If Saddam Had Stayed

[Virus]

Many countries have gross human rights violations. Are we to invade them all?

No because that would be impossible. The US was already at war with Iraq and that was one of the conditions of the ceasefire. Iraq is a keystone economic state and in the region earmarked for transformation due to 9/11.

And this was the whole reason behind the "we'll be greeted as Liberators" meme, which was woefully wrong.

Common sense would say they would be. I'd be bloody glad to see US and British troops give Saddam the stomp and install a democracy if I lived under him. True, there were miscalculations on how ****ed up Arab culture is, especially when it's been brewing under the most gruesome and sordid dictatorship in the region had ever seen. But the Kurds greeted the US as liberators. The Marsh Arabs greeted them. The Shiia population was generally pretty grateful.

Originally Posted by Virus:
Saddam failed to end involvement with terrorist organizations as per resolution 687.

again, many countries fall into this category.

And now there's one less.

The intelligence was faulty, and the weapons inspections were working.

No they weren't. Saddam put his son in charge of a special ministry for deceiving weapon inspectors. They built dummy facilities, offered bribes to inspectors, filed false reports to the UN, the list of deceptions goes on. Inspections only work if the regime actually wants to come clean.

As does other existing rulers.

But not ones that seized a quarter of the world's oil supply in keystone regions of the world economy. Not in the region where straws were being drawn to become the new foothold of Arab democracy. There was no better target than Saddam when all factors are considered. It's something that should have happened after the Gulf War instead of going through that whole debacle of sanctions and containment to try to knock sense into a pathological regime ruled by people who were obviously deranged.

 

[DC]

True, there were miscalculations on how ****ed up Arab culture is

racist.

what do you expect when you bomb their homes........

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That was only ONE of many reasons.

It was THE reason, and when that was found to be wrong, they started to emphasize the "other reasons."

You are being dishonest.

Just look at Bush's 2003 State Of The Union address to the public where he laid out in detail the case for war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html

He made it very clear that the threat of terrorists obtaining WMD was of grave importance. He was right, and it still is, by the way.

He started out by saying

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

That is certainly true. And that describes Saddam's regime to a T. His regime was indeed outlaw. It should a callous disregard for human life and for the rule of law. The ISG concluded that his regime most certainly was still seeking to possess WMD in all forms. It was only a matter of time. His regime was known to have possessed huge quantities of WMD, much of which remained unaccounted for even to the day of the invasion. Even the ISG could not verify that all those weapons had been destroyed. That binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED alone proves that his regime still had possession of at least some WMD weapons … in fact, just the sort that terrorists might want to get their hands on. And the various facts brought forth in this thread indicate the possibility (a possibility that the ISG could "not rule out" even though it tried) that Iraq had possessed WMD and simply moved them to Syria just before or even during the invasion. As many credible sources indicate actually happened.

But in any case, the invasion wasn't just about finding WMD warheads. It was, as Bush clearly stated, about making sure that Iraq abided by the agreement it made to end fighting in the first Gulf War … the agreement not to research, develop, test, produce or have anything whatsoever to do with WMD and long range delivery systems ever again.

Bush noted in his speech:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct--were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

That was all true.

Bush noted that :

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

That's was all true.

Bush said:

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And that was all true.

Bush stated:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

And that was all true. And those statements constitute the bulk of Bush's SOTU speech. The invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with things other than his regime actually possessing large stockpiles of WMD. There were valid concerns he did, as Bush justifiably noted, but in the larger, complete picture … the one that Bush painted for the American people in that speech … the invasion was really about making sure that the regime could never have them again. Making sure that the regime abided by the COMPLETE agreement it made regarding WMD. And, as Bush noted at the very end of his speech, about bringing freedom to Iraq's people.

And in the end, Bush's administration accomplished both of those goals to the best of human ability. And is to be admired for doing so, regardless of the mistakes along the way. And least Bush wasn't living a cave like many of you were then and now. At least he was dealing with the threats in the world in a responsible adult fashion. Rather than the situation we have now.

 

[joobz]

You are being dishonest.

Nope.

And that was all true. And those statements constitute the bulk of Bush's SOTU speech. The invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with things other than his regime actually possessing large stockpiles of WMD. There were valid concerns he did, as Bush justifiably noted, but in the larger, complete picture … the one that Bush painted for the American people in that speech … the invasion was really about making sure that the regime could never have them again. Making sure that the regime abided by the COMPLETE agreement it made regarding WMD. And, as Bush noted at the very end of his speech, about bringing freedom to Iraq's people.

I am aware of the Bush doctrine on preemptive wars. Repeating it to me doesn't make it any more logical or ethical.

The fact is he relied entirely on the existence of WMD to permit the invasion. It was his lynch pin, his keystone. THE reason used to convince congress to permit entering Iraq. Do you not remember all those photos of supposed WMDs? If there was no WMD, there would have been no reason to invade Iraq.

 

[joobz]

No because that would be impossible. The US was already at war with Iraq and that was one of the conditions of the ceasefire. Iraq is a keystone economic state and in the region earmarked for transformation due to 9/11.

So America is the country which gets to decide how other countries should live or be. Well, aren't we proud of ourselves. People could use you as a clear example of Western Imperialism.

Common sense would say they would be. I'd be bloody glad to see US and British troops give Saddam the stomp and install a democracy if I lived under him. True, there were miscalculations on how ****ed up Arab culture is, especially when it's been brewing under the most gruesome and sordid dictatorship in the region had ever seen. But the Kurds greeted the US as liberators. The Marsh Arabs greeted them. The Shiia population was generally pretty grateful.

Wow....just...wow.

And now there's one less.

Don't be so certain. We have had bad experiences with attempting regime changes in other countries. We do not yet know how friendly Iraq will be with the US in time.

No they weren't. Saddam put his son in charge of a special ministry for deceiving weapon inspectors. They built dummy facilities, offered bribes to inspectors, filed false reports to the UN, the list of deceptions goes on. Inspections only work if the regime actually wants to come clean.

Well considering there wasn't ANY WMD, logic dictates that they were working.

And do you not think the weapons inspectors didn't know how to see past the subterfuge?

But not ones that seized a quarter of the world's oil supply in keystone regions of the world economy.

So you claim it wasn't because of WMD, but because of oil? interesting...

Not in the region where straws were being drawn to become the new foothold of Arab democracy. There was no better target than Saddam when all factors are considered. It's something that should have happened after the Gulf War instead of going through that whole debacle of sanctions and containment to try to knock sense into a pathological regime ruled by people who were obviously deranged.

Let Freedom Imperialism Ring!

Seriously, I think you need to consider strongly your arguments. You are doing more to hurt your position than even BAC typically does, and that's saying something.

 

[BeAChooser]

from 92 to 2003, Saddam had no WMD.

If that is true, then why are there audio tapes of Saddam and his aides laughing in the mid 1990s about their success in hiding the extent of their ongoing WMD efforts from UN inspectors? The answer to the question of whether Iraq had WMD is simply not as clearcut as you want people to believe.

Tell me, how could they have destroyed their holdings of BW agents in 1991 and 1992 when in 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's WMD program, defected to Jordan and Iraq was forced to admit that it had concealed a huge biological weapons program? Don't you remember the chicken farm? Are you unaware that in one of the captured tapes your side of this debate simply chooses to ignore, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that UN inspectors in late April or May of 1995 had uncovered evidence of Iraq's Biological Weapons program—a program the existence of which Iraq had previously denied? At one point, Kamel can be heard on the tape, speaking openly about hiding information from the UN. "We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting "not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."[b/] So clearly, your statement about WMD is false. And you know it because this has all been discussed before.

You can't be unaware that in September of 1997, according to Richard Butler, (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990817-in1.htm ) "during a routine inspection at what Iraq had described as a food-testing lab, the chief of our biological team glimpsed two Iraqi officials trying to run out the back door. She seized a briefcase from one, inside were biological test equipment and documents linking the headquarters of the Iraqi Special Security Organization to what appeared to be a biological weapons program. After the Iraqi generals in charge dodged my requests to explain these materials, I ordered a no-notice inspection of the Special Security headquarters building to be led by Scott Ritter, the head of our concealment staff. A small convoy of vehicles set off toward this destination. But about a half mile from the building, the convoy was stopped by armed Iraqi guards. I telephoned Aziz, telling him to allow my people to move forward. He refused, claiming that the building in question was a "presidential site" and was therefore off-limits. It was an entirely new concept to deem these sites sanctuaries. Nothing-not even "sensitive sites"-was off-limits according to the deal Saddam had signed to put an end to the Gulf War. Besides, I pointed out, the U2 aerial picture I had on my desk in preparation for our conversation showed that the presidential palace was a mile down the road from where our motorcade had been stopped. We were still denied access. Fearing for its safety, I withdrew our team." Yet you would have us believe that Iraq stopped it's weapons programs in 1991.

Hans Blix told the UN security council, on January 27, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html ), more than 2 months into the last round of UN inspections, after Iraq was already supposed to have come clean, and less than a month before the invasion, that "Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Blix said that because Iraq was not adequately cooperating with inspectors or the intent of the inspection process. The truth is that it was still hiding materials and documents that it had to have known it possessed, preventing interviews with people who could have led us to those materials and perhaps even more incriminating stuff, intimidating inspectors, and playing cat and mouse games with an intent to deceive. And they may have been doing that to buy time to move WMD out of the country and hide the paper trail.

As Blix pointed out in that January 27 speech, Resolution 1441 "emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active." And as that speech showed, as of January 27, the cooperation had not been any of those three. Here's what Blix said at that time about the document that Iraq prepared that was supposed to be it's final chance to come completely clean and answer all the questions that remained about the status of Iraq's WMD arsenal and programs: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number."

He said "When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material."

But now, thanks to the ISG's work, we know what Iraq was busy doing at the time. It was destroying such documents. Sanitizing computers and labs. Hiding the paper trail. That was the conclusion of the ISG. So what were they hiding, joobz? It's time you face that question.

Blix noted that "The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." And after their investigation, the ISG concluded that scientists' possession of documents (and materials like key centrifuge parts) was indeed a deliberate effort by the Iraqi regime to hide their existance and maintain a knowledge/material repository for later use in reconstituting a WMD arsenal. The scientist even said he was under threat of death if he revealed or lost what he'd been told to keep hidden. The situation just isn't as clearcut as you want people to believe.

Because you are being fundamentally dishonest here.

And the ISG got lots of things wrong because they had to work from incomplete information. For example, the ISG concluded that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. It concluded that Iraq's efforts to develop gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment ended in 1991, as did Iraq's work on other uranium enrichment programs, which Iraq had explored prior to the Gulf War. The ISG also found no evidence that Iraq had taken steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development." But an audio tape discovered after the invasion (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1503 ) has Saddam and his top WMD advisors in a meeting held sometime after 2001 (because the year 2001 is mentioned in the past tense on the tape) "discussing a progress report on a laser enrichment system for uranium, one of the more advanced methods to make a nuclear bomb." And "the names of the two Iraqi individuals in charge of Saddam’s uranium enrichment were not previously known either to the UN weapons inspectors or to the intelligence community." Now this tape was only translated in 2006, after the ISG drew it's conclusions so obviously the ISG's conclusion was wrong. Iraq was clearly still continuing with work that would lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. And it's also worth mentioning that in the documents discovered after the invasion (which again I should note Iraq was supposed to have declared to Blix and turned over but did not) they found detailed plans for building a nuclear weapon once the nuclear material was available. Those documents are so detailed and so sensitive that the government had to withdraw them from public view, and then decided to withdraw all Iraqi captured documents from view ... just to be safe. The picture is just not as clear as you dishonestly want people to think. I say dishonestly because you know all these facts as they've been presented many times before here at JREF.

"Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." That's a direct quote of Blix to the UN Security Council in March, just 12 days before we invaded, showing his unhappiness with their cooperation even then. And it is a fact that the ISG, after the invasion, found numerous WMD related documents that Iraq's regime must have known about because they were deliberately hidden by the regime. That is not the false picture that you are trying to paint for our readers.

And if Saddam was willing to go to such lengths to hide documents and components needed to produce WMD, why wouldn't he be willing to hide actual WMD and the materials needed to make them? It is naive to think he wouldn't. So where are they? Well the answer may be in Syria, as many credible sources seem to indicate and the ISG could NOT "rule out".

The truth is that because of the willful destruction of files, computer and facilities thought to be related to WMD before, during and even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (a fact the ISG admits occurred), the ISG (AND YOU) cannot be confident of anything with regards to what Iraq's WMD status was prior to the war. But make no mistake. The Iraqis hid those documents and selected pieces of equipment (like biological seed materials) for a reason. The Iraqis destroyed those files, computers and facilities for a reason. The truck convoys seen traveling to Syria before the war were doing so for a reason. The threats against anyone who would speak to the ISG occurred for a reason. And you don't want to address that issue. You'd rather we all live in a cave.

 

[joobz]

The answer to the question of whether Iraq had WMD is simply not as clearcut as you want people to believe .

We invaded a country and found no WMD. No wall of text will change that simple, uncomfortable fact.


But, and I didn't think this needed explaining, but I guess I was wrong, Saddam attempting to get WMD and HAVING WMD are two different things.

 

[Toontown]

using this reasoning, any long term foreign policy decision would be a "stop gap"

Is Cuba a "stop gap"?

Yes. The original solution was to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. The invasion failed, and Kennedy later agreed not to invade Cuba in return for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.

The sanctions were a stopgap measure, put in place because the invasion failed.

But you have no evidence for any of those "change" items. that is, by definition, speculation.

Are you really that easily confused, or are you being deliberately obfuscatory?

How is it "speculative" to suggest that the absence of WMD at a particular moment does not imply an absence of WMD at all subsequent moments?

and I noticed you ignored both the points on failed regime changes AND the ethical point I raised.

Two can play that game. I could make veiled references to the consequences of failure to implement regime change, and then feign an "Aha!" moment when you don't respond. In fact, I'll just do that now. I hereby make a veiled reference to the consequences of failing to implement regime changes.

However, I'm running out of patience here. So you'll have to excuse the fact that I don't go running off on every tangent you try to lead me off on.

You made no ethical point. You merely pretended to raise an ethical point by issuing a snide bromide about ends not justifying means.

Past 12 years? Evidence for that?

I can't believe you're even saying that. Trying to waste more of my time, are you?

There is a whole thread full of evidence for that. There are numerous UN resolutions full of evidence for that. There are regime change resolutions and authorizations to use force full of evidence for that.

And yet you continue to sit there, squawking for "evidence" like a baby bird squawking for a worm. And when you are given evidence, your inevitable response is to think of some snide one-liner to use for a weak excuse for your predetermined rejection of the evidence. And then you squawk for more evidence.

Your time-wasting, obfuscatory ploys are ubiquitous across many forums. It's all quite mechanical and robotic.

Yes, a proactive war was sanction to prevent future threats based upon evidence that wasn't reliable(factual).

Thank you for providing yet another example of the behavior I described above. I'll just label it "Exhibit 927".

That's an ethical problem in my book.

I haven't read your book. I've seen quite enough of your "ethics".

I know some people like to pretend like we are the rough and tumble good guys in a action movie, but that is only a delusion. A delusion which goes against many of the principles our country was started on.

And I know some people like to make meaningless pontifications which should be deleted and ignored. But I decided not to delete that one. I'll just label it "Exhibit 928".

Now we go to war to eliminate a threat to "world peace", not just our borders and sovereignty?

Yes. Hadn't you noticed? So did dozens of other countries in Gulf War I. If you have a problem with that...well, perhaps you can obtain their email addresses. I'd like to help you out, but...damn. Look at the time.

A yes, the ends justify the means. Good ethical argument.

It's over, so it was the right thing to do.
Interesting.

That wasn't an argument. That was a statement of fact. You pretended to want facts, I gave you facts, you grabbed at the first thing you saw that you could use for a pretext to intone, "A yes, the ends justify the means".

It all seems so...contrived. So...predictable. So...unnecessary. So...bogus.

Oh well. Two can play that game too:

"Ah yes", I intoned. "The usual resort to bogus ethical complaints. Please file those in the 'bogus ethical complaints' box."

Well, isn't that a logical argument.

That wasn't an argument, that was a suggestion.

But let me hasten to be clear. It was a metaphorical suggestion only. I don't really want terrorists, jihadists, and leftist ideologues slobbering all over my ass.

 

[BeAChooser]

However, I'm running out of patience here.

Toontown, meet joobz.

 

[joobz]

Yes. The original solution was to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. The invasion failed, and Kennedy later agreed not to invade Cuba in return for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.

The sanctions were a stopgap measure, put in place because the invasion failed.

And those sanctions worked for us. interesting....

Are you really that easily confused, or are you being deliberately obfuscatory?

How is it "speculative" to suggest that the absence of WMD at a particular moment does not imply an absence of WMD at all subsequent moments?

Oh, you are completely free to speculate all you want about what isn't there. It's just a shame that your position isn't supported by the facts or reality.

Two can play that game. I could make veiled references to the consequences of failure to implement regime change, and then feign an "Aha!" moment when you don't respond. In fact, I'll just do that now. I hereby make a veiled reference to the consequences of failing to implement regime changes.

Are you denying that regime change in the past hasn't backfired? Should we look at Iran for that one?

However, I'm running out of patience here. So you'll have to excuse the fact that I don't go running off on every tangent you try to lead me off on.

Please, tell me about how the ethical problem of preemptive war is a "tangent". Let's remember who was the person who tried to link the housing market into this discussion. In other words, your claim of "tangent" is dishonest

You made no ethical point. You merely pretended to raise an ethical point by issuing a snide bromide about ends not justifying means.

Do you deny that that poses an ethical problem? Do you think that "well, all's well that end's well" is a good excuse to the war? Seriously, if you think it is acceptable, then our conversation is done.

I can't believe you're even saying that. Trying to waste more of my time, are you?

There is a whole thread full of evidence for that. There are numerous UN resolutions full of evidence for that. There are regime change resolutions and authorizations to use force full of evidence for that.

And yet you continue to sit there, squawking for "evidence" like a baby bird squawking for a worm. And when you are given evidence, your inevitable response is to think of some snide one-liner to use for a weak excuse for your predetermined rejection of the evidence. And then you squawk for more evidence.

Your time-wasting, obfuscatory ploys are ubiquitous across many forums. It's all quite mechanical and robotic. [/quote]
I just rely on words. Continual means "nonstop" and that was hardly the case. I agree that saddam was extremely negative AND attempted to undermine the whole sanctions, but when pushed he ALWAYS caved. That's fine by me.

Thank you for providing yet another example of the behavior I described above. I'll just label it "Exhibit 927".

Cute, but I haven't seen you actually logically defend your preemptive position.

I haven't read your book. I've seen quite enough of your "ethics".

I rely on evidence and logic to form my arguments. Based upon your empty posts, I can understand why you would want to attack me personally.

And I know some people like to make meaningless pontifications which should be deleted and ignored. But I decided not to delete that one. I'll just label it "Exhibit 928".

As I have yet to see you actually defend the ethics of a democratic government functioning with a preemptive war when no imminent threat was present, I am forced to infer what your position would be. If my characterization is wrong, feel free to correct it.

But so far, all you have done is blustered and puffed, but failed to actually support your argument.

Yes. Hadn't you noticed? So did dozens of other countries in Gulf War I. If you have a problem with that...well, perhaps you can obtain their email addresses. I'd like to help you out, but...damn. Look at the time.

In gulf war I, Saddam invaded another country. Iraq II was based upon the idea that Saddam HAD WMDs which threatened everyone. He didn't have them. The war's PRIMARY justification was false.

I know that is a hard thing to accept, but that's the facts.

That wasn't an argument. That was a statement of fact. You pretended to want facts, I gave you facts, you grabbed at the first thing you saw that you could use for a pretext to intone, "A yes, the ends justify the means".

If that was all you were doing, than I apologize for miss understandinig your point. I'll retract my position.

But you must admit that given your previous posts alluding to "we are better off with out him", it's hard to not infer that you are using the outcomes as a justification for the war.

It all seems so...contrived. So...predictable. So...unnecessary. So...bogus.

Oh well. Two can play that game too:

"Ah yes", I intoned. "The usual resort to bogus ethical complaints. Please file those in the 'bogus ethical complaints' box."

As I mentioned. I apologize for misunderstanding your point. If you do not believe that point was a justification for the war, than my point is moot.

That wasn't an argument, that was a suggestion.

But let me hasten to be clear. It was a metaphorical suggestion only. I don't really want terrorists, jihadists, and leftist ideologues slobbering all over my ass.

I'm curious, Do you believe everyone who disagrees with you falls into those categories? That may go a long way to explaining your inability to accept facts and your need to bring in off topic points like the housing market.

 

[joobz]

Toontown, meet joobz.

I know I am infuriating to you. It isn't done out of personal dislike as I am sure you are a fun person, but a dislike for ideological postings which skew reality.

 

[Virus]

So America is the country which gets to decide how other countries should live or be. Well, aren't we proud of ourselves.

They didn't respect the right of Iraq to be ruled by a genocidal rouge state. That genocidal rogue state was a US enemy. That genocidal rouge state was utterly evil. So the genocidal rogue state was finally removed from power as it should have been.

People could use you as a clear example of Western Imperialism.

What's Western Imperialism? There's no such thing as the Western Empire.

Don't be so certain. We have had bad experiences with attempting regime changes in other countries. We do not yet know how friendly Iraq will be with the US in time.

It wasn't getting any friendlier under Baathist fascism.

Well considering there wasn't ANY WMD, logic dictates that they were working.

And do you not think the weapons inspectors didn't know how to see past the subterfuge?

Saddam kicked them out in 1998 and only asked them back when troops were massed on his border in order to stall the invasion. Sounds like a real successful operation.

So you claim it wasn't because of WMD, but because of oil? interesting...

It was because of both, along with many other reasons. This is what you've been fundamentally unable, or unwilling to grasp no matter how many times people try and explain it to you. When I say "oil" I don't mean stealing it, as the left-wing extremists allege. America stole no Iraqi oil. Oil factored into the decision on why to take out Saddam and replace it with a democracy.

Let Freedom Imperialism Ring!

What empire? Show me a map of this American Empire.

 

[joobz]

They didn't respect the right of Iraq to be ruled by a genocidal rouge state. That genocidal rogue state was a US enemy. That genocidal rouge state was utterly evil. So the genocidal rogue state was finally removed from power as it should have been.

And yet, other "Rouge" states still exist. Ones which are much more of genocidal problem. The simple fact is Iraq being a "Rouge state" wasn't the reason used for going to war. It was because it was A Rouge state WITH WMD. The fact that they didn't have any WMD removes the entire reason for us going to war.

What's Western Imperialism? There's no such thing as the Western Empire.

I would agree, except you were the one who thought it acceptable to tell other nations how to govern. Forcing other nations to toe the line with your version of acceptable governance IS a form of imperialism.

It wasn't getting any friendlier under Baathist fascism.

I agree.

Saddam kicked them out in 1998 and only asked them back when troops were massed on his border in order to stall the invasion. Sounds like a real successful operation.

I remember. Forcing Saddam to walk the line was the right action.

It was because of both, along with many other reasons. This is what you've been fundamentally unable, or unwilling to grasp no matter how many times people try and explain it to you. When I say "oil" I don't mean stealing it, as the left-wing extremists allege. America stole no Iraqi oil. Oil factored into the decision on why to take out Saddam and replace it with a democracy.

Provided it is the "Right" democracy?
NO, I don't believe we went in to steal the oil. After all, I do not know of a single US government controlled oil company. But I do believe we went there because having enemies with oil makes us potentially vulnerable to them. THIS was the reason and not because Iraq was any more evil or abusive to its people than other unfriendly nations.

Personally, I support lowering dependence on oil rather than trying to do regime changes.

What empire? Show me a map of this American Empire.

I didn't say American, I said Western.

And, yes, I too believe the world would be much better off if all nations were democratically run and imbued with the concept of human rights, freedom of speech, capitalism and equality. But, I also believe it is against these principles to force this on other nations.

 

[Virus]

And yet, other "Rouge" states still exist. Ones which are much more of genocidal problem. The simple fact is Iraq being a "Rouge state" wasn't the reason used for going to war. It was because it was A Rouge state WITH WMD. The fact that they didn't have any WMD removes the entire reason for us going to war.

Go back and read the rationale for regime change. Go back and read the UN resolutions he broke. Go back and read congress's authorization for war. Go back and read the strategy for establishing a foothold for democracy to undermine the Islamofascists. Even if it was only a concern for WMD, the war's over now anyway. We wouldn't know if he had them or not without an invasion and occupation.

I would agree, except you were the one who thought it acceptable to tell other nations how to govern. Forcing other nations to toe the line with your version of acceptable governance IS a form of imperialism.

What right does Saddam have to seize power and establish a genocidal fascist dictatorship?

Provided it is the "Right" democracy?

What are you talking about?

NO, I don't believe we went in to steal the oil. After all, I do not know of a single US government controlled oil company. But I do believe we went there because having enemies with oil makes us potentially vulnerable to them.

What's wrong with recognizing that enemies with unlimited revenue are worse than ones without it?

THIS was the reason and not because Iraq was any more evil or abusive to its people than other unfriendly nations.

That's funny, you were adamant that WMD was THE reason just a second ago.

Personally, I support lowering dependence on oil rather than trying to do regime changes.

Sure. Just convince the entire world's governments and industry to do that and our Saddam troubles will be over. Easy.

And, yes, I too believe the world would be much better off if all nations were democratically run and imbued with the concept of human rights, freedom of speech, capitalism and equality. But, I also believe it is against these principles to force this on other nations.

Well I don't believe it's against our principles to overthrow genocidal fascist dictatorships.

 

[joobz]

Go back and read the rationale for regime change. Go back and read the UN resolutions he broke. Go back and read congress's authorization for war. Go back and read the strategy for establishing a foothold for democracy to undermine the Islamofascists. Even if it was only a concern for WMD, the war's over now anyway. We wouldn't know if he had them or not without an invasion and occupation.

]
That was the point of the inspections. We would have learned this if we simply went in with the inspections. Yes, it was a diversionary tactic on his part, but we were in a position to see what was happening.

What right does Saddam have to seize power and establish a genocidal fascist dictatorship?

How is this a logical response to my statement.

What are you talking about?

I'm thinking of Iran in particular.

What's wrong with recognizing that enemies with unlimited revenue are worse than ones without it?

Sanctions in place to prevent the use of those resources. Definitely the fraud involved with the sanctions was it's own problem, but that doesn't invalidate the approach.

That's funny, you were adamant that WMD was THE reason just a second ago.

WMD was the REASON used to go to war. The oil thing was a rather subdued point and one that was frequently denied.

Sure. Just convince the entire world's governments and industry to do that and our Saddam troubles will be over. Easy.

Not just Saddam troubles, but trouble with terrorists. And it doesn't need to be a combined effort. the US would benefit strongly from serious investment into nuclear energy, coal gasification, and alternative energy investments.

Well I don't believe it's against our principles to overthrow genocidal fascist dictatorships.

When it's done under false pretenses, it is.
What I don't understand is why people find it so hard to admit they were wrong. The war was sold nearly solely on the principle of WMD*. It waas the proverbial Last straw. They didn't have it. So the reason for the war was false.


*I say this because we have not gone after other genocidal fascist dictators.

 

[Toontown]

And those sanctions worked for us. interesting.....

You have a funny idea of what "worked" means. We had to deal with Castro's communism-spreading monkeyshines for decades.

Oh, you are completely free to speculate all you want about what isn't there. It's just a shame that your position isn't supported by the facts or reality......

Wrong.

Facts and reality follow: First, Saddam did not have WMD. Later, Saddam had WMD. Proving conclusively precisely what I said: "The absence of WMD at one moment does not imply the absence of WMD at a subsequent moment."

It would have been stupid beyond belief to leave the Hussein family in power and in control of a fourth of earth's oil wealth, ignoring a documented national policy goal, when the green light to take them out was there.

Are you denying that regime change in the past hasn't backfired? Should we look at Iran for that one?

Why cherry-pick Iran, facts-and-logic guy?

Are you denying that regime change has worked in the past? What about nazi Germany? Imperial Japan? The Soviet Union?

For that matter, what about Iraq?

Please, tell me about how the ethical problem of preemptive war is a "tangent". Let's remember who was the person who tried to link the housing market into this discussion. In other words, your claim of "tangent" is dishonest?

Your notion of ethics has nothing to do with the OP question as posed: What if Saddam had remained in power?

I have no idea what you're talking about with the housing market stuff, and I'm not sufficiently interested to go back through the thread to try to find out.

As for the "ethical problem" of preemptive war: the decision to go to war is always preemptive - to prevent something from happening that you really don't want to happen. There is no "ethical problem" with preemption unless the decision to strike preemptively was made for unethical reasons. And you haven't even begun to make a case that the decision was made for unethical reasons. You've simply irrationally claimed that, because no WMD was found, therefore the decision was wrong, or false, or unethical, or whatever it is you're trying to sell.

Do you think that "well, all's well that end's well" is a good excuse to the war? Seriously, if you think it is acceptable, then our conversation is done.

One can only hope...

I just rely on words...

You rely almost exclusively on the fact that no WMD was found, thereby contradicting your own objection to my assumed (by you) "ends justify means" position. In fact, outcome does not justify means - but not for ethical reasons. A decision cannot be judged by outcome when unknowns, incalculables, or chance is involved. A correct decision can have a net negative outcome, and an incorrect decision can have a net positive outcome, due to unknowns, incalculables, and chance.

Continual means "nonstop" and that was hardly the case. I agree that saddam was extremely negative AND attempted to undermine the whole sanctions, but when pushed he ALWAYS caved. That's fine by me.

Fine by you. Not fine by me. Not fine by the Clinton administration or the congress of 1998, which put in writing the policy of regime change in Iraq. Not fine by the Bush administration or the congress at the time of the actual regime change. Not fine by the majority of the American people at the time.

Cute, but I haven't seen you actually logically defend your preemptive position..

Yes you have. You've simply been stubbornly refusing to recognise or acknowledge my defense as such, preferring to keep repeating your tired old "there wuz no WMD" refrain, ad infinitum.

As I have yet to see you actually defend the ethics of a democratic government functioning with a preemptive war when no imminent threat was present, I am forced to infer what your position would be. If my characterization is wrong, feel free to correct it.

The primary responsibility of the government is to protect the people from foreign and domestic enemies. That is the prime directive of the US government. That is the constitutionally encoded ethics of the matter. The only ethics that are required.

There is no requirement that a threat must be "imminent", ethical or otherwise.

In gulf war I, Saddam invaded another country. Iraq II was based upon the idea that Saddam HAD WMDs which threatened everyone. He didn't have them. The war's PRIMARY justification was false.

Wrong.

The WMD justification was that Saddam either had WMD or would have WMD in the future, which he might then use in a terrorist attack on the US, as he had voiced a deep desire to do.

Based on the (fact) that he had an extensive WMD program, and had manufactured and used large quantities of WMD, both on another country (Iran), and on his own people.

"I know that is a hard thing to accept, but that's the facts." - Joobs

But you must admit that given your previous posts alluding to "we are better off with out him", it's hard to not infer that you are using the outcomes as a justification for the war.

Then let me be clear: the outcome is not the justification. The outcome, in this case, is the realization of the objective. Said objective being regime change, as established by the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998, passed overwhelmingly by congress and signed by Clinton.

Even Vladimir Putin admitted that "The world is better off without Saddam." Do you think we're worse off without Saddam?

And exactly how hypocritical can you get? YOU are the one who has repeatedly used the outcome of no WMD found as a justification to claim that the "reason" for carrying out the regime change was false.

Don't bother showing me just how hypocritical and obtuse you can be. I really don't care to know how deep that well is.

 

[Virus]

]
That was the point of the inspections. We would have learned this if we simply went in with the inspections. Yes, it was a diversionary tactic on his part, but we were in a position to see what was happening.

Inspections only work if the regime co-operates.

How is this a logical response to my statement.

It assumes that Saddam's right to genocidal fascism trumps the right to remove that genocidal fascism.

I'm thinking of Iran in particular.

Ancient history. Cherry picked. Part of the strategy of containment of communism. Example ignores historical context.

Sanctions in place to prevent the use of those resources. Definitely the fraud involved with the sanctions was it's own problem, but that doesn't invalidate the approach.

The approach was invalid because Saddam was trying to cause a famine so the sanctions would be lifted. Sanctions, like inspections, only work on people who aren't genocidally deranged.

WMD was the REASON used to go to war.

One of many reasons.

The oil thing was a rather subdued point and one that was frequently denied.

Because it wasn't true.

Not just Saddam troubles, but trouble with terrorists. And it doesn't need to be a combined effort. the US would benefit strongly from serious investment into nuclear energy, coal gasification, and alternative energy investments.

I agree. So did Bush:

President Bush plans to break America's addiction to oil - and in particular oil from the Middle East - "through technology".

In his address to Congress, he announced an "Advanced Energy Initiative" to develop new fuel technologies.

Department of Energy funding on research into clean energy sources would be increased by 22%, he added.

"We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen," President Bush said.

The US would also fund additional research into producing ethanol, with a view to making the fossil fuel alternative competitive within six years, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4669980.stm

When it's done under false pretenses, it is.

No it wasn't. Saddam was thought to have WMD. He was deliberately ambiguous about their existence because he believed the threat of WMD kept Iran, the US, and Shiite uprisings in check. His strategy worked so well that most intelligence agencies believed it was likely he had them.

What I don't understand is why people find it so hard to admit they were wrong.

Like you.

The war was sold nearly solely on the principle of WMD*. It waas the proverbial Last straw. They didn't have it. So the reason for the war was false.

Read that address to the UN yet?

*I say this because we have not gone after other genocidal fascist dictators.

So?

 

[leftysergeant]

Uote]

oops

 

[leftysergeant]

Uote]

You have a funny idea of what "worked" means. We had to deal with Castro's communism-spreading monkeyshines for decades.

Had the governments of the Caribean and South American nations not been such wretched sewers, we would not have had to worry about Castro's spreading revolutions against our fascist lackeys like the Samozas or Pinochet.

Facts and reality follow: First, Saddam did not have WMD. Later, Saddam had WMD. Proving conclusively precisely what I said: "The absence of WMD at one moment does not imply the absence of WMD at a subsequent moment."

Abscence of new evidence is evidence against your position. The merry morons never did produce evidence that rises to the level of laughable after the invasion that they had told us the truth.

It would have been stupid beyond belief to leave the Hussein family in power and in control of a fourth of earth's oil wealth, ignoring a documented national policy goal, when the green light to take them out was there.

The merry morons installed a go box on their hot rod to turn the light green like a gang of juvenile deliquents.

Are you denying that regime change has worked in the past?

It worked for our investor class, but why should a soldier give a rat's about them? Why should a working family give a rat's? Every regime change we have done has resulted in untold human suffering. The reason the Iranians hate us so much now is that we changed their regime for them when they were trying to modernize. It is not our place to do so.

You think we have that right? Tell it to the families of the Chilean Disaparados. You would be wrong in a hideous way.

What about nazi Germany? Imperial Japan?

We had clear causus belli.

The Soviet Union?

Gorby was trying to stand down and the jelly-brain from California kept kicking him in the shins and calling himself a winner for having beaten the nasty Ruskies. The result was that instead of transitioning smoothly to a more humane and open society, Russia degenerated into a kakiocracy that may yet return to the despotism that it was when I was young because too many people were thrown to the wolves when the capitalist scum started cutting sweetheart deals for themselves.

Generally, regime change enforced by a foreign power which invades with no causus belli is a disaster.

Ask the Aztecs.

The primary responsibility of the government is to protect the people from foreign and domestic enemies. That is the prime directive of the US government. That is the constitutionally encoded ethics of the matter. The only ethics that are required.[/QUOte} You're still screwed. The merry morons reduced our ability to defend ourselves from immenent attack. Google "Seeloeve." The morons don't grasp the meaning of history. That's what happends when you make a militarily befuddled twit like Rummy give you military advice.

Even Vladimir Putin admitted that "The world is better off without Saddam." Do you think we're worse off without Saddam?

Of course we are. We're broke, Osama has greater prestige in the Muslim world and we have a harder time convincing Muslim nations to trust us.

Of course, I get the impression that you dislike Muslim nations anyway, based on some of your posts, so your reasons are in some way defective and not a concern for people who grasp the simplest concepts of global military strategy.

(And you take Putin at his word? Wow!)

 

[NWO Sentryman]

[snip]

I could go through that with a fine tooth comb of Logic and Reason, but it would be too bad for my blood pressure.

Instead, this will suffice. You seem to think that:

1. Pinochet and Somoza were Fascist. They were not. They did not regiment society to be absolutely loyal to the state unlike Mussolini's Italy or Soviet Russia.

2. You seem to think that Reagan was kicking Gorbachev in the Shins. But he wasn't. In fact, the historical record shows that they did work together and did indeed co-operate on many things, like nuclear arms reduction.

3. how did Rumsfeld make the US weaker? by cancelling the white Elephant Crusader artillery and Comanche helicopter?

4. The Claim that war only ever benefited the upper class has been thoroughly discredited. What, with new technologies being an offshoot from WW2. If Smedley Butler were in office instead of FDR, Moscow would be speaking German for a while and most of Eurasia would be nuclear craters.

5. You seem to think that the US installed Pinochet. Even Peter Kornbluh doesn't agree with you. They didn't. Why? because the Curch committee would have found out (and they DID find out about Gladio). As for Pinochet, the Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution saying that Allende was a felon and in serious breach of his oath of office on 22 August 1973.

6. The Shah did introduce a modernisation and industrialisation programme. And Mossadegh was too much of a radical (he lost a lost of respect when he tried to emasculate the clergy's power)