Brandon9000 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Brandon wrote:But, the fundamental thing you seem not to grasp is that one single one of these weapons could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow, several of them could kill a million people or more, and even a moderate chance that a horrible dictator is still proceeding with development is a very, very serious threat.
I grasp that, quite well actually. What you seem not to grasp is that that ship has sailed. The cat is out of the bag, and it is and will continue to be impossible to prevent any other nation from possessing that technology indefinitely.
Then we're all dead, and civilization will fall. When dozens of nations and well financed groups posses nuclear and/or biological weapons, then they will be used. I prefer to try and stop this outcome.
You cannot stop this outcome. You know for a fact that this is true. What's better is trying to come up with a scheme to survive the inevitable outcome.
Cycloptichorn
Did I consider the alternatives to invading Iraq prior supporting the President's policy. Damned right I did, and that convinced me of the rightness of resolving the issues. Several times above folks talk about how the invasion has "destabilized the region". Yes, but the region has always lacked stability because of the hatred directed toward Israel by Islamic zealots. Saddam's continued existence in power magnified that instability, and helped foster the broader aims of the extra-national Radical Islamic Movement. The dangers posed by Saddam's Iraq had been widely acknowledged for a long time. After 9/11 we could no longer tolerate the distractions and threat that Saddam posed.
Now, as to the DPRK. President Clinton was poised to attack the DPRK over their illegal development of nuclear weapons, but at the last moment chose instead to "buy them off". I thought at the time that was an error. Clinton may have made the correct decision, but I don't think so. Trying to deal honestly with a blackmailer seldom works out.
So why do I believe it would be a mistake NOW, to reopen active hostilities with the North Korea? Is it because Jong-Il may have an operational nuclear arsenal? Nope, because I'm not convinced that the DPRK has produced a workable device yet. Reopening the conflict would, even with conventional weapons, fall heavily on the people of ROK. BTW, I have family who live in Seoul, but under the right circumstances I would never the less support military action against the DPRK.
If not "fear" of nuclear exchange, then why not fight them now.
* The DPRK is the most isolated country on earth. It has very limited means of exporting nuclear materials to other potential enemies, like Iran or a RIM terrorist organization.
* Kim Jong-Il and his regime is a dead-end and its getting older. Jong-Il is not getting younger, but the problems the DPRK have to deal with are continuing to build. There is no clear successor, and once Jong-Il dies there is a good chance the whole outfit will collapse like a house of cards. Time works against the DPRK, just as it works for us in a war of attrition against the RIM.
* The threat of RIM terrorism has to occupy a higher priority than the salvation of those unfortunates who still must love the Dear Leader. China and Russia have little to fear from the DPRK, Jong-Il isn't capable of conquering ROK which is technologically advanced and relatively safe behind the American shield. The greatest danger from the DPRK is that it will motivate Japan to eliminate the anti-nuclear provisions from its constitution.
* We don't need to tie up more military assets in Northern Asia at a time when greater resources are needed in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Brandon9000 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.
And people wonder why Iran is interested in developing its own nuclear weapons.
So what? It's not our doing that ownership of a stockpile of nukes makes someone all but invulnerable, it's just a fact of life.
According to the unstated premise of the "Bush Doctrine," the US will only launch preemptive attacks against nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. That gives a tremendous incentive to nations such as Iran and North Korea to develop and deploy those weapons. Far from making the region or the world safer, then, Bush's policies have made it significantly more dangerous.
Brandon9000 wrote:
Don't change the subject.
I didn't.
Quote:My statement was intended to show one and only one thing - your claim that using a nuke or biological weapon on the US brings certainty of retaliation is false. As I point out above, this is false because such and attack could be carried out with a in such a way that we wouldn't know for sure who the culprit was.
I answered that, in the portion you quoted. There is no reason to believe that we would not retaliate even if we were not sure who the culprit was. In fact, we would most likely just cast a wider net and retaliate against anyone who could possibly be involved. Is there still a chance that we could miss someone? Sure. Is that a chance that someone who runs a country might take? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that there isn't still a deterrent. You have actually proven nothing.
Brandon9000 wrote:When deciding how much danger a possibility holds one has to consider both the probability that it will occur and the severity of the consequences if it occurs. Did you take into acount the severity of the consequences if Saddam Hussein had amassed a stockpile of nuclear and/or biological weapons?
Yes. Did you take into account the probability of those consequences?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
I'm only alleging that one doesn't invade a nuclear power under any but the most extreme circumstances. I had said "near" invulnerability.
Non-relevant. One doesn't invade
anyone except under the most extreme circumstances.
The perception that we won't invade people who have nukes is built up by those who argue such as you do, Brandon. If other nations didn't hear people going on and on about their near-invulnerability that they would rec'v from a nuke, perhaps they wouldn't be trying to get one so bad.
Cycloptichorn
Certainly one doesn't invade anyone except under extreme circumstances, but the issue is
how extreme the circumstances need to be. Invading someone who can respond with nukes in the first hour of the invasion requires
more extreme circumstances than invading someone who cannot. In fact, the possession of nuclear weapons does make it very, very unwise to invade a country except under the
most extreme circumstances.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Brandon wrote:But, the fundamental thing you seem not to grasp is that one single one of these weapons could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow, several of them could kill a million people or more, and even a moderate chance that a horrible dictator is still proceeding with development is a very, very serious threat.
I grasp that, quite well actually. What you seem not to grasp is that that ship has sailed. The cat is out of the bag, and it is and will continue to be impossible to prevent any other nation from possessing that technology indefinitely.
Then we're all dead, and civilization will fall. When dozens of nations and well financed groups posses nuclear and/or biological weapons, then they will be used. I prefer to try and stop this outcome.
You cannot stop this outcome. You know for a fact that this is true. What's better is trying to come up with a scheme to survive the inevitable outcome.
Cycloptichorn
Although there is some truth to the inevitability of the death of civilization by the use of doomsday weapons, we just have to try. At least we can buy time by keeping the weapons out of the hands of madmen. We have to try.
joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.
And people wonder why Iran is interested in developing its own nuclear weapons.
So what? It's not our doing that ownership of a stockpile of nukes makes someone all but invulnerable, it's just a fact of life.
According to the unstated premise of the "Bush Doctrine," the US will only launch preemptive attacks against nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. That gives a tremendous incentive to nations such as Iran and North Korea to develop and deploy those weapons. Far from making the region or the world safer, then, Bush's policies have made it significantly more dangerous.
The fact is that we cannot invade a nuclear power in any but the most extreme of circumstances. That's just the way it is. We recognize the logic. We didn't create it. On the other hand, if someone really awful is busy working to perfect nukes or bioweapons, and negotiations over a long period of time have apparently failed, then pre-emption becomes the only realistic option.
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
Don't change the subject.
I didn't.
Quote:My statement was intended to show one and only one thing - your claim that using a nuke or biological weapon on the US brings certainty of retaliation is false. As I point out above, this is false because such and attack could be carried out with a in such a way that we wouldn't know for sure who the culprit was.
I answered that, in the portion you quoted. There is no reason to believe that we would not retaliate even if we were not sure who the culprit was. In fact, we would most likely just cast a wider net and retaliate against anyone who could possibly be involved. Is there still a chance that we could miss someone? Sure. Is that a chance that someone who runs a country might take? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that there isn't still a deterrent. You have actually proven nothing.
You're mistaken. You alleged that a nuclear attack on the US would result in certain destruction. It wouldn't. We probably wouldn't retaliate based on simply guessing who did it. Mutual Assured Destruction is a holdover from the old idea that the weapons had to be delivered via ICBM. If the weapons were smuggled in in pieces, and one day a city simply evaporated, there might be very little evidence as to who the culprit was. And, if we're not simply talking about dictators like Hussein, but consider the possibility of a nuclear attack by terrorists, they might not even have a return address to which to direct retaliation.
Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
I'm only alleging that one doesn't invade a nuclear power under any but the most extreme circumstances. I had said "near" invulnerability.
Non-relevant. One doesn't invade
anyone except under the most extreme circumstances.
The perception that we won't invade people who have nukes is built up by those who argue such as you do, Brandon. If other nations didn't hear people going on and on about their near-invulnerability that they would rec'v from a nuke, perhaps they wouldn't be trying to get one so bad.
Cycloptichorn
Certainly one doesn't invade anyone except under extreme circumstances, but the issue is
how extreme the circumstances need to be. Invading someone who can respond with nukes in the first hour of the invasion requires
more extreme circumstances than invading someone who cannot. In fact, the possession of nuclear weapons does make it very, very unwise to invade a country except under the
most extreme circumstances.
Why? Because they will nuke our troops? On their own soil?
Because they will nuke some foreign country?
Because they will nuke the continental US?
We can prepare and deal with all three of these occurances. The specter of nuclear explosion is not the same thing as the end of warfare; it seems to me that you've gotten caught up in the power of a nuclear bomb and forgotten that it's just one component of a strategy, a tactical attack.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
I'm only alleging that one doesn't invade a nuclear power under any but the most extreme circumstances. I had said "near" invulnerability.
Non-relevant. One doesn't invade
anyone except under the most extreme circumstances.
The perception that we won't invade people who have nukes is built up by those who argue such as you do, Brandon. If other nations didn't hear people going on and on about their near-invulnerability that they would rec'v from a nuke, perhaps they wouldn't be trying to get one so bad.
Cycloptichorn
Certainly one doesn't invade anyone except under extreme circumstances, but the issue is
how extreme the circumstances need to be. Invading someone who can respond with nukes in the first hour of the invasion requires
more extreme circumstances than invading someone who cannot. In fact, the possession of nuclear weapons does make it very, very unwise to invade a country except under the
most extreme circumstances.
Why? Because they will nuke our troops? On their own soil?
Because they will nuke some foreign country?
Because they will nuke the continental US?
We can prepare and deal with all three of these occurances. The specter of nuclear explosion is not the same thing as the end of warfare; it seems to me that you've gotten caught up in the power of a nuclear bomb and forgotten that it's just one component of a strategy, a tactical attack.
Cycloptichorn
Okay, now we're having a productive conversation. I don't think that our opinions on this specific issue are so far apart.
No, I don't think that an invaded nuclear power would use the bomb on their own soil, but supposing we were to invade, for example, North Korea, it seems to me that they could drop one or two on our ships near their coast. Also, they could tell us that if we didn't stop, they'd obliterate South Korea, and, if pressed hard enough, they might really do it. Also, they might be able to detonate a suitcase nuke in the US and warn us that if we didn't stop the invasion within 12 hours (for example), they would destroy another American city. All of this assumes that the invaded country has at least a handful of nuclear bombs. There are certainly things that a nuclear power could do to make the cost of invasion very, very high.
Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact is that we cannot invade a nuclear power in any but the most extreme of circumstances. That's just the way it is. We recognize the logic. We didn't create it. On the other hand, if someone really awful is busy working to perfect nukes or bioweapons, and negotiations over a long period of time have apparently failed, then pre-emption becomes the only realistic option.
The problem here is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes "really awful" (or evil madman, as you've used before). That is entirely subjective and as such should not ever be included in an argument for war. So now we are full circle. I didn't pop into this thread to re-argue this war. I'm interested in discussing how a person came to the conclusion to support it. What seems to be clear is that there was no real internal debate.
Quote:
Okay, now we're having a productive conversation. I don't think that our opinions on this specific issue are so far apart.
I agree.
Quote:No, I don't think that an invaded nuclear power would use the bomb on their own soil, but supposing we were to invade, for example, North Korea, it seems to me that they could drop one or two on our ships near their coast.
That's acceptable. We used to lose ships all the time during warfare. Now people act like it's the end of the world.
Quote:Also, they could tell us that if we didn't stop, they'd obliterate South Korea, and, if pressed hard enough, they might really do it.
So? They might do it anyways without warning. We cannot allow the NK gov't to hold a sword like that over our head. This is not a good reason not to go to war, because someone may do something bad and hold us hostage.
Quote:Also, they might be able to detonate a suitcase nuke in the US and warn us that if we didn't stop the invasion within 12 hours (for example), they would destroy another American city. All of this assumes that the invaded country has at least a handful of nuclear bombs. There are certainly things that a nuclear power could do to make the cost of invasion very, very high.
I think you've sort of slipped into
24 here. The chances of a North Korean suitcase nuke getting here are slim. THey haven't even displayed the ability to fire a regular-sized nuke off correclty. And, as far as I have researched, I have not found evidence that 'suitcase nukes' really exist. All nuclear bombs which would have any sort of actual blast radius are large and dangerous.
I agree that the cost could be high to invade a country. But, that's no different than it
always has been. It's just that we have some sort of feeling of invincibility now, or that we can't afford to soak up losses at all. We aren't and we can.
I see no reasons provided that we could not successfully invade a nuclear-armed country. It is easy enough for us to declare that the first person who uses a nuke on us will cease to have descendants on the planet earth.
Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact is that we cannot invade a nuclear power in any but the most extreme of circumstances. That's just the way it is. We recognize the logic. We didn't create it. On the other hand, if someone really awful is busy working to perfect nukes or bioweapons, and negotiations over a long period of time have apparently failed, then pre-emption becomes the only realistic option.
The problem here is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes "really awful" (or evil madman, as you've used before). That is entirely subjective and as such should not ever be included in an argument for war. So now we are full circle. I didn't pop into this thread to re-argue this war. I'm interested in discussing how a person came to the conclusion to support it. What seems to be clear is that there was no real internal debate.
What you're really saying is that there is no such thing as a really awful dictator who we ought to try to keep from having WMD. I may not be able to give an air tight definition of "really awful," but that doesn't mean that such a thing doesn't exist, or that an intelligent person can't recognize it. For example, I'm glad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. Despite the lack of a perfect definition of "really awful," as it applies in this context, there is no doubt in my mind that he would qualify. You're giving me the old liberal falsehood that because I can't define evil precisely, I can't respond to it in the world.
I supported the war because
It made strategic sense to attempt to establish a democratic beachhead in a region that is (with the exception of Israel) entirely un-democratic, strategically imperative for our interests, and slouching towards if not Chaos, then the New Caliphate.
The world's Intelligence agencies believed Iraq had stockpiled WMDs. Iraq was run by a madman who used WMDs on his internal enemies, threatened and invaded his neighbors, and clearly feared and hated America.
Innocent Iraqis were being slaughtered, tortured and oppressed by a tyrannical monster. They, like the innocents in Darfur, demanded the help of the world's lone superpower.
I continue to support the war because
It remains a good strategy to establish a democratic beachhead in the Middle East.
It is occupying the attention and resources of the Jihadists.
If we leave without achieving our objectives we will
*Dishonor and make senseless our wounded and dead
*Unleash untold slaughter
*Destroy American credibility throughout the world
*Embolden the Jihadists
It really pisses off Liberals.
If someone doesn't see the wisdom or logic in these reasons, so be it. I don't see the wisdom and logic in the reasons of those who want to pull out.
The fact that this Administration has mismanaged the war doesn't erode my belief that it was the proper cause of action to take.
Unfortunately, war often makes sense. This is because there are powers in this world who are not anywhere near as decent as the people who reflexively reject war.
It is also unfortunate that even so called just wars are predicated on some faulty reasons and result in providing financial benefit to a few.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Quote:No, I don't think that an invaded nuclear power would use the bomb on their own soil, but supposing we were to invade, for example, North Korea, it seems to me that they could drop one or two on our ships near their coast.
That's acceptable. We used to lose ships all the time during warfare. Now people act like it's the end of the world.
The difference is that with an atomic bomb, we could lose numerous ships simultaneously, depending, of course, on how far apart the ships are. Obviously, I'm guessing numbers, but it seems to me reasonable that with the sort of nuke the 3rd world could muster in 2007, one bomb might destroy a dozen ships in a second. If the bomb were one of the more sophisticated ones that exist today, there could probably be scenarios in which several dozen warships could be vaporized with a single bomb. In fact, this is not the same as the classical situation in which the ships can be sunk one by one with ordinary explosives, and seems to me to be an unacceptable level of loss during an invasion.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:Also, they could tell us that if we didn't stop, they'd obliterate South Korea, and, if pressed hard enough, they might really do it.
So? They might do it anyways without warning. We cannot allow the NK gov't to hold a sword like that over our head. This is not a good reason not to go to war, because someone may do something bad and hold us hostage.
It's enough to make the cost/benefit analysis of invasion quite different, if the target country actually has the ability to fulfill this kind of threat.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Also, they might be able to detonate a suitcase nuke in the US and warn us that if we didn't stop the invasion within 12 hours (for example), they would destroy another American city. All of this assumes that the invaded country has at least a handful of nuclear bombs. There are certainly things that a nuclear power could do to make the cost of invasion very, very high.
I think you've sort of slipped into
24 here. The chances of a North Korean suitcase nuke getting here are slim. THey haven't even displayed the ability to fire a regular-sized nuke off correclty. And, as far as I have researched, I have not found evidence that 'suitcase nukes' really exist. All nuclear bombs which would have any sort of actual blast radius are large and dangerous.
Bear in mind that my intention is not only to discuss invading North Korea in 2007, but about a generic invasion of a generic country now or in the future. Even if North Korea doesn't have sophisticated enough technology today to smuggle the pieces of an atom bomb into the US, other countries might today, or North Korea might in a decade or two. In general, this scenario is part of the analysis of invading a nuclear power, since it is plausible that some target countries could do this now or soon. Also, in a slight digression, smuggling a WMD might be easier with a bioweapon, since it would probably be easier to make it of convenient size.
Cycloptichorn wrote:...I see no reasons provided that we could not successfully invade a nuclear-armed country. It is easy enough for us to declare that the first person who uses a nuke on us will cease to have descendants on the planet earth.
Cycloptichorn
Sure, we
could do that, but is it really smart to put ourselves in a situation in which we might have to obliterate a country to make a point?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:It made strategic sense to attempt to establish a democratic beachhead in a region that is (with the exception of Israel) entirely un-democratic, strategically imperative for our interests, and slouching towards if not Chaos, then the New Caliphate.
Ok, fair enough. Was Iraq the best place to start? Was war the preferred means? Or was this simply the only choice presented and therefore the best?
Quote:The world's Intelligence agencies believed Iraq had stockpiled WMDs. Iraq was run by a madman who used WMDs on his internal enemies, threatened and invaded his neighbors, ...
Yes, it had done these things, but not in a long time. Were you concerned that he would attempt to do these things in the near future?
Quote:Innocent Iraqis were being slaughtered, tortured and oppressed by a tyrannical monster. They, like the innocents in Darfur, demanded the help of the world's lone superpower.
Seriously, I don't think this is a fair comparison. What is happening in Darfur present day is way worse than what was happening in Iraq before we invaded. If anything, there is a better argument for involvement in Sudan than there ever was for Iraq.
Quote:
If we leave without achieving our objectives we will
*Dishonor and make senseless our wounded and dead
*Unleash untold slaughter
*Destroy American credibility throughout the world
*Embolden the Jihadists
I think that the first and the third have already been done, and no amount of staying will undo them.
Quote:It really pisses off Liberals.
There is nothing more liberal than some of the arguments you make here in support for this war.
Quote:If someone doesn't see the wisdom or logic in these reasons, so be it. I don't see the wisdom and logic in the reasons of those who want to pull out.
Not supporting the war in the first place does not equal wanting to pull out now. In fact, I haven't seen that opinion expressed (though I may have missed it) here. I didn't support the war but I also don't support making a mess and then hightailing it out of town for the people whose lives we screwed to clean up after us.
Since you're weighing in, Finn, mind if I asked you if you weighed these arguments for war against the likely consequences?
Brandon9000 wrote:
What you're really saying is that there is no such thing as a really awful dictator who we ought to try to keep from having WMD. I may not be able to give an air tight definition of "really awful," but that doesn't mean that such a thing doesn't exist, or that an intelligent person can't recognize it. For example, I'm glad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. Despite the lack of a perfect definition of "really awful," as it applies in this context, there is no doubt in my mind that he would qualify. You're giving me the old liberal falsehood that because I can't define evil precisely, I can't respond to it in the world.
I am sometimes stunned by your ability to be completely illogical.
Quote:
Sure, we could do that, but is it really smart to put ourselves in a situation in which we might have to obliterate a country to make a point?
Exactly what is it you think we're currently doing with Iran?
Quickly -
The spacing of the ships to defend against a nuke is pretty much a solvable problem.
If they might nuke someone else, you say it 'changes the formula.' Sure. So what? Lots of different things change the formula. You make nukes out to be the end-all be-all of the formula, which I'm saying they aren't.
Any country at any time could have a secret nuke which they would use to blow up in America in case we attack. Hardly a reason not to attack another country.
Cycloptichorn
Just spotted this now, Nimh.
I don't know if I want to make time to do Iraq for the millionth time; but I'll answer your question.
1. Always thought Bush Sr. made a mistake in not finishing the job
and was ashamed at what we watched happen as a result.
2. Had long thought the job should be finished when Saddam didn't live up to his end of the bargain on the ceasefire. An ultimatum to exile should have been issued the day the inspectors left in 1998?
3. September 11th 2001 made me take a much deeper look into the ME than I ever had before. The audacity, the bravery, and the desperation of the attackers demanded the kind of recognition suicide bombers have always sought. I was stunned and humbled as I learned the role my country played in standing on the necks of oppressed millions. The status quo couldn't have been any less palatable to me. A new direction was in order
and it seemed right that new direction should be to liberate the oppressed millions from the tyrants we'd been sleeping with.
4. Clearly, our enemies needed to know that an attack on American Soil would only reawaken the Giant, and frankly; I wanted some butts. President Bush's speech that we will make no distinction between the countries that support terrorists and the terrorists themselves struck me as the only pragmatic solution to going after hidden enemies. Somehow; we had to put the word out that this type of behavior will not be tolerated any longer. I hoped then that he was serious and would not stop until all countries who'd openly support terrorism would be dealt with, or at least browbeat into submission.
5. Afghanistan had essentially run out of legitimate targets to bomb and it seemed clear to me at the time that that situation was under control. Meanwhile, I watch the Iraqi delegate at the UN laughing at our 17th? Cry of wolf? Bull ****. Saddam had taken every step necessary, had provided every possible pre-req for war and was the perfect place to start implementing a PNAC type of strategy
which as you know has plenty in common with my own, were I King.
6. North Korea was becoming increasingly belligerent, and like Asherman I deplored Clinton/Carter's bribery scheme but now wondered if development wasn't already past the point of no return. I reasoned that by first wiping out the Taliban, and then carrying through on our threat to destroy Saddam, that Kim Jong Il might just believe our next ultimatum
since we were thoroughly demonstrating that the days of just crying were behind us. Yes, I underestimated the force necessary to finish the job
and yes, I overestimated the potential for Iraq's own Patrick Henry's to surface in the aftermath.
7. To be honest; there was very little doubt in my mind that Saddam had some low level WMD at the very least and that he was furiously working towards improving his arsenal. I can ill imagine why he'd make such an idiotic bluff
and with years of no oversight and consideration of his deceptive past
it seemed like a sure thing.
8. The more I read about Saddam's misdeeds to his own people the more I came to despise him
the more I thought his ass needed removal absent any consideration of WMD, Kuwait, Terrorism, etc. He and every tyrant like him should be recognized as the plagues on humankind that they are
and I wholeheartedly believe every civilized country should unite against them until every one of them were purged from the planet forever. Again, considering the pre-req's Saddam had already fulfilled; Iraq was the most logical next step.
9. I bought into, and to a large extent still do, to the idea that a populace given an opportunity of self-determination will eventually come to consider it the birth-right it should be
and would never again allow it to be taken from them. This is certainly a hell of a lot harder sell than I thought it would be, but only in terms of the resistance of the relative few. I had no idea, and still don't have any idea how long it will take for the drawing power of freedom to overcome the fear of bullies. Hopefully, before the United States loses its stamina.
10. I had and still have every reason to believe that if we can somehow succeed in transforming such a prime example of tyranny into some form of a free society where people who disagree; generally settle their differences by means other than wanton murder; that the neighboring peoples of similar faiths and predicaments will see the light and will demand the same. Until such a time as people living in hell are given some realistic hope for change; I do not expect terrorism to go away. As absurd as it may sound; I believe the only thing that would prevent me from joining the Jihadists were I born into their lot in life would be a lack of courage, not conviction. I can ill imagine ever being receptive to the religious brainwashing that appears to be common among our fiercest enemies; but I can easily imagine being enraged at those I held responsible for my oppression. The United States is that. Perhaps not directly, but complicit just the same. My much repeated belief that ability comes with responsibility is a double edged sword. Judge for yourself the "cheering section" during the rape scene in "the accused"
and you'll understand my feelings of guilt. I do not feel that as an American I am holier than thou
but I want to.
Why do I continue to support the war?
For many of the same reasons, but a couple more:
1. There has never been any question in my mind that if we break it, we own it
and broke it we have. I fully believe that if we were to abandon Iraq tomorrow the Shia Death Squads would be wiping out Sunnis in numbers not seen since Rwanda. This would be the second time we promised progressive thinkers that we'd have their backs, only to walk away and leave them to be massacred.
2. The Left suggests that Bush is everything from an idiot to a thief to the worst CIC we've ever had
and they may well be right. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Whether or not it was prudent to lead the world into this fray; we did. At this juncture we can abandon the Iraqis to a fate possibly worse than Saddam, embolden our enemies even further, and reinforce the premise that the United States lacks the stomach to fight the good fight. This would send a clear message that the world's only super-power is so intoxicated by good fortune that they'll happily choose to remain irrelevant
save for the continued dirty deals with the oppressors of millions. Meanwhile; versions of Sharia Law spreads its tentacles even further, and further erodes the freedoms of people around the world, while the forced-faith puppet-masters operate virtually without opposition. This is not the world I want to live in.
Alternately; we can recognize that we broke it
and pay whatever price is required to fix it. I believe it is now imperative that we demonstrate not only our superior strength and conviction to use it; but just as importantly our conviction to fulfill our promise to the Iraqi people. Only then, and with a continued effort to assist other oppressed masses to freedom can we expect to be viewed as anything but the opportunistic oppressor-supporters we are and have been. Ultimately, I believe this is in our vital best interest every bit as much as oil.
Our founding fathers were rich white men who mostly begrudgingly gave rights to the common man for fear of rebellion. Having just succeeded in one; it probably wasn't that hard to recognize the necessity. In the Centuries since; some major changes have taken place in the deadliness of weaponry and striking distance, which have essentially made the world a much smaller place. No longer is it sufficient to grant rights to the common man of this Nation, alone. September 11th amply demonstrated that the oceans can no longer be relied upon to isolate us from the common man of other Nations. If we don't soon start working towards expanding their rights as well; I believe a Rebellion is coming that will dwarf the size of every rebellion before it.
Our enemies are no longer centrally located, don't subscribe to our self-serving rules of engagement (how could they?), and have nothing short of global domination in mind. For as long as our enemies are the ones providing the needs of the poor and are viewed in higher regard than the rich people who are fairly viewed as aligned with their oppressors, what hope do we have to win the hearts and minds of the oppressed? We need to demonstrate to the citizens of this world that we are on their side. If we can only recognize the impending disaster; I think there is still time to reverse it. Kill the killers, feed the poor and immunize the children. Don't just talk about it. Do it. Do it consistently and watch as the collective opinion of democracy, self determination and yes, the United States goes up simultaneously as reasoning people begin to recognize the folly in our enemy's ways
and in too many cases the outright horror of same.
Compliance with murderers and "good diplomacy" with Tyrants will only serve to further set in concrete that we are indeed the oppressors. We have the most carrots and the biggest stick; and it's high time both are used to the detriment of the oppressors and the benefit of the oppressed.
Oops, ranted again. Ultimately, I believe everyone would like to see a democratic Iraq as much as Bush and simply doubt the ability of the United States to bring it about or don't share the opinion that it is indeed in our best interest to pay the horrendous costs in doing so. Perhaps the nay-sayers are right; but I believe it is in everyone's best interest to give it our best shot
if only to demonstrate that goodwill truly is our intention. If it wasn't initially; tough ****. Make it so.
