Pro-war camp can't make the case that an attack is in nationa interest

The Orange County Register ^ | Feb. 2, 2003 | Ted Galen Carpenter

[Barandth]

Pro-war camp can't make the case that an attack is in national interest Feb. 2, 2003 Orange County Register Column By Ted Galen Carpenter Vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

President George W. Bush, his surrogates, and the White House's pro-war allies in Congress and the media routinely cite an array of reasons a U.S. military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein is a good idea.

[EternalVigilance]

The liberals are so behind the times, as usual.

The President made the case very effectively over four months ago, at the United Nations:

'President Bush minced very few words concerning Hussein and his regime when he listed Saddam's sadistic crimes, such as using poison gas to slaughter 5,000 innocent men, women and children in the northern part of Iraq. He also used poison gas in the war he launched against Iran.

"Tens of thousand of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape," he said.

"Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children it the presence of their parents - all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state."

And like Afghanistan under the now-eliminated hard-line Muslim Taliban, Iraq "continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments," said the president.

"Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American president (The President’s father, by the way). Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of Sept. 11. Al-Qaida terrorists who escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

President Bush laid down terms he knows Saddam will resist and break once more even if he agrees:

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material." Plus stop supporting terrorism.

Then, in a shot across the bow towards those who are dragging their feet in the War on Terror, including many of our allies, and many in the Congress, he said this to the General Assembly.

"The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one." '

[sneakypete]

We need to get rid of Saddam because once he gets nukes it means Al Qaeda gets nukes.

This is not likely,as they are from one of the radical Muslim sects that have fought wars with Iraq in the past. They would be more likely to use nukes against him than they would be Israel. After all,he has killed more fundie Muslims than any other nation on Earth.

An Iraq with nukes can blackmail the Middle East thus threatening our access to MidEast oil.

Make up your mind. He either supplies other Arab countries with nukes,or he threatens them with nukes (my choice as the most likely). Which is it?

[sneakypete]

If we don't enforce the cease-fire agreements and the 17 U.N. Resolutions, then they gave their lives for absolutely nothing.

Ah,yes. US soldiers gave their lives for the UN.What's wrong with that picture?

[sneakypete]

Liberals are very prone to being sucked in by logical fallacies without apparently being aware of it.

Unlike self-described conservatives who use Iraq ignoring UN demands as a reason for the US to go to war,right?

[dennisw]

Make up your mind. He either supplies other Arab countries with nukes,or he threatens them with nukes (my choice as the most likely). Which is it?

The deal is he is able to blackmail/threaten the USA and Arab countries with nukes. Even a two year old knows Saddam's best nuke to use against us is one delivered by stealth. Smuggled into the US. By Al Qaeda with no one taking responsibility. An untraceable nuke. This should be our greatest fear. He could also do this with anthrax or VX gas. Some VX released in a NY City subway or the Baltimore tunnel would be real interesting. Once again with no one taking credit and certainly not Saddam.

[Boot Hill]

And to your list of reasons why to attack Iraq, you should add:

1. Attempt to assassinate former President Bush.
2. Co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
3. Treaty with Iran to cooperate in aid of terrorism.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[sneakypete]

Barandth has been banned.

Why was he/she banned? For posting a article? Bye bye, turd face!

Classy response,Reagan Man,classy.

[dennisw]

So you like to make allowances for scum like Saddam and think we shouldn't demolish his regime of terror that sits right where the worlds oil reserves are. What else is new?

[sneakypete]

Does DU know you are here????

Or is it that we are now at DU? After all,banning a poster because he posted a unpopular opinion is a defining part of DU.

[dennisw]

I oppose foreign intervention. If I've been brainwashed by anyone, it's by the Founding Fathers, particularly George Washington, who warned us about these kinds of "entangling foreign alliances".....

You are living on a cloud. If you want Arab oil this means we have to concern ourselves with the Middle East. It's a thankless task. Go ride a bicycle and leave your car in the driveway.

[bigunreal]

Wait a minute; I thought this was being done to stop terrorism and rid the world of the next Hitler. Now you're saying it's because we need gas. Kind of like changing boogiemen in midstream; one man's Osama Bin Laden is another's Saddam Hussein.

[bigunreal]

We agree to disagree. I prefer to spend our resources protecting this country directly, and not policing the world. I realize I'm in a distinct minority here, as well as with the population at large. For the record, I want to say I'm against this foreign intervention, as I've been against just about every foreign intervention we've ever been engaged in. But, although I shouldn't have to say this, let me also say for the record that I am in fact opposed to terrorism, third-world dictators (well, actually all dictators) and most of Islam dogma. I know we're going in, and I wish our troops well.

[smug]

are you naive or just liberal

[dennisw]

Wait a minute; I thought this was being done to stop terrorism and rid the world of the next Hitler. Now you're saying it's because we need gas. Kind of like changing boogiemen in midstream; one man's Osama Bin Laden is another's Saddam Hussein.

Go play all the word games you want. Once we dispose of Saddam Hussein you benefit too. No that you'll ever appreciate it. The rain falls on the just and the unjust

one man's Osama Bin Laden is another's Saddam Hussein.

Wow! So clever!

[dennisw]

For the record, I want to say I'm against this foreign intervention, as I've been against just about every foreign intervention we've ever been engaged in.

You must be your very own moral superpower. Like I said, go sell your car and start riding your bicycle since you feel you can exist very nicely without our foreign engagements, "entanglements" and interventions. This war is to make a more stable MiddleEast. One more to our liking, that will have oil flowing freely without the specter of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Let me guess, you're a confused libertarian, right?

[sneakypete]

Even a two year old knows Saddam's best nuke to use against us is one delivered by stealth. Smuggled into the US. By Al Qaeda with no one taking responsibility. An untraceable nuke. This should be our greatest fear. He could also do this with anthrax or VX gas. Some VX released in a NY City subway or the Baltimore tunnel would be real interesting.

Good points all,EXCEPT WHY are you buying into this totally mindless "Saddam" crap? Are you so thoughtless that Saddam Hussein is the only possible source for this that you can see? Other than the Israeli's,he is the LEAST likely one in the middle east to supply Al Qaeda with any WMD because they would most likely turn around and use them on HIM. Stop and think for a bleeping minute,and stop listening to the White House propoganda! Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of more radical fundie Muslims that every other country combined. How in the HELL can you or anyone else possibly think that he can afford to arm his lifelong enemies with WMD without getting hit with them himself?

As for the rest of your post,you make good points. The best way to fight against this would be to FIRST get serious about sealing off our borders,and then go after our REAL enemies,radical Muslims and Saudi Arabia,the country that supports and finances them. We are not going to do this because not only is the Bush family in business with the Saud Royal family,but so are most of the elite families in America. The Saud Royal family owns a LOT of stock in companies like Citi-Bank,AOL/Time-Warner,Ford,GM,etc,etc,etc. This means they are not only in business with the political elite and powerful in this country,but they are also the bosses of many of their children and other relatives. What better way of buying influence that to hire some politicians idiot son or nephew right out of college as a "account manager assistant" at a 6 figure salary? They pull their money out,the account closes,and idiot relative is asking "will there be fries with that,sir?". I can guarantee you that if it were Saddam Hussein in this position instead of the Saud Royal family,you would not hear ONE word about attacking him. In fact,he is a danger to Saudi Arabia,and part of the reason we are attacking him is to protect Ali Bubba-2 Bush's Saudi business partners. How is THAT for irony?

[sneakypete]

So you like to make allowances for scum like Saddam and think we shouldn't demolish his regime of terror that sits right where the worlds oil reserves are. What else is new?

Not your mindless allowances for scum like Ali Bubba Bush,that's for sure.

[Kip Lange]

So you favor...isolationism? I'm not saying it's a bad word. Although I'll have to agree to disagree as well. Isolationism in this day and age is impossible.

[the_doc]

See this link for an overview of my complaint: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836391/posts

[VRWC_minion]

Unlike self-described conservatives who use Iraq ignoring UN demands as a reason for the US to go to war,right?

You have just used another logical fallacy as support for your view. i.e. If is false then Y is true.

What is it about liberals who have their brains wired to accept logical fallacies as valid arguments ? is it genetic ?