December, your 10:09, 06-17-03, post is just astonishing. Clearly the position you advocate is one wholly lacking in any sense of shame. How can a person of intelligence and experience publish such drivel? Let us go through your briefing points one at a time and in order:
[li]Iraq had indicated that they would never obey their commitments and the UN resolutions.[/li]
Iraq had admitted UN inspectors in the months before the invasion. The people running the inspections were, if not perfectly happy with the level of Iraqi cooperation, at least satisfied that the inspectors were making reasonable progress and were not being unreasonably interfered with. This is hardly consistent with an indication that Iraq would not comply with the UN directive.
[li]Iraq had large amounts of WMDs[/li]
That is sort of the problem, isn’t it. You say that Iraq had large amounts of chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons (and if you mean WMD to mean something else please tell me), but none have been found. No traces of any have been found. If Iraq had them the US searchers should be able to find at least forensic traces. Also, no prohibited SCUDs. Also, no NBC weapons used against US and UK troops. You seem to concede only that the reports of WMDs were exaggerated–but which reports and exaggerated by who?
More importantly, WMD were the pretext for the invasion. If there are no WMDs what was the justification for the invasion?
[li]Iraq had a desire to acquire an arsenal of WMDs.[/li]
Well, so what? I have a desire to retire with more money than I can spend in a life time and have Mrs. Gelding turn into a supermodel. I have a desire to be youthful and handsome and smart, too. I may have a desire to rob a bank. That does not justify may arrest as a bank robber. Sadam’s supposed desire to have nuclear weapons does not turn him into a clear and present danger to the vital national interests of the United States. It certainly provides a basis for watching him very closely and for getting the UN inspectors in there, but it provides no justification for invasion.
[li]Iraq supported terrorism [/li]
Where? When? On September 11? Or the Palestinian fanatics? No one has demonstrated a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack. Plenty of countries have directly or indirectly supported the Palestinian fanatics. Who else can invade on that basis–Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia? Who? How does paying a subsidy to the survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers directly and seriously threaten the vital national interests of the United States
[li]Saddam hated the US[/li]
Good Lord, man! How would you like to compile a list of the countries with governments that don’t much like the US. Sadam can hate the US until the cows come home and it is no threat to the US. Hell, Ann Coulter thinks I hate the US.
.[li]All non-military approaches had failed to bring them into compliance.[/li]
There was a non-military approach going on even as the President pushed the red button. There was every chance that a rigorous inspection backed by the threat of force would reveal whether Iraq was out of compliance and bring them into compliance.
[li]Because of the corruption of certain member countries and the UN itself, the UN was never going to take effective action.[/li]
This is just fraudulent, plain and simple and you are going to have to come up with more than this broad and conclusitory statement before any one is going to accept the “French Fry” argument.
[li]The US had the wherewithal to win the war quickly and with relatively few casualties.[/li]
Can there be a more cynical argument for war than this. We were justified in invading Iraq because we could. How is this not a restatement of the principle of might makes right.
[li]The cruelty of the Ba’ath regime justified regime change all by itself[/li]
Without question the governance of Iraq was deplorable. That a government governs cruelly, that its ruler is a despot, that its principles are offensive to all ideas of good government, as long as it does not thereby present a clear and present danger to the vital national interests of the United States provides no basis for war.
I have seen bankrupt argument in these boards before. I have urged some bankrupt arguments. The likes of your post, December I have never seen before. I am, sir, astonished by the mendacity, the dishonesty, the slavishness of your comments. Is there no act of the present Administration that you will not rise to defend, no matter how contrary to any concept of national honor, fair dealing and decency?
