Posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:26 PM PST by GailA
Yep.
You think the Pakistani ISI will be watching closely what happens in Iraq?
It's only one example of where we can't solve the terrorism problem by removing the regime. There are and will be many more, so we need to concentrate on those solutions and not on easy fixes (I think the war itself will be easy) that create more problems later.
I imagine that just because we can't conquer North Korea, we should all just crawl into a hole and wait for the nukes!
In a way, yes. The same way we can't defend against China's nukes: they will simply overwhelm any defense with lots of cheap decoys. WMD are the great equalizers and Saddam wants to be equal. But many other present and future Arab despots do too. And even worse, there are Islamic radicals that would like them as well. There's no easy way to deal with the problem. International enforcement of non-proliferation has worked in many cases, but it failed in North Korea. Other covert methods might have worked better, but attacking a decade ago would have been a bloodbath.
I look at Saddam and see a stability and secularism and that looks better than the potential civil war and Islamic states that could take his place.
I disagree. The rest of tin-pot dictators will learn to get WMD first before declaring their defiance to the U.S. Second, they will look at how many Iraqi draftees will get turkey-shot in the desert (probably a lot) versus how many high level Iraqis get what they deserve (maybe none). Third, we keep many of those tin-pots in power because the alternative (e.g. Islamic states) is worse.
You may be right. I just want to be more sure about going to war in this case.
Um, I'm saying neither. Any set of positions (favor/oppose war on Yugo/Iraq) could be "consistent". It depends on one's reasons for their position. It makes little sense to speak of "consistency" without reference to one's stated reasons for their views.
For example, a pro-Yugo war / anti-Iraq war position would be perfectly "consistent" if one was operating from the following principle: "it's always good to depose madmen, unless they're Arab, because then the 'Arab street' might 'rise up' and that's scary".
An anti-Yugo war / pro-Iraq war position is consistent according to this principle: "War can sometimes be necessary when dealing with madmen who have WMDs."
A pro-Yugo / pro-Iraq war position is consistent according to this principle: "It's always good to depose madmen whenever you can."
And so on. It depends.
But here is what I am saying is inconsistent: people who say (1) "I oppose war on Iraq because war should always be a last resort, and we're being unilateral, and we have no valid interest in Iraq, and there's no hard proof that Hussein is a threat", and on and on, when three years ago they said (2) "bomb Yugoslavia? Sure, go for it. UN? Who needs 'em, let's use... uh, NATO, sure, yeah, that's it. Milosevic is no threat to us whatsoever? But he's evil, isn't that enough?" etc.
That set of positions is what I find inconsistent.
Meanwhile, you've shown no reason for why you were earlier pretending that the anti-Yugo war / pro-Iraq war position is somehow inconsistent. Unless I missed it somewhere.
I think the flaw in your argument - and I've mentioned this before - is that you lump all of those who oppose the war into one, monolithic bunch.
Oh, sure. That's a perfectly fair point, and I want to make it clear I wasn't trying to do that. You are absolutely right. For the record: I was speaking only of the anti-Iraq-war folks who are, or claim to be, or pretend to be, "anti-war" in some generalized sense. For example, people who resort to universal platitudes like "war should always be the last resort", "we shouldn't do this unilaterally", etc. As I made more clear above, it is these people who are inconsistent (if they didn't also protest the Yugo war). You, probably, are not one of them, and my comments are not to be applied to you, then. Such a thought wasn't in my head in the first place; I was only responding to the charge of hypocrisy which came from you, remember.
Speaking for myself, I opposed both the efforts in the Balkans and in the Middle East. Missing in both cases were clear objectives, exit strategies and long-term plans. [etc...]
All quite reasonable. For the record, I do not, have not, and will not accuse you of being inconsistent or hypocritical.
Meanwhile, your statement is still hanging out there, that we who support war on Iraq but not on Yugo. are hypocritical (you accused us all of doing so only out of "partisan politics", remember). And you still haven't backed this up with any kind of elaboration for why a pro-Iraq war/ anti-Yugo war position is hypocritical on our part. For example, by explaining what the two situations have in common such that one is required to have supported war on Yugo if one supports war on Iraq.
I also predict we will not be greeted with open arms like all the media and the administration is saying. I suspect the Iraqis will resent more the Americans telling them how to do things than they will Saddam Hussein.
We'll see....
Well, it either happened or it didn't. If there is indication that it happened, then I'm not too interested in the fact that you consider such training "unnecessary". The simple fact of such training (if there was such... I'm not saying we know this for sure of course) is enemy activity on the face of it, and would have to be dealt with and punished.
Don't trivialize them by pretending that the box-cutter training in the desert was real as well.
I don't know whether it was "real" or not, and neither do you. But if it was, then I would consider that important. Apparently, you would not; you find it funny. I think we understand each other's positions, then.
Yes, those are BS phrases too. At least they have the minor virtue of not being endlessly-repeated cliches, though, unlike "rush to war", which is literally a verbal virus that gets passed from one op-ed writer or anti-war protester to the next without benefit of actually passing through anyone's brain. So, I'll give you that.
But, the spectacle of some dude sitting on the internet casually tossing off statements like "they have no plan for this war!", as if they've been sitting in on Joint Chiefs meetings and such for the last year and a half, and know in all detail about our troop movements and contingency plans, never ceases to crack me up. You are speaking quite haughily and confidently from your low perch of ignorance. This is the stuff of high comedy.
You can never be sure about going to war. Things might not go your way. Your enemy could surprise you. You may fumble the end game. These things can never be known in advance.
I'm sure as Admiral Halsey steamed into Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, he did not know how or even if the US Navy could defeat the Japanese. All he knew was that we were going to do our level best.
You plan for things as well as you can. You decide what your goals are and what the potential problems are, and you do what looks like it will be most likely to yield the desired result.
It appears that you are not convinced that this is happening in this case. You fear the aftermath, what will replace Saddam's regime. You fear the reprecussions in the rest of the Arab world.
These are all real problems that have to be considered and militated against. For your part you are not satisfied that they have been considered and you think the results of war will not be satisfactory. I, on the other hand, think that these problems can be planned for, and that the result of war will be positive in just about every respect. Different people can look at the same things and come to different conclusions, I guess.
What I don't share with you is an acceptance of the status quo. The US will have to assert itself in this part of the world if it is to prevent a repeat of 9/11. It is foolish to consider this crisis in our own terms, as if we were trying to make peace with Canada, or something. In that part of the world, it is better to be feared than loved, and being loved is probably not possible anyway.
So you're on the record here on 2/3/2003 claiming implicitly that the Iraqis like Saddam ("otherwise he wouldn't arm them".) Ok, I can live with this statement of yours. Remember this day, and we'll see.
I'll go on record, but get the record straight: I am saying the Iraqis will be more angry and insulted at the US than they hate Saddam, even as they celebrate Saddam's ouster.
Just as anyone that loves his country would resent the intruder more than he hates the oppressive leader. It's HIS problem, not the United States'.
Again, I didn't bring up Yugoslavia, the author of the article did. Since he did not qualify his claims of inconsistency (as you have done), I merely point out that unqualified inconsistency can occur from either viewpoint.
I don't think war is that predictable. Do you think we have a plan for all contingencies such as the overthrow of the government of Saudi Arabia? Personally, I doubt it. That outcome is just an example, one of hundreds of possible outcomes. There are good possible outcomes also, but that's not all we should be thinking about.
America cannot tolerate the Loss of ANY SOULS!!
DOC
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.