Help explain(again)why we went to war with Iraq to a liberal

This is an email from a co-worker. Help me out with this. Thanks in advance!!

Reply, why are you wasting the company's time with this?

PS:Don't tell him you're freepin' at work.

To get big oil contracts for Bush and to spank Saddan for daddy, of course.

"Maxim did a story on them about a year before all of this went down"

If this is where this guy gets his education, hang it up. You don't have enough time to spend twelve years educating him. Just use the analogy of "OK, this guy comes to your house rapes your daughter and shoots your sons dead, then dares you to do anything". Then walk away while he thinks about it.

Try these links for some material (oblique to his questions, perhaps):

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts

Impeach the President (for lying about WMDs)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067552/posts

To get big oil contracts for Bush and to spank Saddan for daddy, of course.

That sounds about right. When are we going to see some $ from the oil takeover? The only thing I hear these days is that our boys are getting killed one by one every couple of days by Sadam loyalists.

The libs asking it this way are tilting the playing field - moral justification for going to war with someone does not obligate one to actually do so. What Saddam did that was "different" was to invade two of his neighbors and blatantly flout the postwar agreements that allowed him to remain in power, depending on those same agreements to prevent the United States from removing him. And the threat of WMDs, at least, was very real and actively cultivated by him. If it was a bluff (and I wouldn't say that it was that, yet) then it was a very convincing one, and he should be the last to complain if we acted as if we believed it.

Okay, let's stay with this email and the simple analogy he made about neighbors, the neighborhood, it's noone's business, blah, bhah, bhah.

Ask this person if perhaps one day he looked out his window and across the street he saw his neighbor being burglarized, the thugs had backed up a pickup to the front door, and were taking his most valuable items and loading them onto their getaway vehicle. How would he respond? Would he call the police or try to stop the injustice himself, or would he just promptly close the curtains and thank his lucky stars it wasn't him being robbed. I'd wait for his response before responding further.

Here's why staying with HIS analogy is so important: Sadaam Hussein invaded Kuwait lest anyone forget. He wanted to take all the valuable property (oil) that rightly belonged to another country. This man invaded another country, so our we, the most powerful country (police) supposed to just sit by and watch this man plunder.

Hussein has a track record. If he could invade another country like a cold-blooded criminal, well then, what else is he capable of.

Anyway, stay with this guy's anology as much as possible, he's the one that steered it that way in the first place.....SO NUKE IT!

I'll use it, thanks.

Ask this person if perhaps one day he looked out his window and across the street he saw his neighbor being burglarized, the thugs had backed up a pickup to the front door, and were taking his most valuable items and loading them onto their getaway vehicle. How would he respond? Would he call the police or try to stop the injustice himself, or would he just promptly close the curtains and thank his lucky stars it wasn't him being robbed. I'd wait for his response before responding further.

This isn't a good analogy either. I never actually "saw" Sadam kill anyone. I did however see Bin Laden blow up our buildings. Bin Laden however is still running around causing trouble.

Yeah, but was he aggressive towards the US?

The answer here is "yes". The US is after all the country which waged a war against him in 1991, then blockaded his country and (occasionally) bombed his country for the next 12 years. It's weird that your friend doesn't seem to think this would make Hussein even the least bit aggressive toward the US in response. "Liberals" are usually pretty good at understanding Why They Hate Us. Yet here we smacked a guy out of Kuwait, ruining his ambitions, and then we bomb and patrol and blockade his country for 12 years and your friend seems to assume Hussein would just take all that in stride, "hey guys no hard feelings, all in good fun, what".

There are alot of Sadam Husseins in the middle east and Africa. There is caos like this going on in the world everyday.What did Saddam do that was so different from what other dictators are doing? How did what Saddam do effect the US and why isn't the US going after all the other dictators that are like him?

Interesting question. He invaded another country For Oil, prompting us to intervene to force him back out (killing some 150 of our troops, injuring who knows how many more, not to mention "Gulf War Syndrome" which was perhaps caused by our need to vaccinate our troops against his potential use of bioweapons...). So after that, we had to blockade his country and send troops to protect the Saudi regime from him, for the next 12 years. This all cost us money and time and resources, and also stirred up resentment against us which contributed to the 9/11 attacks.

That's, uh, bad. I agree that there are bad guys in, like, Africa too but dealing with/containing them, and their continued reign as dictators, has not caused us quite so many problems. In general I'd be for taking out other dictators too, but bite off what you can chew.

There are too many other countries that don't do things the way we do things.

"Not doing things the way we do things" has got nothing to do with any of this. Your co-worker is seriously misinformed if he thinks we invaded Iraq "because they don't do things the way we do things".

We can't go around telling the whole world how to live their lives.

In some cases, we most certainly can, and even must: namely, if "how they live their lives" causes us significant problems. For example, "how the Japanese lived their lives" in 1941 included: Attacking Pearl Harbor. We could, and did, go around telling them not to live their lives that way.

Similarly, "how Iraqians lived their lives" included the following: Being dominated and ruled by a dictator with powerlust and designs on ruling over a nationalist Araby for he and his descendants, profiting immensely from the oil reserves he controlled, threatening and plotting to take over neighbors' oil reserves, including those of Kuwait, which we prevented him from doing via warfare, but at the additional cost of a twelve-year blockade and protecting the Saudis, which angered some other people who eventually murdered 3000 of us on 9/11/2001. No offense to them personally of course but I was getting sick and tired of the Iraqians "living their lives" this "way" (i.e. having a dictator who caused us so many problems), and so we can and DID do something about it.

You have to stay out of other peoples busines whether you like what they are doing or not.

I disagree. Does "other peoples' business" extend to torture, rape, murder, extortion, and power-grabbing? I don't like those things, and I see no reason why I "have to stay out" if I see it going on.

Anyway, that aside, why does this guy call himself a "liberal"? Shouldn't liberals care about other peoples' liberty?

You are a home owner now. You will without a doubt not like everything all of your neighbors do that live within your vicinity. Does that give you the right to go onto their property and change anything?

If those neighbors are violating peoples' rights, then sure.

Anyway, the analogy to home ownership and the language of "rights" is inapt. Nation-states are not "homes" and neighboring nation-states are not like neighboring homes, and in the interaction between nation-states there is no such thing as "rights". "Rights" per se don't have anything to do with it.

This whole costly mess wasn't about WMD. Saddam went after Bush senior. This president had a personal score to settle at the cost of the tax payers in this country.

He's free to believe that if he wants. I'm free to think he's a loon.

I am very familiar with what Saddam and his sons did. Maxim did a story on them about a year before all of this went down.

This guy's really informed, he reads Maxim!!

I am just as frustrated as anyone else in this country but if you want to t take someone out, take out Osam bin Laden.

Where is he, genius?

What makes him think OBL's even still alive?

Bin Laden however is still running around causing trouble.

How do you know that?

Where is he?

I never "saw" Hitler kill anyone either....

How do you know that? Where is he?

I can't prove that he is alive, but at the same time you can't prove he is dead. The CIA says that the "bin laden" tapes are likely authentic meaning there is a good chance it's him. Being that we are all so concerned about terrorism because we are all so scared and feel we are not safe, why not send the military to find his ass? I think finidng bin laden dead or alive would be a bigger victory for "the war on terror" than Sadam. I doubt that Al-Queda operatives give a damn about Sadam. As long as there is a small chance their cult leader, Bin Laden, is alive Al-Queda operatives will continue on.

I can't prove that he is alive, but at the same time you can't prove he is dead.

Yes that seems to be where things stand. Which leaves me wondering how you could have written "Bin Laden however is still running around causing trouble" just a few posts ago. I asked you how you knew this and obviously the answer is that you don't.

So then do you have a point to make?

The CIA says that the "bin laden" tapes are likely authentic meaning there is a good chance it's him.

Is this the same "CIA" whom everyone doubts about "WMD" and the like?

If Osama Bin Laden is alive, I have to wonder why he has such difficulty releasing actual videotapes rather than all these dumb audiotapes. Videotape technology has been with us for some time and is relatively cheap, compact, and widely available, virtually every bit as much so as audiotape technology.

But hey, you're the one convinced he's still running around causing trouble. So where is he? What trouble?

Being that we are all so concerned about terrorism because we are all so scared and feel we are not safe, why not send the military to find his ass?

Give me some coordinates. Where shall we send the military? I'm game.

I think finidng bin laden dead or alive would be a bigger victory for "the war on terror" than Sadam.

Perhaps.

Coordinates, please.

I'm ceaselessly amused by the "let's send the military to go get 'im" complaint. Where the hell are they supposed to go?? You don't just "send the military" out the front door and say "here's some helicopters and guns, here's a shirt he wore once, now take a sniff and then go get him". Get real.

As long as there is a small chance their cult leader, Bin Laden, is alive Al-Queda operatives will continue on.

I hate to break it to you but "Al Qaeda" operatives will (and probably have been) continue on regardless of whether OBL is alive. "Al Qaeda", whatever else it is, is not the Cult Of OBL, and even if he's still alive, finding and killing/capturing him would not stop "Al Qaeda" from doing whatever it's trying to do. The main thing OBL contributes to "Al Qaeda" is money and we can stop that even if we never do find his grimy remains.

I never "saw" Hitler kill anyone either....

It's a little extreme of you to compare Hitler to Sadam. They are both evil,yes, but their capabilites and intentions were very different. In his heyday, Hitler could have conquered the world if it wasn't for his unrealistic ambitions. The Germans followed Hitler on their own will because they liked him. Sadam's people on the other hand followed him because they feared him. In my opinion Hitler killed people for the sake of killing and Sadam killed people to get richer and stay and in power. I don't think see these two crazies the same.

I would ask the liberal friend by what means, aside from removal from power, a dictator can be punished for wrongful actions.

"It's a little extreme of you to compare Hitler to Sadam."

I'll just let that stand as your statement by itself. A killer is a killer is a killer. Saddam tried to KILL Freedom, just like Hitler tried to kill Freedom.

If Osama Bin Laden is alive, I have to wonder why he has such difficulty releasing actual videotapes rather than all these dumb audiotapes. Videotape technology has been with us for some time and is relatively cheap, compact, and widely available, virtually every bit as much so as audiotape technology. But hey, you're the one convinced he's still running around causing trouble. So where is he? What trouble?

Chances are that Bin Laden, if he's still alive, is in a cave somewhere. Video teleconferencing technology is probably the last thing you're going find in his lair regardless of how cheap it is. You probably won't find toilet paper and look at how cheap that is :). Even though he's only releasing audio tapes, it's enough to boost morale among his operatives. This is how he's causing trouble in my opinion. The man has the ability to influence dangerous people with just words.

I hate to break it to you but "Al Qaeda" operatives will (and probably have been) continue on regardless of whether OBL is alive. "Al Qaeda", whatever else it is, is not the Cult Of OBL, and even if he's still alive, finding and killing/capturing him would not stop "Al Qaeda" from doing whatever it's trying to do. The main thing OBL contributes to "Al Qaeda" is money and we can stop that even if we never do find his grimy remains.
I agree with you here by the most part. The only point I was trying to make is that as long as there is hope that Bin Laden is still alive, Al Qaeda is going to use the tapes as morale boosters. From what I understand, Al Qaeda terrorist see this as a war, where they hit us, then we hit them, and then they hit us back and so on. It would be better for the cause if we used most of our resources to find Bin Laden, dead or alive. If it would have been my call, Sadam would have been a lower priority.

Chances are that Bin Laden, if he's still alive, is in a cave somewhere. Video teleconferencing technology is probably the last thing you're going find in his lair regardless of how cheap it is.

Who mentioned "teleconferencing technology"? Sheesh.

Supposedly (because supposedly he's still alive), in that cave he's got an audiotape recorder, and presumably people are visiting him from the outside world to bring him blank tapes (and food, medicine, etc), and pick up the finished tapes and drop them in a mailbox to Al Jazeera. ERGO, those people, who are in contact with the outside world, and shuttling him food, tapes, medicine, etc., COULD stop at a market on the way and pick up a cheapo handheld video camera which accepts and records onto videocassettes.

Perhaps at the same place they bought the audiocassette recorder.

But they don't. Isn't that weird!! I find it puzzling.

Even though he's only releasing audio tapes, it's enough to boost morale among his operatives.

This is true. It's true even if that voice isn't really OBL - it's true if people merely think it's OBL.

It has no bearing on anything I'm saying per se.

This is how he's causing trouble in my opinion. The man has the ability to influence dangerous people with just words.

I see. In that case, I agree: someone surely is causing trouble, even if it's just some guy who's impersonating OBL, or splicing old sound bites of his, and making those tapes.

I'd be all for getting that person.

Where shall we send the military?

The only point I was trying to make is that as long as there is hope that Bin Laden is still alive, Al Qaeda is going to use the tapes as morale boosters.

I agree. Not much we can do about it.

It would be better for the cause if we used most of our resources to find Bin Laden, dead or alive.

I'm not sure I agree with this. "most" of our resources? You still haven't answered exactly where we're supposed to send all our soldiers. Also it's not so obvious to me that the cost-benefit analysis of finding Bin Laden (to reduce Al Qaeda "morale") vs. stabilizing Iraq would come out on the side of "leave Iraq now and let a civil war take place"...

A flawed assumption here is that all the "resources" we are using (or "wasting"/"distracting") in Iraq, could somehow be used in the "find bin Laden" effort. Look, we've got some thousands of soldiers in Iraq right now. We can't "use" them to Find Bin Laden because we don't have any real idea where to send them. Those soldiers aren't being "distracted" from Finding Bin Laden because there is no way for them to help find Bin Laden in the first place.

I mean I suppose we could build a giant camp in the middle of Afghanistan somewhere and then plop all our soldiers down in the middle of it - that way we could at least claim we're "using all our resources" on the Find Bin Laden effort ("our soldiers are in his last known position now") - but then what? They sit there and twiddle their thumbs? Because "Find Bin Laden" is not a task you can just throw "resources" at. Those "resources" need to be relevant to the task and they need to have something to do. Which is why I am still left asking: where on earth are we supposed to send our soldiers? What are the coordinates?

If it would have been my call, Sadam would have been a lower priority.

Gotcha. To me they're both high priorities. It's just that the soldiers we have in Iraq couldn't be prioritized into a Find Bin Laden effort even if we wanted to; these "resources" aren't even transferable to that effort unless we know where to send them.

Where shall we send them?