Anti-war crowd must make it's case

The mainstream press, led by the New York Times (the paper of distorted record), is in the throes of waging a campaign to prevent military action against Saddam Hussein. They have incorrectly labeled such action an “Attack on Iraq;” it is actually the liberation of innocent people from an evil dictator. The press is as giddy as a schoolgirl meeting a teen heartthrob over the fact that Republicans disagree on this issue. The pro-Saddam crowd has consistently raised a few points, which I will now address.

“We don’t know how much this war will cost.” Were these people hell bent on knowing the exact cost of World War II , the Persian Gulf War or the Cold War? Did anyone ask FDR how much removing Hitler would cost? Did they ask Truman how much containing Communism would cost? There are few things certain in war; length and cost are not two of them.

Another argument made is that action against Iraq could “destabilize the Middle East.” When has the Middle East had any sort of stability? The only things stable about the Middle East are the denial of freedom to the citizens of these repressive regimes and the subordinate role of women. Are those worth defending?

The pro-Saddam crowd has also said this could derail the war on terror. This is the next phase of the war on terror! While they argue that Saddam has no connection to terrorism, they overlook the fact that he pays families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000.1 That’s no small sum in the Middle East. Not to mention the recent death of Abu Nidal, a world-renowned terrorist, in Baghdad!2 The BBC was compelled to call Iraq the “last haven” of Abu Nidal and his followers. 3 Some opposed to war continue to maintain that we must solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict first. Saddam is funding Palestinian terrorists – removing him from power would severely diminish the financial benefits of terrorism for Palestinian youth. They want us to solve a conflict Saddam is sustaining before we remove Saddam from power – that’s just absurd!

Another argument is “the President needs to share his plans, so that we can debate them.” Why would we broadcast our military plans to the world (including Saddam)? That’s just insane.

Then, of course, there’s the argument that the “President must make his case.” Did these people miss the State of the Union? Here are a few of President Bush’s words, “Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature… Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” That’s a pretty strong case to me. So to those opposing war with Saddam: Where’s your case?

“We don’t know how much this war will cost.”

That is a rather weak argument. I will concede that. Before we go to war however I would like to know why we are doing so and right now I have serious doubts that we have been given even a sample of the real reasons.

Let's examine the reasons of this author:

Yes- apperently so and the United States of America did defend them- indirectly in the gulf war. Iraq is a secular state that tolerates the presence of other religions- notably a large Chirstian minority and even a smattering of Jews. It's women attend universities, can drive cars, hold jobs, and leave the house without being accompined by a male relative. On the other hand- our Saudi and Kuwaiti allies allow for no rights of women and not one house of worship for any other religion is even permitted to exist. It is a crime to bring the Bible into Saudi Arabia! This is not to say that Sadaam is not a brutal and repressive leader.

But as for repression- America is the chief sponsor and backer of the the House of Saud, of Kuwait, of Yemen, of the kleptocracy in Egypt, of the military dictatoship of Pakistan, and of Algeria, and a host of others in that region. We support those regimes because we fear the alternative- radical Islamic fundamentalist takeover of those governments. So how is Iraq different from those others? Is he any worse than the Turkish government that has slaughtered an estimated 40,000 kurds in ten years? How about Syria which killed 20'000 of it's own citizens in about a week 25 years ago? What about the Algerian government that is engaged in a brutal fight against extremeists in which both sides have pepetrated massacres of entire villages and which some observers say over 100,000 are dead? What about Sudan which has killed over a million Christian and Tribal religious worshippers in the south in the past 20 years? Since the US is the sponsor of and "allies" with regimes that are just as repressive if not more so that Iraq that argument falls on it's face and can't be taken seriously.

While they argue that Saddam has no connection to terrorism, they overlook the fact that he pays families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000.

Yes, he most certainly does. So does Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and even foundations of Arab Americans in the United States. What is the point of that? That becasue Sadaam gives money to the families of murderers that he is our enemy as well? What about the aid given directly to the people and groups who plan and operate these slaughters? That money comes from within the borders of our so called "allies". Another false argument.

And if I am not mistaken Abu Nidal was most likley murdered by Iraqi intelligence as he was an embarassment to the Regime and a risk. And Iraq is the only country hosting terrorists? What about Syria where Hama and Hezzbollah gurillas operate out of and stage attacks from daily? Pakistan aided and supported- hell - practically created the Taliban regime in Afghanistan! Sudan even hosted Osama for years.

No we don't need to solve the Isreali conflict or debate our war plans in open. Those arguments are absurd and put forth by people who would rather not point out the simply feable reasons this administration has floated for war with Iraq.

The last argument is the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument. Because Sadaam has WMD or might obtain them then we have a right to invade Iraq. Dubious and specious on both logical grounds and legal as well as tradition. Sadaam at best has chemical weapons and perhaps some anthrax right now. He has no mass delivery system and he knows that if such weapons were to be used against us either directly from him or though terrorist proxies his life would be over, his country invaded and taken over. And if anyone hear doubts that our "allies" don't have the exact same programs going on right now then I have a bridge to sell you.

So Iraq is not really any more repressive than the garden variety corrupt regime in that region and even less so in certain areas. He has even less to do with Islamic terrorism than do most of our "allies" and much less to do with 9/11 than even Saudi Arabia which still won't cooperate on the investigation into that dreadful day. And he ain't the only one with a WMD program in that region.

So I ask a question? What are the real reasons for this proposed war against Iraq since the ones we have been given so far are laughable?

What are the real reasons for this proposed war against Iraq...

I was encouraged by the title of the original article, but disappointed by the author's approach.

The title suggests, correctly, that the burden is on the anti-war advocates to make a strong case against removing Saddam.

It is accepted practice since time immemorial that a people can act to defend itself against an attacking enemy. Our President, using the best intelligence, has identified Saddam Hussein as a key element of enemy forces, which quite obviously transcend national borders and hold illegitimate grasp upon the resources of a number of sovereign states.

I'm a little confused, Burkeman1. Is it that we don't really have a right to defend ourselves, or is it that YOU PLACE MORE TRUST IN SADDAM HUSSEIN THAN GW BUSH regarding Saddam's complicity? Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the kings and be satisfied with executioners like bin laden?

I find it interesting that pacifists and leftists are searching all over America for 'root causes', yet somehow the idea that the chain of cause and effect goes through Saddam's neighborhood is ludicrous beyond belief.

In the end it doesn't really matter if we have a 'right' to defend ourselves under 'international law'. The UN, its charter, and all its resolutions are a fat joke without US strength. The UN is a convenience and a mechanism for self-delusion permitted by Pax Americana.

When push comes to shove, national interest and power relations prevail as they always have. If taking down Saddam is required in the national interest, regardless of ironclad 'proof' we will do it.

You miss the point of my post and you are generally missing the forest for the trees.

You cite ad nauseum other regimes which share Saddam's atrocities. Saddam is simply the worst and most dangerous culprit among many. We are taking him down as a measure of practicality, realpolitik, and risk assessment, not as an effort to achieve some ideal perfectly uniform foreign policy. Saddam is unique in terms of his motivations, power, and resources

Furthermore, you note,
if such weapons were to be used against us either directly from him or though terrorist proxies his life would be over, his country invaded and taken over

Are you unaware that many experts have tied the anthrax mailings to Saddam? By your reasoning, if our intelligence experts have determined thus, our attack should be virtually automatic and required!

Your President has stated that further evidence will be put forward, and he has meetings with major allies in the same regard in the coming weeks. He obviously feels he has an argument to make. In the meantime it seems your instincts are to side with Saddam over your own President.

I'm glad somebody showed up to give the OTHER (correct) side. I was leery of bumping this thread, due to the responses here.

My bottom - line opinion? Hussein might have had something to do with Black Tuesday, and that's, by God, ALL I NEED. Anybody who even THOUGHT of helping out the animals who pulled that one off, or CELEBRATED them (that would be ...SADDAM!) need to die, soonest. No mercy, no quarter, no prisoners. Only by being so ruthlessly focused can we hope to put some "terror" into the hearts of any future piles of fertilizer, and some second thoughts into their heads.

If every potential terrorist in the world KNEW that attacking the U.S. would attract a fleet of B-52's loaded with Daisy Cutters and Thermobaric Bombs to anyone who MAY have helped, this nonsense would stop, one way or another.

And before anyone starts that "what about the Saudis" line, rest assured that the reason they fear our toppling Hussein is because they can foresee themselves being dragged to the block by their own people, after they get a look at the new, U.S. - built democratic Iraqui Republic. Them and the Iranians will go on their own, as soon as they get an example to follow. Then, we just clean up the remaining holdouts (Syria and Libya, COME ON DOWN!!) and it's over.

Difficult? Long - term? YES. So was WWII and the Cold War, but we hung in there and won those, too. Our only other choice is to continue to endure these attacks, until we get nuked ourselves.

Oh, and I love those blaming US for the attacks AGAINST us. I guess if a woman dresses provocatively, she deserves to get raped. Pathetic logic. An apt metaphor, however, as the terrs hate us because we look so much better compared to anything THEIR own culture has built.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.