More troops? What's McCain playing at?

[hgc]

It's hard to fathom how anyone, including prez contender John McCain, would call for flowing more cannon fodder into the Iraqi meat grinder. I am curious as to the opinions of people around here as to what he's up to.

Generally the liberal blogs think that he said it (he called for it forcefully right after the Nov elections) so as to stake a position that would not likely be adopted ... and ... so that he could distance himself from Bush's failure in Iraq during the 2008 election by saying, "if only they did it my way." But then Bush may be leaning toward adding more troops anyway. If this happens, and also fails, then McCain is up the creek with the losing strategy.

Who thinks that McCain's intent was to call for more troops thinking that it was a non-starter?

Who thinks McCain really wants the total number of US troops in Iraq to rise?

I am genuinely curious. I'd like to know.

I know he's not the only one. His BF buddy Lieberman is calling for this too, but he's just silly tool.

[drkitten]

It's hard to fathom how anyone, including prez contender John McCain, would call for flowing more cannon fodder into the Iraqi meat grinder. I am curious as to the opinions of people around here as to what he's up to.

Wasn't that one of the courses that the recent study suggested might work? ("Go big, go long, or go home?")

It's almost a military axiom that "the more you use, the less you lose." Putting more boots on the ground for a relatively short period of time would allow the US to stabilize the country by force. I don't think it's an out-of-the-box unreasonable strategy....

[rikzilla]

It's hard to fathom how anyone, including prez contender John McCain, would call for flowing more cannon fodder into the Iraqi meat grinder. I am curious as to the opinions of people around here as to what he's up to.

Generally the liberal blogs think that he said it (he called for it forcefully right after the Nov elections) so as to stake a position that would not likely be adopted ... and ... so that he could distance himself from Bush's failure in Iraq during the 2008 election by saying, "if only they did it my way." But then Bush may be leaning toward adding more troops anyway. If this happens, and also fails, then McCain is up the creek with the losing strategy.

Who thinks that McCain's intent was to call for more troops thinking that it was a non-starter?

Who thinks McCain really wants the total number of US troops in Iraq to rise?

I am genuinely curious. I'd like to know.

I know he's not the only one. His BF buddy Lieberman is calling for this too, but he's just silly tool.

Well the Iraq War for Dummies book lists the options as:
Go long
Go big
or
Go home.


I guess McCain has picked the second option. So I guess that means McCain is off your short list for 08??

You a Kucinich fan?
-z

[hgc]

Well the Iraq War for Dummies book lists the options as:

Go long
Go big
or
Go home.
I guess McCain has picked the second option. So I guess that means McCain is off your short list for 08??

You a Kucinich fan?
-z
McCain on my short list? I wasn't likely ever to vote for him, but this sinks him further in my estimation.

I like Kucinich, despite he's not presidential timber. We'll call him local color - lefty branch.

[hgc]

Wasn't that one of the courses that the recent study suggested might work? ("Go big, go long, or go home?")

It's almost a military axiom that "the more you use, the less you lose." Putting more boots on the ground for a relatively short period of time would allow the US to stabilize the country by force. I don't think it's an out-of-the-box unreasonable strategy....
I know that's the stated intention of more troops now. I just don't think it brings us any closer to anything resembling success.

But I'm allowing for other people genuinely thinking it's a good strategy. The thrust of this thread is to plumb the question of whether McCain sincerely thinks it's a good idea or is just looking for a way to distinguish himself from an already failing policy.

[joe1347]

Here's two guesses regarding what McCain is up to:

1. Win the Nomination. A shameless attempt to stakeout the territory as the most extreme right-wing Presidential candidate - assuming that whoever is 'crowned' or bestowed with this title will then win the support of the power base of the Republican Party. Alternatively, possibly McCain believes that he needs to prove to the Power Base that he is a 'real' Republican by being the most right wingnut. Again, to win the nomination.

2. Political Cover. McCain is assuming that Bush will not be bold enough to propose sending in more troops. So that when the situation in Iraq is even worse 1 year from now when the Presidential primary season heats up. McCain will now be able to claim that if the President would have only implemented McCain's plan, then we would be winning (instead of losing) in Iraq.

McCain wants to be President and everything that he does or says is certainly directly in support of that goal.

[Darth Rotor]

Who thinks that McCain's intent was to call for more troops thinking that it was a non-starter?

He has fallen into the LBJ mind warp, and thinks that performing escalatio on the Iraqis will satisfy them.

DR

[hgc]

He has fallen into the LBJ mind warp, and thinks that performing escalatio on the Iraqis will satisfy them.

DR
So he really does want to send more troops in, you think? Gosh that sounds risky to his political future, given our declining fortures there.

[Darth Rotor]

So he really does want to send more troops in, you think? Gosh that sounds risky to his political future, given our declining fortures there.
McCain also was adamant about using troops in Kosovo, and Serbia, and not using half measures If The US Were To Get Involved.

All he's doing is repackaging the Weinberger Doctrine:

"If you are going to go in, go in like you mean to kick ass until they beg for mercy. Don't screw about like a Nancy Boy with these half measures."

That's a rough translation into manspeak of Senator McCain's position.

DR

[hgc]

OK, I am more suspicious than ever. In November McCain was calling for 20,000 more troops. Since then Bush has been sending up trial balloons for the eventuality of sending in more troops. Now McCain is calling for 30,000. He has to move the goalposts if it looks like Bush will take the chance. It is crucial to McCain that his policy appears to be different in some way than what Bush eventually does, or the gig is up.

[daenku32]

Personally,

If they would setup a time-line of some sorts for the mess, I would support a big increase, assuming the troops could get all the equipment in their wish list. I would place a 1-year deadline after the increased deployment to guarantee that the forces would then come back and gradually be reduced from the current numbers to a minimal required for protecting the Iraqi government facilities and workers (along with US embassy and it's tasks). The rebuilding projects and their security would be left entirely to Iraqis. I imagine the money&equipment flow would continue a while even after troops are pulled out.

[Mephisto]

Interesting . . . :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70626

[Merko]

Who thinks McCain really wants the total number of US troops in Iraq to rise?


I think so. The guy seems 'honest' to me, though I think he's nuts on this. I mean, how many troops are there now? Googling it seems like about 150000 in total, 133000 from the US. So adding 20 or 30000 troops to this would make a big difference how? That's wishful thinking. If they threw in a million more troops, ok, then I could agree the situation would change radically. I'm sure somone could pop up to argue how most of these current 150000 troops are tied up in various tasks that don't have much impact, but that the 20 or 30000 additional troops will of course be free to do exactly what is needed. But that's just wishful thinking, like the gambler believing that playing just ONE more game will change everything.. and one more.. and one more.

But McCain is clearly a military man, of the school that believes brute force can solve most problems. If they aren't solved, the only logical conclusion is that you didn't use enough force. The idea that the problem just can't be solved by force, or that it would take so much force that it's not available in this world, doesn't seem to occur to him.

[drkitten]

I think so. The guy seems 'honest' to me, though I think he's nuts on this. I mean, how many troops are there now? Googling it seems like about 150000 in total, 133000 from the US. So adding 20 or 30000 troops to this would make a big difference how?

Not all troops are created equal. I'd want to see more specifics on the makeup of the troops that are there now in comparison to the ones he wanted to send.

But just as a quick set of example questions -- how many MPs are there in Iraq right now? How many engineers? How many counterintelligence specialists? Adding 30000 more MPs might make a significant change if there are only 5000 there today....

[Merko]

N
But just as a quick set of example questions -- how many MPs are there in Iraq right now? How many engineers? How many counterintelligence specialists? Adding 30000 more MPs might make a significant change if there are only 5000 there today....

While you're right in principle, it strikes me as completely absurd that for some reason, the first 150000 troops all happened to be of the wrong kind, but when the same people send in 20 or 30000 more, they will be just the kind that's needed. Additionally, I do not believe that any type of troops, unless they were of a type that could pass the JREF challenge, could make a radical difference with 20 to 30 thousand people.

[drkitten]

While you're right in principle, it strikes me as completely absurd that for some reason, the first 150000 troops all happened to be of the wrong kind,

Given the level of mis-planning that has been demonstrated at the very highest levels, I find that not at all absurd.

but when the same people send in 20 or 30000 more, they will be just the kind that's needed.

Well, we not only have the benefit here of four years of hindsight, but we also have a number of newly commissioned reports that criticise the current situation and offer suggestions for improvement.

Furthermore, "McCain" is a different person. He may have a different 30,000 people in mind than Bush does.


Additionally, I do not believe that any type of troops, unless they were of a type that could pass the JREF challenge, could make a radical difference with 20 to 30 thousand people.

I think you may underestimate the effect that twenty or thirty thousand engineers (for example) could have on popular support. Just building infrastructure to help people start to see an improvement in their lives can be a very, very effective technique.

[Merko]

I think you may underestimate the effect that twenty or thirty thousand engineers (for example) could have on popular support. Just building infrastructure to help people start to see an improvement in their lives can be a very, very effective technique.

Sure. But I don't see McCain calling for 30000 engineering troops. I see him calling for 30000 more troops. The highest command may be completely incompetent, and may be approving the less competent and more submissive generals for the most important positions, but I do not believe that they've been able to find 130000 incompetent US troopers. Whatever my opinions are about the actions of the US army, it is definitely not an incapable one. If it were true that, for example, the administration had completely overlooked the fact that they don't speak English in Iraq, and so failed to send any translators, then I'm quite sure that after all these years, some high-ranking military would have made quite a lot of noise about it. But because McCains call for arms isn't about any such specific addition, it seems clear to me that he doesn't have such a plan. He wants more of the same. In fact, judging by his homepage, what he wants is more "combat troops". I think there are already a few of those in Iraq..

[drkitten]

But because McCains call for arms isn't about any such specific addition, it seems clear to me that he doesn't have such a plan. He wants more of the same. In fact, judging by his homepage, what he wants is more "combat troops". I think there are already a few of those in Iraq..

Er, "combat troops" is a fairly specific addition. You suggest that we have "quite a few" -- do they need more? The flip side of the send-more-engineers proposal I outlined upthread is the possiblity that they already have all the engineers they need, but that they're being trapped in "secure" areas and can't get out to do their job safely, and so what is actually needed is a few more infantry divisions to secure the area where the engineers will be laying water pipes and paving roads.

As I said, " I'd want to see more specifics on the makeup of the troops that are there now in comparison to the ones he wanted to send."

[Merko]

Er, "combat troops" is a fairly specific addition. You suggest that we have "quite a few" -- do they need more? The flip side of the send-more-engineers proposal I outlined upthread is the possiblity that they already have all the engineers they need, but that they're being trapped in "secure" areas and can't get out to do their job safely, and so what is actually needed is a few more infantry divisions to secure the area where the engineers will be laying water pipes and paving roads.

A few. That's the thing. You want me to believe that out of those 150000 existing troops, only a very small part would have any experience in such un-military activities as, err, "securing an area"? I tell you, 30000 will not make a difference. A million might. Maybe.

[Bill Thompson]

It's hard to fathom how anyone, including prez contender John McCain, would call for flowing more cannon fodder into the Iraqi meat grinder.

That is nice wording. Is it original? I like it.

Generally the liberal blogs think that he said it (he called for it forcefully right after the Nov elections) so as to stake a position that would not likely be adopted ... and ... so that he could distance himself from Bush's failure in Iraq during the 2008 election by saying, "if only they did it my way." But then Bush may be leaning toward adding more troops anyway. If this happens, and also fails, then McCain is up the creek with the losing strategy.

Who thinks that McCain's intent was to call for more troops thinking that it was a non-starter?

Who thinks McCain really wants the total number of US troops in Iraq to rise?

I am genuinely curious. I'd like to know.

I know he's not the only one. His BF buddy Lieberman is calling for this too, but he's just silly tool.
You know, I find it interesting how liberals claim to be so peace-loving and yet they are so mean to the right. I do not think that McCain loves war and I do not think he loves death and distruction. This is a tougher call than we would like to think it is, I belive. On the surface, I think pulling oout of Iraq looks great. But would a bloodbath come afterwards? Don't we care about that? Would that give us an even bigger black eye internationally than the initial invasion did? It is a tough call. I imagine McCain is in a better position than you or I to make that call.

[hgc]

That is nice wording. Is it original? I like it.

You know, I find it interesting how liberals claim to be so peace-loving and yet they are so mean to the right. I do not think that McCain loves war and I do not think he loves death and distruction. This is a tougher call than we would like to think it is, I belive. On the surface, I think pulling oout of Iraq looks great. But would a bloodbath come afterwards? Don't we care about that? Would that give us an even bigger black eye internationally than the initial invasion did? It is a tough call. I imagine McCain is in a better position than you or I to make that call.
Gee, just when I thought I had read all the way through a post completely void of content, I get to the part where McCain knows better than us anyway. Right. Just like he's known all along.

[Merko]

Would that give us an even bigger black eye internationally than the initial invasion did?

No. This one I can tell for sure. It would not. I have not heard one single US-basher claiming the non-existant US invasion of Cambodia as an argument. And I have heard rather a lot of anti-US arguments, I can assure you.

I have also heard people complaining that the European powers didn't invade Nazi Germany before their holocaust. Possibly the US might share some minor part of that resentment.

So to sum it up: Unless Iraq becomes significantly worse than either Cambodia or Nazi Germany, there's no chance at all that it will give the US a "bigger black eye".

[steverino]

"Send in more troops" does have an LBJ odor to it.

[Gurdur]

McCain is both right and wrong. Too little, too late.

The situation is FUBARed -- to even have the small chance of turning it round for the better, you would need at the very least 100,000 extra troops, and be prepared to pay for them to be there for 15 years.

Adding 30,000 now would only add more targets and more expense without actually accomplishing anything.

[RyanRoberts]

More troops will do nothing now, too many mistakes have been made and the insurgents know that a change of government in the US will send the troops packing. No application of force short of sterilising the Sunni triangle with neutron bombs will prevent the inevitable civil war. Iraqi civilians are rightly more afraid of their 'own' army than the coalition.

Though a nasty proxy war between Saudi backed and Iranian backed mujahideen could well be used to our advantage. If one of the revisionist goals of a coalition presence in Iraq was to tie up the mujahideen and keep them from western targets then their involvement in a sunni/shia bloodbath will be equally effective.

[davefoc]

Wasn't that one of the courses that the recent study suggested might work? ("Go big, go long, or go home?")

The options proposed by a military study group were characterized like that. I don't think go big or even go somewhat bigger was an option proposed by the Iraq study group.

The report had this to say about increasing troop levels:
3. More Troops for Iraq

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.My own cut at this is that a small increase in troop levels like this is exactly the tactical kind of decision that should normally be left to the executive branch. It is not clear that this is a good idea at this point in time however. This administration has shown itself to be unusually incompetent and corrupt with regards to the execution of the Iraqi occupation. It is not clear that they have either the objectivity or the analytical skills to make decisions that are in the best interest of the US or the Iraqis.

Sending more troops in right now looks more like the administration hoping to avoid having to make hard choices for a little bit longer while more Iraqis and more Americans are killed than it does any kind of real plan to improve the situation. The danger for the US is that a president whose power has been severely restricted by the election and his own string of failed policies will act like a petulant jerk as he tries to convince people that he's in charge instead of working cooperatively to get to some kind of solution.

[davefoc]

Probably many of you have seen this but if you haven't here is one officer's cut at an Iraq strategy:
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

Here's an article about the officer and his presentation:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

[steverino]

One question I would ask here is that had Viet Nam never happened, would we have sent, say, half a million or more troops to Iraq to wrap things up? In other words, is the American mindset (experience) such that we are timid to do things the right way, if, that is, we do things at all?

[Huntster]

....But McCain is clearly a military man, of the school that believes brute force can solve most problems. If they aren't solved, the only logical conclusion is that you didn't use enough force. The idea that the problem just can't be solved by force, or that it would take so much force that it's not available in this world, doesn't seem to occur to him.

Nor me.

The UN played with Saddam for over a dozen years before the US invaded. He had a chance (like Khaddafi), but he blew it big.

Now the Shiites have a chance. There was an election. They won. Now they're more interested in killing Sunnis than rebuilding the economy and society.

Sorry. Some folks just need regular ass whippings.

If you think all problems can be solved without force, where have you been throughout human history? Do you have any evidence that you can offer that might indicate that all problems can be solved without force?

[Hutch]

One question I would ask here is that had Viet Nam never happened, would we have sent, say, half a million or more troops to Iraq to wrap things up? In other words, is the American mindset (experience) such that we are timid to do things the right way, if, that is, we do things at all?


Well, I doubt we have the manpower to send 500,000 troops anywhere these days for an extended period, at least without a draft as they had in the Vietnam era.

This is where I fault the Bush/Rumsfeld team the most; we sent just enough troops to defeat the Iraqi Army and oust Saddam, but nowhere near enough to Conquer the country. If 350,000 had been deployed at the start, enough to take over every little town and village and not be too particular about gaining control, it might have worked--not guaranteed by a longshot, but it might have worked. But we'll never know.

As for the opening piece, I think McCain believes the extra manpower would give the Military a force that is not tied down by occupation and other duties, one that can go in the Triangle in heavy force and inflict unacceptable losses on the insurgents, KO Sadr's militia if necessary, and tamp things down long enough for the Iraqi government to take hold/get the US out of Iraq. The downside is that a lot of towns are going to get destroyed and a lot of Americans/Iraqi civilians are going to get shot. If you roll these dice and it doesn't work--the situation goes from bad to virtually impossible.

Will Bush/Pentagon take the gamble? If there was a Phil Sheridan or George Patton out there, but the military tends to tamp down the individual genius these days for the school-trained, professional officer.

Just hope the insurgents/guerillas/terrorists don't find themselves a Nathan Bedford Forrest or Timur the Lame before this is over...

IMHO as always.

[Merko]

If you think all problems can be solved without force, where have you been throughout human history?

Your logic is in error. The statement 'Not all problems can be solved with force' does not imply 'All problems can be solved without force'.

[Merko]

One question I would ask here is that had Viet Nam never happened, would we have sent, say, half a million or more troops to Iraq to wrap things up? In other words, is the American mindset (experience) such that we are timid to do things the right way, if, that is, we do things at all?

Doesn't Vietnam illustrate pretty well that even half a million troops may have no real chance of solving the problem? Ok, the Vietnamese population is larger, but there was also a significant percentage that sided with the US, which can't really be said for Iraq (I don't think you'll get that many Kurds fighting for the US outside of the Kurdish areas).

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you think all problems can be solved without force, where have you been throughout human history?
Your logic is in error. The statement 'Not all problems can be solved with force' does not imply 'All problems can be solved without force'.

To be more specific, then, please enlighten me on how the killing machines known as Saddam and the Baathists should have been dealt with, and without force.

[Merko]

To be more specific, then, please enlighten me on how the killing machines known as Saddam and the Baathists should have been dealt with, and without force.

It serves no rational cause to equate a person with complex personal and political motives with something as simplistic as a 'killing machine'.

The international pressure applied to the Saddam Hussein regime after it lost its US backing served to reduce the level of violence towards Iraqi citizens below anything that could reasonably be achieved by outside force.

We here have a rare case where we can tell this with absolute certainty, because both methods were actually tried, and the results are in: International non-violent political pressure: Bad.
Violent invasion and war: Much worse.

That said, I'm not saying any sort of violence against the Saddam Hussein regime would necessarily have been bad. A coup, if realistic, could have been a good idea. An invasion followed by occupation - no way.

[Kopji]

I think that McCain is politically clever, but honestly thinks that more troops would be helpful in Iraq. McCain is not afraid to stake out a position he thinks is right, even over public opinion.

I think that as a presidential candidate he will need to defend some very "non moderate" stands he has taken on the Iraq war, environmental issues, individual rights, and separation of religion and church. In the recent election, his actions sometimes hinted that he was compromising principles for power.

He will face questions about his strong and unequivocal support of an Arizona constitutional initiative that would have eliminated existing family benefits for hundreds of state employees just because they were not married. This in addition to the ever popular target of treatment of homosexuals. Well, the only excuse for support of this terrible law was that it would make him popular with key religious conservatives he would need to become president. McCain's extremist position was defeated by Arizona voters, and Arizona is a fairly conservative state.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
To be more specific, then, please enlighten me on how the killing machines known as Saddam and the Baathists should have been dealt with, and without force.
It serves no rational cause to equate a person with complex personal and political motives with something as simplistic as a 'killing machine'.

The international pressure applied to the Saddam Hussein regime after it lost its US backing served to reduce the level of violence towards Iraqi citizens below anything that could reasonably be achieved by outside force.

We here have a rare case where we can tell this with absolute certainty, because both methods were actually tried, and the results are in: International non-violent political pressure: Bad.
Violent invasion and war: Much worse.

That said, I'm not saying any sort of violence against the Saddam Hussein regime would necessarily have been bad............

And, after all that, (I assume) the answer is!:...................................

A coup, if realistic, could have been a good idea. An invasion followed by occupation - no way.

A coup (if realistic) would have been a good idea.

Is that the best you can offer?

And is a coup "without force"?

And how many times (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/4153/edition_id/75/format/html/displaystory.html) must that be tried before other options become acceptable to you?:

Friday August 2, 1996

Executions follow failed anti-Saddam coup

JERUSALEM (JPS) -- Members of Iraq's elite Republican Guard recently set off a bomb in one of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's p
Up to 300 people were later executed in connection with the bombing, the officials added.....

More: (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,408784,00.html)

Convinced that President Bush is serious about invading Iraq, Arab leaders hope to avoid war by orchestrating a coup in Baghdad. Well-placed sources have told TIME that Saudi Arabia is vigorously pursuing a concrete plan to encourage Iraqi generals to overthrow Saddam and his clique. Western and Arab diplomats say the Saudi proposal requires a UN Security Council resolution declaring amnesty for the vast majority of Iraqi officials if they orchestrate a transition of power in Baghdad. Such an amnesty would extend to all but 100 to 120 of the most senior Baath Party officials, including Saddam, his sons, close relatives and others who have long formed part of the ruling circle. It would be offered immediately prior to the outbreak of war as a signal to Saddam's generals that the time had arrived to save their own skins with a U.N.-guaranteed amnesty. And, the Saudis believe, it could well bring the traditionally coup-proof dictator tumbling down.

BTW, Saddam was a butcher, a serial killer, and now a convicted mass murderer (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1247.cfm):

An Iraqi tribunal has convicted former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of mass murder and sentenced him to death.....

I suppose you have issues with the death penalty, too?

Too "forceful"?

[Merko]

A coup (if realistic) would have been a good idea.

Is that the best you can offer?


Sorry, I don't get you. I'm saying that international pressure applied to Saddam, which was in fact also what happened after he lost his US support, was probably the best option. So it's the 'best I can offer'.

A coup could have been a good idea, if realistic. I can't know whether this was unrealistic for sure, but it seems to have been.


And is a coup "without force"?


No. Where did you get that idea again?


And how many times (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/4153/edition_id/75/format/html/displaystory.html) must that be tried before other options become acceptable to you?:


That has no impact at all. If 'other options' is a massive invasion, as you seem to think, then this would only be acceptable if there was already atrocities being committed at a comparable rate, which was not the case.

The number of failed coups support the idea that a coup was unrealistic, however. Thus I do not believe that a coup was the best option.


BTW, Saddam was a butcher, a serial killer, and now a convicted mass murderer (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1247.cfm):


Yes. What is your point?


I suppose you have issues with the death penalty, too?


Yes. It promotes the idea that problems can generally be solved by violence, even by killing people. Thus it directly stimulates the mentality that cause people to kill each others, in other words, an unsecure society.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
A coup (if realistic) would have been a good idea.

Is that the best you can offer?

Sorry, I don't get you. I'm saying that international pressure applied to Saddam, which was in fact also what happened after he lost his US support, was probably the best option. So it's the 'best I can offer'.

He had been defying sanctions, abusing the "Oil for Food" program, defying arms inspections, and viciously repelling coup attempts and revolts.

He did it for 12 years.

Then, when everybody is sure that the US is going to invade, after just one month before Blix stated that there were still VX and other suspicions, he's going to "cooperate"?

How many times did we need to "fake him out" with invasion threats?

Originally Posted by Huntster
And is a coup "without force"?

No. Where did you get that idea again?

It's force.

If the CIA attempted coup (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136540,00.html) would have worked, do you think everybody here on this forum would have been gleeful?:

SADDAM'S CIA COUP
THE AGENCY HOPED TO TURN KURDISTAN INTO A BASE FOR HUSSEIN'S OPPONENTS. THE DICTATOR'S INCURSION, HOWEVER, HAS WIPED OUT THE AMERICANS' OPERATIONS

How about if the Kurds (who may have gained power) started killing Sunnis like the Shia are now? Would you still be "happy"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
And how many times must that be tried before other options become acceptable to you?:

That has no impact at all. If 'other options' is a massive invasion, as you seem to think, then this would only be acceptable if there was already atrocities being committed at a comparable rate, which was not the case.

Please google up information using the following keywords:

"saddam atrocities"

You'll find 1,100,000 hits.

The number of failed coups support the idea that a coup was unrealistic, however. Thus I do not believe that a coup was the best option.

Assassination, perhaps?

And wouldn't a democratic election be better than both a coup and an assassination?

Even though it has produced what we see today?

Originally Posted by Huntster
BTW, Saddam was a butcher, a serial killer, and now a convicted mass murderer:

Yes. What is your point?

"Negotiating" with such is useless and foolish.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I suppose you have issues with the death penalty, too?

Yes. It promotes the idea that problems can generally be solved by violence, even by killing people.

Here's a bit of proof for you:

If Saddam is put to death, he can never kill anyone ever again.

It's foolproof.

Thus it directly stimulates the mentality that cause people to kill each others, in other words, an unsecure society.

The death penalty is the ultimate measure used to eliminate the dangers posed by the one being put to death. It's a measure of recognizing that allowing that person to continue to live risks further harm from that individual.

It isn't used often enough or wisely enough in this world.

[Merko]

He had been defying sanctions, abusing the "Oil for Food" program, defying arms inspections, and viciously repelling coup attempts and revolts.

He did it for 12 years.


Yes, what's your point?


Then, when everybody is sure that the US is going to invade, after just one month before Blix stated that there were still VX and other suspicions, he's going to "cooperate"?


I think you're completely misrepresenting the Blix report, but that's not the issue. Of course he would not cooperate. He'd still be in power for another 12 years or more, most likely.


How many times did we need to "fake him out" with invasion threats?


Invasion threats were certainly ill-advised, they no doubt served only to make him stronger. An external enemy to rally support, a perfectly good reason to increase security and military spending - no, that were not desirable outcomes.


It's force.


No points for realising the obvious facts that coups are forceful. Especially since I already pointed this out:


That said, I'm not saying any sort of violence against the Saddam Hussein regime would necessarily have been bad. A coup, if realistic, could have been a good idea.


If the CIA attempted coup (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136540,00.html) would have worked, do you think everybody here on this forum would have been gleeful?:


No, probably very few would have been. A lot of people around the world don't like it when the US ousts democratically elected leaders, but with Saddam Hussein it would definitely have been very different.


How about if the Kurds (who may have gained power) started killing Sunnis like the Shia are now? Would you still be "happy"?


No, then I would not be happy. I don't think that would have happened. They don't seem to be killing Sunnis now, even though they clearly have just as much opportunity as everyone else.


Please google up information using the following keywords:

"saddam atrocities"

You'll find 1,100,000 hits.


No, I find 21,800 hits. Anyway, what's your point? Are you claiming that Saddam was killing tens of thousands of people per year in 2003?


Assassination, perhaps?


Well, if it had increased the success chances of a coup, why not. I do not generally believe in assassinations of political leaders, but in cases where the leader is not only a symbol but actually embodifies the regime, and personally drives the unacceptable policies that one seeks to change, I think it should be considered. Then again, I think this is rare. But I do not rule it out in the case of Saddam Hussein.

Conversely, I do not believe that an assassination of Kim Jong Il would do much good, there seems little reason to assume that he is really that central to the party, that they would not find a replacement with a very similar policy. Same goes for Ahmadinejad.


And wouldn't a democratic election be better than both a coup and an assassination?


Most certainly, but it seems entirely unrealistic.


Even though it has produced what we see today?


Excuse me, you think the "democratic" election has produced the current bloodbath?

For the record, I do not believe that a country in the midst of war and brutal occupation can have a real democratic election. Nevertheless, if I had been put in charge right after the invasion, I would have called for elections rapidly anyway. The failure to hold elections and the hurtful policies that were forced on Iraq by the occupation no doubt added much to an already disastrous situation.


"Negotiating" with such is useless and foolish.


Not at all. Saddam very well understood the politics of power. International pressure had very tangible effects on the conduct of his regime.


If Saddam is put to death, he can never kill anyone ever again.

It's foolproof.


If you or I are put to death, we can't kill anyone either. I think it is fair to assume that if neither of us or Saddam are put to death, the risk that you or I will kill somone is significantly higher than the risk that Saddam will.

The motive to execute Saddam is entirely that of revenge, I dare to say.


The death penalty is the ultimate measure used to eliminate the dangers posed by the one being put to death. It's a measure of recognizing that allowing that person to continue to live risks further harm from that individual.

It isn't used often enough or wisely enough in this world.

It is true that we could end all crime by completely eradicating all human life, but I do not advocate this measure.

Crimes committed by convicted murderers, post-conviction, are of no greater significance in any part of the world, regardless of whether there is death penalty or not.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
He had been defying sanctions, abusing the "Oil for Food" program, defying arms inspections, and viciously repelling coup attempts and revolts.

He did it for 12 years.

Yes, what's your point?

Did you want 12 more years of fun and games, despite the fact that Ritter and others warned that the delays were giving Saddam time for recovery?

Is there no limit to such tactics for people like yourself?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Then, when everybody is sure that the US is going to invade, after just one month before Blix stated that there were still VX and other suspicions, he's going to "cooperate"?

I think you're completely misrepresenting the Blix report, but that's not the issue. Of course he would not cooperate. He'd still be in power for another 12 years or more, most likely.

And that's just fine with you?

No invasion, under any circumstances?

Originally Posted by Huntster
How many times did we need to "fake him out" with invasion threats?

Invasion threats were certainly ill-advised, they no doubt served only to make him stronger.

The invasion "threat" turned into a real, live, effective invasion. Imagine that!

It took 19 days.

He was really "strengthened."

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's force.

No points for realising the obvious facts that coups are forceful. Especially since I already pointed this out:


Originally Posted by Merko
That said, I'm not saying any sort of violence against the Saddam Hussein regime would necessarily have been bad. A coup, if realistic, could have been a good idea.

Points? Is somebody keeping some kind of score here?

Who is the referee? The scorekeepers?

What game is this?

Originally Posted by Huntster
If the CIA attempted coup would have worked, do you think everybody here on this forum would have been gleeful?:

No, probably very few would have been. A lot of people around the world don't like it when the US ousts democratically elected leaders, but with Saddam Hussein it would definitely have been very different.

So, in sum:

1) Continued inspections would have likely yielded more obfuscation, and
2) Continued coups would have likely resulted in repeated atrocities against whole villages like before, and
3) A CIA coordinated coup would have made the same people unhappy today unhappy, anyway, and
4) Invasion is unthinkable?

Any options I'm missing?

Originally Posted by Huntster
How about if the Kurds (who may have gained power) started killing Sunnis like the Shia are now? Would you still be "happy"?

No, then I would not be happy. I don't think that would have happened. They don't seem to be killing Sunnis now, even though they clearly have just as much opportunity as everyone else.

So, instead of having the goal of democratic elections in the country, we should have installed a Kurd to leadership?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Please google up information using the following keywords:

"saddam atrocities"

You'll find 1,100,000 hits.

No, I find 21,800 hits.

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,100,000 for saddam atrocities. (0.03 seconds)

Maybe that's why you don't seem to know much. Your computer is stupid.

Anyway, what's your point?

Invasion was a completely reasonable option. The administration thought so, Prime Minister Blair thought so, and Congress voted so.

Are you claiming that Saddam was killing tens of thousands of people per year in 2003?

Who knows?: (http://billmon.org/archives/002822.html)

At the top end of the range, there is The Black Book of Saddam Hussein (modeled on an earlier "Black Book of Communism") which was published earlier this year in France. It put Saddam's total victims, civilian and military, at over 2 million. However, that figure has been discounted even by the true believers at the American Enterprise Institute, which is saying a lot.

Human Rights Watch, which has a warehouse full of back reports describing the quality of Saddam's atrocities, says only this about the quantity:

Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 people were killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
Uh oh. That's not the number you want to hear if you're among Crusader George's dwindling band of admirers. Even assuming the Johns Hopkins mortality estimate is too high, it still suggests that Shrub's cure for Saddamism has been worse than the disease.

However, HRW's total seems too low, given that the organization also estimates between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurdish civilians were exterminated as part of Saddam's chemically enhanced "pacification" program, and considering the group has cited as plausible press reports suggesting as many as 250,000 Shi'a Iraqis were slaughtered during or immediately after their failed 1991 uprising, and in light of the documented mass executions of thousands of Iraqi communists in the early '80s (at about the time this handshake was being offered and accepted).

Originally Posted by Huntster
Assassination, perhaps?

Well, if it had increased the success chances of a coup, why not.

Because it's a violation of international law, and because it was believed that democratic elections would be better for the people as a whole.

Conversely, I do not believe that an assassination of Kim Jong Il would do much good, there seems little reason to assume that he is really that central to the party, that they would not find a replacement with a very similar policy.

Interesting, considering Kim inherited control from Daddy. That's not so with Saddam or Ahmadinejad.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And wouldn't a democratic election be better than both a coup and an assassination?

Most certainly, but it seems entirely unrealistic.

What's so unrealistic about it.

It has occurred successfully. That was the goal. That was the plan. It has been achieved.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Even though it has produced what we see today?

Excuse me, you think the "democratic" election has produced the current bloodbath?

Nope. The current bloodbath is the result of the failure of the elected leadership to gain martial control over the various militias while limiting direct US military actions.

For the record, I do not believe that a country in the midst of war and brutal occupation can have a real democratic election. Nevertheless, if I had been put in charge right after the invasion, I would have called for elections rapidly anyway. The failure to hold elections and the hurtful policies that were forced on Iraq by the occupation no doubt added much to an already disastrous situation.

"Election? What election?": (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_December_2005)

Following the ratification of the Constitution of Iraq on October 15, 2005, a general election was held on 15 December to elect a permanent 275-member Iraqi Council of Representatives.........

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Negotiating" with such is useless and foolish.

Not at all. Saddam very well understood the politics of power. International pressure had very tangible effects on the conduct of his regime.

You've got to be kidding?

After the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwaite, and 12 years of defying UN disarmament resolutions, you think negotiating with such a "character" is wise and can have meaningful effects?

Originally Posted by Huntster
If Saddam is put to death, he can never kill anyone ever again.

It's foolproof.

If you or I are put to death, we can't kill anyone either. I think it is fair to assume that if neither of us or Saddam are put to death, the risk that you or I will kill somone is significantly higher than the risk that Saddam will.

I can't speak for you, but it is certainly true that there is a much greater risk that Saddam will kill someone before I will.

The motive to execute Saddam is entirely that of revenge, I dare to say.

In addition to revenge, it is also a political maneuver to kill the Baath party as well, and like I wrote above, it also ensures Saddam won't be issuing death orders from prison.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The death penalty is the ultimate measure used to eliminate the dangers posed by the one being put to death. It's a measure of recognizing that allowing that person to continue to live risks further harm from that individual.

It isn't used often enough or wisely enough in this world.

It is true that we could end all crime by completely eradicating all human life, but I do not advocate this measure.

Nor do I.

But people like these need to get dead:

.....In addition, prison gangs often exercise a large degree of influence over organized crime in the "free world", larger than their isolation in prison might lead one to expect. Since the start of the "War on Drugs" in the 1980s, which led to both massive increases in the prison population and high profits for drug trafficking, larger prison gangs have consciously worked to leverage their influence inside prison systems to control and profit from drug trafficking on the street. This is made possible based upon the logic that individuals involved in selling illegal drugs face a high likelihood of serving a prison term at some point, or in having a friend or family member in prison. The cooperation of drug dealers and other criminals can be secured due to the credible threat of violence upon incarceration if it is not provided. Prison gang members and associates who are released are usually expected to further the gang's activities after their release, and may face danger if they refuse and are returned to prison, such as on a parole violation. .....

Crimes committed by convicted murderers, post-conviction, are of no greater significance in any part of the world, regardless of whether there is death penalty or not.

They are of no greater significance than other such crimes, except they could have been prevented had the criminal been executed after their first crime.

[joe1347]

Looks like the Democrats may have made the next move on the 'Iraq Troop Increase Political Chessboard'. Harry Reid looks like he (i.e, the Democrats) will ok a very short-term increase in the number of troops to quell the raging sectarian violence.

So are the Democrats being very clever by ok'ing the increase for just a brief period of time? What I'm getting at is the Democrats will still look tough (on terror) by ok'ing the brief increase and of course when the violence gets even worse after more troops show up - I'm guessing the Democrats will give Bush only a couple months - the Democrats can then pound Bush into the ground for a myriad of reasons (and in a myriad of ways).

It will be interesting to see how many Republicans jump on the troop increase bandwagon - especially the moderates. If McCain and Lieberman are the only 'republicans' that stand behind the President on the troop increase. I think that we can all easily guess just how 'well' the troop increase will work.


Reid: Brief Troop Increase OK in Iraq

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Sunday, December 17, 2006; 3:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he would support a temporary troop increase in Iraq only if it were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by early 2008.

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700242.html

Side note: I think that the troop increase is pretty much fait accompli. As for where are the troops going to come from. Troops already in Iraq that thought they would be rotating home soon - won't - and scheduled deployments will just be accelerated.

[Merko]

No invasion, under any circumstances?


If you keep this going I'll have to write a computer program to keep arguing with you. An invasion could be justified if there were ongoing or immediately predictable atrocities on the same scale. This was not the case.


The invasion "threat" turned into a real, live, effective invasion. Imagine that!


Which does not in any way counter my argument that the threats were counter-productive. An invasion does not require threats to have been made before.

Also, the invasion was only 'effective' if its goal was only to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Then it was effective, but extremely unjustified. Bringing one person to justice cannot be worth hundreds of thousands of human lives.

If, on the other hand, the goal of the invasion was to increase the freedom and security in Iraq and in the world, the invasion was extremely ineffective, in that it had the exact opposite effects.


Points? Is somebody keeping some kind of score here?


I'm merely trying to get you to stop arguing bizarre positions that I do not take, such as 'coups are not violent'. Especially when I have already clearly stated the reverse.


So, in sum:

1) Continued inspections would have likely yielded more obfuscation, and
2) Continued coups would have likely resulted in repeated atrocities against whole villages like before, and
3) A CIA coordinated coup would have made the same people unhappy today unhappy, anyway, and
4) Invasion is unthinkable?

Any options I'm missing?


Yes, the only one I have suggested, repeatedly: International pressure to curb atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime.


So, instead of having the goal of democratic elections in the country, we should have installed a Kurd to leadership?


No. 'You' should not have installed anyone at all.


Maybe that's why you don't seem to know much. Your computer is stupid.


You asked me to Google for an expression within quotes, but clearly you meant me to Google for the individual words, without the quotes. Sorry for following your instructions.


Invasion was a completely reasonable option. The administration thought so, Prime Minister Blair thought so, and Congress voted so.


These are all people motivated mainly by illogical religious conviction rather than rational consideration. Additionally, both Bush and Blair appear to have clear personal messianic tendencies, making them even more dangerous. There is no evidence that reason was of any greater importance in reaching these decisions, quite on the contrary.

(Saddam regime death toll)

Who knows?: (http://billmon.org/archives/002822.html)


I think the HMR figures are a good baseline. However, you ignore the fact that the overwhelming part of these atrocities occured during the period when Saddam Hussein had active US support.

The alternative to invasion that I argue, was not active US support, but active international pressure to curb atrocities. That had also been tried for a long period of time, 12 years, as you acknowledge. The atrocities committed during this period pale completely compared to the atrocities resulting from the invasion.

(assassinations)

Because it's a violation of international law, and because it was believed that democratic elections would be better for the people as a whole.


An invasion is (and was) a much more severe breach of international law. The issue of democratic elections has no relevance here, it could be the outcome of either a coup or an invasion.


Interesting, considering Kim inherited control from Daddy. That's not so with Saddam or Ahmadinejad.


An assassination of 'Daddy', at some point in time, may have been worth considering, if realistic. He was much more than just a figurehead. However, even though an assassination may have had a significant effect, it is hard to predict whether this effect would have been desirable or not.

Additionally, there is a high price for the practice of assassinating foreign heads of state. First, they may strike back. Second, they will become paranoid. Third, they will take extreme courses for protection, such as aquiring nuclear weapons, for example. I do not believe that North Korea would have followed through with its nuclear program if the current US administration had not been so eager to forcibly topple foreign regimes.

Even with all these drawbacks, I still believe that there may be rare occasions where an assassination of a dictator is advisable.

(elections)

It has occurred successfully. That was the goal. That was the plan. It has been achieved.


Exactly what has been successful about the Iraq elections? That after years of stalling the elections and political strong-arm tactics, the US finally managed to get a government elected that would not immediately request a US withdrawal, contrary to overwhelming popular opinion.


Nope. The current bloodbath is the result of the failure of the elected leadership to gain martial control over the various militias while limiting direct US military actions.


However, this failure was entirely predictable, since the US invasion, continued occupation, and forced political decisions contrary to Iraqi interests made it completely impossible for any government, elected or not, to reach these objectives.

The US had invaded Iraq in May 2003. Elections were not held until December, 2005 - two and a half years later. Meanwhile, the interim government did not simply 'administer', but committed Iraq to policies that were highly impopular with the Iraqi population, and, I dare say, clearly detrimental to the interests of Iraq.

The reason for the delay of these elections, as I already remarked, was that the occupation was not willing to accept the projected outcome of elections.


After the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwaite, and 12 years of defying UN disarmament resolutions, you think negotiating with such a "character" is wise and can have meaningful effects?


It was wise and it had very meaningful effects. As you should know, the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait happened before international pressure was applied to limit atrocities by the Saddam Hussein regime.

As you also know, the Saddam Hussein regime did destroy the only weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) that they ever possessed. In other words, the tactics I propose were highly successful.


They are of no greater significance than other such crimes, except they could have been prevented had the criminal been executed after their first crime.

All crimes could be prevented. However, you are ignoring the ill effects of the actions you propose, be it executions or violent invasions.

[Merko]

So are the Democrats being very clever by ok'ing the increase for just a brief period of time?

While the shrewd tactical plots you're considering no doubt have their influence, I think the main reason is different. I think once these democrats get more involved, they tend to be immersed in details and less able to see the big picture. If you ask more or less any commander on the field, they will of course request more troops. Very few will say that they just can't do their job, instead they will say they can do it with the right resources.

The failure comes from realising that this overwhelming opinion on the field does not support the idea that it would be a workable solution overall. If only some commanders requested more troops, the conclusion would be that the 'enough troops' solution was a realistic and achievable one. When nearly all do it, it is a clear indication that the overall strategy is failing.

But it is difficult to go against the overwhelming opinion of military commanders on the field. Politically and personally.

[joe1347]

Also, the invasion was only 'effective' if its goal was only to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Then it was effective, but extremely unjustified. Bringing one person to justice cannot be worth hundreds of thousands of human lives.

How about also was not worth $1+ Trillion US Dollars - which is a fact that the 'fiscally responsible' conservative Republican supporters of the Iraq Fiasco seem to conveniently forget.

[Merko]

How about also was not worth $1+ Trillion US Dollars - which is a fact that the 'fiscally responsible' conservative Republican supporters of the Iraq Fiasco seem to conveniently forget.

Certainly. Imagine if only part of that sum had instead been used in making a good example of the US and the west, by investing it in poor countries to integrate them into the world economy and improve the quality of life, as well as utilising the potential of their inhabitants to a fuller extent.

I'm sure that would have been a very effective argument against those claiming that the best way forward for this world is to plant bombs on US airplanes and similar.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No invasion, under any circumstances?

If you keep this going I'll have to write a computer program to keep arguing with you.

You mean, like a flowchart?

You appear to be stuck in the "Apply Sanctions" circle. You know; that's where the next question is "Is Saddam honoring the sanctions", "No" is the forced answer, and you refer back to "Apply more sanctions."

Repeat cycle for well beyond the dozen years it has already been stuck in that cycle.

An invasion could be justified if there were ongoing or immediately predictable atrocities on the same scale. This was not the case.

An invasion could also be justified if the refusal and games to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions was clear, and it was suspected that WMD capabilities were kept.

And that is exactly what happened.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The invasion "threat" turned into a real, live, effective invasion. Imagine that!

Which does not in any way counter my argument that the threats were counter-productive.

You can only threaten a child with a spanking so many times before the spanking becomes inevitable. And Saddam is more shrewd and dangerous than a child.

An invasion does not require threats to have been made before.

Now you're talking like me. That's exactly how I like it.

No warning, no BS, no holding back.

And sticking around to see who wanted the next ass whipping would also be in order.

Also, the invasion was only 'effective' if its goal was only to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Then it was effective, but extremely unjustified. Bringing one person to justice cannot be worth hundreds of thousands of human lives.

That wasn't the sole goal. There were three: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

The stated objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people"....

The goals are near complete. We've determined that there are no significant WMDs, Saddam has been captured, tried, and convicted of crimes against humanity, and the Baathist regime toppled, and there have been democratic elections in Iraq. Helping stand the government up in the face of sectarian violence is now the last part of the stated objectives.

If, on the other hand, the goal of the invasion was to increase the freedom and security in Iraq and in the world, the invasion was extremely ineffective, in that it had the exact opposite effects.

I strongly disagree, and point out the the end is near, but not complete.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, in sum:

1) Continued inspections would have likely yielded more obfuscation, and
2) Continued coups would have likely resulted in repeated atrocities against whole villages like before, and
3) A CIA coordinated coup would have made the same people unhappy today unhappy, anyway, and
4) Invasion is unthinkable?

Any options I'm missing?

Yes, the only one I have suggested, repeatedly: International pressure to curb atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime.

"Impose sanctions". "Is Saddam honoring sanctions"? "No."

"Impose more sanctions."

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, instead of having the goal of democratic elections in the country, we should have installed a Kurd to leadership?

No. 'You' should not have installed anyone at all.

"We" didn't. Now I know (I think) that you wouldn't either.

So honoring a democratic election where the Shia won the majority is right, correct?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe that's why you don't seem to know much. Your computer is stupid.

You asked me to Google for an expression within quotes, but clearly you meant me to Google for the individual words, without the quotes. Sorry for following your instructions.

So it isn't your computer that is stupid?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Invasion was a completely reasonable option. The administration thought so, Prime Minister Blair thought so, and Congress voted so.

These are all people motivated mainly by illogical religious conviction rather than rational consideration.

Oh, so now the entire affair is based on religion?

I suppose the nations that voted in the majority in the UN resolutions did so for religious reasons?

Additionally, both Bush and Blair appear to have clear personal messianic tendencies, making them even more dangerous.

Okay. Now I think I'll just end it here with you.

You're clearly an anti-religious bigot.

As you also know, the Saddam Hussein regime did destroy the only weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) that they ever possessed.....

No, I don't "know" that. I do know what Blix told the UN two months before the invasion (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/), however (and you should know, because I've already linked this for you):

.....I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They are of no greater significance than other such crimes, except they could have been prevented had the criminal been executed after their first crime.

All crimes could be prevented.

Interesting. Now I'm really spellbound.

Tell me how all crimes can be prevented.

However, you are ignoring the ill effects of the actions you propose, be it executions or violent invasions.

And you're not ignoring the ill effects of continuing to play games with such butchers/liars/killers?

[Merko]

You appear to be stuck in the "Apply Sanctions" circle. You know; that's where the next question is "Is Saddam honoring the sanctions", "No" is forced answer, and you refer back to "Apply more sanctions."


Not necessarily more. Just keep them. The answer is not "yes" or "no". The sanctions had the effect of reducing atrocities to a level below what could be expected from an invasion. Thus, keeping up with the sanctions (not 'more sanctions') was a better alternative than invasion.


An invasion could also be justified if the refusal and games to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions was clear, and it was suspected that WMD capabilities were kept.


No. Suspicions cannot justify anything unless they themselves are justified, which they clearly were not. There is good reason to suspect there were no real suspicions, but that they were altogether fabricated. In the end it does not matter if the error was one of fraud or gross incompetence, it still did not justify an invasion.


You can only threaten a child with a spanking so many times before the spanking becomes inevitable. And Saddam is more shrewd and dangerous than a child.


Again, I did not (and do not) advocate threats. The sanctions had the intended effect. Certainly the effect could have been much better, but it was much better than what could be expected from an invasion.

We should always choose the course of action that has the best expected outcome. Invasion had an expected outcome worse than that of continued sanctions. Thus it was wrong.


Helping stand the government up in the face of sectarian violence is now the last part of the stated objectives.


Except they are making up those objectives as they go. These were not the objectives as set up beforehand.


So honoring a democratic election where the Shia won the majority is right, correct?


Yes, it is right. However, though this government has been elected with a semblance of democracy, that does not alter the fact that the situation is significantly worse than during the Saddam Hussein regime under sanctions, in terms of freedom as well as in terms of security.


I suppose the nations that voted in the majority in the UN resolutions did so for religious reasons?


You mean the majority that condemned the US invasion? No, I think they had varying motives, but they were united in the judgement that the outcome of the invasion would be unacceptable.


No, I don't "know" that. I do know what Blix told the UN two months before the invasion (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/), however (and you should know, because I've already linked this for you):


Yes. Blix says that the inspections are effective, that the inspectors are given access to all sites they request access to, without exception, and that they have not found any WMD's.


Tell me how all crimes can be prevented.


Total destruction of mankind.


And you're not ignoring the ill effects of continuing to play games with such butchers/liars/killers?

No, I am weighing the outcomes of both alternatives. Clearly, the expected and real outcomes of an invasion were far worse than that of continued sanctions.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You appear to be stuck in the "Apply Sanctions" circle. You know; that's where the next question is "Is Saddam honoring the sanctions", "No" is forced answer, and you refer back to "Apply more sanctions."

Not necessarily more. Just keep them. The answer is not "yes" or "no". The sanctions had the effect of reducing atrocities to a level below what could be expected from an invasion. Thus, keeping up with the sanctions (not 'more sanctions') was a better alternative than invasion.

The sanctions had nothing to do with a monthly death toll tally. They were disarmament requirements, voted on and passed in the UN, which were to ensure that future crimes against humanity wouldn't occur with WMDs.

And they didn't work for a dozen years, and there was no compliance in sight.

Originally Posted by Huntster
An invasion could also be justified if the refusal and games to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions was clear, and it was suspected that WMD capabilities were kept.

No. Suspicions cannot justify anything unless they themselves are justified, which they clearly were not.

Several western intelligence services concurred that Saddam had kept WMDs, and the UN inspection teams universally stated that Iraq was intentionally not cooperating with inspections.

There is good reason to suspect there were no real suspicions, but that they were altogether fabricated.

"Good reason"?

Evidence, please?

In the end it does not matter if the error was one of fraud or gross incompetence, it still did not justify an invasion.

It was a damned better justification than Saddam used when he invaded Iran, and then when he invaded Kuwaite.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You can only threaten a child with a spanking so many times before the spanking becomes inevitable. And Saddam is more shrewd and dangerous than a child.

Again, I did not (and do not) advocate threats. The sanctions had the intended effect.

The sanctions did not have the intended effect, and they failed miserably.

In fact, bleats from the left regarding how the sanctions were "killing innocent Iraqi children" were all over the media.

Remember? (http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/)

Gee. You're a leftist, aren't you?

Funny. Can't please a leftist, even if you do what he/she wants.

Except they are making up those objectives as they go. These were not the objectives as set up beforehand.

Ignored the link I gave you in my last post, didn't you?

These were the stated objectives up front.

I can't ignore the links you give me, because you don't have any. You're working off of your own mind and opinions and the propaganda you've been subjected to.

And it shows.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So honoring a democratic election where the Shia won the majority is right, correct?

Yes, it is right. However, though this government has been elected with a semblance of democracy, that does not alter the fact that the situation is significantly worse than during the Saddam Hussein regime under sanctions, in terms of freedom as well as in terms of security.

So, what you're indicating is that you think a strongman murderous butchering tyrant who puts down internal rebellion, and who doesn't hesitate to use WMDs, is better than allowing a democratically elected oppressive government allow murderous militia gangs?

Why would that be?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I suppose the nations that voted in the majority in the UN resolutions did so for religious reasons?

You mean the majority that condemned the US invasion?

No, I meant the nations that voted to impose sanctions and disarmament requirements.

...they were united in the judgement that the outcome of the invasion would be unacceptable.

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq]Were they?[/url]

....The term "Coalition of the Willing" refers to the countries who supported (most of them not militarily) the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation duties in Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members....

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, I don't "know" that. I do know what Blix told the UN two months before the invasion, however (and you should know, because I've already linked this for you):

Yes. Blix says that the inspections are effective, that the inspectors are given access to all sites they request access to, without exception, and that they have not found any WMD's.


Again, no links from you, so I'll provide some quotes of Blix's:

This, (http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6811&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=inspect) after the war started and the invasion completed:

In the text he read to Council members, Mr. Blix noted the change in the situation since his teams were last in Iraq, before the military action by the United States and when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was still in power, and he said he had no doubt about the determination of US units seeking banned weapons of mass destruction to work objectively.

But he added: “All this being said, it remains that finding the long-sought truth about the suspected existence of weapons of mass destruction and other proscribed items in Iraq is an interest that is not limited to the governments that have pursued the war but is one which is shared by the whole international community. Indeed, the Security Council has devoted its attention and efforts to it for over a decade.”

This, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/) two months before the invasion:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

This, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/) also two months before the invasion:

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the oil-for-food program, and the gradual development of that program mitigated the affects of the sanctions.

More (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/):

While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

Must I go on?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Tell me how all crimes can be prevented.

Total destruction of mankind.

I'm surprised.

I figured you'd suggest sanctions.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And you're not ignoring the ill effects of continuing to play games with such butchers/liars/killers?

No, I am weighing the outcomes of both alternatives. Clearly, the expected and real outcomes of an invasion were far worse than that of continued sanctions.

That's your ideological opinion, and I think it's way wrong.

[Merko]

The sanctions had nothing to do with a monthly death toll tally. They were disarmament requirements, voted on and passed in the UN, which were to ensure that future crimes against humanity wouldn't occur with WMDs.

And they didn't work for a dozen years, and there was no compliance in sight.


On the contrary, they worked very well. But I think you are erroneously assuming that I am referring only (or mainly) to the sanctions respecting to WMD when I was talking about international pressure. I am not. The most important result of the international pressure was the drastic reduction in atrocities, or the montly death toll tally, if you wish.


Several western intelligence services concurred that Saddam had kept WMDs, and the UN inspection teams universally stated that Iraq was intentionally not cooperating with inspections.


Wrong. They stated that they were cooperating and gave inspectors access to any facilities they requested, at any time of the week or year, with no exceptions. Read the transcript you yourself provided the link to.


"Good reason"?

Evidence, please?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Additionally, I believe there has been complaints by US intelligence officers that the administration pressurised them to 'provide' intelligence pointing in a pre-determined direction.


It was a damned better justification than Saddam used when he invaded Iran, and then when he invaded Kuwaite.


I disagree. There was no justification for either of these invasions. At any rate, an unjustified invasion does not become justified simply because you manage to find an even more unjustified invasion.


In fact, bleats from the left regarding how the sanctions were "killing innocent Iraqi children" were all over the media.


Yes, not all of the sanctions were good, in fact part of the sanctions were outright murderous. I do not defend these parts of the sanctions. I do not believe that the thousands of children dying from malnutrition and lack of medicines were what caused Saddam Hussein to scale back his repression.


Gee. You're a leftist, aren't you?


On your political scale, I'm no doubt very much a leftist.


Funny. Can't please a leftist, even if you do what he/she wants.


If you go create a massacre in the eastern part of town, and I claim that I am completely opposed to that, and then you go create a massacre in the western part of town, I will indeed not be satisfied.


These were the stated objectives up front.


The stated objectives were the fictional link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda, and the fictional claim of Iraqi WMDs. Isolated quotes talking about other issues are irrelevant.


So, what you're indicating is that you think a strongman murderous butchering tyrant who puts down internal rebellion, and who doesn't hesitate to use WMDs, is better than allowing a democratically elected oppressive government allow murderous militia gangs?


The preferrable alternative is the one that results in the lowest amount of murderous butchery.


No, I meant the nations that voted to impose sanctions and disarmament requirements.


You mean, the ones that roughly agreed with my position?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq


Are you trying to claim that this 'Multinational force' was sanctioned by the UN? It was not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

It is true that a number of governments took part in the crime. It seems that most of these governments have since been unelected, or forced to redraw due to the massive popular opposition to the invasion and the ensuing occupation.


Again, no links from you, so I'll provide some quotes of Blix's:


Again you're only giving masses of quotes that give no support of the invasion at all. Since you seem to be such a fan of Hans Blix, let me give some succinct quotes from him that leave little room for interpretation:

"I do not see the action as compatible with the UN charter."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13263825_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-BLIX-BLASTS--ILLEGAL--US-WAR-ON-IRAQ-name_page.html
"I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
"It's true the Iraqis misbehaved and had no credibility but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were in the wrong."
"We proved beyond a doubt and under immense pressure that independent, impartial, objective monitoring can be achieved."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974970,00.html

Added:
"Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse"
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/26/hans-blix-iraq-better-off-under-saddam/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iol.co.za%2Findex.php%3Fset_ id%3D1%26click_id%3D123%26art_id%3Dvn2006102606340 0559C925359&frame=true

[davefoc]

On your political scale, I'm no doubt very much a leftist.

FWIW, I tend to be right of center by the standards of this board, but I tend to agree more with Merko on the issue of Iraq than Huntster. I think there are many right of center people that would tend to agree more with Merko than Huntster on the topic of this discussion. Is that at all relevant to determining whether Huntster or Merko is correct in the viewpoints expressed in this thread?

Maybe, but mostly I think references to someone's political leanings in these kind of threads is just a way of minimizing the arguments of somebody that one disagrees with without having to resort to facts and logic as a basis for justifying a view.

[Darth Rotor]

The sanctions had nothing to do with a monthly death toll tally. They were disarmament requirements, voted on and passed in the UN, which were to ensure that future crimes against humanity wouldn't occur with WMDs.
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a bit simpler than that: dismantling of the WMD programs to reduce their likelihood of being used on Iraq's neighbors. However, I don't think in terms of 'crimes against humanity' so I may have missed a trick on that one.
And they didn't work for a dozen years, and there was no compliance in sight.
There was partial, grudging, and inconsistent compliance with some demands of the UNSCR, which had an original deadline of 90 days. :p

The loss of international political will, and the loss of active US leadership from President Bush, between March and June of 1991, was striking. With the hury to get home, it seems that the energy required for the ponderous chore of getting Saddam to comply was absent in New York, Washington, and most other capitals. Before one craps on the Clinton gang, and the UN, this signal failure to follow through (heck, it was a US led game from the get go) indicates that the UN 90 day deadline either wasn't sincere, or was not considered all that important in most capitals.

Saddam seems to have read the situation thusly, and he was ultimately correct.

My more detailed study of the 1991-1995 period, from a maritime perspective on embargoes, came to this dismal conclusion: without a well supported political aim and significant political will, "other than armed" coercive measures" (embargo is provided for in UN charter as a means of influence) are rarely effective.

DR

[fuelair]

It's hard to fathom how anyone, including prez contender John McCain, would call for flowing more cannon fodder into the Iraqi meat grinder. I am curious as to the opinions of people around here as to what he's up to.

Generally the liberal blogs think that he said it (he called for it forcefully right after the Nov elections) so as to stake a position that would not likely be adopted ... and ... so that he could distance himself from Bush's failure in Iraq during the 2008 election by saying, "if only they did it my way." But then Bush may be leaning toward adding more troops anyway. If this happens, and also fails, then McCain is up the creek with the losing strategy.

Who thinks that McCain's intent was to call for more troops thinking that it was a non-starter?

Who thinks McCain really wants the total number of US troops in Iraq to rise?

I am genuinely curious. I'd like to know.

I know he's not the only one. His BF buddy Lieberman is calling for this too, but he's just silly tool.
Frankly I lost interest in anything McCain has to say since Shrub dissed him a few years back and he bent over for it.:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

[Gurdur]

Tell me how all crimes can be prevented.
Total destruction of mankind.
*snicker*
Good one.

BTW, Huntster really cannot understand irony or sarcasm; if you want to make a point to him, be extremely dry and do not use any humour at all; if you don't mind if he doesn't get it, use humour and he won't. He's more obsessed with ass-whipping than all the Eton flagellants put together ever were.

[Huntster]

....The most important result of the international pressure was the drastic reduction in atrocities, or the montly death toll tally, if you wish.

Really? Here (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm) are some of the atrocities that occurred since sanctions began:

Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

Note that doesn't include the slaughter of Shiites that occurred after the 1991 Gulf War.

Granted, that's nothing in the life of Saddam, but it all occurred after the sanctions began in 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions).

Originally Posted by Huntster
Several western intelligence services concurred that Saddam had kept WMDs, and the UN inspection teams universally stated that Iraq was intentionally not cooperating with inspections.

Wrong. They stated that they were cooperating and gave inspectors access to any facilities they requested, at any time of the week or year, with no exceptions. Read the transcript you yourself provided the link to.

You have provided not a single reference to back up your silly words. If you have anything at all to support your allegations, cite and link it, please.

I have done so throughout this useless debate with you, including quotes, citations, and links.

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Good reason"?

Evidence, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Sorry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_inquiry)

The Hutton Inquiry was a British judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, appointed by the United Kingdom Labour government to investigate the death of a government weapons expert, Dr David Kelly. The inquiry opened in August 2003 and reported on January 28, 2004. Its terms of reference were to "urgently [...] conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly".

In his report, Hutton began by saying that he was "satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life". He then concluded that the British Broadcasting Corporation's allegations that the government had knowingly "sexed up" a report into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — the "September Dossier" — were unfounded. The inquiry's findings prompted the immediate resignation of the BBC's chairman, Gavyn Davies, its Director General (chief executive) Greg Dyke, and the journalist at the centre of the allegations, Andrew Gilligan. Lord Hutton retired as a Law Lord following the report's publication.


Additionally, I believe there has been complaints by US intelligence officers that the administration pressurised them to 'provide' intelligence pointing in a pre-determined direction.

Sorry: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4)

Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, said there is no indication that analysts at the DIA or CIA changed their analysis to fit what they perceived as the desire of the administration officials. Goss and other members of the intelligence oversight panels said they have received no whistle-blower complaints from the CIA or other intelligence agencies on the issue.

Here (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) is the U.S. Senate's Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments for your reading pleasure.

Enjoy. Maybe you'll learn something.

Originally Posted by Huntster
In fact, bleats from the left regarding how the sanctions were "killing innocent Iraqi children" were all over the media.

Yes, not all of the sanctions were good, in fact part of the sanctions were outright murderous. I do not defend these parts of the sanctions. I do not believe that the thousands of children dying from malnutrition and lack of medicines were what caused Saddam Hussein to scale back his repression.

Of course not. Saddam didn't give a damn about starving Iraqis. He used the crying of the left to get the Oil for Food program, then used the money to pad his "escape cache".

So if your only acceptable way of dealing with Saddam was through sanctions, but you didn't like all the sanctions, please enlighten me as to which sanctions you "like."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Funny. Can't please a leftist, even if you do what he/she wants.

If you go create a massacre in the eastern part of town, and I claim that I am completely opposed to that, and then you go create a massacre in the western part of town, I will indeed not be satisfied.

What about if the cutthroats in the eastern part of town need to be stopped, and when chased they head to the western part of town?

Stop chasing them?

Actually, I'm quite fine with that, on a personal level. It will be a damned long time before Islamic radicals conduct terrorist operations in Palmer, Alaska, or a rogue tyrant like Saddam fires a missile at us. So if you just want to let these types do what they will, it's becoming quite fine with me.

You'll get "it" before I will................

Originally Posted by Huntster
These were the stated objectives up front.

The stated objectives were the fictional link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda, and the fictional claim of Iraqi WMDs. Isolated quotes talking about other issues are irrelevant.

Do you state that the quote and link I provided to back up my words was false?

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, what you're indicating is that you think a strongman murderous butchering tyrant who puts down internal rebellion, and who doesn't hesitate to use WMDs, is better than allowing a democratically elected oppressive government allow murderous militia gangs?

The preferrable alternative is the one that results in the lowest amount of murderous butchery.

And how is that ascertained without the benefit of hindsight?

How is that ascertained by civilian political leaders if they get faulty intelligence?

How is that ascertained when the behavior of the tyrant fits the intelligence assessments?

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, I meant the nations that voted to impose sanctions and disarmament requirements.

You mean, the ones that roughly agreed with my position?

And which ones were those, He-Who-Can't-Back-Up-His-Position?

Originally Posted by Huntster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multina..._force_in_Iraq

Are you trying to claim that this 'Multinational force' was sanctioned by the UN?

No, I'm not. I'm outlining the 49 nations who were part of the coalition.

As for the UN: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war)

In March 2003 the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 Iraq war officially started a few days later.

Prior to this decision, there had been a good deal of diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the UN Security Council over how to deal with Iraq. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed over the period 2002-2003.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, no links from you, so I'll provide some quotes of Blix's:

Again you're only giving masses of quotes that give no support of the invasion at all. Since you seem to be such a fan of Hans Blix, let me give some succinct quotes from him that leave little room for interpretation:

Well, it appears that you are a Blix fan too, but you appear to be choosing quotes of his that he issued after the invasion.

Remember that "hindsight is 20/20" thing?

Think Hans was engaging in a bit of CYA?

[Huntster]

.....Saddam seems to have read the situation thusly, and he was ultimately correct.....

And lots of folks (me included) are reading the current political fracas, making judgements, and learning.

I'm sure Kim and Ahmadinejad are learning lots.