First, to gphadraig,
You have answered some of my post for me! You did so very well, though, so thank you.
A quick note... my comments should not be construed as unequivocal support for any political party or candidate. I've been sandbagged by others from both sides of the political spectrum for supporting a range of Orthodox social values...
As have I. Don't worry; you seem to me to be much too intelligent and thoughtful to blindly support one party or person.
Regarding your first point... were there UN sanctions against Hussein before his invasion of Kuwait? Isn't the central pillar in the argument against the Iraq war today that there was no UN support for it?
No, and no, which is my point. As gphadraig said, we were more than happy to be chummy with Saddam before
Kuwait, even though he was murdering his people. There were no UN sanctions before Kuwait precisely because America felt no threat before then; afterwards, however, we went over, did our thing, and the UN cooperated with us (there had been a direct threat to a sovreign nation by another sovreign nation, after all) and issued resolutions which, yes, were ignored. Yet I maintain that UN resolutions, along with human rights organizations' statements, should have been showered down on Iraq back in the 80s when they were our friends.
Is the primary reason cited by those against the war lack of UN backing? No, as I said. It is
a reason, as Blix et al found no evidence of weapons in any shape to do any harm. Yes, there were WMDs. No one denies that Saddam used them in the past. The reasoning against going over there was, plainly and simply, becuase doing so before we were attacked by the sovreign nation of Iraq was contrary to our policy of war
. Pre-emptive war before proof positive or direct attack is dangerous and tantamount to facism. Plus, our reasons for invading changed as we went along! At first, the American public heard that "Saddam posseses WMDs that pose a direct threat to our national security." No proof of this, people were uncomfortable, we go to war anyway. Afterwards, when the WMDs aren't found, we hear, "Well, he was a dictator anyway; he just had to go anyway."
The fact remains that Iraq did not attack us; Al-Q did. Saddam is not Bin Laden; though there were Al-Q camps in Iraq, there were so many more in Iran, Saudi Arabia (but an invasion of the latter will never
happen!), and of course, Afghanistan. Yet Iraq
is the country we invade.
Which is really my
beef with being in Iraq in the first place. We're attacked by Al-Q, so we go to Afgh., where the Al-Q HQ is. Logical and reasonable, no one has any problem with it. Then it's almost as though America gets distracted with Iraq! We were on a good track hunting down Bin Laden, when all of a sudden, we choose to spend the majority of our resources in Iraq (of all places), a place which, as a sovreign nation, had never been the aggressor against us, nor had they threatened us.
On your second point, the problem is that the N. Koreans now have nuclear weapons. Again, is the UN, particularly France and Germany, pushing for a war resolution against N. Korea? Why bring this up now, rather than six or seven years ago when military action would have prevented the current mess on the Korean peninsula?
You misunderstand. My point is that Bush
will not do anything re: N. Korea. Herein lies the inconsistency. He goes off and overthrows Iraq, a country that's never threatened us with force, yet doggedly sticks to diplomacy with N. Korea, who has bragged about their ability to reach us with nukes. That
is a country I would love
to see us invade, now that they're talking like this!
What this proves is that if someone buries their weapons, chances of finding them are almost nil.
It also could be that they hurridly dismantled them and sold them for scrap...we don't know either way.
No one can say objectively that both Iraq wars and the Afghan war were poorly planned military blunders. It's a joke. No previous wars were carried out with such speed and low loss of life as these conflicts.
As gphadraig said, these recent campaigns were hardly contests of equals...which WWI and WWII were not either, strictly speaking, but the forces meeting in the fields during the WWs were on more level ground weapons-wise. Of course there would be more casualties and longer campaigns.
The only reason we are subjected to the current hysteria is because we're in the middle of an election year. This will all blow over afterwards.
Wrong. The protests started in '03. Concern started in '02.
The terrorists are being funded and trained by client states, which can and should be dealt with through symmetrical means, which is what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And which we should (but won't) do to Saudi Arabia. To go back to my point, though, first you go after the main cells (Afgh.), then
you deal with the states, using diplomacy, then
It's mighty dangerous to only look at the war on terrorism as a police problem against criminals, without taking into account the rogue state problem financing it. It's even more dangerous to reject the use of police measures against the asymmetrical problems, as many civil libertarians advocate.
I agree. This is complex, involving both sovreign states and international-yet-countryless organizations.
These are all bogus arguments that essentially refute taking military action under any scenario, as someone is always going to be killed, and many of them poor and innocent. Every one of these arguments is a excuse for the world to be living under Nazism or Communism today.
disagree with this! I am all for increased military action in Afghanistan to (finally) root out Bin Laden. I would support military survailance of N. Korea's weapons programs. Nazism stopped because the Axis attacked us, and we were thus justified
in taking military action; no pre-emptive stuff here! Communism stopped (largely) because of Reagan's role in the Cold War; there was a nation threatening to "bury us," so we took the necessary actions. Again, a justified
response to a direct
threat made against us
by another sovreign