# THIS is what the war stopped. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960 "2003-04-21T03:03:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/101 "2003-04-22T15:45:26Z")
IOW, “all’s well that ends well” … still, I am on the “this war was necessary” side but for some reason I do not (a) feel absolutely any need to rub anyone’s face in it, nor (b) find others’ skepticism (if reasonably expressed) morally offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/102 "2003-04-22T17:52:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Finally, I would note thet everybody’s other favorite bugaboo, North Korea, has finally accepted the idea of multi-national taks about it’s nukes, rather than insisting on one on one talks with the U.S. This has come about since the war in Iraq. Seems to me that U.S. credibility has recently been enhanced, at least for the North Koreans. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? \*\* Well, it’s all perspective. I could just as easily argue that the North Koreans, while perhaps frightened at the idea of having US troops bomb the living shit out of them, are opting for a multinational solution in order to _diminish_ the role the US will play in the process, hiding behind the UN whilst doing so. Because there’s one thing the US can’t do: blatantly walk over a UN concensus again in such a short time span. Either way you turn it, fear of being bombed to smithereens doesn’t equal establishing credibility in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/103 "2003-04-22T18:30:52Z")
I must have missed this UN “concensus” you’re speaking about. AFACT, some countries supported what the US and some ( mostly those with economic interest in the continuation of SH’s reign) did not. How is that “concensus”. 1441 had the blessing of the UN, remember? A similar resolution forbiding force was never passed, as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/104 "2003-04-22T18:46:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*By my count, you have 6 “points” you’ve brought up here. 5 of them are speculation or inaccurate for the purposes of your agenda. > > People did die from U.S. bullets, though, gotta give you that. \*\* 1. I was not attempting a comprehensive argument against the war, just a quick list of the types of issues that the OP wants to dismiss out-of-hand. If you want comprehensive arguments, you may read any of the numerous threads on the subject. 2. Of course some of it is speculation (although only 2 of the points, not 5). Foreign policy is all about speculation. And “The Iraqi people will be better off” is certainly as much or more speculative than anything I have said. 3. I have said nothing that is inaccurate. Let’s take them one at a time: _that wasn’t even the initial reason for going to war_ Are you saying that Bush did not cite WMDs and support of Al Queda as the reasons for the invasion? _forget that there could very well be serious repercussions in years to come_ Yes, that’s speculation. For that matter, it would have been speculation for the Japanese to think that we would react to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but that doesn’t mean it was a good idea. Yes, there is a certain amount of speculating involved in military actions. _forget that they didn’t ASK for our help_ Are you saying Iraq asked for our help? When did they do that? Did I miss that one? _forget that the U.S. took a huge hit on its credibility in the international community; forget all the people who died directly from U.S. bullets_ Since you already conceded these two points, I won’t say anything. _and forget the consequences of defying the UN._ That one’s speculation too, but certainly something germane to the issue. > [@](#): > > Perhaps not, but such things, in the “international community”, that is within the realm of politics and diplomacy, are remarkable inconsiquential and fleeting. “Huge hit” today is buddy/buddy next week, that’s whay it’s an agenda driven statement. They tend to be longer lasting within the populations of other nations, but even then, if it’s not someone with a ( usually political ) axe to grind (Activests in the EU, for example) or someone who was directly involved(countries in the mid east) is going to remember in a year or so. > > Finally, I would note thet everybody’s other favorite bugaboo, North Korea, has finally accepted the idea of multi-national taks about it’s nukes, rather than insisting on one on one talks with the U.S. This has come about since the war in Iraq. Seems to me that U.S. credibility has recently been enhanced, at least for the North Koreans. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? Well at least you have the honesty to concede that the motivations for war were other than altruistic. I happen to disagree that the world is just going to forget that we pissed them off. And we are not going to be taken seriously if we disregard international consensus, while simultaneously demanding that other countries adhere to it. I think this attitude of hubris, that we can just do whatever we want 'cuz we’re the superpower is not going to be without consequences. If we think we can single-handedly control the whole planet, we’re setting ourselves up for a big fall. But you’re certainly entitled to your opinion as well. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/105 "2003-04-22T18:50:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > 1441 had the blessing of the UN, remember? A similar resolution forbiding force was never passed, as far as I know. So it’s OK to unilaterally invade other countries as long as the UN doesn’t tell you _not_ to?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/106 "2003-04-22T19:43:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*I must have missed this UN “concensus” you’re speaking about. AFACT, some countries supported what the US and some ( mostly those with economic interest in the continuation of SH’s reign) did not. How is that “concensus”. 1441 had the blessing of the UN, remember? A similar resolution forbiding force was never passed, as far as I know. \*\* Perhaps I worded it poorly. What I meant was, that NK seems to steer towards a multinational solution to its WMD problem. This means, of course, that they’d rather have a UN inspection team _a la_ Blix at their door than US troops with big-ass guns. I’m saying that in doing so, they are using the (potential, of course) UN concensus in order to shield off the US, because they know that the US can’t pull a trick on the UN like they did in the Iraq situation. Meaning: the US, if the UN comes to a Blix-style resolution on the NK WMD program, can’t ignore it and attack NK anyway, lest they damage their international cred even more than they already did with Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/107 "2003-04-22T20:09:35Z")
But that mulinational solution is what the US was aiming for- we specifically said that we would not have one-on-one talks with 'em. Inspections are pointless and discussions about em are moot unless North Korea specifically agrees to dismantle their program, otherwise we’d just be confirming what we already know. ---
**Author:** ![Zenham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a5b964/32.png) [@Zenham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenham)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/108 "2003-04-22T20:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiny Norman \* > \*\*But he _gassed his own people_! \*\* Damn straight, glad we took him out before he started setting up puppet dictators and outfitting them with military hardware to fight a neighboring country he disapproved of! Wait, that sounds familiar… Poor, poor Sam. When you shit your own pants, it’s not a moral victory to wipe your ass and change your trousers. Apparently reality comes in flavors on your planet, and the pick of the week is Delusion Ripple. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/109 "2003-04-22T23:04:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Finally, I would note thet everybody’s other favorite bugaboo, North Korea, has finally accepted the idea of multi-national taks about it’s nukes, rather than insisting on one on one talks with the U.S. This has come about since the war in Iraq. Seems to me that U.S. credibility has recently been enhanced, at least for the North Koreans. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? \*\* Bzzt! I’m not buying it Dave. Two days after they agreed to tri-lateral (not multi-lateral, really. Last I heard they agreed to have the PRC there as well) the Washington Post ran a story in which the NK’s announced they were beginning to process spent fuel rods into weapons material. Get me: Step 1: NK agrees to tri-lateral talks Step 2: White House brags that NK, now fearing that they could be ‘Iraqed’, is seeing reason. Step 3: NK, pissed off at this, announces they’re making more bomb material Good job, guys. The NK government is clearly playing for increased ‘no strings’ aid here. But they’re doing it in a pretty scary way. And the administration isn’t helping. I’m just glad they’re way the hell over there and I’m on the east coast. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/110 "2003-04-23T00:03:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\* > > The NK government is clearly playing for increased ‘no strings’ aid here. But they’re doing it in a pretty scary way. \*\* And I’m not going buy what you’re saying unless you can prove that this is a change in NK’s attitude and not_the way they’ve been doing things all along_. Their change in stance has been to agree to China’s inclusion in disarmament talks, a positive sign because nothing is going to get done about NK without the full inclusion and cooperation of China, they are the only ones in the area with the moxie to make NK obey any agreements they sign. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/111 "2003-04-23T00:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*3. I have said nothing that is inaccurate. > > Let’s take them one at a time:\*\* OK, let’s: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > _that wasn’t even the initial reason for going to war_ > > Are you saying that Bush did not cite WMDs and support of Al Queda as the reasons for the invasion? No, but those weren’t the only reasons. They were the main reasons, granted, but ending SH’s regime was also stated as a reason for war. Don’t forget that simply because WMD have not been found yet. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > _forget that there could very well be serious repercussions in years to come_ > > Yes, that’s speculation. For that matter, it would have been speculation for the Japanese to think that we would react to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but that doesn’t mean it was a good idea. Yes, there is a certain amount of speculating involved in military actions. The two aren’t remotely comparable. In the simplest terms, the U.S. people did not want to be attacked by Japan. Argueably, a great many Iraqis did want SH gone. Even beyond that, there could be serious _positive_ reprecusions from the war as well. You don’t know yet, I don’t know yet, George Bush and Osama bin Laden don’t know yet. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > _forget that they didn’t ASK for our help_ > > Are you saying Iraq asked for our help? When did they do that? Did I miss that one? Iraqi Kurds, for one, have been asking for U.S. military assistance for years now, don’t they count? Aditionally, after Gulf War I, many Iraqis celebrated the arival of American forces, only to be tortured and killed when we pulled out. That kinda limits how people are initially react when U.S. troops showed up this time, doncha think? Also, it’s not like “Joe Iraqi” could write letters to the Bahgdad Times condeming SH and welcoming foreign invasion, now is it? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > _forget that the U.S. took a huge hit on its credibility in the international community; forget all the people who died directly from U.S. bullets_ > > Since you already conceded these two points, I won’t say anything. I conceded the second, not the first, but I covered that earlier. You keep coming back to some imagined “international concensus”. I’m telling you there was no such thing. There were international factions, neither of which was signifigantly more influential and/or powerful than the other. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > _and forget the consequences of defying the UN._ > > That one’s speculation too, but certainly something germane to the issue. Again, I am going to need to see “consequences” before I admit it’s germane. The U.N has been “honored” more with defiance rather than obedience in it’s 50-odd year history, and when states do “comply”, it’s ofetn at the point of a real or threatened bayonet. It’s still there, and still about as effective as ever. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/112 "2003-04-23T00:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*So it’s OK to unilaterally invade other countries as long as the UN doesn’t tell you _not_ to?:rolleyes: \*\* It’s OK to do that even if the UN does tell you not to, you just have to live with the consequences. It’s call “National Soverignty” and it’s something inherent to nations. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/113 "2003-04-23T01:30:40Z")
… and it may harm, and has harmed, the international credibility of one of the most powerful nations on earth, both inside a UN context and out. “You just have to live with the consequences” is a correct statement, but it’s hardly what that majority, err, minority voted for in 2000. Unless the majority of the American population agrees that pursuing American interests _at all costs including the credibility of the nation_ is morally just, something which I refuse to believe, I cannot be convinced of Bush’s actions as conducive to America’s position in the world, or conducive to the general interests of the people of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/114 "2003-04-23T07:05:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > No, but those weren’t the only reasons. They were the main reasons, granted, but ending SH’s regime was also stated as a reason for war. Don’t forget that simply because WMD have not been found yet. You’re forgetting what this thread is about. The OP seems to think that Saddam being gone is the only thing to be considered; that it somehow makes everything else OK. Bush talked about ousting Saddam, but you know perfectly well that it wasn’t the main justification for the war. In fact, isn’t unilateral invasion for the purpose of regime change specifically forbidden by international law? > [@](#): > > The two aren’t remotely comparable. In the simplest terms, the U.S. people did not want to be attacked by Japan. I didn’t say the two situations were identical. I simply gave an example of how military decisions require speculation. Please try to stay with me. > [@](#): > > Argueably, a great many Iraqis did want SH gone. This is quite disengenous. Wanting Saddam gone, and wanting the US to invade the country are NOT one and the same. > [@](#): > > Even beyond that, there could be serious _positive_ reprecusions from the war as well. You don’t know yet, I don’t know yet, George Bush and Osama bin Laden don’t know yet. Then stop pretending like you already know. > [@](#): > > Iraqi Kurds, for one, have been asking for U.S. military assistance for years now, don’t they count? Aditionally, after Gulf War I, many Iraqis celebrated the arival of American forces, only to be tortured and killed when we pulled out. That kinda limits how people are initially react when U.S. troops showed up this time, doncha think? Also, it’s not like “Joe Iraqi” could write letters to the Bahgdad Times condeming SH and welcoming foreign invasion, now is it? I don’t think the Iraqis who are at this moment protesting the US presence in their country are doing so out of fear of torture. > [@](#): > > I conceded the second, not the first, but I covered that earlier. You keep coming back to some imagined “international concensus”. I’m telling you there was no such thing. There were international factions, neither of which was signifigantly more influential and/or powerful than the other. I don’t know what to say other than I disagree. There has been huge worldwide opposition to this war. And no, I’m not imagining it. > [@](#): > > Again, I am going to need to see “consequences” before I admit it’s germane. The U.N has been “honored” more with defiance rather than obedience in it’s 50-odd year history, and when states do “comply”, it’s ofetn at the point of a real or threatened bayonet. It’s still there, and still about as effective as ever. Well there’s a consequence right there. The consequence of defying the UN is that it will have less and less effectiveness. I find the idea of a world with clear international standards of behavior to be more comforting than a world where each country does whatever it can get away with. But I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate over whether the UN should exist, so let’s just agree to disagree on that one. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/115 "2003-04-23T07:56:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > In fact, isn’t unilateral invasion for the purpose of regime change specifically forbidden by international law? Actually it’s not, see resolution 1441 for elaboration. That resolution didn’t come to fruition, but I think it sets a pretty clear precident when the question is “Can other nations demand a regime change” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > dn’t say the two situations were identical. I simply gave an example of how military decisions require speculation. Please try to stay with me. I’m trying, please try not to send our discussion down into the depth of partisan mud slinging. Also, try not to be condescending, A: ) I’m not doing so. and: B: ) you don’t have the chops to go there. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* This is quite disengenous. Wanting Saddam gone, and wanting the US to invade the country are NOT one and the same. Granted, the two are not the same, but _we don’t know yet_ what the final outcome will be. It’s quite possible that 20 years from now Iraqis will refer to this as a war of liberation. It’s equally possible that they will condem it as a war of American imperialism. Neither one of us has the knowledge needed to forsee which comes to pass. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > Then stop pretending like you already know. This is almost funny, as I have been one of the few voices on these boards championing the idea that what has been done is nothing but prolog, the real test is in what we do from here. The text you’re quoting here begins with “you and I don’t know what’s going to happen”, who’s ass did you pull “stop pretending that you already know” out of? > [@](#): > > I don’t think the Iraqis who are at this moment protesting the US presence in their country are doing so out of fear of torture. My point was that Iraqis had celebrated against SH in '91, and were punished for it, which puts a damper on future celebrations. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what to say other than I disagree. There has been huge worldwide opposition to this war. And no, I’m not imagining it. AND AGAIN I say there is a huge difference between people marching in the streets and the position of their govenment. The realities of politics and international relations hold sway, and what we’ve seen marching down Pennsylvania Ave ( or under the Arc de Triumph ) is not nearly enough to sway governments. All governments ( the US included ) ground their actions on economic realities and national prosperity. > [@](#): > > Well there’s a consequence right there. The consequence of defying the UN is that it will have less and less effectiveness. I find the idea of a world with clear international standards of behavior to be more comforting than a world where each country does whatever it can get away with. But I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate over whether the UN should exist, so let’s just agree to disagree on that one. Again, you’re giving the UN more credit and influence than it has. For 50 years communist governments hamstrung the UN, the fact that in this instance we’re making an end run around them in no way reduces the UN to nothing, for them it’s business as usual. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/116 "2003-04-23T17:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*It’s OK to do that even if the UN does tell you not to, you just have to live with the consequences. It’s call “National Soverignty” and it’s something inherent to nations. \*\* ::splort:: You say it’s inherent, and that it’s meaningless, in the same short paragraph. [sub]BTW, you oughta learn to spell ‘sovereignty’, **Dave** , since you’re using it a lot lately. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/117 "2003-04-23T17:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*I must have missed this UN “concensus” you’re speaking about. AFACT, some countries supported what the US and some ( mostly those with economic interest in the continuation of SH’s reign) did not. How is that “concensus”. 1441 had the blessing of the UN, remember? And it represented a consensus for evaluating Saddam’s response to a resumption of inspections, and responding accordingly. > [@](#): > > A similar resolution forbiding force was never passed, as far as I know. At the UN (and that’s what you’re talking about here), _not_ using force is the default assumption; it’s there in the UN Charter, which we’re a signatory to. (‘It’s OK not to keep your word; you just have to be willing to deal with the consequences.’) FWIW, we dropped the followup resolution to 1441 because it looked like we were only going to get 3 votes in the Security Council - ours, Britain’s, and Spain’s. I call that a consensus. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960/118 "2003-04-23T18:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > Actually it’s not, see resolution 1441 for elaboration. That resolution didn’t come to fruition, but I think it sets a pretty clear precident when the question is “Can other nations demand a regime change” OK, I reviewed 1441, and I don’t see ANYTHING in there about authorizing Saddam’s assassination, or, in fact, anything about regime change at all. Maybe you could quote the relevant passages that you think authorize unilateral invasion and attempted assassination. And please don’t obfuscate the issue by saying there were other reasons; I will remind you that we have gotten to this point in the argument after _your_ insistence that ousting Saddam was a major motive for the war. Here’s one essay I googled regarding international law and regime change. If you believe that international law supports individual countries invading other sovereign countries, I’d sure be interested in where you’re getting that info: [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.php](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.php) > [@](#): > > I’m trying, please try not to send our discussion down into the depth of partisan mud slinging. Also, try not to be condescending, > A: ) I’m not doing so. and: > B: ) you don’t have the chops to go there. Sorry to get snippy; I just get weary of making an analogy to illustrate one specific point, and having people say "But it’s not identical in _every_ way. Yes, that’s why it’s an analogy. It has nothing to do with “partisan mud slinging”. I don’t know where you got that idea. Earlier, you tried to dismiss my arguments _a priori_ as “speculation”. I used the example of Pearl Harbor to show that speculation is not worthless _in and of itself_. I never said Pearl Harbor was equivalent to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you understand my frustration when you twist my words like that? If you disagree with my speculation, that’s one thing, but you cannot _dismiss_ it out-of-hand. And by the way, your very first post to me was pretty fucking snotty, so I don’t think you need to be getting an attitude about whether _other_ people are condescending. > [@](#): > > This is almost funny, as I have been one of the few voices on these boards championing the idea that what has been done is nothing but prolog, the real test is in what we do from here. The text you’re quoting here begins with “you and I don’t know what’s going to happen”, who’s ass did you pull “stop pretending that you already know” out of? Hmmm…you’re right; I was confusing you with other posters. My apologies. > [@](#): > > My point was that Iraqis had celebrated against SH in '91, and were punished for it, which puts a damper on future celebrations. I don’t see how you can argue that fear of Saddam has anything to do with it at this point. > [@](#): > > Again, you’re giving the UN more credit and influence than it has. For 50 years communist governments hamstrung the UN, the fact that in this instance we’re making an end run around them in no way reduces the UN to nothing, for them it’s business as usual. I really think this is getting way out of the scope of this thread, so I’m gonna leave this one alone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-the-war-stopped/169960.md?page=5)