"First, every argument (except that Hussein was dangerous) for the invasion of Iraq has been proven false."

Are you really that self deceived?

Posted by: Ass Hat at January 31, 2004 3:10 PM

It would be helpful in terms of dialogue if you could be a bit less cryptic. It is fine to disagree and I welcome that. However, I have no idea how to interpret your response. I could respond "Are you truly that uniformed?" but where would that get us other than trading personal insults?

To the best of my knowledge, and including listening to Kaye testify before the Senate Security Commission, it is theoretically possible that htere might be significant caches of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, but it is highly unlikely. There were no plants, no caches, and no makings for nuclear, biological or chmical weapons. There was no way to deliver them - the one missle they found could travel 120 miles (roughly 40 miles over Iraq's proscribed limit - and not anywhere close to hitting the US. There was no imminent threat, and the security estimates said there was no imminent threat. The preemptive invasion of Iraq was based on the argument that Iraq could produce a deadly strike on US soil on demand - at the whim of Hussein. Most nations on the Security Council did not believe the evidence was there to substantiate that threat.

Likewise, there is ample documentation of how the US "cajoled" nations into the "coalition of the willing." They did not just come to the US and say "Hey, sign us up." No it took (primarily) Colin Powell, and others going around and meeting with folks to "convince them." Is that self deception?

And of course there is KBR, the wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton, who under Cheney did business with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other "state sponsors of terrorism" - all equally well documented. Why wouldn't they be on the list of companies doing oil business with Iraq between 1995 and 2003? They certainly were at least until Cheney left (I have no documentation of what KBR's contract with Iraq was between 2000 and 2003).

So the documentation is there, and I don't see why asking the question is deceptive at all - sel or otherwise.

So what self deception are you referring to?

Posted by: rowan at January 31, 2004 7:48 PM

You need to look below the surface of the rhetoric at the real reasons for the invasion. Here are a few, just to refresh your memory.

1. Cut off a major supply of funds to Palestinian terrorists

2. Liberate the Iraqi people from a horrible regime

3. Eliminate Saddam's WMD program

4. Secure a long-term source of oil so that the U.S. can reduce it's reliance on Saudi Arabia. Only then will it be able to apply the needed pressure on the Saudis from a position of strength. Without another major and secure source of oil, the Saudis basically had us by the balls.

5. Establish a functioning and viable democracy in the heart of the Arab world. It is essential that we pull the Iraqis into the capitalist system, make them feel that their lives have measurably improved. This would bring with it a free press, the only one in the Arab world. A capitalist and free Arab society will, in the long run, be a very corrosive force against the surrounding dictatorships and Islamic regimes, which can only thrive by blocking out information flow. Already, there are more than 60 newspapers in Iraq, spanning the political spectrum.

6. Demonstrate through action that the U.S. has the means and will to take out totalitarian regimes, thereby significantly increasing the deterrent effect of our threats (and this has already paid great dividends with Lybia).

7. Numerous other factors.

In addition, it is simply not true that Bush said the Iraqi threat was imminent. He clearly stated that we needed to remove the threat BEFORE it became imminent.

Good day.

Posted by: Ass Hat at January 31, 2004 9:07 PM

I think that you left a major one out - the circling of the globe with US military presence so we can rapidly respond to control events.

I would agree that the stated reasons to go into Iraq were about oil and establishing a major control base in the Middle East. Bush and company were looking for something they could turn into justification to invade Iraq, and they did so.

I disagree with the appropriateness of Invading Iraq for the reasons that you stated, or the ones that the administration used to convince the majority of the US public. I seriously doubt that "liberating the Iraqi people" was high on the list. After all, we had supported and armed Saddam Hussein. It was well known what he was doing to the people of Iraq.

Second, I don't believe that overthrowing governments so we can control their resources is appropriate. It IS their oil not ours. I believe such an approach is theft - not right of conquest, and that is probably at the base of a fundamental disagreement that we may have. We have no RIGHT to invade another nation to claim their resources as our own in my opinion.

We have been in this oil dependent situation for decades, and we could have redefined the entire situation by now by restructuring our economic base away from oil. We have not, and in fact have made ourselves increasingly dependent. Not only that we are dependent on a resource that will vanish in the near future. Even if we claim and hold ALL of the Earth's oil reserves we are going to face this wall. Therefore, it is NOT the interests of the United States that are in play here. It is the interests of those who profit most by controlling that oil, and the constant global instability and war.

Posted by: rowan at February 1, 2004 7:44 AM

"I seriously doubt that "liberating the Iraqi people" was high on the list."

I disagree. I think it is among the highest on the list. It is not because of charity or morality. It is because, after 9/11, it is in our self-interest to democratize the Middle East and bring the people there into the capitalist system. When a solid majority of the country truly feels that it is benefiting from increased trade, the availability of new and better products, higher salaries, a free press, and many of the other trappings of prosperity that come with capitalism, the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism will decrease. Fundamentalism thrives only where freedom is lacking. If we can give the Iraqis a taste of freedom so that they actually come to like it, we will have gone a long way toward defeating Islamic fundamentalism. It is a major step in the war on terror, and I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which "liberating" the people of Iraq is a key goal of the war.

"Second, I don't believe that overthrowing governments so we can control their resources is appropriate. It IS their oil not ours."

I agree. But I do not agree that what we are doing is theft. Ultimately, we will not own the oil. It will be sold on the market, just like it was before. The difference will be that instead of the profits going to Saddam so that he can crush the people, they will go to a democratic government, which can, if all goes well, rebuild Iraq in a better way. I disagree with you that our self interest is necessarily opposed to the self interest of the Iraqis in this regard. The Iraqis will benefit if the oil is sold on world markets, and that is precisely what we want to happen. Granted, we need to make sure that U.S. oil companies don't stack the deal too far in their favor. But Iraq will benefit from selling oil to the U.S. and other countries, just as we will reduce our reliance on Saudi Arabia by buying it.

"and we could have redefined the entire situation by now by restructuring our economic base away from oil."

I find this claim dubious, though you may be right. Maybe in the future, but I'm not sure if we have the capabilities yet to rely solely on other resources. Oil will be the life blood of the world for the foreseeable future. I support efforts to shift to other sources, but I don't think it is possible yet. We need oil, and, fortunately, the Iraqis need to sell it. Both sides will benefit for the time being.

In any case, although we are on a rocky road, I see no reason to be so negative. All things considered, we have made great progress in Iraq. We will democratize Iraq, the Iraqis will be better off, and the bubble of capitalistic freedom we create there will be a powerful force for change in the region.

Posted by: Ass Hat at February 1, 2004 11:35 AM

And, Ass Hat, it's interesting to hear you talk about regurgitation of rhetoric, only to see your response do exactly that.

What WMD's? Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't, but all media I have read still recongizes the lack of evidence of these elusive weapons.

There are other ways, less costly, less overtly aggressive, to combat oil dependency than to take over a country in order to secure leverage over another. For decades we've suppressed alternative energy sources. Have you heard about the car that runs on cooking oil? That argument is embarrassing in it's imperialism and short-sightedness. With an agenda like that we can circle any country with natural resources and slate them for takeover so that we can leverage against another.

How soon you forgot who put Saddam Hussein in power. So, your argument about liberating people from a horrible regime reveals a U.S. puppetmaster agenda. We liked Saddam when he factored into US intent. He has ALWAYS been horrible, but for many years his atrocities were meaningless to us.

"it is simply not true that Bush said the Iraqi threat was imminent," Bush said repeatedly, via Colin Powell HIS representative to the UN, that the Iraqi threat was imminent. He used fear to manipulate the bulk of this country into believing that Iraq was behind the World Trade Center attacks, even while not ONE of the hijackers was Iraqi, and the majority were from Saudi Arabia, our purported ally.

Anyway, I could go on, but I'm sure Rowan will come up with wonderful sources to dispute your points.

Posted by: Pamela at February 1, 2004 11:37 AM

Pam,

"Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't, but all media I have read still recongizes the lack of evidence of these elusive weapons."

Try reading next time. I didn't say WMD had been found. I cited WMD as one of the goals cited in the run up to the war.

"Have you heard about the car that runs on cooking oil?"

No

"With an agenda like that we can circle any country with natural resources and slate them for takeover so that we can leverage against another."

Now you are just being silly. Yes, we *could* but there is no reason why we would want to.

"How soon you forgot who put Saddam Hussein in power. So, your argument about liberating people from a horrible regime reveals a U.S. puppetmaster agenda. We liked Saddam when he factored into US intent. He has ALWAYS been horrible, but for many years his atrocities were meaningless to us."

*Yawn*

First, we didn't put Saddam in power. Second, even if we had put him in power, it would not follow that we thereby committed ourselves to eternally supporting him. Third, as I stated above, we chose to liberate the Iraqis not out of charity or altruism, but out of self interest. When we supported Saddam, it was perceived (perhaps wrongly) to have been in our self interest to wean him away from Russian influence and to play him against Iranian Islamic fundamentalism. Times have changed. Removing him was in our interest, and, as luck would have it, it was in the interest of the Iraqi people. Yes, some times self interest can actually help people.

"Bush said repeatedly, via Colin Powell HIS representative to the UN, that the Iraqi threat was imminent."

Show me the quote

"He used fear to manipulate the bulk of this country into believing that Iraq was behind the World Trade Center attacks, even while not ONE of the hijackers was Iraqi, and the majority were from Saudi Arabia, our purported ally."

Could you please direct me to the precise statement so I can assess the validity of your claim? Thank you, Pam.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Ass Hat at February 1, 2004 12:14 PM

If we want the profits to go to the "democratic" state of Iraq, why have we been trying to privatize the Iraqi oil? Shouldn't that be their decision? Not only that, Bush was going to pay for the war with Iraq's oil. How does that work if it was not seen by the administration as a "spoil of war?"

In regards to the "immenence" of the threat - you don't remember the State of the Union Address (and multiple repetitions by the cabinet afterwords) about the next warnign could be a "mushroom cloud" over a US city? The implication was that Hussein had nuclear weapons and the ability to strike the US at whim.

Posted by: rowan at February 1, 2004 12:53 PM

Rowan,

I'll put aside the oil issue until later.

As for imminence, this statement seems dispositive of the issue:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." - president George Bush, State of the Union, 2003, clearly conceding that the threat from Saddam was not imminent.

Taken from Andrew Sullivan's site: http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_09_21_dish_archive.html#106420701246861926

Posted by: Ass Hat at February 1, 2004 2:27 PM

Ass Hat,

"Try reading next time. I didn't say WMD had been found. I cited WMD as one of the goals cited in the run up to the war."

I can only cut and paste this, because you've made my argument. Yeah, Ass Hat, I realize that those were the reasons CITED for going to war. I thoroughly agree they might have made sense if they in fact existed. Too bad they were fictitious, and there has been lots of press about the manipulation of the photos and facts. BTW, since you brought up reading, the name is Pamela.

Here's one of dozens of links about the car that runs on cooking oil. Notice the year on this article is 1998. It's been around for a while with no comment on possible mainstream utilization. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s10920.htm

'"With an agenda like that we can circle any country with natural resources and slate them for takeover so that we can leverage against another."

Now you are just being silly. Yes, we *could* but there is no reason why we would want to.'

You say it's "just being silly" in one breath, and yet we just did it. I'm quite comfortable that I'm not the one being silly.

*Yawn*"First, we didn't put Saddam in power." Whether he was initially introduced to power by US covert intervention is arguable. Whatever the impetus, we supported Saddam, bolstered his power continuously by providing weapons (including the technology for those infamous WMD) and financial and political support. I don't deny that things change, but I can guarantee you that Saddam DIDN'T. He was always a cruel dictator, and he wasn't shy about letting it be known. Didn't seem to bother our government at one point. That's eerie politics to me.

Here's part of the quote from Powell's speech to the UN Security Council: "What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior--Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort--no effort--to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."

"When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future."

I haven't scanned the entire document to find the word "imminent," but the quotes above are completely designed to indicate an IMMINENT threat. To say otherwise is to play with semantics.

As for liberating people from horrible regimes, noble project. How about Idi Amin? How about Papa Doc Duvalier, the Khomer Rouge, I could go on and on. There have been numerous dictators throughout the last century that we watched slaughter and torment their consituents. How long had Hitler reigned before we became involved? Yeah, I like the idea of being the world humanitarian police, but our record is sporadic (at best) and holds a frightening correlation to what the country we become involved with has to offer--as you pointed out.

We can go in circles on this, but you asked for some quotes, so I've provided them.

Here's a link to the entire speech, Before you make derogatory notes like "yawn" and bored little quips, I suggest you read the speech and recognize that I've done my fair share of homework and deserve mroe respect that that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#40

Posted by: Pamela at February 2, 2004 10:56 AM

Pam,

“I can only cut and paste this, because you've made my argument.”

Maybe you need a bit of oil on your rusty brain pump. My point was that the hawks cited a broad range of reasons for the liberation. Refuting one reason leaves the others untouched. And, unfortunately for you, even the most dubious of the reasons, the WMD claim, is still unsettled and may well have been true:

"In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

Thus, even as the anti-war press is trumpeting news that Kay claims the WMD “never existed,” Kay is saying that he thinks they were moved to Syria shortly before the war. This issue is far from resolved, but I’m willing to put it aside and focus on the multitude of other reasons for the liberation. The wisdom of the liberation does not live or die on the WMD claim alone.

The cooking-oil car has no bearing on this discussion. There is no evidence that it is a viable alternative fuel source capable of replacing oil. It is not clear where we would get massive reserves of cooking oil and whether that oil would actually be more economical or reliable. Giving you the full benefit of the doubt, cooking oil is, at best, a big question mark for the future. Let’s deal with present realities.

"With an agenda like that we can circle any country with natural resources and slate them for takeover so that we can leverage against another."

“You say it's "just being silly" in one breath, and yet we just did it.”

There are many reasons why we chose to liberate Iraq. No single reason would have sufficed in isolation. But, when all of the factors were piled together, they created a justifiable impetus for action. You keep trying to reduce the war to a single motive. It is unlikely that we will do the same thing again, because precisely the same combination of factors is unlikely to converge in the foreseeable future.

“Whether he was initially introduced to power by US covert intervention is arguable.”

It is not, to my knowledge, arguable. The U.S. made an effort during the 80s to wean Saddam from the sphere of Soviet power, to make him dependant on the U.S. so as to gain a degree of influence over him and play him against the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism. I am unaware of any previous contact, though I will hold my breath in the hopes that you can provide some information.

“Whatever the impetus, we supported Saddam, bolstered his power continuously by providing weapons (including the technology for those infamous WMD) and financial and political support. “

Let’s try to inject a shot of perspective into this discussion. Between 1973 and 2002, the United States was responsible for 1% of arms transfers to Iraq. In comparison, the Soviet Union/Russia was responsible for 57%, France for 13%, and China 12%.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

In other words, while the U.S. did provide a degree of support to Saddam, that support was actually rather minor in the overall scheme of things. Sure, France and Russia and China have maintained a more consistent position than the U.S.: they supported Saddam then, and they supported Saddam to the end even after the U.S. had switched against him. Is that something to be proud of? I don’t see why. If I gave a gun to a kid who went to school and began shooting students and teachers, I wouldn’t just stand back and say:

“Gee, I gave him the gun so I guess it would be wrong of me to forcefully take the gun from him.”

I do not understand that line of thought. So, frankly, it is irrelevant whether the U.S. provided 1/100th of Saddam’s support during the 80s and 90s. There were still compelling reasons to forcefully remove the bastard.

“I don't deny that things change, but I can guarantee you that Saddam DIDN'T. He was always a cruel dictator, and he wasn't shy about letting it be known. Didn't seem to bother our government at one point. That's eerie politics to me.”

What’s eerie is that you, in full recognition of what he was, would actually support a movement to prevent the U.S. from removing him. THAT is eerie.

“Here's part of the quote from Powell's speech to the UN Security Council”

We should just let the imminent threat argument go. I provided Bush’s quote explicitly stating that he didn’t want to wait until the threat was imminent. It is easy to infer from that that he did not mean to say the threat was imminent. You, on the other hand, provide a Powell quote in which he neither says nor implies that the threat was imminent. Yes, he says we must act or confront a more frightening future, but he doesn’t suggest, imply or outright state that the frightening future is tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years. You are grasping at straws.

“As for liberating people from horrible regimes, noble project.”
Indeed.

“How about Idi Amin? How about Papa Doc Duvalier, the Khomer Rouge, I could go on and on. There have been numerous dictators throughout the last century that we watched slaughter and torment their consituents.”

What kind of attitude is this? There were hundreds of years of slavery. By that logic, you would oppose ending slavery by means of the Civil War because, after all, both sides had a long history of enslaving people. Nice.

Posted by: Ass Hat at February 2, 2004 5:20 PM

The only comment above I'm going to address is the insult about my brain, which I know you hoped to get a rise from, maybe even a nice little dirty fight of insults. I won't comply.

I'm a 4.0 student and a multiple scholarship award winner. I've recently been nominated for the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Scholarship, which puts me in the top echelon of American college students. It might irk you to know that your assessment of my brain is of complete indifference to me, and I'm extremely confident of my abilities and intellect.

I've refrained from slurs and ridiculous leaps of logic, you apparently are used to adrenline-laced rhetoric. So, you're enjoying a sense of superiority--have at it, I'm sure you need it. The oil car was only one tiny example of the alternative sources of energy utilization exist, that HAVE existed for decades.

You're not up to listening to arguments and healthy discourse. Say what you want ASS Hat, I won't be back into this post.

Posted by: Pamela at February 2, 2004 7:31 PM

Pam,

I put forth a number of arguments that, at the very least, subjected your claims to serious challenge. I did insert a few snide comments, but I didn't expect you to seize upon those as a back door from which to run screaming from the burning wreckage of your ill-considered world view. Anyway, if you want a real debate, I'm always lurking around for a good fight.

Good day.

Posted by: Ass Hat at February 2, 2004 8:04 PM

I would like to shift the nature of this dialogue.

I am relatively confident that President Bush will lead us into another war. It is apparently part of the overall strategy of the "war on terrorism" for the US to actively engage in "regime change."

What reasons are acceptable to preemptively invade another nation? What level of threat (or if you buy the "liberate the people" justification) the treatment of those within a nation, justifies the launching of a US attack on another nation?

Posted by: rowan at February 3, 2004 7:25 AM