What About Saddam And North Korea?

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Some might if you shut up your usual pc'lib bafflegab.

Chew on this, lefty nut-case.

New York magazine, Kurt Andersen

That your false dichotomy came from Kurt Andersen doesn't make it any less senseless than if it came from you.

Now call me names again. You haven't said "pinko commie" yet.

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Deflection of the question. The question is, "Should we have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq (or should we have invaded neither)? Why or why not?"

I wasn't deflecting. I was posing a serious question. I think we were justified going into Iraq. It would have been better if he had WMD. However the removal of Saddam was worth it.

NK I think Kim should be removed, but I don't believe invasion is possible due to NK's neighbors.

[hammegk]

Care to demonstrate why it's a false dichotomy, fellow-traveller?

Sorry, BP for stepping on your thread. We both know that none of these EuroTrash/AussieNut/Unpatriots will answer your questions.

Blah-blah-blah is their only solution for every problem, since evil does not exist in their worlds.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk

Blah-blah-blah is their only solution for every problem, since evil does not exist in their worlds.

Sure it does. Ask them what they think of George Bush if you need proof.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
Sorry, Beeps, didn't mean to derail your efforts. Are you going to call out hammegk for deflection as well?

'Sokay (I'm a little embarrasssed to be doing it, frankly). I was going to call out hammegk until he saved himself with:

Quote:

As to NK, they provide some limited rationale for pursuing StarWars or whatever we call it now, but zero reason to invade for any geo-politically strategic reason I've ever heard tabled.

A little light on reasons, but it answered the question about NK.

[punchdrunk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Furious

A feasible alternative would have been to back existing insurgencies, or to facilitate creation of others from the Shia or from the Kurds. The US already was enforcing no fly zones over the northern and southern halves of the country, and probably could have provided enough cover for these areas to stage insurgencies. The key to this plan would be keeping the insugency leaders alive, since Saddam was pretty big on killing off figureheads in particular.

...snip...

I'm not necessarily saying we should have done it this way, but it is a "better" solution if you are worried about how the Arab world views the US, don't want to borrow billions of dollars to pay for it, don't want to spend thousands of American lives and are trying to oust Saddam while keeping the struggle internal as reasonably possible.

We did do it this way, no?:

article

Quote:

After the Gulf War, in the guise of a "Kurd safe haven," the CIA created a protectorate and base for covert activities designed to destabilize the Iraqi regime, while allowing the suppression of Kurds and Muslims to continue simultaneously. Under George H.W. Bush, the CIA reportedly spent $20 million in anti-Saddam propaganda, and at least $11 million in aid to a number of Iraqi and Kurd opposition groups.

As Al-Kurdi points out: "It was clear from the beginning that the 'safe haven' was an operation to provide 'cover' for CIA operations against Iraq and Turkish crackdowns on Kurds—not 'comfort,' as its official designation implied. A state of dependence was reinforced in which the 'providers' could keep their Kurdish puppets on short strings."

When Shi'ite Muslims in southern Iraq staged a revolt against Saddam in the spring of 1991 under the watchful eye of the CIA, the Bush I administration permitted Saddam's Iraqi troops to crush the revolt. To prevent a popular Islamic movement within Iraq (one that could threaten western oil interests and business interests), Bush did nothing as his former partner and vanquished foe crushed the revolt.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
bite me , who do you think you are patronising here?

Sorry, I don't recall having held a gun to your head to demand your participation.

Quote:

Sorry things are a bit complex sometimes, thats the way life is..How about you quote me the "serious alternatives" that you crave and feel you have now got from this thread and I'll quote you back where I have attempted to convince you of the same earlier..

Sorry. You had your chance. If you think you have something constructive to add besides your incessant sarcasm and snide remarks, feel free.

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Care to demonstrate why it's a false dichotomy, fellow-traveller?

Sorry, BP for stepping on your thread. We both know that none of these EuroTrash/AussieNut/Unpatriots will answer your questions.

Blah-blah-blah is their only solution for every problem, since evil does not exist in their worlds.

That's it, you're onto us... we're just too weak to recognize and fight evil. All of us, to the one. How well you know us. Really, you should win an award for your understanding of opposing points of view, and become an ambassador.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I am trying to work with you here, but your parameters are excrutiatingly strict.

I know, and even so, the discussion is trying to wander far afield. That's one of the problems I have with this forum; an issue gets beaten to death but nothing gets resolved because we fly off on tangents all over the place (and I'm as guilty as anyone). It's like listening to Wagner's Tristan und Isolde - no resolution. (Wha-a-a-t?)

I want to see what happens if we can examine just one question in detail and shuck the extraneous issues. Not that they aren't interesting and worthy of discussion (in another thread), but whether or not Bush lied about WMDs has no bearing on what method other than invasion should have been used to remove Saddam from power.

Now if you don't believe Saddam should have been removed (more on that follows), then you truly have no place in this discussion (meaning no offense), because we're starting with that premise - one that I think the vast majority of us agree on.

Quote:

For starters, I do NOT assume that Saddam should have been removed from power. I always wanted Saddam gone, but that's not the same as saying that "removed," implying by external forces, was what I would favor.

Fine, but don't feel I've made my parameters excessively strict. I did not mean that he should have been removed necessarily by foreign powers. Notice I used the passive voice in the question - I didn't specify who should have done the removing. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who would have been happy if he'd gotten a bullet in the head or if there had been a spontaneous irresistable popular Iraqi uprising a la Ferdinand Marcos.

But then we get back to the original question: If you don't think a U.S. invasion was warranted, how should he have been removed? Wishing and hoping doesn't do it.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Acceptable? Perhaps not in a democracy. Republics elect leaders; some test the breeze each am to determine which lie to tell; others lie because they actually believe in something, and may prefer results to political posturing stasis.

Carter & Bil-Hil were type one. Reagan & Bush 2 the second.

Please focus, people. This is fascinating, but it doesn't address the OP.

[kalen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Garrette
kalen,

Just back to say that I did not intentionally misrepresent your comments.

If your intent was to say that, though bad, Iraq's educational system was still the best in the region, that's one thing, though I still disagree (Jordan's and Iran's spring to mind, not to mention Israel which is, after all, part of the Middle East).

I had assumed you were saying that it wasn't bad, though. If that is not the case, then I apologize. It will be my second significant mis-reading today. I really do need to be more careful...

Thanks for your posts, Garrette. There are just so many people here that derail discussions by answering questions that weren't even asked or countering points not even made. I appreciate the information you gave and I actually learned a few things about the current state of affairs in education. However, I was referring to the state of education in Iraq before the decade-plus of sanctions which screwed things royally there. I probably should apologize for not making it clearer and I could still be mistaken. I am, however, always open to a little education myself. This has strayed a little farther away from the "Saddam was fit to rule" point I wanted to make ...

[Orsino]

Not all of us are agreed that we should have removed Saddam from power.

I would ask a different question: how many lives was removing him from power worth? Would those who are dead have agreed, do you think, to lay down their own lives? Would those who have been bereaved or maimed agree?

If I'd seen any realism in the cakewalk we were promised, I might have come to some grudging acceptance of the preemptive war. I'm not quite a pacifist.

American military might has caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand Iraqis, Americans, and "coalition" members (never mind quibbling over the exact number, which will be carefully hidden from us as long as possible, if anyone even knows). Would Saddam have killed as many in the same time, had he remained in charge? Would he have tortued as many?

If anyone here really thinks that this was an acceptable bargain, I'd have to ask him: did you sacrific or even risk your own life to make it happen, or were you content to let others do the killing and dying? Were you personally inconvenienced at all while your tax dollars financed all the carnage and destruction?

I'm aghast at what America has become. We have a chance, it seems, to salvage some good out of all that misery. Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to make it all "worth it," whatever that means. I don't think we're there yet, and the current Administration is too hidebound to be serious about bringing liberty to Iraqis.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
Aw-right, just hold your horses there.
I`ve discussed this issue before on these forums...just because you missed that and I didn`t dive right in here with a repeat perscription of my answers doesn`t mean I don`t have any...that`s an assumption on your part.

Well, jeeze Louise, then why the hell didn't you give me an answer when I asked for it instead of that foolishness about... oh Jesus Christ on a rocket ship, what was it?

Quote:

I said what I said in the other thread mainly in the hope of stimulating you to think outside of the box...the box that the media and mainstream politicians have created and sustained with the help of the millions of minions that accept their statements as the last damn word on anything they see fit to comment upon.

Yeah, that's what it was.

Quote:

If I`m reading you right, you are implying that the only real alternative to the war and invasion of Iraq was leaving Saddam in place.

Then you are not reading me correctly. That's what I believe, myself, but I don't start threads with the purpose of finding out what I believe, because, as I've said before, I am the world's foremost authority on what I believe.

I've been working under the assumption that even people who opposed the war were for the most part still repulsed by Saddam and considered him unfit to rule a country. In other words, I assume good faith on the part of the people opposed to the war, that they don't oppose it because they like Saddam and thought he should remain in power because he made the trains run on time or something (I have nothing to discuss with those moonbats).

I'm already accepting as a given (only for purposes of the discussion) that the invasion wasn't the best way to do it.
So, assuming good faith on the part of the anti-war people, I want to know what they, in good faith, believe could have and should have been done to remove Saddam. I think that's a fit subject for discussion, and I wanted to see it discussed without all the sideshows.

Quote:

(...sideshow about why invasion was unwarranted in the first place deleted...)

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that there were alternatives to the attacking of Iraq that would have allowed Iraqis to liberate themselves – such as ending the medieval sanctions that were crippling them and making them dependant upon their dictator. If there`s one thing you don`t do to prop up a dictator it is to impose sanctions that make the people even more reliant upon said dictator.

Okay, that's an answer to the question. I don't consider it a good one, but it addresses what I was asking

Are you seriously suggesting that removing sanctions would have somehow forced Saddam from power?

Quote:

For example, food and aid drops within UN protected areas could have been explored, perhaps even accompanied by an explicit pledge that, the moment Saddam was deposed, massive aid would be forthcoming to the new regime and people.

Do you think the Iraqi people who opposed Saddam had any means to depose him themselves? Remember what he did to the Kurds in the aftermath of the first Gulf war. The only thing stopping him from finishing them off was the imposition of the no-fly zone by the U.S. and U.K. What weapons did the Iraqi people have that they could have used to depose Saddam?

Quote:

To some extent, whether one considers any of these feasible or not is beside the point because the real point is that they were never considered and, if the mission was really to liberate Iraq, then it was our moral duty to explore all means short of violence.

It is not beside the point, because if we made a mistake in invading, don't we owe it to ourselves and others to learn from it?

Quote:

(...more deflection snipped...)

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orsino
Not all of us are agreed that we should have removed Saddam from power.

Okay, then this isn't the thread you're looking for.

[Orsino]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, then this isn't the thread you're looking for.

It might be. How many lives, in your opinion, is the "liberation" we have achieved so far worth? How many more do you believe it will have been worth, based on what you foresee or hope for in the future?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
[b]Sorry, I don't recall having held a gun to your head to demand your participation.
Sorry. You had your chance. If you think you have something constructive to add besides your incessant sarcasm and snide remarks, feel free.

Very convenient. You ignore my answers, whining continually that I am not giving you answers....when the same answers are provided by others they are suddenly the response you were looking for....Lol.

I suppose I should take a leaf from your book now and shadow you for a week beating about how you won't play?


but I'll give you one more chance eh? Quote to me the parts of the posts that you feel are

" the kind of discussion I've been looking for."

and I will quote back to you where I suggested the same thing....

or don't....its up to you. I'm finding I couldn't care less.....

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orsino
It might be. How many lives, in your opinion, is the "liberation" we have achieved so far worth? How many more do you believe it will have been worth, based on what you foresee or hope for in the future?

These are excellent questions, and the first one verges on the metaphysical. Why don't you start a thread about it? This thread takes as its starting point the assumption that the war wasn't the best way to deal with Saddam; its purpose is to examine what alternatives might have been better. If you've read through this thread at all, you see that I'm trying to keep the focus on-topic, and to pare away the sideshows.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
but I'll give you one more chance eh? Quote to me the parts of the posts that you feel are

" the kind of discussion I've been looking for."

and I will quote back to you where I suggested the same thing....

Fool, I spent a great deal of time trying to get a straight answer out of you, to no avail. Since you obviously found the post in question (I think it was from Furious), why don't you match it up with anything you said that "suggested the same thing" and post it here?

Have you read what demon posted here? A lot of it was sideshow, but he actually did answer the Saddam question. I dispute his answer, but I can no longer accuse him of ducking the question.

Quote:

or don't....its up to you. I'm finding I couldn't care less.....

And that works fine for me too.

[Orsino]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
These are excellent questions, and the first one verges on the metaphysical. Why don't you start a thread about it? This thread takes as its starting point the assumption that the war wasn't the best way to deal with Saddam; its purpose is to examine what alternatives might have been better. If you've read through this thread at all, you see that I'm trying to keep the focus on-topic, and to pare away the sideshows.

Would you answer my questions if they were put to you in another thread?

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orsino
Would you answer my questions if they were put to you in another thread?

Delighted!

[Orsino]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Delighted!

Your new thread is here.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
[b]Fool, I spent a great deal of time trying to get a straight answer out of you, to no avail. Since you obviously found the post in question (I think it was from Furious), why don't you match it up with anything you said that "suggested the same thing" and post it here?

Have you read what demon posted here? A lot of it was sideshow, but he actually did answer the Saddam question. I dispute his answer, but I can no longer accuse him of ducking the question.
And that works fine for me too.

Are you refering to furious' suggestions that covert support could be given to existing internal rivals for saddam...are you claiming I had not suggested this alternative as one I preferred to military invasion? Or did furious just say it nicer?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
I've been trying unsuccessfully to get some of the most prominent critics of the Iraq war to answer a couple of questions:

1) We pretty much all agree that Saddam Hussein was a very bad man and not fit to rule. Many people claim nevertheless, that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq. Presumably, those people agreed that Saddam should somehow be removed from power.

To those people, the question is: If invading Iraq was not how Saddam should have been removed and replaced, then how should it have been done?

Sorry for getting here late. Anyway.

My first observation is that there is a distinction between thinking that it would be better if X took place, and thinking that we should see that X takes place. To pick a trivial example, I think that the world would be improved if someone hit the ruler of North Korea with a cream pie. I don't think it's a good idea that anyone attempt this, though, given the risks and rewards involved in the project.

So there would be absolutely nothing inconsistent or immoral about holding the position that Saddam Hussein was a very evil man but that he should have been left in power because the costs of overthrowing him were not worth it. This precise position is held by practically everyone about North Korea, in fact.

My second observation is that by insisting on placing the focus on Saddam Hussein you are framing the question in a way that serves the interests of US propaganda rather than the interests of truth. Saddam Hussein's moral failings make great war propaganda, but you would have to be fairly naive to think that the war was about spanking a bad man rather than about securing the interests of rich individuals in the US regarding Saddam's oil-rich real estate. It's easy to get agreement with the proposition that it would have been nice to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but it's not to easy to get agreement with the proposition that it would have been nice for the US government to put its boot down on the Iraqi oil reserves.

So I could take a shot an answering your question, but I'd have to do so in the context of a hypothetical world where the USA was willing to put a lot of money and effort into liberating the oppressed peoples of the world through relatively peaceful means because that was the right thing to do. I feel this is a very different scenario from the real world.

Quote:

2) We all pretty much agree that North Korea is a dangerous country in that they are ruled by a brutal, possibly mad tyrant who may well have nuclear weapons. They may in fact be more dangerous than Iraq ever was under Saddam, and some people have pointed out the inconsistency of invading Iraq but not North Korea.

To those people, the question is: Should we have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq (or should we have invaded neither)? Why or why not?

Well, if we assume that the USA is altruistically inclined to overthrow dictators because they are evil and dangerous and doing so is the right thing to do, and we assume that large-scale conventional war is the only way to achieve this, and we assume that the benefits of peace will outweigh the harm caused by the war to the innocent people involved (three assumptions I think you feel are reasonable in the Iraq case) then I would say yes. You should have invaded North Korea, because as you say, NK was and is much more dangerous.

I'm agnostic at best towards those assumptions both in the Iraq case and the NK case, so I'd plump for saying "No, the USA should not have invaded Iraq or North Korea".

Quote:

This is a deflection of the question, not an answer to it. In any case, we know there were much better ways of turning the Soviet Union into a unified and industrial nation than by murdering 40 million of its citizens.

It is indeed, because as I have explained I think your question is a loaded question and I think that there is no way to prove the truth of any answer to your satisfaction. In much the same way, I could ridicule your attempts to criticise Stalin for as long as I wanted with little danger of being proven wrong: "We certainly do not know there were better ways! Do you know anything about the state of the USSR when Stalin took over? What do you think he should have done after WW2, huh? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, despite what bleeding hearts like BPSCG would have us think!" and so on and so on.

If the challenge is to provide a scenario that you will accept, it's a game that can't be won unless you decide to admit defeat off your own bat, essentially. While we all think we are open-minded people who would change their minds with the right evidence, actual instances of anyone around here changing their minds and admitting it are thin on the ground at best.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
[b]Not really. I asked it in response to AUP's pointing out that Iraq had no WMDs, but it now seems NK does, but that Iraq was the country we invaded, not NK. I asked AUP if we should have invaded NK instead, and never got an answer. But my question was not rigged; it was a perfectly logical question, given the point that he was making.
Okay. I take that as a "no," with an explanation of why not. I wish I could have gotten as straighforward an answer from AUP.

I think I have given this answer before, the world has not yet reached a position where it can make such acts in a completely rational and legal way. The UN is the best solution we have come up with, but many people don't appear to like it.

I would like to think we could have a body that is like superman, swooping down on places around the world where there are oppressed and starving people, and free them. The invasion of Iraq shows me that we haven't reached that stage yet in our planetary development.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
So there would be absolutely nothing inconsistent or immoral about holding the position that Saddam Hussein was a very evil man but that he should have been left in power because the costs of overthrowing him were not worth it.

I should treat this as a deflection, because the issue raised by the OP isn't whether Saddam should have been left in power or not, but how he should have been removed, if not by invasion.

But you use a phrase I've seen several times recently about this: "...the costs of overthrowing him were not worth it."

That's an incomplete statement and any time anyone makes it, he should be brought up short with the question, "To whom?"

And actually, this is being discussed on Orsino's thread, so I'll leave it here and pick it up there.

But if you're saying Saddam should not have been deposed, then you've effectively recused yourself from that question.

Quote:

It's easy to get agreement with the proposition that it would have been nice to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but it's not to easy to get agreement with the proposition that it would have been nice for the US government to put its boot down on the Iraqi oil reserves.

The second part of this sentence is irrelevant to the first. My question does not presuppose that the U.S. need have anything to do with deposing Saddam. It simply asks how it should be done.

Your possible positions on this are:

1) I don't think Saddam should have been deposed (in which case, end of discussion, start another thread if you want to talk about that);
2) I do think Saddam should have been deposed (in which case, discussion continues).

If you select 2), your options for the method of deposing him are:

A) Invasion (in which case, end of discussion, since the question assumes that has been ruled out; start another thread if you want to talk about why invasion was the best solution);
B) Something other than invasion (in which case, discussion continues).

If you select B), then your options are... well, that's what I'm trying to find out.

Quote:

Well, if we assume that the USA is altruistically inclined to overthrow dictators

I hope the U.S. isn't altruistically inclined to do anything. I want the U.S. to look after U.S. interests and U.S. interests only.

Quote:

because they are evil and dangerous and doing so is the right thing to do, and we assume that large-scale conventional war is the only way to achieve this, and we assume that the benefits of peace will outweigh the harm caused by the war to the innocent people involved (three assumptions I think you feel are reasonable in the Iraq case) then I would say yes. You should have invaded North Korea, because as you say, NK was and is much more dangerous.

I'm agnostic at best towards those assumptions both in the Iraq case and the NK case, so I'd plump for saying "No, the USA should not have invaded Iraq or North Korea".

Okay. I'm not going to discuss Iraq further along this line, since again, it's a digression from the original question. But NK is fair territory for this question.

You say we should not invade NK, largely because 1) you don't think (I gather) that "large-scale conventional war is the only way to achieve this" and 2) you don't believe (I gather) that "the benefits of peace will outweigh the harm caused by the war to the innocent people involved."

If large-scale was is not the only way to achieve it, what else do you think might work with NK? And if the cost is not worth the benefit in NK, then what do you believe the cost:benefit ratio should be before invasion of NK is justified?

Quote:

I think your question is a loaded question...

Yes, it's a question with very sharp teeth. It's a simple question, but as The Fool observes, it does not have simple answers. But I submit that it is not an unfair question. And I think this is a great place to discuss them, because we have people here with a very wide range of opinions, depth of knowledge, and obvious intelligence. Interesting Ian posted a "simple" question some time back, asking what the odds were of his being born, and we discovered the answers weren't necessarily all that simple. Made for a lively discussion, though (I checked out after a while, so I don't know if it's still going on...)

Quote:

...and I think that there is no way to prove the truth of any answer to your satisfaction.

There is no way to prove the truth of any answer to anyone's satisfaction, because we can't run controlled double-blind experiments on NK. That doesn't mean it's not a fit subject for discussion.

Quote:

Do you know anything about the state of the USSR when Stalin took over? What do you think he should have done after WW2, huh? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, despite what bleeding hearts like BPSCG would have us think!"

(Sideshow, but we know that anything would have been better than what Stalin did, because despite 40 million broken eggs, he never did produce the omelette.)

Quote:

While we all think we are open-minded people who would change their minds with the right evidence, actual instances of anyone around here changing their minds and admitting it are thin on the ground at best.

Yeah, but that's why we have these discussions. I've seen minds changed here. Even had my own changed once or twice.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think I have given this answer before, the world has not yet reached a position where it can make such acts in a completely rational and legal way. The UN is the best solution we have come up with, but many people don't appear to like it.

The U.N. isn't a solution. It's an organization tasked with finding solutions, not the solution itself. Suppose I asked you, "What should you do to about all those pesky rabbits, short of extermination?" Would you answer, "Parliament is the best solution we have come up with"?

So, if invasion is out as the preferred method for deposing Saddam, what's in?

Quote:

I would like to think we could have a body that is like superman, swooping down on places around the world where there are oppressed and starving people, and free them. The invasion of Iraq shows me that we haven't reached that stage yet in our planetary development.

Well, yeah. Now, let's return to Earth.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
I should treat this as a deflection, because the issue raised by the OP isn't whether Saddam should have been left in power or not, but how he should have been removed, if not by invasion.

AUP's Superman solution is about as sensible an answer as you are going to get, I think, until you define in a lot more detail what resources you think should be available for our imaginary effort, who is supplying them and why, and what goals besides the mere removal of Saddam Hussein in particular are being sought.

I can't make any sensible answer at all myself because I don't see any point in overthrowing Hussein qua overthrowing Hussein. Perhaps a better question might be "Given that Hussein was oppressing his people, what other than war should have been done in an attempt to lighten that oppression?".

Quote:

But you use a phrase I've seen several times recently about this: "...the costs of overthrowing him were not worth it."

That's an incomplete statement and any time anyone makes it, he should be brought up short with the question, "To whom?"

And actually, this is being discussed on Orsino's thread, so I'll leave it here and pick it up there.

The only sensible point of view on that issue is to take a fairly ruthless, broad-brush, long-term utilitarian position and try to balance up the happiness, life and fulfillment of people in the future in Iraq against the horrifying death and suffering being inflicted now (plus that inflicted in the past by war and sanctions) in Iraq.

I'd want a lot more evidence before I thought that it was reasonable to conclude that the USA's actions in the last decade and a bit were "worth it" to the people of Iraq.

Quote:

But if you're saying Saddam should not have been deposed, then you've effectively recused yourself from that question.

Forcibly deposed, no. If he could have been carroted and sticked into exile and replaced with a more civilised government that would have been great.

Quote:

You say we should not invade NK, largely because 1) you don't think (I gather) that "large-scale conventional war is the only way to achieve this" and 2) you don't believe (I gather) that "the benefits of peace will outweigh the harm caused by the war to the innocent people involved."

If large-scale was is not the only way to achieve it, what else do you think might work with NK?

Hope the bastard in charge dies and future leaders see the point in ruling in a more enlightened fashion, I guess. That way there is at least some hope of avoiding a bloodbath.

Quote:

And if the cost is not worth the benefit in NK, then what do you believe the cost:benefit ratio should be before invasion of NK is justified?

It depends how you count the threat of Kim snapping and detonating a nuke or doing something similarly horrible, as far as I can see. If I thought that was inevitable then I'd probably have to advocate having the war now just to get it over with. Since I don't, I don't think the cost:benefit ratio can possibly justify an invasion unless and until advancing technology somehow renders obsolete the oft-ignored truism that war is hell.

Quote:

Yes, it's a question with very sharp teeth. It's a simple question, but as The Fool observes, it does not have simple answers. But I submit that it is not an unfair question.

It's no more unfair than my Stalin question. If you can get away with "Just don't kill forty million people" I can get away with "Just don't kill one hundred thousand people".

Quote:

(Sideshow, but we know that anything would have been better than what Stalin did, because despite 40 million broken eggs, he never did produce the omelette.)

You can colour me sympathetic to this particular argument when Iraq and Afghanistan are nice soft omelettes instead of war-ravaged hellholes.