Actually, that is correct. I didn't see WMD, so I saw no need for war. Apprently your rose colored glasses saw something different than me. W never justified this war as a war against "weapons they're not supposed to have." It was billed as a WMD war. A lot of countries have "weapons they're not supposed to have" but that doens't mean we wage war on them. So again. SCOREBOARD. No WMD. For the 800th time, I'm not disputing he broke sanctions. I'm disputing if the sanction he broke justified going to war.
You keep repeating this but its really not true. WMD, you could argue, is the reason that swayed the public the most. I probably wouldn't disagree with that. But it certainly wasn't the ONLY justification, as you assert. Part of the War on Terror Genocidal dictator Democracy in the Middle East Those were also justifications for the war. If you look at the 'scoreboard' Removal of dictator - check Democratic change in iraq - check Removal of state sponsor of terror - check Failure to find WMD - oops. That's 3-1 = war justified. Add to it: Removal of sanctions - check Removal of inevitable WMD threat - check Now its 5-1 = war justified
Yes, but their are dictators all over the world. Saudia Arabia is a dictatorship too. Oh, on the genecidal part, that was OVER 20 YEARS AGO. Yes, it was bad but I don't see how that played into justifying a war 3 decades later. Maybe this is good enough for you but isn't even close for me. Well worded. Change, granted. Was it positive? Debatable. Lets look back in 30 years and talk again. It is WAAAAYYYYY too soon to declare a winner here. I saw on the news last night that the inevitable appointee to Prime Minister lived in Iran and has direct links back to terrorist groups. If this is true, do you still give this one a check? Time will tell. In the meantime, people are dying. There has been no hard facts EVER to substantiate this claim. W made this claim but at best, it is shady. Sadaam was a secular dictator which means he cannot tolerate an Islamic militant state. He was an enemy to the terrorists. So definate NO CHECK on this one. Thanks for finally giving us a shred of admission on this. Unfortunately for your argument, this minor "oops" as you call it was the primary reason provided to America. This is not just opps. WMD is a biggy. It should be weighed more than your other points. But I'll play your game. The only one of your justifications that I count as a possible score is the democracy part...but as I said...the jury is still out on that one. So That's .5 - 3.5 = war NOT justified.
Saddam used chemical weapons over 20 years ago? I thought he used them after the Gulf War against the Kurds in the 1990's. You are also implying that Saddam wasn't killing people continously in the last 20 years. The mass graves, I think, disprove that. Also, let me ask you this. Was going into Yugoslavia a legal action? Millocovic (sp) didn't attack the US. Nor did he threaten the US nor any of his neighbors outside of Yugoslavia. He wasn't involved with WMDs. I'm also pretty sure that Millosovic was legally elected (as opposed to Saddam's rigged elections). Was that war un-justified? Not to mention it is an example of the US "freeing" a people. See? It's not just Saddam.
How is that relevant? If we remove one dictator we must simultaneously remove them ALL? That, my friend, is more spurious and really...stupid analysis. The fact that there are other dictators in the world doesn't not invalidate the advantage or desirability of removing THIS one. Gee, don't think so. Saddam continued to kill thousands of Iraqis a year. And EVEN IF you were right, what difference does it make? You aren't correct, but if Pol Pot was still alive, should we not move to remove him? You're entitled to your opinion, as I've said before. And? Yes, and? Do you think democratic change is bad? Do you think it is MORE desirable that a despot sits in power it Iraq? You can throw out your silly 'what could be's' all you want, but take a stand - would it be better that Iraqis decide who rules, or would it be better that a despot rules? TAKE A STAND. I, for one, feel its better that the Iraqis decide. They couldn't overthrow Saddam, his aparatus was too strong (see Shiite uprising in '91). He was an artificial impediment to Iraqis deciding who would rule. We removed that impediment. That is good in my book. You think its bad. You are wrong. Sorry, chief. Its fact that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. Oh, wait, you mean a sponsor of Al Queda? Yep, but luckily - or because I'm smarter than you, I never indicated Al Queda. Iraq was clearly a sponsor of terrorists organizations. If you need proof - Mango? Well, its not just opps. That's true. However, what is our essential question? Is it 'was the intervention in Iraq justified?' or is it 'was the intervention in Iraq justified properly?' I will grant the second, it was not justified properly either through incompetance or deceit (we don't really know which). But that leaves the first, to which to clear answer is YES. It was justified. Sorry dude, you lose. As explained above. Give it to us and show me I'm wrong. You got quicksand under you and you're sinking, so I look forward to crushing you further. btw: to determine that the intervention was NOT justified, you'd still have to overcome the deaths caused by sanctions, which continued containment would exaccerbate, and the fact that 9/11 was caused by US troops in SA (Part of that containment policy necessitated by Saddam's presence). Good luck, chump.
For starters, your posts are childish. In this installment, you resort to name calling. We may differ in opinion but that doesn't give you grounds to "try" to belittle people. As a result, this will be my last reply to you. It seems we differ on some fundamental issues and the great part about America, is that is okay...but if you start insulting people...then you are wasting my time. Exactly, how is removing one worldwide dictator relevant? I am not debating if he was a bad man. But what were the true motives for removing this one? I question the motives. If the motives were impure, then using the "we removed a dictator" justification is VERY VERY weak, IMO. Again, if you're happy with that...good for you. The mass killings where he used chemical agents was over 20 years ago. Yes, it was bad. But again, I question the motives. It is a weak argument for me to use a 25 year old excuse. Again, if you are happy with that, good for you. Did I say democratic change is bad? Take a stand? Okay, it is nice to see oppressed people have a change to vote. But I'm saying the place is a rats nest over there. I can easily see things get better...but I can also easily see things get worse. If they get worse, then this war was clearly flawed. Maybe the intentions were good but the execution stinks. End result is the same. If you aren't prepared, then you are better off not going in at all. Fact is, we didn't (and still don't) have an exit strategy and they already admitted they underestimated the situation. We weren't prepared. Smarter, huh, chief? Since 9/11, wasn't our "enemy" Al Queda? Sadaam didn't support Al Queda in any way. So if you are happy with our president indiscrimenantly picking out new enemies on a whim, then that is your right. Me? I'd rather we stay focused. This war so far exceeded $200 billion dollars (when they told us it would only be $1.5 billion and they don't even bother to include it in the budget). And for what, chasing a fictional enemy? Yes, he lied to us. You guys give Clinton a hard time about a blow job and you gloss this over? Nice. Now who should be impeached if your worried about national security...not sexual insecurity. The term justified is a subjective term. I think you and I have rooted that out. You are apparently happy to send American troops to get killed in a country that did not pose an immenant threat to America. Now we have N Korea and Iran brewing and those folks may turn out to be true threats. Unfortunately, our military resources are stretched thin and W is now a lame duck president with limited ability to wage war, if necessary. WMD. Your wrong. Your crushed. Chump? Nice. I can see how compasionate you are about your fellow man. And I am supposed to beleive that you are truely interested in the welfare in middle-easterners half-way accross the world. Once you learn some respect, we can resume our talks about the $200 billion humanitarian endeavors in Iraq. We are going in circles now and you are resorting to name calling. I'm out.
Your choice. Later. How is it relevant? Removing him is good. Simple. Your counter was that we aren't removing all the other dictators in the world. My response is that failing to remove the other dictators doesn't invalidate the value of removing Saddam. You are hung up on prewar motivation. I am evaluating the question 'is the intervention justified.' As such, removing a dictator is a plus in that column, not a negative - regardless of the motivations - which you cannot possibly prove conclusively making it a exercise in futility. We CAN evaluate whether or not it was good to remove Saddam. Wrong. Saddam continued to kill thousands a year. That is a fact. He killed thousands of Shiites in the '91 uprising which wasn't 25 years ago either, just to prove conclusively that your timeframe is wrong. Now they have a choice. That's good (see - check - above). We agree, great. If your position is that we SHOULD NOT have intervened, then you cut against your own admission that having democratic change is GOOD. Blah blah blah. We weren't as prepared as we should have been. Granted. You can speculate that its going to get worse, fine. I can speculate its going to get better. We'll have to wait and see. As of right now they have a voice in their government, before they didn't. If you want to slam Bush, go ahead. That doesn't affect the question 'is the intervention justified,' but rather as I said before whether 'the intervention was justified properly (pre-intervention). Never said Saddam was connected to Al Queda. But its the War on Terror, not the war on Al Queda, last I checked. That war has many fronts, including state sponsors of terror. Iraq was one. Now they aren't. Isn't that good? Yes. Further, now we have AQ engaged in Iraq and while an urban environment is not the BEST place to fight them (better on an open plain - but we'd never get that), there are several advantages to this. One is that if the local population turns against them, as seems to be happening, they will lose legitimacy within their drawing pool. The Iraqis don't want us there, but they don't want AQ there either. They will be the first place to stand up and say 'no, we don't want you crazies here and we don't want your vision of a Taliban like state.' Another is that they are engaged in Iraq instead of in flying planes into buildings here. Sorry slick, I never gave Clinton a hard time 'cause I'm not a Republican. So easy for you to lump me in as a way to avoid real discussion. I voted for Clinton, doofus. And for Gore (or I would have but I was in NY and he was going to win NY anyway). It just goes to show how immune you are to opposing views. Everyone that is for the intervention is a Bush Neocon Yankee Imperialist Dog. Try again. Uh, yes. That's why we have discussions about it. You fail to address whether or not the intervention is justified, preferring to concentrate on the 'was it justified properly.' I think that's silly because the answer is obviously 'no' it wasn't. Does that help us now? Does it answer the more important question of whether or not the intervention was/is good? No. Happy is slanderous and unnecessary. I agree that sending US troops to Iraq was good. It removed a genocidal dictator, gave Iraqis a voice in their own goverment, removed a state sponsoring terror, removed sanctions that apparently were killing lots of Iraqis, among other advantages. It also is the first step to removing US troops from SA, THE main cause of 9/11. Those are all good things. Ah, the circle completes itself. So would you advocate military action against Iran and NK? If we weren't 'stretched thin,' that is? I doubt it so this is simply a big red herring for you to throw out. If Bush had NOT gone into Iraq but NOW said we should strike Iran and NK would you support Bush? C'mon, your arguments simply implode on you. As I've said, there are plenty of other reasons - which I've elaborated on with no substantive response from you - above. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe. I've made substantive arguments about why the intervention IS justified and you've done an incredibly poor job refuting them. I'm not trying to convince YOU, but rather to balance out the opinions on the board so that someone interested in weighing perspectives can see the reasons to conclude as I do.
Fine. It wasn't justified properly. Bottom line...he lied. As a result, I don't trust his motives and therefore the remaining justifications you provide hold no wieght for me. I'm glad your happy with it, however. We spent a crap load of money and are now being told we don't have enough for SS. Nice. My only hope is that the Iraqi people turn out okay. I fear that it won't. What is up with the insults? Geeze dude, I see why you support the war when you can't even hold a conversation without espousing hatred.
Well, did he lie or did he believe it? Either way you continue ONLY to address whether or not the war was justified properly pre-intervention. I am addressing whether or not the war is justified. IF you are right about the first, and really I'll grant that, it DOES NOT MEAN the answer to the second question is also NO. They are not dependent on each other. OK, we can weigh out whether or not removing a dictator, a genocidal despot, removing sanctions, removing a state sponsor of terror etc is more important (ie worth more) than addressing SS. Even then, of course, you would have to show that Bush WOULD fix SS had he not gone to Iraq - good luck. This is really a non starter for you. My hope as well. I hope you're wrong. Well, there's no hate - so I'm sorry you take it that way. I look at it more as banter, but since you're curious I'll give you some insight into what YOUR rhetoric looks like. Then come back and tell me that you give nothing but kindly analysis and concern for your fellow posters. Fair enough? A sampling of krosfyah's comments: ----------------------------------------------------- 'In typical Neocon style, you pinned him to the mat on a technicality.' '...in the context of an adult conversation. Technically, yes it does but doing so is, well, childish.' 'I can't beleive you actually want to argue about this. Talk about fighting for a losing cause.' 'Can your dad beat up my dad too?' 'But quit lying to yourself' 'I don't think there is some grand conspiracy by the Liberal Left trying to define "cooperation."' 'I'm happy for you that you feel good about the token gestures' 'I was making a joke about you making a childish comment..' 'As they say in sports....SCOREBOARD SCOREBOARD.' 'But at least oil companies are trading high on Wallstreet.' 'Apprently your rose colored glasses saw something different than me.' 'For starters, your posts are childish' 'You guys give Clinton a hard time about a blow job' -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now explain to us how those comments are descriptive rather than pejorative.
I expect more from you HS. Your take is clearly superficial. No one can argue that the primary reason GWB stated for going to war with Iraq was WMD. No one. The other reasons which were given like "freeing the Iraqi people" were significantly emphasised after the occupation started with the context that WMDs were not being readily found. Some of us said before the war (and more said after the war) that GWB was using WMD as the pretext for his decision to go to war. It is clear to me that GWB sold the war on the black and white issue of WMD, while privately having other reasons. GWB, "Mr. Nuance", coughed out a whole bunch of reasons for the invasion. Kerry had it at 22 or 23 reasons. Were we all left to find the handful of the 22/23 reasons that worked for us? Is this how a responsible leader of the free world should behave? To put a little prespective on this, GWB broke international law (making him an international war criminal) by starting a "preemptive" war with Iraq. GWB even made the point of not using the "imminent threat" rationale for the war. Without imminent threat, there can be a preventive war (clear violation of international law) but not be a preemptive war. GWB might have been able to skate on this very thin ice if he did find WMD. (BTW I am not suggesting that GWB should stand trial for his war crimes.) Here is my Iraqi scorecard. Pluses: sanctions were lifted non-UNSC approved no-fly zones were removed and Saudi bases closed Saddam is out of power democracy Iraqi style (optimitistically in the plus column for now) Minuses: 500,000+ Iraqi children under the age of 5 killed by the sanctions 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed by the occupation forces no WMD and with it the loss of confidence in US intellegence and world political leadership an active political insurgency bad blood with old allies: France and Germany $200+ billion 1500+ soldier deaths an uncertain exit strategy redirecting War On Terror resources toward Iraq Abu Ghraib prison scandal (terrorist recruiting tool for decades to come) We have paid a heavy price in terms of money and lives. In 20 or so years when we are able to look back and see if the Iraqi War was really worth it, I am guessing that there may not be a consensus opinion (at best or a negative consensus at worst)
Gee, thanks. I disagree. He offered many reasons, on that we agree. WMD appears to be what swayed the US public, agreed. As I said before, as there was no one that would content Saddam was bad, democratic choice for Iraqis were good, state sponsorship of terrorism is bad, etc there was not much need to emphasize those reasons. They CERTAINLY were articulated pre-intervention however. Agreed. This only feeds my argument above. If you want to castigate him for his failure/lying (whichever it truly is) on WMDs, feel free. I thought there were WMDs. I was wrong. That doesn't invalidate the position that the intervention was justified. No, he is not a war criminal. Yes, there is international law doctrine allowing for intervention to remove genocidal dictators. The 500,000 (or 1 million if you believe some sources) dead children goes in the PLUS column. No sanctions from the intervention halts this process. Containment (or non-intervention) clearly advocates the continuation of this policy. This is a plus in the intervention column. The 100,000 figure is disputable but even if you give it full force it is less than Saddam has killed and less than he would have killed in the future - again this is a plus in the intervention column. The removal of the need for Saudi bases, removal of sanctions, and (hopefully) democratic change in Iraq all cut against possible terrorist gains with Abu Ghrab (admittedly a bad thing). Redirect War on Terror towards Iraq is a good point but we are now engaged with AQ IN Iraq so is arguable that we brought them to us rather than chasing shadows in the Afghan hills. Loss of leadership cred and alliance strength is relatively small in impact. Kyoto, ABM Treaty etc all also caused these effects and we continue to see cooperation on every front but Iraq. Minuses: 1500 troops dead 100,000 Iraqis dead 200+ billion in money spent Pluses: Removal of genocidal dictator Removal of inevitable WMD threat Democratic change in Iraq Removal of sanctions saving millions or at least 100s of thousands Removal of a state sponsor of terror Bringing AQ onto the battlefield Yes, a heavy price indeed. No one is denying that. But the benefits are quantifiable now, and there are possible benefits on the horizon. For instance if democratic change DOES stabilize in Iraq, and they reject the insurgency - that is a HUGE blow against AQ and terrorism in general. If the Muslim population THERE of all places, rejects the insurgency - AQ's recruiting could dry up completely. Your assessment of the best possible outcome is skewed, to say the least.
the point is that we did not need to go. you say you thought there were WMD, but the inspectors told us differently. this administration rushed to war using deceptive propaganda to pursue a course of nation building. i don't believe the ends, which are far from clear, justify the means. time will tell if any lasting good occurs from this. current events elsewhere in the region are encouraging, but i am not holding my breath.
Need is relative. We didn't 'need' to go to Bosnia or Kosovo, but it was the right thing to do. We didn't 'need' to go to Rwanda, and we didn't, but we should have. Besides, if 9/11 was in great part a response to our bases in Saudi (which is what AQ says) then we did 'need' to go to Iraq. Continuing containment of Saddam was NOT a desirable course of action.
The 500,000 (or 1 million if you believe some sources) dead children goes in the PLUS column. Really? I am sure that their parents disagree with that assessment. For instance if democratic change DOES stabilize in Iraq, and they reject the insurgency - that is a HUGE blow against AQ and terrorism in general. If the Muslim population THERE of all places, rejects the insurgency - AQ's recruiting could dry up completely. Hmmm. I suspect that the most likely outcome of a Iraqi democracy is a theological democracy run by the Shiites. Thus, it will be only a matter of time before an Iraqi democracy is at odds by the US. I also suspect at some point that the Shiites will run a Sunni genocide campaign to stop the Sunni insurgents. The WH is probably tossing around euphemisms for genocide as we speak. Right now, I believe nothing that the WH is saying about Iraq or Militant muslim groups. They have no credibility. From what analysis that I have read, the insurgents have common goal but not common motives. Likewise not all terrorists are 100% aligned with AQ. A politically stable Iraq will allow the US forces to leave. The Islamic fundamentalistic terrorists will lose their enemy in Iraq and likely go home. The Sunni terrorists will then be waiting to be purged. I do not see how this will be a huge blow for AQ's (and like organizations) recruitment. The US will still p*ss them off; it is just that they will no longer be conveninetly located in Iraq. BTW, you should not underestimate the power of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. If Iraqi insurgents published photos of US soldiers of a sexually explicit nature. Can you imagine the hatred that those pictures would inspire in the average US citizen (not to mention the conservative US citizens)? Do you think this hatred would easily go away?
I think what he meant was that removing Saddam got the sanctions lifted and, therefor, puts and end to children dying because of them. I don't know where you stand, but, IMO, the kids dying from sanctions lies squarly on Saddam's shoulders. He's the guy that could have had them lifted by cooperating properly and he's the guy that chose to spend oil-for-food money on palaces instead of his people and he's the guy that used his people's suffering as a PR tool to sway world opinion to his side. If you have a problem with people dying from the sancions then blame Saddam. There was a program in place to help the people (oil-for-food) but Saddam abused it and the UN criminals who took those bribes are equally to blame. Iraq with Saddam was clearly a mess that was not going to get better (and probably worse if Saddam and his UN conspiritors had their way). At least now Iraq is a mess that has the opportunity to get better.
