Gore on Iraq [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

AIM

09-24-2002, 01:33 PM

I just briefly went over the article but I agree with Gore that we need to stay the fuck out of Iraq.

Look at these couple points:

1) We are going to lose a lot of men over there. It's not going to be easy. Iraq alone has 15,000 Republican guards men in the major cities. I believe the Iraq army totals out at 100,000 + thousand men... I could be wrong, but his army isn't necessarily small.

2) We believe that he has chemical and biological weapons in mass quanity at his disposal. This could wipe out a good number of our troops if he decides to pursue this type of warfare.

3) China and Russia...

If we attack Iraq, what do you think China's attitude will be? I will bet anyone here that there going after Tawain. China's mentality will be that if America can attack other countries that they deem to be a threat, then we can attack Tawain because they have disobeyed our ruler and we deem Tawain a threat. What will America's response be? I guess we will attack China as well.

And how about Russia.. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Iraq owes the Russian's about 8 billion dollars. And let's see... Russia is in major debt and turmoil.. What will there attitude be? I can allmost guarantee you that they will be selling there stock pile of weapons to 3rd world countries because there broke!!! Are we going to pay Russia 8 billion when we invade and occupy Iraq? HELL NO!!!

4) Our occuptation in Iraq will last 10 years at the minimum. Can we afford this? Hell no!! We're in a recession and in major debt. Do you really want your tax dollars to go to Iraq so we can build it up, but yet we may never personally visit the area.

These are just a couple of reason's why we need to stay the hell out of Iraq. Yes, Sadam is an evil man but he has not showed the capability to threaten this great nation . He has some biological and chemical weapons and in my opinion that's all he has. Bush is on this personal crusade and it sickens me. Thank god I'm past the draft age.

Get the body bags ready.....

:(

Jason McCullough

09-24-2002, 02:11 PM

Iraq might turn out ok, it might not; it's entirely possible his army will up and surrender to us. China doesn't have a physical method of invading Tiawan, either; amphibious landings are hard.

asspennies

09-24-2002, 03:21 PM

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/13/Worldandnation/Fighting_terror_noteb.shtml
Feb. 12, 2002:
Al Gore, re-entering America's foreign policy debate, said Tuesday night that the time had come to oust President Saddam Hussein in a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself."

Sep. 23, 2002:
Former vice president Al Gore challenged President Bush on Iraq, warning that the administration's determination to launch military action to dislodge President Saddam Hussein will "seriously damage" efforts to win the war on terrorism and "weaken our ability to lead the world."

Sounds to me like he's only saying what he thinks is politically right for him from moment to moment. He lacks any conviction whatsoever.

That's what I think of the man.

Chris Floyd

09-24-2002, 03:46 PM

I was a little struck by the number of times Gore said, essentially, "Some people have criticized the Bush Administration for [X]. *I'm* not doing so, but notice that people have been saying those things." Glad to see Gore taking a stand and telling us what he really believes.

I think the fallacy in Gore's line of thinking here is that Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism. I don't think Bush would deny that by taking on Iraq we are compromising our focus in the fight to disassemble Al Qaeda and track down Bin Laden. We only wish it was so easy to choose the order in which we address these things or, moreover, to choose the order in which future threats become realized threats. Bush's policy, by my reading, is that something should have been done about Hussein a long time ago. Sept 11 has reminded us of the pressing realities of our national security. That's put Iraq back on the radar when it shouldn't have been off in the first place. So now, even in the midst of another war, we have to do what's necessary in Iraq. Gore wants to imply that Bush is pulling Iraq out of his ass. It's more like he's found it lying under a blanket in the White House storage space, to the embarrassment of himself, past administrations, and the United Nations.

Dave Long

09-24-2002, 04:01 PM

Did you read his speech? Gore clearly states that there is a need for regime change in Iraq. He doesn't agree with the way Bush is going about it.

But don't let that get in the way of your interpretation...

--Dave

asspennies

09-24-2002, 04:19 PM

So I guess a "final reckoning" against a "virulent threat" is more weak-kneed diplomacy and an endless and inneffectual inspection team, acording to Al Gore.

Somehow, I doubt that's what he meant at the time. But forgive me for interpreting...

Jason McCullough

09-24-2002, 04:23 PM

I think the fallacy in Gore's line of thinking here is that Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

'We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.'

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Anonymous

09-24-2002, 05:55 PM

I'm all for prudence, but I'd like to know what Gore's time limit is for assembling this coalition. Is it infinite? Because if it isn't, and if he can't build a coalition for a cause that he clearly believes is both vital and just, then unilateral action would appear to be his only remaining choice.

Sharpe

09-24-2002, 06:12 PM

To: Mr. Asspennies

Regarding Mr. Gore's alleged inconsistency, please review the following:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071500

Here is a more full quote of Mr. Gore's 2/12/02 speech (the one paraphrased and partially quoted in your earlier post).

"[F]inishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition."

Then if you look at the transcripts of Gore's recent speech posted above, it sure looks consistent to me.

I think the attacks on Gore, just like the "what did he know" attacks on the younger Bush, are examples of the overly-partisan hatred that is a serious problem in current American politics. The conservatives are screaming about Gore's current speech, alleging inconsistency, etc, without addressing the merits. Gore brings up several very serious issues with plans to attack Iraq unilaterally, right now, including two that I mentioned in another thread: why *right now*? and what happens after Saddam?

Frankly, I think that as a nation we need to have a serious discussion of what will happen after Saddam, before we go in. It doesn't take a huge amount of study to learn that the region is so fraught with ethnic differences, religious tensions, historical hatreds, race, clan, family and language divisions, plus the HUGE issue of entangling minorities in neighboring Iran, Turkey, Syria & Jordan, to realize that a period of chaos post Saddam could be MORE dangerous than Saddam.

Additionally, I think we are already on a slope to future trouble in Afghanistan. The country is still deeply divided into essentially medieval fiefdoms ruled by warlords and druglords, with a small area under the control of Mr. Karzai, who is supported by Americans (and protected by Amercian bodyguards). Despite the pictures of jubilant Afghani citizens after the invasion, the country is still essentially in shambles, and food and medical aid are having a hard time getting to the villages, let alone the work of reconstruction beginning. In the long term, building a stable, democratic Afghanistan with a successful market economy would be one of the best statements of why the American model is great. However, I don't see the Bush administration taking any serious and large scale steps to starting (or even planning) the kind of decades-long reconstruction Afghanistan is going to need.

Afghanistan has less than 10 million citizens IIRC. Iraq has well over twice that, along with far more heavy weapons, caches of hidden weapons, etc. Plus Iraq has serious issues with very tense and jealous neighbors. Rebuilding Iraq is going to be twice or more the job of rebuilding Afghanistan. If we are not even willing to start on Afghanistan, what are we going to do about Iraq?

Because in my opinion, the *worst* thing we could do is invade Iraq and then bail out, and also bail out of Afghanistan, and let the region just descend into inevitable chaos. If you want to see a scenario where Al Qaeda or its fellow travelers gets their hands on germs or poison gas, along with fanatical backing and regional anarchy, then go ahead and invade Iraq with no plan as to what comes after.

Daniel Ban (aka Sharpe)

Tom Clancy quote deleted to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of Mr. Chick.

Dave Long

09-24-2002, 06:27 PM

voltaic

09-24-2002, 06:37 PM

Didn't Gore invent Iraq?

asspennies

09-24-2002, 07:12 PM

But he's not arguing for eventual toppling of the Iraqi regime. Read the speech. He's arguing not to touch Iraq at all - only that 'other options remain open' - for various reasons.

One - it will distract against our war against "Al Qaeda" - even though there has never been anything of the sort said that would indicate the war effort is directed solely against Al Qaeda - they were just our first target. Bush said as much in his address to congress. He also said that the war would not be easy, it would not be short, and it would not involve a pure "victory" moment. He got a standing Ovation. How quickly people forget.

Two - it will hurt the "goodwill" we received "after the Sept 11 attacks." I don't know about you, but if the way we get goodwill is by the killing of 3000 people, I don't want it.

He argues quite vehemently that "now is not the time" for fighting Iraq without any real justification - only that 'things are still happening in Afghanistan,' to paraphrase. Then he goes on to outright SAY that Bush has "abandoned" Afghanistan without any evidence or proof - or any regard to the thousands of troops still there. Things are going to be happening there for YEARS - and waiting for years while this Saddam is stockpiling weapons and perhaps getting a hold of nukes is pretty bad policy, IMO.

Makes me wonder what would have happened would Gore have been president during Sept 11th. Can you say "fire some tomohawks at a few empty terrorist camps?"

Jason McCullough

09-24-2002, 07:28 PM

Jesus fucking christ. I can see you've studied at the Jonah Goldberg school of mendaciousness.

Al Gore, yesterday:
Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.

My ass he's arguing not to touch them at all. That people seriously think the Al Gore who actually went to Vietnam (unlike a certain GOP candidate who went AWOL for a few months from his position in the National Guard), who supported Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq I, Panama, Grenada, and opposes the lifting of sanctions on Cuba, is some sort of hippie peacenik, drives me up the wall.

Oh, and Bush has abandoned Afghanistan, flat out. Our troops don't leave the capital, except on missions to find members of Al Qeuda. Bush is holding up $80 milliion he promised the president to build a new road on his visit to NY, leaving his underlings to only give him $20 million (and here's the kicker) it has to come out of aid money already allocated to stuff like food. There was an assassination attempt on the president a short while ago.

Brad Grenz

09-24-2002, 10:13 PM

Jason McCullough

09-24-2002, 11:26 PM

Multilateralism isn't unpopular. Only 37% in polls support the U.S. invading Iraq without any allies.

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 01:07 AM

Sharpe

09-25-2002, 01:25 AM

So, we should only go after Iraq with an international force, but the security of Afghanistan is our sole responcibility? This is part of that thing where the world resents the US for acting as the world's police force while at the same time refusing to lend a hand. If Europeans are all so worried about Afghanistan outside of Kabul, then why don't they commit the troops for the peacekeeping effort? Oh, yeah. Because it would turn into a complete clusterfuck trying to reign in all the warlords. That, coincidentally, is the same reason the US doesn't do it themselves.

Here's the problem: if the warlords don't get reigned in, the same kind of chaotic power vacuum that produced the Taliban will recur. And if that kind of vacuum occurs in post-Saddam Iraq, then the vacuum will be filled by minority splinter states, with dangerous consequences for neighboring countries. As to making the rebuilding effort multilateral, sure we should definitely try to do that. But since we lead the coalition into Afghanistan and will lead once again in Iraq, it will be on us lead the coalition to rebuild things. My specific beef with Bush on Afghanistan is that I don't see them having a clear *plan* to rebuild - I don't see them organizing a big coalition to share the costs, setting up long term plans, etc.

Look, I'm no fan of the endless demogogery and parliamentary maneuvering of the UN. But I am concerned about taking on these heavy responsibilites by ourselves for 2 reasons:

1)Acting unilaterally, to put it bluntly, makes us look arrogant and stubborn - maybe we figure all our allies are milquetoast weenies who can't carry their water but if we act like that's what we think, then don't be surprised when they think we are self centered arrogant bastards. In an increasingly globalized economy, international goodwill is not something you just cheaply throw away.

2)Bearing all the cost by ourselves, economically, militarily, and politically is very foolish when the entire world will be benefitted by the removal of the danger. It makes sense to share the burden. Look, I don't want to go hat in hand begging to the UN but it seems to me that if we have a strong enough case to justify our immediate action then we should be able to convince some major and regional allies to help us.

And lastly, in terms of the current frenzy about Iraq, I remain concerned that there are motives of short term political gain motivating the Bush team. There are clearly issues in this country that Bush has potential problems with (especially the economy) and the Iraq debate, in its full raging talk-radio frenzy, sure feels like a distraction to me.

Daniel Ban (aka Sharpe)

Bub, Andrew

09-25-2002, 07:16 AM

Oh, and Bush has abandoned Afghanistan, flat out.

Ah... quite the mendacious statement considering the recent infusion of US and allied com and noncom troops in the AO. You obviously have narry a clue about LIC, or how things work in this particular theater of operation.
Raphael

Raphael, I wish you'd register, it would help people who don't know you see that you're actually a credible poster in a thread like this. Rather than some fly-by-night guest. Also, SF Commando... where'd you get that? San Francisco Commando? :)

Reeko

09-25-2002, 07:18 AM

Al Gore who actually went to Vietnam

Yeah, as a photographer/journalist. His duty was probably as dangerous as W taking off in jet fighters.

Matthew Gallant

09-25-2002, 07:54 AM

Every American in Vietnam was in danger, 24 hours a day. Journalist or not. Ask Daniel Pearl how safe journalism in an unstable foreign country is.

Chris Floyd

09-25-2002, 09:14 AM

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Posting the same thing again from a different source won't change his mind. If he read it, he'd be forced to at least think about it. Much easier to take the media's clipped out blurbs and use those to support his opinion.

Excuse me? I read the speech (until Dave's source ended abruptly; haven't read the usatoday transcript) and responded with my thoughts about it. I'm a little surprised that some of the more respectable posters on this forum couldn't even give me the benefit of the doubt that I've read the thing. I post about what I see as weaknesses in Gore's argument, and you guys post about my incompetence? Thanks. I myself am thankful Dave posted the speech, as I had only heard clips on NPR, and I'm interested to hear other viewpoints on this debate. I somehow thought Dave was interested in the same thing.

To respond to Jason's accusation, I apologize for saying "Iraq" when what I meant was "the question of an immediate attack on Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism." The key difference between Bush and Gore here is that Gore thinks we should spend time (as someone else points out, he doesn't state how long) building up an international coalition to deal with the situation. Bush, as evidenced by his speech at the United Nations which I'm assuming you've al read carefully, would like to have an international coalition, but believes that the threat is grave enough that America must be willing to act in the circumstance that that coalition does not come together.

The centerpiece of Gore's speech, as I read it, was that America has more important things to do now -- like continue to dismantle Al Qaeda and support Afghanistan -- than to attack Iraq. If he didn't believe that a military campaign in Iraq would remove the focus from those other goals, why did he spend so much time talking about "focus" at the beginning of his speech? I can tell that Gore sees Hussein as a threat -- as any intelligent politician should. I'm not accusing Gore of dismissing Saddam or anything like that. The difference, obviously, is one of urgency and priority. The point of my first post was to say that all the issues Gore very astutely brings up are, I believe, in all practicality, of equal priority, including removing Saddam *immediately*. I think this is where Bush stands as well.

So, do I get the benefit of the doubt for being a thoughtful contributor to this conversation, or are you going to assume that I've just been reading "media blurbs" or Jonah Goldberg columns instead of the speech in discussion?

Dave Long

09-25-2002, 09:33 AM

Substitute "asspennies" for "his" in the above quoted paragraph and then relax.

--Dave

Chris Floyd

09-25-2002, 10:14 AM

Okay, so I suspected that might have been your intention, Dave, but then pay close attention to the fact that Jason's post was a response to *mine*, not asspennies'.

Jason McCullough

09-25-2002, 10:50 AM

Does anyone bother to read source materials? Ever?

Posting the same thing again from a different source won't change his mind. If he read it, he'd be forced to at least think about it. Much easier to take the media's clipped out blurbs and use those to support his opinion.

To respond to Jason's accusation, I apologize for saying "Iraq" when what I meant was "the question of an immediate attack on Iraq is some sort of voluntary distraction in the war on terrorism." The key difference between Bush and Gore here is that Gore thinks we should spend time (as someone else points out, he doesn't state how long) building up an international coalition to deal with the situation. Bush, as evidenced by his speech at the United Nations which I'm assuming you've al read carefully, would like to have an international coalition, but believes that the threat is grave enough that America must be willing to act in the circumstance that that coalition does not come together.

The centerpiece of Gore's speech, as I read it, was that America has more important things to do now -- like continue to dismantle Al Qaeda and support Afghanistan -- than to attack Iraq. If he didn't believe that a military campaign in Iraq would remove the focus from those other goals, why did he spend so much time talking about "focus" at the beginning of his speech? I can tell that Gore sees Hussein as a threat -- as any intelligent politician should. I'm not accusing Gore of dismissing Saddam or anything like that. The difference, obviously, is one of urgency and priority. The point of my first post was to say that all the issues Gore very astutely brings up are, I believe, in all practicality, of equal priority, including removing Saddam *immediately*. I think this is where Bush stands as well.

So, do I get the benefit of the doubt for being a thoughtful contributor to this conversation, or are you going to assume that I've just been reading "media blurbs" or Jonah Goldberg columns instead of the speech in discussion?

This is the first thoughtful post you've put in this thread, Chris. And interestingly, Gore doesn't actually rule out unilateral action anywhere in the speech; he just doesn't like Bush's approach.

Like Gore, I don't buy the immediate argument. If he's on the verge of getting a nuke together, why has Bush been sitting on his ass for months about this? Why can't he share some of his evidence (which is apparently contradictary enough that Rumsfield doesn't think he's imminently going to get it.)

Ah... quite the mendacious statement considering the recent infusion of US and allied com and noncom troops in the AO. You obviously have narry a clue about LIC, or how things work in this particular theater of operation.
Raphael

I may not know your buzzwords, but a) U.S. troops only leave the capital on Al Queda hunting missions and b) we're withholding virtually all funds.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=editorial093002

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 11:52 AM

I may not know your buzzwords, but a) U.S. troops only leave the capital on Al Queda hunting missions and b) we're withholding virtually all funds.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=editorial093002

Again, you, like the author from the New Republic, understand little about the conduct of this war. The paramaters of Low Intensity Conflict aka LIC, cannot be highlighted on a newsreel or politicized in a half-baked opine peice. However, your lack of knowledge (as with the New Republic's article) concerning what exactly US and allied troops are accomplishing in the region, especially considering the host of FID and UW ops, is understandable. You're not in the Stans nor at the command center, so you wouldn't know.

What Civil Affairs, PsyOps, Seabees, and other noncom units are tasked to do in this theater will bear fruition as soon as rags like The New Republic decide to report it. Last I heard, three schools, two hospitals, a mosque, were rebuilt last month with US assistance. What about our money pouring into training and equiping the new Afghan army? How about the humantarian assistance aka food and medical supplies being distributed throughout the region? The list goes on.

Raphael, I wish you'd register, it would help people who don't know you see that you're actually a credible poster in a thread like this. Rather than some fly-by-night guest.

Andrew, you could always check my IP. ;-)

Raphael

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 12:05 PM

voltaic

09-25-2002, 01:11 PM

I sure could use a peanut-butter and jelly sandwhich right now.

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 01:44 PM

1. I'm glad someone in the Democratic party finally took it upon themselves to do their civic duty and put themselves in the path of the unaccountable locomotive of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration. Right or wrong, both Gore and Daschle are upholding the highest ideals of our democracy by insisting that there be some kind of conscionable democratic accord before we embark on an invasion.

I agree with you to an extent. Free speech is what makes the United States a decent country. However, I do feel Daschle and Gore are talking out of both sides of their mouths. A couple of years ago, they were gung ho about doing the deed. Now, all of a sudden, it's the complete opposite. It just seems like PURE politics to me.

FWIW, most people are missing the actual point to this whole debate, which is, Saddam has been violating UN resolutions for many years, while continuously firing AAA at the UN-backed aircraft in the NO FLY ZONE. Whether or not he has WMD should be of secondary concern. If the UN is to be taken seriously, they must act in accordance with the resolutions they dictate. Otherwise, they are a paper tiger, and leaders like Saddam, will rarely be held accountable for the infractions they incur.

Unfortunately, the UN has a long and tarnished history of negating conflict. Just look at the recent examples: Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Khasmir, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. No matter the reasons, as an organization, the UN hasn't helped stop the bloodshed in any of these conflicts. Which begs the question on whether the US should sit on the sidelines while the UN continues to allow Iraq to dictate the tempo of this whole fiasco.

2. I've got a lot of respect for anyone who made it through qualifying and Robin Sage, but Raphael, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where our leaders were accountable to Congress?

I appreciate the respect, Daniel. In a perfect world, yes. The Supreme Court should be held accountable to Congress, Congress to the President, the President to the Supreme Court, and vice versa, etc. The US government was designed with checks and balances in mind. However, considering more than half of congress already supports action at some level against Iraq, as they always have, I think accountability on this matter is working. FWIW, I do believe the President is currently posturing, and in so doing, creating a stronger National and International consensus. This is what Gore and Daschle are doing, but purely for political reasons, IMHO. They all have the right, and it's nothing new. What's interesting here, is the President's administration wanting to tackle the Saddam problem well before 11 SEP. This is documented. Unfortuantely, this possible action against Saddam has suddently transformed into a hot political debate because of the upcoming election. All other factors have taken a back seat. Herein lies the weakness of a democracy (or federal republic)... but this comment should be reserved for another thread.

On a lighter note, you still playing GR? :wink:

Raphael

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 02:07 PM

Just got Island Thunder, bad boy. Who needs Iraq?

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 02:24 PM

Just got Island Thunder, bad boy. Who needs Iraq?

hehe-- good call! Yeah, a few military buddies (a couple fresh back from you know where) and I have been cranking on GR MP the last few of weekends. I.T. should make a nifty addition. Hopefully, they got more MP maps (I'll know after I my review copy arrives sometime, tomorrow). Ghost Town, Refinery, and Stronghold are getting kinda old. How about linking up with us one of these weekends.

Raphael

Anonymous

09-25-2002, 02:26 PM

(I'll know after I my review copy arrives sometime, tomorrow).

Scratch *I* from the sentence. :wink:

R

Jason McCullough

09-25-2002, 03:16 PM

SF, if you say so, but everything I've seen points to the U.S. virtually bailing on the country.

FWIW, I do believe the President is currently posturing, and in so doing, creating a stronger National and International consensus. This is what Gore and Daschle are doing, but purely for political reasons, IMHO.

Right, Gore and Daschle couldn't possibly oppose a unilateral preventive war because of opposition on the merits.

William Harms

09-25-2002, 07:15 PM

A couple of years ago, they were gung ho about doing the deed. Now, all of a sudden, it's the complete opposite. It just seems like PURE politics to me.

A couple years ago, Cheney was doing $73 million worth of business with Iraq via two Halliburton subsidiaries. I guess back then Saddam was all nice and sweet; after all, our vice-president wouldn't do business with a madman, would he?

Bub, Andrew

09-25-2002, 08:59 PM

A couple of years ago, they were gung ho about doing the deed. Now, all of a sudden, it's the complete opposite. It just seems like PURE politics to me.

Economy is down, unemployment is up, Deficit Rising, corporate scandals -um- still not dealt with... and mid-term elections imminent? Attack Iraq? Dominate the front page with that for... months? Seems like PURE politics to me.

I'm being a bit facetious here but I think opposing the actions of the administration is an example of the Dems getting brave, rather than opposing the Repubs for the sake of opposing them (PURE politics). I'm a hawk on Iraq (I was pleased when Bush, during the State of the Union, indicated an invasion), but I don't think it's worthwhile without support. So, yeah, I'd have to say I agree with Daschle and Gore here.

Brad Grenz

09-25-2002, 10:14 PM

Hell, what better to give the economy a kick in the ass than with a War effort? Not that I think that's a good enough reason alone. Do you people know that there is a children's prison in Bagdahd? It's for the children of political prisoners. UN weapons inspectors have described it as the worst thing they saw in Iraq. The conditions are apparently horrific. But I'm sure all the 5 and 6 year old inmates support a policy of deterence.

My specific beef with Bush on Afghanistan is that I don't see them having a clear *plan* to rebuild - I don't see them organizing a big coalition to share the costs, setting up long term plans, etc.

No, I think your specific beef is that you expect miracles overnight. Sorry, we're fresh out of magic potions and pixie dust. Nation building, especially in a place as decrepid as Afghanistan, is going to take decades.

Anonymous

09-26-2002, 12:07 AM

SF, if you say so, but everything I've seen points to the U.S. virtually bailing on the country.

Give it some time, Jason. Some of the trees we're planting in the region may bear fruit sooner than later. However, we gotta remember-- our primary objective over there is to root out all al Queda goons-- they still remain a formidable enemy (formidable meaning: they can still carry out acts of terrorism). Ferreting them out still remains a valid strategy. We also know that a stable and economically feasible Afghani government helps us obtain this objective. Considering how ass backwards everything is over there (aka decades of war, tribal bloodsheding, and poverty), both objectives may take years to accomplish. This operation, including the continuation of US and British backing, is for the long haul. Hopefully, we can get other nations to help foot some of the bill, as well as send in a few preacekeeping troops, now and then. FWIW, Romania recently joined the fray.

Right, Gore and Daschle couldn't possibly oppose a unilateral preventive war because of opposition on the merits.

What are those merits? Do tell.

Really now, the only truth that matters in this whole debacle is how Saddam continues to violate a number of UN resolutions (for almost a decade) while the Paper Tiger UN sits on the sidelines waiting for him create more havoc. Historically, the UN is reactive by nature, but not very good at it. Saddam's miscues are really the only excuses anyone needs to beat his sorry ass into the ground using the tenants of JUST WAR. He comes close to mimicking the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler. I've seen the horror of his handy work, in his own backyard, firsthand. The images of three little Kurdish children with 3rd degree burns over most of their bodies from the chemical weapons he used against their village, remains haunting. He has a penchant for using CBRN, or have we forgotten. Does anyone remember him firing 39 SCUD missles at Israel during the Gulf War?

Though I prefer peace over war, I do believe some form of action, beyond the duldrums of UN diplomacy, is necessary under the current circumstances. If UN inspections return full swing without a hiccup, then great. Maybe Bush's war posturing paid off. In the meantime, let's not fool ourselves into believing there are merits for opposing action against Iraq.

A couple years ago, Cheney was doing $73 million worth of business with Iraq via two Halliburton subsidiaries. I guess back then Saddam was all nice and sweet; after all, our vice-president wouldn't do business with a madman, would he?

Bill buddy, what are you saying here? ;-) We're talking about Iraq violating UN resolutions and getting around sanctions, like recently. This is what's on the table. If Gore and Daschle want to pretend likes it not happening, or have a better solutions on getting Saddam to comply other than what's already been attempted over and over again, then by all means, bring it to the table. Otherwise, their rhetoric is pure garbage.

No, I think your specific beef is that you expect miracles overnight. Sorry, we're fresh out of magic potions and pixie dust. Nation building, especially in a place as decrepid as Afghanistan, is going to take decades.

Good one. ;-)

FWIW, here are some recommended books on the subject of JUST WAR:

Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars
Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Waltz, Man, the State, and War
Reisman & Antoniou, The Laws of War
MacCurdy, The Psychology of War
and Elshtain (editor) Just War Theory (Readings in Social and Political Theory)

Raphael

Jason McCullough

09-26-2002, 12:33 AM

Considering how ass backwards everything is over there (aka decades of war, tribal bloodsheding, and poverty), both objectives may take years to accomplish.

Fair enough. Things like withholding money make we wonder, though.

Right, Gore and Daschle couldn't possibly oppose a unilateral preventive war because of opposition on the merits.

What are those merits? Do tell.

That they might decide to actually fight us this time (blaming the west for the sanctions, among other things), and cause a ton of casualties in urban fighting? That the country might disintegrate following the fall of Saddam into a bloodbath? The Kurds declare their own state in the north, prompting intervention by Turkey, and the Shiites and Sunnis engage in an orgy of revenge-taking in the south. That Saddam might lob chemical weapons at Israel and cause serious casualties, Sharon nukes Baghdad in response, and all the tottering secular governments in the middle east fall in a region-wide Islamic uprising (I've heard Egypt isn't particularly stable on this, or Pakistan)? If you're worried about Islamic nuts getting nukes, than the thought of a crackpot Islamic government in Pakistan with 'em should be a lot more terrifying than Saddam.

If we could take out Saddam tomorrow with no worrisome side effects, fine, I'll all for that. The complete lack of planning for both the post-war state of Iraq and possible horrible outcomes/worst case scenarios is what I'm worried about. Also, going in alone (which appears to still be a possibility) is incredibly dangerous from a well-being of democracy angle; the support for doing it without allies is at 39%.

From both the standpoints of national security (Iran will be the biggest power in the region once Saddam is gone, with major realignment consequence) and just a general ethical standpoint, I'm totally unconvinced that this war is necessary.

Though I prefer peace over war, I do believe some form of action, beyond the duldrums of UN diplomacy, is necessary under the current circumstances. If UN inspections return full swing without a hiccup, then great. Maybe Bush's war posturing paid off. In the meantime, let's not fool ourselves into believing there are merits for opposing action against Iraq.

There's your merits above.

I'm also not entirely comfortable with Bush's new doctrine of pre-emption, either, and its somewhat basis on the concept of non-rational states (are we going to invade everyone on earth? You can't put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. And how come we expect dictators to be Really Krazy and undeterrable, when the USSR was deterred just fine?), but that's really a separate discussion.

Jason McCullough

09-26-2002, 12:45 AM

Good bit from Slate on casualty estimates:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071530

'The United States and coalition partners would win any future war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a rapid and decisive fashion. This will not be another Vietnam or another Korea. But casualties could be significantly greater on all sides than in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The best analogy for what such combat is likely to involve is not Desert Storm, but the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama—and on a much larger scale. There is a very real possibility that American deaths could exceed 1,000 in number, and several thousand deaths cannot be ruled out. To count on easy victory, as many American proponents of war seem to do, is not only unsupported by the available evidence and by the methodologies of combat prediction. It's also an irresponsible basis on which to plan military strategy in any future war against Saddam Hussein'

He's not the Joint Chiefs, of course, but it's interesting that they don't think the war's such a hot idea either.

Brad Grenz

09-26-2002, 01:04 AM

Sharpe

09-26-2002, 02:17 AM

My specific beef with Bush on Afghanistan is that I don't see them having a clear *plan* to rebuild - I don't see them organizing a big coalition to share the costs, setting up long term plans, etc.

No, I think your specific beef is that you expect miracles overnight. Sorry, we're fresh out of magic potions and pixie dust. Nation building, especially in a place as decrepid as Afghanistan, is going to take decades.

Hmm, I talk about setting up long term plans and then you interpret that as expecting miracles overnight. Doesn't make sense to me but oh well :).

I mean, my point is that nation building in Afghanistan *will* take decades, and my concern is that we don't seem to have a blueprint for organizing that. Rather than pixie dust, what we need now is a plan to get some rebuilding money (from numerous sources) into the country in a way that actually promotes stability rather than just lining the pockets of warlords. Part of that may be setting up the international relations between Afghanistan and various countries so that international trading can resume on a larger scale. Robert Wright has made the argument that foreign trade is more important than foreign aid, and that should definitely be a part of a rebuilding plan. Here's a link:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070210&entry=2070576

I understand that its too soon for results, but I haven't even heard a good long term plan articulated. And for Iraq, we need a plan not just to rebuild but to deal with the inevitable splinter governments and sub-regional conflicts that will spark up after Saddam falls.

Dan

Dave Long

09-26-2002, 05:53 AM

It's interesting that we've reached a point where a thousand US casuialties to conquer a country seems astronomical. It seems like a lot now, but it's a ridiculously low number when compared to the wars in our past.

Are YOU willing to fight and die in Iraq for that country's liberation? What if the war is "won" but we don't find any weapons of mass destruction? How would you feel then if instead of you going over there, it was your son or daughter that you lost?

We can play at being policemen all we want...but when it starts to involve large scale death, it gets a little bit hard to swallow, especially when there is no agression except BY US.

--Dave

Bub, Andrew

09-26-2002, 07:22 AM

Come on Raphael,
You're saying we should invade Iraq and fight Iraq, alone and without the world or the UN, because they violated UN sanctions for 11 years? And that we should bear that tremendous cost in lives and millions and millions of dollars alone?

While Gore is saying we should wait, work, and bring a coalition together and THEN invade Iraq.

["quote SF Commando"] If Gore and Daschle want to pretend likes it not happening, or have a better solutions on getting Saddam to comply other than what's already been attempted over and over again, then by all means, bring it to the table. Otherwise, their rhetoric is pure garbage. [/quote]"

Chris Floyd

09-26-2002, 09:17 AM

The Kurds declare their own state in the north, prompting intervention by Turkey, and the Shiites and Sunnis engage in an orgy of revenge-taking in the south. That Saddam might lob chemical weapons at Israel and cause serious casualties, Sharon nukes Baghdad in response, and all the tottering secular governments in the middle east fall in a region-wide Islamic uprising (I've heard Egypt isn't particularly stable on this, or Pakistan)? If you're worried about Islamic nuts getting nukes, than the thought of a crackpot Islamic government in Pakistan with 'em should be a lot more terrifying than Saddam.

I take your point, in general, Jason, but do you realize that you're arguing that a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein can be deterred indefinitely but that all these other nations would start lobbing nukes at the drop of a hat?

You're saying we should invade Iraq and fight Iraq, alone and without the world or the UN, because they violated UN sanctions for 11 years? And that we should bear that tremendous cost in lives and millions and millions of dollars alone?

You're missing the point, Bub. The UN resolutions were passed to protect the world -- US, Europe, people of Iraq included. Those resolutions are not being enforced, so we are going to enforce them ourselves in the same spirit that they were originally drawn up.

Bub, Andrew

09-26-2002, 09:30 AM

You're missing the point, Bub. The UN resolutions were passed to protect the world -- US, Europe, people of Iraq included. Those resolutions are not being enforced, so we are going to enforce them ourselves in the same spirit that they were originally drawn up.

No, I do get it Chris, in fact I was saying this before September 11th. I am a hawk regarding Iraq. I'm also an idealist who believes that a country who accepts UN resolutions must... MUST... abide by them or face consequences. So I've been pretty unhappy over the past 11 years whenever Iraq gets all uppity. What I'm saying now is that, well, nothing's changed since then. Or if it has, we haven't seen proof (that Saddam colluded with Al Qaeda). So, there's really no rush. We have time to build a coalition and continue to persuade the UN that it needs to be in on this invasion. I don't believe America should go it alone and I hate how the administration is ignoring domestic policy in favor of stubbornly and arrogantly trying to make their fairly weak case. Too costly Chris, and not only in risk to men and material, but the fiscal cost is too astronomical. In money and world prestige (which does matter, even if it's cool to think otherwise all of a sudden).

I say get more allies on board, build a coalition again, then go get that fucker.

Jason McCullough

09-26-2002, 10:39 AM

[quote=Jason McCullough]The Kurds declare their own state in the north, prompting intervention by Turkey, and the Shiites and Sunnis engage in an orgy of revenge-taking in the south. That Saddam might lob chemical weapons at Israel and cause serious casualties, Sharon nukes Baghdad in response, and all the tottering secular governments in the middle east fall in a region-wide Islamic uprising (I've heard Egypt isn't particularly stable on this, or Pakistan)? If you're worried about Islamic nuts getting nukes, than the thought of a crackpot Islamic government in Pakistan with 'em should be a lot more terrifying than Saddam.

I take your point, in general, Jason, but do you realize that you're arguing that a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein can be deterred indefinitely but that all these other nations would start lobbing nukes at the drop of a hat?

I'm using the deterrence theory that no rational actor would start a game of nuclear chicken. Saddam's rational, but I can't say the same about a hypothetical Islamic government in Egypt or Pakistan (imagine the Ayatollah of the 80s with nukes).

Anonymous

09-26-2002, 10:57 AM

Hey guys, there's plenty more I wanna add to this discussion, as well as countering some of Jason and Andrew's points, but it won't be for a day or two. I'm swamped with other things.

Plz hold the fort. 8)

Raphael

Brad Grenz

09-26-2002, 09:53 PM

I understand that its too soon for results, but I haven't even heard a good long term plan articulated.

I think part of the problem is we'd like to encourage self determination there. We can't walk in, unroll blueprints and tell the government this is how they have to do things. Do you know there is no long term plan? Perhaps there is, but it just isn't very interesting television, so you've never heard it. There were all sorts of meetings with Karzi in Europe before the Taliban's defeat. I've heard about women in government positions. I've heard quite a bit about reopening schools. Sure, warlord=problem. Hard problem. That's something that will take a while. We can't just turn around and bomb the shit out of the people who just helped us get rid of the Taliban. We're encouraging disarmorment. We're training a new Afghan army loyal to the democratic government. That's another thing that will take a while. Mustering a competent military force capable of handling the tasks ahead of them. Consider for a moment that you are simply ignorant of the plans in place for Afghanistan.

And for Iraq, we need a plan not just to rebuild but to deal with the inevitable splinter governments and sub-regional conflicts that will spark up after Saddam falls.

Again, who's to say they don't exist? And I think you're assuming much that is far from a forgone conclusion. I'm sure the attempt will be for a inclusive, multi-ethnic democratic government to assume control over all of Iraq's current territory. I mean, do you really think Iran and Turkey would invade while we're still there? No, of course not. They'd get their asses handed to them in a jiffy. And we'll likey never really be 'gone', but when/if that time does come the new Iraqi military will likely be more than capable of its self defense.

Are YOU willing to fight and die in Iraq for that country's liberation? What if the war is "won" but we don't find any weapons of mass destruction? How would you feel then if instead of you going over there, it was your son or daughter that you lost?

Well, I didn't enlist. Everyone who joins one of the armed forces knows that they may some day be asked to fight and die for their country. There's no draft here, these men and women knew what they signed on for. If it was my son or daughter, I'm sure I'd be sad, and I'd miss them, but I'd be proud of them for their sacrifice.

You're saying we should invade Iraq and fight Iraq, alone and without the world or the UN

Well, we wouldn't really be alone. At the very least we've got Britain backing us up. I'm sure there will be others. But I'm really not too worried about getting Rawanda, Ethiopia and Cuba on board. Frankly, the UN isn't very effective these days. Countries have sat on the Human Rights council, never bothering to mention wholesale genocide occuring back home. We have to wait for these people, who can hardly find their own asses with both hands, before enforcing their own demands of Iraq?

Jason McCullough

09-26-2002, 11:40 PM

Brad, no, but that Germany strongly opposes (and France is borderline) is a real problem.

Also, it's strongly implied in a democracy that you don't fight wars with 37% support (which is what the polling is at for unilaterally going in.)

A final bit about why, in addition to my disagreemnt with Bush's arguments, I don't really trust their intentions: in an almost directly comparable situation in North Korea, a fellow member of the Axis Of Evil, we're caving like no one's business, and furthermore letting them extort money out of us for inspections.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/&c.mhtml#axis

asspennies

09-27-2002, 01:03 PM

A final bit about why, in addition to my disagreemnt with Bush's arguments, I don't really trust their intentions: in an almost directly comparable situation in North Korea, a fellow member of the Axis Of Evil, we're caving like no one's business, and furthermore letting them extort money out of us for inspections.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/&c.mhtml#axis

Of course. There's hell going on elsewhere in the world, not just Iraq. So why is Iraq targetted?

It should be obvious.

1. They ARE violating sanctions, they ARE trying to get a hold of nuclear weapons, they ARE helping terrorists, they ARE a threat going forward. As you mentioned, so are others. So what?

2. They have oil. Lots of it. That'll help out all sorts of economies, including seriously helping Iraq itself to rebuild. Of course oil is an issue. But the biggest issue, the real reason why Iraq is targetted, is number 3:

3. It'll be easy.

That's not to say lives won't be lost, civilians won't be killed, tensions won't mount, other governments won't be mad. But the effect of attacking Iraq is infinitely preferrable right now to attacking, say, North Korea. These people who plan the wars are not idiots. They, more then anyone, know what Iraq is capable of, what our armed forces are capable of, and they can pretty accurately forecast what will happen down the road. At least, they believe they can.

But the primary reason the Bush administration is going after Iraq now is because of the perceived ease of the struggle. Agree or disagree at your discretion.