The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

A nation has the right to wage war only to protect itself or its allies. Anything else is a crime. That is one of the basis of the UN. What you are completely overlooking here is that the USA has no jurisdiction in the international arena except as a member of the UN. What we did was outside the rules of law, and that makes it criminal. If the world at large, as represented by the UN, thought that "Saddam's regime made actions that brought about the need for war", then by all means. We had neither the necessity, nor the justification, nor the right to do so unilaterally.

That would depend on your adherence to the tenet that the UN is the arbiter in international disputes, rather than what it appears which is a political forum for lots of talk, with very little walk. If a consensus of people involved with national security decide that the solution to a national problem is war, then UN support would be nice, but while we hold the veto power on the Security Council, unnecessary. Technically, the two factors that need to align are convincing the President to lead it, and convincing Congress to fund it. Both of which happened. I still think there is more under the covers here, like this which in hindsight is not a justification, but rather sheds light on the level of suspicion on the collusion between various international actors involved with Iraq. You have top Iraqi official meeting with Osama Bin Ladin in Khartoom. You have AQ Khan brokering nuclear weapons designs to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and anyone else who could come up with the $5 million dollar down payment. You have Ansar Al-Islam base in northern Iraq built and supplied by the Iraqi regime. You have Fedayeen Al Saddam recruiting jihadists from the entire Islamic world to train as an ultra nationalist subversive brute squad. You have Iraq attempting to kill a former US president (which in an of itself is an act of war.)

Another factor to consider in the aftermath of the war was the rapid involvement of Iran in calling for all Shia to repel the infidels. Iranian cleric, Kadhem al-Husseini al-Haeri, issued a religious edict and distributed to Shiite mullahs in Iraq, calling on them "to seize the first possible opportunity to fill the power vacuum in the administration of Iraqi cities." The edict, or fatwa, issued April 8, 2003, showed that Shiite clerics in Iraq are receiving significant direction from Iran. The edict said that Shiite leaders have to "seize as many positions as possible to impose a fait accompli for any coming government." "People have to be taught not to collapse morally before the means used by the Great Satan if it stays in Iraq," the fatwa read. "It will try to spread moral decay, incite lust by allowing easy access to stimulating satellite channels and spread debauchery to weaken people's faith." The fatwa also instructed the cleric's followers to "raise people's awareness of the Great Satan's plans and of the means to abort them." On April 7, the day American troops effectively toppled Hussein's government by seizing its main seats of power in Baghdad, al-Haeri sent a handwritten letter to the city of Najaf, appointing Moktada al-Sadr as his deputy in Iraq. Haeri wrote: "We hereby inform you that Mr. Moktada al-Sadr is our deputy and representative in all fatwa affairs."

[kandrathe]

If I understand you correctly (and maybe I don't), you believe the war was necessary in order to prevent the possibility that Iraq might reconstitute it's weapons programs at some indeterminate time in the future. If so, that's an extraordinarily flimsy and unwise rationale for war.

The bottom line is that you deny the actual concrete evidence.

[Jester]

You have Ansar Al-Islam base in northern Iraq built and supplied by the Iraqi regime.

Edit: I clearly mistook your meaning on my first post. This contention has not been borne out by post-war analysis, which has revealed hostility, not cooperation, between Iraq and Ansar Al-Islam.

-Jester

[Thecla]

The bottom line is that you deny the actual concrete evidence.

Lol:)This is a comment almost worthy of a Bush administration Press Secretary. Iraq has no WMDs, no ties with al Qaeda, and I'm the one denying the actual concrete evidence.

The bottom line is that the Bush administration used the supposed terrorist threat posed by Iraq as a pretext to invade the country, deceived the bulk of the US public (btw, hardly very respectful of them to feed the american public a simplistic rationale, because, presumably, they're too stupid to understand a complex one), and attempted to deceive the international community. I've steered away from any comments about the legality of the war, since I don't want to engage in tiresome arguments about international law, but I don't think that's legal.

Presumably (and here I'm speculating, though it's surely why the war was supported by the business and financial interests), the administration saw an opportunity to knock off Hussein and install a pro-US government in the heart of the middle-east, which would then be a key economic, strategic, and military ally.

I dare say the war has turned out to be more expensive than its planners expected, even if they low-balled the prewar estimates, but they may also feel that in a world with increasing competition for dwindling energy resources, almost no cost is too much to secure US access to middle-eastern oil.

____________________________________________________________________

Alan Greenspan: I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.

Martha Raddatz: Two-thirds of Americans say the Iraq war is not worth fighting.
Dick Cheney: So?

[kandrathe]

... and I'm the one denying the actual concrete evidence.

Yes, you are. Was there an Ansar al'Islam base in northern Iraq? Did Iraqi officials meet with Osama bin Laden and other al Queda leaders in Khartoum? Did Iraq try to assassinate Bush Sr? You keep saying there was nothing, and yet you never accept the evidence that is presented. Was there evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its weapons programs? Were they bypassing sanctions and buying proscribed equipment? Were they cooperating with UN weapons inspectors? Maybe if you say it enough, then it never happened right? If you narrow down the criteria for what constitutes justification for war enough, then yes your right. Saddam was a choir boy.

[kandrathe]

Edit: I clearly mistook your meaning on my first post. This contention has not been borne out by post-war analysis, which has revealed hostility, not cooperation, between Iraq and Ansar Al-Islam.

Where do you find that?

Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih. Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties

P.S. Here is a link to FAS, which has the actual document link

[Thecla]

So (and maybe I'm wrong again) you believe that the US invasion of Iraq was necessary because of Iraq's ties with al Qaeda? If so, you are missing the forest for the saplings.

Was there an Ansar al'Islam base in northern Iraq?

No..umm...yes..umm..no. Alright, alright...you got me there.;)

More seriously, of course there was --- in Kurdish controlled territory, run by a group that likely had al Qaeda connections but was hostile to Hussein (although perhaps used by him to fight the Kurds). This stuff was known at the time (whether or not you believe the particular statements here)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...713749.stm

Did Iraqi officials meet with Osama bin Laden and other al Queda leaders in Khartoum?

Who knows. What about that guy in Prague? Never did get it clear if that story was true or not. But, honestly, what if you were to ask if, say, Saudi Arabian officials, or Pakistani officials met with al Qaeda leaders someplace. I guarantee you would dig up a lot more stuff than this. Is this really why the US invaded Iraq, because some "Iraqi officials" may have, or did, meet with "al Qaeda leaders" sometime in Khartoum? If that standard were applied uniformly, there'd hardly be any countries left to invade.

Or, if this is the tip of some huge undiscovered iceberg of Hussein-al Qaeda plots against the US, show me the rest of the iceberg.

Did Iraq try to assassinate Bush Sr?

They may well have, in retailiation for Gulf I, I suppose. I don't know if it's conclusively proven or not that Iraq was behind the attempt, but I find it quite believable. Except that was in 1993, and the US retaliated at the time with a missile strike. Are you seriously suggesting this as a reason to invade Iraq in 2003?

Was there evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its weapons programs? Were they bypassing sanctions and buying proscribed equipment?

As far as I can tell, they were bypassing sanctions and mostly building palaces for Hussein.

If you narrow down the criteria for what constitutes justification for war enough, then yes your right.

Well, again, I can't help being reminded here of the Bush administration's use of the word "revisionist" to attack those who complained that the administration had switched rationales from WMDs to spreading democracy after no WMDs were found. If you narrow down the evidence required to the point where almost anything will justify war, then yes you're right, the war was necessary.

Saddam was a choir boy.

Please explain why anyone who's strongly opposed to the Iraq war must believe Hussein was a choir boy?

p.s. More of that damn left-wing liberal media, that New York Sun.;)

[kandrathe]

As far as I can tell, they were bypassing sanctions and mostly building palaces for Hussein.

Then you are not looking.

Well, again, I can't help being reminded here of the Bush administration's use of the word "revisionist" to attack those who complained that the administration had switched rationales from WMDs to spreading democracy after no WMDs were found. If you narrow down the evidence required to the point where almost anything will justify war, then yes you're right, the war was necessary.

If possession with intent or actual use of WMD were your only criteria for war then we'd have very few wars. Iraq was buying dual use materials which were banned by anti-proliferation treaties. Their actions were highly suspicious, and when by UN mandate they were to submit to weapons inspections they dodged, they lied, they obfuscated, and they harassed them. It was unclear what they were doing, and Saddam wanted the facts of Iraq WMD to be a mystery. They had them and used them in the past, and it was logical to conclude that given the materials purchased that they would make them again.

Please explain why anyone who's strongly opposed to the Iraq war must believe Hussein was a choir boy?

You seem to be against removing one of the most tyrannical brutal dictators of this decade. You narrow the criteria for what justified the war down, and when evidence is presented which is in that criteria you refuse to believe or claim it's unsubstantiated because an Ansar al'Islam Mullah that fled to Norway claims he hated Saddam. Yeah, sure. But, when Hamza, the top Iraqi nuclear scientist who defects from Iraq divulges all the he knows on Saddam's nuclear program, it cannot be believed.

p.s. More of that damn left-wing liberal media, that New York Sun.;)

It wasn't the Sun's commentary that was interesting, it was the report they were reporting on. If I could find a direct link to the government report, I would link to that.

P.S. Here is a link to FAS site, which has the actual document link

I would suggest a thorough reading of Volume 1. It is fascinating.

A selected extract;
A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has
been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.
The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that "this organization is an offshoot
of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can
be a way of camouflaging the organization."

[Jester]

Where do you find that?

Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih. Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties

P.S. Here is a link to FAS, which has the actual document link

There are dozens of "small radical Islamist Kurdish sect(s)," all of whom have a common anti-PUK agenda with Saddam Hussein. What makes you think, other than that the NY Sun has put these two sentences side by side, that the one in the report is Ansar Al-Islam? And, even if so, "financial and moral support" is not the same as building bases and providing military supplies. A few thousand dinars and a pat on the back is a small price to pay for an enemy-of-your-enemy willing to do dirty work, but it is hardly evidence of an operational alliance.

I suspect that Iraqi intelligence offered some small quantity of money, and a general policy of live-and-let-kill-Kurds, so long as they focused their attention on their mutual enemy, while simultaneously trying to infiltrate their organization to help check the potential threat of Islamist insurrection. I suspect you would find the same pattern with most anti-Kurdish Nationalist terrorist groups.

-Jester

Interesting: The quantity usually mentioned in the reports for supporting various terrorist groups (didn't find the Kurdish Islamist reference in particular, do you have a page number?) was 20,000 dinars/yr. At the 1990's - early 2000s exchange rates, that would be anywhere from about $30,000 US to about five bucks, at rock bottom.

[kandrathe]

There are dozens of "small radical Islamist Kurdish sect(s)," all of whom have a common anti-PUK agenda with Saddam Hussein. What makes you think, other than that the NY Sun has put these two sentences side by side, that the one in the report is Ansar Al-Islam? And, even if so, "financial and moral support" is not the same as building bases and providing military supplies. A few thousand dinars and a pat on the back is a small price to pay for an enemy-of-your-enemy willing to do dirty work, but it is hardly evidence of an operational alliance.

I suspect that Iraqi intelligence offered some small quantity of money, and a general policy of live-and-let-kill-Kurds, so long as they focused their attention on their mutual enemy, while simultaneously trying to infiltrate their organization to help check the potential threat of Islamist insurrection. I suspect you would find the same pattern with most anti-Kurdish Nationalist terrorist groups.

-Jester

Interesting: The quantity usually mentioned in the reports for supporting various terrorist groups (didn't find the Kurdish Islamist reference in particular, do you have a page number?) was 20,000 dinars/yr. At the 1990's - early 2000s exchange rates, that would be anywhere from about $30,000 US to about five bucks, at rock bottom.

You should read the Section 1 of the report on the FAS site. The Iraqi ISS, Feydayeen and Force 999 activities were far beyond your limited vision of " Iraqi intelligence offered some small quantity of money, and a general policy of live-and-let-kill-Kurds". In Iraqi documents there is specific mention of sending the 10 best specially trained Force 999 commando's to London for special missions against Iraqi ex-patriots, British and American interests. The report, which is an analysis of actual Iraqi documents, reveals the full extent of the Saddam regimes links terrorist activities around the world. Now, Saddam was focused on Pan-Arabism, while Al Queda and other Jihadi groups are more Pan-Islamist. But, as is also outlined in the Section 1, that is like the difference between Cali and Medellín drug cartels. While the Iraqi regime was selfishly looking out for its own interests in establishing Iraq as the leader of Pan-Arabism, if their objectives overlapped with others they provided aid, training and support.

[Jester]

You should read the Section 1 of the report on the FAS site. The Iraqi ISS, Feydayeen and Force 999 activities were far beyond your limited vision of " Iraqi intelligence offered some small quantity of money, and a general policy of live-and-let-kill-Kurds". In Iraqi documents there is specific mention of sending the 10 best specially trained Force 999 commando's to London for special missions against Iraqi ex-patriots, British and American interests. The report, which is an analysis of actual Iraqi documents, reveals the full extent of the Saddam regimes links terrorist activities around the world. Now, Saddam was focused on Pan-Arabism, while Al Queda and other Jihadi groups are more Pan-Islamist. But, as is also outlined in the Section 1, that is like the difference between Cali and Medellín drug cartels. While the Iraqi regime was selfishly looking out for its own interests in establishing Iraq as the leader of Pan-Arabism, if their objectives overlapped with others they provided aid, training and support.

... none of which are Ansar Al-Islam, which was my criticism.

Iraqi intelligence had contacts with, and probably off-and-on gave minor support to, various terrorist groups, trained guerilla fighters in terror tactics, and whatnot. However, if this is now a casus belli, you should probably just up and declare war on the entire middle east, because that's true of most countries over there. Indeed, you'd have cause to declare war on yourselves, because the US record for supporting terrorism is far from lily white.

-Jester

[Thecla]

Then you are not looking.

You're certainly looking, but, like the Bush administration, you're not finding much. I know they found plenty of palaces, but where were Iraq's chemical weapon's manufacturing facilities, it's bioweapons labs, it's nuclear enrichment plants? Never mind the aluminum tubes most likely intended for short-range rockets, but portrayed by the Bush administration as for centrifuges, or the trailers most likely used for the production of hydrogen gas, but claimed by the Bush administration to be mobile bioweapons labs.

If possession with intent or actual use of WMD were your only criteria for war then we'd have very few wars.

Now wouldn't that be a terrible thing.

Their actions were highly suspicious, and when by UN mandate they were to submit to weapons inspections they dodged, they lied, they obfuscated, and they harassed them. It was unclear what they were doing, and Saddam wanted the facts of Iraq WMD to be a mystery. They had them and used them in the past, and it was logical to conclude that given the materials purchased that they would make them again.

You like to connect dots too, I see. Is it a secret weapons program or a bunny rabbit??

To try a third time, I think I understand your support for the war as basically along the lines of: "let's take the bastard out now and be done with it". Going back to my original comments, there was no immediate threat to the US from Iraq, and no credible evidence at the time that such a threat existed. Nothing you've said has demonstrated otherwise. It was not a necessary war, or --- as people seem to like to say now, contrary to how it was portrayed at the time --- it was "a war of choice". If you feel that it was nevertheless the right thing to do on that account, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point (or maybe disagree to disagree if you don't agree to disagree). You're 100% wrong but, hey, you think I'm 100% wrong also.

But a couple of final comments on this:

(a ) You might argue that there was some necessity in an immediate invasion, because the Bush administration had to strike while the iron was hot in the post-9/11 climate of fear and anger in the US. If they waited too long for the shock to wear off, then the american people would return to their politically somnolent ways, and it would no longer be possible to persuade them to support the starting of a dubious war by the US. Probably, there's a lot of truth to this. (Plus, Bush's approval ratings got a significant bump, as always happens when any country goes to war.)

(b ) You seem remarkably forgiving of a government that presents a fraudulent case for war when its views happen to correspond to your own.

You seem to be against removing one of the most tyrannical brutal dictators of this decade.

Rats! You switched rationales again; and I was barely keeping up with the last one.

Even you must admit that the suggestion that if you oppose the war you somehow support Hussein is little better (maybe worse) than 5th grade sophistry.

Of course Hussein was a brutal dictator who gassed his own people. He also started one of the mostly deadly wars in modern times against Iran (incidentally supported in the later parts, at least, by the US). The small story that sticks in my mind is one related by John Burns (a consistently great reporter on Iraq) in which Hussein had the middle tooth of some underling pulled out with pliers and forbade him to have it replaced by a false tooth so it would act as a constant reminder of Hussein's authority.

I don't have any better answers than anyone else about how the US and the international community should best respond to the human rights violations, atrocities, and genocides throughout the world (Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, just to mention a few of the current ones). But however that's done, it has to be done with some form of international cooperation (however poorly that works sometimes) and with honesty. You'll forgive my cynicism in believing that the Bush-Cheny administration was not using WMDs as a cloak for a secret mission to rescue Iraqi's from tyranny.

[Taem]

"Most important" is hard to prove and somewhat subjective, I'll admit that. But it's nothing to underestimate.

Here is another (American) source: http://peakoil.com/static/editorial/Oil_Cu...Geopolitics.htm
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

So are you trying to say that to Americans, G.W. Bush is actually the 'good-guy'? I see this as a failure - but I fail to fathom where to place the blame - of the system to correct itself. A monetary system built simply on the need of the American dollar from outside sources, because "everyone needs oil" is so absurd, its wrong. Where was my vote when this occurred? Oh never mind, I wasn't born yet.

Anyways, did you catch that part in the end about how America is trying to do the same thing with nuclear energy? I see it happening now, how American representatives insist Iran and other countries use American or Russian technology for their nuclear reactors to "prove" they aren't creating nuclear weapons. Another "free" source of revenue collected from another consumable energy source? At this point however, American currency is so entwined with the rest of the world's economy that if the dollar fell, the world would collapse; then I suppose the need for a one-world currency would arise. Revelations anyone?

[kandrathe]

You're certainly looking, but, like the Bush administration, you're not finding much. I know they found plenty of palaces, but where were Iraq's chemical weapon's manufacturing facilities, it's bioweapons labs, it's nuclear enrichment plants? Never mind the aluminum tubes most likely intended for short-range rockets, but portrayed by the Bush administration as for centrifuges, or the trailers most likely used for the production of hydrogen gas, but claimed by the Bush administration to be mobile bioweapons labs.

You are focusing on those things that were not found. Your opinion of what is incriminating has a very high standard. You still do not accept the things that were found, and are true.

And, regarding the tubes, "A key player in claiming that the tubes were for centrifuges was a CIA analyst who was a former member of the US gas centrifuge program at Oak Ridge prior to its cancellation in 1985. In the media, he has been referred to as Joe. The Washington Post reported on August 10, 2003 that the CIA gave him an award for exceptional performance." Joe was a credible source. Joe knows more about gas centrifuges than you or I. But, Albright was correct in my opinion, that the tubes were to build knock offs of Medusa Rockets.

To try a third time, I think I understand your support for the war as basically along the lines of: "let's take the bastard out now and be done with it". Going back to my original comments, there was no immediate threat to the US from Iraq, and no credible evidence at the time that such a threat existed. Nothing you've said has demonstrated otherwise. It was not a necessary war, or --- as people seem to like to say now, contrary to how it was portrayed at the time --- it was "a war of choice". If you feel that it was nevertheless the right thing to do on that account, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point (or maybe disagree to disagree if you don't agree to disagree). You're 100% wrong but, hey, you think I'm 100% wrong also.

I'm not sure the war was absolutely necessary, but if you look at the history of the Iraqi regime and where it was heading. The prospect of a world with an Iraq ruled by Saddam now beyond UN sanctions is a chilling one. I can't remember the movie, but the gangster's line was something like "If we can survive this we'll be back in business, bigger than ever". So, the down side of crushing the last bastion of Pan-Arabism, is that if fueled a little more Pan-Islamicism. Saddam decided to play the ultimate game of "chicken", only it was like he was driving a Mini into a freight train. No one decided to get out of the others way, so they collided. Hopefully the stupid Mini won't derail us.

(a ) You might argue that there was some necessity in an immediate invasion, because the Bush administration had to strike while the iron was hot in the post-9/11 climate of fear and anger in the US. If they waited too long for the shock to wear off, then the American people would return to their politically somnolent ways, and it would no longer be possible to persuade them to support the starting of a dubious war by the US. Probably, there's a lot of truth to this. (Plus, Bush's approval ratings got a significant bump, as always happens when any country goes to war.)

The necessity was more to contain the already eroded sanctions program, and to prevent Saddam from funneling smuggling money into rebuilding his offensive military capabilities and funding more international terrorism.

(b ) You seem remarkably forgiving of a government that presents a fraudulent case for war when its views happen to correspond to your own.

I never needed the litmus test of direct linkage to Al Queda, or a smoking ruin of a nuclear bombing to convince me that the Iraq regime was a danger. As for justification, the violation of the cease fire agreement was sufficient grounds to return to war. What I object is not the war (it was the easy part), but the aftermath.

I don't have any better answers than anyone else about how the US and the international community should best respond to the human rights violations, atrocities, and genocides throughout the world (Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, just to mention a few of the current ones). But however that's done, it has to be done with some form of international cooperation (however poorly that works sometimes) and with honesty.

And... When that happens... We'll be ice skating in hell.

[kandrathe]

... none of which are Ansar Al-Islam, which was my criticism.

Iraqi intelligence had contacts with, and probably off-and-on gave minor support to, various terrorist groups, trained guerilla fighters in terror tactics, and whatnot. However, if this is now a casus belli, you should probably just up and declare war on the entire middle east, because that's true of most countries over there. Indeed, you'd have cause to declare war on yourselves, because the US record for supporting terrorism is far from lily white.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Iraq was the case where negotiation and diplomacy were not going to work, and had proven unworkable over two decades.

[Thecla]

You still do not accept the things that were found, and are true.

What I don't accept is that anything you cited remotely rises to the level of showing that Iraq presented an immediate threat to the US.

I'm not sure the war was absolutely necessary, but if you look at the history of the Iraqi regime and where it was heading. The prospect of a world with an Iraq ruled by Saddam now beyond UN sanctions is a chilling one.

The reality we got is a good deal more chilling than your hypothetical worries (certainly it is for the people who've died in the aftermath of the US invasion, despite your happy calculations on the supposed lightness of the casualties). But why do you presume, for example, that Iraq would succeed in developing a nuclear weapons program if the US had not invaded when it did, or that no actions to prevent those dangers could've been taken in the future?

I don't minimize the consequences of nuclear terrorism. It's a frighteningly real possibility, and I hope it never happens anywhere. All the more reason why the discussion of any such threats should be based on reality, and not exaggerated as a pretext for war. In my opinion, the US invasion of Iraq has not made the world safer, it's made it a much more dangerous place.

I never needed the litmus test of direct linkage to Al Queda, or a smoking ruin of a nuclear bombing to convince me that the Iraq regime was a danger.

So who's next on your list of potentially apocalyptic regimes to wipe off the face of the earth? N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Libya...

And... When that happens... We'll be ice skating in hell.

True, actual honesty from politicians is too much to expect, especially since they'd never get elected if they told the truth. But there should be some fundamental kernel of truth in stating the reasons for going to war, and the use of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs as a pretext for a war that was largely undertaken for economic and strategic reasons falls short of even my minimal standards for honesty and transparency in humanitarian interventions. But I'm glad to hear it meets yours.

[kandrathe]

So who's next on your list of potentially apocalyptic regimes to wipe off the face of the earth? N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Libya...

Anyone who is implacably bent, and employing means to destroying the US and Europe. When negotiation and diplomacy between nations fails, you resort to that worst solution of war.

[Jester]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Iraq was the case where negotiation and diplomacy were not going to work, and had proven unworkable over two decades.

Yes. And now you have a bleeding, wailing cat, and the neighbours are wondering why you skinned it.

Sometimes, when all your methods don't work, the correct response is to reassess whether every goal you have is really worth pulling out all the stops to achieve.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Sometimes, when all your methods don't work, the correct response is to reassess whether every goal you have is really worth pulling out all the stops to achieve.

I guess. If you believe goal in this case was, "stop trying to kill me and my friends" as I tend to think, then the war was a way to bring that about. Most people can't get past the illusion that it was, "hey, give me all your oil." I don't believe it was ever about WMDs and not specifically about Al Queda, although I think Iraq's known involvement in terrorism was a large factor. Mostly, Saddam was one of the biggest pains in the butt the world has seen since Stalin.

There was a story in the news today about a guy who despite the efforts of stopping motorists, stomped, hit and kicked a 1 to 2 yrs old boy to death. Somewhere in this melee the cops shot and killed him. Personally, I could care less if it was during or after at this point. I felt the same way about Saddam, and his sons. Just or unjust, they deserved to die for the things they did to their own people. The unfortunate part of deposing him was the power vacuum left in the wake of de-Bathification, and the lack of a coalition plan to more quickly shore up the civil systems and authority. It is clear that Saddam had a post invasion plan(insurgency), al Quada/Ansar al Islam had a plan for post invasion (insurgency) and Iran had a post invasion plan(insurgency). It's too bad we didn't account for that in our planning.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Mostly, Saddam was one of the biggest pains in the butt the world has seen since Stalin.

And NOT in our jurisdiction.

Somewhere in this melee the cops shot and killed him.

And in his jurisdiction.

Had the shooting been by a random motorist instead of a cop, that motorist would be up for charges. It is only legal to use lethal force in self defense (of yourself, as a person; of the country, as a government).

The difference is that between vigilantism and the rule of law.

If principles are not held more precious than lives, even the lives of babies, then we lose both the lives and the principles.

--Pete