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.

[freedumb2003]

>>It is fair to wonder whether anything short of a mushroom cloud over an American city could possibly "convince" some people.<<

With all due respect, even THAT wouldn't convince some people. After 9/11 you'd think the self-hating Left would have gotten a clue. Remember when we were ready to go into Afganistan (now applauded by all in 100% victory hindsight)? If nuke came to nuke, these same Useful Idiots (such as the gentle Mr. Cato) would then shift to the standard "we deserved it," "the People of Iraq didn't do it, the (insert group name here) did it," "retailiation won't bring anyone back."

The inability for basic reasoning of these people is appalling. RAH suggested this kind of person is slightly less than human.

I've bookmarked your post -- Mr. Cato lays out the left in clear enough terms for your refutation to be well used in discourse. Thanks

[Rocky]

Have you read the editorial from the New Republic posted here earlier today? Here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833379/posts

Just thought you might like to know that even some liberals support the idea that we now have no alternative. Appeasement of aggressive tyrants has never paid off.

[Michael Barnes]

There was an article roughly 18-24 months ago (around the time the Sony PS2 was coming out) that Saddam obtained 400 PS2 units. At the time it seemed funny, but under the hood, those PS2's can pack a wallup if programmed right. If I'm correct, Iraq is still under embargo and cannot receive new technology.
Now I know PS2's don't seem like much, but since you can network them, 400 of those puppies running Linux Beuwolf would churn some numbers, or guide 400 missles, etc..ad nauseum..At any rate, does anyone else recall hearing this? I'm pretty certain I read it here on FR, before the DB was purged many months back..

I've been checking Google, but getting alot of garbage for the most part..

[Michael Barnes]

I'll be damned...I found an article here

[Dr. Frank fan]

If nuke came to nuke, these same Useful Idiots (such as the gentle Mr. Cato) would then shift to the standard "we deserved it," "the People of Iraq didn't do it, the (insert group name here) did it," "retailiation won't bring anyone back."

Sadly, I suspect that you are right.

I've bookmarked your post -- Mr. Cato lays out the left in clear enough terms for your refutation to be well used in discourse. Thanks

Thank you. :)

[Cachelot]

Beenzotted??

[BibChr]

The phantom capitol building for the pro-drug Libertarians on FR

"Pro-drug Libertarians."

Is that like "Christian right"?

Dan
(c;

[Sparta]

Reason one is good enough for me. He attacked the US and payback is going to be a bitch.

[InspiredPath1]

From the article:

"American dollars are too scarce and American lives too precious for such feckless ventures."

I wonder if the newly freed Iraqi's will put down their American flags long enough to beat the shit out of this guy, or if they'll beat the shit out of him with the flagpoles.

[unspun]

The United States successfully deterred the likes of Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong - two brutal and erratic rulers. And those dictators possessed nuclear, not just chemical and biological, weapons, whereas there is no credible evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The pro-war faction has never explained why the United States cannot deter a garden-variety thug like Saddam Hussein.

Who's going to tell this writer that the point here is that we don't NEED to deter Saddam (yet).

[rwt60]

Let me suggest that we are already at war. We overfly Iraq daily. Frequently, Iraq lights us up on radar or shoots down one of our drones. We respond by taking out their AAA and missile sights. If we were doing that number with Russia, no one would question whether we were at war. We won't be going to war, we'll be ending one that's been fought at a very low level for years.

[butter pecan fan]

I do believe most of those issues (and perhaps all) are answered here.

[Kip Lange]

Hey. I'm pro-legalization and I think this article is trash. Some of the stuff Cato puts out is right; some isn't. Your remark is completely pointless and if anything is designed to cause a rift between libert.-leaning 'Pubs and socially-right-leaning 'Pubs. I think almost every wing of the party is united on Iraq, and I have a feeling one of Cato's more prominent members -- P.J. O'Rourke -- is most likely in support of military action. Trashing Cato and libertarians is no way to win your argument. Especially when this article is so full of holes. THINK, man, THINK. Just dissect the arguments in the article. It's an uninformed piece of garbage.

[Kip Lange]

Shrug, why's he banned? It's easy to out-argue this BS, as many have done on this thread. Why ban him and have him claim moral high ground? Unless he's spamming other threads.

[ApesForEvolution]

It wasn't ever going to come back and do battle...."tis but a flesh wound...come back...". Hit and run communist peaceniks...

[LiberalBuster]

>>We can and have made the case. Most journalists and all
>>liberals are just idiots.

Now there is a well-reasoned argument from a knee-jerk reactionary. I'm still waiting for "the case." BTW, I'm a conservative in the truest sense of the tradition. Being pro-war (i.e. promoting the warfare state) is not in the conservative tradition. Those who think they are being conservative by beating their chest and wishing a nucleur holocaust upon Iraq are more Wilsonian than Goldwater.

[Kip Lange]

Being pro-war (i.e. promoting the warfare state) is not in the conservative tradition.

We should not grow to love war so much, but I'd like to think that having the spine to stand up to petty dictators, deal fairly politely (which we have) with obstructionist puppets at the UN, and understanding the *need* for a military strike against Iraq *immmediately* as part of a concerted, drawn-out, LONG plan to end "terrorism" as we know it in this world as quickly as possible...DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, in other words...is in the conservative tradition.

It's not Goldwaterian to support an attack on Iraq? Is not moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue; extremism in the defense of liberty no vice? ;-) THIS IS THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY!

[hoyaloya]

thanks for that post. that's why I come to free republic. to read stuff like your post. a beautiful thing the internet. have a good evening, fine person.

[Kip Lange]

I heard this rumor, and I heard he only was able to get a bunch of PSOnes (I am not joking) although this was when Sony had just put the PS2 on the market and everybody was scrambling for one.

[Reagan Man]

>>> ... why's he banned?

Probably a known disruptor.

Someone like that, doesn't ever have the moral highground on FR.