Now that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Hans Blix has stated that Hussein destroyed his WMDs a decade ago and
Bush and Wolfowitz
have admitted Iraq was not linked to 9/11, don’t the pro-war zealots need to reconsider their positions?
And let’s not forget that between 7346 and 9146 civilans have died
Footnote: the title is in reference to Hitchens’ “ha ha to the pacifists” column
No.
Saddam represented a direct threat to the United States.
How?
This
is the reason so many supported the war.
I’m not terribly concerned about why others support something I support, so such links are meaningless.
Over the years of the cold war and since its end, America grew confident in its isolation from danger. The greatest foe imaginable, the USSR, never dared attack us face to face. That foe was vanquished. If we can defeat such a great and powerful nation, how can any other threat even compare.
September 11th, 2001 taught the world that a radical few can kill thousands with little more than hatred to carry out their murder. We learned that we are not invulnerable. If twenty individuals can kill 3000 in the heart of America with only the backing of a reclusive millionaire living a nomadic life in an impoverished nation, what acts of hatred might be possible for a group with the backing of Iraq?
Iraqi scientists say that Saddam had a weapons program, but no weapons. Building weapons doesn’t take time or effort compared to developing them. Left unchecked, could his agents have smuggled chemical or biological (or even just conventional) weapons into New York or DC or London or Jerusalem or Ankara? The world may never know.
That’s the argument for preemption.
Second, he was in direct violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. He was in direct violation of the security council resolution warning of “serious consequences”. How many agreements and resolutions would have to be violated to justify action?
Also, why did the “doves” overlook the plight of Iraqis under Saddam’s rule? Surely, they are in for a long road to recovery, but they are on that road. There is a light at the end of this tunnel. Before America and her allies destroyed Saddam’s regime, there was no hope for the future. Saddam would eventually die, but he would be replaced by one of his sons.
I am appalled by these doves. Not because I think my view is the only valid perspective, but because these same groups lament the oppression in Tibet and beg the powerful nations to help in Liberia, but not in Iraq. Why? The inconsistency appalls me. How many mass graves–filled with the rotted corpses of real humans, real innocent people, men, women, children who be alive if not for Saddam’s crimes–must we find to justify his removal?
I am neither a warmonger nor a zealot. I do not enjoy war. I do not delight in misery. I do not care how much a barrel of oil costs (well, not that much, anyway). I care about the safety of my family and my country. Every time I’m in NYC I stay in the Millenium Hilton, directly across from the WTC site. It’s a sobering vision, staring down into that pit. I know that Saddam Hussein had the capability and the desire to cause this kind of devastation in America.
Even though it is.
What argument? The mere possibility that something bad could happen? Since when was that a just reason for war? It turned out to be a paranoid reaction to a threat that never even existed. Worse, it was a cover for the DoD’s real motivation, which was the establishment of a permanent American presence in the Arab world. The Bush people flat out LIED about Iraq’s alleged ties to terror, and they thumbed their noses at those who dared question their “intelligence”, alienating some of our strongest allies in the process.
They didn’t. Human rights groups drew attention to the atrocities (where do we get our stats from in the first place?), and still opposed the war. They just consistently pointed out that millions of people all over the world live under similar conditions, and it’s never prompted America to go to war before. So why Iraq, and why did it have to happen when it did–when so many of our allies opposed it?
Okay do you even listen to what these groups have to say? No one is advocating an invasion of Tibet and the UN’s request for help in Liberia was for a PEACEKEEPING force, not another invasion. Iraq was being handled by the UN, and the doves as you call them thought the UN should continue handling it. Turns out they were probably right, cause the U.S. sure doesn’t seem capable of running the country on its own. I’m sorry that point of view offends you, but please don’t use the word inconsistency; there’s a nice long list of oppressive regimes the Bushies have all but ignored while tirading about Saddam’s brutality.
That’s not necessarily true. Vietnam was worse off due to our intervention, and there’s no guarantee that this costly commitment of America’s resources won’t go the same way.
Really? You must have intelligence that the CIA knows nothing about. Cause–newsflash–no WMDs have been found in Iraq. Now what we have done in Iraq is divert resources from fighting those who could, and did, cause that devastation. Further, we’re swelling their ranks by every day, giving them new reasons to hate us through our mismanagement of Iraq. Gee I feel a hell of a lot safer.
You didn’t read any of my links? Do you make have habit of ignoring facts you dislike?
Please, read a few of my links. Bush has threated to use nukes and a professor has warned that he will.
How many resolutions is the US in violation of? Well, one of the most important for a start (Geneva convention). Let’s not forget
35 million in poverty
There’s still alot of debate over how responsible the US was for the WTC attacks but
start here
And who was it that made Saddam the threat he is now? The USA of course!
No, it’s just that his reasons are most likely different from the reasons most others put forth.
Yes, heaven forbid the President should try and defend the US.
What’s right is not always what’s popular, and what’s popular is not always what’s right.
I don’t see how, since it wasn’t. Period.
From what? Are nukes necessary? Because the last time they weren’t
That conviction’s been trounced already.
Read my link, please. And this
Metavoid:
– this conversation is an interesting one. in fact, me and kesh were able to construct a logical and coherent arguement which you and skeptic have failed to reply to. tsk, tsk. was it the lack of child-like taunts in the title that stumped your ability to argue reasonably? 
I’m still waiting for Skeptic. My argument is perfectly logical and coherent and unlike Kesh I quote my sources
But Christopher started it!
Futhermore, my taunts are not “child-like”. They are actually quite urbane.
edit- and I would like it of you to counter them.
ouch! damn… i guess the hard thing with constructing an arguement for outsing a tyrant who has invavded a country, attempted to kill a couple of different ethnic and religious groups and is a symbol for islamic fundamentalists is that it everything seems so obvious, that the need for sources seems a little redundant. i suppose kesh and i are being a tad pretentious, you know, taking for granted something like common sense. 
but, i’ll check out your links and see if i have anything to add that i won’t be covering in the chamber. if there is, i will respond, but i haven’t the time now.
I’m pushed for time but…
writhes in agony at trix’s sardonic comments
How many died in Saddam’s worst massacre? 5000?
How many have died in the bombings? 8000? And according to Noam Chomsky in Case Studies in Hypocrisy the coalition increased subsidisations towards Iraq after this atrocity.
— Lest we forget. The U$A hired the Ba’ath party to kill communists in the 60’s. The U$A sold weapons to IRAQ. The U$A made 6 oil contracts before the war even started. The U$A has supported Hussein and frequently turned it’s back while Saddam has violated human rights. The U$A warned of WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction in case that has been sucked down Orwell’s memory hole) which it then failed to find.(if the evil WMD’s were or are out there wouldn’t another nation’s intelligence agency, a UN weapon’s inspector or somebody have found them?). It is easier for us to get our oil from a dictatorship because democracies might rightly vote us out. Bush (who owns oil interests) acted unilaterally and without UN approval and now wants $87 Billion (money which could be used to feed, clothe, and educate the World’s poor).
As one of the people on the website who argued most for the war I thought I’d better say that I still believe it was the right thing to do.
What would undoubtedly be the worst thing to do right now is get cold feet and pull out.
There was nothing unilateral about it, do you forget all the other troops involved in the actions and all the support given by Qatar, Kuwait, Australia, Britain, Spain, many eastern european countries and many more that slip my mind at the moment.
You seem to forget there was a cold war going on and Iraq was judged the better of two evils, politics is not as simple as choosing good or evil. The same thing was said about Afghanistan and US support for Bin Laden, but some credit the Afghan war for bringing down communism and delivering us from the daily threat of global annihilation in the nuclear-armed cold war.
Two points, first on your second, Bin Laden was not supported by the US. He was in Afghanistan as a member of the “Arab Afghans”. We supported and trained the native Afghans only. Even then, he was preaching anti-Americanism and conceivably would not have accepted US funding. I could cite a source, but it is less-than-definitive, so we’ll call this educated hearsay.
Second (your on first), many of the anti-war/anti-America crowd are also anti-capitalism, so your point about the Cold War may be lost on them. The US was a greater evil than the good ol’ Sovyetskiy Soyooz. By default and by extension, any US-supported evil is the greater evil.
And by the way, in linking war critics with critics of America, I am not calling anyone’s patriotism into question. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the majority of war critics I’ve spoken with have cited America’s general complicity in all things “evil”. The criticism of American actions in Iraq are part of a greater discussion about American hegemony, imperialism, criminality, and arrogance.
Marshall will undoubtly be able to offer better counter-arguments than me but I’ll give it a shot.
What one has to ask oneself is “in the parallel universe where the USA does not existed (or vanished some time in the mid-nineties) would the war have gone on ahead?” My answer is that it would not have. Those states are all very “Americanised”. Countries that are not like France and Germany did not support the war. Moreover, if it was a multilateral invasion the UN and UN peace-keeping troops would have been involved. You’ve also failed to address Marshall’s point about the money and how it could have been better spent.
Why was the cold war going on? Certainly not for human rights or democracy as those are the principles the US has yet to recognise especially in foreign policy. It would appear that there had to be ulterior motives behind it ($$$$$$$$). As for the lesser of two evils; how many troops did the US have? Remember this was the Reagan administration. And about “global annihilation” read my links.
The world’s poor? How about the oppressed people of Iraq? How aobut how Hussein used oil proceeds to finance palace after palace instead of humanitarian endeavors? I think you could say that our money did go to a humanitarian cause, ie the liberation of millions of Iraqis.
Marxism as a political doctrine advocates the violent overthrow of government and the murder of capitalists. As countries fell in just that manner, there was no telling where or if it would stop. The ulterior motive behind conflicts and policies in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, and others was to preserve the American/capitalist way of life. They called it containment.
Do you think the Soviet leaders were in Afghanistan to liberate the Afghans from capitalist dictators? Were they concerned with anything but the extension of their own political doctrine and imperial power? Nope. They were imperialists. The US was fighting for its (and other nations’) survival. We opposed Soviet and marxist expansion everywhere it was strategically feasible.
Soviets did not believe in the right to practice capitalism. We did believe in the right to practice socialism, though (most of us). Therefore, each conflict was also a fight for freedom.
Freedom and survival. What better argument for war? Same basic reasons behind WWII (oft referred to as the last just war).
You call this liberation? Around 8000 killed and 20000 injured. And please don’t argue that it’s “neccessary”. Cluster bombs are not neccessary.
It does? I’ve read several summaries of it and I’ve yet to read that it adovates violence or murder for that matter. Did democratic Marxists like Aristide and Alllende advocate the violent overthrow of gov’t and murder of capitalists? Did the US intervene?
Similar could be said of the US.
That is a list of dictators backed by the USA. To find out how visit here
I honestly don’t know how to elaborate without becoming horribly verbose.
Americanised? What are you blathering on about, have you ever been to any of those countries? There as “Americanised” as Germany and France, who could easily be accused of opposing the war for two major reasons that had nothing to do with your noble and niave reasons.
They had oil contracts which would be buggered if the US went ahead.
They are trying to create a federal Europe with a common foreign policy and opposing the US in virtually every area makes them feel big and clever.
I don’t see much point trying to beat such an argument. If you think that’s what was going on no wonder you are so anti-American. Thank god there were some people with balls out there to save the world from communism, democracy and liberty won the day.