She’s a girl, and she’s cool as all get out.
I agree with minty; nice post, v.
Yeah, the 50% that’s below average. 
Um, sorry to disappoint, but I’m a guy. Glad you liked the post, tho.
More’s the pity. A surgical adjustment is out of the question?
I don’t believe Osama has WMD either. I don’t believe he has a pulse. But let’s force a nuclear showdown anyway for the privilege of chasing his (dead) self around no-man’s-land in Pakistan, home of the world’s only “Islamic bomb”, because of 9/11? You’re on your own there. We’re kind of committed to not using our own nukes, so other countries with nukes can and will dictate the terms of whatever dealings they have with the US. We either accept and work with that, or we are going to cause “differences” in the world that make the debate over Iraq look like a preschool argument. And the little bastard wanted this. Who’s to say that his N. Pakistan address isn’t a plot in itself, that he’s not really in Kenya or Sudan somewhere, or stone-dead in Tora Bora? I don’t think we have a “stick” that’s not going to end up costing us more in the long run, unless OBL is that big of a prize that he’s worth any price. And if he is to you, again, you’re not speaking for everyone.
Iraq is not the 9/11 issue, it’s the Iraq issue. As of 2003 we were committed (as a country) to changing the regime, to protecting citizens within from being killed by the regime, to protecting other countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel from military action by the regime, and to ongoing multilateral efforts (as in inspections) that keep it from developing any weapons of mass destruction, which even by optimistic standards we know are going to be ignored and circumvented whenever humanly possible, probably in order to finally attain nuclear weapons. No one from here has even had the option of “not being concerned about Iraq” for a decade or so. We are already at war in almost every sense with them, and yet we’re losing it.
We have people using our presence in Saudi Arabia against us. We have Saddam, the secular leader, in a completely legal manner, forming martyrs brigades - the exact same type of thing that makes OBL a threat. It spills over into the Israel/Palestine problem. It shows up in a Boston courtroom, a captured (British) al-qaida sympathizer justifies trying to blow up a flight from Paris by mentioning the two million muslims that we’ve killed in Iraq via sanctions. We’d done absolutely nothing to loosen Saddam’s power grip on his country in twelve years. It’s a mess at that point. It’s definitely an Issue. (I see inertia as the worst option here btw.)
So there’s a case to be made for those who like the “carrot and stick” approach that Iraq is a far better starting point…I’m not even making that case though, and never gave it much thought. Other people might have. I just say “time for him to go”, for a lot of reasons, none of which were dependent on the presence of weapons stockpiles. No regrets, I’m glad he’s gone.
Thanks for those remarks. Hopefully the paragraphs above clarify my position a bit.
If you had brought these reasons to the American people, they wouldn’t have been for the war. Now if you LIE to them, and give them the impression that they are ABOUT TO BE HIT WITH SOME CHEMICAL WEAPONS, LIKE ANY FUCKING SECOND, then they are for war. Pretty simple eh?
Lable me an asshole, but I don’t really care that much about the Iraqi people, mostly because I can’t go around stressing about every single person that is oppressed in the world. Things were fine the way they were before the war.
Whoops, *Label
If I hear someone argue how the invasion of Iraq was decided over humanitarian reasons I think I´ll throw up; to begin with, the autorization (to give it a name) of US congress to Mr. Bush to use whatever means necessary adressed the threat Iraq allegedly was; humanitarian reasons my arse.
I´d like to see whenthe dittoheads were mourning over the 160 million “untouchables” in India , the war children of Congo , 300.000 dead in the hell hole known as Burundi or the 27-bloody-million slaves around the word
Of course no-one in Burundi is standing on a priced geo-political territory that is virtually floating on oil…
You went there, killed a bunch of people, for the simple reasons of securing an oil supply and stablishing a political outpost in the middle of the Middle East.
I´m just fed up of the apologists, switching excuses at a sign from the leadership.
9/11!!! Nukes!!! WMD, that´s it!!! Humanitarian reasons all the way!!! :rolleyes:
LC:
This is precisely why we need a body of “international law” that establishes precedent and highlights violations. Or, as somebody once put it, to “reveal the hypocrisy of power.”
Naturally the current UN system has its faults. So does any system, even a domestic legal system. Rich cats hire hot-shot lawyers and get off on technicalities all the time in the States; that doesn’t mean the US doesn’t have a legal system.
In this specific case, Bush can claim that his invasion is justified, but by both the strict (literal) interpretation of Article 51, as well as the broader (“common law”) interpretation, Bush has failed to make his case. It is therefore entirely reasonable to claim that the Bush administration violated international law when it chose to invade Iraq. Bush and his cronies might never be put on trial or forced to do time, but at least I know now that what they did was illegal (and hypocritical). In the court of world opinion the US has lost its moral legitimacy, and the next time around, the protests will be even stronger (hopefully). In fact, with any luck this issue will break Bush and we’ll have a new president in 2004.
I’m not talking about the way the UN “works.” I’m talking about international law, treaty agreements and so forth, and whether or not one can honestly say that the US honors its stated commitments or not.
You sure list a lot of strange “spin-off” effects from the invasion. Perhaps you could explain to me in more detail how the US invasion of Iraq has actually accomplished all this good stuff. I’m not sure how you connect progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations to this invasion, for example. I also don’t think that there are many hypothetical “someones” out there who feel safer after this little imperial exercise: the US has basically demonstrated that it will do what it wants, when it wants, to who it wants, and the rest of the world be damned. That tend to make people feel less safe, and there is in fact a very real, and legitimate, worry that the US intervention in Iraq will create a good deal of regional instability, and might even lead to civil war.
The Clinton administration did considerably more to press for an Israeli-Palestine settlement than Bush has ever done, and was within a hair’s breadth of actually sponsoring a signed peace accord. The Bush administration, by comparison, has done nothing whatsoever to carry that process forward, and as you may remember was roundly criticized for adopting a “hands off” policy in relation to the conflict. I would submit to you as well that solving that particular Gordian knot is significantly more important than invading a Iraq, a weak, backward, tin-pot dictatorship that – while abhorrent – posed no real threat to anyone in the region. Additionally, as I pointed out previously, you still seem to be excluding the middle ground between inertia and war.
Tee:
I thought the questions before us were: 1) the intent of Powell’s Feb 5 address to the UN, and 2) whether or not it is worth worrying about the politicization of intelligence info in the run up to the war.
It is really hard – maybe impossible – to dispute or refute arguments based on a plethora of unclear reasons and gut-feeling that “Saddam had to go.” You felt that way, I suspect, because you were spoon-fed a great deal of propaganda from the administration. You state, for example, that “Iraq is not the 9/11 issue, it’s the Iraq issue.” But even a casual perusal of statements coming from the White House would gainsay your assertion. So, while for you Iraq and 9/11 might be disconnected events, practically every statement to emanate from that brothel attempts to connect the two:
And so on, and so on, and so on……
Anyway, Tee this last statement:
…is demonstrably false. In one of the two threads linked in the OP, if you have the patience to read through them again, you will find one post by Tee in which you list four reasons to go to war. The first reason on your list is Iraq’s probable possession of “WMDs.”
vibrotronica:
Oh, shit. My bad. A thousand pardons, sahib.
You know, my original username here was just Svinlesha. When I noticed that people were having problems figuring out my sex, I emailed a mod and received a cyberspace gender modification, so to speak.
Just a word to the wise.
September 11th has shown us that cyberspace gender modifications are wrong.
Hey, I’m totally secure in my online sexuality.
So you don’t care about the organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001, killing three thousand innocent people? All you care about is settling old scores with Iraq? I think you’re alone in this.
And I’m not advocating the first use of nuclear weapons. I’m saying we have a huge deterrent force of nuclear weapons, and that should be explicitly pointed out to the Pakistanis. If you’re so fired up about the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, why are you not foaming at the mouth over the fact the Pakistan, who everyone knows has nuclear weapons, not some fantasy atomic-powered anthrax spraying drones with freakin’ laser beams, has admitted that they’ve been selling that technology to North Korea, Libya, etc.; has just pardoned the guy who did it; who supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda and whose intellegence service continues to operate in support of them; who is ruled by a military dictatorship that forceably replaced the democratcially elected government in a coup; in whose borders Osama bin Laden and his allies take refuge; and yet still pretends to be our friend? Tell me again why Iraq is a bigger threat than Pakistan?
Oh yeah, the oil.
No, Tee. There is no nation in the world more prepared to deal with an upstart nuclear power than the US. I grew up thinking that one day I might have to “duck and cover” from fricking MIRVed ICBMs raining down like cats and dogs. One bomb means “(they) dictate terms”? No, that’s what they think, and thus the world situation gets a bit more dicey, mass destruction and deathwise.
Moreover, it’s not just nuclear nations using them on the US we should be concerned about. It’s not impossible to imagine North Korea and Japan becoming involved in a nuclear war. The scenarios just spin out from the practical realities of “nuke here” “nuke there”.
I wanted to first establish that Colin Powell’s views weren’t in lockstep with everyone else in the administration to begin with, just like those who supported the war were not in lockstep, and this exercise is apparently futile because you’re insisting that all relevant information came straight from the administration. I’m not sure what to make of that…lonce you get into the habit of reading the whole text of relevant documents and remarks instead of someone else’s interpretations of those same things, whenever possible, a whole different picture might emerge. Try it sometime.
This is a quote of mine on the same thread: “I think Saddam being a warmongering megalomaniacal thug is enough reason to want to see him outta there. WMD issues is a reason to hasten the process. YMV.”
I also posed a question prior to that, “Aside from that though, I am curious to know why there is support for continued inspections (if there is among the left) within these populaces who decry both the forced regime change and the sanctions. What justifies that view.” And you yourself said you had no ready answer, you were convinced of the failure of sanctions but weren’t convinced enough of the danger of the regime to support a war. Fair enough, I think, but do not try to revise debates after the fact. They probably did possess WMDs. It was definitely part of the case for war. WMDs are not the sole reason or even the main reason I personally supported the war. All of those are true statements, see?
No, per your own suggestion you tell me exactly what made Osama in 2003 a bigger threat than Iraq or Pakistan.
I can’t see Pakistan ever threatening a nuclear attack against the US, but if they do choose to go to war with India or to support suicide bombers or shelter al-qaida or whatever, what leverage does anyone else have against that? Sanctioning by the UN? I think “they dictate terms” is exactly what happens from here on. JMO.
Saddam was a megalomaniac with unlimited funds. Besides already dominating his own country, and the other Arab nations as the acknowledged leader, his vision was to extend their influence, eventually leading the entire Muslim world. This meant taking on the West to unite the Muslims. His defiant macho attitude to the West was entirely in keeping with the face he had to maintain. He was well aware he would never have sufficient conventional power to take on the West, so instead he applied a similar strategy to that with which he had come to power – divide and conquer, for which terrorism is a perfect tool.
Terrorism in not intended to inflict a major blow to the enemy, but to undermine their will to engage in a seemingly endless struggle. The initial demands made by terrorists may seem insignificant, but it starts to bring those who would otherwise oppose them, to believe that it is more worthwhile to give in and avoid further conflict, in the hope that life will return to normal. However, this concession is only the beginning, to be followed by further and further demands under threat of attacks.
Saddam would have backed any plan that would throw the West into chaos. Although Syria, being also Baathist, was a strong ally, it’s unlikely that he would have trusted Bashar Assad to be a strong enough character to resist pressure from the West, if applied. So while it is entirely possible that he transferred his chem/biological stockpile to them, which would have been easy enough to have done undetected, I rather imagine that he would have wanted to get it to a more committed party. He was undoubtedly hoping that the UN would avert any armed takeover, leaving him with his finger still on the use of those weapons, and still able to lead the Arabs at the forefront of Muslim world dominance.
It is for this reason that I believe the US, and later the UK, was so keen to destroy him, although it is difficult case to prove. It is also no easy matter to accuse the Muslim world of attempting to take over our society, especially in such a covert manner. This created the atmosphere whereby so much of the media expressed scepticism about the motives, which is why both governments probably embellished the reports of actual weapons he actually possessed, to sell the need to act soon. This does not mean that he didn’t pose a very real and imminent threat, which brings us to an ‘end justifies means’ situation.
It should be remembered that Blix himself did state that there were 10,000 litres of chem/bio cocktail that was known to have existed and was still unaccounted for. It’s still out there somewhere, and there are those who know where it is. They must delight in the confusion the cause for war is creating in the West, which is the purpose of terrorism – divide and conquer, and undermining the powers that be. If now not Saddam, there are many others all too familiar with the strategy and itching to replace him. The regimes that sponsor terrorism and create terrorists are the same ones who use terrorism to dominate their own people. It is noteworthy that since the ousting of Saddam, many of those regimes have begun to moderate their anti-Western tone for fear of the same.
An interesting set of conjectures, Mr. Bear. It also entails more leaps of faith than a nun on a trampoline.
In your first paragraph, you stun me with your utterly clairovoyant and definitive knowledge of Saddam’s mindset and motivations. Truly, I have friends I’ve known thirty years and longer that I don’t understand as thoroughly as you purport to understand Saddam. The most I would claim is that clearly his parenting skills are not optimal.
Neatly, you segue into an explication of terrorism, its nature, strategy, and goals, as though terrorism is a distinct entity, subject to certain definition. Frankly, I find this a bit shaky, I tend to think that the same actions can result from different motives, and for different goals. Is a religiously motivated terrorist really so similar as a political terrorist?
However, it is an unremarked digression, since you haven’t taken the trouble to outline Saddam’s apparently irrefutable connection to Islamic terror.
“…Saddam would have backed any plan that would throw the West into chaos…”
Would he, now? Bankrupt his best customers? Would this be a result of his messianic vision of an Islamic world? Saddam the religious fanatic. Hmmmm, interesting, but will require a bit more fleshing out.
And, once Saddam had transferred these ghastly weapons, how, exactly, would he go about keeping “his finger still on the use of those weapons”? Would he make them sign a promise to ask his permission first? How, exactly, do you suggest he would maintain and excercise this veto authority? Seeing as how, by all reports, Osama hated his guts almost as much as he hates ours.
“…It is for this reason that I believe the US, and later the UK, was so keen to destroy him, although it is difficult case to prove. …”
It is that. No argument there.
“…which is why both governments probably embellished the reports of actual weapons he actually possessed, to sell the need to act soon…”
“Embellish” is an artfully chosen word, carefully spun. Do you mean “embellish” in the sense of adding subtle or unsubtle nuance, like gilding the lilly? Or in the sense of utter and complete fabrication? Because, as I’m sure you know, we have no evidence to believe that such things even so much as existed at the time of our invasion.
“…This does not mean that he didn’t pose a very real and imminent threat, which brings us to an ‘end justifies means’ situation…”
With what? His own little pink patty paws? Did he have a crack squad of voodoo priests, ready to spring into action? With what terrible weapon could he threaten the single most powerful military force in human history?
“…It should be remembered that Blix himself did state that there were 10,000 litres of chem/bio cocktail that was known to have existed and was still unaccounted for. It’s still out there somewhere, and there are those who know where it is…”
I’m afraid you may have to make up your mind. If you’re going to support your case from the authority of Hans Blix, isn’t it equally incumbent upon you to explain away those instances where Hans Blix does not support your case? Or have these inconvenient facts escaped your attention?
“…It is noteworthy that since the ousting of Saddam, many of those regimes have begun to moderate their anti-Western tone for fear of the same…”
Splendid! Perhaps they still hate us, perhaps they still conspire against us, but at least they are being circumspect about it! I wish I could express how much safer I feel. At last Saddam bin Laden is at bay! Oh, dear, I seem to have conflated two entirely different persons. As have you.
Come on now, Mr. Tee. Don’t give me none o that jibba-jabba!
Tee, I don’t know how to address a debating opponent who’s arguments shift so completely from post to post. To my knowledge, this is the first time in this discussion that you’ve brought up this point. I’m kinda scratching my head over here as well, wondering why you suddenly feel this blindingly obvious revelation would be something I have a difficult time understanding, or would be relevant to the discussion at hand.
But let us take a step back. You claimed, previously, that Powell’s presentation at the UN was concerned almost exclusively with demonstrating that Iraq was actively resisting the inspections dictated by UNSC resolution 1441, and that the presentation was not concerned with an attempt to demonstrate that Iraq was actually a threat. Is this, or is this not, a correct summary of the view you expressed a page ago?
And I said, “No, Tee, that’s not true. Powell sought to prove both; he even used Iraq’s intransigence in the face of inspections as one of the reasons Iraq should be considered a threat.” To support this claim, I quoted the text of Powell’s speech, the introduction of which clearly states that he has both those purposes in mind. I also quoted a recent interview in which Powell stated that had he known in advance that Iraq possessed “WMDs,” he might not have supported the invasion. Intent (derived from Saddam’s history, plus his ongoing intransigence to the inspections) + capability (intelligence reports of Hussein’s “WMD” stockpiles, facilities, and programs, etc.) = threat. Threat justifies military intervention. This equation is derived directly from Powell’s speech and subsequent remarks.
(Obviously, if capability = 0, then the level of the threat is significantly reduced. With a lower level of threat, a military intervention might not have been necessary. This appears to be the gist of Powell’s reasoning.)
You have not refuted any of my cites, nor have you been able to present a single shred of evidence to support your claim. Not one. I’ve been waiting for two pages now for you to either support your claim, or admit that you were wrong. I mean, come on: this ain’t exactly rocket science. A single quote, anywhere, in which Powell states, “My presentation to the UN was not designed to convince other nations that Iraq was really a threat; rather, all I wanted to do was demonstrate that Iraq was violating 1441,” will suffice. What’s that? Can’t find one?
As for the rest: when have I ever claimed that “all the relevant information came from the administration”? Or denied that people could have different reasons for supporting the invasion?
?
What the hell are you talking about?
Granted. But it was one reason. Let us say you list four reasons to go to war:[ul]
[li]Iraq possesses “WMDs”[/li][li]Iraq has ties to Al-Queda[/li][li]Iraq has a lousy human rights record, and [/li][li]Saddam Hussein an aggressive and unpredictable dictator[/ul][/li]If it turns out that reasons 1 and 2 are false, well, obviously, you then have half as many reasons to go to war as you did before. Realizing that, a reasonable person might take a step back and think, “Gee, is this situation so serious that it really requires an act of war?” And reasonable people might answer that question differently. However, it would be wrong, and misleading, to claim after the fact that reasons 1 and 2 never played a role in your decision, when they quite obviously did – until, of course, you found out that they were false.
Do you get my point?
At the moment, I am not criticizing the reason or group of reasons that you, your friends, or your community, etc., relied upon in deciding to support the invasion. I am criticizing arguments 1 and 2, which were strongly promoted by the current administration as pressing reasons for military intervention. They may not have affected you all that much. Personally, I think you’re downplaying those reasons now that they’ve proven to be bogus, myself, but who knows – maybe you supported this thing as a humanitarian action from the beginning. If so, more power to you.
However, arguments 1 and 2 were central to the administration’s case for going to war, and I’m sure that those arguments swayed a lot of people into supporting the war. Now that those two arguments have proven to be so spectacularly false, it would seem natural that one cast a critical glance at how the hell that came to pass.
Elucidator - if you wouldn’t have taken such a patronising manner in replying to my post then you would have received a more civil one to yours. You simply show your ignorance by your argument. If you would care to read books on the subject of Saddam instead of tabloid newspapers you might know more than you do. An excellent one on the subject is “The High Cost of Peace” by Yossef Budansky, who was the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. In addition, he is the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association and a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications. The author of 8 books on international terrorism and global crises, he is a former senior consultant for the US Departments of Defense and State.
Spare me your future attempts at pith and wit, as it comes out piss and shit.
Mr. Bear, remember Striaght Dope is meant to fight ignorance not propagate it.
One pf the most obvious flaws in your premise is that Iraq and Syria were not ‘strong allies’, yes they were both ruled by Ba’athist regimes, but that meant very little when it came to diplomatic relations between the two countries (infact it only served to increase the traditonal rivalry between the two countries). For a start their was the personal dislike between Hussein and the Assad dynasty, partly stemming from arguments about who was the ‘true father’ of the Ba’athist ideology. Relations between the two countries were always at best lukewarm, for example Syria supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Now don’t get me wrong, the Syrian Ba’athist regime is quite an unsavoury one.
I’m inclined to believe that your opinion on the relationship between Syria and Iraq, rather than trying to analyse the past evidence, came from simply noting that the two countries were led by politcal parties bearing the same name, of course we can simlairly conclude that the Republican Guard were strongly allied to GWB.
MC - I feel your nit-picking and avoiding the point. The use of the word ‘strong’ is relative, to indicate that the Syrians were closest to Saddam among the other Arab nations. Assad is also ambitious but didn’t have the power to rival Saddam, and was subservient to him. But we can see ‘honour amongst thieves’ in their connection. Bashar outwardly is the type that wants to sit on a fence to see first which side of his bread is buttered, and lacks the commitment of Saddam to take on the West in any overt way.
Your implication that I somehow propagate ignorance when you have no reason to suggest such a thing indicated that you are trying to score points by attempting to belittle me - - - - - shove it.
You can use it in the relative sense, but by those standards Saddam Hussein and the US were bum chums in the eighties. It’s unlikely that Assad would of lifted a finger to help Hussein if meant endangering his own regime in anyway.