Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Brother Laz]

For your god's sake.

Whether the actions against Iraq have accomplished anything good or not, IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION. THE INTENTION WAS OIL.

Think. Why haven't they done anything about North Korea yet? Same kind of threat as with Iraq. The difference is that 1) if you attack, N. Korea may use them, while if you let them sit there, they 99.999999% likely won't; and 2) nothing to gain there.

I'm SURE there'll be an US/China war within the next 30-40 years. It's an emerging econ. power, after all.

......

Someone tell me why the death of a few thousand ppl on 9/11 is so much worse than the death of five to ten times as many people in the last five years due to US bombings, not even counting Iraq. I wonder how many innocents have died in Baghdad.

And yes they are religious fanatics and they walk around with Uzis and mistreat women and blah blah blah (if that is even true!), but is that a reason to BOMB them?

......

I wonder why so many cruise missiles go off course, and so many bombings hit civilian areas. Isn't the US army the place where the most advanced technology of the world goes to? Can't they, like, use a satellite or Predator or something to look at the target area and AIM their goddamn strikes? Can't they target their rockets with GPS and image recognition? HOW THE HELL can that 'accidentally' go wrong so many times?

Why did they firebomb Dresden in WW2?

......

How about looking at your own poverty/gun proliferation/road safety problems before going to war to set others right? I live in Belgium, Europe, and I can tell you that at least this country is about 100 times more democratic and civilized than The Great United States. We care about our poor, for example. Ghent is a medium sized city (a few hundred K inhabitants) and the worst acts of crime are a carjacking here and there, and if it happens twice in a row, it's big news. Gun-related crimes are unheard of. Real poverty usually only occurs among illegal immigrants, and we can't help that, can we? That is due to the fact that in Belgium, you get an unlimited unemployment compensation - guess what, we have a LOWER unemployment percentage than the USA. As for road safety... 1/100 of all people in the USA will die in a car accident. That's what you get for not wearing seat belts. One in three Americans visits a psychiatrist? Go figure. Competition Competition. Kill yourself from within. Be friends already. Come to Europe.

......

It is a situation that, now after 9/11 would no longer be tolerated by our gevernemnt if we are to be able to defend ourselves from this catastrophic form of death.

*ahem* whodroppedatomicbombsonjapan *ahem*
Even if you somehow thought the first atomic bomb was necessary, why the second?

[whereagles]

1. Motivation: OIL. Here you have to consider several things.

First is short-term consequences. The US gains little with the war, as oil wells need to be rebuilt and renewed production can take a while to hit the market. This is the argument the ppl give when they say "The war was not because of oil".

But this is short-sighted, because you have to look in medium- and long-term consequences. After the increased oil production hits the market, prices go down and the US can import oil (around 90% of US oil is imported) at lower prices. I researched some numbers and did a calculation. I concluded that in about 4-5 years, the 75 billion bucks spent with the war would be recovered in this way. But even this is peanuts compared to STRATEGIC CONTROL OF OIL PRODUCTION, meaning if some other country (like Europe or China) threatens the US economical position, the US can shut down the tap and make oil prices go sky-high, hampering the opposing economy.

So... if you keep your eyes open and don't succumb to the trash information given by the (heavily biased) US media, you'll conclude oil IS A VERY GOOD REASON to go to war.


2. Motivation: Saddam, the evil dictator. After WW2, the US have been involved in several wars, many of which ended up with the installation of a US-supported dictator. Here is a simple example: Pinochet in Chile. I could give you 20 more examples.

So, again, if you keep your eyes open and stretch your memory a bit, you'll see that human rights actually matter very little to the US government, as compared to economical/political interests.


3. Motivation: WMD. Last time the US took military action against a "suspicious WMD-producing facility" was in Sudan. This was done as pay-back against bombing of US embassies in Africa. It turned up that facility was actually a factory which produced nothing but 90% of the medicines of Sudan.

Anyway, why am I losing time explaining all this?... I wonder.

[DaethWalker]

Should we (US, GB and friends) have invaded Iraq? Yes. For a number of reasons.

Did Oil have anything to do with it? I'm sure it did. Though that wasn't the only or main reason. Alot of people are yelling and screaming about the US getting their hands on all this oil, but hey, who had it before? Saddam and his buddies. At least the US will be careful how they exploit such reserves, because the whole world is watching and expecting the worst. Saddam didn't care who was looking over his shoulder.

Were there WMDs? Probably at one time. Maybe they were destroyed. Maybe hidden. Maybe shipped to Syria or Iran. We may never know.

I believe this war will be remembered as the biggest Public Relations and Diplomatic fiasco of the 21st Century. At least I hope it is. I'd hate to think that the US or any other country could ever mess up this bad again.

[Feryar]

nt

edit: reply to whereagles' post :)

[whereagles]

Hum.. I don't trust the US government any more than I trust Saddam. Especially after all the brazen lies they've been telling.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Am I to assume then, by your post, that his popularity hasn't waned inside the U.S. at all?

To a limited degree, WB. He still has alot of momentum.

June Poll

[kandrathe]

For your god's sake.

Whether the actions against Iraq have accomplished anything good or not, IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION. THE INTENTION WAS OIL.

Think. Why haven't they done anything about North Korea yet? Same kind of threat as with Iraq. The difference is that 1) if you attack, N. Korea may use them, while if you let them sit there, they 99.999999% likely won't; and 2) nothing to gain there.

I'm SURE there'll be an US/China war within the next 30-40 years. It's an emerging econ. power, after all.

......

Someone tell me why the death of a few thousand ppl on 9/11 is so much worse than the death of five to ten times as many people in the last five years due to US bombings, not even counting Iraq. I wonder how many innocents have died in Baghdad.

And yes they are religious fanatics and they walk around with Uzis and mistreat women and blah blah blah (if that is even true!), but is that a reason to BOMB them?

......

I wonder why so many cruise missiles go off course, and so many bombings hit civilian areas. Isn't the US army the place where the most advanced technology of the world goes to? Can't they, like, use a satellite or Predator or something to look at the target area and AIM their goddamn strikes? Can't they target their rockets with GPS and image recognition? HOW THE HELL can that 'accidentally' go wrong so many times?

Why did they firebomb Dresden in WW2?

......

How about looking at your own poverty/gun proliferation/road safety problems before going to war to set others right? I live in Belgium, Europe, and I can tell you that at least this country is about 100 times more democratic and civilized than The Great United States. We care about our poor, for example. Ghent is a medium sized city (a few hundred K inhabitants) and the worst acts of crime are a carjacking here and there, and if it happens twice in a row, it's big news. Gun-related crimes are unheard of. Real poverty usually only occurs among illegal immigrants, and we can't help that, can we? That is due to the fact that in Belgium, you get an unlimited unemployment compensation - guess what, we have a LOWER unemployment percentage than the USA. As for road safety... 1/100 of all people in the USA will die in a car accident. That's what you get for not wearing seat belts. One in three Americans visits a psychiatrist? Go figure. Competition Competition. Kill yourself from within. Be friends already. Come to Europe.

......

It is a situation that, now after 9/11 would no longer be tolerated by our gevernemnt if we are to be able to defend ourselves from this catastrophic form of death.

*ahem* whodroppedatomicbombsonjapan *ahem*
Even if you somehow thought the first atomic bomb was necessary, why the second?

First, calm down Brother Laz. It may just be that we agree or disagree on some things... Or, are you trolling?

THE INTENTION WAS OIL.

I would agree that the Iraqi regime caused an instability in the middle east that has had the effect of destabilizing the world economic markets which depend on a stable energy market. It that respect the war was a little bit about oil, but not neccesarily Iraqi oil, but also that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, etc. Increases in energy prices have a ripple up effect on prices, and can decimate entire industries (like Airlines).

Think. Why haven't they done anything about North Korea yet?

Ok, I'll try to put a couple synapses together for you. Hmmm, considering that Seoul is about 30 miles from the DMZ, and within artillery range. If we tried to do something in North Korea, they would devastate Seoul before would could unload our troops from the ships. They also have about a million trained regular troops and devote 32% of their GDP to the military. That, and the South Koreans, Chinese, and the Japanese would prefer we not devastate the region with a war. I think the US believes that North Korea can be negotiated with, and that they are interested in a negotiated settlement that would help them to emerge from their deep isolation.

I'm SURE there'll be an US/China war within the next 30-40 years. It's an emerging econ. power, after all.

More likely a Chinese civil war, when their economy crashes. They are attempting to use the same failed strategy of devaluing their currency to the point of pricing all foreign products from within the reach of thier own domestic market. This is what got Japan into the fix they are now in economically, and they will suffer the same result.

Someone tell me why the death of a few thousand ppl on 9/11... ...is that a reason to BOMB them?

Hmmm, 2001 set the highpoint in history for the number of deaths due to terrorism. I will assume you are not confusing Iraq and Afghanistan, which is where we went to take out Al Queda, who was responsible for 9/11. No, it has nothing to due with what weapons they carry (Ak47's btw), turbans, religion, or how they treat their women. It has to do with the fact that they are flying planes into buildings. As for deaths in Bahgdad, I don't know. I am reserving judgement for now until the dust settles and we can see a little more clearly what the outcome was.

I wonder why so many cruise missiles... ...Why did they firebomb Dresden in WW2?

Um, now I'm imaging a little foam collecting in the corner of your mouth, and you are getting a little scary. But, technology is not perfect and it could be that a stray AAA bullet might affect the instrumentation. As for Dresden, well it is probably best to debate that in a different thread... As to your implications of the evil nature of countries at war, I would counter "Why did the Germans exterminate the Jews?"

I can tell you that at least this country is about 100 times more democratic and civilized than The Great United States... ...One in three Americans visits a psychiatrist? Go figure. Competition Competition. Kill yourself from within. Be friends already. Come to Europe.

Oh, I've been there plenty. Are you sure it is 100 times, and not 103 times? Anyway, the USA is not all that bad. There are towns the same size as Ghent that are just as safe, and just as nice. For instance, where I live. :)

*ahem* whodroppedatomicbombsonjapan *ahem* Even if you somehow thought the first atomic bomb was necessary, why the second?

It wasn't me! But, I guess it was based on an estimate of how hard it would be to invade the mainland in the context of how hard the Japanese fought to defend Okinowa. 50% of the 400,000 civilians on the island died, 12,250 US soldiers killed, 36,361 wounded, 30 US ships sunk, 223 damaged, the Japanese sent 3500 kamikaze's, lost 109,629 soldiers, with only 7,821 at the end captured as POW's.

[Occhidiangela]

And only telling part of the truth?

The assertions of fraud are interesting, but politics, of which war is a subordinate activity, is all about telling the story that you want to.

If one tells part of the truth, the less acute are easily fooled. The more discerning are at least skeptical.

If one tells outright fabrications, that is a different story.

Remember, this is politics. Saddam remembers . . .

[kandrathe]

Or, how culpable are you if you base your decisions on a preponderance of information that has dubious veracity, but which supports your preference?

[Zenda]

Hello Occhidiangela,

"The assertions of fraud are interesting, but politics, of which war is a subordinate activity, is all about telling the story that you want to."

If you knew this before, then why did you defend that 'story' in your posts? Is it because you are fond of telling stories, or is it fond of politics?

"If one tells part of the truth, the less acute are easily fooled. The more discerning are at least skeptical.
If one tells outright fabrications, that is a different story."

You sound much like your politicians now, using a psychological trick to cover up the fact you're not saying one or the other. I guess its all part of the same 'story'.

"Remember, this is politics."

Yes, politicians are usually good in deceit. And they make mistakes like any other human. Thats why we normally have things like the UN to control them, or prefer diplomacy when dealing with other nations.

"Saddam remembers . . ."

Remembers what? Or is this just another of those popular hollow phrases? Btw, Americans use 'Saddam' instead of 'Hussein' because it has a much more criminal ring to it, as they pronounce it. In other words, its a PR invention to help the 'cause'. But in my language, 'Saddam' sounds much more like the name of a priest or something similar, so I really prefer 'Hussein'. Never heard anyone talk about 'Adolf' when discussing WW2, did you?

[Jester]

"Hitler" sounds far more menacing than "Adolf". One has impact (it's even a pun!). The other sounds like the guy who makes sausages down the street. So if I wanted to fuel a propaganda machine against the Nazis (Not-zeez, or as Churchill so often put it, Nau-zeez), I would most certainly call him "Hitler".

As for Saddam vs. Hussein, people have associations (mostly positive) with King Hussein of Jordan, and, before he died, it would have been confusing to refer to "Hussein".

Now, what's really funny is when Bush Sr. pronounced Saddam as Sodom, a practice that has yet to leave the government's rhetoric.

Politicians will always paint their enemies in the worst light, even at the basest level. It's a trick as old as language, and there's no consistency to it at all. Whatever sounds worst.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Btw, Americans use 'Saddam' instead of 'Hussein' because it has a much more criminal ring to it, as they pronounce it. In other words, its a PR invention to help the 'cause'. But in my language, 'Saddam' sounds much more like the name of a priest or something similar, so I really prefer 'Hussein'.

I think because Hussein in the Arab world is about as common a surname as Anderson or Smith is here. Unfortunately, he doesn't have an endearing nickname, like "papa Doc". The king of Jordan is also a Hussein, Saddam has two sons who are Hussein's, and then there is the very confusing fighter Hussien "Hussy" Hussien.

So anyway, I say forget about the WMD... I want to know if they have corroborated this story yet.

Is Hussein Owner of Crashed UFO?

[Occhidiangela]

Is not going to happen. So I won't. However, I will go over a few points.

1. If you'd read my numerous and verbose posts, which I imagine you did, a few themes I have stuck to are as follows:

a. Is implementing democracy at the point of a bayonet going to make the mid east a better place? Not confident.

b. Is Saddam an obstacle to Mid East Peace? Yes. Is Mid East peace and stability an aim of the UN Security Council (of which the US is a member?) Yes.

c. Is and was Saddam playing a different game than the Americans? Does he play by a different set of rules? Does he use gas if he feels the desire to? Yes. Capability and intentions, and demonstrated behaviour, are all variables in threat assessment. That is why the UK is not considered a threat, even though they own nukes.

d. Is the stability of the MidEast a US Security Goal? Yes. Has been for about every administration since either TR or FDR, depends on how you want to characterize it.

e. Why is the Mid East important to anyone who does not live there? In part or in whole, its oil, and that commodity's immense impact on the global economy.

f. Politics is the father of war. This war was a predictable exercise of power politics.

g. Was this war the only way to change the Mid East? No, not hardly, but Saddam a leader along the lines of Fidel and Saddam or Louis XIV: not going anywhere until he stops breathing. Until he leaves, he creates instability by his own political power moves, and nothing really changes.

"Why now?" Best question, and possibly the toughest to answer brilliantly.

Was answered:

"The risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of doing something and changing the calculus of the Middle East power relationships."

Is that the best answer in this best of all possible worlds, Dr Panglos-Zenda? Nope, but then, I don't ascribe to the zero defects theory of how the world works. Should does not equal what is.

h. Do I disagree with timing? Still unsure, as my concern was the part that happens when the 'great battles' stopped. "OK, if you invade Iraq and win, you now own it and it problems are now yours." This is what some folks refer to as 'winning the peace.' The US track record on that is mixed, though some collective efforts lately seem to have had some success at extravegant cost. See the Balkans.

"Why now?", again, has the problem of it all stemming to Saddam's political victory in 1991: he remained in power, and did nothing to improve stability in the Mid East in the interim. I will repeat the simple fact that had none of the nations in the region supported getting rid of him, it would not have happened. The issue is

Middle East stability, not a stand alone policy regarding Iraq. It is all tied together.

i. Comparisons to North Korea are pointless, as that situation is goverened by its own logic, and has a different cast of players. The 'Axis of Evil' Speech still remains as one of the most inelegant political statements I have ever heard. China's voice is immensely important in that situation, as is Japan's.

j. Was the risk of making the Middle East worse worth the cost, in treasure, blood, and 'political capital' worth the expectation that a change would improve the Mid East situation in the long term? Hard to say. It is early yet.

k. Was blatant fraud committed in the briefings to the US Congress pre authorization of the use of force? I would be very interested in hearing what is going on behind closed doors. If that turns out to be true, Watergate is gonna seem like child's play, and criminal charges would be appropriate.

l. If you want to pretend that it takes a zero defects standard to justify any action, feel free to remain paralyzed by analysis, which is what happened to the UN in Bosnia pre September 1995, and to the League of Nations in Spain 1939-1939.

m. Is there sufficient political will in America to garner support for 'no fooling' nation building in Iraq? Nation building has most frequently been a multinational endeavour. The early indications are that . . . this will be different. Not sure how well anyone thought this through with a LONG term view.

n. Folks are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, and for that matter still in Cyprus and the Sinai. Some places never get over needing the help. That model needs to be looked at when folks try to estimate just what level of effort is required to bring Iraq back into the fold of non-despotic nations.

o. A few days before the shooting started, I think it was Jester who answered to me the comment that the most likely Iraq, post war, was more likely not an Islamic Republic, which I estimated, but three places: Sunni Central Iraq, Shia Southern Iraq, and Kurdistan. The more I review my history references on the Arab world, the more sense that makes over any envisioned 'future representative Iraq.' Tito's Yugoslavia seems a far more likely model.

p. Read anything on this topic, and it is ALL about 'telling part of the story.' On all of the many sides. That too is politics in action, and always has been. The risk of NBC proliferation was there, the big question 'was it oversold?'

q. The UN is at times unable to get out of its own way. In a clear cut case of blatant aggression, in 1990, the UN needed Geo Bush Senior to lead it into action with a great deal of arm twisting. It took arm twisting to get the international community to do anything about blatant aggression.

Lesson learned?

Possibly . ..

1. Don't waste the energy beyond a certain point
2. One's own actions will be less painful as time passes, if you do a decent job at, see above, winning the peace.

The bottom line from me is: I will be interested to see what the facts are that are turned up as regards the advice Congress got from the Executive Branch in their classified briefings last fall.

Pete once pointed out: a good thing happened, Saddam gone, for what were the wrong reasons. I won't say I totally agree with that letter for letter, but it holds much truth.

[Growler]

I think you missed my point, so I will try again. First, a recapitulation of the original item to which I responded:

3. And even if Iraq did have WMD, the US have no moral right to invade on those grounds because the US have FAR MORE WMD than any other country in the world (and even used them, like in Hiroshima). You can invade on whatever reason you want, except that one. That's just calling everyone else an imbecille.

What I most object to here is the idea that the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate. (THIS IS NOT my full political theory, that would be off topic.) Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all. I don't understand how the US is somehow less moral because it is well armed. Certainly how those arms are used counts, or in other words consequnces matter in moral judgements. Disagreements?

Agent Orange was an herbicide. Chemical warfare against plants doesn't count because plants, being non-human, don't have human rights. Certainly Agent Orange ended up killing and maiming people too, but that wasn't known or intended to happen at the time, and was far too slow and inefficient at causing harm to people to be considered a chemical weapon in the same way as, say, mustard gas is considered a weapon. In researching this post, I found that the US is signatory to the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention as of 1997. I hope that means the Agent Orange scenario won't happen again, because consequences matter and I don't want to see those consequences repeated.

And now for the last part:

Okay, the shade of your neck is showing. Grow up and consider that those are real people over there, most of whom have no real idea of a.) what is going on in the world and b.) why those who hate America feel the way that they do. Of course, your reasons for hating them seem equally justified. Unfortunately, BS like that gives them a damn fine reason to feel the way that they do, while your ideas are based more on some tenuous notion of "freedom".

I was just being facetious there, cleverly changing a few words to turn around the quote and direct it back the other way. If it is not a defensible sentiment in America, does it somehow become defensible when it is in the mid-east? From a slightly different angle, have America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq been morally equivalent to Al-Quada's attacks on America? Should America refain from acting to defend itself merely because of a negative world opinion? I say no, and no, and again no.

Growler

[Growler]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And with regard to your item 4, I can report that since 9/11 large sections of the region known as North America are on fire and loathsome of the mid-east, and is willing to repeat Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. indefinitely if that is the only way to strike back.

Suggestion: Ask Israel if that way of handling terrorism works.

If you have a better way, which is not appeasement, I would like to read it.

Also, Isreal has been restrained again and again by the US. Isreal could do much more.

How on earth can you justify "striking back" when the people who do get the short end of the deal are the same kind of people who got killed in 911? Innocent civilians who have no say in these matters in the first place.

The US goes out of its way to attack only military targets and is highly successful in minimizing civilian casualties. All the (unintentional!) foreign civilian deaths from Afghan and Iraq combined together don't add up to the number lost in New York City.

I think it's a better idea to try and discover what on earth makes people hate the US enough to hijack planes and fly them straight into buildings, and then try to work out a solution from there. Running around with an Iron Fist won't help in any way, unless you kill of every single person who thinks different than you do. If that is your aim then I rest my case.

In the almost 2 years since 9/11, much has been written about "why they hate us". Various conclusions have been reached by various authors. Do you think rational discourse can make the terrorists love us again? I don't.

We could have a debate. Resolved: Violence never solves anything. Wait, let me go dig up my Heinlein...

Growler

[Chaerophon]

the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent

Hmmmm.... Just because America can "legitimately" invade a country in order to ensure its oil production standards are met and Iraq cannot does not grant the Americans moral highground in terms of International Affairs. In terms of citizen abuse, the Iraqis have the Americans beat, but, in terms of international affairs, I'm not sure that you would ever be able to elevate the American position above that of Hussein.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate.  Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all.

A dangerous precedent to be set, don't you think? Any government in the world, presumably, derives its powers from the consent of the governed. In the case of a dictator such as Saddam, that consent is considered to be implicit as it is in many other countries, since there is no democratic means in place to explicitly state that it is so (keep reading, I'm not done). Indeed, in the case of Iraq, it seems highly likely that the majority of the citizenry would prefer life under a different sort of regime, even if they don't know it (as it seems that many do not). However, to my mind, your contentions raise a glaring error. Just because a country does not have a democratic system in place that explicitly identifies the "consent" of the governed does not give a foreign country the moral right to invade. You have an overinflated notion of democracy, if you ask me. Certainly, it is the best (read safest) way to organize a republic; however, just because a nation is not a democracy, it does not mean a.) that its citizens are inherently unhappy (although this is likely to become the case at some point in time, in the absence of the checks and balances of a democracy) or b.) that its citizens cannot rise up on their own if the situation becomes more than they can bear. I acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had reached a point where it was obvious that the citizens would have a difficult time rising up, however, since the liberation of Iraq was clearly not the purpose of the American invasion, nor is Iraq the most tyrranical regime in the world, the point seems moot.

To answer the paragraph at the end of your post:

1.) If it is not a defensible sentiment in America, does it somehow become defensible when it is in the mid-east?

Was the entire middle east responsible for the terrorist attacks? Should we just start "killing the rag-heads" because they killed some of us? If you are going to base the legitimacy of your government upon democratic representation, then you must also have a great deal of respect for the freedoms of the press and speech that exist in your country. Those same freedoms do not exist in Iraq and much of the middle east. Defending one's country is one thing. Attacking out of spite those whose opinions never had a chance of being properly formed is, perhaps, less defensible to my mind than are the contentions of those in the Middle East who are uninformed through no fault of their own, but rather, speak out against the western world out of either fear or government-sponsored and enforced ignorance. War is not the best way to make people who hate you change their minds, especially wars without cause.

2.) have America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq been morally equivalent to Al-Quada's attacks on America?  

Nope, probably not, but was the entire middle-east responsible for those attacks? Should we really be attacking nations whose input into the attacks was nil? Many would call that feeding the fire. I have very little objection to the attacks in Afghanistan although I have many objections to the manner in which the region has been handled since. What little was left of Afghanistan before the invasion has been razed to the ground and the pieces have never been picked up or even cleaned up. Iraq has been attacked with little reason in mind but the increased wealth of a select few and the assurance of an oil supply to the American public, an oil supply that was all but assured in the first place.

3.)  Should America refain from acting to defend itself merely because of a negative world opinion?

When did Iraq attack the United States? Your assertion of democracy's inherent status should work against the notion that you are expressing here. The support of Bin-Laden in Afghanistan made the attack there a matter of national defense. The same cannot be said of that in Iraq. Support that existed for the march into Afghanistan disappeared when it came to Iraq. There was a reason for that.

[WarBlade]

I think you missed my point, so I will try again.  First, a recapitulation of the original item to which I responded:

I'm not sure if you are seeing this one or not, but with different societies comes different ideals on which people are basing their arguments. It's tricky to highlight in this topic unfortunately, but it looks to that you are making a point based on one definition of what you percieve is an accurate portrayal of moral standing (with regards to certain weapon types). Other posts will certainly come from other societies where the perception is entirely different.

What I most object to here is the idea that the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent.

Newsflash: You'll be living with that association for as long as Bush remains in power and probably beyond.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate. (THIS IS NOT my full political theory, that would be off topic.)  Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an  obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all.  I don't understand how the US is somehow less moral because it is well armed.

That line of argument comes from a viewpoint that is entirely removed from any question of governmental legitimacy. Many societies today find the idea of Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons as wellas land mines repugnant. The military of the society in which I live has even determined that cluster bombs are an unacceptable method of conducting warfare. The question of use is beside the point. It's the very fact that people have these things at all that puts them in the catagory of amoral.

Certainly how those arms are used counts, or in other words consequnces matter in moral judgements.  Disagreements?

No. How they are used or not used only counts in some societies. Others will still look on in disgust.

[Chaerophon]

The US goes out of its way to attack only military targets and is highly successful in minimizing civilian casualties. All the (unintentional!) foreign civilian deaths from Afghan and Iraq combined together don't add up to the number lost in New York City.

BS. While they attempt to minimize civilian casualties, there have been at least 8-10,000 civilian casualties in the American wars thus far.

[WarBlade]

The US goes out of its way to attack only military targets and is highly successful in minimizing civilian casualties.

Hardly. Both the US and British forces could learn a little about operating procedures from the Australian pilots who were doing combat missions in the area.

All the (unintentional!) foreign civilian deaths from Afghan and Iraq combined together don't add up to the number lost in New York City.

The last figures I saw on this latest Iraq war were estimated at 5000 (by an American). But the full body count has yet to be determined with any degree of accuracy.

[kandrathe]

When did Iraq attack the United States?

I would say that trying to assassinate George Bush Sr. could be contrued as an attack on the United States, or at least on of its leading political figures at that time.