Did Powell's presentation convince you?

[uh Clem]

There are only two valid cases for a war on Iraq right now, which is what we are all discussing:
1) the moral case, which would back war with Iraq at any time.
2) the Iraq as an experimental test case for the new national security policy of this admin. a policy that has been in the works in the minds of men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Armitage since 1992.
Any arguments about WMD are a smokescreen to obscure the fact that argument #2 is the real reason for this war.

Ooohhh, I like it! well said, GePap.

BTW, it appears that Mr Blair's got his willy caught in a wringer:
Downing St dossier plagiarised

Oops.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Please!!

There is a reason why most IR theorists can't understand this war at all: Threat annalysis has to be based on some rational way of measuring threats, not on mindless fear. We have incontrovertible scienctific proof that a large asteroid will one day hit the earth and do a number on Human civilization. Where are the 20 billion a year to make sure this doesn't happen, or that we lessen the damage? It can happen in a month, of any year, and yet I see no one moving to try to counter such an obvious and real danger. Why? cause in the end, it would be cost ineffective, and while we know the possiblity of us being hit is high, the probability at any one point in time is low. Yopu worry about Iraq giving WMD to Al Qaeda? Then go after Al Qaeda!!! They are the ones who won't be detered, the ones that fit outside of IR theory. Americans killed by Saddam sicne 1990- about 320. Americans killed by Osama sicne 1998-3000. Are those numbers so hard to understand?

No, the threat of Saddam giving WMD to terrorist is as high today as it was in 1999, in fact, given all that you argue, tha threat of Saddam giving al qaeda WMD was much higer in 1999 and 2000 and 2001 than it is today, or will be tommorrow. You can't present anything other than a 'feeling' or a 'fear' to buttress your case. That isn't enough, or should not be enough, though sadly it is for most people. Give me a reasonable argument and I will listen. Base your assesments on fearmongering, and I will take them for what they are.

There are only two valid cases for a war on Iraq right now, which is what we are all discussing:

1) the moral case, which would back war with Iraq at any time.
2) the Iraq as an experimental test case for the new national security policy of this admin. a policy that has been in the works in the minds of men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Armitage since 1992.

Any arguments about WMD are a smokescreen to obscure the fact that argument #2 is the real reason for this war.

There are 3 kinds of cases - a prudential case (is this in our interest?) - a moral case (do we have the right to take actions that will cost civilian lives, even if this IS in our interest)
a legal case (are we aggressors under international law if we do this, even if it is in our interest and is otherwse morally justified)
These are interelated - it is in our prudential interest not to be seen as aggressors, and it is moral to uphold international law, all other things being equal.

WMD are our primary legal case - they are also PART of our prudential case. Tehy are also, indeed part of a or moral case. Saddams regime is the essence of our moral case, but it is also part of our prudential case, given that it impacts his behavior (pace Realist IR theory) and it even impacts our legal case, given that it impacts the course of inspections. The Wolfowitz plan for the Mideast is part the prudential case, and is tied very much to the threat for Al qaeeda. It is also a moral case, to the extent that envisions real benefits to the people of the region, and a solution to the Israeli-arab dispute.

Teh admin has been ham handed in making its case, and has not clearly seperated out the different elements. In poart that has to do with the nature of the admin, its rhetorical limitations and internal divisions. In part it is becuase a key element of the prudential case, the need to gain leverage over Saudi Arabia, Post 9/11, is something that cannot be stated in public by the administration. It is also a dynamic situation - by passing UNSC 1441 the UN's own role in the world has been put in play, with prudential and moral as well as legal implications.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




1) the moral case, which would back war with Iraq at any time.
2) the Iraq as an experimental test case for the new national security policy of this admin. a policy that has been in the works in the minds of men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Armitage since 1992.

Any arguments about WMD are a smokescreen to obscure the fact that argument #2 is the real reason for this war.

If you wish to know what we are discussing you might check the heading o the thread,which is are you convinced that Iraq is in violation of UNSC 1441 - not do you care if it is, not was 1441 a mistake, or a smokescreen. IS Iraq in violation??? That is what Powell addressed in his speech, since the world has asked for proof of that. The world has already spoken to the seriousness of it when it passed 1441. Case closed.

[Kramerman]

There is only one solution - withdraw all forces from the region, lift all the sanctions, leave Iraq alone, and inform Saddam we won't bother him as long as he doesn't bother other countries. That won't help the Iraqi people much, aside from whatever damage is being caused by the sanctions, but no solution is perfect.

Yes... let us turn our back on a rabid dog...

[Kramerman]

Any arguments about WMD are a smokescreen to obscure the fact that argument #2 is the real reason for this war.

why do you say this, outa curiosity?

[Thud]

I was convinced somewhat before, but now I'm a diehard supporter

[cavebear]

Thud has it about right for me. I wasn't very doubtful about Iraqi deception, but it makes a difference to me to have some solid evidence of it. And I do now consider that there is hard evidence of Iraqi biological weapons, at the very least.

It is now appropriate to demand that the mobile labs be assembled at a few controlled locations so that their careful destruction can be observaed and documented. Failure in the least degree to that demand is justification for regime change.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kramerman


why do you say this, outa curiosity?

For 12 years Saddam has been in violation of many resolution, and yet, the international community did nothing. Now, pro-war people point to this and say: see , we have to finally act. That is one way of looking at it. The other way is to say: For 12 years, Saddam has been in a box and done nothing, so why go to war now? For 12 years containment worked. Why does it no longer? Some say 9/11, but 9/11 was not an attack on the US by a state actor, but by a non-governmental ideologically organized group. That a world-wide terrorist network attacked us is not intellectual proof that the notion of deterrence no longer works. This is why I deeply question why all of a sudden, in July 2002 quick war with Iraq came up. Why? What had Iraq done?

Lets take powells evidence: of course Saddam still has WMD. He ahs had them since the 1970's. HGis use of them has been predictable, at least under IR theory. BUt he has no new ones, and the only new thing Powell showed was the drones: everything else is old. Why the rush?
As for the Al Qaeda connection: at best, Powell proved the Iraq is not actively cracking down on one local cell recently set up. That could be dealt with without war, now could it? Do we need and invasion by 150,000 men to get rid of one Al qaeda cell, specially when we know that many more, including the ones with Al Qaeda's actual leadership reside today in Pakistan?

So I don't buy that all of a sudden, come July 2002 Iraq posses a brand new threat that must be dealt with with a significant was: take also our approach. From the start we speak of regime change, well before disarmament became the main theme. Regime change has been the US policy towards Iraq since 1998, but under Clinton and under Bush until July 2002 it seemed we were going to try to achive this by keeping Saddam in a box and trying to create a situation favorable to his overthrow. Then, all of a sudden, last summer, we have to go to war. WHY? well, by then Afghanistan was contained, but the admin now had an opening: having started this wide war on terror, they had the leaway to expand it as they saw fit, and now had the opportunity to try a new method of regime change, an active mehod as outlined all the way back in 1992 by the group of people that come 2001 had taken all the important spots in the Pentagon and State department. Thankfuly Saddam was the perfect target. He has very few international friend, and they are all very distant friends, he has been thouroughly demonized in the US for a decade and he is weak, aspects that both Iran and NK lacked, plus sour military has been since 1991 set up to confront him again. This Iraq becomes the perfect new test site. Of course, few Americans want to go to war to try out a new thoery, so a reason was needed, and disarmament was the best choice, and the admin. has played it very well.

LoTM:

1441 passed 15-0 because it waS VAGUE ENOUGH TO PASS 15-0. Don't expect unanimity now in trying to think what should be done with it. Short answerm yes Saddam is in violation of 1441: the point is that 1441 was designed by the US to get us to this point. While not as blunt as the Austrian demands on Serbia in 1914, it was still made to show Saddam failing.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Again, It's NOT a trial.

So what? If some stranger walked up to you on the street and said he knew for a fact Iraq had no WMD, wouldn't his identity matter to you if he was an Iraqi spy?

You still haven't convinced me why it was necessary to reveal who the witness was to the general public. Hell, the public had no right to really know.

Her testimony was designed to increase support for the coming Gulf War, her identity sure does matter. Is it just a coincidence her story turned out to be phony? More people would have taken her testimony with a grain of salt had we been told who she really was, and any lawyer knows that.

Darius -

As we speak, government and private experts around the globe are examining the photos Powell released. If the U.S.' conclusions based on them were incorrect we'd be hearing it now.

It took months to learn the pre-Gulf War photos were bogus - and they were complete fabrications. The new set of photos are based in part on speculation, claiming a structure that probably does exist is being used for nefarious reasons. How is some expert supposed to refute speculations? Iraq could by inviting inspectors to those alleged bio/chem sites immediately, but even if Iraq did that, they'd be accused (justifiably) of cleaning up the sites before inspectors arrived. You're missing the point, if the US government doctored satellite photos prior to the Gulf War, it's quite capable (and willing) of lying for whatever it wants now. Both sides have lied, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ramo

And it's somehow more believable that a bunch of Sunni Islamists would have good relations with a secular governments?

Is it more believable than that same group having good relations with another extremist group from an opposed branch of Islam?

Yes. Absolutely.

[The Mad Monk]

For 12 years Saddam has been in violation of many resolution, and yet, the international community did nothing. Now, pro-war people point to this and say: see , we have to finally act. That is one way of looking at it. The other way is to say: For 12 years, Saddam has been in a box and done nothing, so why go to war now? For 12 years containment worked. Why does it no longer? Some say 9/11, but 9/11 was not an attack on the US by a state actor, but by a non-governmental ideologically organized group. That a world-wide terrorist network attacked us is not intellectual proof that the notion of deterrence no longer works. This is why I deeply question why all of a sudden, in July 2002 quick war with Iraq came up. Why? What had Iraq done?

12 years? Well, for the first couple years, we were giving a chance to prove good faith. Then, we had an administration in that appeared to only react to specific events, and then only in a very restrained way (which appears to have only encouraged our enemies). We then had a new administration in with a different philosophy, but 9-11 occured and we had to deal with Afghanistan first.

There's your twelve years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what? If some stranger walked up to you on the street and said he knew for a fact Iraq had no WMD, wouldn't his identity matter to you if he was an Iraqi spy?

Why would I believe him in the first place?

Her testimony was designed to increase support for the coming Gulf War, her identity sure does matter. Is it just a coincidence her story turned out to be phony? More people would have taken her testimony with a grain of salt had we been told who she really was, and any lawyer knows that.

You simply don't get it, do you? Congress knew who she was. They let her tell her story. It doesn't matter if the rest of the US knows her identity, and for the simple reason that THEY DON'T MATTER! They weren't the ones voting for the war.

[Kramerman]

So I don't buy that all of a sudden, come July 2002 Iraq posses a brand new threat that must be dealt with with a significant was: take also our approach. From the start we speak of regime change, well before disarmament became the main theme. Regime change has been the US policy towards Iraq since 1998, but under Clinton and under Bush until July 2002 it seemed we were going to try to achive this by keeping Saddam in a box and trying to create a situation favorable to his overthrow. Then, all of a sudden, last summer, we have to go to war. WHY? well, by then Afghanistan was contained, but the admin now had an opening: having started this wide war on terror, they had the leaway to expand it as they saw fit, and now had the opportunity to try a new method of regime change, an active mehod as outlined all the way back in 1992 by the group of people that come 2001 had taken all the important spots in the Pentagon and State department. Thankfuly Saddam was the perfect target. He has very few international friend, and they are all very distant friends, he has been thouroughly demonized in the US for a decade and he is weak, aspects that both Iran and NK lacked, plus sour military has been since 1991 set up to confront him again. This Iraq becomes the perfect new test site. Of course, few Americans want to go to war to try out a new thoery, so a reason was needed, and disarmament was the best choice, and the admin. has played it very well.

I wont claim to know the answers to your speculations, but i can conjecture.

Iraq, since the end of Gulf War I and especially since 1998 has been under the US's suspicions, and throughout all that time they have been our enemy. Under Clinton, nothing much was ever done, other than a few instances when suspected WoMD sites were bombed by cruise missiles. Clinton, politically, could do little more than this, and being a politician as he was, Clinton did what was needed to be popular. Starting awar in Iraq would not have worked for him.

Since 9/11 however, taking out Saddam is now politically feasible, with the US population galvanized against our enemies. Its not that Saddam just all of a sudden appeared on the hit list. He and Iraq were always there. especially since 1998, there was just little we could do about it. Besides, if it is this hard to convince the world of regime change now, after some years gathering intel and being able to draw connections with terrorists (which wasnt a major US concern pre 9/11, mind you), do you think anyone would have tried 4 or 5 years ago?

I think the fact that Saddam has long been on our list is the error in your logic.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


12 years? Well, for the first couple years, we were giving a chance to prove good faith. Then, we had an administration in that appeared to only react to specific events, and then only in a very restrained way (which appears to have only encouraged our enemies). We then had a new administration in with a different philosophy, but 9-11 occured and we had to deal with Afghanistan first.

There's your twelve years.

this is along the lines of what i am saying

but im tired... i havent looked over my writing, but it was probably pretty poor...

[The Mad Monk]

quote:
Originally posted by GePap
TOf course, if having ties to terrorism and WMD means you will give them to Terrorist, one has to wonder why saddam didn't give WMD to Hamas of Islamic Jihad long aog: what, he likes Irrael? His ties to those organizations are clear, and yet he seems never to have been interested in giving WMD to them to destroy Israel. Agin, i wodner why?

Um...blowback?

I doubt Hamas, et al would actually use such weapons, both because of the likelyhood of poisoning their own homes, and because it would give Israel carte blanche to move 'em out.

The equation is different for us because we're far away (no 'blowback'), and, until recently, our response to even major attacks* have been...underwhelming.

*: Iran Hostage Crises, Marine Barracks Bombing, African Embassy Bombings, Cole Bombing.