Going to War

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Inq, your state sponsored terrorism theory is indeed a great argument for Iraq to be invaded...... by Israel.

And insofar as we have a treaty relationship with Israel...

The ONLY funding of terrorist organizations which Sadaam Hussein has participated in is payment to the families of suicide bombers.

This is the only funding which he has publicly acknowledged
( boasted of, actually ), but it doesn not mean it is the only funding which has been given. As I said, there is some evidence that Iraqi intelligence provided money, documentation, and at least cursory intel assistance to the terrorist cell which placed the large bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993, killing several people and forcing its evacuation. At least one member of the cell was in the US on an Iraqi passport, and another fled to Iraq after, and is still there, apparently. Even President Clinton was convinced, apparently:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

And I daresay that the attempted assassination of a former President on foreign soil, an act which almost no one doubts was an Iraqi operation, qualifies as terrorism, as well....

And those are only the ones about which we know. Iraqi intelligence is supposed to be pretty good at covert ops, a big part of which consists of keeping them covert.

If you will recall, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are NOT anti-American organizations.

Yet.

Hussein would never give his weapons to terrorists.

You feel confident that you can predict the behavior of a sociopathic murderer of his ilk beyond a reasonable doubt? You are willing to risk thousands, if not millions, of lives on your ability to do so?

He will not risk his life and his power by handing weapons to somebody who will use them against the US. that is the quickest way to assured destruction.

This is a pretty naive belief IMO, if I may say so. It trusts that (a) he is sane; that (b) he is fully aware of what is going on in the world; that (c) anyone dares to present him with adverse information and advice; and most tenuously that (d) he does not have, or at least think he has, any way to do so without having the weapons traced back to him. ( Such backtracking is notoriously difficult in the first place---look at the remaining uncertainty over the Pan Am bombing's responsibility. )

The very fact that Hussein is a power hungry despot with a good sense of self preservation is why containment will work.

-m

Unfortunately, that is not all he is. He is also a megalomaniac, with dreams of everlasting glory as the new Saladin, etc, etc, etc. Which makes predicting his actions a very risky proposition. Have a look at this article for an assessment of his motives, character
( I use the word loosely ) and possible intentions. Then see if you are still so convinced that he can be boxed in and made impotent by a world that isn't willing to risk temporary interruption of its oil supplies and trade revenues:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
This is a pretty naive belief IMO, if I may say so.

you may say so, but it is a belief which is shared by every expert I have heard speak on the subject (mostly on NPR, which I'm sure you will claim is a liberally biased network).

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
some, at least some motivation for the US to wage a war in Iraq is oil in itself.

"Some"---thank you for that, and you are quite correct, I should think. All too many people seem insistent that it is the ONLY motivation. I don't know what it is in their lives that leads them to believe that ANYTHING is ever so simple as to have just one answer, but they fall into the trap of reductionism nevertheless...



Of course, the safety, security and predictability of world oil and gas supplies are a factor in the stance toward Iraq. So is national security. So is international and domestic politics. So is personal animosity between Bush and Saddam. So is the War on Terror. So is the fear of the proliferation of WOMD. So, I suspect, are a lot of other things none of us has thought of.

But the point is, the existence of one of these factors in the decision-making process does not override all the others, nor does it necessarily invalidate the decision...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
you may say so, but it is a belief which is shared by every expert I have heard speak on the subject (mostly on NPR, which I'm sure you will claim is a liberally biased network).

-m

Would you really argue that it's not?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Would you really argue that it's not?

actually, yes, I would.

I have frequently heard what I would consider conservatively biased shows on NPR. If liberals think they hear conservative bias, and conservatives think they hear liberal bias, it is probably a good sign for the impartiality of the network.

As for WHAT I thought was conservatively biased, I have heard entire shows in which ONLY pro-life experts were on the show. In addition, after the attacks in Kuwait, there was a show which purported to be on the controversial idea of missionary work. Their guests? a catholic missionary and a protestant missionary. That seems to show a bias in favor of those who feel missionary work is a good idea (generally, conservatives). To be honest, the show really served more as a forum for sharing stories about missionary work, talking about pragmatic problems. there was NOBODY, not even callers, who claimed that prosletyzing might not be such a good idea....

Here's a suggestion: why don't you LISTEN to NPR?? you might be surprised at the effect it has on your views. don't confuse intelligent reporting for liberalism. they may agree at times, but they are not the same, nor are their motivations.

Again, EVERYBODY I have heard on NPR agrees that Hussein is too in love with power to ever give his weapons to terrorists. money, maybe, though even that to anti-Israel groups. They all agree, even the ones who do think we should invade. They agree we should invade for reasons I disagree with, but they agree that him giving weapons to terrorists is not a real concern.

They bottom line is that there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They are INCREDIBLY divergent philosophically.

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
"Some"---thank you for that, and you are quite correct, I should think. All too many people seem insistent that it is the ONLY motivation. I don't know what it is in their lives that leads them to believe that ANYTHING is ever so simple as to have just one answer, but they fall into the trap of reductionism nevertheless...

Of course, the safety, security and predictability of world oil and gas supplies are a factor in the stance toward Iraq. So is national security. So is international and domestic politics. So is personal animosity between Bush and Saddam. So is the War on Terror. So is the fear of the proliferation of WOMD. So, I suspect, are a lot of other things none of us has thought of.

But the point is, the existence of one of these factors in the decision-making process does not override all the others, nor does it necessarily invalidate the decision...

Well, but then you cannot expect other countries to be ready to jump in and support attacks on Iraq just for the US national security, personal animosity between Bush and Saddam. Especially when doing so would be going against the economic interests of the said country. Basically I hear a lot of complaining because France is not willing to side with the US, but if you look at it from the French perspective, it would basically mean that we are going to help someone, not get anything in return, and actually potentially lose contracts which could help us make our economy better.

Basically, if the US wants to attack Iraq for all the reasons cited above, then fine, but the US should not make it look like a holy crusade to save the Iraqi people, nor should it make it look like it's only because they are afraid of Iraq having WoMD, nor should it make it look like it's only because of the war on terror (and again, I am not convinced that saying it's because of the war on terror is a valid argument).

I think that if the position of the US was clearer and that someone was willing to stand out and give the real and clear reasons why they are attacking Iraq, and tell the French that their oil contracts will be honored as long as they join the US in the efforts to get rid of potential WoMD, and help build a democracy in Iraq after the war, then the French would probably have more inclination in joining the effort.

But I guess this is not going to happen...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Here's a suggestion: why don't you LISTEN to NPR??

...

Again, EVERYBODY I have heard on NPR agrees that Hussein is too in love with power to ever give his weapons to terrorists.

...

They bottom line is that there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They are INCREDIBLY divergent philosophically.

-m

1. I have, and find it highly distasteful.

2. And THAT must make it fact!!

3. I'm amazed at the authority with which you speak. You should talk to the Bush and the UN - I'm sure you could clear a lot of issues up for them with your proof-positive information!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
1. I have, and find it highly distasteful.

Why do I not find it surprising that you find the most intelligent, unbiased reporting in this country distasteful.

2. And THAT must make it fact!!

no, but when the experts on both sides of the debate agree on something, I'm gonna give it a large amount of credibility.

3. I'm amazed at the authority with which you speak. You should talk to the Bush and the UN - I'm sure you could clear a lot of issues up for them with your proof-positive information!

Most of what I am saying is in line with what the vast majority of the UN believes, so they don't need me to talk to them. As for the Bush administration, well, my bet is that they know all this too, but they do seem to sweep it under the rug in their attempts to fleece the American public. I'm sure they are happy to have such trusting citizens as you to accept it.

-m

[Swordsman]

I suppose it all lies in disagreement; I don't think they're quite so "unbiased".

And regardless of who agrees with you - I still wonder that you would state that as fact which you have no way of knowing.

[135711]

They bottom line is that there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They are INCREDIBLY divergent philosophically.


The fact that you and I cannot see a direct link between two things doesn't mean that some connection or link does not exist. However, we could say that the link may be weak, or it only exists in a cultural context rather than a political context.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Well, but then you cannot expect other countries to be ready to jump in and support attacks on Iraq just for the US national security. Especially when doing so would be going against the economic interests of the said country.

Here's my problem with this view.

The US has been defending European, and yes, French, security interests since the end of WWII. Yet when we ask for a little reciprocity, in defense of OUR security interests, suddenly it's "What's in it for us?" Apparently alliances and loyalty are a one-way street as far as a lot of Continental governments are concerned.

Basically, if the US wants to attack Iraq for all the reasons cited above, then fine, but the US should not make it look like a holy crusade to save the Iraqi people, nor should it make it look like it's only because they are afraid of Iraq having WoMD, nor should it make it look like it's only because of the war on terror (and again, I am not convinced that saying it's because of the war on terror is a valid argument).

I haven't noticed that anyone in the US government has been saying that any one reason is the sole reason. All of the ones we've mentioned are part of a congeries of reasons, some interrelated. Some seem to have emerged more or less as afterthoughts, it is true, but that may be more apparent than
real---we cannot see into minds or hearts.

One can argue that this motive or that is not credible or valid, that is a perfectly proper matter of debate, but too many people don't really want to debate them , they just dismiss them out of hand in favor of overly simplistic judgements like "it's all about oil". Or, they imagine that if one motive is not valid, the whole edifice of motives must perforce collapse like a house of cards...

I think that if the position of the US was clearer and that someone was willing to stand out and give the real and clear reasons why they are attacking Iraq, and tell the French that their oil contracts will be honored as long as they join the US in the efforts to get rid of potential WoMD, and help build a democracy in Iraq after the war, then the French would probably have more inclination in joining the effort.

But I guess this is not going to happen...

No, I don't imagine it is. Even the modes of debate differ in the US and Europe---here we debate in order to arrive at a conclusion, and then to take action on that conclusion. In Europe, much more emphasis seems to be placed on process: don't offend anyone, arrive at a consensus which pleases all parties, even if it doesn't result in any action being taken.

Admittedly, the Bush team has not displayed any great talent diplomatically speaking. But then, it hasn't had years to carefully craft and hone a policy. It has had to act on the fly since 9-11, and anger and fear are not strong foundations for calculated diplomatic efforts...

As to the oil contracts, I do not expect that France's resistance to the war arises solely from that issue. There is also the fact that whoever has the contracts a war will interrupt supply at least short-term, and that will hurt Europe much more than the US, which is less dependent on foreign oil. There is the ingrained view that Europe has somehow outgrown solving conflicts through military action and that the rest of the world ought to have done so, too ( though clearly it has not ). And there is the earnest desire of Europe to be a "counterpoise" to US power in the world, a desire which if not watched can turn into a
knee-jerk "anything the US wants it we oppose" doctrine.

And very probably other motives which none of us can see.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
If liberals think they hear conservative bias, and conservatives think they hear liberal bias, it is probably a good sign for the impartiality of the network.

That's a glass-half-full view....the obverse of which would be that it's more likely a sign of the blindered selective perceptions of partisans on both sides...

EVERYBODY I have heard on NPR agrees that Hussein is too in love with power to ever give his weapons to terrorists. money, maybe, though even that to anti-Israel groups. They all agree, even the ones who do think we should invade. They agree we should invade for reasons I disagree with, but they agree that him giving weapons to terrorists is not a real concern.

If ALL of any group are saying the same thing, it is probable that groupthink has entered the picture.

However, let me forward the idea that while expert opinion on matters of demonstrable and testable fact is generally fairly reliable, expert opinion on the probable actions of an individual as unstable and unpredictable as Saddam Hussein most likely are next to worthless. Even if it all say the same thing.

Moreover, it's known that Saddam has, or had, some pretty large supplies of some of this stuff. More than enough for his own purposes. So what prevents him from furnishing a SURPLUS to a terrorist group, especially if he KNOWS it will be used against his enemies?

If you are a soldier going into battle, you can carry only so much ammunition yourself before extra ordnance becomes superfluous. But if you give it to comrades, your own fighting power will be enhanced. So I think it is with WOMD. If you have 10,000 gallons of weaponized anthrax, are you going to miss 10 gallons of that? Is it really likely to so weaken your "power"?

They bottom line is that there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They are INCREDIBLY divergent philosophically.

-m

The only way that you can really conclude this is by ignoring the evidence some of which I presented in an earlier post. And if you are indeed ignoring it, or dismissing it out of hand because it is at odds with a preformed belief, there can be no pretence to objectivity.

You can argue legitimately that the evidence is unconvincing, or tenuous, or insufficient, but to simply read the evidence and restate your initial premise as though no argument had been made against it at all is to stray into the realm of invincible ignorance...

[135711]

this is interesting re; the french, considering that the united states is nothing more than a collection of cast aways from france [the louisiana purchase for example] and suddenly we become the american imperialists. it's really incredible, [speaking of cheesy english, we all talk cheesy english], it's fear. france is small, england is small, but england is more conservative, after the war, when my cheesy english friends parents left because hitler bombed the he_l out of them, they didn't do a lot of wandering around the globe, but for some reason, france continued to do outrageous things; and especially testing out their bombs in the atolls of the south pacific. try that one, it was horrible, trying to work with people in the pacific as an american and hearing about france's detonations underwater, basically wrecking the coral reef system. i simply couldn't believe it, I only pinched a dozen shells that had already washed up on the sand, because i refused to wreck their reefs, and then i met up with this person, from great brittian, who was dredging in the south pacific, making a mint off their soil, and wrecking the coral reef. it's too unreal. answer, stay home and do laundry.

[Inquartata]

Yyyyy....ok.

I find China even more inconsistent than France.

I mean, they are telling us that North Korea, right on their doorstep, is strictly OUR business, they needn't be involved, and yet Iraq of all places is properly a concern of China's, to the point where they feel justified in tying our hands....

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Here's my problem with this view.

The US has been defending European, and yes, French, security interests since the end of WWII. Yet when we ask for a little reciprocity, in defense of OUR security interests, suddenly it's "What's in it for us?" Apparently alliances and loyalty are a one-way street as far as a lot of Continental governments are concerned.

True, the Marshall plan was a great initiative for example. But on the other hand, it did not have any adverse effects on the US economy. At that point, the US was basically already one of the strongest economic and military powers in the world. The only thing that they were worried of was that all of Europe would turn to Russia for support and end up on the other side of the iron curtain. So, I would argue that the Marshall plan was not a completely selfless act and that there was something in it for everyone. In today's case, a lot of the countries who oppose to the war in Iraq would end up fighting on the US's side, but in doing so would actually damage their already weak economies, potentially losing access to oil that they thought they would get to sometime.

I haven't noticed that anyone in the US government has been saying that any one reason is the sole reason. All of the ones we've mentioned are part of a congeries of reasons, some interrelated. Some seem to have emerged more or less as afterthoughts, it is true, but that may be more apparent than
real---we cannot see into minds or hearts.

Yet I have not seen anyone in the US government say: "we're also going in it for the oil". Or for that matter, say "We're not going in it for the oil, the oil in that country will be untouched and it will be left to the new Iraqi government to deal with it". And that is part of why countries like France, Russia and China are reluctant to go in.

No, I don't imagine it is. Even the modes of debate differ in the US and Europe---here we debate in order to arrive at a conclusion, and then to take action on that conclusion. In Europe, much more emphasis seems to be placed on process: don't offend anyone, arrive at a consensus which pleases all parties, even if it doesn't result in any action being taken.

Well, if you arrived at a consensus which pleased all parties, then some action was taken. Maybe not a military one, but everyone is content with the situation, which is pretty much a panacea if you ask me.

Admittedly, the Bush team has not displayed any great talent diplomatically speaking. But then, it hasn't had years to carefully craft and hone a policy. It has had to act on the fly since 9-11, and anger and fear are not strong foundations for calculated diplomatic efforts...

True, but do you need "years" to craft and hone a policy? American presidents are elected for a 4 years term, and Bush has already had 2 years of a term, so one would expect that by then some policy would have been crafted and honed. Or at least some draft would have been made. For the moment the policy is pretty much unclear, aside from the fact that war, tension, and threats seems to take a pretty decent chunk of the lot. But this is another problem. I guess you and I have different views on what the current administration should and should not do.

As to the oil contracts, I do not expect that France's resistance to the war arises solely from that issue. There is also the fact that whoever has the contracts a war will interrupt supply at least short-term, and that will hurt Europe much more than the US, which is less dependent on foreign oil.

Actually, no one is exploiting that oil in Iraq right now, because Iraq is under an embargo. The contracts that French, Russian and Chinese oil companies have signed or were about to sign are all contracts that stipulate that they would be able to exploit such and such oil field once the embargo would be over. So the problem of Europe relying on foreign oil more doesn't really matter here, since that oil is not being depended on by anyone now.

There is the ingrained view that Europe has somehow outgrown solving conflicts through military action and that the rest of the world ought to have done so, too ( though clearly it has not ).

Isn't that a good thing though, in general? I think most people can understand that. A lot of wars happened in Europe, and were fought on European soil. Now, I guess people just want to live their lives there quietly. The US has had less wars fought on their soil, and therefore Americans were subjected to much less turmoil, so they are not so much against the idea of a war, especially if it happens so far away that you don't even have to worry things turning sour.

And there is the earnest desire of Europe to be a "counterpoise" to US power in the world, a desire which if not watched can turn into a knee-jerk "anything the US wants it we oppose" doctrine.

I am not sure that is the case, at least not politically or military speaking. True, Europe wants to be a bigger economic power, but I think that politically it is already as important as the US, and on the military side, nothing can match the US, and that's probably good.

[latenight]

"We're not going in it for the oil, the oil in that country will be untouched and it will be left to the new Iraqi government to deal with it"

Actually I heard someone say this. It wasn't Bush or Cheney, but I heard it said. I think it was Rumsfield on one of the Sunday news show.

Speaking of Cheney...Has anyone seen him anywhere lately? Seems like I haven't seen him on TV forever. Or maybe I've jsut been watching other things.