Seven Simple Questions For Those Who Supported The War.

1) Okay, we may actually be able to find some common ground here. You are admiting that the argument as presently put forth ( that WMD were not the causi belli) is insubstantial, but claim that you think that there was good cause aside from that, just not made pre-war. I disagree, but at least we agree on something. Now, are you willing to admit that it is inconsistent with a responsible government to mislead them into war, even of you feel that there are other valid causes to go to war, just not ones that the people would support? Are you not afraid of the precedent this sets? If we excuse the government lying to us about going to war, what can we not excuse of them?

As for the justification aside from the case made pre-war, we both know where we stand on that.


2) After the fact was in reference to the pro-war argument as a whole, not necessarily you in particular. But I would state that I recall you slighting what you felt was my ivory tower position on the war by claiming that I was risking us being nuked to stand up for my ideals. That said, yes I felt that it was probable that Saddam had WMDs. My arguments wasn't based on the probablity that he didn't, but on the difference between probablity that he did and certainty that he did, coupled with the standard needed to 'unwake the sleeping sword of war. ' There were other objections; our evident rush to war, our unwillingness to reveal our basis for our claims, as in 9-11 connection, ect. But in terms of WMD, my argument waa that the argument against Saddam having them, as opposed to, say , Israel, was that he had agreed in treaty with the UN to not have them, and that in that same treaty the UNSC was designated as the body which would determine breach, degree of breach, and consequence of breech. As such, we now stand in breach as much as Iraq ever did, probably more, by superceding the authority on this matter we agreed to in the same treaty.

3) Will stopping genocide stand the test of time everywhere it is practiced, or only in those lands that have possessions and/or strategic position we covet? Will administrative lying to the people to get wars it wants done stand the test of time as well?

4) As said, not our area of pervue, the UN's...and which one of us now seems likely to have been advocating the wisest position, on the issue of WMD alone? Us or the UN? ANd , again, as the NIE report states, not even our opinion, merely the conclusion of the war bent White House.

 

1) Obviously I disagree that there was ample justifucation for the war...ample reason to want to do something, yes, but that exists throughout the world. If we don't get involved from now on, throughout the rest of the world, in places like Liberia, it gives a lot of weight to the arguments that we had less than noble ulteriro motives which made Iraq such an urgent priority. If you approve of the invasion of Iraq for humantiarian reasons...if you feel that it was so compelling that it demanded/justified our actions involved, including turning world support into world antipathy, etc...does it stand to follow that you fully support the US now comitting troops and funding to all the humantarian tragedies throughout the world, especially those much worse than Iraq, like the Congo, Liberia, etc.? Stands to reason, no?


And if the causes were made pre-war, can you re-phrase your answer to question one to incompass that feeling?



2) I think it's pretty clear that the people weren't supporting the war...there were several polls, and all of them showed the same thing. Yes, it is possible to conclude that the people might have come to approve the war, but highly unlikely, and what is more it is clear that the administration didn't think it would happen if they felt the need to do what they did. What is more, I don;t think that the administration deserves that extreme benfit if the doubt, as their actions happened at a time when the support wasn't there, and saying that it's too bad for them that we'll never know how it might have turned out otherwise is akin to suggesting a mugger should be given the benefit of the doubt about keeping the mone he stole because it's possible that his victim might have given it to him had he not mugged him.

To seperate the 'intervention' and Bush is impossible, in that no one...no one..was talking Iraq or invasion until Bush took it out of the fridge and out it on the front burner, and the secondary reasons you are sighting, the non 9-11 or WMD arguments, had been in place for decades without anyone doing anything to stop it; what makes you think, at all, that this long standing issue would suddenly have lead us to war? 9-11 changed the world again?


3) I agree that you sighted my ivory tower argument regarding our disagreement over proliferation as well, I was eeven going to pre-emot this response by mentioning it in my last post but didn't, but you also said it with reference to not acting in Iraq and the threat they posed.

And what the hell do you have to be pissed off about; I was paraphraseing your criticism of me, not infering any special status of mine...you were the one who told me I was too concerned with ideals and not enough with reality. And I have never written them off, I have said that the price is too high and the motivation is too suspect the way we went about it.

4) Bosnia wasn't a situation which had clearly set parameters which we had agreed to, as Iraq did.

5) I was being serious, to a degree. Any of those countries, and many more, would have benefits were we to invade them, but it is hoped that they wouldn't be supported because they lack cause. Same here. And I ask again, in 100 years will we have gotten involved wherever humanitarian causes exist, or merely where we have coinciding interests? Becuase, as I have said repeatedly, the British, Romans, Athenians etc. have all done the other route before...I know, I know, we're different; we're just going in, getting Sdaam out, and leaving...right? Or are we setting up 'favorable' trade conditions, a system of government we want them to have rather than what they want to have, and using their land as a base of operations to extend our influence in the area? Yeah, sounds completely non-Imperial to me.


Are you going to answer the other questions? Is anyone?