When Sadam attacks an ally, then we invade. Until then any invasion makes us worse then him. His crimes in the past are America’s crimes, his gas attacks on the Kurds were made possible by America and the American government knew all about at the time.
Getting back to the OP …
What will convince me?
Colin Powell on the floor of the United Nations at a Security Council meeting live on television for the whole world to see doing an Adlai Stevenson and showing direct and irrefutable intelligence that Iraq actually possesses weapons of mass destruction, has the capability right now to use them and intends to use them at the first possible opportunity.
In addition, if there are actual ties to Al Quaida, that such intelligence be explicity shown, even if it means naming other countries in the process.
While many may argue this will compromise out intelligence gathering, I think not. On the contrary, the electronic intelligence will most probably scare other lesser nations as to our capabilities. As for human intelligence, that we pull out all of our spies before Powell speaks.
Finally, once we do this and go to war, no half-assed gestures like Papa Bush. No Saddam in exile, no war crimes tribunals. Saddam dies. His underlings die. His complete power structure dies. If this sounds callous and contrary to our supposed American white hat ideals, just remember when hunting vermin only complete eradication works.
The reality is this will not happen. We are going to war. We will win, but it will be a great cost. If Saddam has WMDs I expect at least 5,000-10,000 US and Allied combat deaths in short order, an overkill response by Bush and all bets are off. (If Saddam launches a WMD strike against Israel, I expect an immediate overkill response by Israel and a greater Middle East war in short order.)
I want to be so wrong with my assessment. We will know in the next few weeks.
You asked.
…absolutely nothing would convince me its ok to attack Iraq.
There have been repeated chances for the US government to assist in the removal of Saddam with the “opposition” where the USA has left them high and dry without ever addressing it.
Now its about Oil and Israel…(ahem…and our own economy…relationship with Saudi Arabia etc) that is indeed fueling this gung ho attack.
Its wrong. There is no way to justify punishing the people of Iraq after the foul history of propping up Saddam, then leaving him to reign as the Monster of his people, and this is what the US has done. NOW wanting to go to war and putting forth all this rhetoric? Disgusting.
I’m showing my ignorance here: Is that a Cuban missile crisis reference?
Like the nazis and imperial Japan? I would assert that it may be unwise to forfeit the moral high ground, to the extent that we haven’t already done so by playing Saddam against Iran, etc. There is more than enough extant evidence to hang Saddam and most of his henchmen. And if the evidence does not exist, then they shouldn’t hang–period. I’ve always been led to believe that the trials at Nuremberg represent one of humanity’s high points. We would be doing a disservice to the memories of those who really did put down one of the two greatest threats to freedom in the last century if we instituted kangaroo courts or summary executions. Saddam is not a hero and he does not deserve to die a martyr; he deserves to be forced to sit in open court, to face the evidence against him, to enjoy a vigorous defense, and to die on the end of a rope like the thug that he is.
Saddam and his ilk are not cockroaches. They are evil human beings. Vermin may be poetic metaphore, but metaphore is not a solid basis for policy decisions.
ElJeffe, nice to see you back, and glad you brought such a big paintbrush this time; I should have you do my house when you’re in town next, should only take a few minutes… But I will get to that. Let’s go in order:
You’re assertion re Pakistan - you think it was our use of force that coerced them? What about our lifting of economic sanctions in return for assistance, which is what actually occurred? We went to them for help; they didn’t come running to us when we un-holstered the big guns. Remember - we had imposed sanctions on them for the nuclear bomb incident; we also weren’t particularly happy with their decision to stage a military-led coup, either. Economically, assisting us was the best thing that could have come along at the time; do you realize how much money we pumped in there, and continue to pump? Don’t fool yourself - money has much more to do with it than any threat of military force; after all, they do possess nukes, and we never threatened any invasion of Pakistan. Your assertion is totally unsupported by the facts, my friend.
Your next two points left me near to speechless; the point of these boards, indeed this whole SD society, is the reduction of ignorance, and this first point of yours is stunning in its display; the second is equally as stunning, but in its arrogance. The following statement:
Whoa, want to narrow that focus a bit? “Governments in the Middle East” (there’s that regional-size paintbrush of yours) do what? Look, I would ask that, at a minimum, you do some research on the topic; like I said in the previous post - I don’t expect everyone to have PhD’s in Middle East history or international relations, but a little background is pretty much a requirement for a reasoned debate of the issues. Your ignorance of the region, the people and the culture is painfully obvious; if you are discussing issues, you should really avail yourself of some background information. And you obviously have none…
To directly assail your position: what governments are you talking about? Certainly not the Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Jordanian, Qatari, UAE, Omani, Yemeni (they cooperate with us now, remember?), Egyptian, Saudi, Turkish or even Syrian governments; in fact, the only possible governments to which you could be referring would be either Iraq (we are going to invade them, so “influencing” them with force is kind of moot) or Iran. And in Iran, it is primarily the remaining theocratic elements that espouse the view you suggest; the current president and his supporters do not, and have been fighting an uphill struggle against the ayatollahs. Your supposition that our invasion would somehow support the reformers in Iran is ludicrous(and I am being nice here): it would give the reactionaries the proof we need that we are, indeed, “Imperialist.” As I stated before: the only possible outcome is destabilization of the Iranian regime and the region, period. We are playing into the hands of bin Laden, who would get great enjoyment from watching us go after Iraq; this just proves his point that we are “enemies of the Muslim” and “Imperialist,” and does nothing to support the moderates in the region or their governments.
And as I live here, and have done so for close to 12 years: are YOU going to tell ME the people hate us? Where do you get this, from the media? Where is your proof? Like I stated in my question, which you have tried to turn around: “Where is your basis for this little gem?” In a debate, you answer with evidence, proof, or hypothesis; you have simply answered a question with a question, trying to put the burden of proof on me. Well, to go to your level: I asked you first. I’m here, slick, and I know you are wrong; so you tell me where your proof is.
Sure, I have plenty of reasons for my previous assertion: being an analyst that has studied terrorism in this region, I would say I am pretty well-informed on the subject. However, I would like to see your answers to my questions, which is only fair; then I will give you a set of reasons for my position. I will give you a clue: terrorists, in any situation, are considered as “radical” elements; they have gone outside of the traditional framework in furtherance of their goals. If our actions serve to radicalize the region (and an invasion without legal basis of a sovereign nation can be seen as such an action), you can rest assured that there are many individuals in the region that would use just such an escalation as the basis for radical actions. I would think this would be logically self-evident; but, as I asked you for proof of your highly illogical position that such an action would not precipitate an upsurge in recruitment for organizations such as al-Qaieda, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to back up your assertion. I will then answer your follow-on questions; you are the one that is skeptical of what I would consider the prevailing opinion. In fact, I have seen no one, anywhere, support your claim; the burden of proof is on you, not me, in this instance.
Your second question, regarding the elimination of terrorist recruitment, is a good question; however, you have failed to provide support for any of your earlier statements, and they should be dealt with first. You seem to constantly shotgun questions and statements, without building your case; being on the attack constantly does not serve to support your claims, just make me think that there is no substance to your arguments. I think this question should be the subject of another OP; it is far too serious an issue to be dealt with in a paragraph or two, and takes us even further from the matters at hand. Answer my previous questions, support the current argument, and we can move on to this question from there.
The last paragraph of yours is getting pretty scary, if you ask me; thank God your views don’t predominate. You have just spouted the same doctrine that led the Imperialists and Colonizers of history to do what they did: namely, those ignorant savages don’t know what they are doing, so let’s do it for them. As I have pointed out, you keep saying the “Middle East”; are you really that ignorant of the situation and the region? The only country being invaded here is Iraq, AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT “RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM,” EITHER. Jeff, do us and yourself a favor and read at least one book on the subject. Hell, go on the CIA Factbook site and read about the governments in the Middle East, for Pete’s sake. Then think about what you say before you say it; this last paragraph of yours makes no coherent argument for anything. What government structures support terrorism or your “radical fundamentalism”? Once again, not Iraq, and that is the country we are “exporting democracy” to; and regardless of what you would be willing to do, the Imperialist Era has passed. Our very fabric as the United States of America was to condemn imperialism, and fight for the right of self-determination of all peoples: your argument is counter to everything we believe in as a country. Now you are saying we need to embrace imperialism, and destroy government systems that
; any idea how many other governments fit that description? And how many of them we have supported in the past, and currently still do support? And you still haven’t shown any evidence for the support of terrorism by Iraq; you do realize that the administration created a committee of intelligence personnel for just this express purpose, and still couldn’t come up with anything, right? So I would still like to see your proof.
Jeff – no offense, but you really need to back up your arguments here, because you are way out on a limb. You are the one that is throwing out some really preposterous and I daresay, dangerous, statements. We are not an imperial power, and I don’t think even your most conservative politician would support your comments that we should be one; yet that is exactly what you are espousing. Your other comments fly in the face of reason, which is why I called you on them in my earlier post. The burden of proof is on you, and I’m still waiting.
Duckster, I didn’t mean to say that you were somehow immoral for your view. I just disagree with it for the reasons I touched on. While I think you’re wrong on the point I addressed, I respect your opinion and don’t think you’re a bad person for having it. I don’t think I made that clear.
Sometimes in important issues it’s hard to separate the man from the issue during interesting discussions. I hope I didn’t make that mistake.
To me, the idea that we have the right to launch pre-emptive strikes on a nation halfway around the world because it MIGHT attack us with weapons of mass detruction at some unspecified time in the future is ludicrous. This doctrine, if followed by other nations, could justify attacking any nation at any time and then claiming that is was a defensive action. (Kind of like Hitler’s claim that he invaded Poland in 1939 because Poland was getting ready to invade Germany.)
That Saddam Hussein was hiding Osama bin Laden .
I couldn’t disagree more. If we wage a successful war in Iraq, then we will be in exactly the same situation there after the war as we have been for the past year in Afghanistan. To the extent that we have been unwilling or unable to proceed with dispatch in rebuilding Afghanistan (after making some rather strong promises that we wouldn’t abandon them this time around), it suggests that we might be similarly lacking in our ability or willingness to do the job in Iraq once Saddam is vanquished.
X-Slayer,
I am not aware that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are in support our invading Iraq. Last I heard, Turkey steadfastly refused to let us use their airspace and land to launch an attack. Saudi Arabia has publicly stated their reservations about an attack and their reluctance to let bases on their land to be used for it.
I think Russia needs to be on board because they have traditional ties to Iraq. I think having another “big” country on board gives it credibility and that they are the most likely to be persuaded.
The criteria I listed are my opinions, based on lots of newspaper articles, for what I think it would take for a broad based coalition to form. Not what it would take to persuade me. As I said, the coalition would reluctantly persuade me that we have a decent chance of the world on the backside of a war being better than the world we have now.
- Afghanistan. As RTFirefly said, people will be more comfortable with us wielding our military power if we show that we can clean up our own messes.
-Israel/Palestine. I admit that Israel/Palestine is a mess. But, in the wake of 9/11, the Saudis have consitently told us that dealing with that situation had to take precedence over Iraq. Just getting a reasonable cease-fire would build enough good will and credibility for the U.S. among their people that they could support actions against Iraq.
-Post War Iraq. I don’t understand your assertion that we shouldn’t look at this. Turkey won’t go along until they are confident they won’t end up with a Kurdistan on their border. We keep talking about a democracy, but I doubt we will like the person they elect. Plus, we need to mention the elephant in the room, and lay out a reasonable, equitable plan for the development of the Iraq oil resources.