Diedel wrote:the course of time has proved that Iraq did neither have nor develop weapons of mass destruction.
That's not relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam actually *had* WMD.
What my post says -- and what the justification Bush gave was -- is that Saddam *tried to get* and *tried to develop* WMD, and *failed to document* that he had gotten rid of all of his WMD. None of those statements are contingent on whether or not Saddam actually succeeded in getting WMD, or had any in his posession at the time of gulf war II. It's completely and totally irrelevant as to whether or not he had them -- it's only relevant that he continued to seek them, and did not prove that he'd gotten rid of the ones he was known to have 13 years ago (the burden of proof was on him.)
However, just FYI, Saddam both *had* WMD (for example, the Sarin shell) and *developed* banned weapons (for example, the Al Samoud missile). Even though it's not relevant... I notice you haven't even tried to touch these questions. You keep saying Saddam didn't have these things and didn't develop these things -- but you haven't even tried to deal with the links I posted about them.
I also do not agree with the U.S. breaking international laws and treaties and ignoring loyal allies every way they see fit.
Which international laws or treaties did the US break, as a matter of policy? (References to one-time incidents such as Abu Ghraib don't count.) Name the international laws or treaties, and name the US action that broke them.
Which allies are being ignored? The fact that we don't do what you want doesn't mean you're being ignored -- just that we don't find your arguments compelling. Similarly, you and Tricord aren't being ignored, even though I don't change my mind -- I just don't think your positions are compelling.
with their absolutely stupid torturing of Iraqi prisoners, the Americans have upset the whole muslim world
How often do you read what people in the Muslim world are saying? When's the last time you read an Iraqi blog?
It seems the "torture" in Abu Ghraib is being played up far more in our media than in theirs. The West can't seem to quit referencing this, but the Muslim world has pretty much left it behind. There is no mass drive toward becoming terrorists in the Muslim world because of Abu Ghraib. There's a mass drive toward self-loathing in the US, and condemnation from Europe, but Muslims have pretty much left this behind.
Tricord wrote:Lothar wrote:If there's a doubt in your mind, there should be a doubt about invading Iraq in the first place as well.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Well, that pretty much undermined anything consequent you wrote until now. You understand what I meant with the list of "crimes"...
Yes, I do. Do you understand what I mean by "you have to deal with each case individually"?
You say that if I don't support overthrowing *every* dictator *right now* that I must have doubt about Iraq. But that simply doesn't follow. There are some dictators that need dealt with differently. There is doubt in my mind that the US should overthrow all dictators by military force -- because not all dictators are the same (and also because, frankly, the rest of the world should be participating.) But there is not doubt in my mind that the US should have taken out Saddam Hussein.
The nations I refer to are much like Iraq. At least, they are if you deny that the war in Iraq was about something else than freeing the oppressed iraqis, and thus toppling over a dictatorial government....
First: Name the nations. I know you're trying to avoid specific examples, but by doing so, you make it impossible to respond -- what am I supposed to say with respect to a hypothetical nation we're not invading? That doesn't even make sense. Name the nations you think are "just like Iraq", and then we can talk. In particular, we can address what critical differences they might have with Iraq that make it such that invading them would not be the best idea.
Second: I already said the war was about more than freeing oppressed Iraqis and toppling a dictatorial government. Didn't you read my list? You've covered item #2 -- what about #1 and #3-#7? Saddam was overthrown not simply because Saddam oppressed his own people, but because Saddam was a threat to others, and because Saddam sought to become a bigger threat. Saddam was also overthrown because he *could be* overthrown with a military attack without much collateral damage (contrast with North Korea.)
if you uphold the fact that terrorism should be eliminated, that oppressed people should be freed, and that everyone has a right for democracy (which is basically the justification Bush gave for this war, aside from the whole WMD shebang), you find the US in a nasty position. It went through great lengths to free the iraqi people, but it wouldn't help other nations that suffer from oppression from religious or other dictators?
What makes you think it won't? The fact that the US isn't simultaneously invading 30 countries does not mean the US isn't working toward freedom for the whole world -- just that the US is being strategically sound in its work.
Seriously, what alternative do you propose? The US should attack every dictatorship in the world, simultaneously, and then set up democracies in each? That's not viable.
The actual reasons why the US went to war are almost more important than the war itself. The reasons were either misguided, proven false afterwards, or lead to believe the US will free other nations as well (universal rights and freedom etc.)
You say the reasons are important...
Then why do you keep misrepresenting the reasons? If the reasons are that important, why don't you *get them right*?
You keep saying "let's talk in generalities" -- but you can't talk in generalities if you want to talk about the reasons the US gave for war with Iraq, because those reasons were *specific*. You say "let's talk in generalities" and then you say the reasons for war were misguided, proven false, or make it sound like the US is going to free other nations -- but you don't deal with the reasons given for war!
There is a time and place for abstraction. The question as to whether a *specific* action is justified, though, is not the place for abstraction -- we're dealing with a *specific* action in a *specific* situation with *specific* justifications, so you have to deal with specifics in order to make rational conclusions. You can't go flying off into generalities and then say a specific situation was unjustified -- you have to deal with the specific situation.
I've given the list of reasons. Instead of dealing with that, you say "let's talk in generalities" and then you say things about general reasons that nobody ever actually gave. Deal with the list; deal with the specifics.
