No, they just need to fear being taken in the middle of the night by US Soldiers to Abu Gharib to be beaten and abused.

We might have been able to make this argument at one point Amlord, but to try and justify our actions with a statement like this now is really very hypocritical because our actions haven't proven we are much different.

Rather than continue to get into the nitty gritty of what the war was really about, I'd like to see if we could look ahead a little farther. The stated goal is to have a free, democratic Iraq. Sure, that will take a few years. But, if it happens (and despite current circumstances I haven't seen anything to state that it won't eventually happen), then I think the tone of this debate changes significantly. Aside from the current issues of Iraqi WMD, the reasons for this action were all with the long-term in mind. That outcome is still to be decided, so making any final conclusions as to its effectiveness is really pretty meaningless at this point. If Iraq does become a successful democracy, or at least a stable influence in the region with strong western ties, then there is a good chance that it will have a profound positive impact on the entire region. As has been stated elsewhere, the WOT is at its heart a cultural war--changing the culture in the Middle East was going to require a major change to be initiated. Iraq represented an opportunity for that change. If it works out, I think history will look very kindly on the actions that initiated it--removal of Saddam alone would probably merit that. If it doesn't work out, all of the criticisms of the war will be given new credence. However, we won't know for several years what the outcome will be.

Quark, to continue your analogy, but add in some factors to make it more realistic (although it is difficult to extrapolate from a nation to a person)



We're missing a few very pertinent factors here. First, your neighbor has been on parole for the last ten years, and has done everything possible to violate it. However, the police refuse to take any action to enforce the parole requirements. So, you have been having to set up your own patrols to ensure the parole requirements are being met. Your neighbor constantly conducts probing attacks against your security units, and has shown no remorse whatsoever for his initial acts. Your security actions are then used by your neighbor to turn other neighbors against you, leading to one of your family members being brutally killed, as well as other earlier attacks on assets you own elsewhere. Your neighbor also continues to assist in attacks against your other neighbor across the street, and is known to want to kill him and his entire family, and that he would do so, given the opportunity. The conflict between these two neighbors enforces the negative opinions towards you from other neighbors, putting you and your family more at risk. You see evidence that your neighbor is working on weapons to kill you and your family, delivered either by him or some of his other neighbors. These weapons also put your neighbor across the street at severe risk. You go to the police, who not only continue to do nothing, but several sargeants on the police force (who, you discover, have business dealings with your neighbor) start actively campaigning against you, putting your family even more at risk. It becomes clear that, as long as your neighbor stays in that house, your family, already attacked, will become increasingly at risk. It also becomes completely clear that the police will never solve this problem for you. Add to this that even the neighbors against you can see how abusive your neighbor is towards his own family, having killed and tortured several of them already. It is clear that their lives are in danger, as well as your family's--and that the police are not only not going to do anything about that, either. It is clear that no act short of forcible removal of your neighbor from the house will protect your security, and that the police are completely unwilling to do that, despite the continued parole violations. So, you faced with the following situation--you can either do something to change the situation, or you can sit there and wait for the inevitable attack. Many of your neighbors are fearful that if you act, they will become more at risk. Even some of your own family is against acting. However, it is your responsiblity to protect them. There is no solution which will please everyone, and only one solution which will solve the problem. As Dennis Hopper would say "What do you do?".

Yeah right, I sure they're all living in fear....

I might point out that back in February a full 77% of Iraqis said that they had no encounters with US troops whatsoever.

That even recently polls show that Iraqis believe they are better off than when Saddam ruled.
Most Iraqis “Better Now” Than Under Hussein

So where exactly do you get the idea Iraqis live in fear of being abducting in the night?

But of course this is not the point of the thread, where despite every opportunity, the 25 people who contend the war is for money and oil have yet to come up with a convincing argument as to why they believe so.

Turnea, you are missing the point. Did I say anywhere in my post that all Iraqis are in fear right now? No I didn't, please don't put words into my mouth.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if only a very miniscule percentage of Iraqis have been abused, killed, raped, whatever in prisons --- it still happened! Therefore, the statement that we are "saving them" from their horrible dictator is just a tad bit hypocritical don't you think?

You cannot deny what happened at Abu Gharib, the evidence is indisputable. The evidence is also very suggestive although certainly not bullet proof that it was not just a "few bad apples".

Would it be ok if only a small percentage of American citizens had their rights completely stripped by the government? Well 99.999999% of the American citizens have reported that they haven't had their rights stripped so what's the big deal?

You can post polls about Iraqi's saying they are better now than under Saddam Hussein from now until Christmas. Did those polls talk to the people that were unfortunate enough to end up in Abu Gharib? You know, the 70% or so of them that were completely innocent?

No not at all. The abhorrent actions of a tiny minority of US troops does not overshadow the tremendous humanitarian benefit the war has brought to the people of Iraq.

Perspective is the key here.

What humanitarian benefit exactly? Don't mix up your wars, this is not Afghanistan. Prior to the first gulf war Iraq had the best standard of living of any Islamic nation, and that includes Turkey and Egypt.

Even in the last few years, before this most recent war, Iraqis were not all starving to death, they were certainly poorer then before the last time the Americans invaded, but this was not Sudan or Etheopia.

The 'humanitarian benefit' you speak of is that the US has managed to return things to the way they were before they invaded, and in a small number of areas have managed to make improvements, mind you it is still nowehere near where it was 14 years ago.

This at a cost of 12-15,000 Iraqi civilians, continuing unrest and killing, not to mention 6,000 US casualties.

I admire the press engine of Bush for changing the way war casualties have always been counted for this war to only reflect deaths, it no longer reflects missing or wounded, as it has always done. I guess Bush thought that by changing the numbers it would seem more palatable to the American people, after all 900+ dead does sound better than 6,000+ casualties...

So firstly, I see no 'tremendous humanitarian benefit' that you speak of.

Secondly, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens never had a run in with Saddam's secret police either. The American abuses and assaults of Iraqi POWs cannot be justified simply by saying "yeah, but the Iraqis were worse". That only works if bush is being compared directly to Saddam Hussein, but you cannot do that. Bush must be held, and hold himself, to a higher standard then a brutal dictator.

I think the more we argue about this the less the topic is adhered to. Therefore I will quote your remarks and respond to them in a new thread.

This one is about the reasons for war, which so far seem to be benevolent, if not necessarily justified.

If the war was a benevolent action; why hasn't that same benevolence been extended to other countries? Now, before you answer, consider this:

Invading a country like China or N. Korea would involve a massive deployment, pose a massive disruption to U.S. interests, and produce casualties in the millions. As such it is not in America's interest to "democratize" those nations by force. Of course the implication of this is that American interests were weighed (and constantly are) before determining a course of action, whatever those interests may be. That makes the 'benevolence' angle seem questionable. Of course every country does this and I'm not castigating, just stating the obvious.

Now, what is this war about? As I said before, it satisfies publicly disclosed and well established decades olds foreign policy directives. I don't understand how everyone can overlook ESTABLISHED government policy when attempting to asess current GOVERNMENT POLICY. The reality is that the invasion of Iraq was a classic "middle intensity conflict," the sort of engagement that is described in a document called "Discriminate Deterrence," drafted by the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy; a bi-partisan committee which reported to the State Department (if I remember correctly.) Now, the document isn't available on the internet or the U.S. Government's online resources so I can't cite it directly; but it identified that in the future (it was drafted in 1988 and taken as policy in 1990) 'Regional Powers' could threaten U.S. interests by pressuring or obstructing U.S. allies outside of NATO areas.

The same report (and further government policy initiatives as part of the Discriminate Deterrence era) described these "Middle Intensity Conflicts" as having the following characteristics:

• U.S. efforts to protect vital interests overseas will provoke conflict with Regional Powers
• These conflicts cannot escalate slowly or drag on (like Vietnam)
• They must be high-tech and lethal (albeit non-nuclear) -> playing to U.S. strengths

Now, this certainly describes the invasion of Iraq, which of course was supposed to include a quick and easy disentanglement that was poorly planned to the point of criminal negligence.

The report itself not only outlined policy directives for the Defense Department, it also gave a mission to the U.S. military, which the collapsing Soviet Union could no longer provide. It also established a U.S. foreign policy agenda, namely protecting American interests overseas (and was followed up by "Rebuilding America's Defenses.")

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. I ment benevolent as in...
"Characterized by or suggestive of doing good."

rather than the second definition.

"Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity."

That is to say, I see nothing underhanded about the motives of the US, it saw Iraq as a threat and acted. That simple.

I must say I fail to see how any of these shed much light on the reasons for war.

The last two have nothing to do with motive and are just common sense strategic goals for dealing militarily with a country like Iraq.

The first has to do with motive alright, but could be applied to any military conflict in the history of mankind.

Only a initially cynical reading of the term "vital interests" could see anything suspicious in this...

Might not said interest be national security?

You failed because you didn't read my post properly. I clearly indicated that the aforementioned descriptors applied to the term "Middle Intensity Conflict." By linking the Iraq conflict to a scenario described in a previously adopted policy document, I was demonstrating that said policy is the reason for the war.

Said policy established a 'directive' for U.S. foreign relations, namely establishing "a U.S. foreign policy agenda, namely protecting American interests overseas (and was followed up by "Rebuilding America's Defenses.") "

What you will note is that until the collapse of the Soviet Union the language of U.S. Foreign Policy doesn't discuss "interests," it instead uses the language of containment. "Discriminate Deterrence" was in a way a rebranding of Foreign Policy, while at the same time a reorganization.

The invasion of Iraq was an extension of the dogma of protecting "overseas interests", namely political stability and the ability to interact and cooperate with allies in the region. It had nothing to do with national security because invading Iraq hasn't improved said security, despite the protestations of certain government departments. It had everything to do with securing interests in the manner described in pre-existing government policy.

Perhaps because the "interest" involved was readily apparent. I can't say for sure, just what did US policy makers use in place of "interests"? After all the US intervened overseas plenty to protect its "interests" before the USSR fell..

I must admit I'm still not following you. Are you suggestion overseas intervention started only after the fall of the Soviet Union?

The problem with that is key.

One must ask whether or not they knew Iraq did not pose a threat. It seems to me they certainly thought they did. The US, headed by both major parties, had said so for years. Therefore it can still be a valid motivation for war. The US went to war to protect its national security, only to fin it didn't need protecting...

...at least not from Iraq.

To turn your logic around...

It had nothing to do with protecting political stability or cooperation with allies because invading Iraq hasn't improved either. In fact they've taken a hit.

..and I think the administration had to have known that going in.

Bottom Line: Just what are the interest you think the US went to war to protect?

Such interventions were usually engagements of the "containment" principle. Your deliberate misreading of my post is tiresome. Obviously the term 'interest' includes these things. The distinction I made (and you are ignoring) is the language used. I won't repeat said distinction because it is right there for you to read in my last post.



If you are confused, perhaps you should ask for clarification instead of presenting the least likely interpretation of my comments. I am saying no such thing. I'm saying that interventions occurred within a different policy framework.



That is your hypothesis, which I think is false. You can dig up as many press-conference aphorisms as you'd like (and I can as well), but there is no evidence that Iraq constituted an immediate threat. The evidence 'for war' in it's entirety was circumstantial suggestions that Iraq was attempting to start a program that could in the future present a remote threat to national security. There was no physical evidence of an active program, there was no infrastructure for delivering weapons, and no evidence of a network to distribute weapons. So public sentiments aside, what did they act on?



You are mistaking a failed campaign with a flawed motivation. I never said the American government KNEW what it was doing when it invaded Iraq. The fact is that Discriminate Deterrence has been official policy since 1990 and to this date it had never been applied in this fashion. Between the unpredictable nature of the engagement and the criminal politicking that went on between the military and the government, the invasion didn't succeed in all of it's goals.

At the same time, there is the opportunity to achieve long-term stability that is lacking at present. With U.S. forces no longer stationed in Saudi Arabia (which would be impossible with Iraq a 'threat') there is the potential to achieve better relations with Muslim states. At the same time, it eliminates the prospect of a civil war or other turmoil when Saddam kicks the can (although instability is still a real prospect in Iraq.)

Of course, my main reason for believing my own hypothesis is the fact that the policy framework I have described was adopted by the government in 1990. In other words, I have documentation.

Let me ask you this:

Lets say that the U.S. government adopts a certain policy. Now, 20 years down the road they invade a country in a fashion that matches said policy in great detail; under circumstances described pretty much exactly like said policy.

Given this scenario, what are the odds that the invasion in question has nothing to do with said policy? They seem pretty remote do they not? Well that's exactly what you are telling us is true.



The long term viability of Middle-Eastern oil, the ability to maintain a strong military presence in the Middle East, political stability in the region, maintaining American military dominance, etc. The fact is that this war isn't so much about protecting these interests so much as it is about excercising policy when the opportunity presents itself. Did Iraq constitute a direct threat to any of these things? Perhaps. But the fact is that the circumstances for an invasion were better last March than they had ever been or would be.

Even your theory makes no sense without an understanding that without "Discriminate Deterrence" there would be no invasion; instead other political options would probably have been deployed.

Maybe the problem in Iraq is the fact that it took so long to get there. For example, if a parent told their 15 year old son that they had incriminating evidence that he was hiding a playboy under his matress, and he had till the end of the week to hand it over, or the dad was going to search the room; what do you think would happen? It doesn't take very much thinking. The kid would probably loose the mag. So why then does everyone act so surprised when we haven't found any WMD's yet? We gave the man months to get rid of the evidence before we invaded. Why would anyone expect to find something after that? For god sakes, weapons inspectors would be forced to wait out side suspicous warhouse, while covered trucks left from the back. TV stations brodcasted these images many a time, in the weeks pre ceeding the invasion. That was one the reasons was because we were getting so little cooperation.

This is, of course, entirely untrue.

This kind of obfuscation occurred in the first round of inspections from 1991 to 1996, Iraq was playing a shell game with inspectors, a game they generally lost. Enormous quanities of potential chemical weapons, rocketry parts and bioweapon research was destroyed, accounting for the vast majority of Iraq's supposed weapons arsenal. Near the end of the first inspections process, Hussein's subtle obfuscations became more obvious and gross, and he accused the CIA of planting spies in the inspection teams, an accusation not entirely without merit. (Read Woordward- Plan of Attack regarding the CIA's attempts to het Humint in Iraq)

The latest round of inspections were entirely unblocked and unfettered. Blix reported no delays, no attempts to prevent access, no attempts to hide or move. He stated openly, and was backed up by other inspectors, that Hussein had made NO ATTEMPT to block the inspections, planned or surprise. He accused them only of not being 'proactive enough' in demonstrating destruction of potential WMD. Blix and other inspectors DID report much anger with the US, who despite claiming to know 'where the WMD were', did nothing to help the inspectors and ignored repeated appeals for direction from Blix. The inspectors got complete cooperation.

here is what I find the most interesting. In his massive document submitted to the UN about WMD, Hussein explained in great detail what had happened to all his production facilities and stockpiles. Most were dismantled and destroyed by earlier inspectors, something the UN confirmed, but some of the 'unaccounted stores' had been destroyed in the 1991 air war. Remember that in 1991 Bush Sr. made a very big deal on CNN about targeting WMD production and storage sites, and therevwere reportes every day of sucessful hits. Yet despite all this, Bush Jr. refused to accept that any of the potential WMD could have been destroyed in the first gulf war, dispite the fact that these sites were specifically targeted by his father. Thus he either blatantly called his father a liar, or was simply not in any way interested in the truth.

Woodward makes it very clear in Plan of attack that the US never had any proof regarding the existence of WMD in Iraq in 2003. They had circumstantial evidence, they had third hand reports, but tenent, dispite his famous 'slam dunk' comment, could not provide any actual proof of the existence of location of WMD.


Lastly, this absurd standard of the far right that all the WMD were secretly 'buried' or shipped away. There are two MASSIVE flaws in this tired argument.
1) While it is entirely possible to bury a series of chemical weapon shells or a drum of mustard gas, it is NOT possible to bury or ship nuclear or biological weapons production facilities. These are massive operations requiring specialised equipment and enormous power, as well as a huge staff and vast resources. Nuclear weapons production in particular cannot be done in a basement with a chemistry set. One cannot load a uranium centrifuge into the back of a deuce and a half and 'spirit it away'. The whole idea of burying or hiding these vast operation, in particular whuile UNDER sattelite surveillance, is literally insane. Note that the CIA is not claiming this, nor have they ever. Only the far right citizens who needed to invent a seemingly plausible sounding excuse for why their president looked like an idiot.
2) Hussein was invaded twice. The first time he escaped with his position, but well before invasion it was clear to all (and in fact stated loudly by Bush) that Hussein's power was over, that he would be deposed and arrested. He had no illusions about survival. Moreover, everyone repeats constantly that he was an insane brutal dictator who had no hesitation about using WMD against the US at all.

So why didn't he? The simplest yet most often ignored logical flaw in the far right's contentions, if he had WMD, why did he not use them against US forces intent on destroying him, his family and his regime?

Why when invaded would his first thought be to HIDE his WMD (he surely could not have thought he would win against the US) where his regime would never be able to use them, as opposed to deploying them against the US, or at the VERY LEAST, threaten to deploy them in an act of brinksmanship? Bush has carefully avoided thais question, he has been asked it several times, as was his press secretary, and very time they dodge the question or ebd the press conference. Why would Saddam Hussein not use his best weapon against the US if he truly had any?


The reality is there was no proof of WMD, and once it became clear that inspections would CONFIRM that there were no WMD, Bush decided to precipitously invade even though the inspections were bot complete, and both Inspectors and the UN were pleading... not to not invade, but just for a couple more months to complete inspections.

But the last thing Bush wanted was inspections showing that his justification for was was an act of fiction, so he invented urgency and invaded anyways, over the protests of the VERY INSPECTORS he had pressed for and insisted on.

Vermillion,

Excellent post, which I would agree with, right up until the last part....



It was not WMD that really created the problem, it was having Hussein in power. Inspections were never going to do anything to solve that, and would, in fact, only delay any solution. Why proceed down a path that offers no hope of ever resolving the real problem?

Any misunderstanding on my part in not deliberate, of that you can be sure.

The problem of course remains to figure out your meaning. You argue that a shift in language used (from the language of containment to "interest") indicated a shift in policy. I merely ventured my best guess as to what that change was.

But you're are right, why play guessing game?

What is the shift in strategy brought about by "Discriminate Deterrence" and why does it apply to Iraq?

I will outline my confusion on that point further soon.

I've explained earlier in this thread that delivery and distribution system were not the primary concern. Proliferation, rather, made necessary only a stockpile and those willing to buy, as outlined by the Clinton administration.

The administration believed such a stockpile existed, that is what they acted on.

Here lies the problem. The policy you speak of was purely a strategic shift to confront the fall of the USSR. It was a military strategy that had nothing to do with the interests it may be employed to protect.

It applies to any country without military power comparable to that of the US, I fail to see why it sheds any special light on the invasion of Iraq.

It seems to me the only part of your post that truly addresses the debate question is this.

..and despite the fact that all of these interests could have been protected better simply by doing nothing, you compound the problem by saying...

So it was a case of all dressed for war and no where to go?

What exactly does this mean?

I assure you my confusion is because I find your argument....confusing.

In a manner of speaking. The adoption of "Discriminate Deterrence," and the matra-type fixation the current administration, demands the sort of intervention that we have seen. A quick (well, it was planned to be quick) high-tech invasion of a regional power that threatened the aforementioned interests. The "Realist" approach to Foreign Relations (which had been dominant since the close of the first world war) was completely abandoned, and a military-first style of power politics has taken it's place.

Let me approach the subject from a slightly different angle.

The DISAGREEMENT with Iraq had (it could be argued) to do with security concerns; the WAR didn't.

Slightly different take on this--as the WAR was the resolution to the DISAGREEMENT, then if the DISAGREEMENT was about security concerns, so was the WAR.

Iraq certainly had WMDs in 1991, but did not use them against us then. Who can say with any amount of certainty what was going through Saddam's head in the 14 months building up to the invasion of Iraq?

I recall in 1991 that Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world at the start of the Gulf War Iraqi Forces

The war against him at that time lasted all of a month, the ground war, all of 100 hours. Iraq was hopelessly outclassed, but never used WMDs. Perhaps they never had a chance after the month of air strikes. The fact remains that Iraq did not use WMDs then, just as it did not use them 12 years later.

Does that mean he didn't have WMDs in 1991? No. Why didn't he use his "best weapon" against the Coalition in 1991? Inability? Fear of reprisal? Didn't think of it?

I don't think it is extreme to suggest that Saddam hid his WMD capabilities. It is fairly obvious now that he did not have a large stockpile of these WMDs. It was not obvious before the war, however (just ask Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, or Jay Rockefeller in 2003).

A CIA buddy of mine posited that the reason Hussein used no WMD in the first gulf war, not on the US or on Israel, is because a deal had been offered to him through Jordan that if he retrained his use of ANY wmd in any manner, he would be allowed to remain as leader of Iraq. Now this was just a supposition on his part, he had no solid evidence of this (that he would divulge) but I always thought it was an interesting idea.

Regardless of that, the fact is the first Gulf war was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, it was not about regime change. Hussein knew this, as did his advisors. perhaps he knew that use of WMD would escalte the war into a situation he would not survive.

Either way, the situation was very different in 2003, when he and everyone knew this was the end of Hussein's Iraq. Why then not use every weapon at his disposal? Why did he bother to develop these weapons if he refused to use them in his hour of greatest need?

The second possible answer to your question is, good question. Why, when invaded and defeated twice, did Hussein forbear from using WMD in his defence? Would the US have been as reluctant were it being invaded?

Considering Hussein, DESPITE BEING INVADED, refused to use WMD on the Americans is just another reason I find the far-rights proclamation of him as an 'imminent threat to the US', to be absurd.



As some women say, size isn't everything. A huge mass of conscript militia does not an army make. The lack of modern aircraft and combat helicopters, and more importantly, modern air C&C made Iraq a sitting duck in any kind of open desert warfare. Every military analyst at the time knew that, the US government touted the size of the Iraqi army to prepare citizens for the possibility that the US might suffer significant casualties in the urban warfare parts of the battle. A fear which was largely unfounded as the US did not try and take and hold cities in Iraq.



You know what the difference is between these other people who suspected Iraq had WMD and Bush? They never invaded a country, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and suffered 6500 US casualties (and climbing) because of their 'suspicion'. Turns out they were right not to.

Those men voted for it (except Clinton). The President does not make decisions in a vaccuum and the decision to go to war was backed by the US Congress. Had the "leaders" who are now running against Bush believed differently than he did, they could have made a difference.

To me, that is not leadership. Democratic Congressman made statements just as bold as Bush ever did to move us towards toppling Saddam.

40% of US casualties return to duty within 72 hours, making the actual number of wounded around 3300. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

25 million Iraqis are free at the cost of a few thousand lives. This article puts the number of deaths under Saddam at between 75-125 per day over a 24 year period. In Iraq, Civilian Deaths Have Fallen Since the Start of the War Keep in mind that it is not the US killing Iraqis these days, it is Iraqis.

This site puts things in perspective:
Realize the Facts!

War isn't always about numbers.

They bought the same "evidence" that the rest of the country did Amlord. Congressmen do not have unfettered access to Intelligence documents. Bush presented his case (using hand chosen facts), had history on his side and Congress bought it hook, line and sinker as did the rest of the country.

Does that mean I completely absolve Conrgress of blame? No. But I also don't hold them to near the level of responsibility as I do Bush, because Congress was just a puppet, not the puppetmaster.

Those leaders believed the words of the President that he had smoking guns regarding WMD production in Iraq, and ties to Al Qaeda. Its not their fault Bush told them the same fiction he told the rest of the world.



Thats not how casualty figures are assessed normally, but if you prefer, we will go that route. That means serious US casualties so far are 4,243. Is that a more palatable number?



Really? because from what I understood, they were rules for a year by an American leading an American appointed council, and are now ruled by an appointed Iraqi. In the meantime, violence against both Iraqis and American soldiers continues unabated, and in facts US deaths are up slightly from the average this month.

The deaths are not a 'few thousand lives', they are between 12 and 15,000 Iraqis and almost 1000 Americans. And freedom is still very much a hypothetical for these people. In particular all those people held without trial or just cause, or even worse those people abused and humiliated for fun by US troops.



That statistic is patently absurd. Firstly, it includes the casualties of the Iran Iraq war, casualties that Iran might just have had something to do with. Secondly, it is not as if 120 people were executed per day, what is being done is looking at the two or three times Hussein has waged campaigns against his Kurdish minorities. One of those massacres was caused by a Kurdish uprising that was oput down violently. Another came from an uprising after the gulf war, called for by the US, that the US then abandoned and allowed these people to be massacred. These dead were almost all from the Kurdish minority.

If you want to debate if the Kurdish people are better off now then under Hussein, then no question they are, absolutely. But that is not the debate.


Lastly, the 'perspective' site you mention leaves out a few interesting but important facts, (such as the fact that Germany declared war on the US, and that North Korea DID attack US troops stationed in the south) but more importantly, is almost entirely irrelevant. Yes, the Iraq war is less costly in US lives then the Second World war was. So what?



Really? Which countries? The country in the Middle east governed by US appointees, occupied by US forces engaged in a moderate level civil war with resistants at the growing cost of Iraqi and US lives? Or do you mean the country in west asia currently in near total anarchy with taliban forces in control of 15% of the country and warlords refusing to accept central authority in charge of most of the rest, where the lot of women has not improved and the unelected leadership has no control at all?



Really? The IISS disagrees with you, pointing out that largely BECAUSE of the US diversion in Iraq, Al Qaeda has regained its stength, recovered its momentum and is as srong as it ever was and growing.



Really? There are no nuclear inspectors in North Korea at the moment, and Iran just announced it was rstarting its nuclear weapons program. Lybia was never a potential nuclear power, but dispite their protestations of friendship, they were recently found complicit in a plan to overthrow the saudi monarchy...



That Bush did do, and only at the cost of about 15,000 more dead. Also, the morality of the man becomes more questionable when you note that most of those 300,000 people were massacred while the US looked on and said nothing, ior even worse, continued to trade with and supply the state, including supplying it with biological weapons components.


In my humble opinion, putting Bush Jr. on the same page as people like FDR, Truman and Kennedy is an insult to them.

The threat was never to the American military, it was to the American populace. Saddam had never had any kind of WMD capability which was likely to hinder our advance in any way. Therefore, using it would have proved fruitless, and only provided credence to US claims against him. Always the political animal, Hussein would have found not using them more advantageous than using them. All of which in no way reduces the threat he may have posed to civilian populations, either here or in Israel.



I find this a bit ridulous--at what point was Jordan ever in a position to make such a guarantee? Jordan had no control of that type over either the coalition or Iraq--the only two parties capable of making such a statement. Saddam is many things, but I don't think stupid was ever one of them--he would never have bought into such a proposal, knowing it could never have been enforced.



Following this logic, no country would ever have achieved any form of freedom over its oppressors, since such freedom never comes without some sacrifice, or some interim state of government forced to deal with those opposed to the changing of the status quo.



I'll have to admit I'm completely unaware of the point you are trying to make. Because you are doing a very admirable job of listing many of the reasons why it was important to remove Saddam from power for the sake of the Iraqi's themselves. Also, you can't complain about our abandoning their cause on the one hand, while criticizing our later support of it on the other.



Really? Do Kurdish people not count for some reason? They seem to be dismissed in both of these quotes. I understand they are not the only group to be concerned with, but in no way should that make them and their suffering irrelevant. In fact, using the very quotes you have here, I think a very strong case could be made to justify the war effort on their behalf alone.




All of which is ignoring the fact that, by default, those arguing against the war effort are, in fact, arguing in favor of the continuation of those types of activities, since no other means had shown any success in resolving the problem, and many had in fact made them worse. So, whose actions and stances are in fact the more immoral? You can't criticize inaction on the one hand, then be in favor of it on the other. A classic example of the types of issues the US faces in the various Why Do They Hate Us threads--we're blamed for inaction, and then blamed for taking action. The rest of the world would be far happier with the US if they could pick a stance themselves and stick with it. But criticism has always been far easier than action, hasn't it? Exactly how much longer, and to what benefit, should we have allowed Saddam to remain in power? Despite the relentless flood of criticism over the invasion, I have yet to see any reasonable answer to that question.

So he didn't use any WMD in order to salvage any politcal credibility he had prior to the war? So you honestly think he thought he'd have a chance to be left in power after the war, why else would he even be thinking in political terms? Even if you claim the WMD he "had" were a threat to civilians rather than the military, it still doesn't make sense why he wouldn't use them in the face of impending doom. I mean he was a madman, right?

1. Guessing games as to what Saddam would do are pointless. Maybe he had reason not to use them, just as he had reason in Gulf War where it is known for a fact he had possession of weaponized chemical agents.

2. It really has nothing much to do with the topic, if we are to examine the reasons for war then we must look to factors that apply before the war.

The US thought Iraq had WMD, and that was enough...

1.If I'm not mistaken, no where in "Discriminate Deterrence" does it "demand" its strategies be applied whenever US interests are at stake.

2. Even if it did, those "interests" (and not the policy) would be the root reason for war. So far, none except national security even seemed to be threatened by Iraq before the war.

No, he didn't use any WMD because doing so would not only have been pointless, it would have been justifying the invasion, completely destroying the martyr complex he had been thriving on. Also, it would not have served any point militarily, since the weapons were not capable of impeding a prepared military force. I'm not really understanding the difficulty in comprehending this. Saddam Hussein's main goal was to unite the Arab world (preferably under his control). How exactly would using ineffective WMD on the advancing troops have helped that goal, especially when much of the Arab world was already against him for using them on his own people?

Again, I ask the following: Exactly how much longer, and to what benefit, should we have allowed Saddam to remain in power? The silence on this question is speaking volumes.

Really, that makes total sense if you look at the war with Iran, oh and that invasion of Kuwait.....nothing says unity like invasion.

Isn't martyrdom a main component of Islam? Wasn't Saddam secular? Doesn't secular suggest religion (islam) wasn't a large part of Saddam's rule? Hmmm....................... I smell EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER (sorry, don't want to offend anyone, especially not the profanity filter.)


If Saddam was really a strategic genius, why would he even put his republican gaurd up against our forces? You're logic isn't consistent.

I don't see why sanctions couldn't have continued and Iraq could be left to fester. To what benefit? Well there's about a thousand families that could each tell you one benefit. There's also that whole thing of paying for war that is cool. Oh yeah, that whole thing of allienating the muslim world even further with an unjustified, unecessary war, thus fueling terrorist recruitment.



I'll ask you the same question: What benefit did we enjoy by removing Saddam when we did, as opposed to letting the UN weapons inspectors do a thorough inspection?

The same could be asked of the rulers of many other countries Hobbes. How much longer will we allow Castro to rule Cuba? How much longer will we allow Kim Jung Il to rule North Korea? How much longer will we allow Israel and Palestine to fight? How much longer will we tolerate countries like Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc?

The answer is, it isn't our business to determine which people rule other countries unless you buy into the neo-con hegemony ideals. It is our business to work with those people as much as possible until the point when they cross the line (and Hussein didn't by the way). We shouldn't have done anything about Hussein because he wasn't a "grave and gathering" threat. That was pretty clearly articulated by almost everyone in the Bush administration in the 2000/2001 time frame.

In fact, the republics that have broken off the soviet union are probably more of a threat as far as selling terrorists WMD than Iraq ever could have been and I don't see anyone talking about starting a war with these countries to disarm them.

When we went after Hussein we took our eye off the ball on the war on terrorism. Where are the Democratic reforms in Afghanistan? Or are we just going to allow the warlords to take back over there because they have no resources or infrastructure of any value? At the time we were dropping the first bombs on Iraq, we should have been focusing on finishing the mission in Afghanistan and forming a strong international coalition of intelligence agencies to combat terrorism.

Instead, we went into Iraq, removed an enemy of Bin Laden and religious extremist islam and stirred up a hornet's nest breeding a whole new generation of terrorists. Not to mention we pretty much flushed the chances for any kind of international coalition down the toilet by ruffling the feathers of virtually every ally we have, even those that were in the "coalition of the willing".

Yes, it could. This is bypassing the question (therefore indicating there was no good reason\benefit to allowing Hussein to remain in power). The implied question then is--why not invade all of them? The answer is simple...None of these countries come close to the justification presente by Iraq.



As I have pointed out numerous times, the situation in Iraq was in fact a grave and gathering threat, and was very interrelated with the WOT. This is the primary differentiator between the situation in Iraq and the other countries you have mentioned. Also, diplomatic efforts are still potentially fruitful in all of these other countries. Diplomacy offered no hope whatsoever of resolving the Iraq situation. In fact, diplomacy, by continuing the status quo, would only have served to make things worse. So, we have a country that is, in fact, currently posing a threat to the US merely by the stand-off created through its refusal to comply with the UN resolutions, with indications of WMD capability, demonstated capacity and intent to use them, known hatred of the US--with years of diplomatic efforts doing nothing but making the situation worse. Exactly what, then, would constitute crossing the line? Exactly how long should failed diplomatic efforts be allowed to continue while only exacerbating the sitatuation?



I disagree completely. Iraq was an integral part of the WOT. What were the two main reasons cited by OBL for the attack of 9-11? Our military presence in the Holy Land, and the terrorism we were conducting on the people of Iraq through the sanctions. Neither of these had anything to do with Afghanistan. Therefore, to best conduct the WOT it was necessary to change the situation in Iraq. Invasion represented the only way to make that change--thereby opening up the question I posed before--what good was there to be gained by leaving Saddam in power? None.



Hmmm, now, what event happened at the end of that time frame that might have changed the perception of things?



That's because diplomatic efforts still offer hope of resolution, and because they don't create any situation fomenting terrorism against us. So, invasion would make things worse there, not better.



Better over there, than over here.



Not true. All of these countries are continuing to collaborate with on on anti-terrorism activities. In short, they may have ruffled feathers, but they're still working with us. In due time, relations will be just as good as they were before. Also, this line of reasoning is ignoring one of the prime motivators behind their reluctance to join us--they didn't want the terrorists ire to be be directed at them. I fail to see why we should subjugate our security to theirs.

Only, if you take my quote out of context (which you did) and ignore the rest of my post (which you also did). Iraq has little to any justification -- why do you think we are having all these debates about why we went in and where is the WMD?


This still doesn't make Iraq unique in that respect, one could argue the exact same situation has presented itself historically and in recent times with Cuba and N. Korea.