quote:Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Imagine that Japan was doing a host of other things, small in and of themselves in terms of threat, simultaneously.
List them.
And then I'd like to know why we'd attack them, with other larger, looming threats to our country out there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Imagine the US declaring war on Japan because they gave money to the families of independent terrorist kamikaze fighters that attacked the British mainland. It never would have happened. 1. Because we expect Britain could take care of themselves, and 2. Because they never attacked us.
Imagine that Japan was doing a host of other things, small in and of themselves in terms of threat, simultaneously.
List them.
And then I'd like to know why we'd attack them, with other larger, looming threats to our country out there.
First you list the larger bigger threats out there at that time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hussein was in no way an Islamo-fascist (a thing I don't think exists, but I'll accept the term as commonly being understood to refer to a certain subset of Islamic militants), he had a remarkably secular government for many years that only became religious as it was politically expedient to maintain power. For much of his reign Iraqi society was more secular than it is today in much of Iraq.
Hussein certainly hated us, but he'd never done much about it, shown signs of doing anything about it, or anything of the sort. He knew we could take him any time we wanted to, and we continued to dominate significant portions of his country (keeping him from flying in the Kurdish sectors). Furthermore, he was aware of the basic fact that WMDs are traceable; there is no such thing as a covert attack with a WMD. Someone attacks us, we will know where they obtained their weapon(s), and we will retaliate.
We were not understandably concerned for delaying in the short term. Saddam was nowhere near a nuke even if we were right about his capabilities, and he'd had chemical and biological weapons capabilities for decades (if they hadn't been destroyed, and its not like its hard to make more if you know how, have done it before, and have control of a country) and hadn't used them against us yet. He was about as much a near-term threat to us as to the EU not because he didn't hate us more but because he wasn't a near-term threat to either of us at all.
If you want an example of a major potential threat by 'Islamo-fascists', take a look at Pakistan. Nuclear state, history of assisting terrorists extensively, history of illegally disseminating nuclear technology to NK and others, history of stealing nuclear secrets, increasing power by Islamic factions with extreme antipathy towards the US. Oh, and one of our staunchest allies in the region (not because we like them, because we think we need them, and to a certain extent that's true). However, if we're picking candidates for a source of WMDs used in a future terrorist attack, they're probably higher on the list than North Korea, much less a dinky minor-league player like Iraq.
Iraq might not even have made top five on the list of countries most likely to supply (either with the consent of the state or without) WMDs to a terrorist organization. Lets see, say, before 9/11 . . . Pakistan, North Korea, Syria (huge chemical weapons program), Libya (this is pre-capitulation), Iran, Sudan (they threatened Uganda with chemical weapons in '97), Egypt (unlikely by the state, but they have so freakin' many and such a huge terrorist presence some could likely slip out) . . . Yeah, Iraq might be in there before Sudan and Egypt, but unlikely before the other five.
I focus on that because I don't think aiding and abetting terrorism in a smaller way than many states we count as allies is a sufficient standard for us given the reality that there are other states, regardless of whether or not it meets commonly accepted international standards.
Also, Hussein had no network with which to deliver WMDs (even assuming he could generate chemical or biological weapons we couldn't trace; nuclear weapons are incredibly traceable). The best he could have done would be to deliver them to a terrorist group and allow the grou[ to use them, which is extraordinarily unlikely because Hussein had at-best limited relations with Islamic terrorist groups, who generally disliked him for either being heavily partisan against Shiites (for tribal, not religious reasons) and having had extremely secular government.
Any notion that Hussein was remotely likely to use WMDs against the US in the near-term requires a belief that he has had a sudden change of heart about attacking the US (despite generally becoming more acquiescent, such as over the inspections, as threat of war loomed closer) and that he would have cooperated to a far greater extent than ever before with terrorist groups. That change of heart would require several also-implausible steps, like suddenly not thinking we could steamroller his armed forces despite ample evidence to the contrary, or thinking we would lose the ability to trace his biological and chemical weapons.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should re-emphasize that I think an invasion of Iraq was wholly justified, though not for the reasons given by this administration either before or after. However, I think (and have thought since reports of the immediate after-action events) that our post-war planning was abysmal in the extreme, that we have failed Iraq so far in terms of honoring the commitment we made to its people by invading the country, and that we must dramatically increase troop levels and funding in order to fulfill those commitments and make Iraq a stable member of the region.
I'm merely talking about the near-term threat. We could have waited a year or two longer to solidify our case for the war, support for the war (international support being vital for rebuilding Iraqi society), and after-action planning to let us hit the ground running in rebuilding Iraq.
But if you want some larger threats, both Iran and Syria were larger threats to US security than Iraq was .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gotta say, I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with fugu on this one.
Even before official debunkment of the WMD claims I was honestly laughing at the assertations that Iraq was threat to the US.
Certainly Sadaam was bad, and things would be better were he (and his cohorts) no longer in power, but there was no immediate cause to attack Iraq just then, and there are still many more targets that are more valid to concentrate on (both for personal protection, and for general threat to their neighbors)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Read fugu's post. He says it a lot better than I was planning on. Serious threats to the US abound, and I don't think Iraq seriously played into the top five on that list back in 2003.
Iran, Syria, Libya (at the time), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea. And like fugu I'd tenatively add Egypt and Sudan as well, but possibly on a more even level with Iraq.
That greater threats to the US exist than Iraq was isn't a big surprise is it? Great threats loom even today, but we've tied our own hands with our wretched handling of the Iraq situation. I think I also agree with fugu, and thank him for putting it that way, because it's never clicked in my head before, but I agree that invading Iraq was probably justified, just not the way it was done. If we had gone into Iraq with the kind of force and planning that the first Gulf War entailed, I would've supported it, and continued to support it.
It was poorly handled in the planning stages and the post war execution. And that has nothing to do with intelligence failures, by which I mean to say, it has nothing to do with 20/20 hindsight on WHY we went to war. A successful operation in Iraq could have given us the leverage needed to force Iran's hand, or to fix the problem with Palestine and Israel. But we have no credibility now. Even our closest ally, Blair in the UK, is being ousted. With him gone, who really stands with us? And who is to blame for that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly did the US do that botched everything up? Alot of people point out that we didnt send enough men.
Perhaps thats a valid concern, but what would we have done with the extra man power? They basically patrol around Iraq keeping the peace until a group of guys get brave enough to ambush them, then they eliminate those insurgents. Greater numbers means more money spent, it also means shoddier operations, because there is more to keep track of. We rely on our technology to reduce loses and keep actual men on the ground at a minimum.
But whether we botched our efforts in Iraq is not really what I want to address.
Did Saddam have nuclear capabilities or was he even close. I honestly think the following link to a transcript from 60 minutes2 will prove VERY illuminating. Unless you are convinced the man being interviewed is a liar. But regardless the interview was conducted in 1999. 2 years before the events of 9/11.
Now just realize that this man was already involved in CIA think tanks before we went to Iraq. When 9/11 happened do you think the gov't said "Well thats all the terrorists have got, they've got nothing else to throw at us."
We grossly underestimated Saddams capabilities before operation Dessert Storm. What would Americans have said if Saddam after 9/11 have shown nuclear capabilities. There would have been a panic. Maybe not mass hysteria, but certainly a real scare. We would have screamed at the government for being so irresponsible, and it would have been a nightmare trying to stop Saddam from using the technology.
Certainly you can see why the Bush administration acted so quickly, they have their inteligences officers all over the middle east as well as European inteligence telling them they were right to act quickly. Saddam was refusing entry of all weapon inspectors.
We failed to gauge the danger Al Qaeda posed in 2001, and they were a militant group that was mad that we had military instalations in Saudi Arabia. How much worse could a dictator who was bitter from being defeated, who we underestimated before hurt us?
Now having said that, I agree that perhaps it may be TRUE that Syria, Iran, Libya, etc were bigger threats then Iraq turned out to be, but how could you know that in 2001? Saddam was certainly looking just as dangerous as he did in the 90's. But then again what do I know, I have no idea what the US inteligence people were actually saying to the president.
Suffice to say that the inaction of the Clinton administration seemed like a much worse option then the apparent over zealousness of the Bush administration.
I think you could possibly argue that we were wrong to go to Iraq. But I think there is a VERY good arguement that based on what we know, we were not wrong to think we needed to go.
We can find no evidence of WMD, so either Saddam never had any for more than a decade (which is really a shocker to everybody based on past behavior) or he has simply shipped them out or buried them. But what do I know, I dont have the inteligence.
I just don't like people understating Saddam's nuclear capability both past an present.
Israel seemed pretty concerned about it back in the 70's with osirak, we narrowly avoided catastrophy in the 90's and now in the 2000's suddenly Saddam grins, holds up his hands and says "I've got nothing!"
What are the odds of that?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty knackered right now so I can't go much into this except to respond to one statement which permits a brief response.
Mr. Squicky, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein would have had to been given targeting control over any hypothetical (ummm, past hypothetical?) weapons he would've given to terrorists. He would presumably have given them to a group whose aims he was aware of and approved of.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to argue the particulars with you. Suffice to say I don't think the pre-war intelligence backs up what you're saying. I'm not talking about hindsight, I'm talking about what we knew then, and what we know now. There was sketchy evidence that he had bio/chemical weapons. There was almost NO evidence that he had anything close to nuclear weapons.
Waiting to go in would have gathered the type of coalition that we had in the first war. We had TWICE as many many in Gulf War I, and that was just to kick them out of Kuwait. I don't see why they think half the amount of men is sufficient for an invasion and occupation. Extra manpower guards the borders so foreign operatives don't get in. Extra manpower secures waste facilities and weapons facilities that we left unguarded (not to mention their natural history museum that we left to looters, great way to win their hearts and minds). Extra manpower means more people out patrolling, blanketing them with power so there isn't as much of a chance to filter in weapons, so we have more people always on the lookout for weapons caches.
And I don't buy that it would much things up. The US has the best professional army on the planet, we've spent billions of dollars and 60 years working on modern warfare. I find it inconcievable that more men would lead to shoddier operations, especially when the generals are calling for more men. They really do know what they are doing.
I don't think you'll ever change your mind though Blackblade, so there's no point in continuing a fruitless debate with you.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently very, very good, Blackblade.
I'm not going to argue the particulars with you. Suffice to say I don't think the pre-war intelligence backs up what you're saying. I'm not talking about hindsight, I'm talking about what we knew then, and what we know now. There was sketchy evidence that he had bio/chemical weapons. There was almost NO evidence that he had anything close to nuclear weapons.
Waiting to go in would have gathered the type of coalition that we had in the first war. We had TWICE as many many in Gulf War I, and that was just to kick them out of Kuwait. I don't see why they think half the amount of men is sufficient for an invasion and occupation. Extra manpower guards the borders so foreign operatives don't get in. Extra manpower secures waste facilities and weapons facilities that we left unguarded (not to mention their natural history museum that we left to looters, great way to win their hearts and minds). Extra manpower means more people out patrolling, blanketing them with power so there isn't as much of a chance to filter in weapons, so we have more people always on the lookout for weapons caches.
And I don't buy that it would much things up. The US has the best professional army on the planet, we've spent billions of dollars and 60 years working on modern warfare. I find it inconcievable that more men would lead to shoddier operations, especially when the generals are calling for more men. They really do know what they are doing.
I don't think you'll ever change your mind though Blackblade, so there's no point in continuing a fruitless debate with you.
Your pretty quick to deam the arguement fruitless. I am not so prideful that I cannot change my mind. What I am saying is simple.
I agree there was probably little to no evidence of nuclear bombs in Iraq. I think the administration thought "Well we had little to no evidence last time we were here, we cannot make that mistake again."
I think I do buy your arguement that sending more troops would have been overall more advantageous, but I do not know TOO much about the deployment of troops and all the nuances thereof. But hey you can have that point, and I am not just saying that to prove to you that I CAN change my mind, I do it enough to be progressive, but not enough to be considered spineless. At least I think so
As for waiting for allies, its another arguement for another time. Sufficeth me to say, I do not think we would have gotten ANYONE else to help us out then those who already did help out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might have, might not have. We have allied troops helping us in Afghanistan. Was it the Germans or the Canadians that took over military command of that country?
But we really didn't give it a chance. And, Saddam DID let a troop of weapons inspectors in with unfettered access. We could have done a better job of supporting the inspectors, they might have eventually told us something. It could have been that it was the inspectors that helped convince allies to help us. It might have been that Middle Eastern allies decided to help us, like in the Gulf War, or the French, or the Germans, or the Italians, or anyone.
We'll never know.
(Sorry I dismissed the discussion earlier).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really difficult, and possibly fruitless, to compare wars. Differences in scale, differences in munitions, in tactics, in personel, in objective. One can say that far fewer people have been killed on an annual basis in Iraq than in many other wars. But that doesn't bear into account the number of injuries that would have been mortal on earlier battlefields, or the number of civilians killed, among other factors.
I confess I find myself getting a little queasy when people start insisting that the (mounting) sacrifices being made are worthwhile from across an ocean.
quote:Either the cause is worthy of our time and sacrifice, or it's not. Either the cause is worthy of the lives of our sons, or it's not.
My difficulty with this statement is that I don't think the "cause" has remained entirely consistent throughout this engagement. That's more than a political point; it makes it impossible to determine when goals might be defined as achieved or failed or unachievable. If we wanted to prevent the use of WMDs, we've determined, as best we can, that none are presently in the country (barring the possibility that new ones might come in.) If we wanted to neutralize Saddam Hussein, well, his trial isn't done, but I'd wager on Seabiscuit winning the Kentucky Derby before I'd wager on Saddam returning to a position of power or threat. If our presence there is to spread democracy in the Middle East, there's an increasing suggestion that the results of democracy in the Middle East are not necessarily going to be to our liking. If we're just there to prevent a civil war from breaking out... Well, I'd like more than repeated assurances that, no, what you're seeing on your television is not civil war. I'd like Iraqi security forces to start adhering to their own predictions of readiness. I'd like to know under what conditions we would consider Iraq to be in a state of civil war, and to know what we're prepared to do in the event of such an occurrence (at the very least, accelerate or withdraw?)
quote:We don't need an "anti war" President. But, we do need a competent one.
I wish I believed that, at this point, competence would be enough.
I don't even know if a genius- military, diplomatic, or both- would be enough.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
In addition to lending support to the murderers of our allies, how about constant treaty violations and hedging, such as the shenanigans with the Oil for Food program, an unwillingness to cooperate with the terms that ended the last aggressive war 'Japan' started, and plotting to assassinate a former American president.
I realize that the first and last things on that list amount to tiddliwinks in some people's minds, but not in mine.
As for why we didn't attack other, larger looming threats out there...again, are you serious? You can't think of any reasons on your own? Alright.
North Korea: PRC. Iran, horrible terrain, lack of previous undefeated military, even less international support, more difficult to supply and support. Syria, possibly. Not much of a 'larger, looming threat' though.
----------
fugu,
You're entirely correct that Saddam was not an Islamo-fascist. If I suggested that he was, that was a mistake. He was just a fascist that happened to be Islamic.
Hussein did try to assassinate at least one of his American rivals. That certainly seems to be something to me, doesn't it to you? He was willing to defy us and piss us off when we were right on his freakin' doorstep. You seem to be relying quite a bit on the rationality of a man who thought he could get away with a military takeover of Kuwait, and then who was convinced he could defeat the best military of the First World to keep it.
I don't have much else to disagree with in your posts, really. I too think the war was justified, but not for the reasons given. All I am trying to suggest is that the reasons given weren't all garbage.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
In addition to lending support to the murderers of our allies, how about constant treaty violations and hedging, such as the shenanigans with the Oil for Food program, an unwillingness to cooperate with the terms that ended the last aggressive war 'Japan' started, and plotting to assassinate a former American president.
I realize that the first and last things on that list amount to tiddliwinks in some people's minds, but not in mine.
As for why we didn't attack other, larger looming threats out there...again, are you serious? You can't think of any reasons on your own? Alright.
North Korea: PRC. Iran, horrible terrain, lack of previous undefeated military, even less international support, more difficult to supply and support. Syria, possibly. Not much of a 'larger, looming threat' though.
So YOUR bright idea then, is to bog us down in a war that weakens, not strengthens our overall world position, all for the sake of revenge, and helping out an ally that quite frankly doesn't need our help, and provides little or no TANGIBLE help to that ally. Good stuff.
He's violating international law you get the world together to act, and be realistic about it, not some sham of a couple weeks before you go in after a half assed PR stunt.
And I'm sorry but PLOTTING to attempt to kill ANYONE isn't cause to launch our nation headlong into a war. If they'd actually tried, or actually succeeded, then you've got something. Otherwise I don't think Bush's honor is worth the death of thousands of American soldiers. But even if it was, so what? Get Saddam, kidnap him, capture him, do a targeted strike to kill him.
You talk as if we had no choice but to go to war. This war was very much a choice, a BAD choice. There was no pressing need, there was nothing that forced our hands other than the President's incompetence. Obviously we aren't going to attack the PRC or NK, they actually would fight back. I disagree that Iran would be a real problem. Certainly they'd be a bigger problem than Iraq, but their military would be decimated in a week between targeted airstrikes and our tank divisions.
I think your reasons to go to war at the speed with which we did are severely lacking, beyond all reason. You don't jump to war under false pretenses, a couple checks to widows and orphans, plots to attempt to kills former Presidents, or the abuse of the oil for food program.
Even if war was inevitable, which it wasn't, going in without even a basic understanding of the religious and political situation is irresponsible and grossly negligent. Going in with minimal allied support is the same, going in without enough men is as well.
We could have used post 9/11 sympathy and credibility to actually accomplish positive change in the world. From gathering world support to stop Iran, to creating a workable solution to the Palestine/Israel problem. But we wasted it on Iraq, and now no one cares to help us. Civil War is breaking out, in the most dangerous, lawless nation in the Middle East, and our troops are stuck in the middle of it. If we leave we're screwed, if we stay, we're screwed.
I think you're fooling yourself if you think this war was a good idea. And I should add, that even if we were justified in going to war, that still doesn't mean it's a good idea. When there's an ant infestation in your front yard, you might have reason to attack it, but it doesn't mean it's always the best idea, especially when there's a wasp's nest right next door.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's violating international law you get the world together to act,
I think we're nowhere near the point where we can expect the "world" to act like one in any given situation. Europe is still as devided as ever, and it's pretty hard to make Russia, China and the US agree on anything. Sometimes being the greatest superpower does have its benefits.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said we had to wait for the UN to act as a body. God knows we'd be waiting forever. Even NATO forces would have sufficed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, I give up. This conversation is getting quite lengthy anyway and it's one I've had many times before here in particular. But I will say it's a bit tiresome to have you criticize each individual point and say, "That wasn't enough of a reason to go to war!" when although I said I personally believe it was, I do not think we should have gone to war over that alone.
posted
I hope that the results of this war will teach us that we need to significantly raise our standard for what is "cumulatively" necessary to justify future wars.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just that I think this war wasn't justified, it's that I think this war has put us in such a state of extreme vulnerability, as to make he who started the whole thing grossly negligent in his duties to protect this nation.
Anyone who thinks we're in a better, or safer world position today than when we started the war is fooling themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
