Another Iraqi war discussion

[SezMe]

So... Japan was a threat to our Navy, but not to us?

C'mon, Art, there is NO analogy between a foreign nation taking offensive action against the USA with the intent of invading and conquering and a anti-aircraft missiles being shot from their own country at foreign aircraft overhead. There is a much closer analogy between that comment and a big steaming pile.

 

[This Guy]

It seems to me that if you want to respond to my posts in another thread, you should link to that thread, or at the least give the context of my comments.

My bad. Here - This is the continuation of an off topic discussion that started in this thread.

(Art, if you know how to actually link to the post I'm responding to in the OP, please do so. I don't know how.)

It's not reasoning, it's a claim.

Ahh! OK. You claim those are the options. I disagree then

And what if Saddam had acted like he had acted every single other time? If you threaten to attack someone if they don't do something, and they don't do it, then you have two choices: attack, or surrender the point. Simply threatening again is pointless.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his Government was actively attempting to meet the request of the inspectors, right up to the time that Bush made the ultimatum that prompted the UN to pull the inspection teams out, for fear of their safety.

He was habitually performing the action of interfering, hence it is accurate to say that he was interfering.

He was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his people were assisting. It is a lie to claim that at the time Bush gave his ultimatum, Saddam was interfering with the inspections. At best it can be said that his assistance was less than hoped for, though from Hans Blix's report to the UN just over a month before the invasion, it appears to me that Iraq's assistance was getting better and better as the inspections progressed.

I already made it clear that I applied the label merely to a position that you held, not to you.

Fine. So you made a pointless statement. No problem. I do that all the time

You made your comment about countries in general, not Iraq in particular.

I think taken in context of the thread, it's quite clear that I was talking about the war in Iraq.

Israel (he was sponsoring Palestinian terrorism), Iran, the US, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

Please explain the US threat from Iraq, and back it up with links. How do the others justify our invasion. (I question the threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, after our first trip to Iraq)

It means that you aren't criticizing Bush's decision to invade, you're criticizing his decision to stay and try to restore order.

Your statement means you have apparently ignored most of what I have said. Please explain how we would be in a position to HAVE to restore order, had we not gone in and caused the dis-order.

You're begging the question.

Please explain

I have already explained how it does. Do you have a response?

Other than I can't seem to come to the same conclusion you did, no.

Why are you two ignoring the fact that he specifically said that that is not enough to justify invasion?

I believe I answered that in my reply to him.

The UN authorized the US to attack Iraq. A cease fire was agreed upon, and the terms were not fulfilled. That authorizes the US to terminate the cease fire.

Really? Then why did Kofi Annan say - "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."

No, one only need argue that there is a good basis for the decision. When a wife beater is put in jail, society may very well be worse off. Taxpayers are worse off for having to pay the costs of imprisoning him. He's worse off for being imprisoned. The wife may be worse off for not having any income. Just because everyone ends up worse off doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yea, that certainly applies to the Iraq situation! lol

OK we can't ignore the difference between one family's plight caused by the bread winner being placed in jail, to the effect a war has on the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions. We're talking the difference in a family receiving food stamps, and the deaths of thousands! Sorry, no comparison can be made there.

I don't get that logic. Since it had been years since Pearl Harbor, did Pearl Harbor not justify attacking the home islands?

If you can't make the distinction between Pearl Harbor and Iraq, we may have problems with this discussion

If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony.

UN Resolution does not equal "nothing".

I didn't categorize his post, I categorized a position he seemed to hold.

To what end? What purpose was hoped to be achieved by doing so?

So... Japan was a threat to our Navy, but not to us?

Once again, Pearl Harbor does not equal Iraq (in SO many ways!)

BTW, I corrected a couple tiny spelling errors for ya. But We'll keep that between us

 

[This Guy]

Just a little FYI

I've been on vacation these past 9 days or so. It's over now, and I get the pleasure boggled: ) of returning to work tonight.

My responses may be a bit sporadic.

Because of some personnel changes being made (loosing the Supervisor I've had backing me up for a couple years now, and breaking in a new one) I may not even have another full day off for awhile after this week.

 

[Art Vandelay]

My bad. Here - This is the continuation of an off topic discussion that started in this thread.

(Art, if you know how to actually link to the post I'm responding to in the OP, please do so. I don't know how.)

At the very top of this post, you should see the phrase "originally posted by This Guy" followed by a red arrow. The red arrow is a link to your post. It's automatically created by quoting your post. If you quote this post, you'll see "[quote=Art Vandelay;" followed by a number; that's the post number, and can be used to link to this post. Also, if you click on the "link" button on the bottom of the post, a window will appear with a link to the post.

 

[This Guy]

At the very top of this post, you should see the phrase "originally posted by This Guy" followed by a red arrow. The red arrow is a link to your post. It's automatically created by quoting your post. If you quote this post, you'll see "quote=Art Vandelay;" followed by a number; that's the post number, and can be used to link to this post. Also, if you click on the "link" button on the bottom of the post, a window will appear with a link to the post.

Ahh! So, actually, anyone wanting context only had to click on the little red arrow beside where it says - "Originally Posted by Art Vandelay" in the OP.

I see.

Thanks

 

[Art Vandelay]

C'mon, Art, there is NO analogy between a foreign nation taking offensive action against the USA with the intent of invading and conquering and a anti-aircraft missiles being shot from their own country at foreign aircraft overhead. There is a much closer analogy between that comment and a big steaming pile.

Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his Government was actively attempting to meet the request of the inspectors, right up to the time that Bush made the ultimatum that prompted the UN to pull the inspection teams out, for fear of their safety.

Saddam had made similar moves in the past.

It is a lie to claim that at the time Bush gave his ultimatum, Saddam was interfering with the inspections.

I have already explained how it is not. It is a lie to say the Paris Hilton is now sleeping in prison? Or that Kiefer Sutherland is now portraying Jack Bauer?

I think taken in context of the thread, it's quite clear that I was talking about the war in Iraq.

If you were talking specifically about Iraq, rather than referring to a general principle, then it makes even less sense, as you are saying that we should not have invaded Iraq,.. because we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

Please explain

You start with the premise that the invasion was unjustified, and conclude that it was wrong.

Really? Then why did Kofi Annan say - "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."

How is that a counterargument?

OK we can't ignore the difference between one family's plight caused by the bread winner being placed in jail, to the effect a war has on the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions.

I’m not discussing the effects, I’m discussing the principle. There are considerations other than the direct effects.

UN Resolution does not equal "nothing".

Huh? That makes no sense.

 

[This Guy]

Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

Did they, or did they not launch an attack on US property within the territory of the US?

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.

Saddam had made similar moves in the past.

Yes, and we didn't attack him when he wasn't allowing the inspections. So by what logic is an attack while he WAS allowing inspections justified?

I have already explained how it is not. It is a lie to say the Paris Hilton is now sleeping in prison? Or that Kiefer Sutherland is now portraying Jack Bauer?

OK, one of us is missing something. The fact is that until Bush's ultimatum inspections were in progress. Right or wrong?

If they were in progress, then how can saying Saddam was interfering with the inspections at the time of the invasion be anything except a lie, or a statement from ignorance?

If you were talking specifically about Iraq, rather than referring to a general principle, then it makes even less sense, as you are saying that we should not have invaded Iraq,.. because we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

I was responding to one of your leftist remarks, remember? Let me refresh your memory -

"Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, counts. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi's have died, and are dieing.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title."

You start with the premise that the invasion was unjustified, and conclude that it was wrong.

Well, that sounds about right to me. Can something not be unjustified, and wrong?

But, again, I was responding to one of your leftist remarks. Reminder time again

"To cause the deaths of thousands that would have otherwise been alive, while conducting an unjustified, ill-planned war is wrong. I don't see where politics figures into it. And that is my opinion of the war."

How is that a counterargument?

Hmm.. Let me think a bit here. How can the Sec. Gen. of the UN saying our invasion of Iraq was illegal counter -

"The UN authorized the US to attack Iraq. A cease fire was agreed upon, and the terms were not fulfilled. That authorizes the US to terminate the cease fire. "

Well, damn, you got me there!

I’m not discussing the effects, I’m discussing the principle. There are considerations other than the direct effects.

Well, your making a comparison that is a couple orders of magnitude different in effect. I don't consider it comparable how ever you do it

And how any of that justifies an invasion of Iraq I'll never know.

Huh? That makes no sense.

Neither does you taking the statement - "Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions."

And saying -"If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony. "

I didn't say NOTHING HE DOES CAN PUT HIS LEADERSHIP AT RISK. I was speaking only about the UN resolutions up to that point in time. You extrapolated that to read that nothing could put his rule in jeopardy. So, I guess you should make your own reply, because I didn't make the statement your talking about.

 

[SezMe]

Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

Japans declared war on the US. I wouldn't call that a defensive action. But, as This Guy says...

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.

... which I agree with so I'm going to drop it.

 

[Tricky]

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.

Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

 

[This Guy]

Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

Sounds good to me!

If this is a serious slam though, I would consider Afghanistan, or perhaps Panama or some other US conflict to be comparable.

Really, Afghanistan is the only one I can think of that could rightfully be used as a comparison. It involved a coalition, and perhaps has other similarities that would allow for a comparison.

WWII was the result of a whole world being at war, with war declared, and obvious attacks by the enemy.

Iraq is a geographically limited war against an enemy that did not declare a state of war, or attack the US on/within US territory.

I just don't think the two can be compared in any meaningful fashion. About the only things in common are that weapons are being used, and people are dying.

But, if my logic is off, please explain why

 

[Tricky]

Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

Sounds good to me!

If this is a serious slam though, I would consider Afghanistan, or perhaps Panama or some other US conflict to be comparable.

No, not a slam. A little sarcasm, perhaps, directed at those who try to compare wars. Each war is different. Yes, you may find, as Sun Tzu did, that there are similarites, but to make one-to-one correlations is ludicrous. You can't really even compare Gulf War I to Gulf War II without comparing vastly different scenarios.

 

[Gurdur]

...Really, Afghanistan is the only one I can think of that could rightfully be used as a comparison.

Various aspects of Grenada, Reagan's failed intervention in Lebanon, or the Bay Of Pigs also bear certain limited similarities. It's instructive to see what was learnt there.

Iraq is a geographically limited war against an enemy that did not declare a state of war, or attack the US on/within US territory.

The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region.*
It did. Just not in the way the neocons thought or hoped it would.

_________

* IOW, to radically change the status ante belli. It radically changed the status alright. Art Vandelay's crap argument, and Ziggurat's, ignore the fact that Iraq NOW is far more dangerous to the USA than it was under Saddam following Iraq1; the Iraq1 war and subsequent sanctions finished him off as a power, but the situation now created in Iraq following Iraq2 is far more conducive to all kinds of threats to the USA from Iraq. Which is why Iraq2 has meant 3500+ and increasing American military deaths, while Iraq1 meant a handful.

 

[RandFan]

The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region.

Do you have any evidence that this was the intent?

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is a skeptics forum. Absent evidence I think you need to take your claims to the CT forum.

 

[Kerberos]

If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony.

No, it's not.

Sovereignty:
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Hegemony
Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with the implicit threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Contrary to what you seem to believe sovereignty is a stronger position than hegemony, and it is a far more appropriate description of the power Saddam Hussein (or any dictator) holds than Hegemony. Sovereignty is usually a formal position of unlimited or almost unlimited power within a given area. Hegemony is more commonly a dominant (but not all powerful) position among actors that are frequently formally equal.

 

[Gurdur]

The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region.

Do you have any evidence that this was the intent?

Certainly. The aim of the Iraq2 war was to topple Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime, remember? D'oh. Excluding all Ba'athists from the new (imposed) government, disbanding the Iraqi army. All those aims accomplished -- those aims meant the destabilization of an entire region, the revolutionary destruction of an old regime in favour of a new one At the time (2003 and later), the project was also marked by a new and significant change in policy where bringing democracy to the Middle Eastwas made a paramount aim -- and Iraq was the first project (unless you want to claim Afghanistan too). You can see a discussion paper here; you can see some of President Bush's remarks on the subject here; you can see a long discussion here; Francis Fukuyama on the subject and again here too:

...neoconservative theorists saw America exercising a benevolent hegemony ... to fix problems such as terrorism, proliferation, rogue states and human rights abuses. ...

You can also see a defence of the Iraq2 invasion here.

Most tellingly, you can find discussion of the explicit neocon theory of "creative chaos" here and also here, with quotes from neocons.

The entire aim was to comprehensively change the entire governance in Iraq, with the hope that democracy would then spread throughout the Middle East, especially to Syria and Iran. Whether through an explicit doctrine of "creative chaos" or talk of a "shakedown", the aim was to comprehensively destabilize the previous situation im favour of a hoped-for new situational outcome.

this is a skeptics forum.

No, really? Truly amazing. Yet you are the one who claimed contrary to the facts and without evidence, just for example, that "Chavez does not permit free speech". Biased much, hmmm?

...I think you need to take your claims to the CT forum.

I think you need to:
1) read the news much more before you try debating it, and actually get some idea of what you're talking about first,
2) and to examine your woeful hypocrisy on this point.

 

[Tricky]

Certainly. The aim of the Iraq2 war was to topple Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime, remember? D'oh. Excluding all Ba'athists from the new (imposed) government, disbanding the Iraqi army. All those aims accomplished -- those aims meant the destabilization of an entire region, the revolutionary destruction of an old regime in favour of a new one.

I'm not sure that any of this was meant to "destabilize" the region. The region wasn't particularly stable to begin with. Whatever misguided logic Bushco was using to justify this disasterous invasion, I feel certain that his intent was to stabilize the region by inserting a strong, western power who would serve as a buffer against all of the craziness going on there. The plan was short-sighted, poorly-planned, poorly executed and was based on several untenable assumptions, but I don't think that Bush's plan was to have the region dissolve into chaos.

So change the word "destabilize" to "restructure" and you are probably okay.

 

[Upchurch]

What resources were required to pull off 9/11? Safe havens, money (and not a hell of a lot of that either), and access to potential terrorists. Iraq had all of these. Now, you can go on pretending that I've made some logical mistake in my argument (I suspect you just didn't understand what my argument was), but I note that you haven't actually addressed the substance of my argument in any form whatsoever.

Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

Are you trying to prove that you aren't paying attention? Because This Guy already tried to make that argument. He was only joking, and he still did it more coherently than you have here.

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?

I already said why, but I'll repeat an abridged version: Saddam has a proven track record of doing the sort of things that I really don't have to worry about you trying to do, and you really don't have to worry about me trying to do. And states, even weak states, are fundamentally more dangerous than lone individuals, which makes your mentioning of you, me, and potted plants pointless. And that's being charitable.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?

Great frigging comeback.....how many Kurds or Iranians have you wasted with poison gas lately or how many of your fellow countrymen have you murdered...what a twisted stupid argument.

 

[Tricky]

I already said why, but I'll repeat an abridged version: Saddam has a proven track record of doing the sort of things that I really don't have to worry about you trying to do, and you really don't have to worry about me trying to do.

Actually, Saddam's track record had really hit the skids. His KVG (Kurd Villages Gassed) numbers were rock bottom. His NCI's (Neighboring Countries Invaded) had remained stagnant for ten years. Even his RLE's (Rebel Leaders Executed) was pitiful compared to his glory days. And don't even mention his WMDs, which were so weak he had to pretend to have them just so people wouldn't realize he was a toothless tiger.

If we're taking out leaders who used to be dangerous, then Castro had better watch out, assuming he's still alive.

And states, even weak states, are fundamentally more dangerous than lone individuals, which makes your mentioning of you, me, and potted plants pointless. And that's being charitable.

That has not proved to be the case with terrorism. Every damaging attack on the US has come from an individual, or at the least, a group which was not specifically affiliated with a single nation. In my opinion, having a country that can be attacked makes them less dangerous, since we know who and where they are.

But even given that Saddam was a real bad guy who couldn't be trusted, the argument that "even weak states can launch dangerous attacks" is still hollow. Sure they can. All of them can. It doesn't follow that they will. I cannot see that anyone here has given good evidence that Saddam was about to attack, not just that he could. That is the evidence we need in order to justify the invasion.