By the way, take a look at all the links above (I have the nagging feeling that you didn’t even bother) and see if you can’t be persuaded about the threat of Iraq.

And, I should add, on the tautology issue, Christopher Hitchens’s piece is particularly persuasive (let’s just say you disagree with Hitch at your own peril!)

Another wonferdul Hitchens piece has come to my attention. An excerpt:

“There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed ‘regime change’ in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate–at the urging of Bill Clinton–passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam’s dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on the evidence for this; at the moment I’ll just say that it’s extremely rash for anybody to discount the evidence that we already possess. (And I shall add that any ‘peace movement’ that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites… just you wait.)

“None of these things on their own need necessarily make a case for an intervention, but taken together–and taken with the permanent threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the oilfields of the region–they add up fairly convincingly. Have you, or your friends, recently employed the slogan ‘No War for Oil?’ If so, did you listen to what you were saying? Do you mean that oil isn’t worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren’t worth protecting? Do you recall that Saddam Hussein ignited the oilfields of Kuwait when he was in retreat, and flooded the local waterways with fire and pollution? (Should I patronize the potluckistas, and ask them to look up the pictures of poisoned birds and marine animals from that year?) Are you indifferent to the possibility that such a man might be able to irradiate the oilfields next time? OF COURSE it’s about oil, stupid.

“To say that he might also do all these terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the point. Last time he did this, or massacred the Iraqi and Kurdish populations, he was withdrawing his forces under an international guarantee. The Iraqi and Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be rid of him. And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer, not just from our point of view but from the points of view of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples. The sanctions policy, which was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would only have allowed Saddam’s oligarchy to re-equip. But once imposed, it was immoral and punitive without the objective of regime change. Choose. By the way, and while we are choosing, if you really don’t want war, you should call for the lifting of the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. These have been war measures since 1991.”

Read the rest: http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature2.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/poll1/vote/total.htm

I think this sums up Australia’s stance nicely

(for those who don’t bother to follow links it’s a poll, “Do you believe there is a case for war against Iraq?”, yes – 12%, no – 88% at time of writing, 16258 votes counted)

I also heard somewhere (radio I think) that some poll showed 97% against Australian support in a war without UN backing. Although I don’t have a reference for that, so I don’t know how accurate/biased/correctly remembered it is. :) (That’s my disclaimer. No messages about unsupported statistics please. I know, I know, I’ll pay more attention next time.)

http://www.theonion.com/onion3901/bush_on_north_korea.html

I think that answers most issues that have been raised here

you all wrote a lot and i can’t be bothered to read all the posts because theres a lot of rubbish (and you can pay me out for saying that, i don’t care).

all i know is that the usa doesn’t require a war to bomb a nation. they’ve been bombing iraq since 1991. and lets not forget who installed saddam hussien AND gave him weapons of mass destruction (primarily to use against iran). so i think the question about australia’s involvement in such activities is more important than whether the usa will bomb iraq … the usa WILL bomb iraq and has been for more than a decade.

It is widely recognised that what the USA has committed in iraq up to date is genocide, not to mention the atrocities that have occurred in vietnam, cambodia, korea, somalia, and a multitude of central american nations. it is also the only nation recognised by the world court as committing genocide.

and lets not forget the ONLY nation to EVER use WMD against another nation … is the USA.

why would anyone listen to the nonsensical lies espoused by one of the least intelligent leaders on this planet?

BBBD: Continuing on the analogy line, if you destroyed it or threw it away, it still would be very hard to prove you did that (especially if you were never meant to have the gun in the first place! Why would you preserve anything that would link you to a prohibited item?) Analogising may not capture all the nuances of a situation, but in many cases it serves to condense the main facts of a situation to what’s important.

>>> “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.”

This is not a problem at all, because the primary aim of discussions like this is not really to change someone’s mind – it’s nearly impossible unless someone was undecided coming into the debate in the first place – but rather to promote discussion. I, for one, have finally heard the views of a non-government American citizen on the issue. If not online, where would you get such an opinion (except from the media). I say “nearly” impossible because some people have open minds that aren’t too one-tracked by pride. I know that I initially supported Howard’s stance on the Tampa refugee incident. However, after much debate and argument with friends – exhausting, although not necessarily conceding, most lines of argument – I re-evaluated and did a 180 with regards to my views.

>>> “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.”

We bitch and whine about the US, and much of it is justified. The democratic ideals of the Western world would be somewhat lacking if there wasn’t this opposing dialog. Then again, the world community knows what the US thinks about everyone else’s opinions. The US is the only “true” superpower in the world at present. (Although I think I heard from Doz that a world with two superpowers is more “stable” than one with a single one, but this was a cursory reference I know nothing more about.)

“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?”

Rhetoric about hiding stuff in a closet aside, it is not easy to have a chemical or biological weapons capability. If they exist in Iraq, they will be found. You cannot have a viable WMD infrastructure and simply hide it.

“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.”

Here we go, the ‘we’ll compromise our intelligence’ claim. For one thing, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. Three words: Gulf of Tonkin. Show the people the proof. As to compromising intelligence, I find this argument idiotic. If the evidence is solid, then you can go to war on its basis. If you can go to war, what more need of these spies (which is what they obviously mean) do you have? Your objective is accomplished.

“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’.”

Saddam had WMD since the 1980s. He never attacked Israel then. Why should he attack it now? It’s paranoia. He also didn’t use his existing WMD when the most awesome military force seen since WW2 was assembled on his doorstep.

“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.”

Strawman. I never said he was acquiring them for looks. As I said before, *if* he’s acquiring them, then it’s for deterrence. If it is for deterrence, then he can be engaged/contained. Just like the USSR. All without a titanic destabilizing war.

“By the way, take a look at all the links above (I have the nagging feeling that you didn’t even bother) and see if you can’t be persuaded about the threat of Iraq.”

If you can find cogent arguments within them, post them.

As for Christopher Hitchens, I am not interested in a fallacious appeal to authority. He makes scattergun claims (Iraq is supporting terror) without any proof, of course- standard pro-war modus operandi, blows hard about some ludicrous ‘permanent threat to the oil fields’ as a bait-and-switch over the far more likely issue of Iraq’s huge, virtually untouched for the past 10 years oil reserves, and to top it all off, launches into a hypocritical tirade about the Kurds- when the US was helping Iraq’s war against Iran and Kurdish insurrectionists (they *do* want to carve out Kurdistan out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey) and still turns a blind eye to Turkey’s war crimes on the Kurds. The appeal to humanitarian motive is quite frankly disgusting in its cynicism- especially considering how many people will die in a war, and the effects after:

– who will hold Iraq together? What is to stop the three major groups (Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds, IIRC) from going ape shit and destabilizing the entire region?

– how are you going to deal with the next generation of terrorists that this war will create?

Erin’s comment makes me want to vomit.

I’m sorry, but this thread isn’t worth the effort anymore.

(not written in a holier-than-thou sense, by the way. I think I’ve made all the points I needed to. Erin’s comment maybe makes me see how futile the whole effort is.)

But on a parting note… :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=93181

I guess I have the last laugh

Holy shit, this makes me look silly, but come on:

“Strawman. I never said he was acquiring them for looks. As I said before, *if* he’s acquiring them, then it’s for deterrence. If it is for deterrence, then he can be engaged/contained. Just like the USSR. All without a titanic destabilizing war.”

Oh, right. The possibility of another North Korea is nothing at all to worry about. How anyone with as good a base of knowledge as you can make such a self-evidently silly statement is something that will puzzle me for weeks to come.

Have fun guys!

On the one hand (in Doz’s favour), I think we can agree that if Saddam gets a nuke for his birthday, he’s not going to want to try it out as soon as he unwraps it. Even he understands that the consequences of a nuclear attack are that the US will blast an Iraq-shaped hole in the ground before you can say “did you hear that bang”. It’s only the fear of retaliation – on all sides – that has kept the world out of holocaust for the last 60 years. (Sidepoint – of the thousands of nukes assembled since the 40s, which is the only country *ever* to have dared to use one in war? Hmmm.)

But on the other hand (in nate’s favour), none of this means we should sit back and wait for Iraq to develop/acquire them. Even if a nuclear threat is just a deterrent, it’s a deterrent for a *very* good reason. If nate’s Telegraph link above is accurate (and the only reason I have to believe it isn’t is a mild general distrust of the media), maybe war is the only option. And I don’t like saying that.

nate – this is simply a question, and not a dig at you:

Have you travelled around the world much?

Academic analysis aside, you may be surprised to encounter similar views to Erin’s in just about every country in the world. Why do you think Canadians always sew their flag on their bags and caps?

“But on a parting note… :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=93181

I guess I have the last laugh”

Another red herring to the debate. I grow tired of your idiocy. You DO know what this debate was about, don’t you? Please find where I definitely said that Iraq DOESN’T have WMD, because that’s the only way you could ‘have the last laugh’. Unlike you, I’m waiting for the evidence.

“Oh, right. The possibility of another North Korea is nothing at all to worry about. How anyone with as good a base of knowledge as you can make such a self-evidently silly statement is something that will puzzle me for weeks to come.

Have fun guys!”

North Korea doesn’t frighten me. Unlike you, I am not burdended by paranoid estimates of this starving shitholes ability to make war. Look at the USSR’s capability and get back to me, you ignoramus.

“I guess I have the last laugh”

I should also point out that the link doesn’t help your case in the slightest- if you didn’t notice- this is the inspector’s finding proof of a positive, and as I said before, is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether “no evidence” is in fact “evidence.”

that was mean :(

i was just poking some fun. nothing was meant to be self-righteous or anything.

there’s nothing paranoid about my estimation of north korea. they’re blackmailing the three regional powers as well as america as we speak. what a lovely state of affairs.

i guess this shows you have tangents of your own. bye!

“there’s nothing paranoid about my estimation of north korea. they’re blackmailing the three regional powers as well as america as we speak. what a lovely state of affairs.”

Of course, you would prefer a nice bloody war in the mountains of Korea to set things straight, rather than a peaceful resolution to affairs and continuing aid to North Korea to make sure the population doesn’t drop dead of starvation?

“i guess this shows you have tangents of your own. bye!”

right …

Interesting article nate.. (“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=93181”)…

I’d like to know:

1) Were the plans written in English?

2) If I were to search for these plans on Google, do you think I could find them in under an hour, or would it take slightly more?

It’s no secret how to make a nuclear bomb. The catch is securing weapons grade uranium or plutonium, which is difficult to do since all production of said substances in the world is (in theory) strictly controlled. It’s also a very expensive process with enormous fixed costs, so really only governments, and reasonably wealthy ones at that, can afford to do this.

Still, I guess if you’re going to invade *anyway*, planting some plans in some people’s houses (they were there under “Saddam’s personal orders” – I’d like to see the Herald prove that..) gives you a good pretext.

Thanks heaps for posting this article, it really does demonstrate a lot… although I suspect not the things you intended ;P

To clarify, the “expensive” process I was referring to above is enriching raw uranium to make weapons grade stuff.

Wow, I look away and this blows out to be one of the biggest comments threads I’ve ever seen on a blog. I bet Stu is giggling about the amount of hits this has generated :)

Just one quick reply and then I’m going to leave it, since I don’t think anyone’s opinions are going to be altered from any of this:

“Who exactly is the US beating ‘the shit out of’ by the way, Fuzzy?”

You do realise that the US has continued bombing parts of Iraq for the last 10 years? There’s many examples of the US stepping into disputes around the middle east, chosing a side and arming them to the teeth. Hell that’s exactly how Sadam was created in the first place, because the US supported him against Iran.

i think this thread fell apart the minute nate arrived – although his sense of patriotism is unrivalled in these comments, he has proven himself to be an ignoramus.

what do you expect from someone whose main sources of information is the mainstream press? do you think the mainstream press aren’t paid for certain opinions? have you been living under a rock if you do think the news is uncensored and the truth?

you can insult me all you want for saying what i say and believing what i believe, but i’ll never agree with you nate, and never think you are anything more than a drone, like about 95% of americans.

i realise this is personal, but it wasn’t until the only way nate could attack my comments was by suggesting that they made him “want to vomit”

well i hope these do too. when you get drafted maybe the war which is futile and wrong will make you want to vomit instead of a person telling their opinion.

How come its acceptable for people like erin to be racist against the American people calling 95% of them drones yet if I said 95% of asians are shifty, money hungry cat eaters there would be an uproar?

It’s acceptable because calling 95% of Americans drones is not racist. Americans are not a race, but a nation. You’re not judging them by their physical attributes, but rather their national affiliation. It’s like saying Australians are bigots – it’s still a misinformed generalisation, but it’s not racist.

” You do realise that the US has continued bombing parts of Iraq for the last 10 years? There’s many examples of the US stepping into disputes around the middle east, chosing a side and arming them to the teeth. Hell that’s exactly how Sadam was created in the first place, because the US supported him against Iran.”

These “bombings” are nothing compared to a real war. They were just there to create the illusion of an enemy for the US… they’d occasionally blow up a factory, and Saddam would take pot shots at their bombers, and occasionally (by prearrangement) shoot down an unmanned spy plane. Don’t confuse this with actual war, compared to which all previous bombings of Iraq by the US will be of water pistol proportions.

There are a heap of points here.

But regardless of if you are an opponent or proponent of Dubya’s plans…

If you did want any Nation on your side, it’d have to be the Yanks.

I shudder to think of the arsenal they hold.

Thats a neutral comment, don’t flame me.

“nate – this is simply a question, and not a dig at you:

Have you travelled around the world much?

Academic analysis aside, you may be surprised to encounter similar views to Erin’s in just about every country in the world. Why do you think Canadians always sew their flag on their bags and caps?”

That ones easy…

So people know that they aren’t American and don’t rob/abduct/just plain kill them as often.

Hell, when I was in Hiroshima I wouldn’t get served in stores until I made it clear I was Australian, not American.