The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The point of the policeman analogy is to counter the false idea that the fact that we didn't find WMD means we shouldn't have looked.

Now who's being illogical?

We did look. We looked very hard. And many of us wanted to keep looking, but were prevented from doing so by the impending showers of American missiles.

I mean the fact that we invaded to resolve the WMD issue for once and for all, and did so, but didn't find the WMD doesn't mean that invasion was not appropriate, any more than the fact that a policeman doesn't find a gun on a subject means that he shouldn't have frisked him. The logic is clear: if there is a non-negligible probability of a very serious danger, you have to protect yourself by checking. The fact that you get a negative test result can never be interpreted as meaning that you weren't entitled to the protection afforded by checking.

0 Replies

Brandon - hint:

Look up the following words:

- investigation
- invasion

They may sound similar. Yet you will find, they have quite different meanings.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
We had waited a month or two over and over for 12 years. Satellites are hardly omniscient. They can't even see the ground on a cloudy day. Had the lying murderer Hussein been continuing to perfect the weapons, and we really don't know when he stopped doing this, there would have been very serious danger.

Empircally, we were in no greater danger to wait a few months.

You have no basis for your final statement. Since we didn't know for sure what Hussein was or wasn't doing with WMD inside Iraq, we did not know the amount of danger we could be in by waiting. Furthermore, we had waited for a few more months, over and over again for 12 years. Had Hussein been perfecting his WMD all this while, at some point he might have finished and either used them to kill a lot of people or announced to us that we had better let him alone or we wouldn't like the consequences. Letting him alone might have included allowing him to re-annex Kuwait.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We also would have garnished the support of many more nations, as the UN weapons inspectors would have had time to finish the job, like many countries were asking.

We had played this game for more than a decade and some countries still opposed invasion. There is no reason to believe that giving them more and more and more time would have changed this.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What's that? The weapons inspectors were disagreeing with our basic premise upon which we launched a super-expensive war? Oh, now I see why we couldn't wait...

How expensive would the destruction of New York City by WMD be? Probably incalculable.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[You're as dense as lead. Do you really believe the stuff you write?

Cycloptichorn

Well, I'm sure not going to sink to that level.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon - hint:

Look up the following words:

- investigation
- invasion

They may sound similar. Yet you will find, they have quite different meanings.

I am making one single logical point. The fact that we did not find WMD upon invasion doesn't mean that invasion wasn't the proper course, any more than a policeman's failure to find a gun on a suspect upon frisking him means that he shouldn't have looked. The argument heard over and over again by the anti-invasion crowd that the fact that we didn't find WMD means that we shouldn't have looked is simply bad logic.

0 Replies

perhaps confusing "sink" with "rise" I think you have your directions confused.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am making one single logical point. The fact that we did not find WMD upon invasion doesn't mean that invasion wasn't the proper course, any more than a policeman's failure to find a gun on a suspect upon frisking him means that he shouldn't have looked. The argument heard over and over again by the anti-invasion crowd that the fact that we didn't find WMD means that we shouldn't have looked is simply bad logic.

The UN inspections were "a policeman frisking a suspect".

The unilateral US-led invasion was a policeman shooting down a suspect who's standing with his arms raised and his back to a wall, so that he can search the corpse afterwards.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Brandon

The proliferation of WMD is a serious concern and one that needs to be dealt with.

There are institutions through which to do this.

Saddam was a bad guy who did bad things and needed to be dealt with.

Again, there are institutions through which to do this.

This war would be justified if the US had gotten a UN resolution. They didn't.

Nothing done after that point can be justified. Even if it eventually results in good.

Ends vs Means.

We gave the institutions 11 years. They failed. Just like the behavior of the now exitinct League of Nations. Since there is grave danger posed by WMD, and there might have been a time window of opportunity before he perfected the weapons, we acted. We ought never to give other countries a veto power on our right to defend ourselves. Anyone who is in grave danger and sits there impotently arguing points of law is a fool. Anyway, what is the point of a body that threatens grave consequences for non-compliance, but doesn't enforce its declarations?

1. They didn't fail. The US preempted them.

After 12 years, the UN had failed to clearly resolve a terrible danger, Iraq's WMD and development programs, that could come to hideous flower at any time. In my book that's failure. To be attempting to verify compliance with a surrender treaty 12 years after the war ends is absurd.

Adrian wrote:

2. The US was not defending itself. It was the aggressor.

If a latter day Hitler has built doomsday weapons and you cannot verify that he isn't still doing it, weapons that could be used to kill millions or allow him to annex all of his neighbors, attacking him pre-emptively to assure his disarmament is certainly self-defense, particularly when he has promised to disarm.

Adrian wrote:

3. No country has the ability to "veto" the US's right to defend itself.

Right, and so if we need to invade another country, we do not need a permission slip from an international body. It would be nice to have, but they must not, as you say, have this veto power.

Adrian wrote:

4. Arguing points of law is important in a society ruled by laws.

Certainly, but someone who sits around impotently arguing points of law forever when he might be in terrible danger unless he acts is a fool.

Adrian wrote:

5. They DO enforce their declarations. Just not in the way YOU would prefer.

After 12 long years, Iraq had not shown proof of compliance. When would the consequences have finally come?

Quote:

6. You still haven't justified the invasion....

The justification is that allowing an evil madman to build doomsday weapons is very dangerous. We have a perfect right to act to eliminate a grave danger.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

perhaps confusing "sink" with "rise" I think you have your directions confused.

You are opining that name calling is a high level of debate? Please continue. I would like to discuss this idea with you.

0 Replies

I doubt it.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I am making one single logical point. The fact that we did not find WMD upon invasion doesn't mean that invasion wasn't the proper course, any more than a policeman's failure to find a gun on a suspect upon frisking him means that he shouldn't have looked. The argument heard over and over again by the anti-invasion crowd that the fact that we didn't find WMD means that we shouldn't have looked is simply bad logic.

The UN inspections were "a policeman frisking a suspect".

The unilateral US-led invasion was a policeman shooting down a suspect who's standing with his arms raised and his back to a wall, so that he can search the corpse afterwards.

We replaced an inspection method that had failed to produce verification after 12 years with a stronger form of inspection, guaranteed to produce more certain results. The police analogy destroys the idea that not finding WMD implies that looking was not justified. When there is a real chance of a lethal danger to you, you are justified in determining whether it exists or not.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I doubt it.

It was a frivilous comment on your part, and you know you can't back it up.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I am making one single logical point. The fact that we did not find WMD upon invasion doesn't mean that invasion wasn't the proper course, any more than a policeman's failure to find a gun on a suspect upon frisking him means that he shouldn't have looked. The argument heard over and over again by the anti-invasion crowd that the fact that we didn't find WMD means that we shouldn't have looked is simply bad logic.

The UN inspections were "a policeman frisking a suspect".

The unilateral US-led invasion was a policeman shooting down a suspect who's standing with his arms raised and his back to a wall, so that he can search the corpse afterwards.

We replaced an inspection method that had failed to produce verification after 12 years with a stronger form of inspection, guaranteed to produce more certain results. The police analogy destroys the idea that not finding WMD implies that looking was not justified. When there is a real chance of a lethal danger to you, you are justified in determining whether it exists or not.

<shrug>

It was your analogy.

0 Replies

Quote:

But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

"Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I doubt it.

It was a frivilous comment on your part, and you know you can't back it up.

Just wouldn't be a fair fight, I graduated from the 8th grade.

0 Replies

brandon9k wrote:

Well, I'm sure not going to sink to that level.

Personally I thought that was a clever comeback.

Unfortunately, in the rest I find just persistent repetition. I realize now that arguing wether or not WMD justifies the war already gives credence to WMD as an issue...

I agree that the Invasion did resolve the "WMD issue"; by verifying it being a non-factor trumpetted fear-tactic to incite paranoia in a public at a time of vulnerability, which is shameless. Whether or not the administration foolishly believed, or pretended cynically, they proceeded to create a crescendo of threat formation from Iraq that fit their timeline and goals (all the while the world, as well as internal admin sources were pointing out the disconnection of the rhetoric from reality).

The administration's careful orchestration led the majority of Americans to believe erroneously that war was necessary because otherwise doomsday was imminent. Majority of Americans also felt a viceral need to retaliate based on misinformation tactics alluding to Iraqi culpability/connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Without selling us on the imminence of a mushroom cloud, while tacitly misleading us of a 9/11 connection, there would be no majority popular support...some of us still seem quite smittened by the sell-job.

0 Replies

It's a bit long, but it deals with the issues Brandon is raising;

Fallacies in Defense of the Invasion of Iraq. (Click)

0 Replies

Quote:

some of us still seem quite smittened by the sell-job.

Many are still quite smitten by the snakeoil con job, and most of them are the neocons who debate on this site (i.e., Brandon).

Bottom line: the sole reasons for invading Iraq was because they would be able to attack us within 45 minutes with devastating results. The Bush adminstration continuously upped the anty, as well as the imminent threat, from Iraq, when none never existed.

It was purely a con job. And the more Brandon chimes off on this thread, the more it becomes apparent how effective that con job was.

There are still many who believe that we have FOUND those WMDs, and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. This, despite the fact that Bush had already stated that they had NO evidence that Saddam was connected with 9/11, and despite the fact that Cheney was caught in a flat out lie regarding meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda operatives.

These bastards have lied through their collective teeth so much that they've probably convinced themselves of their own lies.

And that is a profound divorce from reality...

0 Replies

Good link, Adrian.

0 Replies

Quote:

We replaced an inspection method that had failed to produce verification after 12 years with a stronger form of inspection, guaranteed to produce more certain results

Um, I think you meant "invasion," Brandon...

0 Replies

Again this debate goes round and round in ever decreasing circles until it disapears up....

The "frisking" or "checking" was done by the UN inspectors and halted by USUK.

Bush had an agenda to invade Iraq from before he was elected, the whole wmd ruse was to give some legitimacy to it.

Jeremy Greenstock former UK ambassador to the UN is on record as reporting back to Tony Blair words to the effect of

"I told her (Rice) that we were absolutely definitely on for this, but that we needed to be very clever with Saddam, to get him to make a mistake, so we could get some cover"

This was over a year before the invasion date.

Also of interest is the equivocation of the UK Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith. Of course we don't know exactly what he said because his advise is so secret that the new Freedom of Information act here will not touch it.

But you dont have to be a genius to work it out. He was obviously giving signals that without the so called second resolution, the invasion would be of dubious legality.

When USUK failed to get it past the UN security council, he said it was legal without another resolution. But his deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned as did several others. She called the invasion "a criminal act of aggression".

(Something for which we hung German war leaders at Nuremberg).

The chief of the defense staff wasn't happy. There was nearly a mutiny. The military wanted clear unequivocal legal advice that what they were about to do was legal under international law. General Sir Mike Jackson said he had spent the best part of the last few years getting Milosevic behind bars in the Hague, and he had no intention of occupying the next cell.

I said two years ago that if they don't find wmd in Iraq it will be necessary to import some. But its clear Blair took the gamble thinking if there was an easy victory and Iraq soon became peaceful stable and democratic, then no one would bother too much about the niceties of whether the action was legal or not.

Well Iraq had so far been a fiasco. The US lost the 1500th soldier yesterday. There is no peace, no stablity and so no reconstruction.

We are entitled to ask how we got ourselves dragged into this mess, why it was necessary, and how we get out.

Bush has so far got away with it. He frightens the American public with stories about what bin Laden might do next, suggests his opponent is soft, promises to keep people safe and lo and behold, he gets re elected. Well there is an election coming up in UK in May. Tony Blair is trying the same tactic ( more subtely) but it won't work here. Someone has to pay the political price for the Iraq disaster, and that person will be Antony Charles Lynton Blair.

(dont get me wrong, I like the bloke. He's a superb politician and the ultimate pragmatist. He might say with justification that he had no choice but to go along with the Americans....whatever he gambled on peace or war and lost. He will pay the price).

0 Replies

The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know