What a load of ...

Remove all ads!

S., he wasn't in a rat hole when the coalition went in. He was in a palace in Baghdad training terrorists, funding them, and working on nuclear and chemical weapons. And yes, you defend yourself from perceived threats. If you don't perceive them, you can't defend against them. If you do perceive them and don't defend, then you are destroyed.

The minimum of casualties is an unfortunate political fact at the moment. The American public just won't tolerate American casualities on the scale that would be necessary to invade, say, North Korea. The exception is if we can prove that the DPRK has WMD and can deliver them. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. However, I fail to see why not wanting to have casualties is a cause for condemnation.

I've debunked the "it's for the oil" nonsense so often that I don't care to do so again. Search for my other posts on the topic in this forum.

Bush certainly didn't need Iraq to help his image. He could have concentrated on Afghanistan and played up the astounding success there (instead of the astounding success in Iraq). And aren't all you leftists always saying that Iraq has hurt Bush's image anyway?

In short, I really don't get what the liberal Europeans are on about. We say that there is an illegal weapons program in Iraq. We say so for many years. Most people in the world agree. They send inspectors. Saddam kicks them out. Then we say, "Give us proof they're gone or we come in with force." He refuses, and the world says, "Wait, wait! We were just kidding before when we said Saddam needed to allow inspectors in. Let's ask again." We say, "ok." And France vetoes. So we go in anyway. Now suddenly because we didn't get a unanimous Security Council vote to uphold a UN resolution, no one believes anymore than Saddam had WMD -- despite the fact that we found bio labs, missiles modified to carry chemical weapons, and British intelligence tells us he was trying to get uranium. And they continue to complain despite the fact that THOUSANDS of lives have been saved because we removed a brutal dictator.

And this point it becomes obvious that there is no principled opposition. The only ones crying foul are doing so out of hatred for Bush or for America in general. You can't claim that you argue based on freedom, because undoubtedly Iraq is more free than before. You can't claim that you argue based on loss of life, because undoubtedly more Iraqis are alive now than would be otherwise. You can't claim that it's due to a desire to conform to international law (as if that exists), because there were nearly twenty resolutions against Iraq and the only reason there wasn't another was because of two nations on the Security Council. Perhaps it's just a "peace at all costs" mentality, but in my mind that equates to cowardice.

 

Defend does not equate to aggression or violating UN principles. I can see the Afghanistan initiative -- we were attacked, we knew who did it and we were going after them. To use the "defense" ruse to violate international precepts and invade a country as a rogue agressor, no matter what cat-mouse provocation there is, is simply wrong. I do not believe that the crusade Bush has mounted to route out evil (which is precisely what this is) is justified, UNLESS a world-sanctioned (UN)crusade, with a coalition from a variety of countries, wants to take it upon themselves to accomplish this. (They can even make a checklist of who's next on the exorcism list!) Anyone want to join up?

 

So, following your logic through, I guess you think the Holocaust was justified because Hitler saw the Jews as a threat.

Including the weapons inspectors themselves.

 

This is the kind of rhetoric that I find irresponsible, and if anything, the most cowardly defense to hide behind: Bush being criticized = attack on America; or if you don't agree with Bush, then you must hate us; so you are with us or against us. This whole argument is an attempt to mute debate. This is what I was commenting on in a previous post. It is circular: if you won't help us eradicate evil, then must be evil yourself, because you either hate Bush or hate America, and thus, you embrace evil. This is nothing more than aggressive nationalism in its purest form.
The idea of a preemptive war to eradicate "evil" in the world is unprecedented in American tradition. The reason is simple: because the value system used to define good and evil, by any standard, is decided by the those actually wielding power.
Thus, any moral argument, assuming the test of evil, wherever it may be found in the world, is based solely at the whims of those making policy decisions. It is a dangerous trek down that road of "shooting first and asking questions later," because the "questions later" part of the equation is never allowed. If you have to ask, then you are not with us. Therefore you must be...

[ December 17, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

as Taluntain notes.... "astounding success"??? What astounding success? The man is still on the loose, free to do as he pleases, with the US no closer to finding him than they ever were.

I think it's quite clear to most that the Iraq invasion was nothing more than a smokescreen to divert American's attention from an ASTOUNDING FAILURE (with some oil of course to make it go down better).

and Chandos.....well said.

 

Grey Magistrate, you get the premises right and the inference is valid, but it breeds a conclusion that the war on Iraq and the invasion was in case terrorist would buy weapons from Iraq, ergo: blasting Iraq so that terrorists couldn'y buy weapons from there.

There are two problems here:

1 This doesn't look similar to what the US officially says.

2 Where's Saddam's responsibility for 9/11, which is sort of dogma in common reception?

 

@ Chev - good points - especially #2.

In fact, it has been pretty much determined that there were no connection between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq/Iran/North Korea.

 

No, the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to bring down a government that was helping terrorists. We did so. That's called a success. We always knew that Osama could and probably would move. So what?

Chandos, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why they're so vehement. All I could come up with was Bush or America hatred (you've already proven yourself in the former category). But I'm open to hearing more. So far all I've gotten is "we don't like how it was done."

It seems to me that if that were true then everyone at the UN would be moving a lot faster to help get Iraq on its feet again. If it were just a procedural issue, then people wouldn't be comparing Bush to Hitler.

 

I suppose I should ignore your own personal attack, eh? "You got your facts mixed up, as usual."

I don't buy your statement that the reason we went after the Taliban was simply to get Osama. Do you have any proof of that? As I recall (and maybe we can get some other posters with sources or better memories in here), the problem with the Taliban is that they refused to help us look for him or allow us to look in Afghanistan ourselves.

In other words, we had a mission to find Osama and one of the things we had to do in the hunt for him was take out the Taliban. It was part of the "huntin' for Osama" mission, but not its sum total.

 

um...Shralp....your argument makes no sense at all. In fact you're arguing against yourself! Read your post!!!

um... how is that different from what Tal said?

???? You just seem to be confirming Taluntain's arguments, which are correct, btw. Since your argument really isn't one, I'm not sure what you're trying to say....it may just be a case of factual dementia, I guess.

 

@Spellbound

There seems to be an epidemic of this in the Alley.

 

Heh. No, Spellbound, but I admit I could have done a better job explaining it. Let me try again:

We had a larger mission: Find or kill Osama. That mission has not succeeded yet.

As part of the effort in that mission, we took out the Taliban. That little side mission succeeded.

[For the information of others: I have indeed contacted Beren regarding the accuracy of what he wrote above.]

[ December 18, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

You are still confirming Taluntain's argument. You initially said:

Quite a bit different from your current version of "success":

It's pointless to continue this he said/she said logical argument, but in my opinion, taking the other side's argument in a debate only works if you understand the difference between the two.

 

Well, according to George Bush the objectives in afghanistan were:</font>

• Destruction of the Al Quaeda infrastructure
• Capture of Bin Laden
• Ending terrorist activities in Afghanistan

The US did indeed drive the Taleban away with the Northern Alliance, but the fights weren't half as easy as reported. And the US did not defeat the Taleban, they withdrew, under heavy losses, to reform and fight another day. What they did. Today the Taleban, far from defeated, have reformed and retook a few provinces in Afghanistan, aid workers get assassinated on a regular basis to undermine international support, Al Quaeda has been beaten hard but seemingly has reformed, Bin Laden is still on the loose ...

IMO the best way to judge success is by the original objectives at the time you started operations.
Insofar: Stunning success? Aren't you putting the mark for success a little low Shralp?