Hat tip to Constant Reader Wilfred for this item.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Juan Cole sifts through a series of questions that supporters of the invasion of Iraq have been using to defend their position around the blogosphere (these same questions have been posted on sites I visit):
1) Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?
2) Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?
3) Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?
4) Why do you think Saddam offered “succor” (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?
5) Would you have been in favor of lifting the “no fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original “Gulf War”?
6) Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?
7) Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?
You can read the full response at the link above, but this summary by the Professor is brilliant:
If you are arguing for war, you don’t have to ask all these fancy questions. There are really only two questions you have to answer. The first is, would you yourself be willing to die fighting for this cause you have espoused? The second is, would you be willing to see your 18-year-old son or daughter killed for this cause? (I do not ask if you would be glad or satisfied; I ask if you would be willing).
My answer with regard to the aftermath of September 11 and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is, yes, I would have been willing to go fight and die myself to protect my country from another such attack. And, had my son been of age and had he enlisted after September 11, I could have accepted that and everything it entailed.
With regard to Iraq, the answer to both questions in my case is “no.” I would not have been willing to risk my own life to dislodge Saddam Hussein from power. And, I would certainly not have been willing to see my son risk his, nor would I like to see him ever sent to Iraq as a draftee, because I believe the entire aftermath of the war has been handled with gross incompetence, and I certainly don’t want my flesh and blood mauled by the machinations of Richard Perle and his buddies.
I recall talking with a good friend of mine in the days after 9/11. We both live in NYC and neither of us has children. Also, niether of us has served in the military or ever thought it made sense for us, but we both were completely ready to do whatever it took of ourselves to avenge the attacks. Independently we realized that the lives we’ve had up to that point as US citizens, and especially being able to pass that along to our nieces and nephews, was not only worth sacrificing for, it was worth dying for. We realized we shouldn’t take any of what we’ve had for granted and that future generations deserved the same. It wasn’t something we had reasoned or discussed…it was simply something we felt in our guts.
I mention this, because it validates Professor Cole’s conclusion for me. The question of whether to go to war or not is much simpler than these seven questions make it sound. If you need convincing, it’s probably a bad idea. When it’s right, you know it in your gut.
Yes.
Yes.
For Iraq and more.
And BTW, just because you don’t believe in the war doesn’t mean that you can’t can’t killed in it either. 3,000 people in New York and D.C. didn’t know we were at war and were killed nonetheless.
For Iraq and more.
Until when, Sebastian? When will you be sated?
And BTW, just because you don’t believe in the war doesn’t mean that you can’t can’t killed in it either. 3,000 people in New York and D.C. didn’t know we were at war and were killed nonetheless.
You honestly believe Saddam Hussein was going to kill 3000 Americans? What on earth leads you to that?
Actually, I like the concept.
Perhaps the professor could go further and ask “would you fund government program _________ with money from your own pockets at the same rate that you wish others’ to be forced to fund it via governmental legislation?”
Any chance that ideological consistency makes it to the good professor’s site? I mean, the notation in this post is basically a fancied up “chickenhawk” entry, isn’t it?
Edward, I’ll tell you what my gut told me on 9/11. It told me “Nuke Mecca, deport Muslims”. I’m certainly glad my head prevailed.
So, you’re seriously saying that response to attack on our homeland should be based on our fight or flight instinct? I’d guess that’s not the case (nor is this a chickenhawk post from Edward, Ricky). Rather, you disagree with Sebastian and I (and others) about how our available assets have been deployed to remove the threat of terrorism as well as the handling of the aftermath of that course of action.
The difference between the chickenhawk epithet and Cole’s test is, at least in part I think, that the chickenhawk label attempts to make a judgment, based on someone’s past behavior, about the legitimacy of that person’s views on engaging in war. Cole’s exercise, on the other hand, is hypothetical but also more fair. It asks right now, in this context, do you think this mission is worth your life or the life of someone close to you. If you don’t think it is, then it’s pretty hard to justify other people dying for it.
As for the analogy to spending, I guess I think (1) Cole’s blog isn’t about the federal budget process, so it’s a little silly to demand “ideological consistency” in the domestic budget; and (2) there are differences between dollars and lives.
“3,000 people in New York and D.C. didn’t know we were at war and were killed nonetheless.”
3000 people we’re killed because the government knew we were going to attacked and did nothing about it. Steel doors on cockpits and alerting the crews and public to the danger would have stopped it. Name the Iraqi who was responsible for planning and carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks? These people have not done a damn thing to us yet we are killing them by the thousands and plan on killing thousands more apparently in the coming days. Let’s be clear. They will despise us for this. It will never again be safe for Americans to walk the streets of Iraq because of it. And if there is another version of Sept.11 it may well be Iraqis carrying it out. One thing we will not have to ask of the Iraqis is “Why do they hate us?”. We’ll know that.
My retort copied from Rantburg
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.
Just as relevant as to whatever Cole had to say.
“You honestly believe Saddam Hussein was going to kill 3000 Americans? What on earth leads you to that?”
No. But for me the “war” didn’t have that much to do with Saddam anyway, and Iraq is primarily a good platform from which to attack or defend ourselves, our allies, our interests in the big war to come.
Sooner than later, I think, if the message Sharon took to Bush holds, and Arafat is targeted this summer.
I am asking myself today some questions like Cole’s, since I am all over the web advocating a draft in which I will not serve. Or maybe if it gets big fast, maybe I will. Like Sebastian… yes, and yes.
“We didn’t start the war on terror.”
So let’s fight the war on terror already, instead of diverting funds and resources to deal with an old contained toothless enemy who helpfully had his finger in the dike we just smart-bombed.
WOT is what the Iraqi conflict is all about.
Juan Cole gets the questions wrong (my additions in bold):
The first is, would you yourself be willing to [subject yourself to a small risk that you would] die fighting for this cause you have espoused?
The second is, would you be willing to [subject your 18-year-old son or daughter to a small risk that he or she would be] killed for this cause?
For the risk of a US soldier dying in this modern day war is actually relatively small.
(Also contra to Cole, those aren’t the only questions worth asking. You should also ask whether (a) you’d be willing to see a significant number of enemy soldiers killed; (b) would you be willing to see some number of innocents killed; (c) would you be willing to see your taxes increase to pay for it all; and, (d) would you be willing to risk permanent disfigurement [which is far more likely, in this day of body armour, than death].)
At the outset of the war, I’d answer yes to each; now, knowing with hindsight the choices the Bush administration has made, my original answer would have changed.
All of this, however, is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether we should continue fighting the war, and even increase the number of troops.
(A resounding “yes” from me to both parts of the relevant issue.)
“WOT is what the Iraqi conflict is all about.”
Now Iraq’s a breeding ground for terrorists, a great argument for anti-American extremist, and the constant source of bloody images on al-Jazeera. Before it was, well, an old man and a dike. While the Taliban and warlords fatten at their leisure in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
Ergo the “fancied up” caveat.
Yes, it fits.
Timmy, let’s look at this claim:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
Indeed. On December 8, 1941, the US declared war on Japan. cite
Then Germany declared war on the US – on Dec 11, 1941. cite, timeline
That is a clearly documented historical fact, and it makes a nonsense of the first two sentences that you quoted: unless the person who wrote it is advocating that the US should not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, and that when Germany declared war on the US, the US should have found some way to get Germany to withdraw the declaration of war.
There’s no point trying to discuss the rest with you unless you’re willing to acknowledge that the first two sentences should be simply ignored: they’re either a flagrant historical error, or they suggest that FDR would have been a better President if he had appeased Japan and Germany.
This is too easy.
(Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. )
Oh, right. I guess when N. Korea invaded South Korea and killed American service-members serving as advisors we should have backed off. Also, Truman went to the UN and secured a great deal of support.
(John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.)
False. Advisors had first been deployed by Eisenhower.
(Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.)
Completely skews the statistics. The deadliest years of the war occured after the end of Johnson’s term. Under the leadership of a Republican president.
(Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.)
However he also had far more international support. Maybe he was just a far better diplomat.
(He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.)
Completely unverified. Based upon a single story from a Syrian intelligence operative.
Well, I think that I would be willing to die in Iraq regardless of my private doubts about its strategic import.
The reason I feel this way is that I don’t believe I am exempt from a patriotic obligation to serve. Every person that goes in my place shames me further. I am quite close to enlisting, in fact.
“Completely skews the statistics. The deadliest years of the war occured after the end of Johnson’s term. Under the leadership of a Republican president.”
Wrong. I went out to the Vietnam Memorial Official site this week and discovered that I was also in error on something.
Vietnam Casualties
39000 in 67-68-69, 6000 in 1970
My own mistake was whether more draftees died than enlisted men
17300 enlisted
17000 draftees
13000 marines
“Now Iraq’s a breeding ground for terrorists”
Gratuitous use of the word ‘now’. The sentence was true without the ‘now’ for at least the past 15 years.
Are we now going to war based on support for Palestinian terrorists? When does the invasion of Saudi Arabia start?
There’s a problem with saying Chickenhawks on this site? But you can still use Liberal as a slur? What a strange place this is!
Well, I think that I would be willing to die in Iraq regardless of my private doubts about its strategic import.
The reason I feel this way is that I don’t believe I am exempt from a patriotic obligation to serve. Every person that goes in my place shames me further. I am quite close to enlisting, in fact.
asdf, there’s a difference before and after the invasion choice is made…I’m definitely in favor of doing what it takes now to make Iraq succeed. If you do decide to join, I’ll not only be grateul…in as noncondescending sincerity as I can manage via the internet, I’d be proud of you too.
Ricky,
I fundatmentally disagree with the concept that invading Iraq was central in the war on terror before we made it so. Alas, we did, but let’s be clear about Professor Cole’s statement and its chronology. There was a point at which we, as a nation, decided to invade…that was the point at which we, as a nation, should have been asking ourselves his two questions. I did, and my answers were no and no. Ricky, this is in no way a comment on the people who sent our troops in…in other words, this is not a chickenhawk comment. You’ll just have to take my word for it.
Bob,
The idea that we can invade another country because it provides “a good platform from which to attack or defend ourselves, our allies, our interests in the big war to come” is morally bankrupt to me. Ten of thousands of Iraqi civilians had to sacrfice their lives so we’d have some strategic advantage? I’m serious…that’s grotesque.
Wilfred,
Chickenhawk is highly offensive on this site. House rules.
asdf,
one other note…I’m 99% sure you don’t need to be told this, but…don’t let anything I write on the topic sway you one way or the other please…
Jesurgislac,
Hmm… let’s give your post just a little thought.
Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. We have know declared war on him. So the real discussion is whether the war in Iraq is part of our strategic war on Bin Laden. I can see how some might argue that it is not, but I believe it is actually a brilliant strategy. Historically, the U.S. (as well as others) has been known to invade one country in order to fight another enemy.
I was just talking to my Grandfather who served in WWII and he was telling me how the Italians had already surrendered by the time we invaded Italy to fight the Germans. I must admit that I didn’t know that.
Edward,
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Can you give me any proof of this claim. I don’t even think any of the Islamic fanatics are claiming that number. I find your wild and baseless exaggeration morally bankrupt.
“good platform from which to attack or defend ourselves, our allies”
Well, I now consider the Iraqis our *allies*, and to the degree my opinion matters, I think we should be as committed to the protection and well-being of the Iraqis as we were to the Germans after WWII, and for as long. And I am a believer in the whole “transformation” program. Including
changing the culture(not Islam) of the Middle East.
I could spout all the stuff Timmy etc do, about Saddam killing people. etc. They are not wrong, but I don’t feel like taking that kind of comfort.
War is hell.
I no longer want to live in a world where “honor killings are a tolerable aspect of culture. I am willing to use violence to change that. My goal, no matter what the strategy may entail, is a better life for Arabs than they have had for fifty years, in the belief that this will make America more secure.
OdysseusInRTP: Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. We have know declared war on him. So the real discussion is whether the war in Iraq is part of our strategic war on Bin Laden. I can see how some might argue that it is not, but I believe it is actually a brilliant strategy. Historically, the U.S. (as well as others) has been known to invade one country in order to fight another enemy.
It is funny how President Bush, members of his administration, and their intellectual allies keep saying that the world changed on September 11, 2001, yet their fixation on state-sponsored terror to the exclusion of transnational terror apparently hasn’t changed an iota. Just as Bush’s solution to every economic problem is a tax cut, his solution to every global political problem is the invasion of Iraq.
Too bad Osama Bin Laden isn’t currently hiding out in a military dictatorship with active WMD programs (including known sales of nuclear technology to rogue states) that is a breeding ground for terrorism and is right across the border from a large U.S. troop presence. That would be a pretty good set of motives for an invasion, wouldn’t it?
Gromit
Gromit,
Actually, it would be a a pretty good set of motives for an invasion.
I imagine that if Iraq had started to behave as Pakistan after 9/11 they would have avoided being invaded.
Are you trying to say that Pakistan has contributed the same thing as Iraq in the War on Terror? Are you trying to equate those 2 countries?
Even the casual observer can see that they have behaved very differently after 9/11. Hussein could have avoided the invasion. All he would have had to do is follow Musharaff’s example.
Gromit,
yet their fixation on state-sponsored terror to the exclusion of transnational terror apparently hasn’t changed an iota
Uhmmm… Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban toppled.
Soldiers are still fighting the Taliban and Al Queda there…
You do a disservice to the soldiers who have fought and died by denying that reality.
I no longer want to live in a world where “honor killings are a tolerable aspect of culture. I am willing to use violence to change that.
Whoa — so this really is a culture war, then? Honor killings weren’t imposed by Saddam. What if a democratically-elected Iraqi government wants to allow behavior that Americans consider offensive or wrong?
I have to admit that I am sort of becoming tired of beating around the bush on the names we give the current situation in regards to the WOT.
This is to a degree a culture war. I think most Americans believe, even if they were against the war that our culture is better than theirs. If not then why do we all continue to practice our culture. Actions speak louder than words on this issue.
The WOT is partly a culture war! It is also a defensive war, even though it being waged offensively. We are rejecting a part of their culture. The death cult, the way they treat women and the list goes on…
Many of us have just become so PC we don’t want to admit it.
Now having said that there are many things about Islamic culture that are redeeming. Just like there are things about our culture that are not.
This is also a clash of civilizations. East and West, but also internally for the Islamic world.
Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. We have know declared war on him. So the real discussion is whether the war in Iraq is part of our strategic war on Bin Laden.
Okay. Let me run through a few facts about the situation: (1) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies. (2) Osama bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein’s regime overthrown, and a religious government installed. (3) Osama bin Laden wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia. (4) Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan, and received support from the Taliban.
The US has effectively carried out Osama bin Laden’s wishes with regard to (2). It appears likely that if permanent American military bases are built in Iraq, the US will carry out Osama bin Laden’s wishes with regard to (3).
With regard to (4), the invasion of Iraq meant that less resources were available to establish stability in Afghanistan and prevent the Taliban from retaking government. The same conditions now apply in Afghanistan as applied when the Taliban was able to take power in Afghanistan – chaos and warlords.
I can see how some might argue that it is not, but I believe it is actually a brilliant strategy. Historically, the U.S. (as well as others) has been known to invade one country in order to fight another enemy.
But when, exactly, has the US invaded a country that was the enemy of the enemy it was supposedly fighting, and done pretty much what the enemy it was supposedly fighting wanted to do?
How is this brilliant strategy? It’s about as “brilliant” as if the US had invaded, conquered, and occupied Holland in 1941, installed their own puppet government, savagely put down any Dutch uprising, and declared this a brilliant victory.
Of course, Americans never engage in honor killings. We engage in honor massacres. We lay siege to entire cities to avenge the death of four civilians who volutarily put their lives on the line for money and rolled snake-eyes in a gamble that didn’t pay off. Meanwhile, I here they’ve filled two soccer stadiums with the dead from our “honor killings”.
Jesurgislac,
Wow, it is really difficult to respond to such a perspective.
Okay. Let me run through a few facts about the situation: (1) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies.
Hitler and Stalin were enemies. You can’t even imagine they might cut a deal. France and Britian have been enemies and have cut many deals. The U.S. and Libya have been enemies and are cutting deals as we speak… on and on I could go.
(2) Osama bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein’s regime overthrown, and a religious government installed.
The second part of your statement remains to be seen and the first part is public U.S. policy started by Clinton and supported by Kerry.
(3) Osama bin Laden wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Uhmm… so did the United States.
(4) Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan, and received support from the Taliban.
Hey we agree here! Based in Afghanistan branches all around the world. No other country is openly supporting him right now. Key word being openly.
The US has effectively carried out Osama bin Laden’s wishes with regard to (2).
What about carrying out our wishes. Clinton made regime change in Iraq American policy. Should we not do what is in our best interest just because Bin Laden might actually like the idea to.
It appears likely that if permanent American military bases are built in Iraq, the US will carry out Osama bin Laden’s wishes with regard to (3).
Our bases will only be there if the Iraqis want us there. Just like anywhere else in the world. See Saudi Arabia and Phillipines.
With regard to (4), the invasion of Iraq meant that less resources were available to establish stability in Afghanistan and prevent the Taliban from retaking government.
That is your assumption that we need more troops in Afghanistan. But, your approach may not be the best. Putting 100,000 troops in Afghanistan is arguably not the best path. And btw, last time I checked the Taliban wasn’t in control of Afghanistan… still hiding in caves on the run.
The same conditions now apply in Afghanistan as applied when the Taliban was able to take power in Afghanistan – chaos and warlords.
Uhmmm… not accurate. I don’t remember NATO being there, U.S. and so on.
But when, exactly, has the US invaded a country that was the enemy of the enemy it was supposedly fighting, and done pretty much what the enemy it was supposedly fighting wanted to do?
I don’t think that has ever happened. And it is certainly not happening in this instance.
How is this brilliant strategy? It’s about as “brilliant” as if the US had invaded, conquered, and occupied Holland in 1941, installed their own puppet government, savagely put down any Dutch uprising, and declared this a brilliant victory.
Well, it is really hard to respond to something that is so obviously an unfair comparison.
I can’t imagine that is what you truly believe is going on in Iraq right now. Especially since the Iraqis are going to get a chance to vote for the gov’t. And we have been waiting patiently for the bad guys in Fallujah to lay down their arms. Your comparison reeks of inaccuracy.
When people talked about winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, I didn’t realize they meant it literally, as in cut out their hearts and blow out their brains.
Mario,
Could you please cite and example from this thread were you think someone is literally saying we should cut out the hearts and blow out their brains?
Mario, get real. We could have leveled that city any time we wanted to if we were about avenging a death.
For goodness sakes man… THINK about it. Do that for yourself? If they had two stadiums full of dead people we all know they would have every news station and video camera in the world looking. You haven’t SEEN anything and only “HEARD” something because there is nothing to see except dead fighters.
Try to keep your statements rational and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
And, btw have you even bothered to check and see how much those “mercs” were actually making.
Do a little legwork and don’t just go by what you “HEAR”
OdysseusInRTP: According to the Woodward book, Tommy Franks estimated that upwards of 30,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the fighting.
As for civilians, I think the number is around 10,000+.
OdysseusInRTP: Are you trying to say that Pakistan has contributed the same thing as Iraq in the War on Terror? Are you trying to equate those 2 countries?
No, I would never equate them. We know Pakistan has developed and traded in nuclear weapons technology. We know that regardless of whether Musharaff approved the deal, he pardoned the responsible party. We know that support for Al Qaeda is quite strong among the Pakistani public. We have good reason to believe that OBL is within Pakistani borders, given sanctuary by local leaders. You are right. Iraq doesn’t compare with Pakistan in the least.
Uhmmm… Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban toppled. Soldiers are still fighting the Taliban and Al Queda there… You do a disservice to the soldiers who have fought and died by denying that reality.
The current administration did those troops a disservice by entering into an entirely unrelated and poorly timed long-term military engagement while those deployed in Afghanistan are trying to finish the real job of fighting terrorists. I do them no disservice by arguing that their mission should have top priority right now, which it does not.
Gromit
Truth be told my CLUELESS little friend, I haven’t seen many dead people from this war at all on the news. WONDER why? Only saw the caskets of AMERICAN soldiers recently. By the way, when you speak of Musharaff are you talking about President Pervez MUSHARRAF, or some guy I don’t know of called Musharaff.
Whoops! Make that “Musharraf.” My apologies to any Pakistanis out there.
Gromit
asdf,
Even your owm comment refutes your previous claim. You said 10,000’s of civilians. You seem to have Fisked yourself.
Gromit,
I agree that Pakistan is sketchy, but you seem to miss my point that their gov’t is making an attempt to set things right. Do you discount his efforts or see them as false?
I don’t see Iraq as a distraction, I see it as a crucial part of the overall war strategy. Only history will show if it is an effective strategy.
Mario,
You got me on a typo. Good one!
So it seems to me that you are admitting that you don’t really know what’s happening because you don’t have information.
I on the other hand didn’t claim to know. You did.
And nice job on avoiding the substance of my post which is to point out who is promoting the violence that you claimed was being promoted.
Talk loudly, make wild claims and avoid the issues. Standard strategy…
P.S. For anyone else who has spelled it wrong I apologize. But one of the debating techniques of conservatives, sadly, is to search out minor spelling or grammar errors and then go “Aha” (or in this case use caps) as if this proves some kind of point. I spelled hear as here if you didn’t catch it from OdysseusInRTP.
Friend, we’re promoting the violence. We invaded their country.
Oh… you think I meant “HEAR” as in you made a mistake. But, I also did that with “mercs” What did you think I meant there?
I also used caps on SEEN, THINK, HEARD. Can you explain to me how those where AHA’s on you?
You seem to be very defensive.
I was implying that you had only heard rumors and as a whole “WE” don’t know facts. We need to think about that before we declare what we know. Remember how the U.S. was bogged down in the desert but then how quickly Iraq fell apart.
Again, you refuse to retract you wild claim.
Uhmm… our violence was a direct response to Saddam Hussien. He made a choice. And as usual many others have had to suffer because of him. He is the biggest killer of muslims in the world.
We knocked over a dictator. Sounds like that is for the good of everyone involved.
OdysseusInRTP:
Don’t be an ass.
Check upthread — I didn’t make any claims.
You asked a question, and I answered out of the goodness of my heart. As far as I know, it’s completely accurate.
asdf,
Your right, I apoligize. It was Edward that made the comment and then you responded. I just got mixed up in all the posts.
Of course, your estimate does seem to come from the far left. iraqBodycount.com I don’t know that I put that much stock into thier numbers and I certainly do think Hussein is responsbile for many of the deaths as are the terrorists now that attack civilians. He is the one who used neighborhoods to try and hide his weapons and they are the ones blowing up innocents.
But, you could lighten up a little bit. It was an honest mistake.
I asked: But when, exactly, has the US invaded a country that was the enemy of the enemy it was supposedly fighting, and done pretty much what the enemy it was supposedly fighting wanted to do?
OdysseusInRTP asserted: I don’t think that has ever happened. And it is certainly not happening in this instance.
And yet… (1) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies (your argument that “enemies sometimes cut deals” was feeble). (2) Osama bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown. So, in fact, it has happened: and, as President Bush41 could have advised Bush43, as indeed Colin Powell could have (and perhaps did) advise Bush43: Iraq is going to end up with a religious government. Just like Osama bin Laden wanted.
You claimed you thought invading Iraq was “brilliant strategy”. Yet you’ve failed to explain why you think it’s “brilliant strategy”.
I can’t imagine that is what you truly believe is going on in Iraq right now.
What, you don’t think that the US has invaded, conquered, and occupied Iraq – a country which has never attacked the US and which was in no way involved with 9/11? Watch the news.
Especially since the Iraqis are going to get a chance to vote for the gov’t.
What government? As Edward pointed out, this “government” is not really going to be a “government”: the US is retaining sovereignity.
Further, you pointed out that we don’t yet know for sure that the Iraqis will end up with a religious government, just like Osama bin Laden wanted: but we don’t yet know for sure that the Iraqis will get to vote for a government with sovereignity. As Edward points out in the post I linked to, so far we’re just getting moving goalposts.
And we have been waiting patiently for the bad guys in Fallujah to lay down their arms.
The US military has killed about 800 people in Fallujah since the beginning of April: about 600 civilians, and at least 100 of those civilians were children. That is your definition of “waiting patiently” – only killing 600 people, 100 children?
In what way does doing what Osama bin Laden wants in Iraq help fight Osama bin Laden? How is this “brilliant strategy”?
As for the “brilliant strategy” of leaving Afghanistan in chaos, you reference:
Uhmmm… not accurate. I don’t remember NATO being there, U.S. and so on
“Unless immediate steps are taken to counteract the growing power of the regional warlords, Afghanistan will be at the mercy of essentially the same figures whose rule and warring devastated Afghanistan over the last decade. In this environment, the loya jirga process, which was designed to sideline and minimize the rule of warlords, may instead entrench and legitimate their hold on power.” cite
That was written in June 2002: but no steps were taken to counter the Afghan warlords, because the Bush & Co were much more interested in invading Iraq. You’ve yet to explain why this was “brilliant strategy”: probably because you can’t.
Oh did I mention you shouldn’t debate Jesurgislac. He’s all that and more.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Can you give me any proof of this claim. I don’t even think any of the Islamic fanatics are claiming that number. I find your wild and baseless exaggeration morally bankrupt.
Only slightly over ten thousand have been estimated, so perhaps “tens of thousands” was a poor choice of words (one ten thousand plus)…but if you’re equating exaggerating a number in a debate forum with killing innocent civilians our moral compasses are so far apart, there’s no reason whatsoever to contemplate what you consider morally bankrupt.
Edward,
Where did I equate that?
I am just trying to keep the discussion reasonable and stay away from the unreasonable claims.
Remember the massacre at Jenin that didn’t occur? Must we go there again.
There have been innocents killed in Iraq. That I agree completely with you on. Some of the innoncents killed were caused by the war. I believe there is only a small small amount that was intentional. (Refer to Zayed’s Healing Iraq where some soldiers are being investigated.)
Most of the civilians killed where killed by Hussein. It seems to me that our invasion of Iraq has save many Iraqi lives.
The mass graves existed long before any U.S. soldiers arrived in Iraq.
Jesurgislac,
And yet… (1) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies (your argument that “enemies sometimes cut deals” was feeble).
You assert that as a weak argument. I disagree with you completely.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam’s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam’s men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq’s mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane’s Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane’s reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda’s No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which “emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.”)
* As recently as 2001, Iraq’s embassy in Pakistan was used as a “liaison” between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan — who is charged by a Spanish court with being “directly involved with the preparation and planning” of the Sept. 11 attacks — that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his “al Qaeda nom de guerre,” London’s Independent reports.
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as “Abu Mohammed,” told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: “We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You’ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden’s group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'”
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri’s bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates “converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there,” Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda’s global network.
* In 2001, an al Qaeda member “bragged that the situation in Iraq was ‘good,'” according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi’s Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi’s cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda’s military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. “Where did they go, where did they look?” said the secretary. “They went to Iraq.”
* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam’s regime “successful,” Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London’s Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit “youth to train for the jihad” at a “headquarters for international holy warrior network” to be established in Baghdad.
* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, “three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 ‘to undertake jihad,'” Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein — and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar’s group was funded by “Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad.”
* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam’s strongholds inside northern Iraq.
(2) Osama bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown. So, in fact, it has happened: and, as President Bush41 could have advised Bush43, as indeed Colin Powell could have (and perhaps did) advise Bush43: Iraq is going to end up with a religious government. Just like Osama bin Laden wanted.
That’s your assertion. That is not a fact. I concede that you may be right and that might happend. But, why should we not get rid of a dictator who hates us. Why should we let Bin Laden control our actions. He was a dictator we were not served any better by leaving him in place.
You claimed you thought invading Iraq was “brilliant strategy”. Yet you’ve failed to explain why you think it’s “brilliant strategy”.
Well, I didn’t know I needed to… but here goes…
Islamic fanatics are heading towards Iraq to fight our Marines. Our Marines are ready and capable. Much better than having Marines defend NYC, Atlanta and so on. Seems like a brilliant strategy to me. Take the fight to them.
Risky yes, but if we can help bring some democracy to the Middle East, which could lead to peace and prosperity as opposed self serving governments and dictators and we don’t have to kill all the fanatics and terrorists then I think that is a brilliant strategy.
I could go on, but I know we disagree…
What, you don’t think that the US has invaded, conquered, and occupied Iraq – a country which has never attacked the US and which was in no way involved with 9/11? Watch the news.
Uhmm… yes the U.S. has invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq. I agree. I even agree that they have not attacked us directly. Do I think he would if he could. I am certain he would!!! Better to stop him here than clean up the mess afterwards.
Watch the news? You gotta be kidding me…
What government? As Edward pointed out, this “government” is not really going to be a “government”: the US is retaining sovereignity.
It’s the beginning. Try and have a little confidence in the Iraqi people. Even we Americans didn’t get it right the first time. It took us years.
The US military has killed about 800 people in Fallujah since the beginning of April: about 600 civilians, and at least 100 of those civilians were children. That is your definition of “waiting patiently” – only killing 600 people, 100 children?
Show me any proof of 100 children. If we had killed a 100 children we both know it would have been a propaganda victory and would be on the 6 o’clock news. Maybe, you 100 children are with all those massacred in Jenin that don’t exist.
Yes, when we could have wiped out the whole town and been done with it. We have been damned patient. You know as well as I do that they have not been holding to the attempted cease fire.
That was written in June 2002: but no steps were taken to counter the Afghan warlords, because the Bush & Co were much more interested in invading Iraq. You’ve yet to explain why this was “brilliant strategy”: probably because you can’t.
Again, you show no patience. Rome wasn’t built overnight. We are still a formidable force in Afghanistan. It is on its way to becoming a more stable country. But, our strategy requires the Afghanis to play a crucial role and I think it is a smart plan to let them help themselves.
Hope this takes care of the bold problem.
Wow, Moveable Type is really sloppy.
Yet you’ve failed to explain why you think it’s “brilliant strategy”.
Well, I didn’t know I needed to… but here goes…
Islamic fanatics are heading towards Iraq to fight our Marines. Our Marines are ready and capable. Much better than having Marines defend NYC, Atlanta and so on. Seems like a brilliant strategy to me. Take the fight to them.
AKA the flypaper theory. But this is rather in conflict with the humanitarian/nation-building part of the mission, no? Wonder what the average Iraqi would think about an intentional strategy to lure terrorists to Iraq (not to conspire, but to act)? Would they agree that it’s much better there than in NYC, Atlanta, and so on? And wouldn’t it be much easier to build a democracy in Iraq without all these horrible terrorist acts? You could argue that Iraq is the absolute worst place for terrorist strikes to be happening right now.
Anyway, the flypaper theory is obviously a post facto justification — it’s clear that the administration didn’t plan for it.
OdysseusInRTP: Your original argument against Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein being enemies was simply the assertion that “enemies often cut deals” and followed by several examples of instances where enemies had cut deals. That was an extraordinarily feeble argument: you failed even to assert that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had cut a deal, let alone that it was likely that they might.
Further, let us be clear: George W. Bush wants there to be a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It would justify the invasion of Iraq if he could find one. Any claims that there is “evidence” of a connection are false, simply because if there was evidence, Bush & Co would be broadcasting the evidence – they’d be on it like white on rice. If there was even the kind of uncertain evidence that there was was WMD, they’d have used it – we saw that before the Iraq invasion, and we see it now. That, to me, is the key proof that there is no connection. (By the way, when you want to cite an article, a short quote and a link is sufficient. Quoting at length is anti-social behavior. Try not to do it. While we’re on topic, it’s also easier to distinguish when you’re quoting other commentators if you use HTML italics – check out this site for how to do it.)
Uhmm… yes the U.S. has invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq. I agree. I even agree that they have not attacked us directly. Do I think he would if he could. I am certain he would!!! Better to stop him here than clean up the mess afterwards.
Rubbish. To attack every country in the world that might attack the US if they could, but that now represents no threat to the US, is both illegal (read the UN Charter), and stupid. To attack any country on the basis that “they might attack us if they could do it, so even though they can’t, we’ll attack them now” is really not “intelligent strategy” – it’s thoroughly wasteful of resources, as we see in Iraq.
Well, I didn’t know I needed to…
What, you thought that you could just assert “it’s brilliant strategy!” and expect everyone to agree with you? You must be new to blogdom!
Islamic fanatics are heading towards Iraq to fight our Marines. Our Marines are ready and capable. Much better than having Marines defend NYC, Atlanta and so on. Seems like a brilliant strategy to me. Take the fight to them.
Ah, the “flypaper theory”. kenB’s already pointed out why that’s not “brilliant”, but for a more detailed rebuttal, read this.
Risky yes, but if we can help bring some democracy to the Middle East, which could lead to peace and prosperity as opposed self serving governments and dictators and we don’t have to kill all the fanatics and terrorists then I think that is a brilliant strategy.
These two paragraphs contradict each other. If you think it’s “brilliant strategy” to make Iraq a hotbed of terrorism so that US forces can kill terrorists there, then obviously Iraq can’t simultaneously become a garden of democracy, peace, and prosperity.
It’s the beginning. Try and have a little confidence in the Iraqi people. Even we Americans didn’t get it right the first time. It took us years.
I think I speak for everyone when I say a big ol’ “Huh?”
Show me any proof of 100 children. If we had killed a 100 children we both know it would have been a propaganda victory and would be on the 6 o’clock news.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. The evidence for the civilian deaths in Fallujah is not, as it was in Jenin, a matter of thousands missing (who later turned out to have been illegally imprisoned by Israelis) and the stench of unburied bodies coming up from the fallen buildings destroyed by the Israelis: it is doctors reporting from hospitals where casualties have been carried. I’m not speaking of a hundred children lined up and killed: I am talking about hundreds of casualties, of which at least 15% were children.
Yes, when we could have wiped out the whole town and been done with it. We have been damned patient.
When you define “Only attacking the town and killing hundreds of civilians, when we could just bomb the whole place flat and kill them all” as “dammed patient” I can see that our moral values are simply not on the same plane.
Again, you show no patience. Rome wasn’t built overnight. We are still a formidable force in Afghanistan. It is on its way to becoming a more stable country. But, our strategy requires the Afghanis to play a crucial role and I think it is a smart plan to let them help themselves.
Except that last time the Afghans were left alone to “help themselves”, the result was years of chaos under the warlords, followed by the rise of the Taliban as a national government. Given this history, no, I do not think it is a “smart plan” to just ignore Afghanistan. It was estimated that it needed fifteen billion dollars over the next five years from 2002 for effective nationbuilding. This hasn’t happened – yet Bush got $87B for his idiotic venture in Iraq.
kenb,
Maybe you didn’t hear of the flypaper theory before the war and you consider it post facto, but that is flat out not my experience. My friends and I were discussing it long before the invasion. I was living in San Francisco at the time. It was a huge point to be made. Now, I haven’t taken the time to see when other people started talking about it… but that wasn’t my point.
It’s clear the administration didn’t plan for it? Being someone who worked for the military for about 5 years I find that absurd. Remember, we had previously invaded Afghanistan and watched the Pakistani’s, Chechen’s and others come to their aide. To think that we couldn’t extrapolate from that war doesn’t make sense.
OdysseusInRTP: Your original argument against Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein being enemies was simply the assertion that “enemies often cut deals” and followed by several examples of instances where enemies had cut deals. That was an extraordinarily feeble argument: you failed even to assert that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had cut a deal, let alone that it was likely that they might.
Feeble because you don’t agree or feeble because enemies have never cut deals?
I can only assume that you discount the whole list of connections that I pasted in… so that you could continue to make your point.
And “they might”… that is the whole issue that you seem to miss… I don’t think it is wise to wonder if they “might” In this day and age we need to deal with these kind of people before they “might”.
Further, let us be clear: George W. Bush wants there to be a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
You seem to have direct access to the President.
It would justify the invasion of Iraq if he could find one. Any claims that there is “evidence” of a connection are false, simply because if there was evidence, Bush & Co would be broadcasting the evidence – they’d be on it like white on rice.
Uhmmm… they have been. They can’t help that people don’t listen. Many people have been making the case for a long time. Why should they waste their time, (Or me for that matter?) when people like you so easily dismiss anything presented.
If there was even the kind of uncertain evidence that there was was WMD, they’d have used it
They have found all the precursors to chemical weapons in Iraq. People like you continue to ignore that fact.
– we saw that before the Iraq invasion, and we see it now. That, to me, is the key proof that there is no connection.
Al Queada is everywhere in the world, but Iraq. That just isn’t logica.
(By the way, when you want to cite an article, a short quote and a link is sufficient. Quoting at length is anti-social behavior.
That is a matter of opinion. I think it is important to see how many connections there truly are.
Try not to do it. While we’re on topic, it’s also easier to distinguish when you’re quoting other commentators if you use HTML italics – check out this site for how to do it.)
I find that it weeds people out when you do it this way. If someone is really interested then they will take the time to read.
BTW, I have been programming HTML since 1993.
Rubbish. To attack every country in the world that might attack the US if they could, but that now represents no threat to the US
See that is th problem…. rubbish… who said anything about attacking every country in the world. You know that is not near what would happen. The no threat is hugely debatable. You discount that so quickly. You probably would have made the argument pre 9/11 that Afghanistan wasn’t a threat either.
What, you thought that you could just assert “it’s brilliant strategy!” and expect everyone to agree with you? You must be new to blogdom!
I am no where near new to blogdom. I was into blogs before they were even blogs.
These two paragraphs contradict each other. If you think it’s “brilliant strategy” to make Iraq a hotbed of terrorism so that US forces can kill terrorists there, then obviously Iraq can’t simultaneously become a garden of democracy, peace, and prosperity.
You imply that I don’t think it is challenging. It is extremely challenging and risky. I have acknowledged that. And all of Iraq is not a hotbed of terrorism. I have friend that just went to Iraq (2 weeks now.) and he said he can’t believe how it is presented on T.V. Most of Iraq is relatively calm.
I think I speak for everyone when I say a big ol’ “Huh?”
What do you mean by Huh? Are you not aware of the Articles of Confedaration? Please tell me you are.
When you define “Only attacking the town and killing hundreds of civilians, when we could just bomb the whole place flat and kill them all”
Uhmmm.. I never said that… you are putting words in my mouth.
as “dammed patient” I can see that our moral values are simply not on the same plane.
Yes, I see that too. You want to make me look evil when that is just not true and I am not trying to make you look evil. Our values truly aren’t on the same plane.
Except that last time the Afghans were left alone to “help themselves”, the result was years of chaos under the warlords, followed by the rise of the Taliban as a national government. Given this history, no, I do not think it is a “smart plan” to just ignore Afghanistan.
Again, how is Afghanistan being ignored… what proof do you have that we are not actively engaged in Afghanistan?
We are actively engaged in projects all over the country.
That good ole’ reliable news we were talking about earlier…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
That good ole’ reliable new we were talking about earlier…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
OddyseusInRTP:
Remember the massacre at Jenin that didn’t occur? Must we go there again.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article499.shtml
“Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat was widely cited in press reports as having said that 500 people were killed in Jenin. Yet, despite an extensive search, I have been unable to find any directly quoted statement from any Palestinian official, including Erekat, using that figure for the death toll in Jenin. None of the reports which cited Erekat said where he allegedly made the claim, and some provided conflicting accounts of when he allegedly said it. For a claim that is so widely cited, it should not be so difficult to find a direct quote.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials, commentators and journalists alike repeated constantly that Erekat or sometimes other Palestinian officials had put the Jenin death toll at over 500. So what did Erekat actually say?
On April 10, 2002, Erekat did tell CNN that he believed that up to 500 people had been killed throughout the West Bank, not just in Jenin, since Israel had begun its “Operation Defensive Shield” at the end of March.”
There have been innocents killed in Iraq. That I agree completely with you on. Some of the innoncents killed were caused by the war. I believe there is only a small small amount that was intentional.
Why do you not believe the documented counts on the internet?
(Refer to Zayed’s Healing Iraq where some soldiers are being investigated.)
If you read Zayeds log you should be aware that the *did not want to investigate* the incident at first. Lots of readers had to draw attention to it before they investigated this incident – how many incidents are *not* reported?
Most of the civilians killed where killed by Hussein. It seems to me that our invasion of Iraq has save many Iraqi lives.
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
“In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.”
The mass graves existed long before any U.S. soldiers arrived in Iraq.
The biggest ones are probabely the ones from the Shi’ite revolt in 1991 – When Bush told them they should revolt but as soon as they did he signed a truce with Saddam, just in time for the Iraqi troops to reach and slaughter the Shi’ites. I’d have to look it up, but I thought the US actually assisted by withdrawing the troops that were in the way and by giving the use of some helicopters.
Odysseus: First, you might want to repost your response above with proper italics or something; right now, it’s just disjointed paragraphs without attribution, and that’s very hard to follow.
Second, this…
Jesurgislac: When you define “Only attacking the town and killing hundreds of civilians, when we could just bomb the whole place flat and kill them all” as “dammed patient” I can see that our moral values are simply not on the same plane.
Odysseus: Yes, I see that too. You want to make me look evil when that is just not true and I am not trying to make you look evil. Our values truly aren’t on the same plane.
…may qualify as the lamest retort I’ve ever seen.
Added in proof: I’ve spent about five minutes trying to write something more constructive here without success. Truly, it stands Zenlike in its lameness. So here’s the most constructive advice I can muster, the bane of choristers everywhere: “Do it better!”
OddyseusInRTP: Feeble because you don’t agree or feeble because enemies have never cut deals?
Feeble, because your argument in your first comment apparently consisted simply of: “Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are enemies. Enemies sometimes cut deals. Therefore bin Laden and Hussein had cut a deal.” If you can’t see why that’s a feeble argument, try this one: “Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush are enemies. Enemies sometimes cut deals. Therefore bin Laden and Bush had cut a deal.”
In your second comment, you linked to an article and posted a long list of “evidence”. I discount the whole of it, because – as I pointed out – if there was any evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we wouldn’t be hearing about it by driblets on the news: we’d be hearing about it directly in Presidential speeches. Your assertion that the only way I could know Bush wants there to be a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would be if I had “direct access to the President” is ludicrous. Further, if you’re going to claim that the President has ever asserted directly that there is a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and cited evidence to prove it, make your cite. I’m not aware that he ever has.
I find that it weeds people out when you do it this way. If someone is really interested then they will take the time to read.
Actually, I just got to this bit, and decided to hell with it. If you’re so arrogant and inconsiderate you refuse to make your posts clear to other people, and you do this (you claim) not because you’re an online novice who doesn’t know HTML but as a “test” to see who’s interested, I refuse to debate with you further. I’m not interested in debating with someone who can’t be bothered to take a small amount of trouble to make his posts more readable.
(Oh, and thanks, Anarch. Saves me the trouble.)
Intifada.net… sounds like an unbiased source to me. Get real!
The rests is not even worth the effort.
Anarch it seems like you need to go back and read the posts again.
jesu,
It really didn’t seem like much of a debate…
I say something… you twist to something I didn’t say, then you point out how what I didn’t say was wrong. Not much of a debate
“Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are enemies. Enemies sometimes cut deals. Therefore bin Laden and Hussein had cut a deal.” If you can’t see why that’s a feeble argument, try this one: “Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush are enemies. Enemies sometimes cut deals. Therefore bin Laden and Bush had cut a deal.”
Again, you quote me to say what I didn’t say. Not very impressive.
Speaking of feeble… Hussein is a tyrant who has used WMD… Bin Laden is a terrorists who would like to use WMD.
GW is neithe of those… so you analogy is weak.
I post alot… and I find there are many people who will comment and not read. I find that annoying.
Posts on this are so typical.
I haven’t been able to keep up with how many rude comments to me… now I am arrogant.
I was hoping for better.
When I was wrong about asdf, I even apologized… not very arrogant behaviour.
I haven’t been able to keep up with how many rude comments to me… now I am arrogant.
Yes. If you won’t use HTML to make your posts easily readable to others, and you claim you’re doing so not because you’re ignorant of HTML but because “it weeds people out when you do it this way” that is intolerable arrogance.
Actually, my post were really just to you…
And other than discounting and disagreeing… you seem to read just fine.
I normally wouldn’t have posted something so long, but it seemed to me the thread was sort of dieing down.
Walk into any rundown beer joint across this land and you’re likely to find some fat, old codger manning a barstool, nursing a Schlitz. And 9 times out of 10, were you to ask this bar rag if he thinks he could take Mike Tyson–the blowhard will answer ‘yes’ with scarcely a hesitation.
That’s because said stewbum knows his chances of ever meeting Tyson–let alone fighting Tyson–are roughly the same as hitting the lottery after finding the winning ticket in a dumpster.
And that’s why you see these keyboard warriors quickly answer ‘yes’ to Prof. Cole’s hypothetical questions. Because they know they likely will never be in that position.
Let’s face a few facts, shall we?
George Bush Jr. didn’t run on a campaign platform which included taking out Saddam and creating a democratic Iraq. In fact, he very much capaigned on the notion that nation-building and US intervention abroad were bad things to be avoided.
I know, I know. 9/11 changed everything. But let’s bear in mind Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq. And if we’re honest, we know a few other nations that had a lot more monkey business going on with bin Laden than Iraq. Like Saudi Arabia. Like Pakistan.
Support for this gross misadventure by the keyboard warriors isn’t based on national security–it’s based on political support for Bush Junior. That’s why we see the ever-shifting rationales for the occupation.
Heck, some quotation marks (standard feature on every keyboard I’ve ever encountered) and simple attribution would be fine. The game of figuring out whose voice each paragraph represents is incredibly tiresome.
Aaron
An even I often omit the attribution when it is (hopefully) obvious.
Gromit (now no longer anonyblogging–whoops! 🙂 )
How do you guys account for the following:
Libya has renounced its pursuit of WMD.
Pakistan has been taken out of the nuclear black market business.
Pakistan is fighting Al Queda instead of supporting them. (Arguably still a long way to go.)
Iran has had to open up it’s program to the U.N. (Arguably still a long way to go.)
Saudi Arabia has cracked down on terror financing.
China has been working with the U.S. wrt NK WMD
Bin Laden can’t even afford to make a video tape of himself
Saddam is killing no innocent people now.
Heck, some quotation marks (standard feature on every keyboard I’ve ever encountered) and simple attribution would be fine. The game of figuring out whose voice each paragraph represents is incredibly tiresome.
Exactly. I was willing to put up with it on a temporary basis from a newbie, but if (as he claims) he’s been programming in HTML since 1993 – which is just possible, but would make him a very, very early adopter.
Sorry – clicked Post prematurely. The last comment should have read: “would make him a very, very early adopter. And if so, he should know better.”
I was an early adopter. I actually owned and successfully sold an ISP during the early days on the net.
I think it is better to keep the focus on substance.
OdysseusInRTP: Saddam is killing no innocent people now.
Which sounds great until you realize how many innocent people are dying in Iraq right now, sans Saddam.
The idea that not wanting the invasion on George Bush’s terms equates to wanting Saddam in power is a false dichotomy. The popular notion that there are only ever two approaches to any given problem is deleterious to public dialogue on this and other issues.
OdysseusInRTP: I think it is better to keep the focus on substance.
I agree. And clear delineation between your words and those of others would help everyone focus on substance, and would be much appreciated.
Gromit
I think it is better to keep the focus on substance.
Then quit messing around with hard-to-read posts.
Man you guys really are sensitive. If you don’t like my post don’t read it. No one is making you.
Gromit,
I do agree that there were more than 2 options available. But, that is the point. The other options did not seem viable to many in this counrty after 9/11.
I am not willing to risk my personal safety for someone like Hussein. I think we can agree that he was “actively misleading” the international inspectors. Atleast, I hope we can agree on that. If you can’t concede that then this truly is pointless. Can you concede that point?
Drug dealers often work with other drug dealers because their interests often coincide. Then they turn around and fight each other for turf. That is actually quite common down in S. America. There is much evidence that Hussein had some type of relationship with Bin Laden. Heck, even Richard Clarke acknowledges that…
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403260858.asp
Just a little detail here:
WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration’s August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda’s demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as “sure” that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke “said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
Also, go take a look at this where newspapers have articles documenting contact before Bush was even in office.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18993
The Hussein Bin Laden link is not a Bush invention it began with Clinton.
Another intersting article…
In 1998, then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright wanted to take military action to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Mr Downer said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9385678%255E1702,00.html
Shorter Odysseus: Look, look..Bill Clinton did it!! He did it, too!! Look!! I have a NewsMax cite!
If you want to debate, Odysseus, learn to use HTML or some other obvious method of attribution in your posts. Otherwise, I’m certainly not going to bother. Period.
Powers that be, a page of html hints might be nice. Odysseus, check out e.g., this list in case you don’t know basic html – you want i, b, blockquote, and a href=”…” tags.
Jadegold,
Nice response…
No matter what the organization that pulled the info the articles were written by the papers themselves.
The only sincere rebuttle to make is that those papers were mistaken in their claims in 1999 and earlier.
Jesurgislac,
Funny, I thought my last post was quite simple to read. I can only wonder that it is the substance that you really don’t want to deal with.
I can’t believe you guys are so upset about the HTML. I make a couple of posts that were a little difficult to read and you get all bent out of shape. The others were quite simple.
I guess name calling is okay, but not using HTML is a real sin.
I can only think that it is the substance that you really oppose…
Odysseus, many of us here have already had this debate (at a higher level of quality) months and months ago.
I suggest we just all drop it, because this is never going to go anywhere.
I must admit I do find the quality of debate here to be lacking… and an unwillingness to search for common ground.
I’m going to have to stop taking weekends off, it seems.
Mario, Jadegold, OdysseusinRTP, this is your one warning each as per the Posting Rules. Please read them fully before posting here again.
And no, this is not subject to debate.
I make a couple of posts that were a little difficult to read and you get all bent out of shape.
I didn’t object to the fact that it was a struggle to read your posts initially, because I assumed that you were ignorant of HTML and hadn’t figured out other ways to distinguish when you were quoting and when you were replying.
I objected when you asserted that you had been programming in HTML since 1993 and that you didn’t use it here in order to make it deliberately difficult for people reading your posts.
If you want people to respond to the substance of your posts rather than the form, use a form they find easy to read, not one they find difficult.
How do you guys account for the following:
Libya has renounced its pursuit of WMD.
Pakistan has been taken out of the nuclear black market business.
Pakistan is fighting Al Queda instead of supporting them. (Arguably still a long way to go.)
Iran has had to open up it’s program to the U.N. (Arguably still a long way to go.)
Saudi Arabia has cracked down on terror financing.
China has been working with the U.S. wrt NK WMD
Bin Laden can’t even afford to make a video tape of himself
Saddam is killing no innocent people now.
I’ve rarely seen a rosier spin put on things. Pakistan has been “taken out” of the nuclear black market business? Who “took them out”? AQ Khan is still free, the people who smuggled the arms have not been punished, the US govt hasn’t really pressured Pak, AND the smuggling was discovered after the fact (fat lot of good there) and this translates to “they’ve been taken out”?
similar problems with the whole “Iran has opened up its programs” thing. In any meaningful sense, all thats happened is dithering on the IAEAs part and coverups on Irans part.
The Kerry misery index does seem to be really high here…
The Pak gov’t was turning a blind eye to Khan…
They no longer are. With U.S. pressure Pak’s Prez has taken his gov’t out of the behaviour that they exhibit before. Hence, taken out…
I agree that Iran is still playing games. I even stated as much in my post. You even copied it into yours…
But none of these things were happening pre 9/11.
Only due to Bush’s leadership did these changes come about. We still have a long way to go… no arguing that.
But, many imply we have made no progress and that is inaccurate.
Speaking of inaccuracies, it’s worth noting that it was a British stong operation that exposed the Khan network. Libya was the woman in the red dress, so to speak.
Even France has had operations that have been helpful… and some hurtful.
But, would you not agree that the Bush administration has been the driving force behind many of the European allies taking much stronger steps to fight terror.
I define that as leadership.
And what specifically was I inaccurate about… please point thought out directly.
When it’s right, you know it in your gut.
When it’s an appeal to emotion, you also know it in your gut.
When it’s an appeal to emotion, you also know it in your gut.
If the rhetoric leading up to the invasion of Iraq was free of appeals to emotion, Bush would have had no case to present at all.
Really? So the intel was all just appeals to emotion? Hussein’s abuse of his position to amass a personal fortune, all appeal to emotion? The failure of Iraq to account for all of the things that they were, by agreement, bound to account for after the post-Gulf-War ceasefire, all appeal?
You need to go look what appeal to emotion means, then check back with me. Because at present, you may as well not even be speaking English.
Furthermore, if Bush’s arguments were all appeal to emotion, he sure had Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry retroactively convinced, just to name a few.
George W. Bush: Time Traveler. He went back in time and convinced the Clinton administration that Saddam Hussein was a threat, then stopped on the way back to kick off the recession.
The use of already-debunked yellowcake sure wasn’t an appeal to emotion, was it? What about that little baggie of Sweet’n’Low Colin Powell held up for the world to see? How about the repeated interposition of September 11th in statements about Iraq, confusing up to 70% of Americans? This is to say nothing of the bogus intelligence Tony Blair was much more eloquently spewing.
Strip away all this emotional hype and what was Bush left with? Who would have supported invasion based on some aluminum tubes? Who would have favored going in had it been made clear that Iraq had no hand in the attacks on America, especially when the real culprit was still at large?
And while the Clinton administration did argue repeatedly for stronger action on Iraq, the public didn’t find their case compelling enough, so they backed down. I suppose it isn’t “leadership” when you actually listen to the opinions of your constituents.
September 11th changed everything, all right. The Bush administration now has an emotional lever with which to manipulate a scared and confused public.
Gromit
It seems odd to not note that, whatever one thinks of those questions, they come from Christopher Hitchens.
The use of already-debunked yellowcake sure wasn’t an appeal to emotion, was it?
No, it wasn’t. You can argue the veracity of the yellowcake intel, but you can’t argue that its use was appeal to emotion. Unless, of course, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Two can play at this game. It is an Appeal to Fear or argumentum in terrorem, a term I particularly like, and this falls under the heading of Appeal to Emotion.
Gromit
Two can play at this game.
Not very well, it appears. What terror was struck in the hearts of the American public by Iraq’s lack of compliance to various and sundry UN resolutions?
Slarti,
I answer your questions with two words:
mushroom cloud
Edward, you beat me to it! 😛
Slartibartfast: Not very well, it appears.
I honestly don’t know how to interpret this statement. Care to elaborate?
Gromit
If Hussein or Bin Laden could get there hands on a weapon that could put a mushroom cloud in one of our cities, who believes that either one wouldn’t?
Do we trust these people so much that we can have confidence that they wouldn’t behave in that manner?
Bin Laden has already declared he would love to do that… Hussein would have helped and probably was, but wouldn’t want to get caught.
So, yes “mushroom cloud” is both an emotional appeal… I would be emotionally upset if it happened… and a logical conclusion about our enemies behaviour…
Slarti,
It’s challenging posting at this blog, it seems that many avoid answering the really touch pointed questions.
Here’s a pointed question, OdysseusInRTP: Given that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Pakistanis have traded nuclear technology to rogue states, large numbers of Pakistanis revere Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden wants nuclear weapons to use against the United States, and Osama Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan right now, what exactly are we doing in Iraq?
Or, to put it another way: “Do we trust these people so much that we can have confidence that they wouldn’t behave in that manner?”
Gromit
Although, you didn’t deal with my question at all… your question is very pointed.
So here is my response…
Hussein had defied the U.N. for years. It was admitted by everyone involved that he was playing a game of cat and mouse with the inspectors for nearly 12 years.
It has been acknowledged by the U.N. that he had many WMD programs at one time. He claimed he destroyed them, but he didn’t invite the U.N. to observe and offered very very little proof of them being destroyed.
Do you agree with that analysis?
If we can’t agree on that then let’s don’t waste our time.
For examples of full disclosure we don’t have to look very far… South Africa had been developing WMD and then came clean… Libya seems to be in the middle of that process right now. Both good examples, of what it means to work with the U.N. instead of against. (Admittedly, we can’t reach a final conclusion on Libya, but they seem to be doing a good job at working with the U.N. and the U.S. Unlike Iran that is being nudged, but needs more.)
Hussein had never displayed any remorse for this game with the U.N. I don’t think there is any doubt that he would still be defying the U.N. if we hadn’t put troops in Iraq. Why change your plan if it has worked for 12 years?
Can we agree on that?
I agree with your take on Pakistan. (Always trying to find some common ground…)
So why are we in Iraq???
The President of Pakistan has obviously been working to change all that you mention.
Hussein did not!
Pakistan’s leaders have shown a willingness to change and to work with the U.S.
Khan is no longer dealing in the nuclear black market.
Al Queda is no longer openly supported by the government. I admit it may take them awhile to weed out all the bad elements, but they appear to be working on it.
Pakistani troops have been fighting and killing members of Al Queda
The reason we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan is that Hussein showed extremely little desire to reform where Pakistan has shown a good bit and is willing to cooperate with us.
If you feel that I didn’t pointedly answer your question please let me know…
Oops… I forgot this question you asked:
Or, to put it another way: “Do we trust these people so much that we can have confidence that they wouldn’t behave in that manner?”
My direct response:
No we do not compeltely trust the gov’t of Pakistan and the people there.
But, the gov’t has shown progress that coincides with U.S. objectives… so has Saudi Arabia (If for no other reason than to save their own butts.)
That is a core difference between Pakistan and Iraq… and for that matter Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
“I’m not speaking of a hundred children lined up and killed: I am talking about hundreds of casualties, of which at least 15% were children.”
There was a lengthy discussion on the PBS News Hour tonight on how the classic problem of single casualties being multiply reported by multiple sources plays out, leading to grossly inflated casualty figures in confused circumstances being conflated. Specifically, at present, there are no reliable figures available for the current situation in Iraq.
Matt Welch did some excellent research a couple of years ago on how this resulted in grossly exaggerated figures for Afghan casualties being reported all over the place.
Which is not to say that a tragic number of children aren’t being killed in Iraq, too often by Americans.
It’s just to say that one needs to examine figures very carefully, and it’s usually impossible to get accurate figures for, at least, months.
On a separate topic, many years ago on Usenet various consensi were reached as to what were courteous formats for posting and responding.
Typically, a certainly small percentage of “newbies” would arrive at a newsgroup, violate the preferred formats in some way, such as POSTING IN ALL CAPS, posting in HTML, refusing to quote that which they were responding to, or somesuch.
Their error, and the proper way to post the most readable post would always be (gently and politely) pointed out to them. Some small, but non-trivial, percentage of newbies, rather than apologizing for their error, and learning from it, would begin bitterly complaining about “control freaks” and YOU’RE IGNORE MY MESSAGE, COWARDS!!!!!! and the like.
At which point, if not after a couple of more such exchanges, said poster would typically be plonked (killfiled) by most regular readers of that newsgroup, and so far as they could tell, said unwise person who did not understand the use of “courtesy” in communication ceased to exist.
Pity to not be able to use a shell account and a killfile to read blog comment threads. They’d be ever-so-much more enjoyable and useful that way.
Edward:
Review of possible consequences of letting Hussein be is appeal to emotion in what way, exactly?
Gary: There was a lengthy discussion on the PBS News Hour tonight on how the classic problem of single casualties being multiply reported by multiple sources plays out, leading to grossly inflated casualty figures in confused circumstances being conflated. Specifically, at present, there are no reliable figures available for the current situation in Iraq.
True. Nevertheless, for various reasons, I think reports of high civilian casualties are likely to be far closer to the truth than reports of low civilian casualties. When a city is attacked as Falluja was attacked, over such a length of time, civilian casualties are inevitable, and not in small numbers, either. MSF reports that a hospital was taken over by the US military and used as a base, eliminating its use by Iraqi civilian medical personnel to treat casualties. Other reports by people on the ground indicate that US snipers are shooting at civilians.
Pity to not be able to use a shell account and a killfile to read blog comment threads. They’d be ever-so-much more enjoyable and useful that way.
You said it. Sheesh.