Posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:26 PM PST by GailA
That's not what I believe. I want to use my military in the most practical possible ways. For example, I don't think nation building in Afghanistan is practical nor will it be successful and that is a lot easier than what we want to undertake in Iraq.
Instead I would small squads to deal with terrorists wherever they need to, based on the best intelligence possible. I also believe our intelligence has done a great job defending us against terrorism since 9/11.
It's very touching how you're willing to forgive any involvement Saddam may have had in such training, as long as the technology / ideas used in the attack which resulted was sufficiently lo-tech. "Yeah, maybe Saddam provided a training base for 'em, but really, they could've thought that up themselves anyway. So let's cut Saddam some slack."
To me, the important questions are, Is Saddam our enemy? Does he try to attack us? Or help people to attack us? If so, then I don't give a rat's ass what the surrogates use to attack us; it's the attacking that's the issue here.
It's not clear what the issue is, to you. Besides making sure we don't attack Saddam, of course.
1....An entire dovecote of "anti-war activists" (at least for this war, and for this president - they were far less dovish when Bill Clinton attacked Serbia)...
Similarly, there is a vast inconsistency on the part of the War Party: they vehemently protested Clinton - and rightly so - but line up behind Bush. Smacks of pure party politics.
2. He points out what a lot of the GOP/War Party crowd seems unable to recognize: those opposed to war with Iraq are not a monolithic bunch. Like the author's friend, I oppose this action in Iraq, but I want nothing to do with the marxists, socialists and leftists that make up the bulk of these war protests.
The War Party's labeling any differing opinion as "un-American" and "un-patriotic" is both wrong, insulting, and, frankly, bad rhetoric.
And Saddam (who you agree has WMDs) is not a "real threat" because.....
Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is,
"the way it is"? You mean, cheating on anti-WMD resolutions and working hard to try to develop nukes? That kind of thing?
Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea.
Yes, that is also a problem.
We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.
Probably not, at least not all at the same time. This is not an argument for attacking none of them, though. One thing at a time.
Under the terms which ended the last Gulf War, Iraq was required to do a lot of things that it has failed to do. This failure constitutes grounds for us going to war based on the previous agreements. In effect, it means that the Gulf War never ended.
On the other hand, if we were to want to go to war against Iran, for example, we would have to prove conclusively that they were directly involved in an attack on this country, as was manifestly true in the case of Afghanistan. Even then, after all this time, it would be an uphill fight.
But no such proof is necessary against Iraq. We can go into Iraq just because they have not kept the terms they signed ten years ago.
To which I say, "Works for me!" In order to combat Islamic terrorism, we are going to have root out these evil regimes wherever we find them. Iraq is as good a place to start as any.
Once Iraq has descended into chaos and we give up and leave, the religious nuts that end up ruling it will make Saddam look like a nice guy. Those are the people behind the two WTC attacks and this war will strengthen them in two primary ways: they will have more people joining them, and they will have a base of operations to work out of that may include a large part of the Middle East and South Asia (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc).
I worry about instability, unpredictability, popular uprisings such as voting for Islamic law in the new Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and elsewhere.
Because the cases of Yugoslavia and Iraq are so similar?
I meant to say that it is laughable that anyone would train anyone else in how to hijack aircraft by slicing throats. That requires indoctrination of the kind that small groups of religious fanatics are able to provide, similar to cults: controlling the person's life completely, indoctrinating them 24/7, etc. The claim that Saddam did that at a base in the desert is ridiculous.
But, and yet, it happened, did it not? (I mean, someone trained them.) You are arguing with reality and declaring it "laughable". I don't know what this proves other than that reality does not impress you all that much.
That requires indoctrination of the kind that small groups of religious fanatics are able to provide, similar to cults: controlling the person's life completely, indoctrinating them 24/7, etc. The claim that Saddam did that at a base in the desert is ridiculous.
I don't see why, and I don't know what your opinion is based on, other than some over-confident hunches that you seem to have about everything.
Saddam Hussein may hate the US, and I have no doubt he has MWD. But the man has been in power for 30 years; it's a tough place to be in power that long, so he's not stupid. He is not going to attack the US. The only situation where he would use WMD against the US is if he sees American troops crossing his desert, charging toward Baghdad. So we're giving him the opportunity.
I would love to believe the Bush Administration has linked Saddam to the 9-11 attacks. But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I wish the war were about oil. If George W Bush were to say, "We're tired of dicking around with environmentalists in Alaska, and we were real pissed when Saddam switched to the Euro instead of the US Greenback as his preferred method of payment, and we want his oil, and we're going to come and take it." I would whole-heartedly support that.
Actually, they are similar in this respect: both are instances where the US has no right intruding.
We all know that there are many places where terrorists can find support: namely almost any place where there are Islamics and enough chaos or local autonomy to protect the terrorists. This includes parts of Pakistan, Indonesia, the drug cartel areas in South America, numerous countries in South Asia like Chechnia, etc. "Evil regimes" is a convenient substitute for the much messier and harder problem of evil areas.
The best way to fight terrorism is to directly confront terrorists wherever they are. But finding them is an even harder problem and the chaos that would result from a civil war in Iraq and neighboring areas would make that job harder.
After we kill/arrest Saddam and his family and top henchmen, we're not just going to "give up and leave". While no concrete plans for administration have been made just yet, I believe that a U.S. or NATO general will end up temporarily administering the government (like MacArthur in Japan), with a popularly elected government to come within the next 2-5 years. Heck, they may even decide to split up Iraq into two or three separate sovereign countries. But we're going to have a military presence there for a while. And once we are in control, Iraq will be permantly removed as a possible base of any terrorist operations. And the Islamofascists won't be strengthened by our victory any more than Al-Queda has been strengthened by our operations in Afghanistan.
First of all it's already known that he made an attempt on our President's life. In a similar vein you speak as if it is known that Saddam has had no involvement in various other terrorist attacks against us. Second, you're awfully confident for a person who is necessarily uninformed (as are we all). I do so hope that you're right. I don't think it's a good gamble, though.
But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
I don't understand; in the fall Congress gave him a war powers resolution and if/when we attack it will be under those auspices, no? The fact that we haven't attacked yet doesn't necessarily mean Bush "can't" link Saddam to terror; it may just be an indication that the generals have told him the timing isn't quite right.
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I agree. I'd just as soon see us attack Iraq with no reference to the UN whatsoever. Happy now?
Anyway, I still would like an answer to my actual query to you, which was about the supposed hypocrisy of a conservative disagreeing with the war against Yugoslavia but agreeing with potential war against Iraq. What do those two situations have in common, that I am logically required to support the former if I support the latter? Just wondering.
I don't see how anyone could believe that training was needed in how to storm planes with box-cutters. The pilot training was required and was done here financed mostly by Saudis.
I don't see why, and I don't know what your opinion is based on, other than some over-confident hunches that you seem to have about everything.
What raises my confidence is reading stories about Salman Pak. Or listening to the President describe Iraqi tortures. Whether these stories are true or not, it is all standard war propaganda and has nothing to do with whether the war is in our interests.
Because the situation is not symmetric. I'll explain. One side is adopting a pose which can be described as "universal", while the other isn't.
To say "I'm anti-war" is a pretty "universal" statement, is it not? It makes no allowances for particular exceptions. But that is precisely what the protesters say; they speak in universal terms such as, "war is ALWAYS the last resort", "war is a failure of diplomacy", "war is hell and I'm against it, there has got to be a better way". They are saying, or pretending, that their opposition in this particular case (U.S. military attacking Saddam's ruling regime of Iraq) is something which proceeds from a more general principle, namely, "war is bad and I'm anti-war".
Given this, it's quite fair to evaluate whether, in their past statements, they lived up to the general principles they are pretending to follow. That's where Yugoslavia comes in. Were these "anti-war" folks so "anti-war" in that case? Some of them were, actually. But most of them were not. It's a pretty clear-cut case of hypocrisy.
Now, you simply can't go in the other direction as easily, and this is because the "let's attack Saddam" faction is making no such claim to "universality". It's not like we're saying "let's attack Saddam because war is good" :-) We're saying: let's attack Saddam because the particularities of this situation appear to make it the only course of action.
Bringing up Yugoslavia against this statement is, therefore, irrelevant, unless Yugoslavia and Iraq have something significant in common with respect to the reasons the pro-war folks are giving for attacking Saddam.
What are those reasons? Basically the argument boils down to a pre-emptive strike against a madman who is our enemy, probably has WMDs, and has the type of temperament to use them against us or our friends.
But the preceding paragraph simply doesn't apply to Milosevic (except for the "madman" part). Unless you are prepared to argue otherwise by saying what Yugoslavia and Iraq supposedly have in common. Which is why I asked.
Undoubtedly true. So do a lot of other countries.
2. He would want nothing more than to destroy us, especially after Desert Storm.
Undoubtedly true. So do a lot of other countries.
3. He knows it would be suicide to engage us in an open war.
Absolutely true. He is not going to do anything that would provoke us into attacking him openly.
4. What better way to attack us than through phantom surrogates?
How about waiting until US forces are racing across the desert and then launching bio- or chem-bombs at them?
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.