Hear Ye! Since 1998.
Please note: This post is at least 3 years old. Links may be broken, information may be out of date, and the views expressed in the post may no longer be held.
19
Mar 03
Wed

War has Begun

We relaxed on the library lawn today, enjoying the cooling breeze under a warm Autumn sun as we ate our lunch. Uni was over for most of us for the week, the start of our extended weekend. Class was stimulating and we were discussing the ethical issues concerning selective client representation by lawyers. We were using the case of Swiss banks who held 50-year old Jewish bank accounts from WWII and were refusing to give the money back unless the claimants jumped through some rather impossible hoops.

Meanwhile, literally half a world away, it is well past the witching hour, but the sun will not rise for a few hours. It is 4am, but the children are not asleep. Instead, they are hiding in the darkness, in tattered housing which is about to become even more dilapidated. Parents tremble, children cry. Families shut themselves off from the world, sealing windows, barring doors and clutching paper-thin face masks that they believe will save them from biological and chemical toxins; cowering under paper-thin ceilings that they hope will save them from the bombs. But even the illest-informed of these commoners know what the effect is of bullet through skin. How could they forget? It was only a scant 12 years before, for them. How could anyone forget, even after a life time? They don’t know when it will come, or how it will come, but they know it will come.

We sit in class with a laptop, magically hooked up via a wireless connection to the university network, itself connected to the pulsating mass of cables and transmitters that carry the data of the Internet. In a few minutes, the pulsating mass begins to throb faster and faster as the world anticipates. We load up a news site and find out in our nice air conditioned building, that a man, half a world away again, has declared war on Iraq, shattering decades of UN progress, world cooperation and all the underpinning principles associated with that. For the millions of Iraqi citizens, Bush’s “shock and awe” plan is redundant. They were shocked and awed long ago. But they can’t do a single thing about it.

This post has 50 comments

1.  erin

thank you this post. it reminds me that the entire world hasn’t gone crazy.

if only i knew what you looked like, i might have seen you on the library lawn.

2.  Little D

oh this is y i haven’t seen u stu. u’ve migrated to the library lawn.

:)

3.  ajh

I ate lunch on the unsw library lawn today.. we should hook up sometime, I’m there a few days a week now as the library is the only place I seem to get any study down.. studying by DE sucks when your real campus is hundreds of kilometres away.

4.  ajh

Today, being yesterday – Thursday.

5.  Cynical Skeptic

Touching. Really, I’m touched. Well, now that I think about it, no I’m not. I’m not for the war, but this sounds like something that would come from a wannabe lawyer who is trying to pull heart strings. Stop appealing to people’s emotions and start speaking to their intellect, and maybe you could change some pro-war people’s minds. Otherwise you’re just making the weaker argument.

6.  teldak

Keep yer pants on, CS. Stu writes well and sensibly, in comparison to many journalists.

What’s wrong with appealing to emotion when that is (what appears to be) the objective? Saying what is the truth, in a manner that manipulates a person’s emotions is a good way of weakening their standards for changing sides of an argument, at least for the masses. Unfortunately, too many people dehumanize the Iraqis in their minds, until someone humanizes them.

7.  Cynical Skeptic

*Looks down*

Pants intact.

Appealing to emotion is incredibly problematic as they are entirely too subjective and irrational. What may spark sadness in one, might very well precipitate anger in another. Whereas, an appeal to the intellect generally brings about only one thing: rational thought, something this issue is severely lacking. You said yourself that emotional implorations are for the masses. Yet, this site is not peddled from the masses to the masses, but rather from an educated fellow to, hopefully, educated individuals. It is my sincerest expectation, under those auspices, that emotion is not the objective.

You refer to this post as truth. Come now, surely you must know that truth is also something that is completely subjective and relative. What you see as truth, another could very easily see as pure pretense.

Finally, if a person has already dehumanized the Iraqis in their mind, what makes you think you, or anyone else for that matter, could ever change that? I know I could not, and I doubt you could either. The most futile exercise is venturing to change a made-up mind.

8.  Kev

War aside, this is how a lot of people live life. Not just Iraq, but other Middle Eastern countries, Africa, the Subcontinent, Central and South America. Events like war serve to occasionally remind those in the West about the 3rd World.

9.  Stu

CS, I have already put forward a, what you would probably call “intellectual argument”, on this site in the past. Unfortunately, amongst all the intellectual arguments occurring miles away from the battlefield, it is all too easy to become distanced from the reality of war – especially in countries which have never had war waged on their home soil. The reason participants on both sides in the debate over war are so zealous simply because the principles underlying their motivations are so intense. It is the emotive reaction against war, or terror, and what is happening at the ground level to the common man that they find so objectionable. And without this human element, all this argument is just intellectual wank.

Emotion is not objective, but a personal opinion on a matter such as this is always “subjective”. I believe an objective mind is important, but all viewpoints are subjective: you take an objective look at the facts available, make up your own mind, and then defend, with an open mind, the argument at hand. And you defend your point of view because you absolutely believe in it. When Robin Cook made his resignation speech in British parliament, could not his speech have been described as subjective? To ignore the human, personal element in this debate is to take a sterile viewpoint. We’re not talking about tradings derivatives or what’s the best design for a skyscraper here – we’re talking about human lives.

But if intellectual argument is all you want, then read my previous posts, instead of letting your own emotions overrun you and shooting off prematurely.

http://hearye.fissure.org/permalink.php?pid=3000#pl3000

10.  Stu

“The most futile exercise is venturing to change a made-up mind.”

No, the most futile exercise is venturing to change a *closed-minded* made-up mind. Because if you believe in that statement, then I assume you yourself have never changed a viewpoint. Pride or reputation is normally the reason for this.

But should that ever stop people from trying? If everyone was like you, social change, and social progress could never occur. And if what you say is true, then opinion polls should never swing as wildly as they do.

11.  Stu

Anthony – you live on the north shore if I remember correctly? Doesn’t that make UNSW library a fair way to trek to in order to find a place to study? (Just curious because it’s freezing there at the moment too. The airconditioning in the library is really cold because they haven’t installed the thermostat into the system, which they revamped over the holidays, yet.) But yeah, we should hook up for lunch sometime.

Erin – The best way to identify me is a reasonably short asian guy with glasses (hmmm not very many of those around eh… :) and a Macpac backpack.

12.  erin

as IF i’d ever find you, i’d probably scare half the population of unsw first!

i’m not there often, cos i’m an fbe’r. the library is a bit of a trek from anzac pde.

i’ll keep an eye out for your backpack. you’d never find me – average, brown hair, green eyes and a different backpack every day. same as way too many people.

you gonna be in the city @ protest on sunday?

13.  Cynical Skeptic

Shooting off prematurely? I thought I was just commenting. Maybe your emotions are overrunning you. But there is just one thing. You speak as if you’re an Iraqi, like you know exactly how it would be, or how it is. What, exactly, would an Australian know about what being an Iraqi feels like, during a war or not? Has Australia had a war on its own soil that history has missed, where you were living to experience it firsthand? Have you ever lived in Iraq, been there, or evem known an Iraqi? You want to use emotions, go ahead and use them. However, use your own, do not use emotions of people that you do not even know, or emotions connected to experiences you have never had. Do not invent something and put it out there like that is the way it is. You feel a certain way, alright. They feel something you do not know about, and with your limited experience in the area, could not imagine. Had an Iraqi written that, it would have had credibility. Instead, it was written by a well-off kid in law school who lives in Australia, a country that has never seen war on it’s soil. Do not talk about what you have no knowledge of.

I have changed many viewpoints in my time. But that is just it. I changed them, with my own investigation, research, study, and finally, analysis. Not one other person has ever changed my mind, because in the end, no matter what anyone may confront you with, only you can change your own mind. Now, I never said people should stop trying. I just think that people should change their own minds, and not let others do it for them.

14.  teldak

CS: Maybe I am not seeing the same writing you are, and if I am, I am most certainly not seeing what you are “seeing.”

He wrote ONE paragraph of what might even be watered-down experiences, the base. He doesn’t seem to have falsified complex emotions which he has not felt. The writing tells the simplest and most obvious of facts (oh, there might be a few optimistic assumptions in what is a generally dark writing).

15.  Stu

Do not talk about what you have no knowledge of? What a statement to make. If you did have any knowledge of

Australia, we have in fact had war occur on our home soil, but of course you are so enlightened that you are

already convinced that you have all the facts, derived from your own investigation and research. Perhaps you’d

like undertake a little more research before spouting off comments and then accusing me of ignorance.

I cannot claim to have ever been to Iraq. I do, however, know an Iraqi. He came here as a political refugee,

when his father, working as a scientist under Hussein’s regime, defected and came to Australia. While Saddam

lives, his father, nor him, can ever return to their homeland. Which is just one of the

reasons why I agree that Saddam’s regime is oppressive and that Iraq would be better without him.

Thirdly and most importantly, you seem to think that you have to experience war to be able to comment on what

it must feel like. To analogise at a base level, do I have to break my leg to conjecture what it may feel

like? On a broader level, we learn about history and war in school. We learn about war so that we are aware of

its horrors. We hear about wars from veterans, who tell us the incredible suffering they witnessed and

experienced. We see, hear and read accounts from Iraqis over mass media and the Internet. We learn about war

so that we might never have to experience it for ourselves.

Just because I may be a well-off law student, doesn’t mean I can’t empathise with what it must be like to

endure war. Education is all about expanding your horizons and seeing things from different perspectives. If you have to experience something before you can imagine it, then you are living in a sterile

world of intellectualism and self-delusion.

Finally, you claim that “people should change their own minds, and not let others do it for them.” Which is

non-sensical, because if it weren’t for hearing about what other people say or write – how would we change our

own minds? I leave you with this:

“We should not pretend that we are automatons, seeking out law or truth or facts without them ever touching

our conscience. Both law and history are disciplines embedded in justice and ethics. In engaging them, we

demonstrate that we care about each other, and the world in which we live with the other.

“We bring values to our interpretations because we hold beliefs and ideals. Our values should be apparent if

we are to evaluate each other’s claims, and to decide whether or not we trust another’s judgement.

“The point is not to face the other with eyes closed and arms folded. The point is to speak with each other,

endlessly.

“We must remain vigilant against those who seek to have the final word. Because the final word is followed by

silence.” -K Biber, SMH, 23/12/02, p. 9

16.  Cynical Skeptic

Now I know that one cannot comment at this site unless you agree with its author, otherwise you are constantly and consistently shot down. I will never read this site again and I will make sure to tell everyone I know to never read it either.

17.  Stu

“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Instead of a logical counter-argument that appeals to the intellect which the author claims he so values, I get a hissy fit. An ineffectual, and particularly lame, Parthian shot.

I think we can all agree that the loss of a close-minded readership is no loss at all. It is just sad that some otherwise intelligent people are like that.

18.  Cynical Skeptic

“We must remain vigilant against those who seek to have the final word. Because the final word is followed by silence.” -K Biber, SMH, 23/12/02, p. 9

19.  Cynical Skeptic

You have made it abundantly clear that if someone does not agree with your opinion they are not welcome. But let me tell you something. I only asked you to not speak of that which you have no knowledge of in regards to what we were speaking of: being an Iraqi and experiencing war through their eyes. I, myself, have experienced war in many ways, and I saw, through my direct experience, what your indirect experience has brought you: a complete lack of knowledge on the real humanity of war. You want to know war, well here is the lowdown. Both of my grandfathers served in WWI. My grandmother on my father’s side lived through the bombing of London in WWII. My mother’s brother, my uncle, served in the European theatre in WWII. MY COUSIN WAS KILLED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. Thank you Stu for enlightening me. You have shown me just how uneducated educated people can be. A hissy fit? Hardly. I’m just tired of hearing about the supposed human realities of war from people who do not have the first clue about war’s real costs. Serve and then tell me. Have someone you care dearly for die and then tell me. Otherwise you reside in the realm of the hypothetical. I’d rather live in reality. I said I’d never read again because what you say has little validity in my old eyes. Live a tad longer and then tell me.

20.  Cynical Skeptic

Don’t even bother responding. I already know what you are going to say. Let’s just leave it alone and I’ll keep to what I said.

21.  Stu

“You have made it abundantly clear that if someone does not agree with your opinion they are not welcome.” Oh, so you think that because someone takes up a view in opposition to you and defends it, that it is a personal attack? I have absolutely no problem with you speaking on my site. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. But I will defend my viewpoint, because I do believe that viewpoints should be justified with reason and discussion. If I truly thought you were not welcome, I would just delete your comments. Or if I wished to be more insidious, I would edit your words. I would never. But you seem to construe me having a different opinion as me having a personal vendetta against you. You were the one who said you’d never come here again, you were the one who said you’d recommend to everyone you know not to come here.

Do not lecture me about your family’s involvement in war when you know absolutely nothing about mine. I have never claimed that you do not know anything about the realities of war. I do not make any assumptions about the life of a person I do not know. If you read carefully, the words I wrote were: “Unfortunately, amongst all the intellectual arguments occurring miles away from the battlefield, it is all too easy to become distanced from the reality of war – especially in countries which have never had war waged on their home soil.” Contrast for example the opinions of the US politicians on war (who may have not served in Vietnam), the US veterans on war and the Germans on war and you will see the breadth of opinion has a large correlation with their experience with war. I did not levy that comment on you personally, I was talking in general terms, about my motivation for the post. But you on the other hand, are all too willing to make assumptions on my personal experience. I never claimed you know nothing about the realities of war. To presume that would be an insult.

Don’t even bother responding? It is my right to respond, and it is always your right to respond.

22.  Eric

This account strikes me as being more applicable to the perspective of the Kurds or Shiite Muslims slaughtered and forcefully exiled by Saddam Hussein in Iraq than to a citizen of Baghdad; it might even be mistaken to have come from a Kuwaiti during the Iraqi invasion in 1990.

The scarecrow argument you attempt to establish with this work of fiction is so absurd and outlandish that it serves only to weaken your case. Do you really believe that coalition forces are going to enter (since they have not yet done so) Baghdad with the intent of murdering civilians? I don’t, and I see no reason to.

But to answer your question: “But even the illest-informed of these commoners know what the effect is of bullet through skin. How could they forget?”

Understanding their ability to forget this phenomenon would come with an understanding of the first Gulf War: allied troops never launched a land offensive in Baghdad.

23.  Stu

Eric, you’re really missing the point.

Do you think the Iraqi citizens know what the intentions of the US are? Especially with their heavily state controlled access to media? The majority of them don’t know what to expect. All they know is that war is coming. They’d be frightened. The kids would be frightened. Is that really such an absurd and outlandish proposition? They are bunkering down hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I mean, what would you do if you were in Baghdad and heard the air raid sirens go off at night? Go out and enjoy yourself? No, any sane person would stay indoors, scared out of their wits. How would they know where the next cruise missile is going to hit? Do you think they get CNN, where we get told where each missile and bomb was targetted? And how much in the dark do you think they will be when their utility grid fails, and their communications and electricity begins to black out?

The populace is no where near as well informed as you or I, which is exactly why some of them think that paper masks will protect them from chem or bio warfare.

And Eric, do you honestly believe that under a regime as brutal as Saddam’s, and after the Gulf War, that the Iraqi citizens do not all too well know what a gun does? Or what bombs do, when they were used as human shields?

24.  Doz

“Now I know that one cannot comment at this site unless you agree with its author, otherwise you are constantly and consistently shot down. I will never read this site again and I will make sure to tell everyone I know to never read it either.”

When one gives his point of view he should be prepared to defend it. Whining about being challenged doesn’t help, especially considering that at no point did Stu tell you to get stuffed.

25.  Doz

Incidentally, I’m curious as to what 9/11 has to do with Iraq.

26.  nate

Funny how you know better what Iraqis want than Iraqis themselves, Stu (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.safwan/index.html). That’s the depravity of the far-left for you.

I’ll be sure to get your opinion again when the rest of the nation is liberated from the yoke of Hussein.

27.  Shaf

Nate, send me a similar link from an Iraqi or Arab news source, or even a neutral source rather than CNN, and then I’ll be convinced that ordinary Iraqis are welcoming the prospect of missiles raining down on them.

Now, I’m sure most Iraqis would like to see the end of Saddam, with all the atrocities he’s committed. But I’m not entirely convinced that this is the way to bring about a regime change, especially in a region that already harbours a lot of anti-US sentiment. I do know a lot of Iraqis, and although they do want the end of Saddam’s reign over the country, they would rather have him, than have their sovereignty undermined by a coalition of nations who have no right to be there.

The reason why I say they have no right is simply because they have defied pretty much all international bodies to take the action that they have. If the UN had any balls, it would impose sanctions against the US, Britain and Spain for basically “invading” another sovereign nation.

I read an interesting reader comment in the SMH yesterday: “It’s such a pity we don’t have oil in Zimbabwe, because if we did then maybe a worldwide coalition would be formed to oust a tyrant whose atrocities make Saddam Hussein seem like Santa Claus” – Charlie Brasco, 20/03/03, p 18.

And Zimbabwe’s not just a lone example. It basically adds more weight to the argument that the US is in there with vested interests. And it’s not just oil. It’s also to get a bigger foothold in a politically-unstable region that is openly anti-US and anti-Israel.

Now, to prevent another backlash from another of Stu’s readers, let me just state that I don’t purport to know what all Iraqis want or to even suggest that I have an inkling of what they must be going through. I’m neither pro-Iraqi nor anti-US. I’m not even anti-war. I’ve been in a warzone (Bougainville, PNG) and my father and uncles have fought in a war (Bangladesh, 1971). My father’s family were also refugees in that war, and lost pretty much all their land. I am, however, very much against this war, because I don’t like the idea of pre-emptive strikes. If this was a conventional war with two nations declaring war on each other, and then fighting it out, I may be more inclined to support it. But to strike at another nation without provocation is nothing but an invasion of their sovereignty.

For example, I’d like to see the worldwide reaction if a coalition of nations launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. With their stockpile of nuclear warheads, their weapons of mass destruction (something that their latest MOAB can also be classed as), their long-range missiles, their surveillance and espionage on most sovereign nations, the fact that they’ve invaded or bombed 18 nations since WWII, their defiance of international bodies, and finally their trigger-happy President (I’m sure we wouldn’t be where we are if Clinton or Gore was in power), can the US not be classed as a threat to world peace – a rogue state even?

By the way, I realise this is not a forum for any form of propaganda, for the war or otherwise. The top of the form says “Add a Comment”, so that’s just my two cents worth. And what I’ve written are my opinions, and my opinions alone – emotionally charged as they may be. Feel free to rebutt, comment or rip apart what I’ve just written.

So I apologise Stu, for taking advantage of that nice little “Comments” link underneath your post. Keep up the good work.

By the way, do you make it down to the quad at all lately? I’m usually at uni a few days a week (not studying tho, just bumming around).

28.  nate

You’re an idiot.

I have read the accounts of many Iraqis (Kurds and Shi’a mostly) who welcome the overthrow of Hussein. Your particularist evidence is no more persuasive than mine.

The note about violating sovereignty is rather ironic, since Saddam isn’t exactly the legitimately chosen ruler of Iraq.

Mugabe doesn’t have WMD, k?

As for your puerile and disgusting suggestion that the US be attacked, the possessnion of WMD is not an automatic trigger for invasion (see, for example, India and Pakistan). The possession of WMD by a maniacal and virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic Stalinist is (read http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16110 ; I know you think you know better than Michael Walzer, the preeminent political philosopher of our time, but at the risk of making yourself look like an idiot [perhaps too late], I’d recommend shutting up). I agree that the UN should not have been defied in this case, but now that the war is here, there is little to do but support it. On a strictly utilitarian view, the ends of war are superior to the ends of inaction.

29.  Stu

Mugabe has no WMD, but North Korea certainly does. In fact, North Korea is part of the axis of evil too. Oh wait, they don’t have oil.

I agree Saddam should not be in control of Iraq. I do not agree with, however, the means by which this problem is being solved. Therefore, I do not support the war. Because they are already there, I don’t believe in pulling our troops out, but it doesn’t mean I support the war. Firstly, it was without UN sanction (a sanction which clearly holds no meaning for the supposedly democracy-loving US), and secondly it is highly likely that it violates international law. The US has chosen not to recognise the International Criminal Court (and why so?), so this isn’t a problem for them. It is for Australia however, although we too have reserved the right to ignore a court summons.

The funny thing is, a quick and decisive victory, which seems likely at this point, will sway public opinion towards the positive. How quickly people forget the manner in which the mandate for war was gained (or not gained, as the case was).

30.  nate

Grow up, Stu. The (again, puerile and disguisting) oil insinuation has been thoroughly debunked. It’s obvious that you’re still sucking at the nipple of left-liberal conventional wisdom, so let me enlighten you. This war will cost the United States alone upwards of $100,000,000,000. If oil were the sole impetus for this action, you have to be able to offer a prima facie case for why war would be easier/less costly than simply eliminating the current (more or less) embargo on Iraqi oil, since it would seem to be far cheaper to do the latter.

If you agree that Saddam shouldn’t be in control of Iraq, then how do you propose getting rid of him? Those are the copout words of an Australian pussy who wants to have it both ways. Leaders with as firm a grip on power as Saddam don’t simply vanish into thin air (as 12 years of brutal UN sanctions have made quite clear). Offer a suggestion on how to liberate Iraq short of war (I doubt you can), and I might retain some respect for you.

I rather wish that coercive inspections–that is, augmented by hundreds and enforced with a international armed force–had been tried before war was undertaken. Doing so would have preserved the relevance of the UN with two possible outcomes: (1) Saddam would have grudgingly accepted them (the coerciveness of the inspections would have ensured disarmament anyway) or (2) Saddam would have rejected them or attempted to obstruct them, giving France et al no ground left to stand on. I suspect the latter would have happened, since I doubt a massive violation of Iraqi sovereignty could not be sustained for long with Mr. Hussein in power. War would probably be the end result, then, though in this case it probably would have occurred with UN sanction. But that’s all speculation. The simple fact is that my President, provoked by the intransigence of the French, wound up with the conclusion that the UN was unwilling to enforce its own mandates. That’s his belief, and I am willing to believe that he arrived at it honestly and nobly (the fact that you are not is not really a solid, arguable political position, but an assumption based on your own predispositions against my nation and President. So be it).

So here we stand–about to liberate the Iraqi people from decades of brutal tyranny. A humane and sensible person would be suggesting ways to better achieve the goal, rather than continuing to cry over what amounts to spilled milk. The Iraqi people will be freed. What do you plan to contribute to their future?

31.  Kev

nate – I agree that the die has been cast and that there is little to be gained by arguing over the legality of the whole thing and that we have to look towards the future.

So the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam, but is the world a safer place?

The answer to this question is what worries me.

32.  nate

Kev,

It’s a reasonable question to ask. I’ve written elsewhere that the blow done to the international system by what amounts to a unilateral attack in the long run would have made coercive inspections (conducted within the framework of international law) preferable to invasion. Though the ultimate result would probably have been the same (war), we would have preserved the international system of mutual global security. But perhaps Mr. Bush knew something that I did not (that France, for example, would not support a coercive inspections regime).

In any case, I don’t believe that he desired war. It’s well-known that the neocon hawks in or close to the administration (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, etc) felt regime change was necessary in order to precipitate a liberalizing revolution throughout the largely reactionary, and often nihilistic Middle East. If that works (I’m skeptical, but I’m not exactly an expert), then trashing the international system will most definitely have been worth it (since it can be rebuilt). Perhaps democratizing Iraq alone would be a good enough reason for defying the UN. In any case, that probably explains why Bush ultimately decided to ignore the UN (he felt regime change rather than piecemeal ‘disarmament’ would be necessary, for one reason or another).

I don’t believe it’s productive to speculate about whether the world will be safer as a result of the invasion. Only history will tell. Right now, it is our duty to make sure that the liberation of Iraq goes as smoothly and humanely as possible.

33.  Doz

Where to begin?

“As for your puerile and disgusting suggestion that the US be attacked, the possessnion of WMD is not an automatic trigger for invasion (see, for example, India and Pakistan). The possession of WMD by a maniacal and virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic Stalinist is”

lol. North Korea would fit into that category nicely then. Oh wait- let’s use diplomacy for them.

Also would’ve been interesting how your logic would deal with the 1950s Soviet Union. I’d suppose you’d like a war there, as well.

“I know you think you know better than Michael Walzer”

Appeal to authority fallacy.

“On a strictly utilitarian view, the ends of war are superior to the ends of inaction.”

Declares the person who is NOT in Iraq. The ability of people living in a cushy Western lifestyle to pontificate about how thousands must die for a ‘higher cause’ never ceases to amaze me.

“The (again, puerile and disguisting) oil insinuation has been thoroughly debunked”

Oh? By who? Would this be the same oil interest that saw the democratically elected government in Iran overthrown and replaced with military dictatorship? This was the beginning of the State Deptartments policy for geostrategic control of the Middle East, which it called, and I paraphrase: the greatest prize in history? It’s not about cheap oil. It’s about control of oil.

“If oil were the sole impetus for this action, you have to be able to offer a prima facie case for why war would be easier/less costly than simply eliminating the current (more or less) embargo on Iraqi oil, since it would seem to be far cheaper to do the latter.”

Because cutting a deal with Saddam does not ensure control of oil, only access to it, which can be cut off.

“If you agree that Saddam shouldn’t be in control of Iraq, then how do you propose getting rid of him? Those are the copout words of an Australian pussy who wants to have it both ways”

It has something to do with the cure being worse than the disease. In particular- casualties and much increased threat of terrorism. You do know that Al-Qaeda was created by the US presence in Saudi Arabia?

“Offer a suggestion on how to liberate Iraq short of war (I doubt you can), and I might retain some respect for you.”

You act as if liberating Iraq is the objective. I suppose it will be in a similar situation to Afghanistan’s liberation- you know, the puppet regime in Kabul run by a former Big Oil employee, while the warlords slaughter each other throughout the rest of the country?

“The simple fact is that my President, provoked by the intransigence of the French, wound up with the conclusion that the UN was unwilling to enforce its own mandates.”

I wonder what you attitude is towards Israel defying the UN then. In addition, despite your insinuation, nothing in resolution 1441 says anything about war.

“That’s his belief, and I am willing to believe that he arrived at it honestly and nobly (the fact that you are not is not really a solid, arguable political position, but an assumption based on your own predispositions against my nation and President. So be it).”

The same honesty and nobility that saw them use forged documents, and plagiarized uni student term papers eh, in making their case for war? Let’s all ignore that the inspectors called US ‘intelligence’ absolute garbage, that no WMD were found in Iraq by the inspectors whatsoever, that a RC plane made out of balsa wood and duct tape was made out to be the doomsday machine?

34.  nate

1. North Korea has a nuke with a range that easily encompasses Seoul. There are no military options there. Wars with nuclear powers are insane, as I’ve written.

2. Thanks for the lesson in logic, you dweeb. Except I asked you to read his argument, since I agreed with it, and respond to it.

3. I’m not speaking for the Iraqi people. I’m letting the Iraqi people speak for themselves. (see, for example, http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html ).

4. Oil access would never be cut off. Every state that’s a member of OPEC is opposed to this war, and yet the price of crude continues to drop. In a nation as crippled by sanctions as Iraq, the suggestion that it could somehow afford to keep its oil off the market is ridiculous. Lifting the de facto embargo on oil would almost certainly ensure a steady and cheap flow of oil. In any case, this administration has made abundantly clear that the oil fields will be returned to the Iraqi people/government after the coflict is over (which you probably would have discovered had you read any news stories on the issue in the past month). Assuming permanent control of the fields would cause the biggest international outcry since, well, ever. What a sloppy argument.

5. Casualties are so far minimal and, in any case, the Iraqi people seem so far to welcome the slight risk of death in exchange for their freedom (as the above cited story would seem to suggest).

6. Are you two? Yes, Mr. Karzai is a tool of Exxon. Grow up. Your grip on that sort of accusation (of which no proof can ever be presented) is nothing short of pathological. In any case, if the liberation of Iraq is not followed by a period of occupation in order to ensure the creation of a stable, representative government, then I will complain (as I have done with our role in Afghanistan). The difference with Afghanistan will be that every pundit in our political aristocracy will do exactly the same. I doubt Bush could get away with a half-effort again. And the liberation does seem to be our principal objective, at least rhetorically (as the operation name, “Iraqi Freedom,” suggests).

7. I’ve written that another resolution authorizing coercive inspections and war if those inspections were not accepted as fully as UNMOVIC should have been obtained. It’s obvious (at least to someone with *any* ability in this area) that *I’m* not pretending that 1441 authorized war. President Bush didn’t either (as his pursuit of a second UN resolution explicitly authorizing force shows). France’s refusal to support that second resolution is what drove Bush to the conclusion that France would not enforce a resolution it had helped to craft. What are you getting at here anyway? I’ve written constantly that the attack is technically illegal vis-a-vis international law. Where have I pretended that 1441 authorized war?

8. The “uni student term papers” you refer to was actually just one paper. And it was the work of, I believe, a Ph.D. student doing research in the field, not some 12th grader with a research assignment in some Political Science elective. The State Department has maintained that it did not know that the document you refer to was forged; unless you have any argument (besides one supported by your. again, pathological hatred of the US) why that is untrue, I’m afraid that’s irrelevant. Iraq did have WMD (as. Everyone (even France) acknowledged that. Massive amounts of circumstantial evidence and discrepancies suggest the same (read this from an organization that opposed the war for a thourough account of what we’re reasonably sure that Iraq has: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/webfinalv2.pdf ).

35.  erin

i love how someone owns and runs a website, which is their blog … their opinions. the entire point is opinion

then they voice their opinion and people pick it to pieces.

for goodness sake, stu wrote what he thought and how he felt ON HIS OWN WEBSITE.

if you dont like it, make your own website and have a whinge there. be constructive, not criticising.

36.  Doz

“1. North Korea has a nuke with a range that easily encompasses Seoul. There are no military options there. Wars with nuclear powers are insane, as I’ve written.”

Ah. So your reason for war is: because we can. This really shows up what a threat Saddam is.

“2. Thanks for the lesson in logic, you dweeb. Except I asked you to read his argument, since I agreed with it, and respond to it.”

If you can find anything there worth arguing, present it yourself.

“I’m not speaking for the Iraqi people. I’m letting the Iraqi people speak for themselves. (see, for example snip”

Yes, because it’s always good to base decisions about invasion on news articles from the internet *roll eyes*

“Oil access would never be cut off. Every state that’s a member of OPEC is opposed to this war, and yet the price of crude continues to drop.In a nation as crippled by sanctions as Iraq, the suggestion that it could somehow afford to keep its oil off the market is ridiculous.

Lifting the de facto embargo on oil would almost certainly ensure a steady and cheap flow of oil.

In any case, this administration has made abundantly clear that the oil fields will be returned to the Iraqi people/government after the coflict is over (which you probably would have discovered had you read any news stories on the issue in the past month). Assuming permanent control of the fields would cause the biggest international outcry since, well, ever. What a sloppy argument.”

Why don’t you respond to what I said, instead of what you think I said. Of course the oil fields will be given ‘to the Iraqi people’. People meaning the government, who will open up all their oil to nice fat US contracts. Any attempt to enrich the Iraqi people like say, Mossadeq did in the 1950s, will be met with another quick coup like the one that installed the Shah (which then led to the birth of an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in Iran- brilliant). I repeat: it’s got little to do with cheap oil. The world is swimming in the stuff, now, anyway. It’s about CONTROL of the most important natural resource on the planet. If you can’t recognize the advantages that having a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves under your own control, or the control of your allies, and must insist on perverting the issue to ‘cheap oil’, then you’ve got your head in the sand.

“Casualties are so far minimal and, in any case, the Iraqi people seem so far to welcome the slight risk of death in exchange for their freedom (as the above cited story would seem to suggest).”

Oh certainly, after all, when you have an article from the Telegraph, who needs common sense like “please don’t bomb me?”

“Are you two? Yes, Mr. Karzai is a tool of Exxon. Grow up. Your grip on that sort of accusation (of which no proof can ever be presented) is nothing short of pathological.”

Strawman. Where did I say he was a tool of Exxon? Furhtermore, I suggest you read his resume.

“In any case, if the liberation of Iraq is not followed by a period of occupation in order to ensure the creation of a stable, representative government, then I will complain (as I have done with our role in Afghanistan).”

Sure it’ll be occupied. They might even create a mock parliament. And then, later when the skeleton falls to pieces, some other tinpot scumbag will take control of Iraq, just like the US supported Saddam in teh 1980s, and just like it supports other dictators (with WMD, no less) now (see: Pakistan).

“The difference with Afghanistan will be that every pundit in our political aristocracy will do exactly the same. I doubt Bush could get away with a half-effort again. And the liberation does seem to be our principal objective, at least rhetorically (as the operation name, “Iraqi Freedom,” suggests).”

Who cares about rhetoric? There’s no reason to assume that the situation will be any different this time.

“Where have I pretended that 1441 authorized war?”

I quote: “The simple fact is that my President, provoked by the intransigence of the French, wound up with the conclusion that the UN was unwilling to enforce its own mandates.”

I was simply pointing out that there was no UN mandate for war.

“The “uni student term papers” you refer to was actually just one paper.”

Which made up a large portion of the British dossier that Powell brandished at the UN.

“And it was the work of, I believe, a Ph.D. student doing research in the field, not some 12th grader with a research assignment in some Political Science elective.”

He protested against the use of his work, and furthermore, Powell lied to the UN by representing it as ‘the latest intelligence’. In addition, it was totally unreferenced (i.e. plagiarism) and had various words changed to make the Iraqis look more sinister. Furthermore, it was 6 years old, and on a totally different topic.

“The State Department has maintained that it did not know that the document you refer to was forged; unless you have any argument (besides one supported by your. again, pathological hatred of the US)

Pathological hatred of the US? Naturally- any anti-war sentiment must be borne of a deep-seated hatred of all things American. I think you’re projecting your jingoism onto me actually.

“I’m afraid that’s irrelevant”

Irrelevant to what? I wonder who would forge such documents? *roll eyes*

“Iraq did have WMD (as. Everyone (even France) acknowledged that.”

Noone denies that Iraq *had* WMD. What was at issue was whether they still had any.

“Massive amounts of circumstantial evidence and discrepancies suggest the same (read this from an organization that opposed the war for a thourough account of what we’re reasonably sure that Iraq has:”

Another irrelevant link. The inspectors had full access to anywhere they wished to go, where conducting private interviews, had secured the dismantling of the Al-Samouds (over half destroyed before the war began- up to the very last day of peace), and had furthermore decried American ‘intelligence’ as “garbage”, and vigorously rebutted Powell’s embarassing UN address (also done by the press actually). It’s obvious that disarmament was proceeding, and furthermore, any rush to war on this basis is entirely unjustified. Iraq was being disamred, whether they wanted to be or not.

37.  nate

1. Putting words in my mouth–the strategy of a beached whale gasping for air. War, of course, should only be undertaken when necessary. I must have written half a dozen times that I think diplomacy should have been pursued further in this case. So I conclude that you must be an idiot.

2. Wow, childish. Too lazy to click on the link, young one? Here you go then:

“There are two ways of opposing a war with Iraq. The first way is simple and wrong; the second way is right but difficult.

“The first way is to deny that the Iraqi regime is particularly ugly, that it lies somewhere outside the range of ordinary states, or to argue that, however ugly it is, it doesn’t pose any significant threat to its neighbors or to world peace. Perhaps, despite Saddam’s denials, his government is in fact seek-ing to acquire nuclear weapons. But other governments are doing the same thing, and if or when Iraq succeeds in developing such weapons—so the argument continues—we can deal with that through conventional deterrence, in exactly the same way that the US and the Soviet Union dealt with each other in the cold war years.

“Obviously, if this argument is right, there is no reason to attack Iraq. Nor is there any reason for a strong inspection system, or for the current embargo, or for the northern and southern “no-fly” zones. Some of the most vocal organizers of the antiwar movement, here and in Europe, seem to have adopted exactly this position. It has been overrepresented among speakers at the big demonstrations against the war. Most of the demonstrators, I believe, don’t hold this first view; nor is it held by the wider constituency of actual and potential opponents of Bush’s foreign policy. But we have to recognize a constant temptation of antiwar politics: to pretend that there really isn’t a serious enemy out there.

“This pretense certainly keeps things simple, but it is wrong in every possible way. The tyranny and brutality of the Iraqi regime are widely known and cannot be covered up. Its use of chemical weapons in the recent past; the recklessness of its invasions of Iran and Kuwait; the rhetoric of threat and violence that is now standard in Baghdad; the record of the 1990s, when UN inspectors were systematically obstructed; the cruel repression of the uprisings that followed the Gulf War of 1991; the torture and murder of political opponents—how can all this be ignored by a serious political movement?

“Nor should anyone be comfortable with the idea of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons and then deterred from using them. Not only is it unclear that deterrence will work with a regime like Saddam’s, but the emerging system of deterrence will be highly unstable. For it won’t only involve the US and Iraq; it will also involve Israel and Iraq. If Iraq is permitted to build nuclear weapons, Israel will have to acquire what it doesn’t have at the present time: second-strike capacity. And then there will be Israeli ships in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean equipped with nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. This may be “conventional” deterrence, but it is insane to look forward to it.”

So there you go. The liberal case for doing something (though not necessarily for going to war; Walzer is an advocate of a form of the coercive inspections I’ve referenced many times above).

The man is, as I suggested above, outside the normal realm of normative evaluation. To assume that conventional strategies alone (deterrence) can deal with the Iraqi threat is to miss the point entirely. Don’t you agree with that? It’s a pretty basic point (and not necessarily a case for war, as Walzer’s progression to an argument for robust containment shows).

4. Here’s what you’re saing: control is what is important, but money is not. Sorry, but to assume a fetish for domination beats out profits is a bit laughable. And what do you mean by ‘control’? Do you think U.S. companies will get a monopoly on access to it? That obviously wouldn’t fly (anyone who could do arithmetic could spot the connection). Do you think the Iraqi administration installed to control the oil will be puppets of American commercial or political leaders? If so, how would this work? How could meaningful control be exerted over a sovereign nation’s most valuable natural resource? This implausibility of this all makes it seem like an elaborate house of cards assembled simply to satisfy a pathology. There’s absolutely no evidence for it. In fact, isn’t it more likely that Wolfowitz et al (whose interest in Iraq is ideological, not economic) have played a large role in shaping the President’s policy? This seems like the most plausible explanation for the emphasis on Iraq (for it is seen as the first domino in a subsequent democratization of a region badly in need of liberalism–the Middle East).

4. I’ve read several bios of Karzai and can’t find the connection you’ve been hinting at. How about you, as you might say, “present it yourself?”

5. The prominence of Wolfowitz, Kristol, and Perle in the administration indicates for me that the U.S. won’t allow that to happen in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Afghanistan. And Musharraf isn’t exactly on the same moral level as Hussein or Kim Jong Il. To create a moral equivalence between him and Hussein (as you have done) is, well, simplistic and childish.

6. Like I’ve said, you need only to read one or two of the more salient conservative weeklies to realize that the neocon right in this nation will not accept anything short of a functioning, representative democracy. They play a larger role in shaping policy than you might believe.

7. Point taken about the heavy reliance of Powell’s presentation on the paper. But why did you say there was more than one paper? Didn’t think I’d catch you on it?

8. Cite some sources for those accusations about the paper, please. As far as I know, the British government, plagiarized or not, stands by its accuracy still. In any case, the CEIP report I cited (which you obviously didn’t read) makes the case for Iraqi obstruction particularly well.

9. I’m no jingo or warmonger (though you continue to insinuate otherwise). I wrote a long essay not a week ago on why the U.S. was morally obligated to pursue coercive inspections before it undertook a unilateral war. I call your ‘arguments’ about the insidiousness of the American leadership a pathology because they are unsupported by evidence and assume a morally simplistic (i.e. there is evil in the world, and it is in the Bush administration) view of foreign policy. All indications are that this is the most religious and Messianic president since Jimmy Carter, yet you impugn to him motives that, if true, would make him one of the most sinister characters in all history. It’s a mark of your own political chauvinism that you’re willing to believe these things in the absence of any real evidence.

10. Iraq still does have WMD. The CEIP report I linked makes the case at great length. Sadly, you were too lazy to click the link again. I provided a short summary of its contents above, but it’s so long and heavy on hard statistics that it’s cumbersome to cite at any length here. Please be informed in the future; it’s frustrating to debate with someone who gets all his news from indymedia.

11. While it is true that inspectors were not obstructed in access, the Iraqi government resisted unsupervised interviews. When they finally were granted, it became obvious that the interviewees had been so thoroughly threatened by Hussein’s goons that the hope of gleaning any meaningful intelligence from them was minimal. It’s obvious that disarmament was proceeding? I hardly think so. Something more (coercive inspections) was needed. Sadly, they weren’t pursued. But again, here we stand–about to free the Iraqi people from a tyrannous rule. Things could be worse.

38.  nate

And, on what I hope is a parting note, you are obviously far more informed than is Stu. Having an argument with you is actually worth it once in a while. Stu’s positions are so facile, yet presented with such pomp, that it’s difficult not to laugh when addressing them.

And Erin: you’re an idiot.

39.  Stu

I do agree, Doz is more informed than me. The problem is, he also seems to be more informed than you. Perhaps you’re too preoccupied with delivering infantile, inane gibes than noticing that he hasn’t been arguing anything different to what I’ve been saying (albeit in more depth).

40.  nate

He’s more informed than me? That must be why I’m still writing cogent defenses of my initial arguments.

I respect Doz for being able to defend his opinions, though I don’t respect those opinions themselves. You have opinions that aren’t really based on any good reason. Remember the fundamental tenet of epistemology: knowledge is justified, true belief.

Which leaves me at a loss as to why you actually believe the things you do…

41.  nate

Oh, one more question for Doz. Assuming that Iraq does have WMD (for whose existence the CEIP report argues at length), it would follow that the UNMOVIC regime was being successfully obstructed by Iraq (the destruction of the al-Samoud II’s, while nice, wasn’t exactly practically meaningful). So either more ‘actionable’ intelligence or a different, better equipped inspections regime was required. The lack of hard intelligence about where Iraq had hidden its WMD became in the last few weeks before war. So it seems that something new *had* to be tried (the coercive inspections to which I had referred). Assuming France et al had accepted coercive inspectitons, do you think that Iraq would have accepted the massive violations of sovereignty required by such a regime (the extension of the no-fly zones to cover the entire country, the continuous presence of a strong, foreign armed presence, etc.)? I doubt it (do you disagree?). What, then, would our options have been? Essentially a return to the neutered UNMOVIC inspections (unacceptable) or war. It seems that our hand would have been forced to war no matter what.

42.  Stu

I believe the things I do for the same reasons that Doz is putting forward. They are not gut reactions plucked from thin air. I am in agreement with Doz the only difference being that he has spent more time justifying them more thoroughly than I have (even though the original post that sparked off this thread was never meant to be a decisive argument against US action, more a reminder – I don’t know how this sidetracked so much).

43.  erin

“And Erin: you’re an idiot”

actually im a highly intelligent person who is opininated.

but i dont care what you think of me. you are clearly misinformed about a number of issues and when you start personal attacks on people you dont know, i guess all that says to most people is that YOU are the idiot, and i am not.

please dont respond by attacking me again. you dont know me. so shut the fuck up (in general. just stop fighting).

44.  Doz

“1. Putting words in my mouth–the strategy of a beached whale gasping for air.”

*sigh* Interesting metaphor :)

“War, of course, should only be undertaken when necessary. I must have written half a dozen times that I think diplomacy should have been pursued further in this case. So I conclude that you must be an idiot.”

Or, I just don’t read everything you’ve ever wrote.

2: Let’s go straight to his conclusions:

“Not only is it unclear that deterrence will work with a regime like Saddam’s”

BS. He provides no reasoning for why it shouldn’t.

“emerging system of deterrence will be highly unstable”

The system of deterrence of the Soviet Union involved not only the USA and USSR but France and the UK. This guy doesn’t impress me.

“”it will also involve Israel and Iraq”

Big shit. Israel can well take care of itself, with it’s 200 nukes. Common pro-war fallacy of acting as if Israel is the 51st state of the union. Without arguing for why deterrence won’t work, his argument is empty.

“And then there will be Israeli ships in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean equipped with nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. This may be “conventional” deterrence, but it is insane to look forward to it.”

Strawman. Who ever said they look forward to deterrence? Despite pre-emptive war, deterrence is known to work, and will not result in organized murder, the deaths of innocent civilians and soldiers, and the creation of a new generation of terrorists.

“To assume that conventional strategies alone (deterrence) can deal with the Iraqi threat is to miss the point entirely. Don’t you agree with that? It’s a pretty basic point (and not necessarily a case for war, as Walzer’s progression to an argument for robust containment shows).”

Miss the point? What is the point?

“Here’s what you’re saing: control is what is important, but money is not. Sorry, but to assume a fetish for domination beats out profits is a bit laughable.”

You’ve got to be *kidding*. You just called almost the entire history of the Earth’s wars to a fetish. Few wars have been fought for anything BUT control of scarce resources- be it dirt, oil, whatever.

“And what do you mean by ‘control’? Do you think U.S. companies will get a monopoly on access to it? That obviously wouldn’t fly (anyone who could do arithmetic could spot the connection).Do you think the Iraqi administration installed to control the oil will be puppets of American commercial or political leaders? If so, how would this work?”

It worked in Iran right up to the fall of the Shah, and it was the reason for why Mossadeq was deposed in the first place- he tried to nationalize British oil interests.

“How could meaningful control be exerted over a sovereign nation’s most valuable natural resource?”

See: Iran.

“This implausibility of this all makes it seem like an elaborate house of cards assembled simply to satisfy a pathology. There’s absolutely no evidence for it.”

See Iran.

“In fact, isn’t it more likely that Wolfowitz et al (whose interest in Iraq is ideological, not economic) have played a large role in shaping the President’s policy? This seems like the most plausible explanation for the emphasis on Iraq (for it is seen as the first domino in a subsequent democratization of a region badly in need of liberalism–the Middle East).”

You are correct, they have: see the Project for the New American Century. Regardless, your emphasis on profits and short term economic well-being while ignoring the history of the world is narrow-minded. Control of resources is basic geopolitics- this isn’t controversial stuff.

“I’ve read several bios of Karzai and can’t find the connection you’ve been hinting at. How about you, as you might say, “present it yourself?”

One word: Unocal.

“The prominence of Wolfowitz, Kristol, and Perle in the administration indicates for me that the U.S. won’t allow that to happen in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Afghanistan. And Musharraf isn’t exactly on the same moral level as Hussein or Kim Jong Il. To create a moral equivalence between him and Hussein (as you have done) is, well, simplistic and childish.”

How so? Musharaf came to power in a coup and rules Pakistan undemocratically. He has nuclear weapons. He supports terrorism against India. He gives Islamic fundies a free-hand in his country, permitting them to persecute other religions. I don’t see what makes him so much better.

“Like I’ve said, you need only to read one or two of the more salient conservative weeklies to realize that the neocon right in this nation will not accept anything short of a functioning, representative democracy. They play a larger role in shaping policy than you might believe.”

I do know something of the neocons. Regardless, Afghanistan is a joke and they were all talking about how important it was to turn that place into a democracy as well. No such luck. Iraq has at least three factions that will jockey for position in a new regime. The prospects for democracy are dim.

” Point taken about the heavy reliance of Powell’s presentation on the paper. But why did you say there was more than one paper? Didn’t think I’d catch you on it?”

Hardly an intentional attempt at dishonesty- unlike Powell’s misrepresentation.

“Cite some sources for those accusations about the paper, please. As far as I know, the British government, plagiarized or not, stands by its accuracy still. In any case, the CEIP report I cited (which you obviously didn’t read) makes the case for Iraqi obstruction particularly well.”

A simple google search will tell you what you want to know- suffice to say the story was broken by a UK TV channel.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/06_dossier_sample.html

“I’m no jingo or warmonger (though you continue to insinuate otherwise).”

Pot. Kettle. Black. You flat out called me a pathological america hater.

“I call your ‘arguments’ about the insidiousness of the American leadership a pathology because they are unsupported by evidence and assume a morally simplistic (i.e. there is evil in the world, and it is in the Bush administration) view of foreign policy. All indications are that this is the most religious and Messianic president since Jimmy Carter, yet you impugn to him motives that, if true, would make him one of the most sinister characters in all history. It’s a mark of your own political chauvinism that you’re willing to believe these things in the absence of any real evidence.”

Absence of any real evidence? What evidence have you brought to the table? The US case for war has been conducted in a deplorable fashion. Plagiarism, lying about aluminum tubes, relying on forged documents, misrepresenting evidence from the inspectors. His ‘messianic’ and ‘religious’ nature don’t enter into it- and quite frankly I find religion to be utterly irrelevant. Religion does not equal morality.

“Iraq still does have WMD. The CEIP report I linked makes the case at great length. Sadly, you were too lazy to click the link again. I provided a short summary of its contents above, but it’s so long and heavy on hard statistics that it’s cumbersome to cite at any length here. Please be informed in the future; it’s frustrating to debate with someone who gets all his news from indymedia.”

Indymedia? If you cared to ask me for what my position was before you attack me, you would know I care little whether Iraq does, or does not, have WMD, as not a single cogent argument has been presented as to why Iraq would use these in terrorist attacks against the United States, and the intelligence community (specifically, the CIA) has denied it. The fact that the US failed to make the case to the international community using its own curious benchmarks is amusing to me, nothing more.

“While it is true that inspectors were not obstructed in access, the Iraqi government resisted unsupervised interviews. When they finally were granted, it became obvious that the interviewees had been so thoroughly threatened by Hussein’s goons that the hope of gleaning any meaningful intelligence from them was minimal.”

Source?

“It’s obvious that disarmament was proceeding? I hardly think so.”

Of course it was proceeding. What’s at issue is that the US was not satisfied with it. Considering that they were dragged kicking and screaming to the UN by Powell in the first place, this does not surprise me.

“Something more (coercive inspections) was needed.”

I supported such measures. Keeping a state from acquiring WMD is desireable, but by no means essential.

“Sadly, they weren’t pursued. But again, here we stand–about to free the Iraqi people from a tyrannous rule. Things could be worse.”

Of course I hope that the war goes off without a hitch, that the Iraqis get freedom and democracy, and that Iraq becomes a centre of enlightenment in all the Middle East. I don’t think that will happen.

45.  Doz

“Oh, one more question for Doz. Assuming that Iraq does have WMD (for whose existence the CEIP report argues at length), it would follow that the UNMOVIC regime was being successfully obstructed by Iraq (the destruction of the al-Samoud II’s, while nice, wasn’t exactly practically meaningful). So either more ‘actionable’ intelligence or a different, better equipped inspections regime was required. The lack of hard intelligence about where Iraq had hidden its WMD became in the last few weeks before war. So it seems that something new *had* to be tried (the coercive inspections to which I had referred). Assuming France et al had accepted coercive inspectitons, do you think that Iraq would have accepted the massive violations of sovereignty required by such a regime (the extension of the no-fly zones to cover the entire country, the continuous presence of a strong, foreign armed presence, etc.)? I doubt it (do you disagree?). What, then, would our options have been? Essentially a return to the neutered UNMOVIC inspections (unacceptable) or war. It seems that our hand would have been forced to war no matter what.”

If it had been an international force bereft of Americans and British, I’d say it was at least possible, if not probable. Regardles, though coercive inspections would’ve been desireable, if not essential (IMO), there is little doubt that Iraq was contained, and of no threat to anyone.

46.  nate

This one’s getting too bloated for its own good.

So you can have the last word.

Except for this: Erin’s still an idiot.

47.  Tuggles

There are three sides to the war:

1. Pro-war: Iraq is responsible for every act of terrorism since the word was invented.

2. Anti-war: Saddam is a luser but so is Bushy.

3. The Truth: All the pro-war advocates watch too much Fox News.

Woof Woof.. The Dog has spoken.

48.  nate

Oh, I should add that I agree that while weapons inspectors were present, Hussein was contained (that is, prevented from contructing a nuclear weapon, which would require a massive and visible infrastructure). But I’m not so sure he was deterred. Sure, he’s shown himself to be rational in the past (not using WMD during the first Gulf War, for example). Yet at other times, he’s done things so obviously nutty (attempting to assassinate the former American President Bush, for example) that it makes his rationality seem suspect. And, of course, the rationality of a leader is a central requirement for effective deterrence. What are your indications that Saddam wouldn’t think, say, that he could pass some chem/bio weapons under the table to al-Qaeda or Hezbollah and escape detection?

49.  nate

(Tuggles is an idiot too.)

50.  Cimexus

My God, what an argument. Similar to some of the ones I’ve had with various people at uni.

In Australia at least recent polls seem to be showing approximately a 50/50 split in the population supportive of and against war. I imagine the US is more pro-war than this, and Europe more anti-war. As usual with Australia, we are somewhere in between the US and Europe :)

I have to admit that I am fairly firmly on nate’s side in this one (I’m Australian though). I agree with everything he’s said. War of course is something to be avoided if at all possible, but let’s face it – it was ALWAYS going to be the eventual outcome of this saga. It’s not like another few weeks/months/years of diplomacy would have resulted in Saddam changing his mind and fully disarming. Might as well get it over and done with now.

BUT I’ve learned that it’s absolutely pointless trying to argue about this topic. It just brings a stream of hate from the opposing side. People on either side of the debate aren’t actually going to ever be converted. I think we all know and agree upon the pros and cons of both sides of the debate by now. But people’s opinions differ on which of them outweighs the other. I’m resigned to just respect that people have different opinions, without trying to pointlessly justify my own.

You cannot preach to a made-up mind. So how about we all just agree to disagree on this one, eh ;)

– – – – –

PS: Stu, your original post was nicely written and it make me stop and reflect upon how we talk and think about the war from our comfortable perspective, half a world away. It didn’t seem to me as if you were actually making an argument – like you say – just a reminder. Wasn’t interpreted that way by some people, indicates how strong the feelings are on both sides of the issue.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.