Hey! As you are fond of saying, it's too early to tell! And at least if I'm wrong, it's just some dork on a baskeball message board. When Jr's wrong...well....people die...you know...
It's a fact that less Iraqis have died than did at Saddam's hand. Also that you fail to add the deaths that would have occured from sanctions which you can't minimize now that they're gone when you were oh so vocal about them before. Tisk, tisk. Remember you asked me to limit my evaluation and not speculate on the future, so I'll ask you do the same. No, that specific figure has been debunked repeatedly. Lol, elections by the Iraqi people to select their government. Is that hard to get? Yes, that IS self determination. Yes, you got me. YOU irk me, not your silly points. Look, there is a long and verifiable record of Saddam contributing to terrorism. Whether or not it merited, independently, the intervention is irrelevant. I do not make such a claim. You asked me to evaluate the benefits of the intervention. This is one. It is a benefit to be weighed. You saying it does NOT outweigh the costs does not remove it from the benefit column. Blah blah blah. You asked if I supported intervention for against all state sponsors of terror. I said no. The rest of this is irrelevant to that point. So shallow. No, I'm not joking. Sigh. That still puts the intervention up several hundred thousand Iraqis over the Status Quo. Accept that wasn't an option on the board. Continue containment or intervene. Those were the options. No intervention would have meant the continuation of the status quo - ie sanctions. Again you are mixing and matching. There has been a great opening of the process in Egypt with formerly banned parties now allowed on the ballots. As with the state sponsor of terrorism point, I never claimed it independently outweighed the cost of intervention, but it is one more benefit in the column to ultimately evaluate. Not that it lead to a hardliner victory in Iran, which is what you'd have to show to gain any traction. The Iranian nuclear program was already in full swing so that's a non-starter for you. You can add the actual impact of the increased terrorism action to your cost column insofar as you can draw causation to Iraq. You can't just say all terrorism increases are due to Iraq. For instance, violence by the PRC and Muslim separatists in the western provinces has nothing to do with Iraq, violence between Chechynians and Russians has nothing to do with Iraq, violence between Hindus and Muslims in India has nothing to do with Iraq. Further, you'd have to exclude the intervention in Afghanistan as the cause of the spike - of course you didn't support THAT intervention but it wasn't too popular in radical Muslim circles either. Again, sigh, I never said this was an all outweighing benefit. Only that it is a benefit as AQ is ceasing to be a functional entity. Its more akin to saying once the US entered the war Japan's expansion was countered in WWII. That does not mean I think it was great Pearl Harbor was attacked. Because despite you best attempts to marginalize me, I am not like TJ. My points are salient and have rational thought behind them. Nice try. So where are we in our assessment? We have the benefits I've listed out - we have the costs you've listed out. Your costs consist of (accurately) maybe 30,000 deaths in Iraq. Some spike in terrorism which you'll have to accurately quantify (good luck) and not much else. That's easily outweigh by the lifting of sanctions alone. You don't get to claim Iranian proliferation because IIRC you've been a staunch advocate of any country's right to proliferate. So you can hardly come back NOW and say that's a cost, lol. IIRC you even supported Saddam's right to have nukes. I don't think it's nearly as hard to marginalize your opinion, you do all the hard work.
I don't accept your "fact".. Apples to apples. How many Iraqis died during the last three years of Sadam vs. the first three years of invasion and occupation The sanction were wrong and you and your neocns buds fought to continue them I have done that. How many deaths during the lst three years? . I don't think so. Also deaths are growing at abut 100 per day that is 35,000 per year. If the 100k was wrong two years ago, it could be right now. I guess you don't want to elaborate on the novel theory that foreign occupation is self determination. I can understand avoiding the discussion of whether it merited the war. It did not. I admit Sadam had some involvement with terrorism. Most usually cited was giving charity to the widows and kids left by dead Palestinian suicide bombers. . I can understand your refusal to take into account the just war theory, international law or whether the factors you mention "outweigh the costs". . No, your mere statement devoid of cites or logic fails to make it so. . Oh so Bush and your ideological buds could start a war but had no power over the sanctions? It was just too hard, even though most countries of the world had been trying to eliminate them against US resistance. Of course we have the amusing case of Cheney lobbying against the sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton. . I can understand you not wanting to address the "worth it" or outweigh the costs issue. It was not. It has been alleged by experts, the very type that have proven to be right when the neocons, and the Bush Adminstration who you follow were wrong. They put it on hold and have just started again. I don't know why you cannot udnerstand the simple phenomena that when a country is under attack and threatened with war as Bush does, it leads them to develop weapons. Well actual terrorism by Al Qaeda in Iraq once the war allowed them into Iraq is clear. As to why there was a sudden increase in terrorism after the Iraq War. Strict causation is tough, but when you have the experts predicting it and then it happens. that is the best that can usually be done in social science. I agree, but you are getting pretty tangential here. I guess we could site terrorism by anti-Castro activists as not being caused by Iraq, too. The terrorism in Britain and Spain was caused by Iraq. My turn to sigh. You try to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda with 9/11 like Bush so often does. BTW Al Qaeda had its HQ in Afghanistan. True, you points are better than TJ,but you do have a tendency to try to just declare net victory instead of letting your points stand by themselves. Another example of how you constantly proclaim"victory". I guess TJ says: "owned"or he used to say " game,set,match" or somesuch. I must be nuts,but I enjoyed the game tonight.
I don't really think I need to accept your equation, but it'll be fun so let's see what happens. Even the most conservative estimate of Saddam's terror would admit he killed thousands, but probably not tens of thousands, each year - assuming there was no particular uprising etc. So in the spirit of our friendship let's say 2,500 a year. That's low IMO but hey, I'm a giver. So that's 7,500. Then let's add your sanctions figure, which would be approximately 75,000 a year (we'll cut the difference between 50 and 100,000). That's another 225,000 for a grand total of 232,500. Now we subtract your 100,000 (again I think that's bloated but I'm a giver so...). That leaves Iraq +132,500. Isn't math great! Oh wait, let's subtract your Spain and Madrid terrorism deaths too (to cover the bases). That's 192 in Spain + 56 in London, and let's add the 2,531 coalition troops deaths as well. So 232,500 minus 102,779 leaves us +129,721 for the three year period. So for your bodycount calculus, you are way behind, my friend. Lesser of two evils compared to your 'its ok with me if Saddam has nukes.' However, the morality of the sanctions isn't relevant to our evaluation of the costs/benefits of the intervention. Well, I can't make it an simpler for you than one sentence so I'm not sure how you want me to break it down for you. But hey, I'm a giver so here goes: Iraqis....are...picking...their...government. They...are...participating...in...the...elections...to...decide....who...their government...is... The....US...is...NOT...picking...their government... I'll put these together since its the same response. I am not avoiding the discussion I just don't think you're framing it properly. I don't say each of these benefits independently outweigh the total costs of the intervention. I say they together with each other outweigh the costs together of the intervention. Btw: international law is pretty pliable and the doctrine to remove a despot is a newer but generally recognized legitimate action under 'international law' (da da da dum). As for the Just War theory, if we let religion dictate what wars we were in, we'd be in a lot more of them, and they'd be a lot bloodier. If you'd like to start a particular thread about the Just War theory, however, I will engage you in it. Could have is not the question. Aliens could have come down and removed Saddam and given everyone in the Middle East a big batch of ice cream and everyone could have lived happily ever after. But that's not likely and its not relevant to our comparison of the intervention to the status quo. Hello? The IAEA and the EU have (in addition to the US) all come out and said Iran has been pursuing a SECRET nuclear program. Maybe you missed that because it was a secret, lol. More than likely they don't report that kind of stuff on anti-war.org. Look, I'm trying to be generous. I give you Madrid and London (although those could have happened anyway sans Iraq, I'm a giver, so...). Any other incident you'll have to quantify. I don't mean in a scientific lab sense of strict causality. I understand that would burden you so. I mean list out the impact and relate it to Iraq as we've done with London and Madrid. Er, Al Qaeda is fighting us in Iraq. What's the disagreement there? The people have turned against them. With me so far? That's a PR disaster for AQ. Following that? Well at least I get that much.
Murray Waas has another great piece in National Journal. This lengthy piece details how Karl Rove told the people at the White House that President Bush's 2004 reelection prospects would be severely damaged if the truth came out about what he knew about the bogus uranium story -- particularly, the fact that he'd personally been warned that the Niger story was probably bunk. Here's what I can add to this story. We saw this and the cover-up it spawned first hand. While I and reporters from CBS were working on this story through 2004 it was clear that folks on the Hill would agree to talk and then suddenly un-agree when they got the call from the White House. The White House worked doggedly at almost every turn to get the story killed or delayed beyond the election, which they of course did. That's not all. Various arms of the US government actually have been trying or at least been interested in trying to get to the bottom of the story. But that will the cooperation of the Italian government. And that, of course, is not likely to be forthcoming since at least some elements in the Italian government are responsible for or participated in the scam. The problem? The Bush administration has not lifted a finger to get the Italians to cooperate. That's the hang-up. Why wouldn't they want the Italian government to cooperate with US law enforcement and intelligence agencies on getting to the bottom of this? Go back and read Waas's description of Rove's analysis -- the Niger case was kryptonite for the president. The cover-up on this one is deep. Really deep. And much of it has yet to be uncovered. -- Josh Marshall
Conyers Calls on the President to Publish the Hadley Memo Congressman John Conyers today called on president Bush to make publicly available a memo submitted to him by Stephen Hadley in October 2002. This memo clearly explained to the president that the Departments of State and Energy both rejected White House claims that Iraq was seeking materials to build a nuclear weapon. This is a very important document revealing the administration's efforts to build a case for war based on Iraq's nuclear threat to our country when overwhelming evidence disputed this claim. The text of the letter follows: Dear Mr. President: I write to ask that you release publicly an October 2002 memorandum that informed you that the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with assessments that Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons materials. The memorandum was submitted to you by then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Throughout the past several years, you have claimed frequently that Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. In fact, during your 2003 State of the Union Address, you stated, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Shortly after this speech, the United States invaded Iraq, but no nuclear weapons materials have been located. According to National Journal, you were aware prior to the 2003 State of the Union that Iraq did not possess such materials. In summarizing a National Intelligence Estimate for you in October 2002, Mr. Hadley noted that, while many agencies believed the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons." In short, these two intelligence agencies disagreed with your State of the Union assertion. I am certain you would agree that, as we enter the fourth year of the invasion, it is important for the American people to understand exactly what set of circumstances led to your authorization of military action. For that reason, I ask that you release Mr. Hadley's memorandum. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_Conyers_Calls_on_President_to_0330.html
We still don't know whether the outcome was a result of groupthink or just plain lying. I think everyone has to conceed at this point that there was a mountain of evidence that some of these assertions were not the case (aluminum tubes, yellow cake etc).
I don't think that's necessarily an either/or. I suspect groupthink led to lying and the perpetuation of the lies led to a stricter groupthink which demanded more lies. I know if you mention Nazis in relation to this administration, you get creamed for it, but I have to say the language and the justifications and the ways of thinking you see coming out of the Nuremberg documents are, in my mind, way to close for comfort to what we're learning about this administration. That's not to say that those in this administration are Nazis, rather, it is to say that whenever a group becomes infatuated with autocracy or at least starts leaning that way, the slippery slope becomes evident. Even if it is an either/or and even if you believe Bush was badly served by those in his employ, it's still the President's fault... He has to have enough knowledge and curiosity to call BS. He never did. I hope this forever kills the appeal of the "Delegating" President who, while he may not be the brightest guy, knows how to make decisions and surround himself with good people. I want my President to be smart (I don't mind if he's smarter than me... that's a good thing) and I want him to ask questions and I want him to have enough intelligence so that he does not fall under the influence of some clever underling.
Via Josh... I've said all along we'll be extraordinarily lucky if in 25 years we have a relationship with Iraq like we currently have with Vietnam.
