PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American

These peacenick protestors who can't explain why they are against a war saying:

The fact is, they are ANTI-BUSH FIRST, ANTI-AMERICAN SECOND, and protesting the war just gives them a reason to publicaly oppose Bush.

I recently called in a local talk radio show where the host was debating to protestors. They had no arguments, just platitudes. I asked them if they weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. I asked them if they voted for Bush, of course they did not. They "bristeled" at the question because they were flushed out.

Bottom line, the "protestors" are mainly Gore voters and Nadar voters who want to protest Bush. The war gives them that vehivle to protest. If protestors were polled, 99% would have to admit they they did not vote for Bush. If the anti-war movement had any good reasons to oppose war they would be more like 50%-50% voting for Bush.

CONCLUSION: what we have here is anti-Bush, anti-American protestors. Ask them if they voted for Bush and find out for yourself.

Why and how would they 'pull off' a large attack on our country? So that the entire surface area of Iraq could be turned into glass 20 minutes later?

You seem to make the (common) mistake of assuming that if someone like Saddam attacks us, it will be accompanied by a big megalomaniac speech on all our TV screens saying "I'm attacking you now!". And conversely, that any attack we receive, if from Saddam, will be immediately recognized and acknowledged as being from Saddam. Thus the "turn the country to glass" reaction is, in your mind, completely and totally automatic. Piece of cake. And Saddam knows all this, says you, so he'll never attack.

The reality is that no matter what the attack, if it were to come, the usual gang of whiners would always be there to argue sophistries and play defense attorney for Saddam: "we can't prove it was him", "I want a smoking gun", etc. The proof of this? Just look at all the protesters. Right now. And Saddam knows this. Because he pays attention to the protests and sees how many people in the West despise their culture and are prepared to play Saddam's Defense Attorney at the drop of a hat. So doesn't this kind of ruin the whole deterrence thing?

The result of "he'd be turned to glass" may, indeed, deter him from launching a direct, open, announced attack. Sure! But then there's those pesky terrorists. If all he has to do is secretly hand some brainwashed group some anthrax, and they'll do the rest, and the Western Left will play "see-no-evil" along with him, he's safe. Seems to me.

Unless, of course, we actually do something about it.

Exporting aggression directly or through sponsoring terrorism would lead to his immediate removal as leader

It would?? But that's what we're trying to do. And look how much bizarre opposition there is to it! Strange: what you present as somehow automatic is the very thing you're arguing against.

Let me state my position clearly: I'm opposed to this war solely because we have never attacked a sovereign country in our history 'preemptively'.

You're opposed to doing something because we've never done it before? Don't you have a deeper reason than that? Your "reason" doesn't even require to know any specifics whatsoever. Me: "Let's do X." You: "Have we done something like X before?" Me: "No." You: "Then I'm opposed." Is that really how you think about such matters?

Just by the way, what do you call the attack against Yugoslavia in 1999? Was Yugoslavia not a "sovereign country"? I guess what you could say it is we didn't attack Yugoslavia "pre-emptively" because, well, we had no self-defense reasons for attacking Yugoslavia at all. So, aggression against Yugoslavia was OK because we had no self-defense reasons, but Iraq is wrong because it would be the First Time We Attacked Pre-Emptively. (Now then, continuing this logic, if Iraq presented no self-defense threat to us, then an attack would be OK again.... I guess....?)

He's no threat anymore, in my opinion.

Noted. The people in the administration, who actually have access to classified intelligence, have opinions which differ from your (no doubt also highly researched) opinion.

I know where my money lies.

[because it would set a precedent] For example, let's say that Pakistan has a revolution that ousts the secular government and institutes a(nother) theocracy that starts to threaten the west. Are we bound to preemptively "change their regime" because they are dangerously armed and because we broke the ice with Iraq and the rest of the world expects it of us?

No. Where do you get the idea that we would ever have to fight wars to be "consistent"? How would "the rest of the world" force us to do this thing it "expects" of us, if we don't want to? They can go on expectin'. Wouldn't bother me.

I'll just say that in your scenario, we would be "bound" to fight that war against that future Pakistan, if national security calculations require such a war. Just as with Afghanistan, and now, Iraq. There's no Court Of International Ethical Consistency to which we are beholden in these matters. (Many anti-war folks like to ask why we don't attack Zimbabwe or someplace, and the same answer applies.)

North Korea, on the other hand, is a real threat, and Kim Jong iL is making great sport, taunting the lion in his own den.

This sort of resembles the "you can't attack one dictator unless you attack them all, otherwise you're inconsistent" argument. Look: I'd like to get rid of Kim Jong Il too... and so would Bush by the way (he "hates" him!). But first of all, one thing at a time (please!). Second of all, different situations require different strategies. (NK has nukes for example.) We will fight these things on our schedule, not because some misguided devotion to Consistency requires it.

We look more and more like an international bully,

I don't care how we "look". This is about national security, not about winning Homecoming Queen.

threatening war with a weak country (Iraq) that has no hope of putting up any kind of resistance, while another more dangerous country (Korea), capable of at least bloodying our nose goes unchecked.

So we should attack the stronger country first, incurring more deaths, just so we don't "look" so much like a bully. Wonderful. Heck, we could achieve the same effect by attacking Iraq and simultaneously executing some percentage of our own army, right? Would that make us look nice with the Euros as well and get us on their good side?

To take your approach to its logical conclusion, it is obvious we should ignore both pissant countries and attack China, which is bigger and badder than either. Right?

Sorry for all the sarcasm but I just always marvel at this idea that we're supposed to engage in suicidal, non-winning strategies (the more suicidal the better!) in order to look nice for the Europeans. :)

I don't think that advancing technology is ever an excuse to strike preemptively

Hmm. I think it is. A thousand years ago you couldn't be attacked without getting some warning (because the army had to march to you, they'd be setting up camps, etc). Nowadays, a button is pressed somewhere, or even just a guy steps onto a subway with a Ziploc full of something-or-other, and there's a slaughter. "Ever" is a very, very strong word in that context.

it's a moral issue not a technology issue

Okay, so morally we're essentially required to sit and let a guy like Hussein get all the nukes he wants, and we can't do anything about it until he actually launches one. Color me "immoral" I suppose.

Saddam Hussein doesn't have one ten thousandth the weaponry of the former Soviet Union, which we faced without flinching - what are you worried about??

Personally, basically, I'm worried that Hussein can attack us at any time he wants with impunity unless we ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING DAMMIT (despite all your eloquent proofs to the contrary). All he has to do is use middle-men cutouts (like fundamentalist terrorists) to do his dirty work, and people like you and the Peace People will perform verbal gymnastics to argue (whatever the particulars) that we can't "prove" he was connected (because "proof" seems to consist only of a videotape of Saddam Hussein standing next to a button marked "Nuclear Missiles Aimed At U.S.", and pressing that button - but even then, the tape could be doctored?). I'm worried that this seems to be the reality in our culture, and I'm worried that Saddam has observed this sickness in our culture, and I'm worried that he's smart enough to exploit it and bump off a few dozen or a few hundred of our civilians here and there, from time to time, for the next ten or thirty years, his son continuing the killing....

Unless we actually do something about it.

Any country could go 'rogue' and have or easily get some WMD. What's so special about Iraq?

For one thing its dictator is particularly evil. For another, we actually have a realistic opportunity to do something about it. You would be right to suggest that there are probably other evil dictators with other nasty weapons in the world, but I've already explained why that is beside the point. (One thing at a time.)

The danger now is smaller and more random, but IMO I don't think that blowing away countries to address it is the right answer.

Who is suggesting "blowing away" Iraq? You may be arguing with how you imagine this (still hypothetical) war will be waged, rather than with the reality.

I agree we have a clear mandate to defend this country against terrorism, I just don't see any connection between Iraq and terrorism except in people's imaginations.

Our administration does. (Remember them? They're the guys with access to classified intelligence.)

When this administration has succeeded in bringing Osama bin laden to justice, in rebuilding Afghanistan to prevent it from becoming a new haven for terrorism as soon as we turn our backs, and in working for a lasting and just peace in Israel that includes all parties, then we can deal with two-bit dictators who might become a threat in the future.

Excuse me but why exactly must the administration perform items 1,2, and 3 before you will allow it to do item 4? Why must it be in that order, in your mind? (And what the hell does Israel have to do with anything?)

I'm demanding any proof at all, not the flimsy, small stuff I've seen so far.

Another common mistake, lay people "demanding" "proof" as if they are jurors and this is an episode of Perry Mason. Of course in your self-importance you completely ignore the reality that there is such as thing as "classified intelligence". If you haven't seen it on CNN, it doesn't exist. And, there's nothing you can't be shown. You're that important!

Don't you even consider the possibility that there's stuff the administration knows, but can't tell us? (Like, it would get some of its informers killed? Or give away what we know to Saddam himself, allowing him to move weapons and facilities and defeat our surveillance more easily?) No, of course not. You're important! You must be shown everything, on TV. And if not, you're "not convinced."

I would suggest that you will just have to deal with it and remain "unconvinced", all through the war. Our Congress was "convinced" in the fall, granted Bush war powers, and that's all that really counts in the end.

As regards a connection to 9/11, far more evidence exists for attacking Saudi Arabia, since most of the 9/11 terrorists were from there.

Straw man. War w/Iraq does not rely on connection to 9/11.

It's not possible to predict with any accuracy, unless you're a psycho-historian, what illegal/immoral/aggressive actions a country will or will not take, and in so doing, prosecute a war against them based on your prediction of their intentions.

True. But you have to choose to do something. (Doing nothing is also "something".) Your choice ought to be based on your best guess regarding future actions of potential adversaries.

Do you think that a best guess to the effect that Hussein is an evil killer with mass-death weapons, and that the world would be safer without him even if it costs something to do it, is ridiculous? It's ok if you do. But I don't.

and in so doing, prosecute a war against them based on your prediction of their intentions. That's what we're apparently going to do here though.

Um, that's reality. That's the real world. It's what everyone does, every day. I don't envy the position our leaders are in, because the stakes are higher, of course, but there's no way around having to make a choice ("doing nothing" is a choice!). You're complaining that it's not possible to predict the actions of humans with metaphysical certitude and make 100% mistake-proof decisions accordingly.

That's life. Get used to it.

Even if it's successful, it will serve to alienate yet another generation of Arabs,

It will? This is superstitious racist mumbo-jumbo. "Arabs" will be alienated if we oust a dictator of an Arab country? According to what, your Marxist analysis of history based on grouping people by Races and predicting their behavior accordingly? (Gee, and I thought you understood that it wasn't possible to make perfect predictions about the behavior of folks... but here you are doing it.)

and your grandchildren will be looking over their shoulders whenever they travel anywhere.

This may be true regardless of what we do. (War has been declared against the West.) One possible way to avoid this is to win the war which we're in, if at all possible, or making some headway at least. (Nobody nowadays looks over their shoulder in fear of the approaching Jap.)

Uh, and... welcome to FR. :-) Your posts caught my eye because I just started reading Baudolino (so don't give it away... ;-)

[automatic turn-to-glass deterrence doesn't work if Saddam doesn't admit to anything and the Western Left goes along with it] I do assume that our intelligence agencies in their state of heightened alert would be able to connect the dots and put 2 and 2 together.

That's what they've done - they deem Saddam a threat, with a nasty arsenal, and connections to terrorism. And you, and the Peace People, doubt it and question it based on almost nothing (apart from, for many, disdain for the President), causing a political question as to whether we will even do anything at all to him. This is what I'm saying I fear Saddam could exploit in the future, our paralysis due to the willingness of a certain faction to play "see no evil".

I do assume that Hussein deems that the the risk of reprisal is too great,

I see. I don't. I think it would be very reasonable calculation for someone to observe the political situation in the West and accordingly think there's almost no risk of reprisal, as long as he keeps his hands semi-clean. That's what I'm saying I fear.

the best he could do would be to inflict some damage in the meanest, dirtiest way possible. To do this without being able to take credit for it among his peers would make it devoid of purpose. Tell me what you think his motivation would be.

Revenge. To kill some of us. Because he hates us. Sure, maybe that is not what motivates him, or not sufficient motivation. I can't read his mind (neither can you), but I can't say I'm very comfortable with basing national defense on assumptions lay people make to the effect that He Wouldn't Do Such-And-Such Because I Can't Possibly Conceive Of Why He Would Want To. That's not good enough for me.

Attacking Iraq based on what we think they're building or what action we think they're contemplating is to start down a very slippery slope.

Ok, so be it, bring on the "slope". I think that national defense can certainly, at times, demand attacking a country based on what we think they're building and what action we think they're contemplating. The alternative is to just sit around and wait and see if we prove to have been right about what we now think. (The proof consisting of a mushroom cloud.) I don't like this alternative.

People in the West don't protest because they despise their culture,

In point of fact, I think many of them do. But this is speculation about motives and you would be right to say that such speculation doesn't make for very interesting debate....

Before a few weeks ago there were no appreciable numbers of protesters so how can you claim that Hussein has based any actions of the last decade on the support of people who "despise their culture"?

That's not what I claimed. I claimed that Hussein could decide to base future actions on such considerations.

Seriously: try this thought experiment. You wake up one day, turn on the news, and (say) Houston is gone in a mushroom cloud. The newscaster says "the CIA thinks Hussein is behind it". According to you this will provoke an automatic turning-to-glass of Iraq.

Would it really? Or would, rather, the usual suspects come out and say "we can't do this unless there's proof", and on and on.

I honestly cannot imagine the turn-to-glass response being so automatic as you pretend. I think it's conceivable the same may be true of someone like Hussein.

Once again, where's the connection between Iraq and the terrorists?

Iraq is thought to be connected to several terrorist groups and actions. If you really disagree with this (which I doubt) I could try to dig up various articles.

It's equally likely, I think, that some disgruntled Muslim army officer in Georgia (Republic of), or a North Korean intelligence officer hands some terrorist the fissionable material to cause a catastrophe here.

Also worth worrying about, yes.

We have no evidence of his direct support for terrorism.

Well, depends what you consider "evidence" of course... if "evidence" means that whole "videotape of him pressing button" I talked about earlier, then I guess you're right....

The opposition is not bizarre, it's perfectly understandable given the weak case made for war so far.

Thanks but all the same I still think the opposition is bizarre. The protests are out of proportion with what is being proposed. Even if I did agree the "case" was "weak", I still don't think I'd get so hysterical about it, as many of the protesters seem to. All other things being equal, I'd expect at least provisional support from reasonable non-crazies, along the lines of "well okay, I'm not sure about this, but if the C-in-C think it's necessary, I just hope all goes well", et cetera. The reason that's not what we see is, I suspect, due more to the fact that the protesters SIMPLY HATE GEORGE BUSH than anything else - thus, if he wants it, it must be WRONG, period. Which, of course, was the point of this thread.

[pre-emptive strike] I'm opposed to doing something that is in violation of international law. We're the mightiest country in the world and we're supposed to stand for something! Does your logic exempt itself from law?

Which law would that be, exactly? Constitutional citation is preferred.

[Yugoslavia] As an aside, you'd think that this would have put us in better staid with the Islamic world, wouldn't you?

Well, I would, if I thought as you do and believed that fundamentalist Muslims hated us for our actions (and would hate us less if we took less aggressive actions) rather than hating us simply for who we are, what we represent, and as an outlet for their frustration over their own failed culture.

But I don't actually believe any of that, so the apparent hypocrisy of fundamentalist Muslims who fail to recognize that we killed Christians to save Muslims in Yugoslavia doesn't surprise me at all. All it does is reinforce my belief that they are not acting on such apparent rational impulses in the first place.

While revealing what we know about Iraq might serve to expose the extent of our intelligence gathering capability, and possibly compromise it in the future, in situations like this where the matter has created a serious national debate over going to war, it would behoove the administration to be a more forthcoming about what they know.

I'm not sure I agree that it would behoove them as much as you seem to think it would behoove them. They've already gotten a vote of war powers from Congress, remember. The rest is gravy. They may not actually need as much "support" as everyone is assuming, because it's possible that at least part of their maneuvering with the UN etc. is being done simply to give the military time to prepare.

Unnecessary secrecy, if in fact it is, is disturbing.

Heh. Okay, how can I argue with that? :) "Unnecessary" secrecy is disturbing, yes. But you've front-loaded the question, haven't you? What about necessary secrecy?

I'm not suggesting that we have to "fight wars to be consistent". What I am saying is that the rationale for pursuing this war would be applied to our actions or inactions in the future.

And what I am saying is: "so?" "Applied" implies an "applier". The "applier" would be, I'm assuming, places like Belgium. So what if Belgium would say "but you fought that war then so why not this war now?" if we don't want to fight a war? I still don't see why this is supposed to be so scary.

If we ignore a future situation of similar import, our foreign policy appears to be no more that a series of near random acts,

Not true, and slightly disingenuous. If we "ignore" a future similar situation, I presume this will be because it's not a national security threat in the same way as Iraq is. On one level, this means it's not so "similar" after all, no? On another level, it will mean that are actions are not "random" at all, but rather quite understandable - as a natural straightforward application of U.S. national security. We can always say to the world "we take action when we are threatened and we don't when we aren't. Period."

You're fretting that The World would respond by saying "that's so inconsistent!" Or "random". But it's not random to say that everything we do is for our self-defense, is it? If someone thinks our actions at random, it can only be because they don't understand the concept of "self-defense" - or reject our right to engage in it. Either way, I am not very concerned about the views of such observers.

I don't agree with you that what the "rest of the world" thinks of us is unimportant.

Duly noted.

All I'm acting on is my opinion that, from a purely logical standpoint, Hussein has nothing to gain by attacking this country, and everything to lose.

Understood. But you understand, I think, that this is an estimate on your part: you are implicitly estimating the probabilities of various actions and motivations and thoughts and beliefs and weapons of Saddam Hussein.

I find myself distinctly unwilling to risk the consequences of your estimate being wrong.

Wouldn't you agree that Kim Jong Il is slightly farther to the left on the fruit and nut scale than Hussein?

Not necessarily. Anyway I may be convinced to agree with you that NK is a more "immediate" threat (although a lot of what they are doing right now, you will agree, is usual Stalinist bluster for domestic consumption). I would like to see us deal with NK as well, at some point. But there are also practical considerations. (They have nukes already.)

If my administration wants my unequivocal support, they're going to have to trust me with more information.

Noted. I think I alluded already to the fact that you're not going to get it, and you're going to have to deal with it. I can live with your non-support if you can.

[And what the hell does Israel have to do with anything?] You're not serious on this one, are you?

Yes, I was completely serious. Our administration finds Hussein a threat and wants to get rid of him. In this paradigm, the statement "we must do something about Israel first" doesn't quit compute. Says who? "The rank and file people of the Arab world", says you. Who cares about that, even if true? Our administration finds Hussein a threat and wants to get rid of him!

[Another common mistake, lay people "demanding" "proof" as if they are jurors and this is an episode of Perry Mason.] Why is it a "common mistake" to demand proof?

Because you are not a juror, this is not a trial, and this is not an episode of Perry Mason. This is national defense.

The position that the government knows better than we because of information only they have is how we get to these impasses in the first place.

It also happens to be true, at least in general. At least, that is the rationale for having a representative government in the first place. Otherwise we'd just decide everything by plebiscite.

I know you don't like it. You want to "question authority". Hell, I don't like it. But that's the way things are. If we don't like how Bush handles this national security issue we can vote him out in '04. If he does something our representatives don't like they can impeach him even before then. Failing that, we have a Commander-in-Chief who appears to be truly convinced that Hussein must be dealt with. You can spend your time disagreeing with him, or you can hope and pray that our soldiers succeed with minimal loss of life. I know what I'm doing.

I think part of my exasperation in all this comes from the fact that, it seems to me, 95% of all these "debates" about Iraq really aren't Iraq at all. They are about whether one trusts G.W. Bush. Some do, some don't. It's natural. And if you don't trust him, it's understandable that you don't agree with the proposed war. I guess I just get a little bored with it; if what's really going on is me saying "I basically trust him" and you're saying "well, I don't", there's really not much left to discuss. I'd almost prefer it if we'd all drop the pretense to be discussing something beyond that....

I didn't COMPLAIN about the impossibility of predicting human actions with any certitude, I pointed it out, and how it amounts to folly to base any actions on such predictions as we're doing now in Iraq.

Uh, but my point remains. You can say it "amounts to folly" if you want, but the fact remains that (1) whatever information we have, and will conceivably get, is inevitably imperfect, and (2) we have to act on it, in finite time, one way or another, and (3) "doing nothing" is an action.

Your characterization of my statement as "racist mumbo-jumbo" is a out of character with most of the rest of your responses, why did you say this?

Because it's what I believe. I've seen people on the Left make predictions about groups of people based on their Race just about long enough that it begins to sound like mystical superstition. I do not recognize the world being described by such a blunt statement as "a generation of Arabs will be alienated if we oust Hussein". Marx had his Social Classes, the modern Left has its Races (or Peoples), but I just don't buy it.

Arabs are individual human beings. Their reactions will be different and varied and often conflicted. Some will in fact welcome the ousting of Hussein (this is a certainty, and for some reason you don't mention it). By saying "it will alienate Arabs" you treat the whole thing as some kind of chemical reaction, as if we're pouring vinegar on baking soda. It's a little bit insulting, it's simplistic and cartoonish, and in fact I do happen to think it's racist mumbo-jumbo.

That's why I said it.

Arabs will be outraged because we attacked an Arab country populated with Arab people

ome may be "outraged", some may be exultant, and some - perhaps most - may be somewhere in between. If/when you've scientifically figured out the relative sizes of the preceding three groups, do be sure and tell me what your methodology was and email me whatever spreadsheets or statistical software you used.

Otherwise all you're doing is promulgating a bunch of racist mumbo-jumbo.

and many of them will be in harm's way and get killed.

And others will be liberated from a brutal dictator, and live nice lives. Yes, I know all this.

It will illustrate our callous disregard for Arab life

To some, sure (of course many of those for whom an Iraq war will "illustrate" our callous disregard for Arab life already believe we have a callous disregard for Arab life; to them, we couldn't pick our nose without "illustrating our callous disregard for Arab life").

To others, by contrast, it will illustrate our power.

To others, it will illustrate our ability to liberate Arabs from a dictator.

If you really think that they'll ignore this fact because we're 'helping' to depose a dictator,

Some will, some won't. In what proportions, I have no idea. (And neither do you.)

Either he's in league with Islamic terrorists (doubtful, I conclude), or he's a pariah to them and acts alone.

Sigh. Yes, I've heard the subtle intricate theory that Hussein Can't Possibly Be Helping Islamic Terrorists Because He's a Secular Ba'athist.

Let's just say that I don't necessarily claim that Hussein is "in league with" Islamic terrorists in the first place. But he doesn't need to be "in league with" them to recognize that they have a common enemy, that they could serve as a useful proxy army, and thus to hand them some anthrax or smallpox.

And this becomes even more appealing if he realizes that in doing so, his hands stay "clean"... at least according to the legal sophistry of Western Leftists for whom nothing less than Videotape Of Actual Crime is sufficient "proof" of anything.

Best,

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.