Biological and chemical weapons are considered to be WMD’s. The US is well equipped to deal with these in a situation where they are informed and prepared. Other countries/peoples on Saddam’s hate list aren’t nearly as well equipped.
I agree it’s a stupid ploy, but I find it eminently plausible coming from a guy who thinks he’s still going to cling to power in the teeth of a quarter million troops with the best training, gear, and weapons the world has to offer waiting at his front door. Saddam has not exactly been the pinnacle of shrewd military strategy as of late.
Your offence is unwarranted. I said quite clearly that I didn’t believe that there would be intentional atrocities. But, as we learned from Viet Nam, sometimes they do end up happening. And, as we further learned from Viet Nam. The US goverment does not always step up and admit it.
It may have escaped your notice, but some of the very same people who worked to bury evidence of atrocites in Viet Nam are now in positions of trust and power in our current government. This includes people who were actually convicted of lying to congress under oath.
The US Military has the highest level of professionalism and honor in the world. But that doesn’t make them incapable of mistakes. And the civilian authorities currently commanding them are noticably NOT men of honor and integrity. If there is a cover up, it will be they who make it happen. And if there is a significant mistake, I can promise you that they will attempt to cover it up.
I certainly don’t have a hotline to Saddam’s psyche, but I would not be so sure he thinks he’s going to survive this. If I had to take a guess, I’d bet he simply prefers death and destruction to the loss of power.
Oh, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they ordered US military uniforms. It’s the use of said uniforms as civilian-killing propaganda tools that strikes me as absurd beyond and rational belief. I can imagine that they would be useful in sowing confusion in the kind of close-quarters urban combat apparently envisioned by Saddam, however.
RTF:
Yes. That is true. The problem is that you are using the liberal superpower of false attribution through selective perception.
In reading the context of the speech Bush is quite clear that he is referring to “terrorist states,” “dictators,” “thugs.” By strong implication only rogue nations are subject to this doctrine. Specifically precluded are free nations.
Now terrorist states, and rogue dictators sound a lot to me like vicious dogs.
Bush has clearly made a distinction between who is subject to preemptive action and who is not. You have just chosen not to acknowledge that fact.
Why you would choose to do this, I cannot understand. There is plenty to argue about this doctrine as Bush describes it without trying to pretend that Bush is saying America has a blank check to attack whoever it wants.
The first third of the speech is, after all a rationale as to why this particular action is necesary. Odd that you should ignore it.
Mr. Svinlesha:
That’s very interesting but don’t you think it’s quite a jump to attribute the whole of that group’s thoughts wacky thoughts to George Bush simply because they agree on a single point?
My observation is silly? You are entitled to that opinion. I wasn’t arguing the pro/con of war, only the “Bush is an asshole because of the unilateral/against the wishes of the UN” part. As I mentioned in my first post, the only differences I see are the scale (we actually mean it this time) and a lot more ground forces that may invade after air assault. May being the operative word. I haven’t seen an in-depth war plan and I’m pretty sure than nobody else in here has either. We are most definitely going to bomb anything resembling weapon storage/manufacturing facilities and threats, same as before but on a larger scale. We have a lot of ground forces in place for a possible ground assault. Clintons small ground forces were mainly Army light infantry and Marine assault forces, not the type of units that just unload ships, more on notification for possible deployment, and threatened eventual ground war. We don’t have UN approval now and we didn’t then. We are going to try and forcibly get rid of Saddam. I suppose in the 90’s when the occasional missile was fired on a facility where Saddam was suspected of having a beer or whatever he does is different somehow. The intent then was to make Saddam follow the rules, take him out if possible, and in general, get rid of your stash and quit gassing your neighbors and your own people. The intent here is much the same, just not worded the same way or in the same order.
I supported Act I of “Kick Saddam’s Ass” in 90 when I was a participant. I supported Act II when Clinton flicked Saddam’s nose and threw beer in his face a couple of years ago, and I support Act III in the makings and if asked to be a squad pointman today, I’d be on a plane there tomorrow. A lot of people do not support the probable war, much less how it is conducted, and that is their right and I have no problem with that. What I do find amusing though is people who don’t support the war because Bush is doing it instead of Clinton, or because the UN doesn’t fully approve, as if they would back the war if suddenly the UN got on board. Also the people that would support the war if only the government would divulge intelligence gathering techniques, operative names and locations or other hard evidence that will be shown on CNN and indicate to the “bad guys” the leaks, preventing further intelligence. It’s funny and sad at the same time that people would rather believe someone like Saddam over their own government, regardless of who they voted for.
Maybe I just have too much military and government service background and bad habits, maybe I’m just terribly naive, maybe I’m just completely stupid, maybe I’m just a thick headed asshole (gee I wonder what the consensus is) but I tend to believe that when it comes to things like this, the government (and as much as I hate both professionaly and personally, anybody I ever met from the CIA) as a whole knows a hell of a lot more about what is going on in the world than I do.
This isn’t about some country with a bomb. Saddam fucked up in the 80’s by doing a small amount of conquering and stuff and the UN told him to stop. He ignored them and he got his ass kicked. The UN told him to follow the rules, along with some new ones “or else”. A couple of years later, he still hadn’t quit so Clinton gave him “or else” and bombed his ass. The UN reminded him to follow the rules. He still hasn’t, so he’s about to get his ass kicked again, this time in a big way. But we should still give him the benefit of the doubt? Because when asked where the VX gas and other goodies that he had in the first war are, he turns into Col. Ollie North and can’t recall what he had for breakfast? War sucks but there are worse alternatives.
If you disagreed with the two previous presidents and their use of force on Saddam, go forth with your protests. Although I will disagree with you, I respect your view. If you supported any of the previous acts, but not this one, I’m afraid I just don’t get it. This is not a new problem. I know I apparently have silly thought processes, but the UN and three presidents, two Republicans and one Democrat, have tried dipomacy, patience and a small bit of military force over the past many years to get some changes made, that still haven’t been made. Maybe we should just drop a few more bombs here and there yet again to prove that this time, we REALLY mean it. There is a common denominator here, and it’s not GWB, as much as you may not like him. But I suppose if we just ignore him, he’ll go away and not bother anyone.
I don’t particulary care for war. Been there, done that, same fucking place, same fucking guy, don’t even have a fucking T-shirt (even though the medals are pretty). But what does it take? Peace offerings haven’t worked. Asking nicely hasn’t worked. Shows of force haven’t worked. Minimal action hasn’t worked. Remember Act I of the story? Battalion sized units surrendering to guys driving water trucks? We live in a world where you can get rich for life if a cop slaps you. Over there, you can get stuffed in a wood chipper for rolling your eyes at a picture of the Fearless Leader, or have your town gassed because you live in a certain “county”. That in itself, at least to me, is reason enough to use all force necessary to finally make a change. And by now, it appears at least to me, that all force possible is what is required.
Turbo Dog,
Thank you for so eloquently expressing what I’ve been thinking but been unable to coherently express.
Also, sorry for the length, but earlier I was at work and unable to find time to take a leak, much less write something more than a couple of quick comments. Apologies if I went a bit overboard.
ROFL!!! That was hilarious! Contrary to popular misconceived opinion, the USA is not a democracy. We are a republic and as such our leaders are free to do as they see fit for the benefit of our country. They have every right to keep things from us. They are called national security secrets. Its stuff that would endanger the general population if it became available to them. If our leaders arent doing their jobs right, we vote an set set to replace them, we dont tell them what to do. Sure, eventually these secrets have to be declassified later on, but only if it doesnt adversely affect national security. That passage struck me as funny, I had to try real hard to read thru your entire post but then you go and say this:
What they didnt say is what they did not say. We who are less informed cannot second guess them based upon what they did not say especially if what they did not say happens to be a national security secret.
Since when are decisions based on constantly changing information muddled up by the actions of friend, foe and supposed allies going to be consistent? Again, I myself do not know if the facts the shrub has are factual, he believes they are and thats good enuf for me so long as his actions does not endanger me overmuch.
First off, I dont believe this administration believes Saddam has nukes. What they believe is he is trying to get fuel to enrich to make nukes and he has most if not all of the parts to make a machine that can do that. Saddam is about 1 to 5 years away from actually doing that. Attacking him then would be, as you say, foolish knowing what they know. That is why we attack now.
Thank you for the compliment but while we are all qualified to judge his work, since we are missing a huge peice of this puzzle, any claim of being absolutely sure of this Shrub’s motives is illogical. We cant get to “C” from “A” without knowing what “B” is.
The real reason you find his work lacking is that you dont know everything he knows. Only time will allow us to do that.
Scylla:
The problem is that we have no simple or straightforward definition for these terms, “terrorist,” “dictator,” “rogue nation,” or even “free nation.” They might therefore be employed in a manner that suits the national interest – even if, in the current situation, one might argue that they are not being employed that way (although personally, I think they are). In other words, a “rogue nation” is one that refuses to kow-tow to American interests; a “free nation” is one that does. The terms risk becoming propagandized tools of American power.
Think about it; is a rogue nation one that refuses to abide by the UN Charter, and the mandates of the UN Security Council? Certainly, the administration claims that one should consider Iraq a rogue nation on this basis. Yet, at the same time, the US reserves for itself the right to ignore the will of the UN when it sees fit. Doesn’t that make the US a “rogue nation” as well?
Not at all. You may note the names of some of the members of that group. They include Paul Wolfowitz, current assistant Secretary of Defense; his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, current Secretary of Defense; his boss, former Secretary of Defense, current Vice-President, Dick Cheney; and his boss’s brother, current governor of California, Jeb Bush, among others.
And their thoughts are far from “wacky.” They’re deadly earnest, as recent events reveal. Neither do they merely agree “on a single point;” they are promoting essentially the same policy. The site I referred to earlier reveals the underlying reasoning of a significant portion of the decision-making community with regard to US global military strategy. Wolfowitz was outlining this strategy, including the element of military “preemption,” as early as 1992, but then-President Clinton rejected his policy recommendations. With Bush in office, on the other hand, this particular group of hawk-like, unilateralist right-wingers have been given a new lease on life. Defense is pretty much in their hands, and they seem to have successfully outmaneuvered Powell over at State.
Or did you think that George Bush was single-handedly responsible for the foreign-policy decisions made by the US government? You are aware that Bush’s policies are part of a long-term strategic framework, yes?
There is information about foreign governments, internal policies and war, not to mention many other areas, that have been classified since the 50’s and still not subject to Freedom of Information.
Let me know when you file a class action lawsuit for what you have a “right” to know.
Wrong! The difference is between democracies and dictatorships.
One man versus a consensus. Big difference.
Nah, it’s that you’re using your unique (non-ideologically based) ability to be a dumb shit when arguing politics. 
The number of nations in the world that are reliably free (i.e. not only are they free now, but there’s essentially no doubt that they will be free, say, fifteen years hence) is still relatively small.
There are lots of dictators and thugs. Admittedly, outright terrorist states are relatively scarce, but the fact remains that there are more than a sparse handful of nations that are within Bush’s sweeping parameters. Besides, the Bushistas have shown enough willingness to distort the truth that if they wanted to “blame Canada,” I’m sure they could make a case.
And your analogy still sucks, besides being false.
I don’t think it’s all that clear, and even if it was, you refuse to acknowledge that most of the world would still qualify, even as you understand that distinction.
I haven’t ignored it; I’ve listened to it, and I’ve read it. Want me to parse it?
He implies that Saddam’s noncompliance with the 1991 cease-fire somehow obligates us to return to the battlefield. (Right =/= obligation.) He invokes the WMD fallacy, glossing over the differences in scale between bio and chem weapons on the one hand, and nukes on the other. He invokes the history of the evils Iraq did while it was in bed with us. He reiterates the Saddam bin Laden connection, without evidence. Then he segues into the business about the danger Saddam could be to us, hence we must go to war now.
IOW, Saddam’s a bad guy. The world is full of bad guys. That didn’t used to be enough. But now we can attack them all. Bush said so, and now you’ve said so.
But the problem is, just as he can exaggerate the scope of Saddam’s evil, he can do that with a regime that really isn’t all that bad. Saddam’s a nasty, sure, but that didn’t used to justify war in the pre-‘we can remake the world’ days. So he bridges that perceptual gap by lying to make it look like we really have to attack Saddam, in terms of the old standards of justifying war.
But he’s still claiming the new standards are the applicable ones. And there’s nothing stopping him from lying again, later, to get a not-particularly-thuggish country over this newer, lower hurdle.
Sure, I’m exaggerating with France, Canada, and New Zealand. But could he have made the case for invading, say, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, or Cuba today? Can’t see why not. Fidel’s a dictator and presumably a thug when necessary; I’m sure the wingers back in the 1980s regarded the Sandinistas as dictators and terrorists.
And the world is full of governments as bad as Fidel’s or Ortega’s. That’s old news. But I will claim that under the Bush doctrine, they’re all fair game.
And on preview, I concur with what Mr. Svinlesha added to the conversation.
Guess what: Bush isn’t an expert.
Six years before becoming President, the most complicated thing he’d done, other than get repeatedly bailed out of his losses in the oil bidness by rich connections, was to be a frontman for the ownership group of a baseball team. He was a smooth and shrewd but not exactly brilliant guy who well-off people liked to help out, on account of who his daddy was.
He’s president today because he calculatedly gave a lot of people the impression that he was a lot more moderate, politically, than he really was. So we know he’s fundamentally dishonest, right out of the gate.
So yeah, I’ll trust my judgment over his, regardless of his experts. His experts, as this conversation has made clear, have their own axes to grind, and have their own blind spots as a result. That’s generally true of ideologues.
How about the demands to disarm? The demands to prove disarmament? The U.N. has made these demands on an almost yearly basis since the end of the Gulf War, and yet U.N. inspectors were prevented from doing their jobs and eventually forcibly ejected from Iraq. Only after the passage of 1441, promising ‘severe consequences’ should Iraq continue to ignore demands, did Iraq allow inspectors to return. Since their return it has been one game after another. The inspectors are not there to find weapons. They are there to verify Iraq’s disarmament. Iraq needs to prove this disarmament to the inspection team. This is not innocent until proven guilty, this is the exact opposite. The burden of proof is on Saddam and his regime to prove their full compliance. This has not happened. No one can reasonably say it has.
The inability of diplomatic intervention to arrive at a desirable outcome in a reasonable period of time. Diplomacy has had 12 years. I think that’s long enough.
True. And I’m relieved that we’re not waiting for Saddam to commit some atrocity so heinous and far-reaching that the world in general finally “approves” of a war (I disagree with the disapproval/approval thing, I personally would rather call “approval” a “reluctant realization of necessity”).
Then that is because you are sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala. There is no way on earth we were EVER going to invade in 1998 with a paltry 24,000 troops. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Uh, yes, and who would those people be, exactly? Go on, name names. Or, alternatively, you could just bloody well ask us like I told you to do the first time you made this unsubstantiated and meritless partisan snipe.
Fucking-A yes I would. I oppose this reckless and counterproductive enterprise precisely because the administration did not obtain the consent of the world community. If we’d gotten it, I’d be cheering as the first bombs drop, instead of cussing at Bush’s unilateral idiocy and hoping against hope that the next 36 hours don’t come back to bite us in the ass in a most serious way.
Uh, yeah. And just who the heck do you think those “people” who believe Saddam are? Go on, name names.
Quite so, at least to the extent that they have much greater access to information than you or I do. But so what? You think that translates into automatic good judgment and good faith on their part? Yeah, “terribly naive” does tend to come to mind here.
Look, man, help me understand your perspective, 'cause I just don’t get it. Total cognitive dissonance here. Please explain to me how you can possibly equate today’s threatened action, featuring:[ul][]250,000 troops []The express intention to use those troops to seize and conquer an entire nation []The inevitable post-conquering task of occupying that nation for an indeterminate period of time []The inevitable post-conquering task of governing that nation until a new (and acceptable) government is installed and stabilized []The adamant opposition of most of our allies for the last 60 years, near-unanimous opposition from every non-allied country bigger or more important than Micronesia, and a completely failed effort to gain approval for the use of force from the UN Security Council[/ul]with:[ul][]24,000 troops who could not possibly have invaded anything at all []A limited bombing campaign whose expressly stated goal was, from the outset, to destroy suspected WMD sites and punish Iraq for its noncompliance, and not to conquer the country or force regime change []Only token diplomatic opposition from a handful of countries, and the full support of nearly all of our traditional allies[/ul]How the heck do you see these as equivalent? Just because they both involved the use of force?
I don’t expect a president to be an expert on everything. Hell, after that sorry excuse for a [deleted] Bill Clinton was elected and then re-elected, I don’t even expect them to follow the law. Hell, I know a democrat who claimed that she didn’t even care if he did rape that woman, as long as he was pro-choice and wanted to tax the “rich”.
What I do expect a president to do is to:
- Find the right people for the job, and
- Listen to their advice.
Just as any contractor will tell you. If you’re gonna pay for the expertise, you may as well listen to it.
After NOW refused to go after Bill Clinton for all of the misogynistic stuff that he did, and after the DNC refused to condemn his illegal activities, and after the shithead sold nuclear missile technology to the Chinese for funds to get re-elected I don’t ever want to hear about how a Republican president is less than honest.
Ah, I see. And you’re not and ideologue. My apologies.
I thought those who are willing to sell the lives of others so that they can claim to “love peace” were ideologues as well. My mistake.
First a fact check-- the inspectors were withdrawn, not ejected. SH does wriggle on the hook, yes. Wouldn’t you? But Last I checked about half of his best missles had been destroyed at the UN inpectors’ demand. Hard to argue they’re not disarming.
Oddly, the inspectors were not totally dissatisified with the Iraqis performance. It is true that reasonable people may feel Iraq did not comply, but inspections were the mechanism chosen by the UN.
Why not 1 week more? WHY NOW? Why are you willing to kill innocent people tomorrow, instead of waiting for the inspectors to tell you they have proof? Or for the inspectors to verify disarmament? WHY NOW?
So even a paltry 24,000 troops comprised mainly of Army light infantry and Marine assault forces, who are obviously there to unload cargo from ships, not to mention the many other troops that were notified of possibility of deployment, were there for what exactly? You still haven’t answered that.
**
First of all, I was speaking in general terms of the “hippies” in the world and a couple here, but lets just stick with you for just now, as you seem to have taken my post quite personal. Unsubstantiated and meritless snipe? Explain yourself. This thread is about the U.S. wanting to wage war without UN support, and I mentioned that the exact same situation, on a lesser scale, existed before with a lot less crying and wondered why there was a difference.
**
So you are incapable of forming an opinion about foreign/military policy without outside influence? Very admirable. Answer me this. Did you support Clinton when he bombed the same country without consent of not only the world community but also our own congress? If so, fuck off. If you didn’t, please continue.
**
again, the general whiners right now, and if you fit the profile, include yourself.
**
So you have better ideas than the government. Good for you. Present them here and then forward your expert recommendations to those who can make a difference. There was a saying we had in the service that holds true in corporate and personal affairs. If you want to bitch, have a solution. If you don’t have a solution, then shut the fuck up. If you don’t like the problem, fix it. If you don’t know how to fix the problem, clam up. And suggesting things that have already been attempted are a waste of time. If it didn’t work before, obviously it wasn’t a good idea. Simplistic, since I’m naive and all, to be sure. But on a leap of faith, I’m thinking that maybe you’ll get the point.
**
[quote[Look, man, help me understand your perspective, 'cause I just don’t get it.** [/quote]
I thought I already did. In my first post, I asked what was different now with Bush than then with Clinton besides scale and ground troops. So far, you’ve only reaffirmed that the only difference is scale and ground troops. The intent is that same. What are you complaining about here? The intent is the same except that now it would appear that we prepared to see it through. You can cry about what you think is going to happen, or wait a bit and cry about what really does happen.
What is your stance right now overall? Did you support Clinton in Act II but not Bush I and Bush II in Act I and Act III? If so, please explain the difference. If not, then again, I’ll grant you respect for sticking to one side of the coin.
You talk a good argument, but I haven’t seen a real point yet. What do you want that hasn’t been done before?