Alot of you are missing the point. It isn’t that finding WMD would be irrelevant- I think it’s highly relevant- the problem is that unless Bush finds a nuclear missle on an ICBM aimed at New York, I dont think it’s ENOUGH to have justified what we have done.
I maintain that the decision to invade should have been made on utilitarian grounds, balancing the benefits and the consequences. I’m not gonna blather about them here, we all know what they are. But it seems to me that a person who plans on having kids would favor the course of action which is safer and more utility-maximizing over the LONG term; the path of international pressure without outright invasion.
Bush has made a horrendous mistake that the US will be paying for for generations. I wish us all the best of luck in dealing with them.
In response to RickJay: Thanks for your clarification. After a couple of weeks of no hard proof, the level of skepticism displayed in your OP (complete with Orwell reference) had me wondering.
The I-never-claimed-there-weren’t-WMDs-stop-looking-in-that-memory-hole option makes an interesting addition to the list. I’d like to think #5 never sees the light of day outside of Iraq.
You Republicans are always in favor of mergers.
Thanks regardless.**
Of course, all of the responses you mention are likely to one degree or another except for the first, which is whoppingly premature even if the war ends soon with minimal additional casualties, WMDs are found and Saddam’s head is paraded on a pole. The long-term fallout* is liable to be quite bad.
*I hope to hell this does not become literally true.
Sure, granted. But, I’ll take someone (here GWB) doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, if he can pull it off. I’ve given up waiting for the perfect selfless act.
As I said some time ago, Bush will be judged by US conduct in the war, victory, and the peace afterward. It’s too early to start filling in the report card. Well, that’s not totally true–friendly fire procedures: C-. Comments: still needs work.
I think it’s possible chemical weapons might still be used, possibly soon given the proximity of US troops to Baghdad proper.* I’d hesitate to think how the evidence thing is going to turn out. It could be that there is so much evidence that nobody could ever doubt it. There might be huge stockpiles and reams of testimony from Iraqi sources with first hand knowledge of the stockpiles. Or, it could be as others have suggested that Saddam either shipped them all to neighboring nations or actually does not have them. I’m in no position–nor is just about anyone except the regime, those with intelligence sources, or coalition forces–to judge the ultimate issue.
I do think there will be a preliminary answer within a couple weeks, probably less.
*As I write this sources are reporting coalition forces in control of one of the airports in/near Baghdad.
It looks to me like the Admin might be softening us up for the possibility that they don’t exist. Note the prevailing emphasis on “freeing Iraq” as the focus of our mission. Yet, when the march to war began, lo, those many months ago, it was sold to us on the basis of self-defense, with a major emphasis on the threat of Saddam’s alleged nukes, coupled with the alleged conspiracy between Saddam and bin Laden. Now, of course, we know that the first is a total crock of shit and the second remains nothing more than speculation. Our “intelligence” as regards Saddam’s capabilities and intentions have been shown to be nothing more than rumors, forgeries, and self-serving fabrications.
Are we seriously going to accept this as a basis for war?
Kinda looks to me that Fearless Misleader is hoping that the noise and razz-ma-tazz of his Victory Celebration will drown out the suspicious inquiries of persons like myself. I deeply regret that he is probably right.
Time and again, the “self-defense” rationale of this war has been shown to be baseless. Time and again, the “hawks” simply changed the subject. No matter how eloquent and closely reasoned the argument, it can be drowned out by one baboon beating a drum.
It doesn’t even matter to me if they find WMDs, the original allegations were based on such weak evidence that the war was unlawful in the first place. It won’t retroactively justify the war.
"Option 5: Apologism* - They’ll just argue Saddam Hussein was a good guy after all. Amazing as this may sound, I absolutely, 100% guarantee that in 15 years, millions of Americans will believe this… The fact that he was a brutal, secular fascist won’t slow down the campus leftists at all. If you don’t believe me, look how many people are big fans of Fidel Castro, Lenin, and, to throw in a right-wing favourite, Pinochet." * (my emphasis)
:rolleyes:
Speaking as a campus leftist, I think this is pretty ridiculous.
Since by some accounts the majority of Americans now believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11 I won’t make any predictions about what “millions” of Americans will one day believe. But the idea that any substantial portion of the academic left will embrace military dictator Saddam as a “good guy” is–to be frank–one of the silliest things I’ve read on these boards in recent weeks.
And as to your supposed evidence for this lame assertion, pardon me while I recover from a laughing fit. Find me a single leftie anywhere who is a “big fan” of Pinochet and I’ll show you someone in serious need of medication.
Yeah, I guess you might find a committed socialist on some campus willing to say that Fidel is not all bad, but “big fan”? I don’t think so.
As for Lenin: comparing Lenin to Saddam Hussein is beneath you. (Or so I would have thought prior to reading this drivel.)
Honest, Rick, I thought you prided yourself on actually knowing what you were talking about.
"There’s nothing to explain, since most war opponents acknowledged the strong possibility of their (WMD) existence. For most war opponents WMD was not a casus belli anyway."
Oh my. What, I wonder, would get get the singing, marching, sign-toteing “war opponents” off our safe streets and onto the battlefield where fury at injustice can be rightly directed.
Let’s see…No, mass murder by gassing didn’t do it. How about widespread torture? Naw…Wait a minute! I got it! The Snail Darter! Yes thats it… The widespread destruction of the habitiat of the Snail Darter!
“…the administration and the US is going to be in a big heap of crap if they don’t find any.”
And who, if I may ask, is to provide a big enought pile to put US in?
Sorry, but I think you’re really just twisting around the arguments made by people defending providing Saddam with anthrax. We have a very accurate idea of what Saddam could have if he has anything, and we are very clear about what it can do. The fact that a lot of apologists don’t know how vaccines are made doesn’t suggest the vaccine argument would be used as an excuse for Saddam.
What strikes me, though, is how many people continue to expect huge stocks of stuff there while having no idea what the acronyms MALDI, PCR, HPLC or GC-MS stand for…
I, for one, will have no reason to explain anything. If Iraq has these weapons, as does China and North Korea, then the pro-war faction needs to explain why Iraq poses a threat that these other two do not. The pro-war faction will have to explain why the war had to start in 2003, when we had inspectors on the ground looking for these weapons and carte blanche to fly spy planes overhead within Iraq. The truth is, this war was never about weapons, it was about regime change. As Senator Kerry rightfully put it, the US is in need of regime change.
Ah, so you think this war is about invading to get rid of a torturing dictator who has chemical and biological weapons.
Perhaps you could cite the Republican election commitment (it’ll date back over a decade to when Sadam last used these ghastly weapons) to free Iraq.
Take all the time you want.
While engaged in that search, see if you can find who installed Sadam in the first place, who sold him the weapons and what they expected him to do with them.
(If your answers are ‘the US’, ‘Donald Rumsfeld’ and ‘to gas Iranian troops because the US was scared Iran would dominate the region’ then you’ve done very well.)
Ah, you’re a Republican!
Of course some terrorist groups (and Governments) will interpret the above as:
“The US can do anything it likes, including invading other countries and there isn’t a damned thing anyone can do about it. F*ck you all.”
Have you considered a career in diplomacy or counter-terrorism?
No, I didn’t think so.
Yup, I said at the outset that I thought evidence would be found -and suggested that some people would find a need to minimize or deny it in varyingly ridiculous fashion. We’ll just have to see what happens (we are all speculating here).
As for those who say discovery of WMDs in Iraq wouldn’t change the underpinnings of their opposition to the war - I’m with you there. But that was not the point of this thread.
Just heard on the radio about coalition forces finding boxes containing “white powder” and vials holding a mysterious liquid in an Iraqi stronghold. Coffee creamer? SARS stock? Laundry detergent? Saddam’s secret Viagra stash? Botulism toxin? Lime for dissolving the bodies of dissidents? Unfounded rumor #3? Who knows?
I think you’re completely wrong, there, glee. Many of the most senior people currently involved in diplomacy and counter-terrorism seem to think exactly like that. You even named one of them.
