Whilst I agree that the quotes you posted sort of defy most peoples normal logic, I think your gun analogy is a little simplistic.

If the accused had been seen waving a gun around in the past, or was known to possess guns, but now says “I have no guns” or “I sold/destroyed them”, then it should be up to the accessed to show some proof of what has happened to the guns he was known to have.

America’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” rhetoric is BS. Let’s not forget the US: “We have the largest guns and are not afraid to use them.” There are of course, no double standards here…And North Korea? They are actually saying “I have the guns”, and “I want to make new guns” yet Dubya doesn’t seem to be doing much…then again, the Korean Peninsula is not well known for its Black Gold reserves. Doesn’t it seem strange that the US cares so much about the following (relatively obscure) countries: Somalia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are the first person in the history of this debate I have heard suggest that there is even a possibility Iraq is actually in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions. There’s really no response to this–it’s silliness, plain and simple.

Iraq does, of course, possess WMDs. Even those who oppose war agree on this point. Get with it, Stu–posts like this make you look silly.

Jubei,

North Korea has (2, perhaps more) nuclear weapons. Iraq (as far as we know) does not.

I’m sure even Stu could figure out that one.

“You are the first person in the history of this debate I have heard suggest that there is even a possibility Iraq is actually in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions. There’s really no response to this–it’s silliness, plain and simple.”

Please present your evidence that Iraq currently has an ongoing WMD program. That is what the inspectors are there for don’t you know.

“Iraq does, of course, possess WMDs. Even those who oppose war agree on this point. Get with it, Stu–posts like this make you look silly.”

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Whether most people opposed to war think something means precisely nothing as to that thing’s truth.

I don’t dispute the fact that Iraq has WMD – but so does the US. And why all of a sudden pursue Iraq? Isn’t North Korea a more pressing concern given that they kicked out the UN, withdrew from the disarmament treaty and do possess nukes??

Typically, US foreign policy is misguided, or perhaps driven by a stronger underlying motivation…

And what will happen in post-Saddam Iraq? Post-Taliban Afghanistan is a recent eg. of how hard it is for different competing groups (warlords etc.) to pull together for the common good. The US always seems to ignore the lessons of history.

BBBD: Ok, this is a little simplistic but, it will serve for illustrative purposes. How would you go about proving you disposed of a gun you were formerly known to have? To prove guilt and violation of arms possession, the onus would be on proving that you did indeed possess arms (which is what the UN inspectors are trying to do). To ask, in lieu of this, for proof of the destruction of those weapons (or we will invade your country) is just a poor second excuse.

Nate: All the world is asking for (except the US, and the UK and Australian governments) is evidence that Iraq currently does possess weapons and thus violates resolutions. The UN inspectors want a few months to make proper inspections, but the US wants to go in for war now. Why the rush?

Have to agree with the logic here. It’s one of those classic cases of bad scientific method that we learnt at school. Any theory has to be disprovable (is that a word?).

Hypothesis: Iraq has WoMDs.

Possible outcome: we find them. Hypothesis proven.

Alternative outcome: we don’t find them. Saddam must be hiding them. Hypothesis proven.

Conclusion: hypothesis is tautological. All possible observations render it true. Thus experimentation is redundant. (I.e. UN inspectors are only there to smile for the cameras.)

Incidentally, on the showing-that-they-destroyed-WoMDs issue, does anyone think Iraq would keep detailed records of how they disposed of WoMDs that they weren’t supposed to have in the first place?

Incidentally to that, could Iraq be reprimanded (read: blown up) anyway if they were shown to be in violation of UN resolutions in the past? Thus making it impossible to avoid war even by proving that their weapons have been destroyed?

And furtherly incidentally, even if Saddam *did* prove that he’s gotten rid of some WoMDs, is there anything to stop the US claiming one of the following:

“The evidence of weapons of mass destruction being destroyed presented to the UN inspectors is clearly a carefully fabricated smokescreen to cover up the *real* stockpile for which we intend to invade them.”

“While it is clear that some weapons have been destroyed, we have no reason to believe that Iraq does not possess more, possibly newer, weapons that are still operational.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1307-2003Jan16.html I believe this proves my point nicely.

Doz: I didn’t assert that agreement on an issue guarantees its truth. I’m appealing to probabilities here: if even those who genuinely oppose action against Iraq concede the point that Hussein is in breach of the relevant UN resolutions, then the argument that Hussein is just a benign presence in the Middle East (i.e. he destroyed his weapons per the UN resolutions) seems rather unlikely.

Can you give one shred of evidence that would even begin to support the insinuation that Hussein is in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions? If not, then I recommend you find other, better ways to argue against this war.

Jubei: As I wrote above: North Korea has nukes; Iraq does not. What kind of fucking idiot argues for a confrontation with a nuclear power?

Furthermore, the expulsion several years back of the UN inspection team indicates that Hussein had ZERO interest in full compliance with the relevant UN resolutions.

It’s foolish to think in the interim between then and now Hussein would have any reason for destroying his WMD arsenal (if he refused to disarm while diplomatic pressure was being exerted, it makes no sense that he would disarm when there no pressure to do so was being applied).

In short, there is no possible rationale to explain why Hussein would have disarmed in the period that weapons inspectors have been barred from the examination of Iraqi WMD facilities. Does anyone here sincerely believe that Hussein has disarmed for the simple reason of it being the right thing to do?

Hmmm…I think more Americans need to enroll in logic/debate classes. We as a country are probably behind everyone else in intelligence, generally. I mean, how do we let THAT escape our view of logic?

nate – I’m not arguing for a confrontation with North Korea, but it doesn’t surprise me that you quickly jumped to this conclusion – that’s US foreign policy: don’t worry about dialogue, just threaten whilst hiding behind an incredible weapons arsenal. I personally think that the US should mind it’s own business around the world, and not pester 3rd world countries who are so fucked up by US economic protectionism, hypocrisy, bullying and sanctions. But if the US were really concerned about global security and WMD, then why the greater concern for Iraq, which as you’ve said doesn’t have the nukes?? Surely North Korea is the relatively greater threat of Dubya’s so called “Axis of Evil”?

Diplomacy / Foreign policy requires dialogue – not culturally ignorant threats which merely serve to fuel even greater anti-US sentiment around the world. I understand that Saddam is a madman, but he’s not a madman with nukes – Kim on the other hand…(But he doesn’t have oil!)

“As I wrote above: North Korea has nukes; Iraq does not. What kind of ******* idiot argues for a confrontation with a nuclear power?” – nate

I’m just trying to follow the logic of this. Are you suggesting that the fact that Iraq’s arsenal, no matter how nasty (hence “mass destruction”) is not, as far as you know, nuclear, changes military confrontation from ludicrous to imperative?

I agree that dialogue is in most cases preferable to war.

However, it should be obvious that, when dealing with belligerent nations, dialogue can sometimes only be achieved with a credible threat of force. For example, the UN Weapons Inspections (a form of diplomacy)were only achieved because of the credible threat of war (as promulgated by Pres. Bush and PM Blair). Iraq simply didn’t want to discuss disarming until America and Britain threatened regime change. They are at least now making *some* overtures in the right direction, though it still seems that Hussein remains unwilling to fully comply with the relevant UN resolutions. American and Britain have made it clear that he does so at his own peril–the presence of a heavily armed Stalinist dictator in such a volatile area (think Israel) is just something that cannot be tolerated anymore.

North Korea is admittedly the greater threat (in terms of the number of lives it imperils), but ONCE AGAIN that is irrelevant in a discussion of appropriate action concerning Iraq. Unlike Iraq, in North Korea, there exist absolutely no possible diplomatic or military solutions to the crisis. NONE, save appeasement. What a hideous situation. Funnily enough, it is a perfect example of what Iraq will become if we allow it to fester and become a nuclear state: a rogue which engages regularly in blackmail backed up by the threat of nuclear holocaust. North Korea only STRENGTHENS the case for eviscerating the Iraqi WMD program before it is too late.

It is therefore ignorant to suggest that America is myopically focusing on Iraq while ignoring the greater danger of North Korea. North Korea is just as belligerent as Iraq (that is, they refuse to negotiate their disarmament in ***violation of any number of UN resoutions***), but, unlike with Iraq, where the credible threat of force has been employed in order to begin what will hopefully be a diplomatic solution to that crisis, North Korea cannot be threatened with force (to do so would lead to an unnecessary escalation of tensions with a **nuclear power**) in order to achieve some sort of disarmament.

An understanding of these nuances is essential to any discussion of contemporary American foreign policy. Try to get a hold of them before you launch into another of your silly, ignorant tirades against America, ok?

America does, of course, possess WMDs. Even those who oppose war agree on this point. Get with it, Nate–posts like this make you look silly.

“Jubei: As I wrote above: North Korea has nukes; Iraq does not. What kind of fucking idiot argues for a confrontation with a nuclear power?”

When you to have nukes before the US lets you sit at the grown up’s table, of course small countries who are sick of having the US beat the shit out of them are going to pursue this.

There is no logic.

Though admirable, I think patriotism has befuddled nate’s thinking.

Shish,

I don’t desire military action; in fact, I abhor it.

But if Iraq doesn’t disarm peacefully, is there any other alternative? These are the kind of suggestions that I would love to hear.

The real issue is not Saddam’s current arsenal of WMD’s. Though these are somewhat threatening, they are orders of magnitude less troubling than nuclear weapons. The general idea of this whole game is to get Iraq in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions so that it doesn’t continue its WMD programs and morph into a threat on the order of North Korea.

Basically, Iraq will achieve nuclear weapons sooner or later if they are allowed to persist in their violation of the UN resolutions. And if you think North Korea is bad, just wait for a nuclear Iraq.

Glad to see the debate’s lapsed into childishness. There is logic in the argument, Jubei; I just think you’re unequipped to answer it.

Who exactly is the US beating ‘the shit out of’ by the way, Fuzzy? Are you trying to say that North Korea (or Iraq) has a legitimate grievance? I fail to see why rogue states who threaten the evisceration of millions should be allowed to sit at the grownups’ table.

And I am a patriot, but one, I like to think, of the principled variety. If war will lead to the deaths of a large number of innocent Iraqis, I reject it in favor of some other solution (assassination? exile?). If war can be conducted humanely and effectively, however, then I will support it.

nate – “I fail to see why rogue states who threaten the evisceration of millions should be allowed to sit at the grownups’ table.”

Try seeing this through the eyes of an Iraqi kid as a US fighter jet bombs his village…or explain to an Iraqi kid why he can’t receive medicine because of US sanctions. Who then, is the rogue state threatening the “evisceration of millions”?

Although I can see nate’s point on a lot of issues, we seem to have drifted away from the original point of the post, which is this – the US seems to have no intention of resolving anything diplomatically with Iraq. Now I agree that Saddam has mostly forced this, as nate said, wanting nothing to do with UN inspectors until the threat of war was on the table.

But you have to admit that it doesn’t look like Dubya is going to give up until war breaks out. It wasn’t so long ago that we heard that Iraq would be attacked unless they allowed inspectors back in. When they were allowed in, the response from the US, almost immediately, was that they suspected they’d only been let in because Saddam had hidden all the weapons. So why let the inspectors in at all? Seems like just appearances to keep the UN and the public happy. There’s obviously no possible result that will cause the US to back off. I would feel pretty redundant being a UN weapons inspector. :)

And nate, you resorted to childishness long before anyone else.

Something just occurred to me after reading through the early posts again. What does the UN disarmament treaty actually *say*? Does anyone have a link to a copy/explanation of it? Does it actually say “no one is allowed to have big guns except the US” or what? Okay, that sounds harsh, but you get my point.

Fuzzi: nice point. Want a description of the MAD policy weapons?

Peacemaker: InterContinental Ballistic Missile, armed with FIFTY NUCLEAR WARHEADS.

Everyone: We had a more or less logical debate about this in English 102, not more than a week ago. Basically, no matter WHAT happens, America will have permanantly fucked up a good part of the world, be it America or the Middle East. If we remove Saddam Hussein, we pay the price. If we instate ‘democracy’ we pay the price. If we fight war, we pay the price. If we do anything BUT withdraw, we pay for what we’ve done. And what’s worse is that Bush is actually not the majority voted president. Electorally voted. Yet another hypocrisy, we support ‘democracy’ and remain a republic. :: sigh ::

UN sanctions, not US.

You know as well as I that the hawks would have preferred to take out Saddam rather than resort to a sanctions regime. Unfortunately, the Colin Powells and Kofi Annans of the world would have had a veritable cow if we had gone all the way to Baghdad. So much for that argument.

And I’ve really tried to be civil (except for the ‘fucking idiot’ remark, which wasn’t intended as an insult, but more as a hypothetical rhetorical question–like what kind of stooge would want a confrontation with a nuclear maniac state?)

Fraid that’ll have to be the last word…

Oops… one last thing:

The inspectors are there to find and destroy the WMD’s that we all know exist. Weapons inspections could work if Saddam had any disposition to cooperation.

I think everyone is forgetting to look at this from Hussein’s point of view. I mean, look at his options:

1) Refuse inspectors: US invasion followed by regime change implemented by US, changing to a regime that cheaply exports oil to US

2) Allow inspectors, hide weapons: UN inspectors find nothing, US invasion following accusation that he was hiding weapons, regime change implemented by US, changing to a regime that cheaply exports oil to US

3) Allow inspectors, disarm all weapons and present evidence: UN inspectors find evidence that disarmament has taken place. US accuses Iraq of incomplete disarmament, US invasion on these grounds, regime change implemented by US, changing to a regime that cheaply exports oil to US

4) Disarm, beg US not to invade: probably, the US agrees not to invade on the condition that Hussein steps down and a new regime is implemented, that cheaply exports oil to US

5) Shoot self and let someone else sort it out.

Now, assuming (I know it’s a weak assumption, but still feasible) he cares about the welfare of his own citizens, he has to consider that oil is about the only major export of Iraq and without the ability to sell it in an intelligently controlled manner, his country’s already ruinous economy would collapse completely and irrevocably – they would be reduced to trade by barter and slash and burn farming (if such a thing works in Iraqi desert). Conversely, you could let the US invade, which would have the same result except many of your citizens would’t suffer needlessly as they would have been bombed/shot already.

What would you choose? I think option (5) is the only one left… and even that’s a bit selfish.

“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1307-2003Jan16.html I believe this proves my point nicely.”

Doesn’t prove your point at all. It is a red herring, and what’s even better, the US has admitted it doesn’t amount to material breach. We are discussing the idiotic tautological logic that Rumsfeld put forth.

“Doz: I didn’t assert that agreement on an issue guarantees its truth. I’m appealing to probabilities here: if even those who genuinely oppose action against Iraq concede the point that Hussein is in breach of the relevant UN resolutions, then the argument that Hussein is just a benign presence in the Middle East (i.e. he destroyed his weapons per the UN resolutions) seems rather unlikely.

Can you give one shred of evidence that would even begin to support the insinuation that Hussein is in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions? If not, then I recommend you find other, better ways to argue against this war.”

The UN inspectors are in there discovering whether this is the case or not right now. Rumsfeld’s bullshit about no evidence being evidence not withstanding.

“Furthermore, the expulsion several years back of the UN inspection team indicates that Hussein had ZERO interest in full compliance with the relevant UN resolutions.”

False. Richard Butler unilaterally ORDERED his inspectors out, Iraq didn’t expel them (it’s amazing how the facts change after 4 years). It was done without Security Council approval. This was in anticipation of an imminent US attack, caused by Iraqi ‘obstructionism’, which was a direct result of the US using the inspectors to collect intelligence on Iraq’s power structure- a clear violation of the mandate. These are not controversial facts. Amazingly, what was matter-of-factly admitted four years ago by American main-stream media as true (the intelligence gathering) is now dismissed as ‘allegations’ now. Go to http://www.fair.org to see the way the facts have changed over four years, with the same media sources.

“It’s foolish to think in the interim between then and now Hussein would have any reason for destroying his WMD arsenal (if he refused to disarm while diplomatic pressure was being exerted, it makes no sense that he would disarm when there no pressure to do so was being applied).”

Actually, his WMD arsenal was 95% destroyed from 1991-98, says former weapons inspector Scott Ritter (not surprisingly, he has since been the victim of a smear campaign in an attempt to destroy his credibility, even though he’s a former USMC and spent 7 years in Iraq doing this job).

“However, it should be obvious that, when dealing with belligerent nations, dialogue can sometimes only be achieved with a credible threat of force. For example, the UN Weapons Inspections (a form of diplomacy)were only achieved because of the credible threat of war (as promulgated by Pres. Bush and PM Blair). Iraq simply didn’t want to discuss disarming until America and Britain threatened regime change.”

False cause fallacy. Iraq had weapons inspectors in there for 7 years, all the while it was the US stated policy to have regime change. The reason inspections stopped even though they were working is because the US started using the inspectors to spy- a violation of the agreement. These are not controversial facts.

“They are at least now making *some* overtures in the right direction, though it still seems that Hussein remains unwilling to fully comply with the relevant UN resolutions. American and Britain have made it clear that he does so at his own peril–the presence of a heavily armed Stalinist dictator in such a volatile area (think Israel) is just something that cannot be tolerated anymore.”

Good thing you put in ‘anymore’. He was perfectly tolerable in the 1980s when Rumsfeld flew over there to kiss his ass, help him in his war of aggression on Iran, and supply him with WMD materials.

“Shish,

I don’t desire military action; in fact, I abhor it.

But if Iraq doesn’t disarm peacefully, is there any other alternative? These are the kind of suggestions that I would love to hear.”

In order for Iraq to disarm, you must prove it even has WMD.

“The real issue is not Saddam’s current arsenal of WMD’s. Though these are somewhat threatening,”

Funny, you’re acting as if you’ve proven that Iraq actually has them- which is the inspector’s job.

“they are orders of magnitude less troubling than nuclear weapons. The general idea of this whole game is to get Iraq in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions so that it doesn’t continue its WMD programs and morph into a threat on the order of North Korea.”

Looking at the way NK is treated with kid gloves compared to Iraq, if I was Saddam- boy would nukes be a good thing. No troops pouring into neighbouring countries holding exercises on your border. The fact that the US pursues Iraq with abandon while treating NK carefully puts the lie to the claim that Iraq is some sort of threat to anyone- it’s army and position threaten noone- which is precisely why it’s being targeted. And I’m not going to pretend that OIL has nothing to do with this.

“Basically, Iraq will achieve nuclear weapons sooner or later if they are allowed to persist in their violation of the UN resolutions. And if you think North Korea is bad, just wait for a nuclear Iraq.”

Actually, a nuclear NK is much worse than Iraq. Check your facts- SK is in relatively serious danger, Iraq is not a serious threat to any other country in the region militarily. At least NK’s military, while antiquated, is huge and positioned for offensive operations, Iraq’s military is undersupplied and undertrained (it has not been able to recover since the 1991 ass-kicking).

“And I am a patriot, but one, I like to think, of the principled variety. If war will lead to the deaths of a large number of innocent Iraqis, I reject it in favor of some other solution (assassination? exile?). If war can be conducted humanely and effectively, however, then I will support it.”

Admirable. But naive. You cannot conduct a humane war, propaganda aside- and how many terrorists will this create?

“Oops… one last thing:

The inspectors are there to find and destroy the WMD’s that we all know exist. Weapons inspections could work if Saddam had any disposition to cooperation.”

No, you do NOT know they exist whatsoever. You suspect it. The inspectors are there to see if Iraq is pursuing WMD. Until their work is done, we don’t know anything.

“False cause fallacy. Iraq had weapons inspectors in there for 7 years, all the while it was the US stated policy to have regime change. The reason inspections stopped even though they were working is because the US started using the inspectors to spy- a violation of the agreement. These are not controversial facts.”

To expand on this, why did it take 3-4 years to go after Iraq? September 11. Since that very day, the pro-Iraq War crowd has gone to every length to try and link Iraq with this crime-

the de-bunked myth about one of the hijackers meeting an Iraqi ‘agent’ in Prague

the ridiculous lie that the anthrax was from Iraq (still repeated to this DAY, when the the US govt has already said it was domestic)

the unsupported accusation that Al-Quaeda and Iraq have ties (incredibly unlikely considering that Osama hates Saddam because he’s not religious and runs a secular regime over there)

Argh accidentally pushed enter. Anyway, there’s more, but in essence, September 11 gave the administration a blank cheque to whip up fear and paranoia- Iraq supports terror, Iraq trains terrorists, Iraq will give WMD to terrorists- in the new environment, you can say irresponsible, unsupportable rubbish like this and not be called on to prove it-exactly the way Rumsfeld was not called out for his ludicrous assertion that no evidence of non-cooperation is actually evidence of non cooperation! It’s truly amazing Newspeak.

– “It is a red herring, and what’s even better, the US has admitted it doesn’t amount to material breach.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6081-2003Jan17.html

The US has admitted no such thing. You seem to be mistaking cautious rhetoric for a total dismissal. Andrew Sullivan seems credible on this point: “I presume the administration is downplaying this find so that it can continue to build up forces for an attack, and so that it can also guide inspectors to more substantive finds.”

Here’s what Christopher Hitchens (about as left as they come) says about the case for pre-emptive war in Iraq:

“In the present case of Iraq, a pre-emptive war is justified by its advocates on the grounds of past Iraqi aggressions and the logical presumption of future ones—which would make it partly retaliatory and partly preventive. This is fraught with the danger of casuistry since if no sinister weaponry is found before the war begins, then the war is re-justified on the grounds that it prevented such weapons from being developed. (And if the weapons are found, as one suspects they will be, after the intervention has taken place, then they could be retrospectively justified as needful for defense against an attack that was obviously coming.)

“Surveying the bloody past, one can only wish for the opportunity to rerun the tape so that enough judicious force could have been employed, in good enough time, to forestall greater bloodshed. Everyone will have their favorite example. If only, for instance, the U.N. troops in Rwanda had been beefed up and authorized to employ deadly force as a deterrent. But tautology lurks at every corner, and the distinction between “pre-emptive” and “preventive” becomes a distinction without a difference, and only hindsight really works (and not always even then). The lesson is that all potential combatants, at all times, will invariably decide that violence and first use are justified in their own case.”

(me again)

Building on Hitchens, tautology is an appropriate accusation ONLY if the empirical facts don’t support the argument. That is, if Iraq really doesn’t possess any WMD’s and has no aspirations to nuclearity, then Rumsfeld’s argument is tautological. If Iraq is being obfuscatory and still possesses an active WMD program, then the argument for war, however problematic in the rarefied realm of logic, is cogent.

These seem like basic, irreducible principles to me. I (and most of the rest of the world) believe that Hussein is a destabilizing threat in the region (to Israel especially, since Hussein is no less virulent an anti-semite than the rest of the corrupt rulers of the area). You believe otherwise. I guess that’s that.

…Or maybe it’s not.

Peruse here if you will: http://www.iraqwatch.org

For a realistic appreciation of the difficulties of producing ironclad evidence of WMD programs which it would be idiotic to think don’t exist, read this (neoliberal) New Republic article: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021223&s=lizza122302

This is good too: http://www.tnr.com/archive/1098/101998/editors101998.html

And whatever you do, don’t miss the program histories here:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html

…And while you point to Ritter’s opinion of the threat Iraq poses with glee, you ignore other voices of equal authority on the matter:

“Former UNSCOM inspectors differ on the threat posed by Iraq’s arsenal. Ritter has repeatedly argued that Iraq has not posed a significant threat since 1995. Other former inspectors Richard Butler and Charles Duelfer express greater concern. Duelfer told a Senate panel in August that ‘the current leadership in Baghdad will eventually achieve a nuclear weapon in addition to their current inventories of weapons of mass destruction.'”

Iraq has the implosion devices. All it needs is the fissile material. Will we stop them from getting it?

(The above quote is from here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/un_inspections.html)

Whilst there is no doubt that Saddam is a sick bastard who has used WOMD in the past on his own ppl no less, I cannot help but be cynical when the US chose not to do anything about it then when there was abundant proof that he pocessed said weapons and was willing to use them, and is instead eager to go for war now, when those same weapons are in doubt of existence and when Saddam has being quite for the last decade and does not show signs that he’s not going to stay that way. Need I remind people that Iraq was actually an ally of the US during the Iran-Iraq war? The same war which saw the use of chemical weapons on the Iranian troops as well as the Kurds. The US chose not to do anything about it then….why all of a hurry now? It just smacks of the two-faced, hyprocritical foreign policy that the US is famous for. They’ve screwed up a lot of countries and Iraq is one of them. But I guess they can do whatever they want. I just don’t see the logic of Australia joining them though. It’s not as if Iraq poses a clear and present danger. And it’s a very disturbing precedent to set if the US and its Allies went down the road of invading a country based on what they may or may not do sometime in the future, instead of what they are doing now.

STU: My point wasn’t so much to argue IF Iraq did have or didn’t have any weapons. My initial point was that your analogy was overly simplified, and that’s the problem with most analogy’s that a lot of people/media try and draw. They simplify things down and generally in a direction that helps elicit emotions / logic / political correctness into supporting their idea.

As far as proving that you no longer had a gun that you were known to have (I’m not talking Iraq here) I’m talking about your murder analogy:

1. if you sold it, you should have a receipt.

2. if you destroyed it, eg chopped it down, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to show the tools used or scrap that was left over.

2.a. even if you threw it out, unless you melted it down, and this was a murder case, I’d like to think that they would search the landfill *I admit I don’t know the logistics of this sort of thing*

3. if it was stolen then there should be a police report.

The biggest problem with these sort of arguments (eg. war) is that you generally you will never change someone’s ideas/ideals, especially on-line.

Like it or not, the US is the enforcer for ‘democracy’ and countries current borders. If everyone had to fend for themselves, or rely on the UN (minus the US and other ‘super powers’) the world would be a very different place.

oops made a small mistake in my previous post.

it’s supposed to read “elicit emotional logic / politically correct logic”

“Building on Hitchens, tautology is an appropriate accusation ONLY if the empirical facts don’t support the argument. That is, if Iraq really doesn’t possess any WMD’s and has no aspirations to nuclearity, then Rumsfeld’s argument is tautological. If Iraq is being obfuscatory and still possesses an active WMD program, then the argument for war, however problematic in the rarefied realm of logic, is cogent.”

I’m sorry, that’s utterly incoherent. You basically offered up a tautology right there to defend the prior tautology:

Here’s what you said

– If Iraq really doesn’t have WMD, then the argument Rumsfeld made is false.

– If Iraq really does have WMD, then the argument is true.

Right … whether you admit it or not, proof of a negative is impossible, and to assert that no evidence of something is in fact evidence in itself is blatantly irrational. If nothing is found in Iraq= war. Because they must be hiding it. If something is found in Iraq= war. Where’s the peace? Nowhere. Which is why the US is pouring forces into the region as each day goes by.

“These seem like basic, irreducible principles to me. I (and most of the rest of the world) believe that Hussein is a destabilizing threat in the region (to Israel especially, since Hussein is no less virulent an anti-semite than the rest of the corrupt rulers of the area). You believe otherwise. I guess that’s that.”

What, is Saddam going to invade Israel? Nuke Israel? I’m sorry, that’s rampant paranoia and fantasy. Israel can well take care of itself with its own nuclear arsenal and elite army.

In addition, the argument ‘Saddam cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons’ is also suspect. The USSR and USA faced off against each other for 50 years- if the logic being applied to Iraq now was applied then- Europe and North America would be so much radioactive rubble. Why can’t Saddam be deterred- if indeed he has nuclear weapons.

The reason these despicable little tinpot dictators want to get nukes is quite logical. They’re effective deterrent. The case that these would be used by ‘terrorists’ is not only prima facie absurd (considering the total lack of love between Saddam and Islamic fundie psychos) but no proof has been offered up to show otherwise- only rhetoric.

The biggest problem I have with the US stance atm is that it will contravene the UN if it attacks with out proof of WMD. If it does so this means that Iraq can ask the UN for help against an invading force and should receive it under the UN charter…

Also this would set precedence if allowed occur against any country that the US feels morally justified in attacking.

No one argues that what Hussian has done to his country and his people is horrible but why wait until now to “solve” the problem? Why only this country?

If the US wants to be the worlds police force it must do so unilaterally and not just for its own interests. So many other places/countries could be helped if such a show of determination was used worldwide.

But I guess that’s what the UN was for in the first place – shame that is just a toothless tiger thanks to the big 5

“I (and most of the rest of the world) believe that Hussein is a destabilizing threat in the region (to Israel especially, since Hussein is no less virulent an anti-semite than the rest of the corrupt rulers of the area). You believe otherwise. I guess that’s that.”

Can’t you appreciate the hypocricy here? Israel is not really in too much danger of getting invaded since it has all the WMD it needs to retaliate in kind 100 times over, supplied to it by the US. The US largest foriegn aid is in the form of military aid to Israel. So Israel as a nation is hardly defenceless. If you’re going to treat things objectively, then shouldn’t the Israeli government also come under greater scrutiny for pocessing WMD and for the occupation of Palestinian land? (And I don’t buy the stuff about the land been promised to Israel by God. That was true in Biblical times. We are not in Biblical times anymore. They should get over it. The land isn’t rightfully theirs. They took a large chunk of it in a war.)

“(And I don’t buy the stuff about the land been promised to Israel by God. That was true in Biblical times. We are not in Biblical times anymore. They should get over it. The land isn’t rightfully theirs. They took a large chunk of it in a war.)”

Not only is using some ‘biblical’ claim (hey look, my holy book says I deserve all of … Figi!) as proof in a land dispute totally outrageous, but the Bible makes it clear that the Israelites were also invaders- count up the number of peoples they eliminate to secure their ‘holy land’.

But let’s not let this get into an always oh-so-fun Israel discussion?

Step down from the ivory tower, Doz. I was talking about objective facts, not interpretations of these facts which may be used to justify war.

I acknowledge that the argument may be tautological (which I take to mean ‘true’ in every possible case) in the rarefied realm of logic. Still, when it comes down to objective facts, if ‘tautology’ is the only way to make sense of these facts, then I really don’t care. For example, is there any other way to provide for the fact that weapons inspectors may not locate WMD’s that actually DO exist without being tautological?

If you had read the New Republic argument on the difficulties of providing hard evidence to UNMOVIC or to the public without compromising basic intelligence, you might be more apt to acknowledge the difficult (seemingly illogical) position in which the US finds itself.

And while Israel may be able to defend itself just fine AFTER an attack, we all know that a pre-emptive Jewish attack on an Arab state would lead to the total explosion of the region. Should we wait for Israel to get nuked (you think this unlikely; based on Saddam’s pathological, virulent anti-semitism as well as his history of sociopathy, I’m apt to disagree at least enough to make me queasy about a nuclear Iraq). Israel, therefore, is defenseless from an offensive Iraqi strike. Though they can retaliate just fine, they need someone else — someone without the ‘Jewish baggage’ Israel carries — to go in and do ‘the dirty work’.

“Why can’t Saddam be deterred?”

This is such a weird question that it’s hard to answer. But let me give it a shot:

Even if Saddam can be deterred from using his WMD’s, it seems unlikely he’s just attempting to acquire nukes because they look pretty. He’ll use them, probably for blackmail. Under the right conditions, he may deploy them.

Right conditions, of course, might be a refusal to meet the demands of his blackmail.

And I don’t think the US will act without UN approval. Powell will probably get the Security Council to agree to something justifying an attack.