If Saddam Had Stayed

[joobz]

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

Not sure how this contradicts my point.

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."

You are staking your entire argument on the idea that "I swear they were there a minute ago!!!"
Sorry, that's just not convincing or rational.

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.

I see it's our providence to claim oil as we see fit?

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

It's an example of a failed regime change. An example right NEXT to the country in question with a culture more similar to Iraq's than Western Europe.

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

See point above.

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

Your evasion of the ethical delimma noted.

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.

Perhaps you should make it a practice to at least re-read what YOU post. I was illustrating the fact that you were the one who originally referenced the housing market it in this thread, a point that was completely tangential to the argument at hand.

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.

Nice attempt at reframing through redefining the system. But that doesn't work. pre-emptive war is to be start something without initial provocation.
There was no provocation here. Only the supposed claim of WMDs, which WERE NOT THERE.

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.

There were no WMDs. That's not an irrational statement. It's a statement of fact.

One can only hope...

I see you are attempting at scoring point. how quaint.

You rely almost exclusively on the fact that no WMD was found

No WMD found = no WMD, until proven otherwise. That's rational, evidence based logic.
Similarly,
No Leprechauns found = No Leprechauns
No Bigfoots found = No bigfoots

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.

And I supported counteraction when Saddam kicked out the inspectors. But once they were allowed back, I didn't see a reason to go through with the invasion.

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It is your problem though, not mine.

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.

I think you need to re-read the constitution. Nothing it is states that national defense is the "prime directive". It definitely is A directive, but not the only one. Others include Establish Justice, Promote the General Welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

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.

Actually, the arguments were that he had possessed WMD and had the ability to produce WMD. Both claims were false.

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.

Prior to Iraq war 1, yes. Post Iraq war 1, no.

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

it's joobz.

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?

Yes.
I believe that we are better off without Saddam.

I also believe that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.

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.

You are having a hard time understanding the difference between the "outcomes of an action" and the "verification of premises".

claiming that X was good becuase it resulted in the downstream outcome Y is letting the ends justify the means.

Claiming that X was good because Y exists is a separate issue. If it was proven later that Y was false, than that would be a challenge to the original argument, that X was good.

It was shown that Y (WMD) didn't exist. Therefore, WMD didn't exist.
Your only defense is that WMD "may" have existed. however, there is no solid evidence supporting that. As such, until such time as more evidence surfaces, we are forced to conclude that there were no WMD.

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.

This is a rather blatant personal attack. I've done nothing to deserve this and I think you know that. An apology is in order.

 

[joobz]

Inspections only work if the regime co-operates.

They are easier if the regime co-operates. But they still work otherwise.

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

I don't understand your point here.

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

And yet it demonstrates that regime changes fail. Indeed, it is a great example of a failed regime change in the Middle east, making it a rather important lesson.

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.

So why do we use sanctions for N. Korea?

One of many reasons.

other reasons were the reasons for Iraq war 1.
the primary reason for Iraq war 2 was the threat of WMD.

Because it wasn't true.

Wait. When asked why Iraq and not other Gennocidal dictators, you said

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

now you are claiming that Oil wasn't a reason?

I'm confused. Which is it?

I agree. So did Bush:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4669980.stm

Well we agree on something.

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.

You are correct. I miss used the word Pretenses. I apologize. The justification for the war was false. Although, the evidence supporting the WMD was highly suspect. We could go back the the yellowcake debacle.

Like you.

Not at all. I frequently admit when I am wrong and will correctly my arguments/positions thusly. I do not appreciate the personal attack here and do not believe I deserve it.

Read that address to the UN yet?

yes.

So?

If you must ask this, than I can not take you seriously regarding your "genocidal dictator" premise for the war.

 

[Toontown]

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

Joobz:
Not sure how this contradicts my point.

Toontown:
I see what you did there.

Going back to the original point: Leaving Castro in power and settling for half a century of jacking around with him because the invasion failed was, in fact, a "stopgap measure". You had denied it was a stopgap measure.

You have a bad habit of dragging everything off into left field by responding with non-sequiturs, causing the original thread to be lost in the Joobz shuffle.

You do it intentionally, don't you.

Toontown:
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."

Joobz:
You are staking your entire argument on the idea that "I swear they were there a minute ago!!!"

Toontown:

That's a deliberate misquote. I said nothing of the kind. I am doing nothing of the kind.

You can't see how silly it is to expect the WMD to still be there? Saddam had months of advance notice of the coming invasion.

As I've tried to explain several times, the object was to remove a genocidal, WMD-producing-and-using regime from power, and to insure the present and future NON-existence of WMD. It did not matter whether Saddam had the WMD at the moment of the invasion or not. If left in power, his regime would have had all the time in the world to manufacture WMD, and the vast wealth of a fourth of the world's oil to do it with.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
I see it's our providence to claim oil as we see fit?

Toontown:
Yes.

Given the standing state of war and the standing UN authorization to use "all necessary means", it was indeed within our rights to wrest the oil from Saddam's clutches and return it to the people of Iraq.

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

Joobz:
It's an example of a failed regime change. An example right NEXT to the country in question with a culture more similar to Iraq's than Western Europe.

Toontown:
And Germany is an example of a successful regime change. You have no point. I could say "All the leaves are brown and the sky is gray.". But that doesn't mean the leaves are always going to be brown and the sky is always going to be gray.

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

Joobz:
See point above.

Toontown:
What point above? You mean my point above? YOU see point above.

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

Joobz:
Your evasion of the ethical delimma noted.

Toontown:
There is no ethical dilemma, except the bogus one manufactured by your mind.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
Perhaps you should make it a practice to at least re-read what YOU post. I was illustrating the fact that you were the one who originally referenced the housing market it in this thread, a point that was completely tangential to the argument at hand.

Toontown:
Yes, I've noticed you've recently been making a career out of bringing that up, whatever it is (still not interested enough to bother looking it up). Why are you making a career of bringing that up? I know it doesn't pay that well.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
Nice attempt at reframing through redefining the system. But that doesn't work. pre-emptive war is to be start something without initial provocation.
There was no provocation here. Only the supposed claim of WMDs, which WERE NOT THERE.

Toontown:
But a genocidal Chapter VII regime was there. Not there anymore. And WMD was manufactured and used to kill many thousands there. No WMD there anymore.

And...(if any man has an ear, let him hear)...There won't be any WMD there for the foreseeable future. See, that was the thing we didn't want to happen. We didn't want Saddam to be around anymore, and we didn't want his WMD to be around or ever show up again.

But your way, the brutish Saddam or Uday would still be in power.

You want ethics? There's your ethics. leaving you ethically legless.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
There were no WMDs. That's not an irrational statement. It's a statement of fact.

Toontown:
Stop squirming around. It's disgusting.

It's the conclusion you draw therefrom that I'm calling irrational.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
I'm sorry you feel that way. It is your problem though, not mine.

Toontown:
No. It's your problem.

I don't "feel" that way. I'm saying that's what you're doing. Because I can see. I don't need to feel.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
You are having a hard time understanding the difference between the "outcomes of an action" and the "verification of premises".

claiming that X was good becuase it resulted in the downstream outcome Y is letting the ends justify the means.

Claiming that X was good because Y exists is a separate issue. If it was proven later that Y was false, than that would be a challenge to the original argument, that X was good.

Toontown:
Yeah, I know. So why do you keep implying X was bad because Y doesn't exist? See, the thing is, we don't want Y to exist. Not then. Not now. Not ever. And there are compelling reasons to believe that objective has been assured. So all your Xing and Ying is for naught.

Joobz:
It was shown that Y (WMD) didn't exist. Therefore, WMD didn't exist.

Your only defense is that WMD "may" have existed. however, there is no solid evidence supporting that. As such, until such time as more evidence surfaces, we are forced to conclude that there were no WMD.

Toontown:
Dead wrong. That is not my "defense". I'm not even playing defense. I'm attacking. Like Saddam, you should have quit while you were behind.

My position is that the object was to insure that no WMD existed, and that no WMD would exist in the future. Also to insure that the Hussein regime does not exist, pursuant to the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998. Clearly, we agree that those objectives have been assured. There is no WMD. There is no Hussein regime.

That's my position. I have never once claimed that the object was to find WMD.

I will repeat: The object was not to find WMD. The object was to permanently eliminate the threat of WMD emanating from Iraq.

I've been trying to get that through your wall of denial for what seems like an eternity now. And now I'm pissed, and I'm just going to continue to ridicule your stubborn refusal to acknowledge my oft-repeated position.

Toontown:
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.

Joobz:
This is a rather blatant personal attack. I've done nothing to deserve this and I think you know that. An apology is in order.

Toontown:
I asked you not to do that.

Yeah, sure I'll apologise. Just as soon as you apologise for deliberately badgering, annoying, and misquoting me, with intent to badger, annoy, and deceive.

 

[joobz]

Just as soon as you apologise for deliberately badgering, annoying, and misquoting me, with intent to badger, annoy, and deceive.

In the future, I suggest you learn the definition of misquoting and deceiving. I've done neither of those.

I see no reason to respond to any of your other points, considering you failed to actually make any.

 

[SezMe]

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

Joobz:
Not sure how this contradicts my point.<snip>

Toontown, learn to use the quote button. It is there for a reason.

 

[Toontown]

Toontown, learn to use the quote button. It is there for a reason.

I know all about the quote button. It apparently doesn't do nested quotes. It only quotes the posters responses. It doesn't quote what the poster was responding to. I needed to include what Joobz was responding to, or the whole thing would be nonsensical.

Plus, Joobz has a bad habit of ignoring context, so in his case it appears to be necessary to keep some of the context visible, in order to discourage that bad habit. It seems to have worked.

 

[SezMe]

I know all about the quote button. It apparently doesn't do nested quotes. It only quotes the posters responses. It doesn't quote what the poster was responding to. I needed to include what Joobz was responding to, or the whole thing would be nonsensical.

You're right. None of us can follow a conversation without the entire context quoted in every post.

 

[joobz]

Plus, Joobz has a bad habit of ignoring context, so in his case it appears to be necessary to keep some of the context visible, in order to discourage that bad habit.

You are welcome to prove your accusation by providing evidence.
We both know that won't happen.

It seems to have worked.

I didn't reply to your post because it lacked anything beyond illogical attacks against me. If you wish to formulate a cogent argument, I would be happy to reply to that. Until then, I will give your posts the limited attention they deserve.

 

[Toontown]

You're right. None of us can follow a conversation without the entire context quoted in every post.

So? I just made it easier for you. I don't see what you're getting all testy about.

Next time, I will box all the quotes up in quote boxes. I certainly wouldn't want to stray from the One True Path.

 

[Toontown]

You are welcome to prove your accusation by providing evidence.
We both know that won't happen.

It already has happened. It's all right there in black and white.

 

[joobz]

It already has happened. It's all right there in black and white.

Really? I have yet to see you provide ANY evidence that Saddam had WMD at the time of the start of Iraq War 2.

 

[Toontown]

Really? I have yet to see you provide ANY evidence that Saddam had WMD at the time of the start of Iraq War 2.

Why would I need to provide evidence for something I have not claimed?

I never said there was much in the way of WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. I have repeatedly attempted to explain my position to you. More and more, you prove that trying to communicate with you is an exercise in futility.

See, I don't care whether there was WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. What I cared about all along was carrying out the existing regime change policy, carrying out the UN mandate to "restore peace and stability", and to insure that Iraq would be permanently out of the WMD business.

The momentary disposition of WMD is your issue, not mine. So why would I need to provide evidence for your issue? It's not my claim. It's your claim. I haven't contested it. I'm not even interested in whether WMD was physically present at the time of the invasion. I consider it irrelevant. The regime had a history of making and using WMD in large quantities. The regime had a history of invading neighboring countries and destabilizing the region. The UN authorized all member nations to "use all necessary means" to "restore peace and stability to the area".

Those are my issues and my positions. The ones I've been talking about all along.

I do not care how you feel about the fact that there was no physically existing WMD in Iraq at the moment of the invasion.

Deja vu? Does any of this ring a bell? Haven't you read this somewhere before?

But whatever. Keep digging. I'll just keep shoveling dirt in the hole on top of you.

 

[joobz]

Why would I need to provide evidence for something I have not claimed?

So the primary reason for justifying regime change is Unimportant to you. This has been established.

See, I don't care whether there was WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. What I cared about all along was carrying out the existing regime change policy, carrying out the UN mandate to "restore peace and stability", and to insure that Iraq would be permanently out of the WMD business.

Something we were doing quite well with prior to the war as evidenced by the lack of WMD upon entering Iraq.

The momentary disposition of WMD is your issue, not mine. So why would I need to provide evidence for your issue? It's not my claim. It's your claim. I haven't contested it. I'm not even interested in whether WMD was physically present at the time of the invasion. I consider it irrelevant. The regime had a history of making and using WMD in large quantities. The regime had a history of invading neighboring countries and destabilizing the region. The UN authorized all member nations to "use all necessary means" to "restore peace and stability to the area".

That was Iraq War 1. Using your reasoning, we should be allowed to invade germany at any moment because of WWI and WWII.

Those are my issues and my positions. The ones I've been talking about all along.

I do not care how you feel about the fact that there was no physically existing WMD in Iraq at the moment of the invasion.

I know you don't care about it, but it simply makes your support for Iraq war 2 both unsubstantiated AND illogical.

But whatever. Keep digging. I'll just keep shoveling dirt in the hole on top of you.

You would be much better served at putting your efforts into forming substantive arguments and not creating degrading colorful rhetoric.

 

[Toontown]

So the primary reason for justifying regime change is Unimportant to you. This has been established.

All the reasons I've brought up were actual reasons. In addition, there were long-term strategic reasons I haven't even brought up.

Something we were doing quite well with prior to the war as evidenced by the lack of WMD upon entering Iraq.

Izzatafact. Saddam was still in power, with Uday The Ravager waiting in the wings. The sanctions were unraveling. Certain members of the Security Council obviously had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power, not to mention various other greasy-palmed officials. The price of oil was about to rocket skyward. The Husseins were going to be rolling in oil money and free of sanctions and inspectors.

That was Iraq War 1. Using your reasoning, we should be allowed to invade germany at any moment because of WWI and WWII.

Wrong again, as I"ve explained and demonstrated early in this thread. Read UNSCR 1441 without looking for loopholes, or read my posts on the subject. You will see that the resolution recalled and even quoted the authorization to use force, pointed out what was required to establish a cease-fire, and then bluntly and pointedly declared that "Iraq had been and remained in material breach" of the cease-fire requirements. And then, "while acknowledging the above", bluntly informed Saddam that he was the fortunate beneficiary of a grace period of unspecified duration.

I'll break it down into plain language: "Saddam, your time has plumb run out. If you plan on being here when John gits here, you better start doing some fast talking, boy. And you better make believers out of those boys with the guns over there, and fast. Because as soon as they all git in position, they're fixin to open fire on your ass."

During that unspecified time period, Saddam could do all in his power to convince his existential critics that he really didn't need to be taken out.

He failed to convince them. Yes, that's right. We were all pretty sure Saddam would fail to convince them. But you see, they really didn't have to give him the grace period at all. As 1441 detailed, Saddam was already a dead man walking.

As noted, I've already explained all this at length, early in the thread. It's all right there, in the resolutions, in black and white.

I know you don't care about it, but it simply makes your support for Iraq war 2both unsubstantiated AND illogical.

How? Based on your demonstrably false assumption that ONLY the momentary disposition of WMD at the time of the invasion mattered to anyone, past, present, or future?

If someone who doesn't have a mental block were to read all the pertinent resolutions and all the statements, speeches, and policy positions, he would find that a number of other factors were considered more important than the momentary disposition of WMD - including, but not limited to the very real possibility that the Hussein regime would continue to be a stability threat to the region and a threat to make and use WMD in terrorist attacks.

You would be much better served at putting your efforts into forming substantive arguments and not creating degrading colorful rhetoric.

Why? All my substantive arguments have only gone into your eyes and out your ears so far. You haven't even reached square one in terms of understanding or even acknowledging the many reasons for the regime change. You're still back in Leftomatic Land, repeatedly chirping, "There was no WMD! There was no WMD!"

Will you still be chirping that in 2020, when the prosperous, democratic Iraq is leading the way in transforming the entire region?

It has to happen sometime, and there is no time like the present. They can't stay in the 16th century forever. They're liable to get nukes and blow themselves up. It's not like they don't have a penchant for blowing themselves up, you know. And getting themselves cross-threaded with superpowers, which is a singularly bad habit if you don't have a sufficient nuclear deterrent. Or if you have a bad habit of shooting off every kind of explosive you've ever laid your hands on.

So there really isn't all that much time for those middle easterners to start getting their testosterone-boys under control, as a number of Iraqis recently pointed out in an internet discussion among Arabs about the prospect of Arab nukes. Nearly all the Iraqis in the discussion were strongly against the Islamo-bomb, and made very compelling cases against it. And that's one of the reasons why we selected Iraq for transformation. Iraq has many of that kind of realistic, rational people, unlike most middle eastern countries. So Iraqis are already leading the way in the kind of realistic, rational discussions Arabs desperately need to have, if they are to have a future.

But I digress. You wouldn't know or care about any of that. You only care about the momentary disposition of WMD at the time of the invasion.

 

[joobz]

Izzatafact. Saddam was still in power, with Uday The Ravager waiting in the wings. The sanctions were unraveling. Certain members of the Security Council obviously had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power, not to mention various other greasy-palmed officials. The price of oil was about to rocket skyward. The Husseins were going to be rolling in oil money and free of sanctions and inspectors.

So, we are back to the whole preemptive war thing. There were no existing threats, just potential threats. I simply don't agree with such tactics. It's against the entire concept of sovereignty and liberty.

Wrong again, as I"ve explained and demonstrated early in this thread. Read UNSCR 1447 without looking for loopholes, or read my posts on the subject. You will see that the resolution recalled and even quoted the authorization to use force, pointed out what was required to establish a cease-fire, and then bluntly and pointedly declared that "Iraq had been and remained in material breach" of the cease-fire requirements. And then, "while acknowledging the above", bluntly informed Saddam that he was the fortunate beneficiary of a grace period of unspecified duration.

Are you sure that's the right resolution? I don't see anything there that states what you state. And Yes, we are not in denial of the fact that Saddam had kicked out the inspectors. That he was making postures. We amassed troupes and he chickened out. We could have restarted the inspections and simply left it at that. Instead of having a huge costly war. Our efforts would have been better served focusing on the Taliban and Al-Qeada.

I'll break it down into plain language: "Saddam, your time has plumb run out. If you plan on being here when John gits here, you better start doing some fast talking, boy. And you better make believers out of those boys with the guns over there, and fast. Because as soon as they all git in position, they're fixin to open fire on your ass."

During that unspecified time period, Saddam could do all in his power to convince his existential critics that he really didn't need to be taken out.

He failed to convince them. Yes, that's right. We were all pretty sure Saddam would fail to convince them. But you see, they really didn't have to give him the grace period at all. As 1447 detailed, Saddam was already a dead man walking.

See above.

How? Based on your demonstrably false assumption that ONLY the momentary disposition of WMD at the time of the invasion mattered to anyone, past, present, or future?

But it does matter.
The statements were that Saddam had been creating WMD. He was seeking Yellowcake and the tools to use it. That was wrong.
I know this sounds strange, but if the justification for a war was found to be illfounded, that raises the question regarding the legitimacy of the war.

If someone who doesn't have a mental block were to read all the pertinent resolutions and all the statements, speeches, and policy positions, he would find that a number of other factors were considered more important than the momentary disposition of WMD - including, but not limited to the very real possibility that the Hussein regime would continue to be a stability threat to the region and a threat to make and use WMD in terrorist attacks.

Presumably, if one didn't come to that conclusion, you would claim they had a mental block. Not a very rational or honest discussion point.

Why? All my substantive arguments have only gone into your eyes and out your ears so far. You haven't even reached square one in terms of understanding or even acknowledging the many reasons for the regime change. You're still back in Leftomatic Land, repeatedly chirping, "There was no WMD! There was no WMD!"

Will you still be chirping that in 2020, when the prosperous, democratic Iraq is leading the way in transforming the entire region?

What does this have to do with anything?

It has to happen sometime, and there is no time like the present. They can't stay in the 16th century forever. They're liable to get nukes and blow themselves up. It's not like they don't have a penchant for blowing themselves up, you know. And getting themselves cross-threaded with superpowers, which is a singularly bad habit if you don't have a sufficient nuclear deterrent. Or if you have a bad habit of shooting off every kind of explosive you've ever laid your hands on.

Interesting.

So there really isn't all that much time for those middle easterners to start getting their testosterone-boys under control, as a number of Iraqis recently pointed out in an internet discussion among Arabs about the prospect of Arab nukes. Nearly all the Iraqis in the discussion were strongly against the Islamo-bomb, and made very compelling cases against it. And that's one of the reasons why we selected Iraq for transformation. Iraq has many of that kind of realistic, rational people, unlike most middle eastern countries. So Iraqis are already leading the way in the kind of realistic, rational discussions Arabs desperately need to have, if they are to have a future.

please tell me more about how "those people" are.

But I digress. You wouldn't know or care about any of that. You only care about the momentary disposition of WMD at the time of the invasion.

No. I only care for actual evidence and logic.

Like I said, wmd was the primary platform for war. That platform was proven to be made of smoke and mirrors. the fact that good things may come of it doesn't change the fact that the reason was wrong.

If a Child conceived from a rape was to go and cure cancer, that in no way would justify her mother being raped.

 

[Toontown]

So, we are back to the whole preemptive war thing. There were no existing threats, just potential threats. I simply don't agree with such tactics. It's against the entire concept of sovereignty and liberty.

And I simply don't agree that a thuggish, homicidal power seizer and usurper has "sovereignty".

I think anyone who calls Saddam "sovereign" is either using the word indiscriminately for obfuscatory purposes, or....well, I won't go into the "other" possibilities.

Are you sure that's the right resolution? I don't see anything there that states what you state.

It's 1441, not 144(7). And 144(1) does state precisely what I stated.

And Yes, we are not in denial of the fact that Saddam had kicked out the inspectors. That he was making postures. We amassed troupes and he chickened out. We could have restarted the inspections and simply left it at that. Instead of having a huge costly war. Our efforts would have been better served focusing on the Taliban and Al-Qeada.

Right. Your preference was to keep Iraq permanently imprisoned by sanctions, turning it into a kind of UN-run gulag. Well, you didn't get what you wanted, and I'm glad you didn't.

I don't think it would have stood anyway. Saddam would have gotten out of the sanctions, by the simple expedient of causing a famine and greasing the right palms, thereby causing worldwide pressure to lift the sanctions for "humanitarian" reasons. After all, as you've repeatedly pointed out, Saddam had conveniently gotten rid of his WMD, so he would have been declared "clean" by the inspectors.

At any rate, you think too small to ever succeed in this kind of conflict. Focusing on the Taliban and al Qaeda is not going to bring peace or end Islamic terrorism. They're like cockroaches. Only the transformation of the entire region that spawns terrorism can bring peace. By focusing on the symptoms and ignoring the disease, you are essentially admitting defeat before the battle is joined. You are willing to resign us to living with terrorism and the unstable region that spawns it, indefinitely. For as long as "indefinitely" lasts.

I know this sounds strange, but if the justification for a war was found to be illfounded, that raises the question regarding the legitimacy of the war.

1, Hindsight has no bearing on the correctness of incorrectness of a decision. The hindsight was not available at the time the decision was made.


2. "legitimacy" is just a word you've seized upon in an attempt to avoid the real issue.

3. The decision to go to war is either correct or incorrect, based on the information available at the time, the analysis thereof, and various tactical and strategic considerations. "legitimacy" has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of the decision. Nor is the president obliged to provide total disclosure to the public in such matters. Because, in doing so, he also provides total disclosure to the enemy. Which would be stupid. Thus, the public probably will not be completely and accurately informed in such matters. Nor should it be.

4. The decision to go to war is for the white house and the congress to decide, not the public. The public's limited awareness and perception of the issue is irrelevant. If the public was competent to make such decisions, there would be no need for elections and presidents and senators.

5. The decision to go to war is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the public perception of the reasoning that went into the decision.

And you, Joobz, in partiular, are clearly unschooled on much of the reasoning that went into the decision. All you know is that Saddam had conveniently gotten rid of his WMD by the time the troops arrived, leading you to think exactly what Saddam wanted you to think.

Presumably, if one didn't come to that conclusion, you would claim they had a mental block. Not a very rational or honest discussion point.

It's just a simple acknowledgement of everything that's been said and resolved, instead of simply clinging stubbornly to "But there was no WMD!"

What does this have to do with anything?

Only everything to do with everything. The transformation of the region was THE long-term strategic plan. Iraq was chosen as the catalyst. You didn't even know that??

Bush and others mentioned the transformation strategy in speeches. And yet it seems that almost no leftist is even aware of any long term transformation strategy involving Iraq as the catalyst. That's the work of the left's informational gulag.

please tell me more about how "those people" are.

I don't need to tell you about them. They can speak for themselves. And then your little eyeballs will be looking for something else to roll about:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-iraqis-want-arab-nuclear-bomb.html

No. I only care for actual evidence and logic.

Who do you think you're kidding? You may have accidentally swallowed some logic that time you tripped and fell on your face in it. But you didn't know what it was.

Case in point: anyone who thinks regime change is automatically a bad strategy simply because it "failed" (using the term very loosely) once in a nearby country, is like the neophyte hold-em player who throws away pocket aces because the last time he played them, he lost. But the unschooled poker player at least has an excuse. He doesn't know anything about the probabilities involved. He doesn't know the single loss with the pocket aces was an unlikely bad beat. He doesn't know AA is the best possible starting hand. For all he knows, J-10 suited might be a better hand.

What you're doing is not logic. At best, it's mantra repetition.

Like I said, wmd was the primary platform for war. That platform was proven to be made of smoke and mirrors. the fact that good things may come of it doesn't change the fact that the reason was wrong.

There he goes again...

Dude...a fourth of earth's oil supply is not smoke and mirrors. An aspiring terrorist who has that kind of wealth and leverage at his disposal, plus 26 million people he has absolute power over, including engineers, physicists, chemists, and biologists, can do a hell of a lot of damage, capable of making al Qaeda and the Taliban look like children playing with toys.

 

[leftysergeant]

The whole pro-invasion argument I see in this thread is just a revival of the doctrine of "The White Man's Burden" justified by lies about Iraq's military capabilities.

 

[joobz]

And I simply don't agree that a thuggish, homicidal power seizer and usurper has "sovereignty".

I think anyone who calls Saddam "sovereign" is either using the word indiscriminately for obfuscatory purposes, or....well, I won't go into the "other" possibilities.

I don't agree with Saddam either. But Iraq is a sovereign nation.

It's 1441, not 144(7). And 144(1) does state precisely what I stated.

Ok. Well, You had said 1447, which confused me.
I did read 1441. As Saddam had readmitted the inspectors, he arguably fullfilled the resolution.

Right. Your preference was to keep Iraq permanently imprisoned by sanctions, turning it into a kind of UN-run gulag. Well, you didn't get what you wanted, and I'm glad you didn't.

that's a cute characterization of my argument. But, I'm certain you'll tell me more about how you know what's best for "those people".

I don't think it would have stood anyway. Saddam would have gotten out of the sanctions, by the simple expedient of causing a famine and greasing the right palms, thereby causing worldwide pressure to lift the sanctions for "humanitarian" reasons. After all, as you've repeatedly pointed out, Saddam had conveniently gotten rid of his WMD, so he would have been declared "clean" by the inspectors.

What WMDs? How can you claim he got rid of them when there wasn't evidence of their existence.

At any rate, you think too small to ever succeed in this kind of conflict. Focusing on the Taliban and al Qaeda is not going to bring peace or end Islamic terrorism. They're like cockroaches. Only the transformation of the entire region that spawns terrorism can bring peace.

the entire region now.. Yikes.

By focusing on the symptoms and ignoring the disease, you are essentially admitting defeat before the battle is joined. You are willing to resign us to living with terrorism and the unstable region that spawns it, indefinitely. For as long as "indefinitely" lasts.

Of course, "Those people" like anyone else, enjoy having foreigners come in and tell them what's good for them. That's a great way to win this war. Wait, I mean that's a great way of creating more terrorists.

1, Hindsight has no bearing on the correctness of incorrectness of a decision. The hindsight was not available at the time the decision was made.

Actually it most definitely does.
If I tackle someone who I thought just robbed me, I would be guilty of assault if it turns out I was wrong.

2. "legitimacy" is just a word you've seized upon in an attempt to avoid the real issue.

You just played a semantic card to avoid my point.

3. The decision to go to war is either correct or incorrect, based on the information available at the time, the analysis thereof, and various tactical and strategic considerations. "legitimacy" has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of the decision. Nor is the president obliged to provide total disclosure to the public in such matters. Because, in doing so, he also provides total disclosure to the enemy. Which would be stupid. Thus, the public probably will not be completely and accurately informed in such matters. Nor should it be.

So the war was acceptable because we thought it was acceptable. Reality doesn't matter? interesting.

4. The decision to go to war is for the white house and the congress to decide, not the public. The public's limited awareness and perception of the issue is irrelevant. If the public was competent to make such decisions, there would be no need for elections and presidents and senators.

that's the funny thing about living in a free country. I am fully justified to question the actions of my leaders. I find it strange that you would suggest they are beyond review.

5. The decision to go to war is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the public perception of the reasoning that went into the decision.

It isn't even the public that was stating the justification was off. Remember the yellow cake errors? Remember the fact that much of the supporting evidence given to congress was rather unreliable?

And you, Joobz, in partiular, are clearly unschooled on much of the reasoning that went into the decision. All you know is that Saddam had conveniently gotten rid of his WMD by the time the troops arrived, leading you to think exactly what Saddam wanted you to think.

for being "unschooled", you are having a hard time refuting my position.

It's just a simple acknowledgement of everything that's been said and resolved, instead of simply clinging stubbornly to "But there was no WMD!"

yes. And all of that hinged upon the existence of his material position and development capacity for WMDs. This was the entire breach. This was the central point to the UN resolution. There were no WMD.

Only everything to do with everything. The transformation of the region was THE long-term strategic plan. Iraq was chosen as the catalyst. You didn't even know that??

My point is that the reason for the war (the non compliance in the UN) was THE reason. Bush had to do some rather major logic jumps to link the Iraq liberation act to the war.

Bush and others mentioned the transformation strategy in speeches. And yet it seems that almost no leftist is even aware of any long term transformation strategy involving Iraq as the catalyst. That's the work of the left's informational gulag.

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that such talk received such negative reception. The idea of forcing democracy on people never quite sits well. Shall we remember the "welcomed as liberators" fantasy?

I don't need to tell you about them. They can speak for themselves. And then your little eyeballs will be looking for something else to roll about:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-iraqis-want-arab-nuclear-bomb.html

You've been quite consistent in your broad stroke portrayals of "those people". that was my criticism and it stands.

Who do you think you're kidding? You may have accidentally swallowed some logic that time you tripped and fell on your face in it. But you didn't know what it was.

yawn. Your insulting attacks only hurt your arguments.

Case in point: anyone who thinks regime change is automatically a bad strategy simply because it "failed" (using the term very loosely) once in a nearby country, is like the neophyte hold-em player who throws away pocket aces because the last time he played them, he lost. But the unschooled poker player at least has an excuse. He doesn't know anything about the probabilities involved. He doesn't know the single loss with the pocket aces was an unlikely bad beat. He doesn't know AA is the best possible starting hand. For all he knows, J-10 suited might be a better hand.

regime change is a failure because it assumes it is our right to enforce on other nations regardless of their own desires. I used the Iranian example because it is a PERFECT example of how a failure to appreciate the people of that region's culture and desire.

Your texas hold-em analogy would be funny if it wasn't so callus with other people's lives.

What you're doing is not logic. At best, it's mantra repetition.

And the truth hasn't changed. Hence my "mantra" hasn't changed.

There he goes again...

Dude...a fourth of earth's oil supply is not smoke and mirrors. An aspiring terrorist who has that kind of wealth and leverage at his disposal, plus 26 million people he has absolute power over, including engineers, physicists, chemists, and biologists, can do a hell of a lot of damage, capable of making al Qaeda and the Taliban look like children playing with toys.

And yet he was incapable of even getting a wmd program back on track. Not a threat.

 

[Upchurch]

Toontown, learn to use the quote button. It is there for a reason.

I know all about the quote button. It apparently doesn't do nested quotes. It only quotes the posters responses. It doesn't quote what the poster was responding to. I needed to include what Joobz was responding to, or the whole thing would be nonsensical.

It's a shame the forum doesn't have a multi-quote feature or that one can manipulate the results to create a nested quote.

Anyone know of a way to do that?

[QUOTE="Toontown, post: 6425402, member: 40887"][QUOTE="SezMe, post: 6425376, member: 1957"]Toontown, learn to use the quote button. It is there for a reason.[/QUOTE]I know all about the quote button. It apparently doesn't do nested quotes. It only quotes the posters responses. It doesn't quote what the poster was responding to. I needed to include what Joobz was responding to, or the whole thing would be nonsensical.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toontown]

I don't agree with Saddam either. But Iraq is a sovereign nation.

It is now. But your way, Iraq would be no more than a possession of the Hussein family.

that's a cute characterization of my argument. But, I'm certain you'll tell me more about how you know what's best for "those people".

Nah. I can't tell you anything. You know Saddam was best for them. You and Saddam had their future all mapped out. Oppression and sanctions forever.

the entire region now.. Yikes.

It's the entire region or nothing. Pussy-footing around, swatting a jihadist or uprooting a terrorist cell here and there, is not going to accomplish anything. the culture of the region must change.

The other alternative is to endure the terrorism, let all the major countries in the region get nukes, and blow themselves up, as several Iraqis vividly predicted.

Of course, "Those people" like anyone else, enjoy having foreigners come in and tell them what's good for them. That's a great way to win this war. Wait, I mean that's a great way of creating more terrorists.

Yeah, I know. They prefer to be controlled, manipulated, impoverished and oppressed by their own kind. It makes them feel good when a dictator owns all their oil. They like it like that.

If only there was a way to win a war and make them like it...hey, how about overthrowing their brutish dictator, giving them back the oil the dictator seized, and standing up the first Arab democracy. You think they'll like that?

I don't see why not. We know they like to vote. Damn, do they ever like to vote. By the millions. Every chance they get. Terrorists threaten to kill them if they vote, they vote anyway. And put purple ink on their fingers so all the terrorists can see they voted.

So the war was acceptable because we thought it was acceptable. Reality doesn't matter? interesting.

Equally interesting that you find the regime change unacceptable because you thought it was unacceptable.

that's the funny thing about living in a free country. I am fully justified to question the actions of my leaders. I find it strange that you would suggest they are beyond review.

It would be strange, because I did not say leaders decisions are beyond review. I find it strange that you suggest I said that. I did say decisions are either correct or incorrect, irrespective of the public's perception of the issue, which is not remotely the same as your strawman.

Do we really want to know what's going on? Do we really want to know just how far it's gone? Just leave well enough alone. Take your dirty laundry.

for being "unschooled", you are having a hard time refuting my position.

It's such an easy part, and you know how to play it so well.

It's easy to just keep saying it was all wrong because there was no WMD, while studiously ignoring everything else.

yes. And all of that hinged upon the existence of his material position and development capacity for WMDs. This was the entire breach. This was the central point to the UN resolution. There were no WMD.

Actually, the human rights abuses were more central than the WMD issue. WMD was just a possible means by which human rights could be abused on a large scale. And the resolution offered no opinion as to the existence of WMD. But the object was to make sure there was no WMD, and keep it that way. How that might be accomplished was encapsulated in the phrase "all necessary means".

My point is that the reason for the war (the non compliance in the UN) was THE reason. Bush had to do some rather major logic jumps to link the Iraq liberation act to the war.

Major logic jumps? I think not. Seems to me the national policy goal of regime change dovetails nicely with the decision to invade. Wishing and hoping wasn't getting it done.

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that such talk received such negative reception. The idea of forcing democracy on people never quite sits well. Shall we remember the "welcomed as liberators" fantasy?

Of course. It's better to leave them stuck in the 16th century, all testosteroned up and all messed up on Allah. Eventually, as one Iraqi predicted, they'll all get nukes, do the world a favor, and blow themselves up.

You've been quite consistent in your broad stroke portrayals of "those people". that was my criticism and it stands.

Why are you playing the bigot card? Because I said "those people"?

So now you're bigot-carding and word-copping. Typical.

regime change is a failure because it assumes it is our right to enforce on other nations regardless of their own desires. I used the Iranian example because it is a PERFECT example of how a failure to appreciate the people of that region's culture and desire.

It is ludicrous to say removing the nazis from power was a failure because they didn't want us to do it. That's what your position amounts to.

You used the Iranian example because it is the ONLY example of a "failed" regime change.

Your texas hold-em analogy would be funny if it wasn't so callus with other people's lives.

Sez the guy who would have left the Iraqis under Saddam and sanctions indefinitely.

And yet he was incapable of even getting a wmd program back on track. Not a threat.

If 19 terrorists armed with plane tickets and box cutters were a threat, how could a rogue regime, with a history of using WMD, owning a fourth of earth's oil wealth and controlling an entire country, not be a threat?

You're good at hindsight. How good are you at foresight? Did you see the 9/11terrorists coming? Would you have considered 19 men with boxcutters a serious threat?

If you didn't see it coming, you are singularly unqualified to declare Saddam "not a threat".