Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by msm

Here is a quick list of 20th century guerilla insurgencies

I notice you conveniently omitted most of the groups I mentioned. I suppose it hinges on the definition of victory. I have no doubt that the US will find a definition of victory in Iraq that the mass media are willing to accept. Just look at Afghanistan for an example: the US "defeated" the Taliban, despite the fact that currently the nominal Afghan government controls little more than Kabul. Afghanistan is now responsible for 80% of the world's opium poppy production. Oh well, who cares -- "we won!"

Yes, we did win. No, the work is not yet finished, and it won't be for many years yet.

BTW, almost all the examples you cited of successful insurgencies hinged on direct or indirect outside help, in large quantities.

All the recent posts here make me wonder if, by taking out Saddam Hussein, we were or will be able to avoid the pitfalls of World War II, when Hitler was dismissed by many as being just a "minor nuisance" not realizing his potential to create mass atrocities and conquest. Did we take out one who could have become the next Hitler if we failed to act?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by msm

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?

So cite me some of that guerilla history. But you better not include Vietnam or Korea.

What you don't seem to understand is that guerllia insurgents don't have to win outright; they simply win by not losing. But we, on the other hand, must win outright, because we lose by not winning.

One of the first rules of battle (please check me out on this, all you military experts) is not to let the enemy decide how you're going to fight. Didn't we win the Revolutionary War on that basis? Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.

It all boils down to whether we're willing to defeat them.

HC: Just how do you propose to do that? Nukemgood?

Consider the longevity of the Irish Republican Army. Consider how long the Vietcong fought against first the French and then the Americans.

The options:

1. Squander blood and treasure for many years while the Iraqis outwait us.

2. Commit genocide.

3. Cut our losses.

Brian, surrender will only make the later violence worse.

When you've invaded someone else's country, instead of vice-versa, the term is "withdrawal," not "surrender."

What later violence? You mean next time we decide to invade another country without provocation?

Even with greater efficiency, energy demand for the near future (next 50 years) is essentially certain to keep increasing.

Unless you're expecting use per person X number of persons to multiply by a factor of 4 in the next 50 years, the math doesn't add up to support that. Factor 4 efficiency improvement is doable without even straining.

Factor 10 improvement is doable, although it would require considerable straining.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

All the recent posts here make me wonder if, by taking out Saddam Hussein, we were or will be able to avoid the pitfalls of World War II, when Hitler was dismissed by many as being just a "minor nuisance" not realizing his potential to create mass atrocities and conquest. Did we take out one who could have become the next Hitler if we failed to act?

Sometimes it seems like the whole Middle East (including Israel) is led by geriatric men who should be in assisted living facilities.
That in a way is part of the answer to your question, which is pertinent because the Hitler reference (along with the Marshall Plan, Japan reconstruction references, which were born out of the September 11/Pearl Harbor correlations and the WWII mania that has been going on for the past six years or so) was a big part of the subliminal rhetoric of the administration vis a vis its drones in the press.

Adolf Hitler was born in 1889. He was 29 when the treaty of Versailles was signed in 1918. He was 44 when he ascended to the leadership of Germany in 1933. He signed that famous piece of paper only five years later in 1938 at the age of 49, and invaded Poland a year later at the ripe old age of 50. His "life's work" was cut short at the age of 56 in 1945.
What does that tell us? Despite his early years of sketching, Herr Hitler was a motivated fellow.

Take our Saddam Hussein. He rose up through the ranks much like Hitler, and consolidated his power in Iraq at the age of 32 in 1969.
Flashforward eleven years when he makes the decision to invade neighboring Iran. The two fight a bloody war for eight long years with no climax. And in the United States nothing happens. The only Americans killed (to my knowledge) were accidentally hit by one of Iraq's missiles aboard their ship in the Persian Gulf. The Reagan Administration apologizes, but takes no action against Saddam, who is a staunch ally.
Two years later, our budding mustachioed Hitler, now age 53, invades Kuwait. The following year he is beaten into withdrawal by the coalition led by W.'s father H.W.
For the next 13 years his tin pot on the Euphrates festers under the pressure of US sanctions and inner discord which is brutally put down.
In August 2002, when the "chatter" about a US invasion of Iraq starts to be realized, Saddam is a 65 year old grandfather.
Today, the ancient geezer is 67 years old and in US custody.
He has shown himself not to be motivated, nor Hitler-eque. In fact, it appears he was quite lazy. His country was taken over in two weeks. As Chris Rock said recently, "You couldn't take over Baltimore in two weeks."

So Brian, there may be many Hitlers out there today, but I can't say for certain whether or not Saddam is one of them.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

The options:

1. Squander blood and treasure for many years while the Iraqis outwait us.

One of the true oddities of the modern America is this peculiar notion that any insurgency will just 'outwait' is, as if that were natural and inevitable.

Vietnam was freakish, in several senses. Normally, an established government can outwait any insurgency that isn't heavily supported from outside.

All Iraq is not rising against us, though they don't particularly like us, either, and the USSR is gone. There is little reason to believe that the insurgents can sustain their effort indefinitely, whereas we can, if we're willing to do so. Contrary to the opinion the media wants to spread, their numbers are not unlimited, nor are their resources.

The fighting and trouble is aimed, not at driving out the American forces, but at influencing the November elections.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Brian, surrender will only make the later violence worse.

When you've invaded someone else's country, instead of vice-versa, the term is "withdrawal," not "surrender."

What later violence? You mean next time we decide to invade another country without provocation?

When another country is a known threat, and part of a larget terror network, it's not unprovoked.

Quite frankly, the odds are very, very high that during the 4T, the Middle East is going to be a nightmare. I won't be a bit surprised to see nuclear warfare there, for various reasons. If we can establish a semi-friendly, or even less hostile, government in Iraq, be it of a secular or a Islamic republican variety, the example would go a long way toward demonstrating that alternatives to bloody disaster are possible.

I'm not entirely convinced we can pull that off, especially if we define success as a full-bore, pure-secular state with Western attitudes. But I do think there's a chance (not a great chance, but some) of creating something halfway there.

But even if we can't, at the very least we need to establish that crossing the United States is dangerous. The aftermath of Vietnam, Somalia, Beirut, and several other instances such as the attack on the USS Cole all tended to produce an impression that it was fairly safe to work against America. In each case, America either didn't respond, or responded with a feeble effort that was worse than nothing. Firing missiles into the desert in Afghanistan did not produce any fear.

al Queda's stated goal is to demonstrate that America is basically, innately weak. Above all else, we can't afford to let that perception go unchallenged. To do so would be to essentially guarantee later attacks, since weakness invites attack.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Even with greater efficiency, energy demand for the near future (next 50 years) is essentially certain to keep increasing.

Unless you're expecting use per person X number of persons to multiply by a factor of 4 in the next 50 years, the math doesn't add up to support that. Factor 4 efficiency improvement is doable without even straining.

I frankly doubt that factor 4 improvement in efficiency is going to happen, for various reasons, especially in the non-Western world. As for energy use, I won't be all that surprised if it rises x4 or more per person average over the next 50 years.

But energy demand is likely to rise in direct accordance with standard of living, and at sub-ideal efficiency, because the 'developing' nations won't operate at high efficiency as they get there. So if the developing world stays poor, the demand will be lower (But there are obvious problems with that!).

Further, the West is showing signs of a renewed energy hunger. The Internet and information tech, for ex, even as it promises greater efficiency, is also increasing energy demand with big server farms, etc. While an individual computer is not a big power consumer, in mass they and their supporting equipment add up.

Recycling efforts, which help the environment, are likely to be energy-intensive, and so are some other things that are desirable. Even with greater energy efficiency, I frankly don't believe we're reaching our consumption peak in terms of enregy yet.

(Without improvements in energy efficiency, matters would be far worse.)

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

All the recent posts here make me wonder if, by taking out Saddam Hussein, we were or will be able to avoid the pitfalls of World War II, when Hitler was dismissed by many as being just a "minor nuisance" not realizing his potential to create mass atrocities and conquest. Did we take out one who could have become the next Hitler if we failed to act?

The next Hiter? I doubt it, he lacked the resource base. A major problem down the road? Potentially yes.

But that comparison does illuminate a basic problem with a popular approach to foreign policy in recent decades. Iraq was a special case.

It was widely thought after World War II that had the democracies acted sooner to deal with Hitler, horrors could have been avoided. Thus the mantra of 'never another Munich'.

That's true, in a simple factual sense, but it leaves out the other side. If Hitler had been removed earlier, we'd still be debating, to this day, whether it was justified or not, whether Germany had provoked it or been a victim, etc. All the same arguments being seen now over Iraq would have been used with regard to the removal of Hitler in some alternative line of events, the moreso because the West was in just in a very similar 'mood' at the time to the one it's in now.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

When another country is a known threat, and part of a larget terror network, it's not unprovoked.

In the first place, while you've stated and stated, ad nauseam, this business about the "larger terror network," you've also been asked to substantiate this statement almost as many times, and have not yet begun to do so. I think it's fair to assume at this point that you can't, although of course if you manage it the assumption will have to be retracted.

In the second place -- yes, it is unprovoked. Provocation for war consists of one and only one thing: an attack. Not being a "known threat," and not being part of a "larger terror network."

Quite frankly, the odds are very, very high that during the 4T, the Middle East is going to be a nightmare. I won't be a bit surprised to see nuclear warfare there, for various reasons.

Very possible. One-sided nuclear war, though, unless you count Pakistan as part of the Middle East, which most people don't. There are no other Muslim countries with nuclear weapons, but Israel has them.

If we can establish a semi-friendly, or even less hostile, government in Iraq, be it of a secular or a Islamic republican variety

A huge if. I don't think the Iraqis are going to allow it.

the example would go a long way toward demonstrating that alternatives to bloody disaster are possible.

And if we could call upon the aid of friendly UFOs, that would be even better, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not entirely convinced we can pull that off

In that case, I won't give up on your sanity just yet. :wink:

But even if we can't, at the very least we need to establish that crossing the United States is dangerous.

What we're establishing is that being an object of personal loathing on the part of the president and vice-president is dangerous, which is really not quite the same thing. Those who've actually crossed us remain at large upon last notice.

al Queda's stated goal is to demonstrate that America is basically, innately weak. Above all else, we can't afford to let that perception go unchallenged.

What does that have to do with Iraq? I know, I know -- "larger terror network."

You know, those words remind me of "international Communism," and for a very good reason. It was common in some quarters during the Cold War to lump all Marxist-Leninist governments and movements together as if they were a single entity, and call it "international Communism." Thus, in Vietnam we weren't fighting Vietnamese insurgents and the North Vietnamese Army, we were fighting "international Communism." Never mind that there was no such thing.

The fact that al-Qaeda and Hamas are both terrorist organizations does not mutate Saddam's support for Hamas into support for al-Qaeda, any more than it mutates it into support for the IRA. If anything, al-Qaeda has shown that the U.S. is not so much "weak" as blind: whack us a good one, and we'll smite somebody else, chosen more or less at random, to the ground with a mighty blow.

And yes, I agree completely that this -- our foolish, misdirected response to al-Qaeda -- invites further attacks.

I frankly doubt that factor 4 improvement in efficiency is going to happen, for various reasons

State them, please.

Originally Posted by msm

You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge. I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years.

There ought to be some inverse of Godwin's Law invoked whenever somebody tries to link Noam Chomsky with mainstream liberalism.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... When another country is a known threat, and part of a larget terror network, it's not unprovoked.

... Provocation for war consists of one and only one thing: an attack. Not being a "known threat," and not being part of a "larger terror network."

I disagree ... well, sort of. A country can legitamately be attacked if its leaders have placed the country on a war footing and are directly and immenently threatening anyother country.

A minor point, perhaps, but one that seems to make the Red Zone / Blue Zone dialog so convoluted. Red Zoners insist that preemptive attack is defensive and Blues that it's offensive. Both are right at least part of the time.

As a general proposition, though, the justification rarely applies. If weapons were less deadly today than they are, it would never apply. For those wanting to use it, the justification demands serious evidence it applies or it doesn't, at least in my book.

As a benchmark case that DOES seem approriate, look at the Israelis in 1967. They qwere dramatically outnumbered and opposedon two fronts. If they had waited to be attacked, they might very well have lost everything, which is not an acceptable risk.

HC - can you argue that Iraq is similar?

A country can legitamately be attacked if its leaders have placed the country on a war footing and are directly and immenently threatening anyother country.

OK, I'll acknowledge that. E.g., attacks against Nazi Germany in 1942 were justified because Hitler had declared war against us, even though Germany hadn't actually attacked.

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

As a benchmark case that DOES seem approriate, look at the Israelis in 1967. They qwere dramatically outnumbered and opposedon two fronts. If they had waited to be attacked, they might very well have lost everything, which is not an acceptable risk.

HC - can you argue that Iraq is similar?

I don't have to show that it was similar, Iraq had to show that it wasn't.

They were already in violation of their surrender agreements on several levels, and the went out of their way to not permit any determination of the truth. Make note of that fact, which seems to get lost in the shuffle: they were already in violation of things they had promised to do, so why should we or anyone assume anything they said was trustworthy?

They made several 'complete and final declarations' of their weapon status, every one of which was rapidly shown to be full of holes, including the last one before the invasion. This is not a matter of opinion, the declarations were made, and the contradictions and falsehoods were found in short order.

They made a show of 'permitting' inspections, but set conditions that made such inspections absolutely valueless. In previous inspections, before 1998, entire buildings, whole sections of cities, were off-limits to inspectors, and even then the inspectors were hamstrung by Iraqi interference, from which Hussein suffered no consequences. When the anti-Bush people at the UN and in Europe say now that the they 'knew' Iraq was harmless, they are quite frankly lying. They had no way to make such an assertion with any degree of confidence, and Blix slipped up and admitted it.

The intelligence services of every major power thought he had WMDs. The UN thought he had WMDs, as Hans Blix recently admitted. France and Germany both thought he had WMDs, and are now looking strongly as if they were actively cooperating with him in evading the 'sanctions box' about which they waxed to eloquent. Even as they asserted that the UN sanctions regime held him contained, they skipped over the cold fact that they spent the 90s trying to get the sanctions lifted, and helping Hussein dodge the sanctions, in violation of the same 'international law' they now claim to hold inviolable.

Given all that (and none of it is in realistic question), even if it does finally turn out that Iraq wasn't a threat, it's quite moral and acceptable to place the fault of the invasion on Hussein, since he went well out of his way to make himself look as if he was a threat. But frankly, I still suspect it'll turn out that the weapons exist, or existed until very, very recently. We did not select a random sovereign state and invade it on a whim.

BTW, this entire argument illustrates the fundamental fallacy of the claims on the part of the Democrats that Bush should have acted before 911 againt Afghanistan and al Queda's bases there, or for that matter GOP claims that Clinton should have done the same thing. If either had, right now we'd be hearing the same anguished screams of righteous anger that America had invaded a country that had done no wrong and wasn't a threat.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by msm

You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge. I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years.

There ought to be some inverse of Godwin's Law invoked whenever somebody tries to link Noam Chomsky with mainstream liberalism.

You'd have a point, except that I've seen a remarkable number of liberals make the link themselves, including some regular posters on T4T. His thinking is remarkably influential, much more so than one would expect given his radical views.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

When another country is a known threat, and part of a larget terror network, it's not unprovoked.

In the first place, while you've stated and stated, ad nauseam, this business about the "larger terror network," you've also been asked to substantiate this statement almost as many times, and have not yet begun to do so. I think it's fair to assume at this point that you can't, although of course if you manage it the assumption will have to be retracted.

Brian, it's existence is a given. When different groups of people have a common enemy, they usually end up working together even if they hate each other. We've already tracked the connections from Iraq to Hizbullah and Hamas, we have good reason to suspect that the same 'charity' organizations that were channeling money to al Queda were also involved in helping Hussein evade the sanctions. I'd also like to know where some of the money channeled through the UN's sanctions scam was going.

It's so probable that they were all working together that evidence is needed if you want to claim the contrary.

Now, by working together, I mean in the looser sense. I have no idea whether or not Hussein knew anything about 911 itself, or not, and for all their claims otherwise, neither do his defenders. But the threat is not restricted to al Queda.

Hussein was given ample opportunity to show that he wasn't involved in that network, and Bush made it clear up front that we were not restricting out efforts just to al Queda. You may not approve of that, but you can't claim he didn't say up front what was happening.

Quite frankly, the odds are very, very high that during the 4T, the Middle East is going to be a nightmare. I won't be a bit surprised to see nuclear warfare there, for various reasons.

Very possible. One-sided nuclear war, though, unless you count Pakistan as part of the Middle East, which most people don't. There are no other Muslim countries with nuclear weapons, but Israel has them.

We aren't in the 4T yet, either. I'm talking about several years down the road. Things change. In 1927, Germany was not a major military power, either. In 1850, the Southern militia system that later formed the nucleus of the Gray armies was a joke. In 1765, the idea of war between England and her colonies would have been considered lunacy and impossibility.

But even if we can't, at the very least we need to establish that crossing the United States is dangerous.

What we're establishing is that being an object of personal loathing on the part of the president and vice-president is dangerous, which is really not quite the same thing. Those who've actually crossed us remain at large upon last notice.

Hussein was crossing the US by defying the terms of the surrender agreement and getting away with it, and by (if he was) deliberately producing the appearance that he possessed weapons he was not allowed to have, and getting away with that. Do you really think that the leaders of al Queda and the other terrorist groups and hostile governments did not perceive that Hussein was more-or-less slipping out of the theoretical holds he was under, and that the UN was winking and helping?

That in and of itself made Ameica more vulnerable on many fronts. Never underestimate the importance of irrational thinking in human dealings, 'face' matters. It shouldn't, it's a terrible mark against the human race that it does, but it does.

al Queda's stated goal is to demonstrate that America is basically, innately weak. Above all else, we can't afford to let that perception go unchallenged.

What does that have to do with Iraq? I know, I know -- "larger terror network."

You know, those words remind me of "international Communism," and for a very good reason. It was common in some quarters during the Cold War to lump all Marxist-Leninist governments and movements together as if they were a single entity, and call it "international Communism." Thus, in Vietnam we weren't fighting Vietnamese insurgents and the North Vietnamese Army, we were fighting "international Communism." Never mind that there was no such thing.

Actually, there was. It wasn't the total, centrally directed monolith that was initially envisioned (though Stalin most certainly intended it to be jsut that, that was one reason he was always of two minds about the outcome of the Spanish Civil War), but in Vietman, we most certainly were fighting the USSR and to a much lesser degree China. It was never just, or even centrally, the North Vietnamese forces that made their success possible. They couldn't have done it without Soviet aid, and it was very substantial aid, including weapons, money, and personnel.

The USSR most certainly did try to encourage the spread of Communism, ideally under the direct control of Moscow (though they couldn't always manage that). One of the great ironies of history is that even as anti-colonial factions in the West cheered the withdrawal of European governments from the Third World, the USSR was sending in what amounted to colonial officials of their own.

And yes, I agree completely that this -- our foolish, misdirected response to al-Qaeda -- invites further attacks.

Acting against Iraq reduced the risk of attack, because it made it look dangerous to oppose us. But this is the basic divide in foreign policy in America, and has been for decades.

The very actions that each side of the divide consider necessary to increase security are precisely what the other worldview sees as inviting disaster.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

As a benchmark case that DOES seem approriate, look at the Israelis in 1967. They qwere dramatically outnumbered and opposedon two fronts. If they had waited to be attacked, they might very well have lost everything, which is not an acceptable risk.

HC - can you argue that Iraq is similar?

I don't have to show that it was similar, Iraq had to show that it wasn't.

You keep saying things like this. But you're wrong, and wrong morally as well as intellectually, on a fundamental level. It cannot -- MUST not -- be the default position that we go to war. It must always be the default position that we do not. War must be justified. Peace need not be.

Make note of that fact, which seems to get lost in the shuffle: they were already in violation of things they had promised to do, so why should we or anyone assume anything they said was trustworthy?

We are not discussing whether what Saddam said was trustworthy. We are discussing whether we rightfully went to war with Iraq. That Saddam was untrustworthy is obvious; what is not obvious -- what you need to establish -- is that this is a cause for war.

Many national leaders, including the one currently occupying the White House, cannot be trusted and are liars. It does not follow that we should go to war with them.

The intelligence services of every major power thought he had WMDs.

To be specific, most people, including myself, thought Saddam probably had a few chemical weapons stashed away. Again, you need to establish that this is a cause for war, had it been true.

Given all that (and none of it is in realistic question), even if it does finally turn out that Iraq wasn't a threat, it's quite moral and acceptable to place the fault of the invasion on Hussein

"Being a potential threat" is not cause for war. Being about to attack, or actually attacking, is cause for war. If the possession of WMD is cause for war, then war is justified against Britain, France, Russia, China, the Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and probably a number of other countries I can't think of off the top of my head.

BTW, this entire argument illustrates the fundamental fallacy of the claims on the part of the Democrats that Bush should have acted before 911 againt Afghanistan and al Queda's bases there, or for that matter GOP claims that Clinton should have done the same thing.

It does, I must agree. Better attention to airport security given warnings of what what was about to happen could still have been expected, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

As a benchmark case that DOES seem approriate, look at the Israelis in 1967. They qwere dramatically outnumbered and opposedon two fronts. If they had waited to be attacked, they might very well have lost everything, which is not an acceptable risk.

HC - can you argue that Iraq is similar?

I don't have to show that it was similar, Iraq had to show that it wasn't.

You keep saying things like this. But you're wrong, and wrong morally as well as intellectually, on a fundamental level. It cannot -- MUST not -- be the default position that we go to war. It must always be the default position that we do not. War must be justified. Peace need not be.

Brian, if you can't comprehend why what I'm saying is true, I don't know what else to tell you. It was up to Hussein to show that he was not a threat, since he himself had systematically gone about making himself appear to BE a threat. Nothing can override that.

Make note of that fact, which seems to get lost in the shuffle: they were already in violation of things they had promised to do, so why should we or anyone assume anything they said was trustworthy?

We are not discussing whether what Saddam said was trustworthy.

Yes, Brian, that is a core issue of the war. We could not take the chance, given the information available, it would have been morally and legally indefensible for Bush to gamble with America's security on Hussein's word, or the UN's known-to-be-disingenuous assurances. Bush's job is to put America first, not the UN, not the theoretical ideals of the the non-existent 'world community'.

That's why the only grounds for calling Bush a liar would be if you could show he did not himself believe that Hussein was a threat. THAT would be grounds for immediate impeachment. Being mistaken is not.

The intelligence services of every major power thought he had WMDs.

To be specific, most people, including myself, thought Saddam probably had a few chemical weapons stashed away. Again, you need to establish that this is a cause for war, had it been true.

To be specific, they thought he had large quantities of chemical weapons, and that it was significantly possible he had access to biological weapons. It could not be ruled out that he was gaining access to nuclear and radiological weapons. He was not, in fact, permitted ANY such, nor was he entitled to keep any secrets.

They also knew that previously, it turned out that Iraq had been much further along in nuclear weapons research (as of '91) than anybody had thought. It was already suspected that the Pakistani 'nuke network' existed, and that the information was available. With that as precedent, prudence demanded that Hussein be given no benefit of the doubt.

Given all that (and none of it is in realistic question), even if it does finally turn out that Iraq wasn't a threat, it's quite moral and acceptable to place the fault of the invasion on Hussein

"Being a potential threat" is not cause for war. Being about to attack, or actually attacking, is cause for war. If the possession of WMD is cause for war, then war is justified against Britain, France, Russia, China, the Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and probably a number of other countries I can't think of off the top of my head.

There is no realistic reason to believe Britain or France are likely to attack in the near future, and the leadership of Russian and China appear to be sane, with less to gain than to lose by such use, if not nice people. Israel is radically unlikely to attack America for any reason.

NONE of that applies to Iraq, it's perfectly plausible that Hussein would use WMDs against America, in fact, it's likely, esp. if he could do so by proxy. He had reason to hate us, and we were in his way. The same may yet apply to North Korea. Hussein was a threat for more reasons that just possession of weapons.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by msm

You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge. I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years.

There ought to be some inverse of Godwin's Law invoked whenever somebody tries to link Noam Chomsky with mainstream liberalism.

You'd have a point, except that I've seen a remarkable number of liberals make the link themselves, including some regular posters on T4T. His thinking is remarkably influential, much more so than one would expect given his radical views.

Personally, I have a hard time disconnecting Chomsky's radical politics from his work in linguistics; in the latter field I believe he is still held in some high esteem.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Brian, it's [the "larger terror network's"] existence is a given.

No. Nothing is given unless those argue with you are willing to give it. We're not. Prove it.

When different groups of people have a common enemy, they usually end up working together even if they hate each other.

Sometimes, not always. Prove that they did so in this case.

We've already tracked the connections from Iraq to Hizbullah and Hamas

True . . .

we have good reason to suspect that the same 'charity' organizations that were channeling money to al Queda were also involved in helping Hussein evade the sanctions

Maybe, but if so that still does not show Saddam's support for al-Qaeda. It shows support for both by a third party, if it shows anything.

It's so probable that they were all working together that evidence is needed if you want to claim the contrary.

Sorry, but I am not willing to suspend the rules of logical discourse to let you get away with deception. You've made a claim, and it is up to you to prove that claim, not to those who doubt you to disprove it.

Now, by working together, I mean in the looser sense.

Ah, the wiggling begins . . .

I have no idea whether or not Hussein knew anything about 911 itself, or not, and for all their claims otherwise, neither do his defenders.

I guess, but if you're claiming this as a cause for war, the burden of proof is on you, not us. The default is, MUST be, peace. If we don't know, we don't go.

But the threat is not restricted to al Queda.

The immediate threat to the United States is. If you want to talk about potential threats, well . . . but we cannot go to war with all potential threats.

Hussein was given ample opportunity to show that he wasn't involved in that network

So? Prove that you are not a child molester.

It is impossible to prove a negative, as you know perfectly well.

and Bush made it clear up front that we were not restricting out efforts just to al Queda. You may not approve of that, but you can't claim he didn't say up front what was happening.

I'm not saying anything about what Bush did or didn't say. I am saying something about whether Bush is a warmongering, morally crippled, Napoleonic SOB. I am saying that calling our response to al-Qaeda's attack a "war on terror" was fundamentally Orwellian, in that it needlessly and shamelessly broadened the arena of conflict to allow him to get us into war with anybody he took a fancy to fight.

This. Was. Wrong. And remains wrong.

Hussein was crossing the US by defying the terms of the surrender agreement and getting away with it

If you think that we are justified in going to war with anyone who breaks an agreement with us, then you, like the president, are saying we are justified in going to war with almost anyone. And that is completely unacceptable.

Actually, there was [such a thing as "international Communism"]. It wasn't the total, centrally directed monolith that was initially envisioned

The total, centrally directed monolith that was initially envisioned was what was meant by the term "international Communism." If that didn't exist, then "international Communism," as that term was meant and as it was used to justify wars and other abominations, did not exist.

That is also the case with "international terrorism." It is a turnip ghost, a bogey, a Goldstein. It is used to justify what cannot be justified without it. Speak of concrete foes, and do not lump them together into an artificial composite, and you are dealing with reality.

H.C.:

What is a "threat"? (By which I mean, "a threat of war." I should have added before that this is the only kind of threat that can justify war. A threat of economic competition, or ideological disagreement, or calling us nasty names in public, is not a cause for war; indeed, actually DOING these things to us is not a cause for war. What's more, the threat must be imminent. We must have good reason to believe that a potential enemy has not only the desire and the ability to attack, but the immediate intention of doing so.)

A threat of war is, I submit, the immediate intention to attack plus the ability to attack. It is a fact that Saddam Hussein possessed neither of these. It is a fact that Saddam Hussein's military was grievously reduced from its 1991 levels, and that it was unable to attack, or indeed even to defend itself from us, in 1991. It is a speculation, and a highly unlikely one supported by no evidence whatsoever, that Saddam Hussein possessed the weapons, the connections, and the will to attack us with chemical weapons.

It was reasonable to believe that he had a few chemical weapons, and I was as surprised as anyone to discover that he did not. He had the connections, or more precisely he had covert agents (not those of al-Qaeda, but those working directly for the Iraqi government, who were far more reliable) capable of delivering chemical weapons if he had possessed them. He certainly DID have chemical weapons in 1991, and could have delivered them to the U.S. then. He didn't do it, even in the face of an American invasion. If he didn't do it under that kind of provocation, we may reasonably conclude that he didn't have the will. That's not because he was a coward or irresolute, it's just because it would have been utterly stupid and useless.

You refer to Saddam as if he were a madman. There is no evidence of this. A tyrant, an opportunist, and on two occasions a person who bit off militarily more than he could chew, but within these limits a sane man, sane enough to know that attacking the U.S. with chemical weapons would not have sufficed to defeat us militarily, and would have made the American people very, very angry.

Hell, he never even attacked Israel with chemical weapons, let alone the U.S.! He certainly could have done it for many years running. Israel couldn't have stopped him -- although it could have punished him afterwards. Do you think maybe that was what stopped him?

If Saddam meant to attack the U.S. with chemical weapons, he would have done it long ago. We could not have stopped him -- although we certainly could have punished him for it. There is no reason to believe that he was likely to do it soon. There is every reason to believe that Bush wanted to go to war with Saddam, from before he even took office, for other reasons.

And not good ones, and not ones that justify war.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Brian, it's [the "larger terror network's"] existence is a given.

No. Nothing is given unless those argue with you are willing to give it. We're not. Prove it.

When different groups of people have a common enemy, they usually end up working together even if they hate each other.

Sometimes, not always. Prove that they did so in this case.

We've already tracked the connections from Iraq to Hizbullah and Hamas

True . . .

we have good reason to suspect that the same 'charity' organizations that were channeling money to al Queda were also involved in helping Hussein evade the sanctions

Maybe, but if so that still does not show Saddam's support for al-Qaeda. It shows support for both by a third party, if it shows anything.

It's so probable that they were all working together that evidence is needed if you want to claim the contrary.

Sorry, but I am not willing to suspend the rules of logical discourse to let you get away with deception. You've made a claim, and it is up to you to prove that claim, not to those who doubt you to disprove it.

Now, by working together, I mean in the looser sense.

Ah, the wiggling begins . . .

No. Brian, by the standards you use, I can't prove it. But the standards I consider to be primary require that it be disproved. I'm more concerned about American security than I am about technicalities of international law.

Frankly, I believe that the network exists, and that sufficient evidence exists to go forward. You don't, because you want absolute proof that can't be provided before we act.

I have no idea whether or not Hussein knew anything about 911 itself, or not, and for all their claims otherwise, neither do his defenders.

I guess, but if you're claiming this as a cause for war, the burden of proof is on you, not us. The default is, MUST be, peace. If we don't know, we don't go.

Not good enough unless we can make it compatiable with American security. We can't ever know with 100% certainty until after the fact.

Hussein was given ample opportunity to show that he wasn't involved in that network

So? Prove that you are not a child molester.

Brian, I've already listed the overwhelming reasons to believe that Hussein was a threat, and what precisely he had to do to prove he wasn't. So your comparison is childish and empty. You have no reason to think I might be a child molester to begin with, we had and have extensive reason to regard Hussein as a threat. Furthermore, Hussein has specific, doable things that could have removed the suspicions.

It is impossible to prove a negative, as you know perfectly well.

I've already stated, repeatedly, what Hussein would have had to do to demonstrate that negative for practical purposes. He refused to do so, either because he would not, in which case the fault is his, or could not, because he was not in fact innocent.

Hussein was crossing the US by defying the terms of the surrender agreement and getting away with it

If you think that we are justified in going to war with anyone who breaks an agreement with us, then you, like the president, are saying we are justified in going to war with almost anyone. And that is completely unacceptable.

No, but some agreements count for more than others. This one was hurting us on several psychological levels. It was akin to the damage done in Mogadishu.