Oh, so now you want to talk about the real world? I thought we were talking about that other one? You know, the one you guys usually want to put your hypotheticals in? Unless I'm getting sarcastic or just losing interest in the situation, I am *always* talking real world, rezdawg. Fire away.
Then dont depict Iraq as the big, bad monster and the U.S. as the hopeless little boy that needs to hit and run.
On the contrary: at this point I would depict Iraq as the helpless little lady who needs the big bad US monster to help save it from getting assraped by the thugs who used to prostitute it out in the back alley behind the bar... Are we still in that unreal world where things are not what they really are? We can stay there if you'd like... Or move on to a more real reality.
Why, thank you! I will! I mean, it makes me feel so much more secure having your blessing - there be dragons on that sea, ya know... Silly me, I thought I might get lost in my fantasy world...
I'm sorry, I should be serious about this. I know I should be... Fire away. Ah, wait - I'm the one who actually started this little venture into fairyland. For once... So I guess I bear most of the responsibility for the conversation devolving to where it has. To my credit, though, I did try to steer it back on track. Twice. Why didn't that work? Whatever, I'm in 'serious' mode now. You couldn't make me laugh if you tried, and I mean that. My body is a fu*king horseshoe of tension, my mind wrapped only around the galloping rhythm of the logic at hand. Please, continue with your highly logical and realistic analysis of the issue, rezdawg. Take me back to the real world, Big Boy. Lead me there, I implore you...
You are right about that, so I guess its just a matter of what I felt justified the intervention vs what the public at large thought. As far as whether or not him being a genocidal tyrant justifies intervention, I would disagree with those who claim its spurious and ad hoc post-intervention. Stopping genocide is a recognized justification for intervention despite the international emphasis on state sovereignty. Standing aside while people are murdered en masse is not a policy I would support, nor should the US support. Especially not when we have the capability to stop it. The only point 'some objective observers' keep coming back to is that we also have good relations with some repressive regimes. While this is true, those good relations do provide an avenue for reform through influence, while that was not a possibility with Saddam, as it was not with Milosevic. No one is proposing that we invade and remove all repressive regimes (it would be infeasible to invade the PRC, for instance). But when there is no other influence to exert but military, then it definitely is justified. Of course if there is mass execution happening, intervention should be immediate. If there is a long record of genocidal policies and other methods of influence have no chance of success then intervention is justified. I would be in favor a foreign policy that exerted maximum pressure on repressive regimes to reform across the board. That would probably have to go hand in hand with our own internal reform to make us less vulnerable to material conditions elsewhere (decrease oil dependency for instance), but I don't think that would be a bad thing either. As for the 'plans for a gun that might smoke:' I find it strange and interesting that the same people who admit they believed Saddam would pursue WMD/nukes until he got them, now castigate the Administration for not finding the 'smoking gun' yet. The same rationale that led many to believe Saddam was actively seeking that capability is the same reason why the Administration believed he would keep going until he acquired them. The fact that intelligence could not positively access WHEN that would happen was all the more reason to intervene NOW. Playing the waiting game merely increased the risk he would acquire that capability before we could intervene, drastically changing the power landscape in the Middle East in the favor of a dangerous and ambitious tyrant.
I answered this earlier as the site crashed, and I guess my answer got lost...here we go again... 1) Still, it comes down to us thinking yet again that we know what is best for other countries...I understand that you don't have a problem with that, but think of this...what if you were another country? I see no reason to suppose that we know better what represents a threat to Saddam's neighbours more than they do...His history, as you call it, is not how you portray it...He has had two significant conflicts; Kuwait, which was dealt with, and Iran, which was at our insitigation. It's the epitome of specious reasoning to say that in the 20 odd years since we urged him to attack Iran, or the decade since the Kuwait invasion was resolved, Saddam has somehow become this great threat to his neighbours...especially when you consider that in that time several nations, including ours, have been involved in attacks on other nations while Iraq has not... What is the basis for your supposition that we can percieve threats to, say, Saudi Arabia better than Saudi Arabia can? We didn't see the collapse of the friggin USSR when almost all of our intel organs were trained on it...we didn't see 9-11 coming...we didn't seem to think that the Kuwait thing was a serious threat pre-event...What is your basis for this profound faith in our superior ability to foresee threats to other nations? Our 'intel'? Let alone your supposition that we have the right to dictate based on that foresight... And what threat to the global economy? Hussein's decision to forego US currency? What? 2) I don't get your argument as a justification for invasion. As a means of convenience for us? Are you serious? And suppose we decide that Iraq is too hot for us...should Egypt look to it's defense, cause we're in the market for better real estate? 3) Ok...so this is an anti-war myth, is it? Funny...I seem to remember that this 'myth', if that's what it is, being propogated pre-war...and it sure as shooting wasn't by anti-war folks, but people like your self, tree. I can't remember if you specifically were among them, but pre-war we were told over and over again that the govt. had the intel connection...remember the supposed info that Blair had been made privy to proving the 9-11/Iraq connection? That wasn't an anti-war sponsored myth, but one used to justify the war. So us repeating it now makes it an anti-war myth? Hmmm... 4) Uh.....What the....?!?!? Seriously? You don't see "a flawed, manufactured, or dishonest argument originating with the admin" !?!?!?!? Tree...this is the kind of crap that makes it hard to take you seriously. The admin has admitted as much...the other pro-war folks are no longer arguing that these happened, but merely which of these cover what happened. The uranium was certainly one of the above...flawed, manufactured, or dishonest...so was the tubing...and thr nuke program prognosis...etc. etc...See, tree, I try and give your arguments the respect that I would want for mine, but when you put blinders on like this, when you play ostrich...it just makes it really hard to even pretend that you're rying to remain remotely objective or rational about this. My answer to your serious question: I certainly did think that it was probable that there were some kind of WMD...I pretty much expected us to find some...but I am growing more and more doubtfull. I cannot say that I now think that they are out there, but neither would I say for certain that they're not. It looks less likely every day, and I fully expect the administration to try and shift the argument to finding proof of a program designed with intent to develop WMDs...Sorry if I'm not black and white...I was pretty sure, am a lot less so now, that's the best I can do. 5) The UN dictate argument was kind of abandoned when the UN themselves did not see sufficient breach of agreement to warrant invasion. 6) You'd rather cheat? That was before the war...and if you read anything about WWII, you will find that your kind of thinking about warfare and moraility, especially pre-war, fits into a camp you'd otherwise not want to be in agreement with. But we didn't cheat to win a war...we cheated to ensure a war. That's twisted reasoning, tree, and if you were the world, and you knew that we cheated and lied to get the wars we wanted which, even according to you, we decide well in advance and just play games to get the people to go along...wel, who would you see as the biggest rogue nation in the world? Who would you see as the biggest threat? 7) So now we're not really combing the desert? Where do you get this jnfo? And even if you're right, we certainly were devoting a lot of time and resources to inding WMDs at one time...your interpretation of our decreased search effort is that we never really cared, despite everything we said. 1) That was what anti-war people said before the war, and tou called us conspiracy theorists who trust Saddam more than our own government, and 2) There are more likely interpretations...like we have already covered most of the most likely spots, and are losing hope... 8) Tree...you either aren't getting me, or aren't trying. WMDs was the primary reason...the others were secondary. Some of them do exist, or at least one of them. But think of it this way...even forgeting for a minute that WMD was the main argument...if we accpet your theory that it was a crossing of reasons that made Iraq the only tyrant we neede to address...if it was also the WMDs, the 9-11, etc...and you remove the others...you're not left with intersecting purposes, you're left with one: tyrant. There are several...so again, why Iraq? If it wasn't good enough then, it's not good enough now. 9) Rumsfeld believing it to be true, and having good reason for it to be true are tow different things. Tree...before the war, we had all kinds of people in diplomatic and intelligence circles resigning left and right, and the main reason they were doing so was because the administration was making it very well known that they weren't interested in genuine intel, only in intel that confirmed their position. Anyone whop knows anything about intel will tell you that that will ensure that you don't get accurate intel. So they only looked for intel that confirmed what they want...people protested, resigned, etc...and they ignored it...and now they are washing their hands claiming 'bad intel'!?!? And you're buying it!?!? 10) This " Why bury it if it isn't evidence' argument is really tired. We know for a fact, from several sources, that they his anything and everything that could be remotely construed as scientific because they knew that we were so desperate we'd make claims everywhere based on anything...and they were right. We know that they washed out E-Coli petrie dishes on that basis, for God's sake...and we even tried to make soemthing out of that...They didn't trust us to be fair...and we haven't been...why would this be aby different? 11) Evil is as evil does...if Hitler had lied to ensure a war with a much less powerfull country he wanted to and had already decided to fight, even when the world said not to, we would call that evil.
MacBeth - just got back from the bar, and am really interested, so I will answer your post. You took the time to type it, I'll take the time to reply. Tomorrow... This one requires thought, and as I said, just got back from the bar... I will answer it tomorrow, because I care enough to make the response to this one coherent. (just an aside) You know, there are times I'd like to throttle you and slap you upside the head, your ideas are just so ludicrous some times. But other times, I think we could pound down a few and really have an interesting conversation. You know, have a few dozen beers, argue politics until 4:55 in the morning, that sort of thing... One of these days I'll either drink with you or strangle you. Maybe. I guess...
tree...Unless you are on a Ray Milland kinda bender, I'm figuring you forogt about this...just a friendly reminder...
MacBeth: Please rejoin us in the real world. treeman never said he'd respond to you. That is a liberal, anti-war myth. Stop revising history, you historical revisionist. France is nice this time of year. 9/11. Newsweek reports 53% of Americans support Bush and 46% would like to see him re-elected. Landslide. 9/11.
At our instigation is a damn sign of an overstatement. Saddam had his own reasons for opposing a fundamentalist Iran. And although our cooperation with Iraq is undeniable, it was hardly exclusive. He dealt equally with the French (Exocets and Mirages) and the Soviets (notice US tanks are designated M-1, not T-whatever. Our planes, unlike the Iraqis, are not called MIGs, we do not produce Scuds nor Silkworms). Although we didn't apparently predict Saddam's invasion, your assertion that it equates into Kuwait knowing better is unsubstantiated. I would dare say the Kuwaitis had no damn idea either, since they seemed to be taken pretty much by suprise by it. No one has ever suggested that we ignored Kuwaiti warnings that Iraq was going to seize Kuwait. And regardless, this reminds me of the great quote someone posted awhile back: a reporter asks a Turkish woman what she thinks of the US. She says we are arrogant and should mind our own business. The reporter asks if she is afraid of Saddam being aggressive again in the region. She says no. He asks he why. She says: because the US would stomp on him if he invaded someone else. (paraphrasing)... And its hardly specious to argue that Saddam was a threat to his neighbors. YOU say you believed he would drive inevitably toward nuclear weapons. If you have a great argument about why that would make the Middle East a better place, please advance it. And how are our interventions relevant? Which interventions are you referring to? Wasn't Somalia a UN action? Wasn't Haiti a UN action? Wasn't the Gulf War a UN action? Are you saying that our 'attack' on Serbia to stop genocide somehow make us immoral, or incapable of assessing threats in the post Cold War world? I think if anything, we're taking threats MORE seriously than before 9/11, and although it may have bad effects, it overall is a good thing. Bush's position is easily charted. It has the potential to decrease the amount of realpolitik being played by both our allies and potential opponents. Hardly specious. I think maybe the point is that NOW we can react and recognize a looming threat when we see it. 9/11 HAS changed the public's conscious thought about foreign policy and potential threats. For instance, Joseph Bodansky wrote a book in 1993, right after the FIRST WTC attack, about the problems with the disparate systems the different agencies used to track incoming foreigners. He contended that these gaps in cross-coverage from the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, the Customs and INS, the DIA, the NSA...would lead to terrorists, whom we'd already identified as probable terrorists, coming through our own airports! Its in the literature. Foreign policy studies are certainly not without a wide and most varying opinion. So things changed with 9/11 indeed. NOW the public has made the conscious decision to give the Administration leeway to address these threats, or potential threats. Whereas Clinton was worried about relatively mild casualties in Somalia (ironically enough an intervention really the responsibility of Bush Sr), Bush has no such worries because the public considers the greater good and has decided this is the preferrable outcome. Oil shocks?
1) At the time of the Iraq/Iran war, we were far and away Saddam's primary supplier, advisor, and supporter. We haven't even tried to deny his assertions that we helped him conclude that invading Iran would be the way to go...and we told him that if he did we would support him. Which, if you look back to our vetoing of UN resolutions against Saddam's action, we did. Much of the weaponry you are citing came well after that conflict, or was re-routed through us. Look at a lot of what we provided the Afghanistanis when they were fighting the USSR...a lot of it was British, French, etc... No one has ever said we ignored warnings about the invasion of Kuwait!?!? People have said that we approved it, although I don't consider that proven one way or the other...but there was certainly a lot of available data to suggest it was coming. The conversation where Saddam may or may not have been given the rubber stamp from us re: the invasion occurred because of the very fact that many could see it coming. I agree that that Turkish woman sounded idiotic. What's your point? You think it's endemic, or exclusive to non-Americans? Would drive...attempt....pursue... I never said he would succeed. Given the UN mandates, as we have seen, that would be a very difficult task indeed. But this assumption that as soon as Saddam gets his hands on them he uses them is flawed. He has not demonstrated a willingness to commit suicide that way...For example, we know for a fact that he had WMD during Gulf War One...and didn't use them. Not even against Israel. We have been suggesting Doomsday whenever anyone who doesn't like us gets the bomb since Day One, but there is still only one country who actually has used them. It's relevent because of the claim. Saddam was put forth as an automatic threat to the region based on two aggressive actions in a time when we have had several, period. I did not say, nor will I , that his actions were more justified as ours, more, or the same. That is irrelevent to the point I was making. He cited reasons for his actions too...slant drilling, as I recall, for Kuwait. The point isn't whether or not our 'inrterventions' were relvent. The point is how can we call someone predisposed towards aggression when he has sat at home for the last 10 years while we haven't? I'm not even saying he isn't aggressive...I'm just saying it's not a given, especially not as a reason for invasion now...ten years since his second and last aggressive act which threatened the region. 2) Oh, I have no doubt that the public was more willing to rubber stamp 'pre-emptive or preventative' action now than before 9-11. I have no doubt that 9-11 has been used to justify just about anything. I just have seen absolutely no evidence of any connection between the threat we woke up to since 9-11, and invading Iraq, other than the fact that we used the one to justify the other. And as more and more leaks float out that Wolfowitz, Cheney et al had Iraq on the to do list before 9-11, and the fact that our attempts to connect those particular dots have proven fruitless, it becomes more and more apparent that 9-11 was merely the currency the administration spent to buy what they wanted. If it's all about 9-11, then why have we gotten sidetracked? When and how did Saddam replace Osama at the top of the bill? There are several countries we know were connected with 9-11...Iraq is not among them. Most of them remain on good diplomatic terms with the US, as we used some of them in our effort to fight the good fight...in Iraq...not connected to 9-11...allies connected....Iraq not....see the problem with the 9-11 changed everything defense? 3) Can you elaborate on oil shocks as a justification for invasion?
