Iraqi immigrant debates with anti-war protester

[Jakub]

0wn3d (http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3)

[Kool Moe Dee]

Wow. 0wn3d indeed.

[Daniel Morris]

It all makes for a pretty good Onion point/counterpoint:


"No Blood for Oil" by Billy Johnson

"For God's Sake, Please Commence the Attack on Saddam's Clique" by Abdel Hassam

[Bullhajj]

No speakers. :?

[Anonymous]

LOL.. this is so typical of anti-war protesters. They have NO ANSWER for the Iraqi people, which 99.9% of them want Saddam killed so he can no longer torture and murder the citizens of Iraq.

SHUT UP YOU CHIRPING BIRD.

Thanks so much for this, made my day.

[Jason McCullough]

Did they cover "we've alienated the entire world with our shitty diplomacy, and god only knows the post-war occupation will turn out alright, what with it being seen as an imperialistic occupation"?

[Brandon Clements]

Not knowing the format of the radio station, I thought the DJ was pretty evenhanded with both sides, and gave the "little bird" many chances to elaborate on her position (which she proved unable to do)

As it is, the lady's lack of real response to the question of how “promoting international peace and justice will remove Saddam" shows the exact tack the Bush administration should have taken to minimize or eliminate much of the criticism of its position.

[Anonymous]

Oh no we alienated the French. They hate us anyway!

Oh no we alienated the Germans. They whole world hates them!

Oh no we alienated the Russians. Hopefully next time we won't bail them out of severe economic depression.

The UN can't even enforce the resolutions THEY pass (1441) so why should we abide by them?

Jason, SHUT UP YOU CHIRPING BIRD

[Brandon Clements]

Did they cover "we've alienated the entire world with our shitty diplomacy, and god only knows the post-war occupation will turn out alright, what with it being seen as an imperialistic occupation"?

That anyone is saying this right now (and I'm not disagreeing that this is the perception in many people's minds) shows just how badly the Bush adminstration fucked up on the "selling" of this war. This should have been a slam-dunk for an admistration who takes having the "moral imperative" seriously. Doubly so for any adminstration with Colin Powell in it. That the adminstration is in the perdicament that it is in now smacks of lazyness.

[Dirt]

"That the adminstration is in the perdicament that it is in now smacks of lazyness."

arrogance

[wumpus]

Exactly. Nobody debates the fact that Saddam is a brutal despot. Why we couldn't build a compelling case for war against such an obvious, easy target is anyone's guess.

Somehow, we actually managed to make Saddam look like the victim in this exchange. What the fuck, man.

[Anonymous]

Actually I think you're wrong. I think the Bush administration underestimated the stupidity of a small percentage the American people. Logic clearly shows that doing nothing in Iraq does nothing to stop the atrocities Saddam continues to cause to his own people. Logic clearly shows that UN mandates issued in 1991 are not being upheld. Logic clearly shows that Saddam, his funds, his terrorist camps, and his weapons are a threat to the American people.

So, I don't think it was arrogance. It was a naive hope that all Americans are intelligent and can clearly see logical connections.

[wumpus]

Ah, the old "everyone else is stupid" rebuttal. COMPELLING!

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Nobody debates the fact that Saddam is a brutal despot. Why we couldn't build a compelling case for war against such an obvious, easy target is anyone's guess.

Somehow, we actually managed to make Saddam look like the victim in this exchange. What the fuck, man.

Well, I think the U.S. and the U.K. grossly underestimated the opposition they would face, both internationally and domestically. I doubt Blair would have risked this venture, had he known the position he has ended up in now.

There are many different reasons why the opposition to the war has grown this big, IMO. They're not all good reasons, but they're not all bad, either.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Damn it. Twice today. That's me, being vague, above.

[Desslock]

Exactly. Nobody debates the fact that Saddam is a brutal despot. Why we couldn't build a compelling case for war against such an obvious, easy target is anyone's guess. Somehow, we actually managed to make Saddam look like the victim in this exchange. What the fuck, man.

Exactamundo. It's why, as Jason indicated, there's not a lot of people in the world who believe that the U.S. can do a good job rebuilding Iraq after changing the regime, even if those folks would otherwise think regime change was a good thing. And even domestic dissent is extremely high.

It's difficult to fathom how this administration has done such a poor job justifying their case (and just plainly explaining their goals, in a consistent manner), that they've managed to mobilize worldwide opposition to the U.S. on a scale not previously seen before.

They really blew it, but I hope they can redeem themselves by executing their plans far more effectively than they could explain or justify them to an audience that (after 9/11) should have been extremely receptive (especially given the nature of the opposing regime).

[Captain Cookiepants]

Exactly. Nobody debates the fact that Saddam is a brutal despot. Why we couldn't build a compelling case for war against such an obvious, easy target is anyone's guess.

Somehow, we actually managed to make Saddam look like the victim in this exchange. What the fuck, man.

OOOHHH PLEASE! 99% of this protest bullshit is just 'We hate Bush so anything he does is evil and corrupt' If the C.H.U.D.S. finally emerged from their subterranean lairs and started goring us, people would throw themselves bodily onto a C.H.U.D. spear before they allowed Bush to make any kind of retaliation. We'd see C.H.U.D.S. eating entire Wiccan quilting bees while they chanted 'No war against C.H.U.D.S. for oil!!!'
100% of these protester's messages can be distilled down to 'We hate Bush.' I'm starting to like the guy just because of this.
It has NOTHING to do with how Bush 'sold' this war, just that he is Bush.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

They really blew it, but I hope they can redeem themselves by executing their plans far more effectively than they could explain or justify them to an audience that (after 9/11) should have been extremely receptive (especially given the nature of the opposing regime).

I agree completely.

If the adminstration had worked on the diplomatic side more before ramping the military side up to a peak then we might have been able to go in with a UN resolution. It might have cost 6 or 8 months but I think it would have still been okay to wait those few months.

Hopefully though when/if they find huge caches of weapons of mass destruction then the diplomatic wounds will be significantly healed as we jump up and down and scream "I told you so". Of course, if they aren't found then Bush won't have much chance at re-election.

[Brad Grenz]

I don't think the administration fucked up the "selling" of this war. Fact of the matter is most of the opposition was not buying and never would. With so much of the domestic dissent it's "I hate Bush and everything he does". This is not a reasonable or pliable position. That kind of a person can't be convinced, so it's useless to complain about the pitch. Abroad so much of it is simply anti-American obstructionism or we want to keep making money off of Saddam. Short of finding videotape of Saddam personally planting a nuclear car bomb on Jaque Chirac's limo there's little we ever could have done to convince France to get on board. And when it devolved into a bidding war for security council vote the "case" hadn't mattered for a very long time.

Sure the Bush administration's PR leaves something wanting, but to say it was his failure to sell things properly assumes that the prize was even up for grabs in the first place.

[asspennies]

In the interest of full disclosure it should be pointed out that "Mohammad," the Iraqi defector, may not even be from another country at all.

http://travellingshoes.blogspot.com/#90895879

I don't think it much matters, though. What's more important is what is coming out of the other side. Or rather, what's not.

[Jakub]

Sure the Bush administration's PR leaves something wanting, but to say it was his failure to sell things properly assumes that the prize was even up for grabs in the first place.

So if Colin Powell was President, you doubt that he could have garnered world support? I don't.

I think most people are suspicious of Bush's religious fervor, his oil industry past, his connections to it (and those of the vice president) and the apparent complete lack of sincerity in anything he speaks about. He has absolutely no charisma.

Powell would have the French organizing themselves into Operation Human Shield.

[Bullhajj]

I don't think it much matters, though. What's more important is what is coming out of the other side. Or rather, what's not.

As if there is no living person who can make a decent anti war argument, lol.

[Tim]

In the interest of full disclosure it should be pointed out that "Mohammad," the Iraqi defector, may not even be from another country at all.

http://travellingshoes.blogspot.com/#90895879

That's certainly possible, but the accent didn't sound too bad to me. "Allah forbid" did jump out to me too, but a Muslim who's learned English and lived in the US for some time may well have learned to adapt a widely used English phrase to his own religion, even if it's not something that would be used in Arabic.

My wife's first language is Arabic, and while she doesn't have an accent her father and most of his family does. It sounds like that blogger has more exposure to the language than I do, but I'm not just comparing to a Robin Williams riff either.

If it was fake, I think it was a pretty good job.

[Ben Sones]

As if there is no living person who can make a decent anti war argument, lol.

I'm not saying you're wrong... but I'm still waiting. The best arguments that the anti-war movement seems to be able to produce fall into a few startlingly uncompelling categories ("There's no proof that Saddam is an militarily aggressive, brutal despot," "We shouldn't go to war because there are other peaceful though vague and unspecified alternatives," "Lots of people think it's a bad idea, which should count for something even if they can't make a convincing argument for why it's a bad idea," "No war for oil," etc.).

[Bullhajj]

Most reasonable people are willing to concede that Saddam is a brutual despot. The point is whether this means we should go to war.

The most often cited alternative to war is to continue inspections. The current administration would have you believe it's been 12 years of failures, but that's not true. The first few years were actually quite productive. Inspections have been responsible for dismantelling more of the Iraq military machine than military solutions have.

If you are really looking for a convincing arument for why it's a bad idea to make unilateral moves that involves invading another country? The fact that it is alienating us from a huge portion of the world is pretty convincing for me.

[Rywill]

What Ben said.

Although, in fairness, I agree with Tim that it's easy to find some clueless person to represent the antiwar side, and then hold up their laughable interview and imply that it's representative of the entire antiwar position. And that's lame.

At the same time, though, from what I've seen that woman is representative of a lot of the antiwar movement. There are some people (on this board, for example) who make reasoned (though flawed) arguments about why we shouldn't be going to war. But there are lots and lots and lots of people who are just like this girl: antiwar and clueless. Maybe there are pro-war clueless people too, but I haven't seen any of them on TV.

Well, except Bush.

[Chris Floyd]

That anyone is saying this right now (and I'm not disagreeing that this is the perception in many people's minds) shows just how badly the Bush adminstration fucked up on the "selling" of this war. This should have been a slam-dunk for an admistration who takes having the "moral imperative" seriously. Doubly so for any adminstration with Colin Powell in it. That the adminstration is in the perdicament that it is in now smacks of lazyness.

I guess I take the exactly opposite view. I think Bush's best and most forwarded argument has been the "moral imperative," but the leaders of many other nations, the members of the UN, and the vocal citizens of Europe and America won't accept that argument. In fact, many are explicitly distrustful of Bush's morality.

Well, I think the U.S. and the U.K. grossly underestimated the opposition they would face, both internationally and domestically. I doubt Blair would have risked this venture, had he known the position he has ended up in now.

Or perhaps Blair knew the risks (you'd hope he'd understand his own party that well) and once again went through with them on moral grounds.

The most often cited alternative to war is to continue inspections. The current administration would have you believe it's been 12 years of failures, but that's not true. The first few years were actually quite productive. Inspections have been responsible for dismantelling more of the Iraq military machine than military solutions have.

Except that whole "missing the nuclear program" bit, which supposedly would be the point of inspections. I'm not even sure how WMD inspections could dismantle a conventional military machine except in the case of missile systems. Are you claiming that it's inspections that have kept the Iraqi air force or tank brigades small?

[Bullhajj]

I'm talking about the first few years of inspections and disarming Iraq vis a vi inspections.

I'm not even sure how WMD inspections could dismantle

But maybe you're just being purposefully obtuse? WMD inspections are designed to destroy WMD capabilities, not conventional weapons systems.

[Ben Sones]

The most often cited alternative to war is to continue inspections. The current administration would have you believe it's been 12 years of failures, but that's not true.

And if Iraq was currently proving to be as compliant with the inspection routine as they were directly after the Gulf War, this argument might hold more weight. But even Hans Blix admits that Iraq remains largely uncooperative. He also believes that inspections can be successful whether Iraq is cooperative or not, but I'm not convinced.

The problem is this: we're not talking about the dismantling of a conventional military force here. If the inspection routine finds 90% of Iraq's hidden weapons programs, it's not like we will have reduced Iraq's ability to terrorize their neighbors (and, vis-a-vis the incredibly crucial resource that his neighbors possess, the rest of the world) by 90%. If Iraq produces even one nuc-u-lar weapon, then the inspections are a 100% failure for all practical purposes.

This means that while it is possible that continued inspections could serve as an effective deterrent, it's a huge gamble with absurdly high stakes. And 90% is probably a liberal figure--given that Iraq is obviously trying to buck the system right now, and given that Iraq was able to successfully hide weapon programs from even the more effective inspections of the early 90s, it seems pretty likely that something will slip through the cracks eventually. The problem is that we won't know that the inspections aren't working until it's too late. The inspectors may be finding hidden weapons programs right and left, but if they miss one and it manages to put a nuke at Saddam's disposal... well, at that point it's too late to start considering alternatives.

[Bullhajj]

The problem is this: we're not talking about the dismantling of a conventional military force here.

Tell me why the inspectors didn't find these nuclear weapons? There were looking for them, but never found them.

[Captain Cookiepants]

The problem is this: we're not talking about the dismantling of a conventional military force here.

Tell me why the inspectors didn't find these nuclear weapons? There were looking for them, but never found them.

There's a fundemental difference right there: WE see the sattelite photos and the objective expert translation and interpretation of said photos and say 'Oooohh...' YOU see all this and yell 'Shenanagins!!' You don't have to question authority on EVERYTHING. That's just being childish to automatically disbelieve everything just cause it comes from someone in authority.

[Anonymous]

You don't have to question authority on EVERYTHING. That's just being childish to automatically disbelieve everything just cause it comes from someone in authority.

Yes, it's much more mature to automatically believe what you're told by someone in authority. Otherwise Ashcroft might give you a spanking and send you to your room without your dinner.

[Jason McCullough]

If she's "representative of the anti-war movement," then the representative of the pro-war movement is the 40-something percent that think the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

[DennyA]

If she's "representative of the anti-war movement," then the representative of the pro-war movement is the 40-something percent that think the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.
That's one of the things that really, really bugs me about this. We're claiming terrorism as a reason to invade Iraq, yet the nine known Saudi (m/b)illionaires who are said to actually fund Al Quaeda are still doing their thing?

[Anonymous]

Bush Sr. might get upset if his pals, the Bin Laden family, were to have their country bombed.

http://www.redherring.com/vc/2002/0111/947.html

[Ben Sones]

Tell me why the inspectors didn't find these nuclear weapons? There were looking for them, but never found them.

Perhaps because you have about a hundred people searching 169,000 square miles of territory for something that the inhabitants of said territory don't want them to find. You talk about this as though it were an easy task, rather than an attempt to find a needle in a haystack the size of Kansas. As Erik pointed out in the other thread, the purpose of the inspections was not to disarm an unwilling Iraq. The point of inspections was to verify that Iraq was complying with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. Just given all the missing chemical and biological agents that we DO know about, they haven't. Unless you believe Iraq's story that they really did destroy them, honest, but they forgot to tell anyone or document it or anything.

And frankly, if you fall into the "Iraq deserves the benefit of the doubt" camp, then we might as well drop this, because we have no common ground on which to continue this debate. Can we at least get a consensus on the "Saddam is a brutal despot and a proven liar" issue?

If sustained inspections are really the answer, as you suggest, then why didn't they work the first time around? Why should I believe that Iraq will not continue to conceal forbidden weapon programs from inspectors, given that the UN Security Council has pretty much publically stated that there will be no consequences one way or the other for doing so? Why should I not believe that the world community will, over time, lose interest in sustaining an ongoing program of inspections, just as they did in the late 90s? Why should I not believe that Iraq will, once again, become less and less cooperative as the world's attention shifts to other matters, eventually hindering and then expelling UN inspectors with little real protest from the world community?

In short, why should I believe that something that clearly did not work before (in the sense that it's twelve years later and Iraq still possesses weapons forbidden to it by the UN) is suddenly the answer to our problems now?

[Bullhajj]

I already said most reasonable people acknowledge he's a despot. Continued inspections are not an ideal solution--but it's a prudent and responsible solution.

[Ben Sones]

If they aren't working, then how are they either prudent or responsible? I said in that other thread that I've heard no compelling arguments from the anti-war crowd, and this is precisely what I'm talking about. I offered my reasoning--I'd like to hear yours.

How will continued inspections accomplish what they haven't in the last 12 years? Why should we believe that Iraq will comply with the mandate to disarm? And if we don't believe it, then why should we believe that 100 guys searching 169,000 square miles of unfriendly territory are going to be able to effectively hunt down weapon programs that, in all likelihood, Saddam has spent the last 12 years learning how to hide? What is prudent or responsible about telling an aggressive despot with a history of poor judgement and military aggression that we would like him to stop trying to develop nuclear weapons, but we aren't going to force him or anything because that would be wrong?

I mean, really. I'd like to know. Because I don't find vague platitudes about "doing the right thing" to be particularly convincing. That's not even an argument, since you haven't even explained what's so right about it.

[Bullhajj]

Inspections did work the first few years. Compared to 12 years ago, there are actually not that many weapons left. And, according to Blix, Iraq has been working to comply the last few weeks.

Look if you want to believe the guy is out to get you, then there isn't much I'm going to be able to say to you. The fact of the matter is Iraq has never attacked America. It's prudent and responsible to wage war as a last result, after all other options have failed. I just don't believe we're at that stage yet.

[Ben Sones]

They did work in what way? Did they eliminate 100% of all forbidden weapon programs from Iraq? Could Blix say that? Would he? If so, why are we still looking for (and finding, as recently as a week or two ago) weapons that Iraq has said that it no longer possesses? Why are there still chemical and biological agents that Iraq cannot account for? If they were so effective, would we even be having this conversation, or would Iraq be a non-issue today?

Because as I pointed out above, a high rate of effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss even one nuke.

It's prudent and responsible to wage war as a last result, after all other options have failed. I just don't believe we're at that stage yet.

Then I guess my question is, when will you believe that we are at that stage? When Iraq proves you wrong by unveiling a nuclear missile and declaring an end to all foreign-imposed inspections and mandates? Is it prudent or responsible to hold off on the use of force until it is no longer a viable option, as is the case with North Korea?

[Captain Cookiepants]

Inspections did work the first few years. Compared to 12 years ago, there are actually not that many weapons left. And, according to Blix, Iraq has been working to comply the last few weeks.

Look if you want to believe the guy is out to get you, then there isn't much I'm going to be able to say to you. The fact of the matter is Iraq has never attacked America. It's prudent and responsible to wage war as a last result, after all other options have failed. I just don't believe we're at that stage yet.

Okay, one last question: If Saddam is telling the truth, and he has absolutely NO chemical or biological weapons in his country...why is he threatening to unleash chemical and biological weapons against any U.S. soldier that invades? Is he gonna ask us nicely for a cup of anthrax and THEN use it?

And yes, Saddam has attacked America, American property (embassies count) as well as funding terrorists that bomb American businesses, and the handful of inspectors that have been killed. Not to mention the dozen or so random American soldiers or civilians that are killed there every year and the odd reporter every once and awhile. Plus he's invaded our allies. We aren't the French, we stand by our alliances.

[Bullhajj]

They worked in that compared to 12 years ago, there are less weapons.

You keep talking about the one nuke that got away. But Iraq does not have nukes. You have to try and understand that point. Further, none of the inspectors have found evidence of nuke program. We can continue the debate but you have to use real facts.

[Bullhajj]

Cookie, I never said Saddam is telling the truth about anything. In fact, I would not believe a word he says.

[Ben Sones]

They worked in that compared to 12 years ago, there are less weapons.

You keep talking about the one nuke that got away. But Iraq does not have nukes.

Nor have I said that they do. In fact, I said that it is imperative that we eliminate any programs that they have to develop and/or obtain nuclear weapons before they do get one, at which time it will be too late.

You have to try and understand that point. Further, none of the inspectors have found evidence of nuke program.

So why do you think a nuclear weapons program (which may not even rely on creating fissile material from scratch at all, if they can obtain it from an outside source) will prove so easy to find in a country the size of California, assuming that they'd want to hide it? We know they did have a program in the past, which they managed to hide even from your super-effective inspection program of the early 90s. After years of Iraqi denials, the IAEA was able to get Iraq to admit to a far more advanced nuclear weapons program and a project based on advanced uranium enrichment technology. According to a CIA report to congress in 1998, however, "[Iraq] continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement and weapons design."

Then the inspectors left the country for a few years, and when they come back--poof! No nuclear weapon program. Doesn't that seem a bit suspicious to you?

[Bullhajj]

Nor have I said that they do.

Not quite.

a high rate of [weapons inspections] effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss even one nuke.

This is typical of most arugments for the war. The conversation moves toward fear based non-arguments, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly, but this is always where it goes.

[Brad Grenz]

As opposed to the well reasoned "bombing will kill hundreds of thousands" argument we get from the peace protesters. No fearful hysterics there...

(edited to fix one word's spelling. too lazy to fix others)

[Ben Sones]

This is typical of most arugments for the war.

I agree. You still haven't explained why it's wrong.

[TomChick]

You still haven't explained why it's wrong.

I'm sure Tim can speak for himself, but he's made his case pretty clearly: when you say inspections are useless if even one nuke escapes detection, you're resorting to "fear based non-arguments".

Maybe I don't understand the point you're trying to make, but when you write "a high rate of effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss even one nuke", it sounds to me like you don't care one way or the other whether the inspections were successful, because there's always the chance that one nuke can slip through, so, hell, we might as well attack.

-Tom

[Erik]

Maybe I don't understand the point you're trying to make, but when you write "a high rate of effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss even one nuke", it sounds to me like you don't care one way or the other whether the inspections were successful, because there's always the chance that one nuke can slip through, so, hell, we might as well attack.

I'm going to rephrase Ben's point. The inspections are not intended to be an endless scavenger hunt for illegal weapons. Disarmament does not mean that the confusingly-named "inspectors" scour the countryside for clues left by a recalcitrant Iraqi Government. The object here is for Saddam Hussein to pony up credible proof that he has disarmed and then make a compelling case to convince the world that he has no plans to rearm. This is the absolute least he can do to come into compliance with the will of the entire free world. And this is exactly what he has steadfastly refused to do for more than a decade. The minimum level of compliance - the active, sincere, and prompt cooperation of Saddam Hussein - isn't a 100% guarantee that he's disarmed. But the clear absence of this minimum level of compliance is a guarantee that he still has something to hide. Given his open contempt for America, the bottomless pit of black gold he controls, his designs on neighboring countries vital to our national interests, and his track record for instigating patently unwise acts of aggression, I'd say a policy based on fear is pretty fucking reasonable at this point.

[Tyjenks]

Then the inspectors left the country for a few years, and when they come back--poof! No nuclear weapon program. Doesn't that seem a bit suspicious to you?

Plus, all of those thousands of liters of Anthrax, VX gas, Ricin, etc. that they were documented as and admitted to having. When this "inspection" restarted, Saddam said, "We got rid of that." I see no one in the U.N. standing up and saying how did you get rid of it, where did you do this, and where is the evidence to back up your claims.

As Erik just said, the inspectors are not there to ferret out information and possible hiding places. Iraq agreed to be forthcoming and completely open. They have been neither.

[Jack]

If the UN handled corporate drug screening:

UN: "We see here you've admitted to being a crack addict. Do you promise not to smoke it anymore?"
Screenie: "Uhhh.... Yes?"
UN: "Congratulations. You're hired."

[Bullhajj]

I agree.

Wow, your conceding that inspections should have been given a chance? Hey, that wasn't so hard. Bring in the next hawk!

[TomChick]

Wow, your conceeding that inspections should have been given a chance? Hey, that wasn't so hard. Bring in the next hawk!

I can't tell if they're conceding that inspections should have been given a chance or that they were superfluous all along.

That's the cool thing about being pro-invasion: you can pick from about a half dozen different arguments to support your case. It's like a political salad bar: "I'll have a bowl of bucking the inspections with a human rights topping and I think I'll some light support of international terrorism on the side."

-Tom

[Rywill]

True in the sense that there are dozens of reasons to attack Iraq, any one of which alone would suffice.

[Erik]

That's the cool thing about being pro-invasion: you can pick from about a half dozen different arguments to support your case.

You've mentioned this before, using the same sarcastic tone. I just want to clear up your position: The fact that there are several reasonable arguments for military action somehow makes the case for war less compelling to you? If one reason is better than six, would a war with zero plausible justifications receive your unconditional stamp of approval?

[TomChick]

The fact that there are several reasonable arguments for military action somehow makes the case for war less compelling to you?

Well, if you want to mince words like that, I'll have to agree with you: yes, there are several reasonable arguments for military action.

However, I'm not aware of any reasonable arguments for a short-sighted, ill-timed massive invasion without clear motives or goals that flips the bird to the international community with little regard for the consequences.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

That's the cool thing about being pro-invasion: you can pick from about a half dozen different arguments to support your case.

You've mentioned this before, using the same sarcastic tone. I just want to clear up your position: The fact that there are several reasonable arguments for military action somehow makes the case for war less compelling to you? If one reason is better than six, would a war with zero plausible justifications receive your unconditional stamp of approval?

The problem with that is most of the half-dozen reasons could apply to a number of other countries equally well--and one of the things people around the world are worried about is that this will set the precedent for the U.S. invading other countries whenever we have a general dislike for what is going on there.

The United States position seems to be that our own sovereignty is paramount (no need to participate in pesky international organizations) but other countries sovereignty can be discarded whenever it suits our interests--even if they pose no direct threat to us. What's more we dress our intervention up as some sort of moral crusade. No wonder people in other countries think our current leadership is dangerous.

[steve]

Given his open contempt for America, the bottomless pit of black gold he controls, his designs on neighboring countries vital to our national interests, and his track record for instigating patently unwise acts of aggression, I'd say a policy based on fear is pretty fucking reasonable at this point.
Can't you make similar arguments against North Korea, China, Russia, and a lot of other countries? Should we invade them next?

[Bullhajj]

Given his open contempt for America, the bottomless pit of black gold he controls, his designs on neighboring countries vital to our national interests, and his track record for instigating patently unwise acts of aggression, I'd say a policy based on fear is pretty fucking reasonable at this point.
Can't you make similar arguments against North Korea, China, Russia, and a lot of other countries? Should we invade them next?

Exactly. And this is just one of the problems with an aggressive, fear-based, foreign policy. Eventually something bigger and badder comes along and puts you on the losing end of such a policy.

[Anonymous]

It's mostly a PR problem at this point. Saddam is a bad guy. I can't explain why we couldn't come up with nice, easy to understand, causal reasons for going to war against Iraq-- and I totally blame the current administration for fucking that up and making us look like the aggressors here.

However. As long as we can engage Iraq and actually come up with a good smoking gun after the fact, I think we're OK. Example. We invade, find a massive underground chemical weapons facility, and then tell the world community-- hey! We told you so, dumbasses! Then we're justified.

However, if that doesn't happen, then whatever the outcome, we look like aggressive cowboys doing whatever the hell we want. Which is bad.

-wumpus

[Anonymous]

Ok you pro-war guys, I'll try and put this in a way you can understand.
I'm pretty sure this is the way most of the world feels.
Please feel free to distort this to suit your needs.

The stated goal of the UN weapons inspections is/was to verify iraq disarmed.

On one hand Iraq got rid of most of it's WMD.

On the other hand, they probably have some left. A relatively small amount, but they are probably violating the UN resolution.

One thing the US has not proven is that Iraq is a threat to world, or even US security. (Feel free to spout off lists of embassy bombings and terrorist support. Also feel free to back it up with some good proof. )

So the pro-war people are saying, Iraq hasn't complied 100%. The US is going to take over now. We'll run things until we set up a puppet government. Eventually it'll be a democracy.

The world is saying, Iraq has complied 90%. They are contained. They aren't a threat. There isn't justification to invade. It looks like a US power grab, that's all.

The pro war people love proclaiming that this is to liberate the iraqi people. Joe Iraqi gets up every day and wonders if it'll be his turn to be beaten by police, or if the soldiers are going to rape his wife. Free Iraq. You pro-saddam guys are evil. You make me sick.

The anti-war crowd wasn't born yesterday. The US has enough of a track record of not giving a damn about democracy in other countries, or the freedom of non-americans to actually have anyone believe that the Iraqi people have anything to do with this.

The pro-war crowd, around here at least, have mastered the art of searching out the craziest peace activists, and posting about them. It probably isn' t that hard, since there are so many of them. Grab one article about some idiotic protester, and suddenly the whole world is naieve.

So, to sum it up.
Iraq disarmed a lot, but still has some WMD
Most non-americans really don't think Saddam is much of a threat.
Most non-americans think there isn't enough reason for the US to take over iraq.
Most non-americans don't trust the motives of the bush administration.

The one way the war crowd could convince the world to join up isn't by proving Saddam has some chemical weapons left, but that he intends to use them against someone.

[Anonymous]

I'm telling you, it's all about the smoking gun. If we can find one post-invasion, we're justified. If we don't.. well, I don't think Minority Report style wars based on predicting future crimes are going to go over too well with the rest of the world community.

-wumpus

[Anonymous]

proving Saddam has some chemical weapons left, but that he intends to use them against someone.
Doesn't Saddam have a track record of aggression and being completely irrational? I'd say simply having the smoking gun is enough; we don't have to prove intent. I don't think a guy like Saddam is collecting WMD like Pokemon trading cards-- he's gonna use them sooner or later.

-wumpus

[Tyjenks]

I would say, to a man, none of us here are "pro-war". We are pro getting rid of one of the many threats to the U.S. and its allies. By you opposing the war, would you like me to call you, the protesters and anyone who does not support the U.S.'s efforts "pro-Saddam"? I think not.

[Anonymous]

The pro war people love proclaiming that this is to liberate the iraqi people. [...] The anti-war crowd wasn't born yesterday. The US has enough of a track record of not giving a damn about democracy in other countries, or the freedom of non-americans to actually have anyone believe that the Iraqi people have anything to do with this.

Not to mention we already sold out a large number of the Iraqi people by telling Turkey that we would allow them to exercise control over the Kurds. Not much of a liberation for them.

[Erik]

The United States position seems to be that our own sovereignty is paramount (no need to participate in pesky international organizations) but other countries sovereignty can be discarded whenever it suits our interests--even if they pose no direct threat to us.

This is a problem you share with the UN: a literalist equivalence between the sovereignity of free societies and the sovereignity of the planet's most repressive totalitarian states. If you truly believe that there is no fundamental difference between the two, that all nations are governed by different but equally legitimate ideologies, then there isn't even common ground for us to have a rational argument.

Can't you make similar arguments against North Korea, China, Russia, and a lot of other countries? Should we invade them next?

Ignoring lots of other things, like why, exactly, we would want to go to war with Russia, one of the many differences is that two of these countries are clearly nuclear powers. There's a belief that North Korea may also have a couple of nukes. If we attack North Korea, it's entirely possible that they will level Seoul, a city of 10 million people forty miles away. Thus, we are effectively deterred from dealing with an aggressive, deluded tyrant.

Iraq has made its nuclear ambitions clear. Unimpeded, it will acquire nuclear weapons, to the detriment of the world. I think this is pretty hard to argue with, though you're obviously free to. You may not agree, but it also seems pretty obvious that the UN route is not providing the necessary impediment. The decades long UN plan also relies on sanctions that are almost certainly more damaging to the Iraqi populace than a short, focused, professionally run war will be. Tackling Iraq now is largely opportunistic: What we can do today may be impossible or at least too costly to do tomorrow. Make no mistake, it will be the U.S.'s responsibility to clean up every ghastly mess that Saddam Hussein gets us all into until the day he is removed from power. Though it's evidently unfortunate for Tom's "Just One Reason" theory of just war, there happens to be a nice intersection in this case of national self-interest and humanitarian despot eviction. Does this set a precedent that will lead us directly to an invasion of Belgium because of its ban on American-grown genetically modified corn? I say no. You, apparently, think yes. We'll see.

I'm not sure how you can argue that regime change wouldn't be a blessing for China. I'm also not sure how you can argue that an invasion is the way to do it, which leads directly into the next thing I'm not sure about: Why do you think all foreign policy problems must be dealt with in exactly the same way? Do you honestly not see any differences between Iraq, North Korea, China, and Russia? If so, you're making George Bush look like a genius of nuanced statesmanship.

Here are some handy questions for people to answer:

Since Iraq is a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the U.S., should we stop enforcing the no-fly zones?

Should we have removed Saddam from power in 1991, even though he hadn't attacked us and even though we had no UN madate to do so?

Should we have stayed out of Kosovo for the same reasons?

Did the universally condemned 1981 Irsraeli destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant make the world more or less safe?

Since "unilateral" now effectively means "without France", should sex with anyone other than a French national be considerd masturbation?

[Captain Cookiepants]

The world is saying, Iraq has complied 90%. They are contained. They aren't a threat. There isn't justification to invade. It looks like a US power grab, that's all.

But LOOK what it took to get them to comply that 90%, what's your theory on what we should do? Should we pull out, wait for Saddam to kick the inspectors out of the country again, then 5 years later amass ANOTHER 200,000 troops on his borders to get him to comply again? Are you saying that's what we should do? Or do you trust Saddam enough to keep his word this time? You're an abused wife aren't you? 'Baby I won't do it again, I swear, I love you, I only do it cause I love you *smack*.'

It's Saddam's pattern, he's been doing the same thing for 12 years, we should stand by and let him do it for 12 more years until he finally works fast enough to get a nuclear weapon and bomb the shit out of the region?
But even forgetting the doomsday scenario (and don't think for a SECOND that it couldn't happen) He has been doing this exact same thing for years, why should we let him do it for years more?

Why should we spend billions every five years to clean up the U.N's mess and get Saddam to concede a tiny bit before we're forced to pull back? Only to do it all over again a couple years later, if we don't have to go in and kick him out of another country first.

And I love you people that say 'Well what about North Korea? Why aren't you bombing them??' Did you not JUST get done saying we should give Iraq more time? 'Sorry Korea, we have to bomb you, better you than Iraq, they need more diplomacy, screw you guys.'

[TomChick]

And I love you people that say 'Well what about North Korea? Why aren't you bombing them??' Did you not JUST get done saying we should give Iraq more time? 'Sorry Korea, we have to bomb you, better you than Iraq, they need more diplomacy, screw you guys.'

Hear that sound, Captain? It's the whoosh of a point soaring clear over your head.

The point is that the US should have clearly defined criteria for when to invade other countries. As of late last year, she doesn't any more.

That is, assuming this whole thing happens...

-Tom

[DrCrypt]

So Tom, is that 747 point of yours that America should be inextricably bound to a laundry list of stagnant technicalities which scientifically state to a hundredth of a percentile when invasion is "correct"? And that, much as how you feel that video game reviews should be completely removed from the "fun" equation of the player, this hypertechnical laundry list of America's should be completely removed from the "moral" equation of allowing creepy third-world dictators to acquire nukes and phase out the local five-and-dimes for government-operated rape spas?

Because - in a similar manner to the way you are the only reviewer in the world who thinks reviewing a form of entertainment shouldn't take enjoyment into consideration - I guarantee you that Chickipilutia will be the only country in UN II that is willing to completely forego foreign policy based upon its own moral compass. As for the laundry list - that's what UN One is all about, and note how it hasn't stopped three million Congoese from being massacred in the last five years, or the four million Rwandans within ten weeks in the early 90's, or the Bosnian rape camps, or Saddam Hussein, etc.

And did you rent The Woman in Black yet?

[Jason McCullough]

Is there a reason conservatives think they can remake the world now? Do they need their own Vietnam to learn the lesson liberals did?

[balut]

[quote] I don't think a guy like Saddam is collecting WMD like Pokemon trading cards-- he's gonna use them sooner or later.

-wumpus

"VX Gas missile -- I CHOOSE YOU!!!"

[Ben Sones]

Because - in a similar manner to the way you are the only reviewer in the world who thinks reviewing a form of entertainment shouldn't take enjoyment into consideration

Tom can respond to this on his own, certainly, but I don't remember ever hearing him say this. He has a thing about using fun as an adjective to describe why a game is good. That's not such a bad thing--"fun" is a highly unspecific word. I don't think he actually advocates that fun is not important. Since people play games to be entertained, it clearly is.

[Captain Cookiepants]

And I love you people that say 'Well what about North Korea? Why aren't you bombing them??' Did you not JUST get done saying we should give Iraq more time? 'Sorry Korea, we have to bomb you, better you than Iraq, they need more diplomacy, screw you guys.'

Hear that sound, Captain? It's the whoosh of a point soaring clear over your head.

The point is that the US should have clearly defined criteria for when to invade other countries. As of late last year, she doesn't any more.

That is, assuming this whole thing happens...

-Tom

*shakes head and chuckles in the most condescending way possible* Tom Tom Tom, you can NOT be saying that we need a hard and fast list of criteria to use in EVERY situation can you? You don't see how foriegn relations is a fluid and living thing that needs to be changed on an hourly basis? *chuckles again* Tom you wonderful wacky man-child you.

[balut]

Tom should use that as his tagline in reviews:

"Article by Tom Chick, Wonderful Wacky Man-Child"

[XPav]

*shakes head and chuckles in the most condescending way possible* Tom Tom Tom, you can NOT be saying that we need a hard and fast list of criteria to use in EVERY situation can you? You don't see how foriegn relations is a fluid and living thing that needs to be changed on an hourly basis? *chuckles again* Tom you wonderful wacky man-child you.

That right, dammit

YESTERDAYS unprovoked attack in violation of the UN Charters is TODAYS humanitarian attack to keep the world safe.

Everyone got it? Its like diplomatic Calvinball -- the US makes the rules up as we go along!

[Squirrel Killer]

*shakes head and chuckles in the most condescending way possible* Tom Tom Tom, you can NOT be saying that we need a hard and fast list of criteria to use in EVERY situation can you? You don't see how foriegn relations is a fluid and living thing that needs to be changed on an hourly basis? *chuckles again* Tom you wonderful wacky man-child you.

That right, dammit

YESTERDAYS unprovoked attack in violation of the UN Charters is TODAYS humanitarian attack to keep the world safe.

Everyone got it? Its like diplomatic Calvinball -- the US makes the rules up as we go along!

I think what the Wacky Cappy was trying to say is that you can't manage internation relations by writing a specific list of actions a foreign nation can/can't do just like you can't develop a game by writing a specific list of features to include.

But where a game developed by such a list usually lacks that "fun" element, international relations conducted in the same way would lack that "common sense" element.

Having a rigid set of criteria isn't as good as it sounds. It's what leads to "Three Strikes" laws that imprision people for life for minor infractions. It leads to "Zero Tolerance" rules that expell kids for Midol. It leads to kids who think GTA3 is a simulation getting their driver's license at 16. While some defined restrictions are good, flexibility to handle different situations differently is better.

[TomChick]

You don't see how foriegn relations is a fluid and living thing that needs to be changed on an hourly basis?

Hey Captain, telephone for you! It's the Bush State Department. They say you're just what they're looking for and can you start Monday?

DeTocqueville, who is French, said the two hardest things for a democracy are getting into a war and getting out of one. I just hope Bush's short-sighted, make-it-up-as-we-go-along policy is as effective at the latter as it is as the former.

-Tom, who hasn't seen Woman in Black yet

[Anonymous]

I would say, to a man, none of us here are "pro-war". We are pro getting rid of one of the many threats to the U.S. and its allies. By you opposing the war, would you like me to call you, the protesters and anyone who does not support the U.S.'s efforts "pro-Saddam"? I think not.

Yeah but having to refer to you as a "pro getting rid of one of the many threats to the U.S. and its allies" guy just seems to take up a heck of a lot more space than pro-war.

And then again, I could call myself a "pro getting rid of one of the many threats to the U.S. and its allies" guy. I just don't think Saddam is enough of a threat to justify war.

So I can't really think of a better way to describe the other side than pro-war.

Then again, if you want to call me pro-saddam because I don't think his country should be attacked, you can also call me pro-Bush.

[Chris Floyd]

This is a problem you share with the UN: a literalist equivalence between the sovereignity of free societies and the sovereignity of the planet's most repressive totalitarian states. If you truly believe that there is no fundamental difference between the two, that all nations are governed by different but equally legitimate ideologies, then there isn't even common ground for us to have a rational argument.

...

Since "unilateral" now effectively means "without France", should sex with anyone other than a French national be considerd masturbation?

Erik, the only argument you've ever made that was more solidly convincing than this one, was that one about Geryk being gay. Way to go. Good to know that when I get snowed in without Internet access for a day that folks like Ben and Erik are around to fight the good fight in favor of the good fight, and do so more effectively than I could anyway.

[asspennies]

Although, in fairness, I agree with Tim that it's easy to find some clueless person to represent the antiwar side, and then hold up their laughable interview and imply that it's representative of the entire antiwar position. And that's lame.

At the same time, though, from what I've seen that woman is representative of a lot of the antiwar movement. There are some people (on this board, for example) who make reasoned (though flawed) arguments about why we shouldn't be going to war. But there are lots and lots and lots of people who are just like this girl: antiwar and clueless.

I know this is an old topic to bring up but I recently found out that the "clueless person" who was implied to be representative of the entire anti-war movement is none other than Andrea Buffa, co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. The Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19590-2003Apr13.html) describes it as "one of the largest national antiwar coalitions, representing more than 200 organizations."

And she still offers not a single alternative.

[Bullhajj]

Are you saying she just didn't present her case against the war very well? Compared to what? It's not as if the current administration has been able to make a compelling pro-war argument.

[Anonymous]

Saddam didn't give a shit about conquering the war, he did once over 10 years ago but he was smacked down hard and fast. He cared only to continue to live his fat cat rich life. And, Mohammed says the war is about Saddam; wasn't it about WMOD? Ari Fleischer even said (just days before the war began) that should Saddam take exile, the USA military would still go in and ensure that there would be no weapons of mass destruction and hopefully, there will be no resistence (I'm paraphrasing Fleischer here). This is not about oil, it's not about Saddam, it's not about WOMD. It's about occupation, about imperialism about controling that piece of land so we can control the entire Middle East. It's going to be Japan, Part II.

Alternatives? We were able to contain the USSR and we can't contain a dinky country called Iraq?

[Brad Grenz]

Ah, but people outside the administration have, like Tony Blair. His point was this stupid woman is apparently the cream of the protestor crop, in as much as she leads a very large number of them. Either they need to look at the procedures they use to choose representatives, or their position is one of hallow conviction devoid of reason or purpose.

It's going to be Japan, Part II.

The Iraqis should be pleased to hear this.

Since your puny brain has failed you once again, guest, let me explain it to you. WMD was the political pretense for the war, but not the sole "reason". Saddam was very much the reason, in that he controlled his WMD, lead the oppression of his people and constituted a risk to the region and the world. If he had simply flown the coop he would not have been those things anymore. He would have been a rich exile living a life of luxury somewhere, until maybe he was tracked down and killed by a free Iraqi Ba'ath-hunter. We are not neccisarily interested in "controlling Iraq", so much as we are in planting the seeds of democracy. If in you opinion "democracy"="America" then I guess you're right. We are hoping to eventually see a wholly democratic middle-east. We think that's in everyone's best interest, save some tyrants and royal families who I don't care too much about. Ask any terrorism expert what the main contributing factors are in the spread of militant Islamic movements, and one answer you'll always get back is disenfranchisment. So we're going to try and enfranchise some people. Damn, that's a shame, ain't it?

[Anonymous]

Are you saying she just didn't present her case against the war very well? Compared to what? It's not as if the current administration has been able to make a compelling pro-war argument.

Is the implication here that someone deeply connected with the peace movement doesn't need to have ready answers or a coherant argument because the hawkish government hasn't provided any compelling argument of its own? Maybe she shouldn't have been on the radio then, huh? Nervous giggles aren't a very good response to questions. If you were undecided about whether the war was/is justified, how would that radio bit have affected you? I think you could even line that interview up side by side with any TV or radio bit of Bush's and she'd still end up looking dumber.

[Jason McCullough]

Is Bush the cream of the pro-war crop? After all, he leads a lot of people!

Bashing the other side's idiots is fun, but it's not very productive.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Is Bush the cream of the pro-war crop? After all, he leads a lot of people!

Bashing the other side's idiots is fun, but it's not very productive.

It is when one side has nothing but idiots.
It's like the Junior Debate Team is going up against the kids on the short bus, feel free to make a compelling argument for why you'd be the JDT side, we'll understand if you can't, we're used to it by now.

[Anonymous]

It's like the Junior Debate Team is going up against the kids on the short bus, feel free to make a compelling argument for why you'd be the JDT side, we'll understand if you can't, we're used to it by now.

Nice example of why most people think you're an idiot.