ballistic, the rest of us will resent, rightly, having our chains yanked. He has to come galumphing back with Saddam’s head or the uncomfortable questions will suface again. There is no level of Iraqi compliance, short of an act of seppuku, that will suffice. If the dreaded weapons are found, that is cause for war. If no weapons are found, that is proof he is lying, and that is cause for war. If he floats, he’s made of wood, therefore he’s a witch, cause for war.
Is Saddam is a rotten, evil, conniving bastard, then he very likely has gotten rid of all that embarassing crap. He gets a clean bill of health, the sanctions come off, he looks like a hero to the Mideast for being persecuted wrongly by the Great Satan, and as soon as everybody is gone, he just rebuilds everything. Whats not to like?
Elucidator, I tend to agree with much of what your post. I do have to disagree with you on Scotty. I match him up against Richard Butler (his boss), David Kay, Richard Spertzel (these two on C-SPAN in front of the House Armed Svcs Committee), Terry Taylor, Tim McCarthy, and others I’ve seen on CNN, MSNBC and FOX whose names slip my memory at the moment. He comes out looking like The Man with Two Brains. Yes I did, no I didn’t! Did! Didn’t!
On to your other comments. Yup, UN has a bad case of prima donna-itis. Wah, what about meeee? I am too, relevant! That they’ve done nothing to address the issue of Iraq, at least nothing substantial or successful belies their stature in French and German eyes, in my estimation. My gauge? Saddam still in power, still torturing and killing his people, sanctions harming the very people intended to aid. Ongoing indications of his pursuit of nasty weapons he’s not supposed to have. That we’re even having to talk about him says it all, really.
As to Bush and his dilemma over taking action or waiting for the turtles at the U.N. to respond to his lead, I’m still waiting. I don’t expect a manufactured excuse for military action. I have more respect for Bush than that. I do expect Iraq’s 12/8 declaration to be dissected for non-compliance. And no, even I won’t accept just anything as proof of that, either. I believe the reason for Bush not providing recent names and dates of Iraqi weapons production is that list. Better Iraq not know and miss something we do know. Then we may have legitimate cause for action. Notice all my qualifiers there? I’m waiting for more than I’ve seen, sure. But I’m not prejudging Bush’s actions as irresponsible, or irrational, or unreasonable. I’ve sought out as much publicly aired commentary by the experts as most anyone to make a fair estimation on this subject. I’m willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt at this time.
Hey, all I was doing was responding to your invented evidence. He “might” have done a lot of things. He “might” have been informed by Martians. But we have no evidence of anything, and he refuses to provide it. He says, “ignore what I said. I won’t tell you why you should ignore it. Just do it.” Well, I won’t.
Yes, it does. Facts get no filter. Interpretation of facts do. And, as I have repeatedly noted, Ritter changed his statements of fact, not just his interpretataion.
Yes, I do. You just won’t accept it.
CyberPundit, be honest. If Dubya before the election had stated that Iraq was disarmed, and now claimed that it wasn’t, and failed to provide any evidence why he changed his claims, would you be speculating about new evidence that no one has ever seen or playing with semantics to try to rationalize Dubya’s lie?
I fully and freely acknowledge that Dubya has lied in his efforts to propound a rationale for a war against Iraq. Why can’t you acknowledge that Ritter has lied in his efforts to discourage a war against Iraq?
Granted.
Um, you asked for possibilities. As a courtesy to you, I provided some. I don’t believe or disbelieve any of them; I think motive is irrelevant to whether Ritter is credible.
Quite frankly, I think the possiblity that Ritter is nuts is about the best excuse he can have for his conduct.
If I have one, don’t you before you claim he isn’t a “flat-out liar”?
Or are you able to analyze Ritter’s words and come to a conclusion without reading his book?
Well, so am I. If I read his book, maybe he has his own analysis of his statements there. Actually I kind of doubt it; the New York Time article I linked was a discussion of Ritter’s changing story over the past few years, including Ritter’s excuses. It discussed Ritter’s book, but singularly failed to mention any excuses propounded by Ritter in the book. I’m guessing there aren’t any.
But in any event, you are still clinging to the canard that conflicting statements of fact can be explained away, as opposed to statements of interpretation of fact.
elucidator, I agree. I’m rather perplexed by this fanatic defense of Ritter. He’s not that important; presumably, people against a war with Iraq can state their case without reliance on him. IMO, these sad attempts to defend Ritter serves only to damage the credibility of the anti-war movement.
Let him go, people. Attempts to rehabilitate him will be unsuccessful; he simply talked too much before he underwent his conversion experience.
Sua
Sua
Shirer’s biography of Hitler depicts Der Fuehrer as completely aware that Germany was bluffing in its strong arm tactics with the Czechs, and quotes him (Hitler) as saying that if the bluff didn’t work, Hitler would commit suicide.
Hitler was an evil, war-mongering dictator bent on conquest to set up an empire. The only thing he understood or respected was force and the threat of it. Attempts to bank on his good-will or honesty were idiotic mistakes, leading to war and destruction.
Saddam Hussein is an evil, war-mongering dictator bent on conquest to set up an empire. The only thing he understands or respect is force and the threat of it. Attempts to bank on his good-will or honesty are idiotic mistakes, leading to war and destruction.
I am assuming your question was serious. I am having trouble understanding how someone could fail to see how the personalities of those in power would affect their actions. Or would not be useful in predicting what they will do in the future.
I apologize if I have violated Godwin’s Law.
Regards,
Shodan
One thing I will grant you about Munich, elucidator, is that the historical emphasis on Chamberlain is overstated. It was Daladier and the French who had the military power to prevent an invasion of Chechoslovakia and/or crush Hitler. Chamberlain gets most of the blame because he made that deeply unfortunate “peace in our time” statement.
Sua
Anybody else think that W. Bush 's unsatisfiable hard-on for war with Iraq might simply be because of Iraq’s attempt to assassinate his father? The one that the Clinton admin. responded to in 1993?
Sua Sponte,
All you have shown is that Ritter has changed his mind about some things. Then you claim that the only possible explanation is that he is a liar. Your only “proof” is saying that there is no other possibility . So all I have to do is to show that there are other reasonable possibilities and your proof vanishes. Since you haven’t given direct evidence of Ritter lying I don’t see why I have go to give direct evidence of the other possibilities.
“Ritter changed his statements of fact, not just his interpretataion.”
The “facts” in this case are the raw information collected by the inspectors and other agencies. Figuring out the extent Saddam’s WMD capacities, the significance of the threat they pose and what to do about it are a matter of interpretation. AFAIK Ritter has changed his mind only on the latter and not on the raw information.
As for your hypothetical about Dubya I would certainly be skeptical about the reversal but I don’t think I would call him a “flat-out liar” just because of it. I guess it would depend on whether I thought there was a good reason for Dubya to lie. The main reason I don’t dismiss Ritter is that I simply don’t see what he gains by lying.
“If I have one, don’t you before you claim he isn’t a “flat-out liar”?”
No. The burden of proof is on you to back up your accusation especially such a vicous one. Besides I am not claiming that Ritter definitely isn’t a liar; I am claiming that you haven’t shown that he is one.
Well, to be fair, Senior tried to kill Saddam first.
But even if that’s W’s real motive, then he should just come clean and ADMIT that this is about petty personal revenge and quit lying through his teeth about Iraq’s potential to harm the US.
And revenge is not a good enough reason to spend billions of dollars, alienate the rest of the world, and murder innocent people.
No, I think most people recognize that the above is an asinine theory with no basis for support. Though I do kind of wonder how people can acknowledge that Iraq tried to assassinate one our leaders while simultaneously asserting that they pose no threat to anyone.
Jeff
One of our EX leaders, and one isolated, half-assed attempt on one person does not denote a threat to national security.
It’s asinine to think that maybe someone might be pissed because their father was targeted for assassination? It’s beyond asinine to totally dismiss the theory. What do think W. is, a Vulcan? Wouldn’t you have something of an emotional response if someone tried to kill your dad?
The simple facts that Bush is targeting Iraq for war with flimsy excuses and the undisputed fact that the leader of Iraq did try to kill his father seem a pretty good basis for support, IMHO.
I’m not saying this is why he’s doing it, I’m just saying it’s possible.
Actually there is some doubt about whether Iraq was actually behind the assasination attempt. See this piece by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
Anyway the US did retaliate at the time; it’s not much of a causus belli for a full-scale war ten years later.
As for whether it matters to Bush IIRC he brought it up himself in one of his television appearances so it’s not an unreasonable assumption.
It might be if it was your dad they tried to kill. And of course W. couldn’t start a war until he was president, so it had to wait. Again, I’m not saying I’m sure this is W’s main reason for war, just something to consider.
Thanks for the New Yorker link, I’ll check it out.
“It might be if it was your dad they tried to kill”
Well the personal feelings of the President don’t have much to do with whether the United States has a casus belli under international law for a full-scale war.
So I think there is a distinction between whether the assasination attempt is a legitmate reason to go to war and whether Bush thinks it is. The former is false; the latter is a possibility.
I thought your side was arguing that Iraq posed no threat to the US or its citizens.
So attempted murder is OK with you? Any other rules of civilization that you think Iraq is exempt from?
I get the feeling that nothing short of a full-scale ICBM attack by Iraq would be enough to justify counter-measures, and you keep arguing against everything we might do to keep Iraq from developing that capability in the first place!
And elucidator - remember that little insult you made against the Marines?
:wally
Regards,
Shodan
Revtim:
It’s asinine to believe that:
A.) The President of the US - whoever he is - would be shallow and selfish enough to use the US military as a tool for vengeance.
B.) The President would be able to convince every member of his cabinet to go along with this.
C.) The President would be able to hide this from those not in the loop, and the American people, and be able to come up with enough fake excuses to go to war to convince the majority of the public that it was a good idea.
“GWB is using the war to get revenge on Saddam” theories rank right up there with moon-hoax theories on the implausibility scale. Is it possible? Sure. And Saddam could really be Michael Jackson in disguise. Have you ever seen them in the same room together?
By the way, Shodan, are you a former Marine?
Jeff
::sigh:: CyberPundit this is pathetic. I can’t believe that I’m forced to go to the dictionary. But I am, and here it is:
from www.m-w.com
Lie (v)
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
At the very least, Mr. Ritter’s conduct meets the definition #2. A person reading his articles and interviews in 1998 and early 1999 would have come away with the impression that Iraq had not disarmed, that it was a threat, and that military action by the U.S. was necessary.
Well, not even the impression - that’s explicitly what he said.
A person reading his later articles and interviews would have come away with the impression that Iraq is disarmed, that it was not a threat, and that military action by the U.S. was not necessary.
Again, that’s explicitly what he said.
Mr. Ritter has never explained what changed between 1998 and today. You talk about burdens – a person who directly contradicts himself bears the burden of explaining what has changed. And Mr. Ritter hasn’t met that burden.
You may invent evidence all you like. Unlike you, I will rely upon the evidence that exists. And the evidence that exists demonstrates that, either in 1998 or today, Mr. Ritter has, at the least, “create[d] a false and misleading impression” about his knowledge of Iraqis WMD capacity.
Keep blinding yourself to the facts, if you wish. Keep creating hypothetical scenarios under which 2+2=5. Enjoy your mental masturbation.
Those of us who think that looking at existing facts and analyzing them is the better course of action will be waiting for you when your are done.
Sua
Shodan,
The US has already retaliated for the assasination attempt. It fired 23 Tomohawk missles which btw killed 8 innocent civilians . All this despite the rather dubious evidence that the Iraqis were behind it. Ten year on the matter doesn’t warrant military action if it ever did any more than the Iran hostage crisis warrants military action against Iran.
“GWB is using the war to get revenge on Saddam” theories rank right up there with moon-hoax theories on the implausibility scale. "
Nice attempt at hyperbole. But when Bush himself brings the matter up it’s your comparison that’s ridiculous.
Besides I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s the only reason; just that it’s a possible reason. Since no on really knows what’s going on in Bush’s head it’s hard to say one way or another.