Another Iraqi war discussion

This Guy · Jun 8, 2007

Art Vandelay said:
The choices weren’t attacking or waiting, but attacking or surrendering.

I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice. Surrendering, IMHO implies giving up a fight. The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success. No need for any surrender

Even if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their jobs, we would have been at exactly the same place as we were before the troop build-up. The only way to not end up where we began was to attack.

Don't see how you figure this. Again, the issue was WMDs. That was, to the best of my knowledge the ONLY reason we were there. If the inspectors job was allowed to be completed, we would have completed our goal.

Really, what got the inspectors out of Iraq was the impending war. As far as I know, Bush doesn’t have the authority to order inspectors out of Iraq, and it was only the impending war that got them out. Since the actual subject is inanimate, the passive voice is appropriate.

Since Bush was the primary reason for the impending war, he was IMHO the reason for the required inspector pullout.

It’s a distinction that’s more sharp in Spanish. Imperfect refers to a continuous action in the past, whereas preterite refers to an action considered to have occurred at a discreet point in time at the past. So, first instance, suppose we ask of serial killer “Was he killing people when he was captured?” Unless he was captured while actually in the commission of a murder, the answer is no in the preterite sense. But if he, at the time of his capture, was in the habit of killing people, it would be quite accurate to say, in the imperfect sense, that he was killing people when he was captured. In the same sense, it would be quite accurate to say that Saddam was interfering with the inspection at the time of the invasion.

Again, thanks for the English lesson. But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.

I was just saying that one of the positions underlying your position is Leftist.

I could probably find a bunch of quotes of others that are known to not be leftist, that have at one time or another disagreed with a war. But I'm not going to bother. Shortened from the other thread - If my position against the war in Iraq makes me a Leftist, then so be it.

Certainly, phrased so generally, that is an extreme Leftist position. Taking you at your word, you don’t think that the US had the right to invade Germany and depose Hitler.

Well, if Saddam had conquered most of Europe, I would likely have felt different about the invasion. But, since I felt then (and to the best of my knowledge no new information to the contrary has surfaced) that Saddam posed no threat to the US, I don't think we had a right to invade. When he invaded Kuwait, we had a reason to attack him. Bush Sr. did the sensible thing, and freed Kuwait, and gave Saddam a severe thrashing, and went home. I had no problem with that. Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?

The vast majority of the casualties were sustained in the occupation, not the invasion.

Does that make the deaths better in your opinion? They are still just as dead. It also shows the lack of planning for the war.

The implications of this position certainly are Leftist. If we allow dictators to hold their own people, we will allow them to act with impunity, and encourage them to run their countries in a defective manner to ensure that their removal will result in as much suffering as possible.

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.

I also take exception to your implied claim that those who support the war don’t care of the lives of Americans and Iraqis. In fact, many of the people opposing the war made a big deal out of the fact that no Americans were being killed by Saddam, as Iraqi lives don’t matter.

First I have no doubt that those that have backed the war regret the loss of lives in the war. Just as I regret the loss of lives in Afghanistan, an invasion I supported. There was no intent to imply anything of the sort.

Second let me say again that Saddam was an SOB. That fact did not give us the right to invade his nation and remove him from power, anymore than it gives us the right to remove from power any of the other SOBs out there.

Doesn’t basing our foreign policy on fears of terrorism mean that terrorism is effective?

That's a bit tricky to answer, and I don't think it's an appropriate response to what I said. But I'll take a stab at it anyway

First, we invaded a nation that to the best of my knowledge has had no concrete/substantial connection to terrorism made. In the middle east, where we are pretty much hated for our oft debated connection to Israel (a debate I will not entertain BTW). Now, I'm not one for backing down from a good fight, when it's called for. But IMHO when you go into a hornets nest, and start stirring things up, you got to expect to be stung. IMHO we had no business in that hornets nest in the first place. I believe we have only added to the hatred, and in the end will have provided another base of operation for our enemies. Just doesn't make good sense to me. My use of the word fear (Fearing that...) was not meant to imply decisions made based on fear, I meant it more like I regrettably believe. That make sense?

I also have a more pedantic response, that I’ve prepared for instructive purposes. I don’t mean this as a personal attack, and I’ve put it in a spoiler box so that you can ignore it if you want to.

And I left it here.
Again thanks for the English lesson.

If debating the English impaired bothers you, feel free to leave

[/QUOTE]

Upchurch · Jun 8, 2007

This Guy said:
I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice.

Perhaps "false dilemma"? Ultimately, it would mean the same thing as "false choice".

This Guy said:
Surrendering, IMHO implies giving up a fight. The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success. No need for any surrender

I believe Art (if the remainder of the quote was his) was saying that the weapons inspectors were trying to prove a negative. (i.e. prove the weapons don't exist) That may or may not be true, but ultimately, it wasn't up to the weapons inspectors to disprove the administration's claims that the WMD's were there. At most, all the inspectors could say is that they had not found them.

I think the whole "surrender" thing is spin caused by this particular framing of the situation.

Ziggurat · Jun 8, 2007

You messed up the quote tags.

This Guy said:
Don't see how you figure this. Again, the issue was WMDs. That was, to the best of my knowledge the ONLY reason we were there.

Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?

Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

jimtron · Jun 8, 2007

That may or may not be true, but ultimately, it wasn't up to the weapons inspectors to disprove the administration's claims that the WMD's were there. At most, all the inspectors could say is that they had not found them.

IIRC one of Bush's ultimatums, that were honored, is "let the inspectors in or else." Apparently Bush wanted or claimed to want inspectors in Iraq. Also, aside from the WMDs, the inspectors could have perhaps gathered some general intel the longer they were inside the country.

Upchurch · Jun 8, 2007

Ziggurat said:
and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Ziggurat said:
This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

True, but is that reason enough to go to war over, especially as we were already otherwise engaged? I call this a relative non-issue.

Ziggurat said:
Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

If there is a name for this logical fallacy, it escapes me.

A is a threat.
B is stronger than A in areas where A is not a threat.
Therefore B is a threat?

What is that?

Ziggurat · Jun 8, 2007

Upchurch said:
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Quite simply that the inspections regime was always and only meant to verify current disarmament, and was not intended and could not accomplish ensuring Saddam never rearmed in the future.

True, but is that reason enough to go to war over, especially as we were already otherwise engaged? I call this a relative non-issue.

That's a judgment call. But the situation should still be recognized for what it was: Saddam failed obligations he agreed to, and the inspectors were never in a position to fulfill their mission without his full cooperation..

If there is a name for this logical fallacy, it escapes me.

A is a threat.
B is stronger than A in areas where A is not a threat.
Therefore B is a threat?

What is that?

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.

This Guy · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
You messed up the quote tags.

Yep, left a right bracket off one. Thanks

Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

Yes, Congress was misled by less than truthful information from the Administration, into believing there was an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection. It wasn't true pre-war, but is now.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

I'm gonna agree with you here, but not whole heartedly

In Hans Blix's last speech to the UN before the invasion he did make the following statement in closing - "Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional co-operation" with Unmovic and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

However, if you read the whole speech, you see that Iraq was in fact providing more and more assistance as things progressed. You also will see that at the time of this speech, barely more than a month before the invasion, Unmovic's and IAEA's abilities to perform their jobs was in the process of getting a big boost in the way of several aircraft that were either available and being brought on line, or had been promised from UN members (Russian Antonov, French Mirage).

I have not found anything that indicates a change for the worse in Iraq's support of the UN inspectors after the Blix speech. If you know of something, please make me aware of it.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am of the opinion that right up until Bush gave his ultimatum, inspections were proceeding in a timely fashion, and Iraq was assisting in their completion. And no significant weapons or weapons items had been found that had not been declared (there were I believe 300 missiles that exceeded the allowed range, but as I understand it, they had been declared, as well as some rocket engines and perhaps a test stand for rocket engine testing/development all declared).

Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't

) But wasn't the Taliban the folks that were allowing known terrorist to seek safe haven within their borders?

"The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan, IMHO. They were sheltering the very people that had attacked us.

ETA: I reread your last point, and think my answer really doesn't answer it fully. I'll finish here -

OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea!

Yes, Saddam had some resources. He had a potential to do harm. But there has not been any proof that I know of that he was even trying to do so. I won't shrug off the threat completely, but I will say the potential was not enough to merit our engaging in a second war, IMHO.

Tricky · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

None of which justifies the invasion. It just makes it quite clear that the Bush administration, which planned this invasion and whipped up the fears that got it through Congress, was not to be appeased by anything less than total compliance. While Saddam my not have crossed every "t" and dotted every "i", the inspections were working. And since enforcement of these UN edicts was never handed over to the US, it sort of negates this line of reasoning for justifying the invasion.

Ziggurat said:
Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

Saddam was not, by EVERY measure stronger than the Taliban. Far from it. He was not the ringleader of an international terrorist organization, nor did he have any clear ties to one.

Any nation could have "access to potential terrorists". You gotta show intent. You can't invade a country based on what they are potentially able to do. 9-11 could have been pulled off by fanatical Belgians.

You're essentially labelling the invasion a "judgment call". That doesn't excuse bad judgment.

Ziggurat · Jun 9, 2007

Tricky said:
Saddam was not, by EVERY measure stronger than the Taliban. Far from it. He was not the ringleader of an international terrorist organization, nor did he have any clear ties to one.

The Taliban was not itself the ringleader of any international terrorist organization either. And yes, Saddam did have clear ties to terrorist organizations, and he could easily have forged more ties.

You're essentially labelling the invasion a "judgment call". That doesn't excuse bad judgment.

I never said it did. But you and I don't agree about whether or not it was bad judgment.

Ziggurat · Jun 9, 2007

This Guy said:
OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea!

Don't be silly. Obviously my point is not that any state with more resources than the Taliban is an enemy. Rather, my point is that if an enemy state has at least that much resources, then they are a potential threat. The decision about what to do about that potential threat is, of course, much more complicated. And it includes such calculations as how large that enmity is (quite large in Saddam's case) and how reckless that state might be in pursuing that enmity (again, very large for Saddam, probably not as much for, say, North Korea, another enemy state).

Yes, Saddam had some resources. He had a potential to do harm. But there has not been any proof that I know of that he was even trying to do so. I won't shrug off the threat completely, but I will say the potential was not enough to merit our engaging in a second war, IMHO.

Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

Tricky · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
And yes, Saddam did have clear ties to terrorist organizations, and he could easily have forged more ties.

Well the CIA must be hushing them up, because they certainly haven't been exposed widely. CT?

Ziggurat said:
I never said it did. But you and I don't agree about whether or not it was bad judgment.

Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.

Ziggurat · Jun 9, 2007

Tricky said:
Well the CIA must be hushing them up, because they certainly haven't been exposed widely. CT?

Uh, NO. Ever hear of Abu Abbas? Abu Nidal? The PKK? Saddam's connections to terrorism were widely exposed. So I don't know what you're talking about. Or, more correctly, you don't know what I'm talking about.

Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.

I haven't in this thread, that is correct. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so now, because 1) it would take some time, 2) I've argued those points before on this board, and 3) I don't think you'd agree with my assesment anyways. So for the moment I'm sticking to more concrete issues.

Tricky · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
Uh, NO. Ever hear of Abu Abbas? Abu Nidal? The PKK? Saddam's connections to terrorism were widely exposed. So I don't know what you're talking about. Or, more correctly, you don't know what I'm talking about.

I know what you are talking about, but I disagree that such things are "connections". There is not a good case that Saddam gave them either leadership or material support.

Ziggurat said:
I haven't in this thread, that is correct. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so now, because 1) it would take some time, 2) I've argued those points before on this board, and 3) I don't think you'd agree with my assesment anyways.

Yes, that's why I'm keeping this short too. We've been over this ground before. I'm afraid This Guy will have to search for those classic confrontations.

Ziggurat said:
So for the moment I'm sticking to more concrete issues.

LOL. As in "My feet are cemented to this spot." You're about as movable as your namesake.

(Just messin' with ya, Ziggy.)

Comrade Ogilvy · Jun 9, 2007

Question....Did we ever get U.N. approval to invade Afghanistan?

This Guy · Jun 9, 2007

Comrade Ogilvy said:
Question....Did we ever get U.N. approval to invade Afghanistan?

Pretty sure we did. I'll be right back with a link

Nope. I was wrong (again

)

"The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in the initial conflict and deployment of US troops in Afghanistan by any new resolution. The Security Council has, however, authorized the International Security Assistance Force to use force in its mission of securing the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Yea, it's from the WIKI, but I can' find anything better on short notice

There were a couple UN resolutions before the war, dealing with sanctions for harboring terrorist I believe, but nothing that authorized us to go in.

In my opinion this was a justified invasion regardless.

The Taliban admitted having ole Ben, and refused to give him up, saying THEY had no evidence linking him to the attacks. Whoop de do.

Think they wish they had said something else now? (He left, he don't live here no more!, Ben who?, No habla ingles)

This Guy · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
Don't be silly. Obviously my point is not that any state with more resources than the Taliban is an enemy. Rather, my point is that if an enemy state has at least that much resources, then they are a potential threat. The decision about what to do about that potential threat is, of course, much more complicated. And it includes such calculations as how large that enmity is (quite large in Saddam's case) and how reckless that state might be in pursuing that enmity (again, very large for Saddam, probably not as much for, say, North Korea, another enemy state).

I was joking on that one. OK, maybe blowing what you said way out of proportion for the sake of a joke, but joking never the less

Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

Yes, there were reports of pilots being shot at. In all honesty I can't recall how often, and with how much intent the reports implied. I'm not saying this didn't happen, just admitting ignorance of the degree to which it took place. As I recall, this had been going on, off and on almost since we pulled out of Iraq. Since it obviously was not taking place during the month leading up to the invasion (please give a link to a correction for this, if it exist) I don't think that justified an invasion. You can claim judgment call if you like, but considering the state of the inspections leading up to the invasion, I can find no justification. To my knowledge nothing happened during the month leading up to the invasion that merited causing a halt to the inspections and invading Iraq.

It's also interesting, IMHO, that the UN resolution that allowed us to go into Iraq, as I understand it, 1441, also said this - "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,"

Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions. If sovereignty can be viewed as the right of a nation to decide it's own leaders. Saddam was, at one point, as I understand it, elected. I'm not familiar enough with Saddam's legitimacy to rule to really take a stand on this point though.

And of course the fact that Kafi Annan felt the invasion was illegal brings the whole justification of the war into question.

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC 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. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

But of course many of the supporters of the war do not support the UN, so I don't expect that to carry much weight

Comrade Ogilvy · Jun 9, 2007

But of course many of the supporters of the war do not support the UN, so I don't expect that to carry much weight

What...we would go against the "World Federation' and let the Klingons invade us...Gee..I guess we didn`t ask the U.N. for our involvement in Kosov either or sending cruise missiles into Sudan...SO SORRY!

SezMe · Jun 9, 2007

Picking up from the source thread without reading the posts above this one, Art posted:

Art Vandelay said:
I never said that the position is Leftist and therefore wrong. I brought up the label merely to establish what position I was talking about. Not to compound the impression that I apparently am giving you of ragging on Leftists, but there seems to be an attitude that labels are somhow bad, we should treat everyone as completely individuals, and we shouldn't generalize or group people or attitudes into categories based on them being similar but not identical. This position in turn seems to be correlated with traits commonly known as "Leftist". While I agree that excessive labeling can lead to problems, language ultimately consists of labels, and rejecting labels means rejecting language. I wanted to discuss an attitude, and I needed a label, and Leftist was the one I considered most appropriate.

I generally agree with you, Art. We could hardly function if we didn't group, label and categorize people, events, etc. on a moment-by-moment basis. If I wrongly attached a stigma to your use of the word "Leftist" then I apologize. The reason I focused on that particular category was that it didn't seem to be a useful category. So I ask you: What value did you attach to categorizing This Guy's post as being "Leftist"?

SezMe · Jun 9, 2007

Ziggurat said:
Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

They did - you are right. And when Saddam's radar sites locked onto a fighter plane, we'd turn it into a junk yard.

But your larger point is entirely wrong. That Saddam threatened to down our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone does NOT mean that Saddam threatened the USA. Your use of the word "us" in the first sentence in the quote, then, fails to distinguish between us (meaning our jets flying over Iraq) and us (meaning the USA). It is not a trivial difference.

Art Vandelay · Jun 9, 2007

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.

This Guy said:
I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice.

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

The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success.

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.

Again, thanks for the English lesson. But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.

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

But I'm not going to bother. Shortened from the other thread - If my position against the war in Iraq makes me a Leftist, then so be it.

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

Well, if Saddam had conquered most of Europe, I would likely have felt different about the invasion.

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

Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?

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

Does that make the deaths better in your opinion? They are still just as dead. It also shows the lack of planning for the war.

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

To cause the deaths of thousands that would have otherwise been alive, while conducting an unjustified, ill-planned war is wrong.

You're begging the question.

I don't see where politics figures into it.

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

This Guy said:
OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea!

Tricky said:
Any nation could have "access to potential terrorists". You gotta show intent. You can't invade a country based on what they are potentially able to do. 9-11 could have been pulled off by fanatical Belgians.

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

ce enforcement of these UN edicts was never handed over to the US, it sort of negates this line of reasoning for justifying the invasion.

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.

Tricky said:
Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.

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.

This Guy said:
Since it obviously was not taking place during the month leading up to the invasion (please give a link to a correction for this, if it exist) I don't think that justified an invasion.

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

Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions.

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

SezMe said:
So I ask you: What value did you attach to categorizing This Guy's post as being "Leftist"?

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

SezMe said:
Your use of the word "us" in the first sentence in the quote, then, fails to distinguish between us (meaning our jets flying over Iraq) and us (meaning the USA). It is not a trivial difference.

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

Another Iraqi war discussion

Master Poster

Papa Funkosophy

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Papa Funkosophy

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Briefly immortal

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Briefly immortal

Penultimate Amazing

Briefly immortal

Muse

Master Poster

Master Poster

Muse

post-pre-born

post-pre-born

Illuminator