story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _2004jan18
read past the statement about “imminent threat”. we’ve covered that already. and this is not about whether removing saddam and freeing the iraqis is inherently a good thing.
I think it’s perceived as ‘the only reason’ given when we actually mean ‘the only reason which made this war possible’.
Yes, many reasons were given but none would have been sufficient to justify the invasion (and get that little support before it was started), even the combination of all the other reasons wouldn’t have been enough.
Only the WMD argument made it all possible and hence the Bush administration kept on stretching, sorry, stressing that … 
Neocon #23: We don’t count dead Iraqis because they don’t count.
The big bad Wolf is dead! Now he can’t hurt you anymore thanks to me.
The funny or not so funny thing about all this debate is that no one really doubts in any way that Iraq is better off today and that while people are dying from terrorism, it is not the Americans that are killing them after all, so why the continued concern? Sounds like some on this forum have such a great hatred for America that no matter what even if Iraq stays a mess and terrorism flourishes, anything is better than America winning including the continued deaths of innocent Iraqis but then given that so many of these concerned voices come from the very nations that were selling Saddam most of his weapons I guess it should come as no surprise really.
Myth No 1: What causes terrorism then? the terrorists who hit the world trade center were all wealthy and well educated but then so were many similar fascists real ones not the supposed ones on this forum, in 1930s Europe, thats right EUROPE. Hope they learned their lesson and start advocating true freedom and democracy soon and not this multinational fascism of committees that lunch ala the UN.
I’ve heard Iraqis saying that they were better off under Saddam. They had running water and electricity for most of the time. (BBC)
If this were the criteria for invading countries, I mean making sure that they were better off than before the invasion, then I guess we could just go ahead and line them up.
In any order you prefer: Middle Eastern countries are included without justification.
- North Korea–they’ll be better off once we invade.
- China–their economy is growing but the peasants are still making a rough go of it.
- Cuba–they don’t have any freedom.
- Taiwan–they’re under the threat of a direct, unprovoked attack!
- Russia–they don’t have any freedom, do they? If they don’t, then they deserve it, and we’re just the ones to give it to them!
- Mexico–they’d surely be better off under George Bush than they are under that Fox guy.
- Africa–Bush seems to think that Africa is a country rather than a continent. Let’s invade them, too. A bunch of 'em can speak English!
- India–they’re mostly poor. And they can answer phones!
- South America–they supply most of the drugs we demand. They like dollars.
- Australia–they’re pretty much like us, anyway and would likely welcome an invasion. They may even shower us with roses.
- Europe–not sure they’d welcome our invasion. . .well, what the hell. They’ll get used to it!!!
Since we’re only doing what’s best for the world, why don’t we go ahead and make all their decisions for them. It’s not that we know better than they do . . . even though we do.
Here’s the real big bad Wolf. If you guys are really made up of more than hot air and Islamophobia now’s the time to step up to the plate and do something real for the world and your country:
"North Korea’s nuclear arsenal could reach four to eight bombs during the next year and increase by up to 13 additional bombs per year by the end of the decade, according to a detailed assessment released Wednesday by a prominent research group here. . . .
At present, stated the report, North Korea’s capability to produce fresh plutonium is limited to its functioning 5-megawatt reactor, which it restarted in February 2002. The reactor could produce enough plutonium for one new bomb per year.
But completion of a second 50-megawatt reactor now under construction could produce 55 kilograms more of plutonium each year, according to the study, and a new centrifuge enrichment plant could add another 75 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Altogether, these substances could provide another eight to 13 bombs per year. . . .
Samore said recent successes in bringing Iran and Libya’s nuclear development programs back within international inspection regimes would have little impact in North Korea, whose leaders see nuclear weapons as a key to their survival at a time when the country is slipping further into economic deprivation. . . .
The report assessed that the North Korea’s military forces had faded to the point where they would be hard-pressed to launch a conventional strike against South Korea."
(There goes that excuse.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35664-2004Jan21.html?nav=hptop_tb
I am typing very slowly so you newbies to foreign policy can understand. Guess what? Different countries different scenarios. Why is this so difficult to understand? We cannot invade North Korea because Pyongyang DOES have the bomb. We could take out Afghanistan and Iraq, and doing so was in our and I would argue the world’s best interests. Next, the African nations are not in our ability to help significantly unless we want to engage in full scale colonialism. In Iraq, there was something to work with. We cannot invade China. The cost to benefit relationship is entirely different. We face the same difficulty with Iran, but Syria presents possibilities if it is unwilling to go the way of Libya. Get it? You might want to go to www.foreignaffairs.org to get a basic understanding of power, its projection, how US foreign policy is determined and implemented etc. first before boring us with your simplistic observations on US policy. Fair?
Also for the other interesting assertion. Do YOU want to be the one to make the call that it is safe to take out Pyongyang now? Hmmmmmm. Thought we did not care so much for intelligence reports now that no wmds have been discovered in Iraq but now such intelligence is infallible?Also the BBC for the other one would report on the hankerings for Saddam much in the same way Russians pine for communism and Stalin. Yes, I am sure there are some who do, but… the BBC is Marxist and proCommunist, but you knew that already right? Strange though that the BBC has never failed to report negatively on those in Germany and there are some who recall Hitler with favor. But I guess that is wrong but Stalin and Saddam are okay? Right keep reporting the real news BBC while I flip the channel to … lemondediplomatique and zmag.org… yawn.
Just to give you a jump start, here is a sensible article criticizing US foriegn aid practices. See some of us can recognize areas where AmeriKKKa can improve. I know that during your sophomore year, you probably read Third World Development: Capitalism and foreign debt destroying peasant families!!! but perhaps something on these lines might be more worthwhile to discuss as would how we might fix said problem.
foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=24
OR for some half way intelligent debate that I find much to disagree with, but for a start this whole segment from the Carnegie institute…
foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=126
but…
AND in other continued US foreign policy disasters…
Saudi Arabia has said it is prepared to negotiate a “substantial” reduction of Iraq’s debt to the kingdom.
The Saudi Government made the offer in a statement after talks in Riyadh between de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah and US envoy James Baker.
The statement did not say how much of Iraq’s estimated $30 billion debt the Saudis might forego.
Earlier, Kuwait said it was prepared to waive a “significant proportion” of the estimated $16bn owed to it by Iraq.
The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Germany, France and Japan have also agreed to write off much of Iraq’s debt owed to them.
AND…
A top American general in Iraq says the US army has brought supporters of Saddam Hussein “to their knees”.
Major General Raymond Odierno also said he thought there would be a return to “some normalcy” within six months.
“Capturing Saddam was a major operational and psychological defeat for the enemy,” he said.
AND
More than 100 Japanese air force personnel have arrived in Kuwait, to support humanitarian work in Iraq.
They follow advance units which reached southern Iraq on Monday, becoming the first Japanese troops to enter a conflict zone since World War II.
Japan’s decision to send troops to Iraq is controversial because if troops got drawn into conflict, it is argued this would violate the constitution.
The dispatch of the main body of troops may be ordered as early as Monday.
AND
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – A senior al Qaeda operative was captured Thursday in Iraq by friendly foreign forces and turned over to U.S. intelligence personnel, senior U.S. officials said.
A U.S. official told CNN that Ghul is a “longtime facilitator, operator” within al Qaeda, and a “significant player.”
It is believed that Ghul was captured soon after his arrival in Iraq, the official said.
Earlier Friday, Pentagon sources announced that U.S. forces had captured a man described as a top lieutenant to a man connected to Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish guerrilla group that U.S. officials say is linked to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network
WHEN Will these disasters cease? Clearly America really got itself in a mess this time. When will Bush learn? hahaha
[color=blue]And in an alternate universe:[/color]
"CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said yesterday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.
The CIA officers’ bleak assessment was delivered orally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved. . .
These dire scenarios were discussed at meetings this week by Bush, his top national security aides and the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity.
Another senior official said the concerns over a possible civil war were not confined to the CIA but are “broadly held within the government,” including by regional experts at the State Department and National Security Council. . . .
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7765782.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I beg your pardon! The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
Vice President Cheney’s Pacemaker Reportedly Malfunctioning Again:
In a series of recent bizarre public statements that doctors ascribe to a malfunctioning pacemaker, Vice President Dick Cheny has asserted among other things that during the controversial year of missing service of President Bush’s Air National Guard tenure, there is overwhelming evidence the president was actually engaged in dangerous secret missions for the CIA in South East Asia “but the facts remain classified and no one can reveal them.”
“You’ll just have to trust me on this,” he asserted in his characteristically acerbic manner.
"Vice President Dick Cheney (also) revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was “overwhelming evidence” that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq’s biological weapons programs…
“There’s nothing I have seen or read that backs [Cheney] up,” said Sen. John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who called Cheney’s remarks Thursday “perplexing.”
“We’ve found a couple of semi-trailers at this point which we believe were in fact part of [a WMD] program,” Cheney said. “I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction.”
That view is at odds with the judgment of the government’s lead weapons inspector, David Kay, who said in an interim report in October that “we have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile [biological weapons] production effort.”
Fred Smith,
The Iraqis are better off.
Afghanistan is a better place.
What’s to stop the USA from making the world a better place? Oh, I forgot. That’s what they’re doing, isn’t it?
It’s easy to think up reasons for invading a country after you do it and it’s awfully convenient to ignore all reason leading up to it, especially when you have the power that the US does.
My guess is that you’ll back them, no matter what they do and you’ll believe their justification, even if it comes after the fact and even if it had nothing to do with the initial decision to act. Saying that Iraq is better off now than they were under Saddam is hardly justification. You said that North Korea was different because they do, in fact, have the bomb. Well, Saddam presumably had WMD minus the bomb. He could have been mighty destructive in the days leading up to the invasion. Why wasn’t he?
If the US is really concerned about giving people better lives by invading their countries, then I’m still convinced they have a long list to choose from, regardless of particular circumstances. After all ‘better’ is better, right?
And I guess there’s not much to worry about in Iraq anymore since Bush basically listed it as a triumph of foreign policy in his State of the Union.
Did Cheney really say that stuff?
These guys are starting to sound like cornered rats, spewing out meaningless statements in defense of the indefensible.
Colin Powell saying WMD are an “open question.” Sure, I bet in private he is saying, “Goddamnit! I was duped. I will go down in history as the rube in the Security Council for my “proofs” for war!”
And he will.
The part about Bush skipping Guard duty to be a spook in SEA is “based on solid intelligence that will just require more time to get the full story on” – ie. I made it up.
The rest is true.
I’m amazed that the Bush posse and their faithful sidekick Tony can offer their “oops” or “well, no intelligence is infallible” lines with straight faces. They would both sound abysmally stupid and incompetent to me even I were a supporter of their ‘shoot first and get the facts later’ foreign policy. Unless you’re in with the in crowd and know they were really “strategically lying” how could you feel comfortable following such clueless leaders?
(Sorry about that cliff back there. Ahhh-hhh!)
Got me on this one. Fred Smith will have to explain it all to me with an especially slowly typed post.
[quote]A questioner at a luncheon January 21st sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh tossed the former German defense minister an anti-Bush softball, which he expected him to bat out of the park.
[quote=“former German defense minister Rudolph Scharping”]As to whether there were weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq], I’ll wait for the final report from the inspectors… But there is no doubt that the danger existed, and there is no doubt the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
If the United Nations returns to Iraq, Germany – which already is training Iraqi policemen – is likely to participate… The only question we have to answer now is, do we have a common interest in Iraq now, or do we leave it as another failed state?[/quote]
The Bush diplomacy for which Pelosi has such scorn is making great progress in alleviating the principal economic problem facing postwar Iraq, the massive debt run up by Saddam Hussein in his pursuit of weapons, palaces and Swiss bank accounts.
Germany is willing to forgive the entire $4 billion it is owed, Scharping said. France, Russia and Iraqi neighbors Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have agreed to write down much of what is owed them. Saudi Arabia may follow suit.
Well, spook, I always argued that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq, and that all those reasons tied in with the big picture of reforming the entire region and altering the US policy towards the middle east. Its unfortunate that Bush had to emphisize so strongly the WMD argument.
In any event, I agree with this:
I think David Kay’s parting statement this past Friday qualifies as the last word on the presence of WMD in Iraq. The final report will be a mere formality:
[color=blue]"Undercutting the White House’s public rationale for the war on Iraq, Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post Friday that he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.
“I don’t think they existed,” Kay said. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s,” he said."[/color]
The other point about the world being better off without Saddam Hussein is just an ‘ends justifies the means’ argument.
America doesn’t (traditionally) do ‘ends justifies the means’ arguments because they’re generally pretty ugly in the doing and dependent on the worst side of human nature: lies, manipulation, double-standards, hypocrisy, hard-heartedness, cruelty.
Here’s another example of an ends justifies the means argument: 500,000 people are starving in Africa. We can manage to feed that many people today but if we feed them, they’ll reproduce and ten years from now there’ll be 1,000,000 people starving in Africa – 500,000 more than we can possibly feed. We should just stand by and let the 500,000 men, women and children currently facing starvation die now rather than facilitate the bringing of 500,000 children into the world who will be doomed to a painful death. Once we get past the mass die-off, the world will be better off because the cycle will be broken.
One of the many reasons why America has historically been a great and just nation is because it has, as a rule, avoided separating the morality of its means from the morality of its ends, recognizing that they’re really inseparable, and always found another way to deal with difficult problems.
In short, there is always an honest, honorable way to deal with any problem, even the problem of Saddam Hussein. It just takes more thought and effort than the expedient way.
Tigerman has often argued the one defensible approach for using military force to oust Saddam but I think the end game of his argument soured it. Specifically, that Iraq had committed to terms of a ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm which included the requirement it provide substantive proof it had disarmed itself of its weapons of mass destruction. The UN then softened in its enforcement of this important requirement but it had no right to unilaterally do so because the U.S. was also a party to this agreement. Because the U.S. had shouldered the bulk of the sacrifices in driving Saddam out of Kuwait and also consequently made itself a prime target of any potential WMD Iraq might harbor, it had a right to independently enforce the disclosure requirements of the ceasefire even if the UN had lost the will to do so.
So far, so good. No need for there actually to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify any action on the U.S.’ part. No need to pony up phony stories about doing it to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of a dictator. It was all about providing proof and justifiable on the basis of the doctrine of self-defense.
This approach could potentially have led to a justified armed intervention in Iraq but for four reasons:
-
Such a dispassionate, legal argument would never have generated the momentum necessary to overcome the doubts and opposition to invasion in time for last March’s invasion. Fear mongering and demagoguery about actual ready stockpiles of lethal chemical and biological weapons were necessary for such an accelerated timetable and the (legitimate) ‘Tigerman’ case was never made. The current invasion and occupation are fruits of demagoguery which, when inevitably exposed, has attempted to excuse itself on the basis of justifiable ignorance.
-
The legitimate endpiece of the ‘Tigerman argument’ was that Iraq should be treated toughly but judged fairly as to whether it had finally gotten serious about disarming and was willing to document it to its fullest capability. The actual endpiece to the ‘Tigerman argument’ though was a bastardized subterfuge that Iraq was out of chances to prove its disarmament but it was necessary to go through the motions about giving it a last chance for public consumption. Thus all the phony breast-beating in the runup to war about ‘yearning for peace’ and ‘not having made up their minds yet.’ Iraq and UN weapons inspectors never had a legitimate chance to succeed or fail because the U.S. created a set of standards which were designed to fail. If the ‘Tigerman argument’ had instead legitimately followed through with its ‘last chance’ for Saddam and Iraq had failed then armed intevention in the interests of self-defense would have been justified.
-
Tigerman et al themselves weren’t actually motivated by the defensible ‘Tigerman argument’ however legitimate. Their true motivation was simply to get rid of Saddam Hussein whether he had WMD or not or whether he had legitimately proven that he had gotten rid of them or not. Thus, no matter how sound this argument may potentially have been, it wasn’t the true motivation of the U.S. and its allies and so was twisted into meaninglessness in order to serve its true purpose as a pretext.
-
If the U.S. had been forced to use military force after honestly testing Iraq’s resolve to document its disarmament during the Blix inspections, it would inevitably have been much different in scope and execution than the the unilateral meat-cleaver approach of ‘shock and awe’ regime change which has short-sightedly left the U.S. stranded in the Middle East in a power vacuum that now only it can fill but which is increasingly dangerous to stability in the region.
[quote=“spook”]I think David Kay’s parting statement this past Friday qualifies as the last word on the presence of WMD in Iraq. The final report will be a mere formality:
[quote][color=blue]"Undercutting the White House’s public rationale for the war on Iraq, Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post Friday that he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.
“I don’t think they existed,” Kay said. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s,” he said."[/color][/quote][/quote]
Spook, the quote above makes it look as though Mr. Kay is of the opinion that the failure to find WMD in Iraq undercuts Bush’s rational for going to war. But, that’s not correct… its editorializing by the reporter. Mr. Kay has stated repeatedly that his findings support arguments that Iraq was planning to re-start weapons programs and that Saddam’s regime was trying (successfully) to decieve the UN inspectors. Moreover, Mr. Kay blames the intelligence communities and NOT President Bush for the failure to locate WMD stockpiles: latimes.com/news/nationworld … ines-world
Well, I’m not certain I agree that this is an argument made only after the fact… I think it was made before the invasion. In any event, the US involvement in WW2 was also made as an “ends justifies the means” decision.
Again, the US decision to enter WW2 was made after an “ends justifies the means” argument. War is of course a horrible means… but sometimes the ends do justify going to war.
That hypo lacks an urgent US interest, and is thus moot, for our purposes.
The atomic bombs dropped to end WW2 were “ends justifies the means” decisions.
[quote=“spook”]In short, there is always an honest, honorable way to deal with any problem, even the problem of Saddam Hussein. It just takes more thought and effort than the expedient way.
Tigerman has often argued the one defensible approach for using military force to oust Saddam but I think the end game of his argument soured it. Specifically, that Iraq had committed to terms of a ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm which included the requirement it provide substantive proof it had disarmed itself of its weapons of mass destruction. the UN then softened in its enforcement of this important requirement but it had no right to unilaterally do so because the U.S. was also a party to this agreement. Because the U.S. had shouldered the bulk of the sacrifices in driving Saddam out of Kuwait and also consequently made itself a prime target of any potential WMD Iraq might harbor, it had a right to independently enforce the disclosure requirements of the ceasefire even if the UN had lost the will to do so.
So far, so good. No need for there actually to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify any action on the U.S.’ part. No need to pony up phony stories about doing it to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of a dictator. It was all about providing proof and justifiable on the basis of the doctrine of self-defense.
This approach could potentially have led to a justified armed intervention in Iraq but for four reasons:
- Such a dispassionate, legal argument would never have generated the momentum necessary to overcome the doubts and opposition to invasion in time for last March’s invasion. Fear mongering and demagoguery about actual ready stockpiles of lethal chemical and biological weapons were necessary for such an accelerated timetable and the (legitimate) ‘Tigerman’ case was never made. The current invasion and occupation are fruits of demagoguery which, when inevitably exposed, has attempted to excuse itself on the basis of justifiable ignorance.[/quote]
That the Prez and his admin. used demagoguery assumes the President and his administration acted fraudulently with respect to their fears/concerns re Saddam… and I see no evidence to support such an assumption.
I disagree. Absolute and complete cooperation by Saddam would have made it incredibly difficult for the US/coalition to invade. The standards were not artificially nor arbitrarily high… they were the same standards which Saddam had already had 12 years with which to comply.
I’ll not deny that I have wanted Saddam ousted for a long time. However, as I stated above, the US/coalition would have had a very difficult time justifying an invasion had hans Blix reported that Iraq had complied completely per UNSC Res. 1441. Happy coincidence that the US wanted Saddam gone and Saddam gave us a reason to rid Iraq of his rotten carcass.
I disagree with your analysis… I do not think the region is more unstable than it was before the invasion. I think all of the reactions to the invasion and saddam’s capture show clearly that the region is slowly stabilizing.
Yup Spook:
Sign me up to the would have found any excuse to get rid of Saddam argument. For me, wmds was about 20 or did I say 25 percent of the reason. After 12 years, I for one was ready to see him go. Guess we may not find wmds. I conceded that six months ago. Do I care? No. Well only in the sense that our intelligence has obviously got to improve. Do I believe Bush and Blair knowingly lied? No. Otherwise Germany and France would have said he did not have wmds rather than arguing with HOW not WHETHER to deal with them.
So we made a mistake on that score but for me the overall reason was getting rid of him period. WMDs were a mere part of that.
Bravo Bush for getting rid of a 12 year old problem that no one else was willing to deal with.
fred
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=11984
Goodness. Such bad news from Iraq.
The conditions in Iraq continue to improve. My first clue that things were different in Baghdad came when the manager of my favorite hotel had trouble finding me a room. Last fall, foreign visitors to the city grew so scarce that I was often the only guest in his establishment. Now, the caravansary swarmed with Lebanese businessmen, Turkish contractors, Filipino workers, European journalists, NGO personnel and Christian peace activists. The only space the manager had was a top-floor