Another Iraqi war discussion

[This Guy]

The choices weren’t attacking or waiting, but attacking or surrendering.

I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice. Surrendering, IMHO implies giving up a fight. The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success. No need for any surrender

Even if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their jobs, we would have been at exactly the same place as we were before the troop build-up. The only way to not end up where we began was to attack.

Don't see how you figure this. Again, the issue was WMDs. That was, to the best of my knowledge the ONLY reason we were there. If the inspectors job was allowed to be completed, we would have completed our goal.

Really, what got the inspectors out of Iraq was the impending war. As far as I know, Bush doesn’t have the authority to order inspectors out of Iraq, and it was only the impending war that got them out. Since the actual subject is inanimate, the passive voice is appropriate.

Since Bush was the primary reason for the impending war, he was IMHO the reason for the required inspector pullout.

It’s a distinction that’s more sharp in Spanish. Imperfect refers to a continuous action in the past, whereas preterite refers to an action considered to have occurred at a discreet point in time at the past. So, first instance, suppose we ask of serial killer “Was he killing people when he was captured?” Unless he was captured while actually in the commission of a murder, the answer is no in the preterite sense. But if he, at the time of his capture, was in the habit of killing people, it would be quite accurate to say, in the imperfect sense, that he was killing people when he was captured. In the same sense, it would be quite accurate to say that Saddam was interfering with the inspection at the time of the invasion.

Again, thanks for the English lesson. But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.

I was just saying that one of the positions underlying your position is Leftist.

I could probably find a bunch of quotes of others that are known to not be leftist, that have at one time or another disagreed with a war. But I'm not going to bother. Shortened from the other thread - If my position against the war in Iraq makes me a Leftist, then so be it.

Certainly, phrased so generally, that is an extreme Leftist position. Taking you at your word, you don’t think that the US had the right to invade Germany and depose Hitler.

Well, if Saddam had conquered most of Europe, I would likely have felt different about the invasion. But, since I felt then (and to the best of my knowledge no new information to the contrary has surfaced) that Saddam posed no threat to the US, I don't think we had a right to invade. When he invaded Kuwait, we had a reason to attack him. Bush Sr. did the sensible thing, and freed Kuwait, and gave Saddam a severe thrashing, and went home. I had no problem with that. Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?

The vast majority of the casualties were sustained in the occupation, not the invasion.

Does that make the deaths better in your opinion? They are still just as dead. It also shows the lack of planning for the war.

The implications of this position certainly are Leftist. If we allow dictators to hold their own people, we will allow them to act with impunity, and encourage them to run their countries in a defective manner to ensure that their removal will result in as much suffering as possible.

To cause the deaths of thousands that would have otherwise been alive, while conducting an unjustified, ill-planned war is wrong. I don't see where politics figures into it. And that is my opinion of the war.

I also take exception to your implied claim that those who support the war don’t care of the lives of Americans and Iraqis. In fact, many of the people opposing the war made a big deal out of the fact that no Americans were being killed by Saddam, as Iraqi lives don’t matter.

First I have no doubt that those that have backed the war regret the loss of lives in the war. Just as I regret the loss of lives in Afghanistan, an invasion I supported. There was no intent to imply anything of the sort.

Second let me say again that Saddam was an SOB. That fact did not give us the right to invade his nation and remove him from power, anymore than it gives us the right to remove from power any of the other SOBs out there.


Doesn’t basing our foreign policy on fears of terrorism mean that terrorism is effective?

That's a bit tricky to answer, and I don't think it's an appropriate response to what I said. But I'll take a stab at it anyway :)

First, we invaded a nation that to the best of my knowledge has had no concrete/substantial connection to terrorism made. In the middle east, where we are pretty much hated for our oft debated connection to Israel (a debate I will not entertain BTW). Now, I'm not one for backing down from a good fight, when it's called for. But IMHO when you go into a hornets nest, and start stirring things up, you got to expect to be stung. IMHO we had no business in that hornets nest in the first place. I believe we have only added to the hatred, and in the end will have provided another base of operation for our enemies. Just doesn't make good sense to me. My use of the word fear (Fearing that...) was not meant to imply decisions made based on fear, I meant it more like I regrettably believe. That make sense?

I also have a more pedantic response, that I’ve prepared for instructive purposes. I don’t mean this as a personal attack, and I’ve put it in a spoiler box so that you can ignore it if you want to.

And I left it here.
Again thanks for the English lesson.

If debating the English impaired bothers you, feel free to leave ;)

This Guy;2672547]I'm not sure Bush had the right, under international law, or the US constitution, to remove Saddam from power. But, ignoring that, considering that the inspections were proceeding, and I THINK it's safe to assume the cost of keeping the forces on hold was far less than the cost we have had supporting the war, would it not have made sense to hold the forces until the inspectors had at least nearly completed their jobs? Then if actual threats to the US were found, go in and get them if need be (of course they were not found, and the reports from the inspectors up to the time of the invasion indicated they would not be found). But even without the benefit of hind sitehindsight, it made more sense to me at the time this happened, to sit on his door, and make sure the inspections were completed. I did some quick math and the logic went like this - OK, He's screwed with us before. Options are to attack, or to wait. Waiting will cost a lot of money. Attacking will cost a lot more money and lives. The smart choice is to wait.. It appears Bush thought otherwise. I believe he was wrong.



I'm sorry. I'm a natural US citizen, born and raised here, so US English is my first (and regrettably only) language. But I don't understand this part. Sounds like a lot of words that have no real meaning. Maybe it's the Southern US English that I speak that is causing me problems.



I get the jestgist of all of this except the last sentence. I don't know what preterite tense means, but it sounds obscene :eek:

It has been awhilea while since I've had an English class though, and I'd have to stop and think about what a pronoun or adverb are :boggled:

It's funny being called a leftist. I assume that is what youryou’re saying. If you only knew how far right leaning I was before Iraq, you'd be amazed, or at least mildly amused ;)

Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, countsto count. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi'sIraqis have died, and are dieingdying.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title.

If it's OK with you though, I'm gonna still support a strong military, lower taxes, less handouts, and less government. That OK? :)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[Upchurch]

I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice.
Perhaps "false dilemma"? Ultimately, it would mean the same thing as "false choice".

Surrendering, IMHO implies giving up a fight. The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success. No need for any surrender
I believe Art (if the remainder of the quote was his) was saying that the weapons inspectors were trying to prove a negative. (i.e. prove the weapons don't exist) That may or may not be true, but ultimately, it wasn't up to the weapons inspectors to disprove the administration's claims that the WMD's were there. At most, all the inspectors could say is that they had not found them.

I think the whole "surrender" thing is spin caused by this particular framing of the situation.

[Ziggurat]

You messed up the quote tags.

Don't see how you figure this. Again, the issue was WMDs. That was, to the best of my knowledge the ONLY reason we were there.

Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?

Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

[jimtron]

That may or may not be true, but ultimately, it wasn't up to the weapons inspectors to disprove the administration's claims that the WMD's were there. At most, all the inspectors could say is that they had not found them.

IIRC one of Bush's ultimatums, that were honored, is "let the inspectors in or else." Apparently Bush wanted or claimed to want inspectors in Iraq. Also, aside from the WMDs, the inspectors could have perhaps gathered some general intel the longer they were inside the country.

[Upchurch]

and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?


This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.
True, but is that reason enough to go to war over, especially as we were already otherwise engaged? I call this a relative non-issue.


Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.If there is a name for this logical fallacy, it escapes me.

A is a threat.
B is stronger than A in areas where A is not a threat.
Therefore B is a threat?

What is that?

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Quite simply that the inspections regime was always and only meant to verify current disarmament, and was not intended and could not accomplish ensuring Saddam never rearmed in the future.

True, but is that reason enough to go to war over, especially as we were already otherwise engaged? I call this a relative non-issue.

That's a judgment call. But the situation should still be recognized for what it was: Saddam failed obligations he agreed to, and the inspectors were never in a position to fulfill their mission without his full cooperation..

If there is a name for this logical fallacy, it escapes me.

A is a threat.
B is stronger than A in areas where A is not a threat.
Therefore B is a threat?

What is that?

What resources were required to pull off 9/11? Safe havens, money (and not a hell of a lot of that either), and access to potential terrorists. Iraq had all of these. Now, you can go on pretending that I've made some logical mistake in my argument (I suspect you just didn't understand what my argument was), but I note that you haven't actually addressed the substance of my argument in any form whatsoever.

[This Guy]

You messed up the quote tags.

Yep, left a right bracket off one. Thanks :)



Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

Yes, Congress was misled by less than truthful information from the Administration, into believing there was an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection. It wasn't true pre-war, but is now.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.

I'm gonna agree with you here, but not whole heartedly ;)

In Hans Blix's last speech to the UN before the invasion he did make the following statement in closing - "Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional co-operation" with Unmovic and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

However, if you read the whole speech (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2763653.stm), you see that Iraq was in fact providing more and more assistance as things progressed. You also will see that at the time of this speech, barely more than a month before the invasion, Unmovic's and IAEA's abilities to perform their jobs was in the process of getting a big boost in the way of several aircraft that were either available and being brought on line, or had been promised from UN members (Russian Antonov, French Mirage).

I have not found anything that indicates a change for the worse in Iraq's support of the UN inspectors after the Blix speech. If you know of something, please make me aware of it.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am of the opinion that right up until Bush gave his ultimatum, inspections were proceeding in a timely fashion, and Iraq was assisting in their completion. And no significant weapons or weapons items had been found that had not been declared (there were I believe 300 missiles that exceeded the allowed range, but as I understand it, they had been declared, as well as some rocket engines and perhaps a test stand for rocket engine testing/development all declared).



Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't ;)) But wasn't the Taliban the folks that were allowing known terrorist to seek safe haven within their borders?

"The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan, IMHO. They were sheltering the very people that had attacked us.

ETA: I reread your last point, and think my answer really doesn't answer it fully. I'll finish here -

OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea! :)

Yes, Saddam had some resources. He had a potential to do harm. But there has not been any proof that I know of that he was even trying to do so. I won't shrug off the threat completely, but I will say the potential was not enough to merit our engaging in a second war, IMHO.

[Tricky]

Then your knowledge is incomplete. Read the congressional authorization for war. It includes more than WMDs, and even the WMD issue extended beyond any current stockpile he might have had.

This is basically true. However, it also obscures the rather more pertinent fact that not interfering wasn't enough. Saddam was obligated by the terms of the cease fire, which he agreed to, to do more than just not interfere. He was obliged to provide full cooperation with the inspectors, because they were never in a position to do their job successfully without that full cooperation - the whole inspections regime was predicated around the idea of verification, not of discovery. And he never provided full cooperation.
None of which justifies the invasion. It just makes it quite clear that the Bush administration, which planned this invasion and whipped up the fears that got it through Congress, was not to be appeased by anything less than total compliance. While Saddam my not have crossed every "t" and dotted every "i", the inspections were working. And since enforcement of these UN edicts was never handed over to the US, it sort of negates this line of reasoning for justifying the invasion.

Who were the Taliban a threat to? They had no real army, they lived in a land-locked country with zero industrial capacity, and they had no money to speak of... and yet, as it turned out, they were indeed a threat to us. Nonconventional warfare makes it possible for even the weakest states to strike at strong states. And Saddam was, by EVERY measure, stronger than the Taliban. It's one thing to conclude that the risk he posed was not sufficient to justify invasion, but to pretend that the threat was zero is simply blindness.
Saddam was not, by EVERY measure stronger than the Taliban. Far from it. He was not the ringleader of an international terrorist organization, nor did he have any clear ties to one.

Any nation could have "access to potential terrorists". You gotta show intent. You can't invade a country based on what they are potentially able to do. 9-11 could have been pulled off by fanatical Belgians.

You're essentially labelling the invasion a "judgment call". That doesn't excuse bad judgment.

[Ziggurat]

Saddam was not, by EVERY measure stronger than the Taliban. Far from it. He was not the ringleader of an international terrorist organization, nor did he have any clear ties to one.

The Taliban was not itself the ringleader of any international terrorist organization either. And yes, Saddam did have clear ties to terrorist organizations, and he could easily have forged more ties.

You're essentially labelling the invasion a "judgment call". That doesn't excuse bad judgment.

I never said it did. But you and I don't agree about whether or not it was bad judgment.

[Ziggurat]

OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea! :)

Don't be silly. Obviously my point is not that any state with more resources than the Taliban is an enemy. Rather, my point is that if an enemy state has at least that much resources, then they are a potential threat. The decision about what to do about that potential threat is, of course, much more complicated. And it includes such calculations as how large that enmity is (quite large in Saddam's case) and how reckless that state might be in pursuing that enmity (again, very large for Saddam, probably not as much for, say, North Korea, another enemy state).

Yes, Saddam had some resources. He had a potential to do harm. But there has not been any proof that I know of that he was even trying to do so. I won't shrug off the threat completely, but I will say the potential was not enough to merit our engaging in a second war, IMHO.

Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

[Tricky]

And yes, Saddam did have clear ties to terrorist organizations, and he could easily have forged more ties.
Well the CIA must be hushing them up, because they certainly haven't been exposed widely. CT?

I never said it did. But you and I don't agree about whether or not it was bad judgment.
Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.

[Ziggurat]

Well the CIA must be hushing them up, because they certainly haven't been exposed widely. CT?

Uh, NO. Ever hear of Abu Abbas? Abu Nidal? The PKK? Saddam's connections to terrorism were widely exposed. So I don't know what you're talking about. Or, more correctly, you don't know what I'm talking about.

Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.

I haven't in this thread, that is correct. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so now, because 1) it would take some time, 2) I've argued those points before on this board, and 3) I don't think you'd agree with my assesment anyways. So for the moment I'm sticking to more concrete issues.

[Tricky]

Uh, NO. Ever hear of Abu Abbas? Abu Nidal? The PKK? Saddam's connections to terrorism were widely exposed. So I don't know what you're talking about. Or, more correctly, you don't know what I'm talking about.
I know what you are talking about, but I disagree that such things are "connections". There is not a good case that Saddam gave them either leadership or material support.

I haven't in this thread, that is correct. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so now, because 1) it would take some time, 2) I've argued those points before on this board, and 3) I don't think you'd agree with my assesment anyways.
Yes, that's why I'm keeping this short too. We've been over this ground before. I'm afraid This Guy will have to search for those classic confrontations.:D

So for the moment I'm sticking to more concrete issues.
LOL. As in "My feet are cemented to this spot." You're about as movable as your namesake. ;)

(Just messin' with ya, Ziggy.)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Question....Did we ever get U.N. approval to invade Afghanistan?

[This Guy]

Question....Did we ever get U.N. approval to invade Afghanistan?

Pretty sure we did. I'll be right back with a link :)

Nope. I was wrong (again;))

"The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in the initial conflict and deployment of US troops in Afghanistan by any new resolution. The Security Council has, however, authorized the International Security Assistance Force to use force in its mission of securing the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Yea, it's from the WIKI, but I can' find anything better on short notice :)

There were a couple UN resolutions before the war, dealing with sanctions for harboring terrorist I believe, but nothing that authorized us to go in.

In my opinion this was a justified invasion regardless.

The Taliban admitted having ole Ben, and refused to give him up, saying THEY had no evidence linking him to the attacks. Whoop de do.

Think they wish they had said something else now? (He left, he don't live here no more!, Ben who?, No habla ingles) ;)

[This Guy]

Don't be silly. Obviously my point is not that any state with more resources than the Taliban is an enemy. Rather, my point is that if an enemy state has at least that much resources, then they are a potential threat. The decision about what to do about that potential threat is, of course, much more complicated. And it includes such calculations as how large that enmity is (quite large in Saddam's case) and how reckless that state might be in pursuing that enmity (again, very large for Saddam, probably not as much for, say, North Korea, another enemy state).

I was joking on that one. OK, maybe blowing what you said way out of proportion for the sake of a joke, but joking never the less :)



Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

Yes, there were reports of pilots being shot at. In all honesty I can't recall how often, and with how much intent the reports implied. I'm not saying this didn't happen, just admitting ignorance of the degree to which it took place. As I recall, this had been going on, off and on almost since we pulled out of Iraq. Since it obviously was not taking place during the month leading up to the invasion (please give a link to a correction for this, if it exist) I don't think that justified an invasion. You can claim judgment call if you like, but considering the state of the inspections leading up to the invasion, I can find no justification. To my knowledge nothing happened during the month leading up to the invasion that merited causing a halt to the inspections and invading Iraq.

It's also interesting, IMHO, that the UN resolution that allowed us to go into Iraq, as I understand it, 1441, also said this - "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,"

Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions. If sovereignty can be viewed as the right of a nation to decide it's own leaders. Saddam was, at one point, as I understand it, elected. I'm not familiar enough with Saddam's legitimacy to rule to really take a stand on this point though.

And of course the fact that Kafi Annan felt the invasion was illegal brings the whole justification of the war into question.

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

But of course many of the supporters of the war do not support the UN, so I don't expect that to carry much weight :)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But of course many of the supporters of the war do not support the UN, so I don't expect that to carry much weight

What...we would go against the "World Federation' and let the Klingons invade us...Gee..I guess we didn`t ask the U.N. for our involvement in Kosov either or sending cruise missiles into Sudan...SO SORRY!

[SezMe]

Picking up from the source thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84129) without reading the posts above this one, Art posted:
I never said that the position is Leftist and therefore wrong. I brought up the label merely to establish what position I was talking about. Not to compound the impression that I apparently am giving you of ragging on Leftists, but there seems to be an attitude that labels are somhow bad, we should treat everyone as completely individuals, and we shouldn't generalize or group people or attitudes into categories based on them being similar but not identical. This position in turn seems to be correlated with traits commonly known as "Leftist". While I agree that excessive labeling can lead to problems, language ultimately consists of labels, and rejecting labels means rejecting language. I wanted to discuss an attitude, and I needed a label, and Leftist was the one I considered most appropriate.

I generally agree with you, Art. We could hardly function if we didn't group, label and categorize people, events, etc. on a moment-by-moment basis. If I wrongly attached a stigma to your use of the word "Leftist" then I apologize. The reason I focused on that particular category was that it didn't seem to be a useful category. So I ask you: What value did you attach to categorizing This Guy's post as being "Leftist"?

[SezMe]

Actually he was trying on a very regular basis to do us harm. He was regularly shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Again: judgment calls can be made about the significance one should place on those attacks, but don't pretend they didn't happen.

They did - you are right. And when Saddam's radar sites locked onto a fighter plane, we'd turn it into a junk yard.

But your larger point is entirely wrong. That Saddam threatened to down our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone does NOT mean that Saddam threatened the USA. Your use of the word "us" in the first sentence in the quote, then, fails to distinguish between us (meaning our jets flying over Iraq) and us (meaning the USA). It is not a trivial difference.

[Art Vandelay]

It seems to me that if you want to respond to my posts in another thread, you should link to that thread, or at the least give the context of my comments.

I'm sure one of our veteran debaters has a name for this type reasoning. I'll call it a false choice.It's not reasoning, it's a claim.

The purpose of the threats made to Saddam dealt totally with the issue of WMDs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If the inspections had been completed, and no WMDs were found, then the mission would have been a success. If WMDs had been found, and destroyed/removed the mission would have been a success.And what if Saddam had acted like he had acted every single other time? If you threaten to attack someone if they don't do something, and they don't do it, then you have two choices: attack, or surrender the point. Simply threatening again is pointless.

Again, thanks for the English lesson. But, the fact is that regardless of the words used to describe it, Saddam WAS NOT interfering with the inspections when the invasion began.He was habitually performing the action of interfering, hence it is accurate to say that he was interfering.

But I'm not going to bother. Shortened from the other thread - If my position against the war in Iraq makes me a Leftist, then so be it.I already made it clear that I applied the label merely to a position that you held, not to you.

Well, if Saddam had conquered most of Europe, I would likely have felt different about the invasion. You made your comment about countries in general, not Iraq in particular.

Please tell me who outside Iraq Saddam was a threat to?Israel (he was sponsoring Palestinian terrorism), Iran, the US, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

Does that make the deaths better in your opinion? They are still just as dead. It also shows the lack of planning for the war.It means that you aren't criticizing Bush's decision to invade, you're criticizing his decision to stay and try to restore order.

To cause the deaths of thousands that would have otherwise been alive, while conducting an unjustified, ill-planned war is wrong.You're begging the question.

I don't see where politics figures into it. I have already explained how it does. Do you have a response?

OK, then let's go attack every nation that has more resources than Afghanistan, since they have the potential for causing us duress at some point in time. Good idea! :)


Any nation could have "access to potential terrorists". You gotta show intent. You can't invade a country based on what they are potentially able to do. 9-11 could have been pulled off by fanatical Belgians.
Why are you two ignoring the fact that he specfically said that that is not enough to justifiy invasion?

ce enforcement of these UN edicts was never handed over to the US, it sort of negates this line of reasoning for justifying the invasion.The UN authorized the US to attack Iraq. A cease fire was agreed upon, and the terms were not fulfilled. That authorizes the US to terminate the cease fire.

Since we will never know what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay in power, that will forever be a judgment call. Still, to call it "good judgment", you'd have to make a convincing argument that leaving Saddam in would have been worse than the effects of this war. I cannot see that you have done so.No, one only need argue that there is a good basis for the decision. When a wife beater is put in jail, society may very well be worse off. Taxpayers are worse off for having to pay the costs of imprisoning him. He's worse off for being imprisoned. The wife may be worse off for not having any income. Just because everyone ends up worse off doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Since it obviously was not taking place during the month leading up to the invasion (please give a link to a correction for this, if it exist) I don't think that justified an invasion.I don't get that logic. Since it had been years since Pearl Harbor, did Pearl Harbor not justify attacking the home islands?

Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions.If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony.

So I ask you: What value did you attach to categorizing This Guy's post as being "Leftist"?I didn't categorize his post, I categorized a position he seemed to hold.

Your use of the word "us" in the first sentence in the quote, then, fails to distinguish between us (meaning our jets flying over Iraq) and us (meaning the USA). It is not a trivial difference.So... Japan was a threat to our Navy, but not to us?

[SezMe]

So... Japan was a threat to our Navy, but not to us?
C'mon, Art, there is NO analogy between a foreign nation taking offensive action against the USA with the intent of invading and conquering and a anti-aircraft missiles being shot from their own country at foreign aircraft overhead. There is a much closer analogy between that comment and a big steaming pile.

[This Guy]

It seems to me that if you want to respond to my posts in another thread, you should link to that thread, or at the least give the context of my comments.

My bad. Here - This is the continuation of an off topic discussion that started in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84129) thread.

(Art, if you know how to actually link to the post I'm responding to in the OP, please do so. I don't know how.)

It's not reasoning, it's a claim.

Ahh! OK. You claim those are the options. I disagree then :)

And what if Saddam had acted like he had acted every single other time? If you threaten to attack someone if they don't do something, and they don't do it, then you have two choices: attack, or surrender the point. Simply threatening again is pointless.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his Government was actively attempting to meet the request of the inspectors, right up to the time that Bush made the ultimatum that prompted the UN to pull the inspection teams out, for fear of their safety.

He was habitually performing the action of interfering, hence it is accurate to say that he was interfering.

He was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his people were assisting. It is a lie to claim that at the time Bush gave his ultimatum, Saddam was interfering with the inspections. At best it can be said that his assistance was less than hoped for, though from Hans Blix's report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html) to the UN just over a month before the invasion, it appears to me that Iraq's assistance was getting better and better as the inspections progressed.

I already made it clear that I applied the label merely to a position that you held, not to you.

Fine. So you made a pointless statement. No problem. I do that all the time :)

You made your comment about countries in general, not Iraq in particular.

I think taken in context of the thread, it's quite clear that I was talking about the war in Iraq.

Israel (he was sponsoring Palestinian terrorism), Iran, the US, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

Please explain the US threat from Iraq, and back it up with links. How do the others justify our invasion. (I question the threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, after our first trip to Iraq)

It means that you aren't criticizing Bush's decision to invade, you're criticizing his decision to stay and try to restore order.

Your statement means you have apparently ignored most of what I have said. Please explain how we would be in a position to HAVE to restore order, had we not gone in and caused the dis-order.

You're begging the question.

Please explain

I have already explained how it does. Do you have a response?

Other than I can't seem to come to the same conclusion you did, no.

Why are you two ignoring the fact that he specifically said that that is not enough to justify invasion?

I believe I answered that in my reply to him.

The UN authorized the US to attack Iraq. A cease fire was agreed upon, and the terms were not fulfilled. That authorizes the US to terminate the cease fire.

Really? Then why did Kofi Annan say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) - "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."

No, one only need argue that there is a good basis for the decision. When a wife beater is put in jail, society may very well be worse off. Taxpayers are worse off for having to pay the costs of imprisoning him. He's worse off for being imprisoned. The wife may be worse off for not having any income. Just because everyone ends up worse off doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Yea, that certainly applies to the Iraq situation! lol

OK we can't ignore the difference between one family's plight caused by the bread winner being placed in jail, to the effect a war has on the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions. We're talking the difference in a family receiving food stamps, and the deaths of thousands! Sorry, no comparison can be made there.

I don't get that logic. Since it had been years since Pearl Harbor, did Pearl Harbor not justify attacking the home islands?

If you can't make the distinction between Pearl Harbor and Iraq, we may have problems with this discussion :)

If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony.

UN Resolution does not equal "nothing".

I didn't categorize his post, I categorized a position he seemed to hold.

To what end? What purpose was hoped to be achieved by doing so?

So... Japan was a threat to our Navy, but not to us?

Once again, Pearl Harbor does not equal Iraq (in SO many ways!)

BTW, I corrected a couple tiny spelling errors for ya. But We'll keep that between us ;)

[This Guy]

Just a little FYI

I've been on vacation these past 9 days or so. It's over now, and I get the pleasure (:boggled: ) of returning to work tonight.

My responses may be a bit sporadic.

Because of some personnel changes being made (loosing the Supervisor I've had backing me up for a couple years now, and breaking in a new one) I may not even have another full day off for awhile after this week.

[Art Vandelay]

My bad. Here - This is the continuation of an off topic discussion that started in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84129) thread.

(Art, if you know how to actually link to the post I'm responding to in the OP, please do so. I don't know how.)
At the very top of this post, you should see the phrase "originally posted by This Guy" followed by a red arrow. The red arrow is a link to your post. It's automatically created by quoting your post. If you quote this post, you'll see "[quote=Art Vandelay;" followed by a number; that's the post number, and can be used to link to this post. Also, if you click on the "link" button on the bottom of the post, a window will appear with a link to the post.

[This Guy]

At the very top of this post, you should see the phrase "originally posted by This Guy" followed by a red arrow. The red arrow is a link to your post. It's automatically created by quoting your post. If you quote this post, you'll see "quote=Art Vandelay;" followed by a number; that's the post number, and can be used to link to this post. Also, if you click on the "link" button on the bottom of the post, a window will appear with a link to the post.

Ahh! So, actually, anyone wanting context only had to click on the little red arrow beside where it says - "Originally Posted by Art Vandelay" in the OP.

I see.

Thanks :)

[Art Vandelay]

C'mon, Art, there is NO analogy between a foreign nation taking offensive action against the USA with the intent of invading and conquering and a anti-aircraft missiles being shot from their own country at foreign aircraft overhead. There is a much closer analogy between that comment and a big steaming pile.Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was not only allowing the inspectors to work, his Government was actively attempting to meet the request of the inspectors, right up to the time that Bush made the ultimatum that prompted the UN to pull the inspection teams out, for fear of their safety.Saddam had made similar moves in the past.

It is a lie to claim that at the time Bush gave his ultimatum, Saddam was interfering with the inspections. I have already explained how it is not. It is a lie to say the Paris Hilton is now sleeping in prison? Or that Kiefer Sutherland is now portraying Jack Bauer?

I think taken in context of the thread, it's quite clear that I was talking about the war in Iraq. If you were talking specifically about Iraq, rather than referring to a general principle, then it makes even less sense, as you are saying that we should not have invaded Iraq,.. because we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

Please explainYou start with the premise that the invasion was unjustified, and conclude that it was wrong.

Really? Then why did Kofi Annan say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) - "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally." How is that a counterargument?

OK we can't ignore the difference between one family's plight caused by the bread winner being placed in jail, to the effect a war has on the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions.I’m not discussing the effects, I’m discussing the principle. There are considerations other than the direct effects.

UN Resolution does not equal "nothing".Huh? That makes no sense.

[This Guy]

Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

Did they, or did they not launch an attack on US property within the territory of the US?

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.

Saddam had made similar moves in the past.

Yes, and we didn't attack him when he wasn't allowing the inspections. So by what logic is an attack while he WAS allowing inspections justified?

I have already explained how it is not. It is a lie to say the Paris Hilton is now sleeping in prison? Or that Kiefer Sutherland is now portraying Jack Bauer?

OK, one of us is missing something. The fact is that until Bush's ultimatum inspections were in progress. Right or wrong?

If they were in progress, then how can saying Saddam was interfering with the inspections at the time of the invasion be anything except a lie, or a statement from ignorance?

If you were talking specifically about Iraq, rather than referring to a general principle, then it makes even less sense, as you are saying that we should not have invaded Iraq,.. because we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

I was responding to one of your leftist remarks, remember? Let me refresh your memory -

"Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, counts. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi's have died, and are dieing.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title."

You start with the premise that the invasion was unjustified, and conclude that it was wrong.

Well, that sounds about right to me. Can something not be unjustified, and wrong?

But, again, I was responding to one of your leftist remarks. Reminder time again :)

"To cause the deaths of thousands that would have otherwise been alive, while conducting an unjustified, ill-planned war is wrong. I don't see where politics figures into it. And that is my opinion of the war."

How is that a counterargument?

Hmm.. Let me think a bit here. How can the Sec. Gen. of the UN saying our invasion of Iraq was illegal counter -

"The UN authorized the US to attack Iraq. A cease fire was agreed upon, and the terms were not fulfilled. That authorizes the US to terminate the cease fire. "

Well, damn, you got me there! :covereyes

I’m not discussing the effects, I’m discussing the principle. There are considerations other than the direct effects.

Well, your making a comparison that is a couple orders of magnitude different in effect. I don't consider it comparable how ever you do it :)

And how any of that justifies an invasion of Iraq I'll never know.

Huh? That makes no sense.

Neither does you taking the statement - "Arguably, that can be read to imply that Saddam's leadership of Iraq was not at risk from any of the UN resolutions."

And saying -"If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony. "

I didn't say NOTHING HE DOES CAN PUT HIS LEADERSHIP AT RISK. I was speaking only about the UN resolutions up to that point in time. You extrapolated that to read that nothing could put his rule in jeopardy. So, I guess you should make your own reply, because I didn't make the statement your talking about. :)

[SezMe]

Japan displayed no intent to conquer. Their actions were entirely consistent with them merely wishing to destroy our offensive capabilities.

Japans declared war (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/matsum_1.html) on the US. I wouldn't call that a defensive action. But, as This Guy says...

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.

... which I agree with so I'm going to drop it.

[Tricky]

I think it best to knock off the Iraq/WWII comparison. It's apples and oranges.
Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

[This Guy]

Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

Sounds good to me! ;)

If this is a serious slam though, I would consider Afghanistan, or perhaps Panama or some other US conflict to be comparable.

Really, Afghanistan is the only one I can think of that could rightfully be used as a comparison. It involved a coalition, and perhaps has other similarities that would allow for a comparison.

WWII was the result of a whole world being at war, with war declared, and obvious attacks by the enemy.

Iraq is a geographically limited war against an enemy that did not declare a state of war, or attack the US on/within US territory.

I just don't think the two can be compared in any meaningful fashion. About the only things in common are that weapons are being used, and people are dying.

But, if my logic is off, please explain why :)

[Tricky]

Right. From now on, all comparisons must be to the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Wars, and the War of the Three Henries.

Sounds good to me! ;)

If this is a serious slam though, I would consider Afghanistan, or perhaps Panama or some other US conflict to be comparable.
No, not a slam. A little sarcasm, perhaps, directed at those who try to compare wars. Each war is different. Yes, you may find, as Sun Tzu did, that there are similarites, but to make one-to-one correlations is ludicrous. You can't really even compare Gulf War I to Gulf War II without comparing vastly different scenarios.

[Gurdur]

...Really, Afghanistan is the only one I can think of that could rightfully be used as a comparison.
Various aspects of Grenada, Reagan's failed intervention in Lebanon, or the Bay Of Pigs also bear certain limited similarities. It's instructive to see what was learnt there.
Iraq is a geographically limited war against an enemy that did not declare a state of war, or attack the US on/within US territory.
The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region.*
It did. Just not in the way the neocons thought or hoped it would.

_________

* IOW, to radically change the status ante belli. It radically changed the status alright. Art Vandelay's crap argument, and Ziggurat's, ignore the fact that Iraq NOW is far more dangerous to the USA than it was under Saddam following Iraq1; the Iraq1 war and subsequent sanctions finished him off as a power, but the situation now created in Iraq following Iraq2 is far more conducive to all kinds of threats to the USA from Iraq. Which is why Iraq2 has meant 3500+ and increasing American military deaths, while Iraq1 meant a handful.

[RandFan]

The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region. Do you have any evidence that this was the intent?

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is a skeptics forum. Absent evidence I think you need to take your claims to the CT forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=64).

[Kerberos]

If nothing he does can put his leadership at risk, that's not sovereignty, that's hegemony.
No, it's not.

Sovereignty:
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Hegemony
Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with the implicit threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Contrary to what you seem to believe sovereignty is a stronger position than hegemony, and it is a far more appropriate description of the power Saddam Hussein (or any dictator) holds than Hegemony. Sovereignty is usually a formal position of unlimited or almost unlimited power within a given area. Hegemony is more commonly a dominant (but not all powerful) position among actors that are frequently formally equal.

[Gurdur]

The Iraq2 war was fought in order to comprehensively destabilize a region.
Do you have any evidence that this was the intent?
Certainly. The aim of the Iraq2 war was to topple Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime, remember? D'oh. Excluding all Ba'athists from the new (imposed) government, disbanding the Iraqi army. All those aims accomplished -- those aims meant the destabilization of an entire region, the revolutionary destruction of an old regime in favour of a new one At the time (2003 and later), the project was also marked by a new and significant change in policy where bringing democracy to the Middle Eastwas made a paramount aim -- and Iraq was the first project (unless you want to claim Afghanistan too). You can see a discussion paper here (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05autumn/zambelis.htm); you can see some of President Bush's remarks on the subject here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html); you can see a long discussion here (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/?pn=1); Francis Fukuyama on the subject (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2002290,00.html) and again here too (http://books.guardian.co.uk/digestedread/story/0,,1750662,00.html):
...neoconservative theorists saw America exercising a benevolent hegemony ... to fix problems such as terrorism, proliferation, rogue states and human rights abuses. ...
You can also see a defence of the Iraq2 invasion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1730269,00.html)here.

Most tellingly, you can find discussion of the explicit neocon theory of "creative chaos" here (http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8991&sectionID=15) and also here (http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html), with quotes from neocons.

The entire aim was to comprehensively change the entire governance in Iraq, with the hope that democracy would then spread throughout the Middle East, especially to Syria and Iran. Whether through an explicit doctrine of "creative chaos" or talk of a "shakedown", the aim was to comprehensively destabilize the previous situation im favour of a hoped-for new situational outcome.
this is a skeptics forum.
No, really? Truly amazing. Yet you are the one who claimed contrary to the facts and without evidence, just for example, that "Chavez does not permit free speech". Biased much, hmmm?
...I think you need to take your claims to the CT forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=64).
I think you need to:
1) read the news much more before you try debating it, and actually get some idea of what you're talking about first,
2) and to examine your woeful hypocrisy on this point.

[Tricky]

Certainly. The aim of the Iraq2 war was to topple Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime, remember? D'oh. Excluding all Ba'athists from the new (imposed) government, disbanding the Iraqi army. All those aims accomplished -- those aims meant the destabilization of an entire region, the revolutionary destruction of an old regime in favour of a new one.
I'm not sure that any of this was meant to "destabilize" the region. The region wasn't particularly stable to begin with. Whatever misguided logic Bushco was using to justify this disasterous invasion, I feel certain that his intent was to stabilize the region by inserting a strong, western power who would serve as a buffer against all of the craziness going on there. The plan was short-sighted, poorly-planned, poorly executed and was based on several untenable assumptions, but I don't think that Bush's plan was to have the region dissolve into chaos.

So change the word "destabilize" to "restructure" and you are probably okay.

[Upchurch]

What resources were required to pull off 9/11? Safe havens, money (and not a hell of a lot of that either), and access to potential terrorists. Iraq had all of these. Now, you can go on pretending that I've made some logical mistake in my argument (I suspect you just didn't understand what my argument was), but I note that you haven't actually addressed the substance of my argument in any form whatsoever.
Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?

[Ziggurat]

Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

Are you trying to prove that you aren't paying attention? Because This Guy already tried to make that argument. He was only joking, and he still did it more coherently than you have here.

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?

I already said why, but I'll repeat an abridged version: Saddam has a proven track record of doing the sort of things that I really don't have to worry about you trying to do, and you really don't have to worry about me trying to do. And states, even weak states, are fundamentally more dangerous than lone individuals, which makes your mentioning of you, me, and potted plants pointless. And that's being charitable.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Your argument applies just as much to St. Louis as it does to Iraq. Should we force Mayor Slay out, too?

The substance of your argument is that Saddam had the potential to be a threat and therefore he was a threat that needed dealing with. You, me, and the potted plant in the hall have the potential to be a threat, should we be dealt with in the same manner? if not, why not?


Great frigging comeback.....how many Kurds or Iranians have you wasted with poison gas lately or how many of your fellow countrymen have you murdered...what a twisted stupid argument.

[Tricky]

I already said why, but I'll repeat an abridged version: Saddam has a proven track record of doing the sort of things that I really don't have to worry about you trying to do, and you really don't have to worry about me trying to do.
Actually, Saddam's track record had really hit the skids. His KVG (Kurd Villages Gassed) numbers were rock bottom. His NCI's (Neighboring Countries Invaded) had remained stagnant for ten years. Even his RLE's (Rebel Leaders Executed) was pitiful compared to his glory days. And don't even mention his WMDs, which were so weak he had to pretend to have them just so people wouldn't realize he was a toothless tiger.

If we're taking out leaders who used to be dangerous, then Castro had better watch out, assuming he's still alive.

And states, even weak states, are fundamentally more dangerous than lone individuals, which makes your mentioning of you, me, and potted plants pointless. And that's being charitable.
That has not proved to be the case with terrorism. Every damaging attack on the US has come from an individual, or at the least, a group which was not specifically affiliated with a single nation. In my opinion, having a country that can be attacked makes them less dangerous, since we know who and where they are.

But even given that Saddam was a real bad guy who couldn't be trusted, the argument that "even weak states can launch dangerous attacks" is still hollow. Sure they can. All of them can. It doesn't follow that they will. I cannot see that anyone here has given good evidence that Saddam was about to attack, not just that he could. That is the evidence we need in order to justify the invasion.

[Ziggurat]

That has not proved to be the case with terrorism. Every damaging attack on the US has come from an individual, or at the least, a group which was not specifically affiliated with a single nation.

There is only one significant terrorist attack on the US which can be thought of as a non-state sponsored, individual terrorist attack: the Oklahoma City bombing. And that wasn't Islamic terrorism. State sponsors like to keep some distance between their tools and themselves, but they have been and remain an integral part of Islamic terrorism. The Taliban's support of Al Qaeda was absolutely critical to the power that group had.

In my opinion, having a country that can be attacked makes them less dangerous, since we know who and where they are.

That speaks to risk, not capacity.

But even given that Saddam was a real bad guy who couldn't be trusted, the argument that "even weak states can launch dangerous attacks" is still hollow. Sure they can. All of them can. It doesn't follow that they will.

I never said that any such state would.

I cannot see that anyone here has given good evidence that Saddam was about to attack, not just that he could. That is the evidence we need in order to justify the invasion.

I don't think that is the standard we need to operate under, especially when we're talking about this issue being only one of several motivators. Because, quite frankly, if Saddam was about to launch such an attack, the chances of finding that out before the attack were quite slim.

[RandFan]

Certainly. The aim of the Iraq2 war was to topple Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime, remember? D'oh. Excluding all Ba'athists from the new (imposed) government, disbanding the Iraqi army. All those aims accomplished -- those aims meant the destabilization of an entire region, the revolutionary destruction of an old regime in favour of a new one At the time (2003 and later), the project was also marked by a new and significant change in policy where bringing democracy to the Middle Eastwas made a paramount aim -- and Iraq was the first project (unless you want to claim Afghanistan too). You can see a discussion paper here (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05autumn/zambelis.htm); you can see some of President Bush's remarks on the subject here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html); you can see a long discussion here (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/?pn=1); Francis Fukuyama on the subject (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2002290,00.html) and again here too (http://books.guardian.co.uk/digestedread/story/0,,1750662,00.html):I'll defer to Tricky.

No, really? Truly amazing. Yet you are the one who claimed contrary to the facts and without evidence, just for example, that "Chavez does not permit free speech". Biased much, hmmm? If you were intelectually honest you would have noted that I conceded my mistake. Also, if you were fair you would admit that what Chavez did was something that would simply not be tolerated in the West. But you are not likely to do that are you?


I think you need to:
1) read the news much more before you try debating it, and actually get some idea of what you're talking about first,
2) and to examine your woeful hypocrisy on this point.Whatever Gurdur. What you "think" is of little consequence to anyone.