Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

I can see where my previous post gave that impression, but it's not what I meant to give. No, I don't think Hussein was mad, I agreee with you about that. I think we was a cold, ruthless bastard who murdered and tortured without a qualm, but I think he was quite sane.

That's why I think the danger of him using al Queda, or some similar group, was real. By supplying them with the necessary weapons, he could strike at the US indirectly, and quite possibly safely, or he may have thought he could. I find the idea eminently plausible, and I don't think he's the only person potentially thinking that way.

Hussein was sane, but also known for revenge. Such an indirect attack could easily arise from such a desire. He could also have hoped to set America and al Queda (or whoever) after each other, leaving him untrammeled, since France, Russia, and China all went to end the sanctions regime anyway.

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?

I know that's what stopped him. Israel basically threatened nuclear retaliation if he hit them with chemical weapons.

That's why I don't think the idea of a direct attack from Iraq was likely. An indirect attack, OTOH, was plausible on several levels. That alone, in itself, might not have been sufficient cause to remove him, but combined with the other factors, it becomes so, IMO.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Exactly how has Iraq threatened the US? Saddam isn't a direct threat to the US. He never was... Why can't you see this?

Equally so, many of us can't understand why you cannot see our position. But one thing you are very correct about: "Saddam isn't a direct threat to the US," because he's in a prision somewhere. Kinda makes the whole argument moot at this point, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Croakmore

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?

Still waiting for your answer on this one, HC.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

It is such Orwellian history-rewriting-ish of Brian to say this.

Obviously, we were already bombing Iraq on a nearly weekly basis throughout the 1990's.

This does not describe a state of peace. Bush inherited the Iraq war. It was Orwellian doublespeak to ignore the state of war between the U.S. and the Iraqi rump state throughout the 1990's. It still is.

Brian says breaking an agreement is not a reason for war. But breaking the terms of a cease-fire IS a reason for war.

Brian applies the same sort of "logic" that prevented 911 from being stopped before it happened. He even denies the existence of a terror network (!!!!!)

I don't expect anyone who denies the existence of an international terrorist network to say anything intelligent about what U.S. policy regarding terrorism should be.

Originally Posted by msm

Brian says breaking an agreement is not a reason for war. But breaking the terms of a cease-fire IS a reason for war.

Uhmmhm..

Doesn't the presence of 'weekly bombing' sort of go against the concept of 'cease-fire'? Or it is only the Black-Hats who are supposed to cease with their firing? What kind of 'cease-fire' was that, anyway?


_____________________

"Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." -- H.D. Thoreau

As for Iraq-Al Qaeda links, the best excuse Brian has to doubt them is the media's constant downplaying of any evidence that comes up. I'm not obsessive enough about it (I believe we should have finished Saddam off in 1991, long before I even heard of Al Qaeda, so it doesn't matter much to me whether Iraq worked with Al Qaeda) to maintain a list, but if someone compulsively saved every solid piece of evidence of a link, there would be at least a dozen by now.

And if a Democrat was president, these links would all be on the cover of the NYT.

For example:

Document links Saddam, bin Laden

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein.

Even if half of the dozen turned up false, that would leave six clear links. All ignored by the mainstream media...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What kind of 'cease-fire' was that, anyway?

A better question would be, what kind of PEACE was it??

The only honest answer: it was not peace at all. It was a still-simmering war.

Plus, we had troops on the ground in northern Iraq.

Bush didn't start any war. He didn't even begin the process of occupying Iraq.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or it is only the Black-Hats who are supposed to cease with their firing?

Specifically, U.S. bombing generally followed some especially blatant Iraqi violation of the terms of the cease fire, such as Iraq firing on the planes patrolling the "no-fly zones" (remember those, anyone?), that sort of thing.

But the whole nature of the relationship was not that of peace between sovereign nations. It was more like we had left Hitler in charge of a truncated region of Germany for ten extra years, but every month there was shooting, and the papers put it all back on page 12.

All-in-all, it was very 3T, very Silent-ish.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

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.

Exactly how has Iraq threatened the US?

You imply that Saddam is scary madman foaming at the mouth to harm us. But does he even hold a candle to Stalin or Mao in the scary madman department? Yet they never did attack us. They were deterred, as Saddam is deterred. Saddam isn't a direct threat to the US. He never was.

If bin Laden had never been born and Hamas didn't exist, we would still have the exact same problem with Iraq. The Bush administration would still invade, 911 or no 911, even if not a single terrorist act against the US had ever occurred. Why can't you see this?

Originally Posted by msm

I believe we should have finished Saddam off in 1991, long before I even heard of Al Qaeda, so it doesn't matter much to me whether Iraq worked with Al Qaeda

Exactly, terrorism wasn't the issue with Iraq since you would have opted for regime change in 1991, before al Qaeda was formed.

It was the Gulf War that created the conditions for this current war. As you point out what Bush did was a continuation of the same war. But this also means that the justification for Bush's invasion could not be that Iraq posed a threat since it did not when the war began in 1990.

Iraq was no threat to the US in 1990. It was clear that the US did not object to them invading other countries. In fact, we approved of their invasion of Iran and gave them aid. So why should the US object with they invaded Kuwait? There were no close ties between the US and that Arab nation at the time, but neither was their animosity. They were not sure about American feelings about Kuwait, so they sounded us out on the issue beforehand. We did not strenously object, giving a rather neutral response. It seems obvious that Iraq was NOT picking a fight with the US when they attacked Kuwait in August 1990. They were not threatening the US when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Iraq and the US were not enemies at that time.

Thus the reasons for regime change in Iraq (whcih you favored already in 1991) had NOTHING to do with either terrorism or an Iraqi threat to America. In your mind, US conquest of Iraq is justified by Iraq's failure to divine America's thoughts wrt to their warmaking. After all, they asked us. We could have "just said no".

Sorry. Turns out my question had already been answered.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Thus the reasons for regime change in Iraq (whcih you favored already in 1991) had NOTHING to do with either terrorism or an Iraqi threat to America. In your mind, US conquest of Iraq is justified by Iraq's failure to divine America's thoughts wrt to their warmaking. After all, they asked us. We could have "just said no".

To be clear, my reason for wanting us to overthrow Saddam in 1991 was that it was clear to me that we were still waging war on Iraq. I believe if you are going to wage war, you should do so decisively, with a goal to end it. To have a policy of occupying another country, patrol their skies, and bomb them, for twelve years, without any thought doing what it takes to return to a state of real peace, is abhorrent to me. Throughout the 1990's, throughout the Clinton administration, I was reading those stories on page 12 about the bombings while everyone else was paying attention to OJ and Monica. The Ministry of Truth wants us to believe W. started a war, but they can't wipe my memory.

Alternatively, in 1991, when the media bemoaned the plight of the Kurds if we just abandoned Iraq and warned of Iraq's weapons programs, we could have ignored that and stuck with the Kuwait-only policy. That also would have ended the war. But that was not the course chosen in 1991. After it was clear that we, as a people, had effectively decided that we were going to continue to make war on Iraq, I started arguing that we should finish the job.

Again, had we done so, this would all be over in the mid-1990's.

Originally Posted by msm

After it was clear that we, as a people, had effectively decided that we were going to continue to make war on Iraq, I started arguing that we should finish the job.

We as a people made no such decision. What the Bush I administration did , rather than simply ending the war, was introduce this stupid disarmament and sanctions policy.

The whole issue in 1991 was the rest of the world was not ready to endorse US conquest of a third world nation who had invaded a neighboring country. After all, Iraq had invaded Iran and the US had approved. African countries invade each other all the time, are we going to conquer them too? Why was Iraq in 1991 different?

The Bush adminstration was unable to come up with an answer to this question that made sense. Hence, they settled for simple removal of Iraq from Kuwait. This could be endorsed.

The sensible policy would have been to rapidly return to the status before August 1990. End the war. If you want to punish Iraq, make them pay a small indemnity out of their oil revenues. The US could inform its allies that in the event of another Iraqi invasion the US will not be willing to mount a response unless the outcome of this response was regime change. The idea here is Saddam gets one free chance, but if he tries again, he will get taken out.

But instead we adopted this policy of "containing" Saddam. As a result our allies could have their oil without having to make any sort of commitment. Saddam couldn't mount any sort of action that could serve as a pretext for a multilateral action against him, so this low-intensity war will go on and on and on. And anti-American terrorist groups sprang up and started attacking us, killing thousands of Americans.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The whole issue in 1991 was the rest of the world was not ready to endorse US conquest of a third world nation who had invaded a neighboring country. After all, Iraq had invaded Iran and the US had approved. African countries invade each other all the time, are we going to conquer them too?

I've been letting you run of at the mouth about the history of 1990 because at least you agree that the U.S. was already at war with Iraq when W. took office.

However, I do not agree with your interpretation of the events of 1990.

Our State Department is riddled with Arabists (many on the Saudi payroll). It was an incompetent State Deptment flunky who failed to convey clearly to Iraq that any invasion of Kuwait would, of course, be opposed by the U.S. Protecting Saudi Arabia, and hence Kuwait, was always U.S. policy, as demonstrated by the fact that the U.S. (as well as most nations in the world) opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the very moment it occurred.

Anybody who doubts that the U.S. would automatically be against an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait is not competent to interpret the history of 1990.

That African nations invade other African nations without the U.S. intervening is no evidence that the U.S. is in favor of such invasions. The mere fact that the U.S. does not go to war over an issue is no evidence that the U.S. approves of what is happening. (Duh! If I was a pompous self-important jerk, I would count your "logical errors".)

U.S. policy towards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was made clear on Day 1 of said invasion. That it was not made clear on day -7 is regretable, but does not morally require the U.S. to have simply allowed the invasion to stand.

We are not required to go along with past mistakes for consistencies sake.

Getting Iraq out of Kuwait was, by itself, an easy thing to accomplish, requiring little effort on the U.S.'s part, and was even backed by the corrupt U.N. Leaving Iraq in Kuwait would have clearly threatened U.S. interests (unlike when one African nation invades another.)

It is the wishy-washy "OK, now let's try to disarm Iraq now with sanctions, even though sanctions never work. Oh, and we don't want a genocide in Kurdistan, so we'll occupy northern Iraq. Oh, and Saddam is slaughtering the Shia, so let's have no-fly zones. What, the Iraqi's are firing on our planes? Bomb their radar installations. But whatever we do, let's not invade the rest of Iraq and get it over with." that I disagreed with.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

We as a people made no such decision.

We as a people DID make this decision. Our elected representatives made these decisions, backed by a supportive media. Hell, there were even Doonesbury cartoons in favor of protecting the Kurds.

Even when a new party captured the White House, the policies remained unchanged.

Originally Posted by msm

Our State Department is riddled with Arabists (many on the Saudi payroll).

The fact that the State Department has not been purged is a sign that aren't yet in 4T. Alas, the Democrats seem constitutionally unable to attack Bush where he is really weak.

Originally Posted by msm

Anybody who doubts that the U.S. would automatically be against an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait is not competent to interpret the history of 1990.

Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was fully aware that the US would go to war with Iraq and possibly drive him from power if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and he did anyways? This is ridiculous.

That African nations invade other African nations without the U.S. intervening is no evidence that the U.S. is in favor of such invasions.

Where do you get the idea that the US favors such invasions. I never said that. You are making shit up.

MSM:

That we were at war with Iraq before the Shrub started his little invasion does not mean that we should have been. Or that the Shrub should have invaded Iraq, with all the miserable consequences of that which we are now seeing, rather than making peace.

I don't expect anyone who denies the existence of an international terrorist network to say anything intelligent about what U.S. policy regarding terrorism should be.

Argumentum ad hominem, yet again.

Here is what sets use of fallacies apart from mere mistaken argument. It is not just bad reasoning but DISHONEST reasoning, in that anyone intelligent enough to use fallacies is also intelligent enough to know that they are false. Thus, anyone who uses fallacies is a liar.

You, sir, are a liar.

The above contains another fallacy, that of presumption. The existence of an international terrorist network is not self-evident. Show evidence thereof, if you want us to believe in it.

And if you want to be taken seriously, you might want not only to stop employing fallacies, but also to treat other people here with a little more respect and courtesy.

As for Iraq-Al Qaeda links

The use of deliberately vague language to imply something specific but unstated is also a fallacy. We are not looking for "links" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. We are looking for an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, strong enough to indicate that Saddam would have been willing to place chemical weapons in the hands of these people, trusting them to use such weapons only against Saddam's foes and not against Saddam himself. Saddam had, after all, a "link" to George H.W. Bush and to the Ayatollah Khomeini, in that they were enemies.

There is no evidence that Saddam gave even Hezbollah or Hamas chemical weapons, let alone al-Qaeda. And we know he was allied (and not merely "linked") to those groups.

The link you posted does not, of course, establish such an alliance, nor even a "link" in any concrete sense. It contains no specific language regarding what this person at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was supposed to be doing vis-a-vis al-Qaeda, nor any indication of projects on which the two cooperated, nor anything about what was being "coordinated." It is merely fluff, and could well indicate nothing more than bluster on Uday's part, or even a falsification on the part of the judge.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

Anybody who doubts that the U.S. would automatically be against an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait is not competent to interpret the history of 1990.

Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was fully aware that the US would go to war with Iraq and possibly drive him from power if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and he did anyways? This is ridiculous.

Agreed, but that isn't what I was saying. I said it should have been clear to any knowledgable observer that the U.S. would be against an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait. Even Saddam whould know that.

Your implication that the U.S. ever supported the Iraqi invasion, based merely on the incompetence of one diplomat, is ridiculous.

What nobody could say for sure was exactly what the U.S. would do about it. Saddam might have thought there would be nothing more than sanctions.

But, in any event, Saddam was not competent to judge U.S. resolve, or he would have backed down when we started sending hundreds of thousands of troops.

H.C.:

Let me deal with the specific issue of whether Saddam was likely to have used chemical weapons on us via some terrorist group, and then I want to say something more general.

We agree that he was very unlikely to have done so using Iraqi agents. But the advantage of using Iraqi agents is that he himself would have remained in control. Iraqi agents worked for him; Hezbollah terrorists were independent. Nation-states tend to keep pretty tight control over weapons of mass destruction. Saddam could not have been sure, once he released control of chemical or biological weapons, that these weapons would strike the targets he intended to use them on. They might have been used against Israel instead of the U.S., and Israel might have drawn a conclusion about where they must have come from and retaliated. If he were foolish enough to release them not to his allies Hezbollah or Hamas, but to his enemy al-Qaeda, he could not even have been sure that Osama's group would not use them against Iraq! Probably for this reason, but certainly as a fact, he never did supply any of his terrorist allies (or enemies) with chemical or biological weapons.

Saddam had chemical weapons as early as 1980. They were used against Iran in the war. If he were going to supply al-Qaeda with such weapons, he had ample opportunity to do so long before 9/11/01, and if Osama bin Ladin had possessed nerve gas at that time, he surely would have used it, instead of or along with a complicated hijacking scheme. That is really the best argument against the assertion that Saddam supplying terrorists with WMD was a real danger: if it were, then it would already have been done.

Now, on a more general note. In raising national security and safety against attack to the preeminent position, I believe you are speaking generationally, as this is a tendency of Nomads as they approach midlife. Perhaps in reaction to a risk-laden youth, they tend to raise security, personal, familial, and national, to a very high priority. But there are dangers in this. It is never possible to eliminate all threats or to be ultimately secure. And let the history of the Soviet Union show the consequences of pursuing safety above all: one's neighbors and rivals are likely to misconstrue this policy as one of aggression.

Beyond a certain point, the pursuit of security is accomplished only at a cost to both our liberty and our relations with others. We must ask ourselves carefully where that point of diminishing returns lies. That an action may reduce a risk from a specific identified source does not automatically make it a wise action.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The above contains another fallacy, that of presumption. The existence of an international terrorist network is not self-evident. Show evidence thereof, if you want us to believe in it.

If we were arguing about North Korean nukes, and I said: "The existence of the Korean penninsula is not self-evident, Brian. Please show evidence theorof.", I could claim logic on my side.

My point is, by questioning basic facts, agreed to by all experts, you are forcing me to do more work. Yours is a simple delaying tactic.

If I find a New York Times article for you that quotes an expert referring to international terrorists who, through their careers, move between different terrorist organizations, you could STILL question it.

Yes, I concede your LOGIC. But you are being an asshole. I'm half inclined to pour through your posts after 9/11 to demonstrate that at one point YOU YOURSELF accepted the existence of an international terrorist network.

Al Qaeda cells have been found in several European nations, in the U.S., in Canada, in Indonesia, etc. These matters are in the news all of the time. But you want me to drop everything mid sentence to prove these things.

If you brought up the recent events that U.S. personnel were mistreating Iraqi prisoners, I could ask you to prove it, and be an asshole, questioning every piece of evidence you brought up. But I'm not an asshole. I accept that Korea exists because all reference materials agree. I also accept that terrorist collaborate across national borders, as I accept that international criminal organizations exist, for similar reasons. When these things come up in debate, I do not ask my opponent to prove them.

Prove that Korea exists, Brian.

At this very moment, the 9/11 commision is carrying out lines of inquiry which take as resolved the existence of Al Qaeda.

God, you're being a twerp. All reasoning logically involves an infinite regression. You know that! Next you'll be asking me to define the word "is". It's meaning is not self-evident, you know! You're like a little kid who asks "Why" to every answer.

You're manipulation of "logic" in this way is misleading. Therefore, you are a liar.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The link you posted does not, of course, establish such an alliance, nor even a "link" in any concrete sense. It contains no specific language regarding what this person at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was supposed to be doing vis-a-vis al-Qaeda, nor any indication of projects on which the two cooperated, nor anything about what was being "coordinated." It is merely fluff, and could well indicate nothing more than bluster on Uday's part, or even a falsification on the part of the judge.

And before 9/11, your logic was used at the highest levels of of intelligence agencies, with the result that there was "no actionable evidence" that anything like 9/11 was about to occur.

You have reverted to pre-9/11 B.S.

Here you go, little Brian:

COUNTERING THE
CHANGING THREAT
OF INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM
Report of the National Commission on Terrorism
Pursuant to Public Law 277, 105th Congress

Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass casualties, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are, instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States.

Can us grownups get back to our discussion now? I doubt it. Brian will probably find some political reason to doubt this source. Even if I was to drive to where he lives and introduce him to an actual international terrorist, he could LOGICALLY still doubt it.

He is hiding behind the fact that all logic involves an infinite regression. It makes you wonder how he can tie his shoes in the morning. ("But I have no PROOF that this is really a shoe...")

Originally Posted by msm

Your implication that the U.S. ever supported the Iraqi invasion, based merely on the incompetence of one diplomat, is ridiculous.

I never implied that. I said the US supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran.