I never said that it would be fine for Saddam to play cat and mouse. The proposals by Saddam included verification. I would have been ok with having a military consequence should that verification process be hampered, or Saddam was found to not be in compliance and not allow actions to correct that mistake. At the time of our invasion certain missles exceeded the allotted range, and the steps were being taken to destroy them. That was an effective way to deal with it, and with the increased compliance and stated consequences should Saddam not have complied no war was necessary. Especially given the fact that he wasn't a threat to us. I also disagree that he would have acquired WMD's. With proper verification he wouldn't have. You may believe that using war as something other than a last resort especially when the U.S. security isn't threatened, but it is uncivilized IMO. You may claim other factors for the invasion, and there may have been others. However the ONLY one that Bush said would warrant war, or prevent war was the WMD issue, unless you count the time he claimed that Saddam didn't allow weapons inspectors back in.
Its a password only site ... Good gracious, how is it that you and those of your opinion can't see the frustration from the opposing side? Oh blah blah blah more verification blah blah blah. I'm not trying to hurt your feeling but how long do you really think its reasonable to continue the game? Saddam wasn't cooperating. Yes, he kicked inspectors out, but let them back in, then hampered their searches. Its almost like you're a naive babe that really believes there would have been an end to the hide and seek games. I disagree. So did many others. The left's inability to grasp this frustration, merely writing it off as irrational, is more than debilitating to your view of what is actually happening - it makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Even assuming (at the time) that Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs, there is NO RATIONALE to believe he would not continue his pursuit of them. Even knowing what we know now, there is no reasonable position as to why he would have suddenly give up his pursuit of WMDs. ALL indicators point to him continuing his pursuit until acquisition. Sanctions are NOT designed to be permanent. BEST case for you is that he would have waited until sanctions were lifted to begin a full scale effort to acquire WMDs. THAT is not an effective way to deal with it. Best case for you it forstalls the inevitable acquisition. THAT is not a resolution. In the meantime, the argument you so deftly forget is that the US was paying a REAL price while the cat and mouse game continued. Remember 9/11? The WTC? Why did it happen? Because of containment. This is not a NEW conversation. Containment is hunky dory when you DO NOT consider the downside. I do, and it wasn't. Even if sanctions were totally effective, they are not permanent. At the point it was verified there were no WMD sanctions get lifted and he has unrestrained access to both his oil money and his ability to import for WMD. He had the motive, he would have the means, he has the track record. To say he WOULDN'T have is - just - plain - silly. Sigh. Was it uncivilized to stop Serbians from committing genocide against the Bosnians? I think not. You can start with that if you want to prove your criteria true. Is it uncivilized to leave a genocidal dictator in power when you can remove him? I think not. Is it 'civilized' to let your people get blown up because you're pursuing a containment policy that benefits everyone BUT your own people and the people of the contained country? I think not. Sorry, Bush clearly gave many justifications for the war, if that matters. My position is, and always has been - that there was ample justification to remove Saddam. If you want to say Bush didn't articulate it properly - well whoop dee damn doo - congratulations - who cares. If there was ample justification then who really cares at this point whether or not he articulated it properly? Want to criticize Bush? Go ahead. Hold republicans responsible? Go ahead. Vote them out of office? Go ahead. Demand that politicians in the future be more straightforward with the American people? By all means. That DOES NOT translate into opposing the intervention.
In the end Saddam was cooperating. It took a lot, and it would no doubt take a lot of effort to make sure he kept cooperating. Prosals on the table made it easier not harder to ensure his cooperation. In addition I pointed out that we lay out consequences for not following the agreements which would include using armed forces to see that they were carried out. That much effort isn't too much to ask to avoid a war especially one that apparently this administration isn't capable of winning. Sanctions against materials needed for WMD production wouldn't have been lifted. Even if other sanctions were lifted, there is no reason we couldn't have had regular WMD inspections. That wasn't a full scale U.S. invasion, and it was necessary to stop what was an ongoing genocide. I think I understand the misunderstanding here. Bush has given many reasons to justify the invasion, but only one of them came before the invasion. The rest happened after the invasion, and it was seen that the original rationale wasn't going to pan out.
I'm not even going to respond to your parody of a bad Onion piece, which I don't see as having any relevance. I can respond to this... you think going to war with Saddam was a good idea. You don't see the consequences of invading Iraq in order to remove Saddam, and the way Bush went about it, as being so bad that it is clear it was a terrible mistake. You think it is beyond doubt that he would have, sometime in the future, developed weapons of mass destruction, whether he had them or not before the Bush invasion. You don't like Bush, but you think his war was a good idea. You look at where Bush's actions have led us in Iraq and you think it was worth it. You think that pointing out that we do business with dictators all over the world, have allies who are viscous dictators, and sell arms to viscous dictators is irrelevant, even silly, because none of them are Saddam. Whatever. I find your argument disingenuous, circular and wrong, but that is just my opinion. I think our country has been weakened significantly by an unnecessary war, weakened both militarily and economically. You don't think so. I get that you find the constantly changing reasons for the war coming from the Administration to be of no relevance. Fine. You keep thinking that. I could say more, but I'll just let it go. Keep D&D Civil!! Keep D&D Civil!!
It took me awhile to finish that! Yes. Right. Yes. But you're missing a 't' in there. 'T'his war is our war. I look at where our government led us - IIRC Congress agreed and continues to agree that staying the course is better than withdrawing immediately. Uh, no. You lost me there. I think your argument that you'd have to act against all the world's dictators simultaneously to be silly. The same way arguing that you'd act against all dictators the same is silly. As I pointed out above, there are different ways to get results. With Saddam there was never any chance that a bargain, agreement, pressure, or anything else short of removing him from power would open up the country. With other places you can use pressure to good effect, in some you open up the country to get the changes you want (China for example with constructive engagement, it would probably be the best option with Cuba). Not sure why you'd accuse me of being disingenuous? I have, at least, been consistently an advocate of this intervention. You can say I'm wrong but don't throw out circular without an explanation. My arguments are never without independent rationale, whether you agree with them is another matter. Its cost a lot of money - not sure where I've denied that. Weakened the military? Stretched it certainly - weakened needs more explanation. Of course you've shown no impact of said 'weakening' even if it exists. And, as do most intervention detractors you ignore the cost of containment - remember 9/11? That was pretty costly IIRC, both in terms of lives lost AND economically. You fallaciously assume there was no cost for continuing containment. I don't think its relevant to whether or not the intervention in Iraq is a good thing. Its certainly relevant to whether or not you think Bush is a good leader; whether or not he conducted himself properly; whether or not he was either completely incompetant or lying - yes. However, it wasn't Bush's rationale for war that convinced me in the first place - so it can hardly invalidate that justification. Understand where I'm coming from? For instance, I never (and you can look it up in posts pre-war) supported the Al Queda connection, nor the imminent claims of a threat - two HUGE pieces of Bush's justification. I did contend Saddam would inevitably acquire WMDs, that he supported terrorism (but not AQ), killed his own people en masse, brutually repressed his people, violated every agreement he signed and started wars with neighbors. I also said his people would be happy to be rid of him, which is true. In fact, in the beginning I said the worst case (according to detractors) of an Islamic Republic would still be preferrable to Saddam - at least they would decide themselves who would rule. So, you can just let it go but please don't be patronizing and assert I don't have any straight forward reasons for advocating what I do.
Hayes, with all due respect, the weakest ass part of your argument is the "remember 9/11?" part. Containment led to 9/11? Not clear objectively. Containment of *Saddam*? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- that's pretty clear, all snarled Cheney lies aside, and that's why treehouse doesn't post anymore. So you mean containments of terrorism, I guess. If you believe a lot of very smart military intelligence people, what leads to 9/11 is not wising up and changing the military to fight a network-based war. If you believe a lot of very cagey military stategy people, nation building in the middle east is only helping grow the terrorist networks world wide, while we funnel resources away from building the new type of network units we need to fight the real struggle. I'm not saying I'm on board with those people, but this containment statement from you is really weak. Saddam was worthless. Now he's behind bars and we have basically inherited an immense orphanage with lots of guns and attitude. Lovely.
I was being facetious. It is the absurdity of taking on a dictator, for the multiple reasons trotted out by Bush and company, that is ludicrous. If you were to supply the Bush Administration's circular reasoning regarding Saddam and Iraq, then you would have to invade and occupy a whole slew of similar governments... some, like Saddam's Iraq was at one time, presently allies of this country. On the face of it, that is patently ridiculous. As you support much of the circular reasoning of the Bush Administration regarding why we invaded and occupied Iraq, I applied the term to you. If you feel it doesn't fit, my apologies. I found your taking my comments regarding this literally as disingenuous, but if you don't think the term applies, I apologize. If you don't think Bush's voluntary "adventure" in Iraq has weakened our military, then I have to admit to being a bit flabbergasted. There are multiple examples of how we have been militarily weakened, but I won't go into them now. Not sure why you'd accuse me of being disingenuous? I have, at least, been consistently an advocate of this intervention. You can say I'm wrong but don't throw out circular without an explanation. My arguments are never without independent rationale, whether you agree with them is another matter. Its cost a lot of money - not sure where I've denied that. Weakened the military? Stretched it certainly - weakened needs more explanation. Of course you've shown no impact of said 'weakening' even if it exists. And, as do most intervention detractors you ignore the cost of containment - remember 9/11? That was pretty costly IIRC, both in terms of lives lost AND economically. You fallaciously assume there was no cost for continuing containment. "I don't think its relevant to whether or not the intervention in Iraq is a good thing." ~Hayes I'm not sure how to respond to that. Look, Hayes, I like you and respect you a lot. You aren't a Rush Clone, or a Rush wannabe, like some here. You aren't a conservative on a lot of things. We agree on much of the foreign policy issues, just as I disagree with some liberal posters here on some things. However, I strongly disagree with you here. What makes our country great is the power of her ideas. During the Cold War, we went toe to toe with the Soviet Union in a battle for those ideas versus their bankrupt ideology. We won, in my opinion, on the strength of those ideas, or ideals, if you will, not simply because we were the most powerful militarily. Because both countries could destroy each other, ultimately, the power of our ideas were the true trump card in the conflict... the power of democracy and freedom. If we resort to military conquest to force our ideas and ideals on other countries, we are betraying the very foundation upon which this country rests. It makes us little different than the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, or Communist China in Tibet. In my opinion. That is what Bush, and his small cadre of advisors, are attempting to do in Iraq. You cannot force democracy on people with the barrel of a gun. You can bring democracy to the world by example, and a willingness to fight if it is necessary. You can support democratic movements in dictatorships in covert ways. You can support democratic movements on the world stage, and you can do that best by example. That is one of the things Bush threw away. Much of the world, because of Bush and his policies, see our country as hypocritical by attempting to impose our system by force of arms. That is what we are doing in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we responded to a clear and present danger to our country in the appropriate way, with our military might. In Iraq, we invaded a sovereign country, whether one cared for it's government or not, that was not a clear and present danger to our country. One can fantasize about what Saddam might have done in the future, but the reality is that we had our hands full already trying to track down and kill those responsible for 9/11, and we have yet to finish that job. That, in my opinion, is the reality. Keep D&D Civil!!
Hey b-bob. Not weak at all. In fact, its undeniable objectively. Why were troops in Saudi Arabia? Answer: to contain Saddam. Why did 9/11 happen? Answer: troops is Saudi Arabia. You don't have to take my word for it though, those are Osama's words. That is a direct link between containment and 9/11. The sad part is that the anti-intervention crowd continue to harp about the cost of the intervention, and refuse to admit the cost of containment. What is circular about the administration's reasoning? Why is it ridiculous that a one time ally can become an enemy (Japan was an ally in WWI, an enemy in WWII; Britain was an enemy our first 100 years and an ally since)? I don't know what circular reasoning you're talking about. Since you've accused me of using it I'd appreciate it if you'd at least point out an example of this circular reasoning. No need to apologize just explain, I'm not mad but confused. Well its difficult to argue with that! I'm right but I won't provide any examples because I'm right? THAT might be circular reasoning. I'll go first since you're too flabbergasted to give an example. One could argue that the military is in better shape than in a long time. While manpower is stretched the armed forces have gained invaluable experience operating in the mountains, the desert, and in an urban environment against the very kind of enemy they are likely to face in future conflicts. We'll have that experience in both the noncom and commissioned structure for the next decade at least providing. No problem. I'm not trying to jedi mind trick you out of your opinion. I like and respect you as well - but it IS possible we can disagree on something (you're bound to be wrong sometime ). I disagree. First this is not a war of military conquest. It should be obvious that there is a huge difference between Iraq and your examples of Tibet and EE. China has occupied Tibet permanently. They have shipped in Han Chinese to out number the indigineous population. That have total control and claim Tibet as their own. The Soviet Union occupied EE and followed the same route. In Iraq the only thing we've done is remove and artificial impediment to thier own self determination. People in EE and Tibet didn't WANT their leaders removed - Iraqis did. Your example completely miss the mark. Hmmm, so you can try and topple a dictator covertly and that's ok? That's silly Deckard. You can do it in the dark but not just out and out remove a dictator? That doesn't sound to consistent to me. All we've done in Iraq is remove an artificial impediment to Iraqi self determination. Iraqis are voting, Iraqis are taking positions in the government, even the Shia's are returning to the process. We are not there to own Iraq. It is, in fact, impossible to IMPOSE our own system because our system is about the Iraqis choosing their government. I find this whole line of kritik from the left to just be a big red herring. Please explain how one imposes a system on a people, when that system gives the choice to the people? Deckard's US: We are imposing our system on you. Now you choose yourself. Deckard's Iraqis: Stop trying to make us choose for ourselves. What is the value of sovereignty? Did being a sovereign nation stop interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo? If Germany had just eliminated Jews within Germany would you say 'well they are a sovereign country so don't worry about it.' That does mean I am saying Saddam was Hitler (before someone freaks out). What it means is that just saying a country is sovereign really doesn't mean anything. Depending on what's going on inside the country, some conditions outweigh sovereignty. Your reality assumes that no intervention in Iraq would have resulted in the capture of Osama and his henchmen. I don't think that's the case. An army doesn't trap one man. For all we know Osama could be in Switzerland, could have been since we dropped in Afghanistan. If he is then no redeployment would ever have changed that. I will go as far as agreeing that the timing could have been better.
our troops were not in Saudi Arabia for the sole purpose of fending off Saddam. Saddam was no longer a threat to Saudi Arabia, or anyone too much. But that was only a part of the initial stationing of troops there. That line of reasoning also assumes that OBL would be happy and pleased having U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. That seems to be a reason for his continued terrorism so that would eliminate that. The U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was only one of a number of beefs he had. To believe that if our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia that OBL wouldn't have been planning and ordering terrorist attacks on the U.S. is hard to swallow. It seems that you are also taking OBL at his word. It is simple: If you believe that not having troops in Saudi Arabia would have prevented 9/11 then please explain how having troops in Iraq which has been listed as causes of recent terrorist attacks, has improved our position in not being targeted for future terrorist attacks. I believe OBL will use whatever reasons he can to enlarge his terrorist organization. The terror acts come first the reasons will be whatever he needs to come up with in order to gain followers come after that. Intervening in Kosovo and intervening in Iraq are not at all the same. One involved an ongoing genocide that needed immediate action in order to stop. The other was a situation that wasn't an immediate threat to anyone.
Huh? No, you're wrong. Simple as that. US troops were in SA to contain Saddam. There was never any other reason or rationale for them to be there. No, it doesn't assume that. Cost of containment = 9/11 is fact. Doesn't assume anything. If you're talking post-9/11 then the intervention in Iraq attempts to resolve the problem created by containment, namely US troops on SA soil (holy ground). No, it wasn't. He's added other gripes post 9/11 but THE reason for his war on the US was troops in SA. Why? Why wouldn't he have concentrated on Saddam, or the regime in SA that had exiled him? On your side you can speculate what might have been whereas I point out what actually happened. Well, when one reveals their motivation for the attack as 'x' that seems to be a stronger argument than 'no, he made it up and attacked us for some other reason.' One doesn't disprove the other, first off. Second, having troops in Iraq is fundamentally different than having them in SA - the birthplace of Islam. Third, having troops in Iraq is a process that attempts to remove the need for US troops in SA long term. Finally, yes - I can say with no problem whatsoever that had we not stationed troops in SA 9/11 would not have happened. Absent that he could just have easily turned his attention to ANY of the '91 Coalition governments, but more likely would have stuck with those regimes in the ME unfriendly to his brand of extremism. No. He declared his reasoning far before he attacked anyone. Didn't say they were the same, although I'm not conceeding they aren't. My point was merely to challenge this ambiguous declaration of value in 'soveriegnty.'
They were also there at the request of the Saudi officials and the U.S. officials to help uphold the regime there on the Saudi side, and to have a military presence in the region to look after our interests(oil) in the region. In your mind it may be fact. But not in the reality that many others see. Again it doesn't solve the problem of U.S. troops on holy ground, since the troops have moved from holy ground to Iraq and Al Qaeda still has beefs about our troops there. The fact that they are willing to attack because we have troops in Iraq just goes to show that not having them in SA wouldn't have placaded AQ. He added gripes all along including U.S. support of Israel, sanctions against Iraq, U.S. troops on Saudi soil, decadent unholy U.S. lifestyle etc. I am pointing out what actually happened. Our troops have been moving from SA to Iraq, and he isn't going back and concentrating on the Saudi govt. He is still concentrating on us. That is what is actually happening. He's had multiple motivations for what he has done. Like I said he will say whatever he needs to in order to attract followers to carry out his deeds. I understand that SA is the birthplace of Islam. That was rhetoric OBL used. Yet notice that after our troops began moving from there to Iraq and we announced that we were going to move the majority of our troops there, OBL's beef with the U.S. didn't subside. So it obviously proves that moving our troops from there to Iraq wouldn't make attacks by AQ less likely.
Ridiculous. Uphold the regime? You've got to be kidding? That's straight off a conspiracy site. The Saudi government doesn't and didn't need our help maintaining stability. US troops were never used for that purpose, nor was there ever ANY indication of such. To protect our oil interests? Uh, yeah - from whom, lol? Uh, Iraq? Well, if you can explain how its NOT fact then please do so. I have explained the direct linkage - if that's not good enough then I guess I can't help you. Lol, it proves no such thing. Had we not been in SA then, its doubtful we'd be in Iraq now. That all begs the question though when considering 9/11. You can engage in alternate history all you want - that's ok, I do too. But the actual recorded history - what actually is verifiably happened - is that containment led directly to 9/11. No, Israel - Afghanistan etc came afterwards. Even your rhetoric proves the point - 'he added gripes' as in AFTER his decision based on US toops in SA. Your timeline is not correct. Notwithstanding the fact, I say again fact, that THE cause according to Osama was troops in SA. That doesn't prove he would have attacked us 'if we didn't have troops in SA,' which is a necessary condition for you argument. I can say factually he DID attack us because of troops in SA. You can't say factually he 'would have' attacked us anyway.' This doesn't get you anything. As it stands its your speculation vs his stated motive. No, but moving troops to Iraq is the first step in a process to alievate that motive. We're attacked because of US troops in SA. We have to get rid of Saddam to pull out of SA. We do that. Now we're in Iraq and that is not acceptable to extremists either, but not as greivous as in SA. When we're out of Iraq we won't be in either - removing those motives altogether. This disagreement basically boils down to this - my contention that containment led to 9/11 is verifiable, hence fact. Your speculation is NOT verifiable, hence opinion/speculation.
After reading this, you wonder where the words "circular reasoning" came from?? Hayes, Hayes, Hayes... my goodness. OK. How about oblong, or oval, lol. Keep D&D Civil!!
Deckard, surely it would take just a couple of sentences to point out such an obvious case of circular reasoning? Instead you keep insisting it is without pointing out where or how it IS circular reasoning. My understanding of 'circular reasoning' is something like this: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted." My argument is: Troops were in SA because of containment (Saddam). Osama attacked us because of troops in SA. Containment resulted in Osama's attack. That is not circular.
